committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-19--Sea level scientist Nils-Axel Mörner, 1938-2020

Reposted from WUWT .
CFACT knew Dr. Mörner very well and will miss our friend .
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner , who died on Friday October 16 aged 83 after a short illness , knew more about sea level than did Poseidon himself .
He wrote more than 650 papers on the subject in his long and distinguished career .
He became even more well-known after his retirement than before it , because he decided to take the risk of publicly opposing the false notion , profitably peddled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change et hoc genus omne , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sea-level rise .
I first came across Niklas Mörner when he and I met at St. Andrews University in Scotland , where we had been invited to debate the climate question with true-believers at the University Union , one of the oldest debating societies in the world .
At the beginning of the evening , the President asked us whether we minded taking part in a debate in which 97 % of the students were against our viewpoint .
Niklas replied cheerfully that he had faced worse odds than that .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won us the day .
Within seconds , he had the undergraduates eating out of his hand .
His manner was calculatedly eccentric , and yet all through his speech one could see how passionate he was about seeking scientific truth objectively by measurement , observation and the application of previous theory to the results so as to confirm and develop or to overthrow that theory .
Either way , said Niklas , science advances by little and little towards the truth , and nothing but the truth matters .
The undergraduates were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lecturing , he knew that keeping them entertained was the best way to hold their attention , and that making visible his personal dedication to the hunt for objective truth in scientific enquiry would lead the students to emulate him .
He was rapturously received throughout his speech , and was accorded a thunderous round of applause at the end .
When the vote was taken , the skeptics had won by a margin of 3 votes .
It was the first time that any student audience in Britain had voted to oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Niklas and I kept in regular touch until just a couple of months ago , when he wrote asking me to contribute two papers to a new scientific journal that he was setting up .
He wanted one paper on What is science and what is not ?
and another on our team ’ s demonstration that concern about global warming sprang from an elementary but significant error of physics .
At the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 , Niklas gave a speech on sea-level rise to a press briefing organized by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting was well attended , and Niklas – who needed a pointer for his slides but could not find one – seized a passing wooden salad fork and used that instead , to the delight of the journalists .
He also established the influential International Committee on Geoethics , with the aim of removing partisan politics and reintroducing open debate on scientific questions at universities .
The Committee held its inaugural conference in Prague , where the presentations were given in the Spanish Ballroom of the Hradcany Palace at the invitation of then-President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor Mörner was a hands-on scientist .
He did not enjoy squatting in his ivory tower .
He liked to travel the world investigating sea level by the novel method of actually going to the coastline and having a look .
On one occasion , when the climate Communists were reporting that Bangladesh was subsiding beneath the rising waves , he went on a fact-finding trip to Bangladesh with a group of fellow sea-level specialists .
All the others were true-believers , so they just drifted along with the Party Line and took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only used his altimeter but walked 100 meters uphill , in his late 70s , and back down again so that the instrument would be correctly calibrated .
Only the Professor subsequently reported that , as a result of those measurements , sea level off Bangladesh was actually falling .
Only the Professor reported that in the few beaches where the sea had encroached , it had done so not because of global warming and consequent sea-level rise but because local prawn farmers had grubbed up the mangroves whose roots had previously kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor Mörner was visiting the Maldives when he noticed a small tree , 40 years old , right on the beach , in leaf but lying on its side .
The fact that the tree was still there , feet from the ocean and inches above sea level , after 40 years told him that there had been no sea-level rise since the tree had first begun to grow , or it would have been drowned .
He enquired locally about whether there had been an exceptional spring tide caused by global warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tree .
He discovered , however , that a group of Australian environmental extremists had visited the beach shortly before him .
They had realized that the presence of the tree showed that the official sea-level record showing a sharp rise over the past half-century must be incorrect , and had uprooted the tree .
Professor Mörner stood it back up again and photographed it .
He was plainly very distressed by incidents such as this , for he was a highly moral man with a strong regard for the truth .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frauds perpetrated by climate Communism as a personal affront , and was saddened at the widespread decline in scientific standards , particularly in the universities .
He was hated and feared by the climate extremists .
The online fake-news outfall Wokipedia , one of whose founders has now publicly admitted that it is wholly in the hands of Communists , has the usual hatchet-job biography for the Professor , devoting more sniffily disapproving prominence to his interest in dowsing for water with hazel twigs than to his formidable record of investigation and publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wokipedia ’ s hate-filled scribblers did not – could not – comprehend that Niklas Mörner ’ s interest in dowsing was motivated chiefly by scientific curiosity .
I once told him that my late father had been commissioned some years back by the Maltese Government to find three Punic tombs at the foot of the limestone escarpment on which stands the lofty village perché that is the ancient walled city of Mdina .
Local archaeologists had records showing that the tombs existed , but they had never been found .
My father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marched up and down the stony fields below the ramparts for half a day , putting sticks in the ground at various points .
The sticks formed three separate crosses .
Where each of the crosses intersected , my father told the workmen to dig .
In each place , a fine Punic tomb was found – though there had been absolutely no sign of any such thing on the surface .
From one of the tombs a fine half-size marble bust of a Roman was removed .
I sketched it ( there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras , in those days ) and sent the sketch to the Museum of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge , where it was identified as a good example of a first-century head of Seneca .
Niklas was greatly excited by this story , and asked me how I thought dowsing might work .
I said I had no idea .
All three of my brothers had the gift , but I – for some reason – did not .
But I had seen my father dowsing for – and finding – a major Roman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farm in Kent .
I also told Niklas that when I had invited my father to Cambridge to have his dowsing ability tested under laboratory conditions he had firmly declined , though he told me that he had won a lot of money while at Cambridge when in the pub by leaving the room and inviting his fellow-undergraduates to hide a signet ring under one of them .
He said the only time he had lost the bet was when someone turned on a tap at the wrong moment and water passed through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three caps lay .
I had the honor to co-author a paper with Niklas for a climate-change conference at Downing College , Cambridge .
The paper was uncompromisingly titled Sea Level Is Not Rising .
The organizer , who had made his fortune selling pills and potions and had hoped for a quiet conference , refused to allow the paper to be distributed , though he had previously consented .
The papers were gathered up and taken away .
However , I mounted a raid on the store where they were hidden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every seat .
The climate Communists present were furious , but the students who attended were intrigued , particularly when they began to read arguments , facts and data that had been denied to them by their professors throughout their time at Cambridge .
Niklas was delighted at what he called my SAS raid .
It is honorable men like Niklas Mörner whose legacy to the world is as much of merriment as of the relentless pursuit of truth .
Like St. Thomas More , I can confidently write that my old friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as he was merry , and gave merriment to all whom he touched , here below .
A couple of weeks before Niklas died , I wrote to cheer him up .
I ended the letter with a poem that described Niklas perfectly .
It is St. Thomas Campion ’ s free but beautiful translation of the Horatian ode Integer vitae scelerisque purus : The man of life upright , Whose cheerful mind is free From weight of impious deedes And yoke of vanity , The man whose silent days In harmless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not delude , Nor sorrows discontent , That man needs neyther towers , Nor armour for defence : Nor vaults his guilt to shroud From thunder ’ s violence ; He only can behold With unaffrighted eyes The horrors of the deep , And terrors of the skies .
Thus , scorning all the cares That fate or fortune brings , His Book the Heavens he makes , His wisdom heavenly things .
Good thoughts his surest friends , His wealth a well-spent age , The Earth his sober inn , And quiet @ @

Reposted from WUWT. CFACT knew Dr. Mörner very well and will miss our friend.
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who died on Friday October 16 aged 83 after a short illness, knew more about sea level than did Poseidon himself. He wrote more than 650 papers on the subject in his long and distinguished career. He became even more well-known after his retirement than before it, because he decided to take the risk of publicly opposing the false notion, profitably peddled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change et hoc genus omne, that global warming would cause many meters of sea-level rise.
Silent upon a peak in Darien
I first came across Niklas Mörner when he and I met at St. Andrews University in Scotland, where we had been invited to debate the climate question with true-believers at the University Union, one of the oldest debating societies in the world.
At the beginning of the evening, the President asked us whether we minded taking part in a debate in which 97% of the students were against our viewpoint. Niklas replied cheerfully that he had faced worse odds than that.
During the debate, Professor Mörner’s speech won us the day. Within seconds, he had the undergraduates eating out of his hand. His manner was calculatedly eccentric, and yet all through his speech one could see how passionate he was about seeking scientific truth objectively by measurement, observation and the application of previous theory to the results so as to confirm and develop or to overthrow that theory. Either way, said Niklas, science advances by little and little towards the truth, and nothing but the truth matters.
The scientific method applied to sea-level change: a slide by Niklas Mörner
The undergraduates were visibly fascinated. After 40 years of lecturing, he knew that keeping them entertained was the best way to hold their attention, and that making visible his personal dedication to the hunt for objective truth in scientific enquiry would lead the students to emulate him. He was rapturously received throughout his speech, and was accorded a thunderous round of applause at the end.
When the vote was taken, the skeptics had won by a margin of 3 votes. It was the first time that any student audience in Britain had voted to oppose the climate-Communist Party line.
Thereafter, Niklas and I kept in regular touch until just a couple of months ago, when he wrote asking me to contribute two papers to a new scientific journal that he was setting up. He wanted one paper on What is science and what is not? and another on our team’s demonstration that concern about global warming sprang from an elementary but significant error of physics.
Mörner’s fork
At the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, Niklas gave a speech on sea-level rise to a press briefing organized by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. The meeting was well attended, and Niklas – who needed a pointer for his slides but could not find one – seized a passing wooden salad fork and used that instead, to the delight of the journalists.
He also established the influential International Committee on Geoethics, with the aim of removing partisan politics and reintroducing open debate on scientific questions at universities. The Committee held its inaugural conference in Prague, where the presentations were given in the Spanish Ballroom of the Hradcany Palace at the invitation of then-President Vaclav Klaus, who also spoke.
Geoethics in style: the Spanish Ballroom at the Hradcany Palace, Prague
Professor Mörner was a hands-on scientist. He did not enjoy squatting in his ivory tower. He liked to travel the world investigating sea level by the novel method of actually going to the coastline and having a look.
On one occasion, when the climate Communists were reporting that Bangladesh was subsiding beneath the rising waves, he went on a fact-finding trip to Bangladesh with a group of fellow sea-level specialists. All the others were true-believers, so they just drifted along with the Party Line and took few measurements.
Only the Professor not only used his altimeter but walked 100 meters uphill, in his late 70s, and back down again so that the instrument would be correctly calibrated. Only the Professor subsequently reported that, as a result of those measurements, sea level off Bangladesh was actually falling. Only the Professor reported that in the few beaches where the sea had encroached, it had done so not because of global warming and consequent sea-level rise but because local prawn farmers had grubbed up the mangroves whose roots had previously kept the coastline stable.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
On another occasion Professor Mörner was visiting the Maldives when he noticed a small tree, 40 years old, right on the beach, in leaf but lying on its side. The fact that the tree was still there, feet from the ocean and inches above sea level, after 40 years told him that there had been no sea-level rise since the tree had first begun to grow, or it would have been drowned.
He enquired locally about whether there had been an exceptional spring tide caused by global warming and sea-level rise that had overthrown the tree. He discovered, however, that a group of Australian environmental extremists had visited the beach shortly before him. They had realized that the presence of the tree showed that the official sea-level record showing a sharp rise over the past half-century must be incorrect, and had uprooted the tree. Professor Mörner stood it back up again and photographed it.
He was plainly very distressed by incidents such as this, for he was a highly moral man with a strong regard for the truth. He took each of the numerous lies and frauds perpetrated by climate Communism as a personal affront, and was saddened at the widespread decline in scientific standards, particularly in the universities.
Mörner ‘sacrificing’ a fellow-scientist on a South American tectonics field trip in 2012
He was hated and feared by the climate extremists. The online fake-news outfall Wokipedia, one of whose founders has now publicly admitted that it is wholly in the hands of Communists, has the usual hatchet-job biography for the Professor, devoting more sniffily disapproving prominence to his interest in dowsing for water with hazel twigs than to his formidable record of investigation and publication in the field of sea-level rise.
Wokipedia’s hate-filled scribblers did not – could not – comprehend that Niklas Mörner’s interest in dowsing was motivated chiefly by scientific curiosity. I once told him that my late father had been commissioned some years back by the Maltese Government to find three Punic tombs at the foot of the limestone escarpment on which stands the lofty village perché that is the ancient walled city of Mdina. Local archaeologists had records showing that the tombs existed, but they had never been found.
My father, armed with two angled steel rods, marched up and down the stony fields below the ramparts for half a day, putting sticks in the ground at various points. The sticks formed three separate crosses. Where each of the crosses intersected, my father told the workmen to dig. In each place, a fine Punic tomb was found – though there had been absolutely no sign of any such thing on the surface. From one of the tombs a fine half-size marble bust of a Roman was removed. I sketched it (there were no cellphones, let alone cellphone cameras, in those days) and sent the sketch to the Museum of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge, where it was identified as a good example of a first-century head of Seneca.
Niklas was greatly excited by this story, and asked me how I thought dowsing might work. I said I had no idea. All three of my brothers had the gift, but I – for some reason – did not. But I had seen my father dowsing for – and finding – a major Roman iron-working and Samian-ware pottery-firing settlement on his farm in Kent.
I also told Niklas that when I had invited my father to Cambridge to have his dowsing ability tested under laboratory conditions he had firmly declined, though he told me that he had won a lot of money while at Cambridge when in the pub by leaving the room and inviting his fellow-undergraduates to hide a signet ring under one of them.
He said the only time he had lost the bet was when someone turned on a tap at the wrong moment and water passed through a pipe under the floorboards where the three caps lay.
I had the honor to co-author a paper with Niklas for a climate-change conference at Downing College, Cambridge. The paper was uncompromisingly titled Sea Level Is Not Rising. The organizer, who had made his fortune selling pills and potions and had hoped for a quiet conference, refused to allow the paper to be distributed, though he had previously consented. The papers were gathered up and taken away.
However, I mounted a raid on the store where they were hidden and made sure that a copy was on every seat. The climate Communists present were furious, but the students who attended were intrigued, particularly when they began to read arguments, facts and data that had been denied to them by their professors throughout their time at Cambridge. Niklas was delighted at what he called my SAS raid.
It is honorable men like Niklas Mörner whose legacy to the world is as much of merriment as of the relentless pursuit of truth. Like St. Thomas More, I can confidently write that my old friend is now as “merry in Heaven” as he was merry, and gave merriment to all whom he touched, here below.
A couple of weeks before Niklas died, I wrote to cheer him up. I ended the letter with a poem that described Niklas perfectly. It is St. Thomas Campion’s free but beautiful translation of the Horatian ode Integer vitae scelerisque purus:
The man of life upright,
Whose cheerful mind is free
From weight of impious deedes
And yoke of vanity,
The man whose silent days
In harmless joys are spent:
Whom hopes cannot delude,
Nor sorrows discontent,
That man needs neyther towers,
Nor armour for defence:
Nor vaults his guilt to shroud
From thunder’s violence;
He only can behold
With unaffrighted eyes
The horrors of the deep,
And terrors of the skies.
Thus, scorning all the cares
That fate or fortune brings,
His Book the Heavens he makes,
His wisdom heavenly things.
Good thoughts his surest friends,
His wealth a well-spent age,
The Earth his sober inn,
And quiet pilgrimage.
Nils-Axel Mörner, 1938-2020. May he rest in peace.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-20--Crisis looms in alarmist climate science

Climate science is dominated by alarmists addicted to the idea that increasing carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming .
How much warming is thus the central scientific question .
This question has been surprisingly difficult to answer despite 40 years of research , costing tens of billions of dollars .
Now the issue is exploding because two different answers are emerging , one harmlessly low and the other dangerously high .
This divergence is a crisis for the alarmist community .
How they handle it remains to be seen .
What follows is a slightly technical explanation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benchmark estimate of the impact of increasing CO2 on global temperature .
This is called the “ equilibrium climate sensitivity ” or ECS .
The basic question is what will the global average temperature be when the CO2 level is double the supposedly original level of 280 ppm ?
That is , what will it be when we hit 560 ppm .
However , since it may take the climate system some time to adjust to this new high level , the question is what the temperature will be when the system equilibrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some time after we hit 560 .
Also , this is about sensitivity , so ECS is not the new high temperature .
It is the number of degrees C higher than the original temperature that this new high temperature will be .
So if the new high temperature is , say , 2.2 degrees C higher then ECS = 2.2 degrees .
Technically ECS is often an abstraction , something that only happens in climate models , but model ECS is taken as an important estimate of real ECS .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubling the CO2 instantaneously , whereas in reality this takes centuries .
All this said , I can now explain the emerging crisis .
For many decades the accepted model estimates of ECS have ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Different models give different values , but the acceptable range has not changed .
That the range is so big has been a policy problem .
Warming as little as 1.5 degrees might be harmless , while 4.5 might be dangerous .
But the ECS range has been stubbornly persistent , refusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , suddenly , there is a huge new problem .
ECS has exploded !
It is not that it is higher , or lower — it is both .
Two new lines of research have diverged sharply on the estimated value of ECS .
The first line of research takes a new approach called observational ECS .
The idea is that since the CO2 level is almost half way to doubling we should be able to derive ECS empirically from the observed relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase .
There have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many are getting ECS values well below 1.5 , which are harmless indeed .
Values of 1.2 and 1.3 are common .
But at the same time there has been a new wave of modeling studies and these are getting ECS values way above 4.5 , which would be truly dangerous .
Here values of 5.2 and 5.3 are to be found .
Note that the modeling community is divided over accepting these new hot model numbers .
After all , they imply that the modeling done over the last forty years or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of the recent modeling which is still within the old range .
The upshot of all this is that the science of ECS is in a shambles .
Given that ECS addresses the core science of climate alarmism , this is truly a crisis .
Has the modeling been wrong for 40 years ?
Is it wrong now ?
What about observation , which is supposed to rule in science ?
The scientific method says observation trumps theoretical modeling .
This is also a policy crisis .
If we have no idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increasing CO2 levels then we have no basis for making climate change policy .
If the observation values are right then there simply is no climate emergency .
How will this huge new uncertainty play out ?
Fortunately we will get at least a glimpse fairly soon .
The latest IPCC assessment report ( AR6 ) is presently under review and should be out in the next year or so .
This report is supposed to review the state of climate change science , albeit from an alarmist point of view .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ range will be interesting to see , at the very least .
They may choose to ignore it because it has to hurt alarmism .
They may simply drop mention of the ECS altogether , it now being very inconvenient .
But this glaring omission will be easy to call out .
Or they may only acknowledge the hot higher values , which favor alarmism .
Here they risk making modeling look stupid ( which it is ) .
Plus this omission of critical evidence will also be easy to call out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is caught between a hot rock and a cold hard place .
So is alarmism .
Stay tuned .

Climate science is dominated by alarmists addicted to the idea that increasing carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming. How much warming is thus the central scientific question.
This question has been surprisingly difficult to answer despite 40 years of research, costing tens of billions of dollars. Now the issue is exploding because two different answers are emerging, one harmlessly low and the other dangerously high. This divergence is a crisis for the alarmist community. How they handle it remains to be seen.
What follows is a slightly technical explanation of the situation.
The issue centers on a benchmark estimate of the impact of increasing CO2 on global temperature. This is called the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” or ECS. The basic question is what will the global average temperature be when the CO2 level is double the supposedly original level of 280 ppm? That is, what will it be when we hit 560 ppm.
However, since it may take the climate system some time to adjust to this new high level, the question is what the temperature will be when the system equilibrates to this doubling, which may be some time after we hit 560. Also, this is about sensitivity, so ECS is not the new high temperature. It is the number of degrees C higher than the original temperature that this new high temperature will be.
So if the new high temperature is, say, 2.2 degrees C higher then ECS = 2.2 degrees.
Technically ECS is often an abstraction, something that only happens in climate models, but model ECS is taken as an important estimate of real ECS. In the models ECS is often estimated by simply doubling the CO2 instantaneously, whereas in reality this takes centuries.
All this said, I can now explain the emerging crisis.
For many decades the accepted model estimates of ECS have ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. Different models give different values, but the acceptable range has not changed. That the range is so big has been a policy problem. Warming as little as 1.5 degrees might be harmless, while 4.5 might be dangerous. But the ECS range has been stubbornly persistent, refusing to narrow to a specific value.
Now, suddenly, there is a huge new problem. ECS has exploded! It is not that it is higher, or lower — it is both. Two new lines of research have diverged sharply on the estimated value of ECS.
The first line of research takes a new approach called observational ECS. The idea is that since the CO2 level is almost half way to doubling we should be able to derive ECS empirically from the observed relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase.
There have been a number of observational studies and many are getting ECS values well below 1.5, which are harmless indeed. Values of 1.2 and 1.3 are common.
But at the same time there has been a new wave of modeling studies and these are getting ECS values way above 4.5, which would be truly dangerous. Here values of 5.2 and 5.3 are to be found.
Note that the modeling community is divided over accepting these new hot model numbers. After all, they imply that the modeling done over the last forty years or so has been wrong, including a lot of the recent modeling which is still within the old range.
The upshot of all this is that the science of ECS is in a shambles. Given that ECS addresses the core science of climate alarmism, this is truly a crisis. Has the modeling been wrong for 40 years? Is it wrong now? What about observation, which is supposed to rule in science? The scientific method says observation trumps theoretical modeling.
This is also a policy crisis. If we have no idea how sensitive the climate system will be to increasing CO2 levels then we have no basis for making climate change policy. If the observation values are right then there simply is no climate emergency.
How will this huge new uncertainty play out? Fortunately we will get at least a glimpse fairly soon. The latest IPCC assessment report (AR6) is presently under review and should be out in the next year or so. This report is supposed to review the state of climate change science, albeit from an alarmist point of view.
How the IPCC handles the exploding ECS range will be interesting to see, at the very least. They may choose to ignore it because it has to hurt alarmism. They may simply drop mention of the ECS altogether, it now being very inconvenient. But this glaring omission will be easy to call out.
Or they may only acknowledge the hot higher values, which favor alarmism. Here they risk making modeling look stupid (which it is). Plus this omission of critical evidence will also be easy to call out.
With the ECS range exploding the IPCC is caught between a hot rock and a cold hard place. So is alarmism. Stay tuned.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-19--EP 113: Jana Waller, Conservationist and TV Host

In Episode 113 of District of Conservation , Gabriella talks to Jana Waller—Skull Bound Chronicles host and outdoor communicator .
Jana joined the podcast to discuss : how she got involved in the outdoor industry ; her new CarbonTV series Skull Bound Chronicles ; why she loves hunting with veterans ; her work with Mule Deer Foundation , The National Wild Turkey Federation and why groups like Sportsmen ’ s Alliance , Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation , Safari Club International – SCI matter ; why she ’ s on board Sportsmen for Donald J. Trump , the importance of hunting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MUCH MORE .
Jana is a lifetime member of Safari Club International , The Mule Deer Foundation and the National Wild Turkey Federation and an annual member of The NRA , The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation , and The Sportsman Alliance .
She was awarded the prestigious 2015 “ Communicator Of The Year ” award by the National Wild Turkey Federation .
Jana was also awarded the ‘ Distinguished Alumni Award ’ in 2016 from the University of Wisconsin Whitewater for her work in promoting the outdoors and conservation .
In 2019 she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Hunting And Shooting Sports Conservation Council .

In Episode 113 of District of Conservation, Gabriella talks to Jana Waller—Skull Bound Chronicles host and outdoor communicator.
Jana joined the podcast to discuss: how she got involved in the outdoor industry; her new CarbonTV series Skull Bound Chronicles; why she loves hunting with veterans; her work with Mule Deer Foundation, The National Wild Turkey Federation and why groups like Sportsmen’s Alliance, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International – SCI matter; why she’s on board Sportsmen for Donald J. Trump, the importance of hunting storytelling with projects like Blood Origins and MUCH MORE.
Jana is a lifetime member of Safari Club International, The Mule Deer Foundation and the National Wild Turkey Federation and an annual member of The NRA, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and The Sportsman Alliance. She was awarded the prestigious 2015 “Communicator Of The Year” award by the National Wild Turkey Federation. Jana was also awarded the ‘Distinguished Alumni Award’ in 2016 from the University of Wisconsin Whitewater for her work in promoting the outdoors and conservation. In 2019 she was appointed as a member to the Federal Hunting And Shooting Sports Conservation Council.
WATCH
Listen on Apple Podcasts:
Credit: Facebook.com | Jana Waller – Skull Bound Chronicles


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-20--Using microwaves to turn plastic waste into hydrogen

Thanks to heightened media attention , the problem of mounting “ plastic pollution ” has become a major environmental concern in recent years .
The ever-increasing production and use of plastics over the last half century have certainly brought with it a lot of benefits , but have also caused headaches .
One of them is how to dispose of it .
While a portion is recycled and reused , the vast bulk of the 4.9 billion tons of plastics ever produced will end up in landfills or chucked on the ground — and this number is expected to increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fortunately , some creative options for dealing with plastic waste are in the offing .
One of them is from a group of researchers from Oxford ’ s Department of Chemistry .
Showcasing their findings in Nature Catalysis , they ’ ve developed an innovative method of converting plastic waste into hydrogen gas which can be used as a clean fuel , as well as high-value solid carbon .
They achieved employing a new type of catalysis that uses microwaves on catalyst particles to effectively ‘ strip ’ hydrogen from polymers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ News : “ [ T ] he researchers mixed mechanically-pulverised plastic particles with a microwave-susceptor catalyst of iron oxide and aluminum oxide .
The mixture was subjected to microwave treatment and yielded a large volume of hydrogen gas and a residue of carbonaceous materials , the bulk of which were identified as carbon nanotubes .
This rapid one-step process for converting plastic to hydrogen and solid carbon significantly simplifies the usual processes of dealing with plastic waste and demonstrates that over 97 % of hydrogen in plastic can be extracted in a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no CO2 burden.
” The team ’ s new technique is being looked at as a helpful solution to addressing plastic waste pollution – for instead of heaping growing mounds of it on our land or in our oceans , plastics might be used as a valuable feedstock to move society toward more use of hydrogen fuel .
For more information from the University of Oxford News , click here .

Thanks to heightened media attention, the problem of mounting “plastic pollution” has become a major environmental concern in recent years.
The ever-increasing production and use of plastics over the last half century have certainly brought with it a lot of benefits, but have also caused headaches. One of them is how to dispose of it. While a portion is recycled and reused, the vast bulk of the 4.9 billion tons of plastics ever produced will end up in landfills or chucked on the ground — and this number is expected to increase to around 12 billion tons by 2050.
Fortunately, some creative options for dealing with plastic waste are in the offing.
One of them is from a group of researchers from Oxford’s Department of Chemistry. Showcasing their findings in Nature Catalysis, they’ve developed an innovative method of converting plastic waste into hydrogen gas which can be used as a clean fuel, as well as high-value solid carbon. They achieved employing a new type of catalysis that uses microwaves on catalyst particles to effectively ‘strip’ hydrogen from polymers.
As reported in the University of Oxford News:
“[T]he researchers mixed mechanically-pulverised plastic particles with a microwave-susceptor catalyst of iron oxide and aluminum oxide. The mixture was subjected to microwave treatment and yielded a large volume of hydrogen gas and a residue of carbonaceous materials, the bulk of which were identified as carbon nanotubes.
This rapid one-step process for converting plastic to hydrogen and solid carbon significantly simplifies the usual processes of dealing with plastic waste and demonstrates that over 97% of hydrogen in plastic can be extracted in a very short time, in a low-cost method with no CO2 burden.”
The team’s new technique is being looked at as a helpful solution to addressing plastic waste pollution – for instead of heaping growing mounds of it on our land or in our oceans, plastics might be used as a valuable feedstock to move society toward more use of hydrogen fuel.
For more information from the University of Oxford News, click here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-21--Climate “catastrophe” myths, realities and why you should care

Those of us who reject the idea that mankind controls Earth ’ s thermostat do so for many reasons .
As yet there exists no physical evidence to link the steady growth of carbon dioxide beginning in the 1950s with the erratic atmospheric temperature record which goes back to the 1850s .
Nor has there been any acceleration in the historical record of storm frequencies or intensities , droughts , floods , wild–fires , species extinctions , and all the rest of unsupported propaganda announced daily in the media .
The oceans are rising , but at a constant leisurely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more logical to assume Earth ’ s temperatures are a result of natural causes , as has been the case for all time even before man or animals walked the Earth .
We know we are rebounding from a Little Ice Age that ended around the time Washington was fighting near Valley Forge .
This warming has caused the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans , which is responsible for the greening of the Earth in recent decades .
For the record the total warming of the atmosphere since 1880 has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with predictions of a 3-4 degree rise by the United Nations supported computer models .
The obvious reason the distorted ideas mentioned above are so prevalent is that more than a billion dollars a day is spent world wide promoting efforts to stop climate change regardless of man ’ s inability to do so .
Much of that money is spent attempting to stop the use of fossil fuels which if ever achieved would destroy civilization as it is known today except in the most impoverished nations .
Major reasons why Earth ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of years are : variations in radiation coming from the sun , variations in Earth ’ s orbit and tilt , variations in cloud cover , ocean current oscillations , volcanism , drifting of the continents and many other poorly understood variable factors .
It is incredulous that our government spends $ billions of your taxes trying to pin down the earth ’ s thermostat with a few minor variables fed into mathematical computer models that never have nor ever will give sensible answers .
Prior to the industrial revolution which began in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erratic as today with many periods in the past 12,000 years warmer than today .
Alternating cold periods really made life most difficult with life expectancies below 30 years until fossil fuels came along to lessen man ’ s burden .
Now in all parts of the world lifespan has risen above 70 years regardless of climate .
Instead of terrible catastrophes predicted by environmental activists , humanity prospers .
The soaring global warming that was predicted never occurred , so it was renamed climate change where the activists could never go wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing .
They were terribly wrong about the warming .
According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency , the warmest decade on record was the 1930s .
NOAA records show that 23 state high-temp-erature records were set in the 1930s while only two state high-temperature records were set in the past 20 years .
And yet the real apocalypse is not global warming , it is the elimination of fossil fuels and nuclear power , which must be avoided at all cost or we will have to give up our very way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agriculture and food delivery services will no longer be able to feed the world ’ s people .
Neither wind turbines nor solar panels , nor the enormous batteries required to back up these intermittent sources , nor anything made of concrete or steel or many other materials , can be manufactured without fossil fuels .
But fear not about vital materials or processes playing out as a result of environmental zealots or political wrong-headedness .
Realistically the effect of any significant cut-back of fossil fuels will be much higher energy costs followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use including food , water , transportation , and housing .
Any administration attempting such cutbacks will be faced with protests from the entire population wishing to have their comfortable lives restored .
These inevitable effects have already occurred in several European countries and Australia as they attempted to cut back on fossil and nuclear fuels .
Few of us desire to live without our I-Phones or Amazon deliveries , so it will be amusing to watch environ-mentalists boast about operating without carbon-based fuels in the coming decades as their lives come crashing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide , a wind or a solar power plant has never and can never replace a coal or gas fired electrical generation plant , but always must remain a parasitic appendage to the electric grid .
Because of intermittency , wind or solar plants create only erratic bursts of electricity , thereby placing stress on the grid , a grid that must maintain rock steady voltage and fre-quency even on cloudy and windless days .
This can only be accomplished by supplementing the intermittent wind or solar power with electrical power from fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A further insanity regarding wind and solar are the areas they require to produce the same 1000 megawatts derived from a typical fossil fuel power plant taking up less than one square mile of land .
A comparable wind farm consists of over 3000 turbines and requires over 200 square miles of land area .
An equivalent solar farm would require millions of panels covering about half that amount of land .
Renewable energy zealots claim that industrial-scale batteries will solve the intermittency problems by storing power from the wind and solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stream of electricity as needed .
Batteries with sufficient capacity to do this are now and will always be unaffordable .
This includes even Elon Musk ’ s Tesla batteries which are planned for a huge solar facility near Las Vegas .
Some such batteries are already being installed by electrical utilities around the country on a smaller scale .
Keep your eyes peeled for future brownouts and blackouts resulting from these questionable projects .
We ran some numbers on Colorado ’ s desire to be an all renewable state , requiring shuttering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With a population of 6 million Colorado would require 5.6 megawatt hours of battery storage costing over one trillion dollars or about $ 167,000 per person .
Assuming battery storage for a family of four , using Tesla battery packs needing replacement every ten years , the cost of batteries alone would approach that of a mortgage on a $ 2 million home .
Solar energy supplements with government subsides can reduce the cost of energy for some homeowners in some areas , but being totally off the grid is either expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main factors affecting rising electricity prices and higher utility bills , is the increased use of subsidized renewable energy .
Operating costs for coal and nuclear power has traditionally been between 2 and 3 cents per kilowatt hour ( kWh ) and natural gas has been between 3 and 10 cents a kWh , while wind power with government subsidies is between 15 and 25 cents a kilowatt hour .
Since Germany became largely dependent upon wind and solar sources , average energy rates have risen to above 35 cents per kWh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 13 cents .
Unless free markets are again allowed to govern our energy industries we can expect our energy prices to also double and triple in coming years under any federal administration that promotes renewable energy .
Today 29 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia have renewable Energy Mandates designed to force utilities to purchase certain specified percentages of their electricity from renewable energy sources .
This is anything but a free market in energy .
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration , the states with renewable mandates have electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those without .
How much more would we pay if renewable sources became the sole source of our electricity ?
Coal , oil and natural gas have been the overwhelming choices of fuels particularly for developing countries .
Worldwide fossil fuel usage doubled during the period from 1980 through 2015 and expanded by more than a factor of five in both China and India .
Meanwhile instead of the predicted terrible climate disasters , life expectancy grew by 15 % ( from 65 to 75 years ) in China and by 34 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in India ; monthly income increased by 1500 % in China and 400 % in India .
Infant mortality rates decreased by 70 % in China and by 58 % in India , and malnutrition plummeted by 40 % in both countries during that same 35–year period of increased use of abundant and affordable fossil fuels .
Surprise , surprise all major measures of U.S. air and water pollution decreased during this period .
All these beneficial numbers relate directly to the availability of inexpensive energy from carbon–based fuel .
Carbon dioxide continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growth rates of our forests and food crops while having absolutely no negative bearing on our planet .
There is more !
Over the period we are discussing , climate related deaths declined 98 % to near zero .
Why ?
Again , more available inexpensive energy enabled more people to be rescued and saved from fires , floods , and storms , etc.
, and hospitals have become steadily more effective .
Sadly , if Mr. Biden claims the Presidency of the United States , the nation probably will begin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to have done .
The example of Europe is pertinent .
In June 2000 , the European Union ( EU ) launched the European Climate Change Programme which promoted the build–out of wind and solar capacity .
Feed-in tariffs established artificially high prices for electricity from wind and solar sources , while mandates established priorities for the renewables over conventional sources .
Wind turbines were constructed and installed by the thousands and roof–top solar panels by the millions , costing the various governments more than a trillion dollars between 2000 and 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , approaching 40 cents per kWh in both Germany and Denmark .
Large subsidies are now required for both renewable and conventional energy in order to keep the lights on .
California is headed down this road regardless of who claims the Whitehouse in November , and several other states are also flirting with these disastrous anti-fossil-fuel policies .
These are crazy times when brilliant German engineers stoop down to shoot themselves in the foot .
Can we be far behind ?

Those of us who reject the idea that mankind controls Earth’s thermostat do so for many reasons. As yet there exists no physical evidence to link the steady growth of carbon dioxide beginning in the 1950s with the erratic atmospheric temperature record which goes back to the 1850s. Nor has there been any acceleration in the historical record of storm frequencies or intensities, droughts, floods, wild–fires, species extinctions, and all the rest of unsupported propaganda announced daily in the media. The oceans are rising, but at a constant leisurely 7 inches per century.
It is more logical to assume Earth’s temperatures are a result of natural causes, as has been the case for all time even before man or animals walked the Earth. We know we are rebounding from a Little Ice Age that ended around the time Washington was fighting near Valley Forge. This warming has caused the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans, which is responsible for the greening of the Earth in recent decades. For the record the total warming of the atmosphere since 1880 has been about one degree centigrade, in contrast with predictions of a 3-4 degree rise by the United Nations supported computer models.
The obvious reason the distorted ideas mentioned above are so prevalent is that more than a billion dollars a day is spent world wide promoting efforts to stop climate change regardless of man’s inability to do so. Much of that money is spent attempting to stop the use of fossil fuels which if ever achieved would destroy civilization as it is known today except in the most impoverished nations.
Major reasons why Earth’s climate has continued changing through billions of years are: variations in radiation coming from the sun, variations in Earth’s orbit and tilt, variations in cloud cover, ocean current oscillations, volcanism, drifting of the continents and many other poorly understood variable factors. It is incredulous that our government spends $billions of your taxes trying to pin down the earth’s thermostat with a few minor variables fed into mathematical computer models that never have nor ever will give sensible answers.
Prior to the industrial revolution which began in the early 1800s the temperature was as erratic as today with many periods in the past 12,000 years warmer than today. Alternating cold periods really made life most difficult with life expectancies below 30 years until fossil fuels came along to lessen man’s burden. Now in all parts of the world lifespan has risen above 70 years regardless of climate. Instead of terrible catastrophes predicted by environmental activists, humanity prospers.
The soaring global warming that was predicted never occurred, so it was renamed climate change where the activists could never go wrong as the climate and weather are always changing. They were terribly wrong about the warming. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, the warmest decade on record was the 1930s. NOAA records show that 23 state high-temp-erature records were set in the 1930s while only two state high-temperature records were set in the past 20 years.
And yet the real apocalypse is not global warming, it is the elimination of fossil fuels and nuclear power, which must be avoided at all cost or we will have to give up our very way of life. Without these fuels modern agriculture and food delivery services will no longer be able to feed the world’s people. Neither wind turbines nor solar panels, nor the enormous batteries required to back up these intermittent sources, nor anything made of concrete or steel or many other materials, can be manufactured without fossil fuels.
But fear not about vital materials or processes playing out as a result of environmental zealots or political wrong-headedness. Realistically the effect of any significant cut-back of fossil fuels will be much higher energy costs followed by soaring prices for all products we use including food, water, transportation, and housing. Any administration attempting such cutbacks will be faced with protests from the entire population wishing to have their comfortable lives restored. These inevitable effects have already occurred in several European countries and Australia as they attempted to cut back on fossil and nuclear fuels. Few of us desire to live without our I-Phones or Amazon deliveries, so it will be amusing to watch environ-mentalists boast about operating without carbon-based fuels in the coming decades as their lives come crashing down around them.
In reality, worldwide, a wind or a solar power plant has never and can never replace a coal or gas fired electrical generation plant, but always must remain a parasitic appendage to the electric grid. Because of intermittency, wind or solar plants create only erratic bursts of electricity, thereby placing stress on the grid, a grid that must maintain rock steady voltage and fre-quency even on cloudy and windless days. This can only be accomplished by supplementing the intermittent wind or solar power with electrical power from fossil fuel sources capable of changing power rapidly.
A further insanity regarding wind and solar are the areas they require to produce the same 1000 megawatts derived from a typical fossil fuel power plant taking up less than one square mile of land. A comparable wind farm consists of over 3000 turbines and requires over 200 square miles of land area. An equivalent solar farm would require millions of panels covering about half that amount of land.
Renewable energy zealots claim that industrial-scale batteries will solve the intermittency problems by storing power from the wind and solar farms, and then returning a steady stream of electricity as needed. Batteries with sufficient capacity to do this are now and will always be unaffordable. This includes even Elon Musk’s Tesla batteries which are planned for a huge solar facility near Las Vegas. Some such batteries are already being installed by electrical utilities around the country on a smaller scale. Keep your eyes peeled for future brownouts and blackouts resulting from these questionable projects.
We ran some numbers on Colorado’s desire to be an all renewable state, requiring shuttering all coal and gas fired power plants. With a population of 6 million Colorado would require 5.6 megawatt hours of battery storage costing over one trillion dollars or about $167,000 per person. Assuming battery storage for a family of four, using Tesla battery packs needing replacement every ten years, the cost of batteries alone would approach that of a mortgage on a $2 million home. Solar energy supplements with government subsides can reduce the cost of energy for some homeowners in some areas, but being totally off the grid is either expensive or without many amenities.
One of the main factors affecting rising electricity prices and higher utility bills, is the increased use of subsidized renewable energy. Operating costs for coal and nuclear power has traditionally been between 2 and 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) and natural gas has been between 3 and 10 cents a kWh, while wind power with government subsidies is between 15 and 25 cents a kilowatt hour.
Since Germany became largely dependent upon wind and solar sources, average energy rates have risen to above 35 cents per kWh, compared with U.S. rates of 10 to 13 cents. Unless free markets are again allowed to govern our energy industries we can expect our energy prices to also double and triple in coming years under any federal administration that promotes renewable energy.
Today 29 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia have renewable Energy Mandates designed to force utilities to purchase certain specified percentages of their electricity from renewable energy sources. This is anything but a free market in energy. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the states with renewable mandates have electricity prices that average 26% higher than those without. How much more would we pay if renewable sources became the sole source of our electricity?
Coal, oil and natural gas have been the overwhelming choices of fuels particularly for developing countries. Worldwide fossil fuel usage doubled during the period from 1980 through 2015 and expanded by more than a factor of five in both China and India. Meanwhile instead of the predicted terrible climate disasters, life expectancy grew by 15% (from 65 to 75 years) in China and by 34% (from 49 to 66 years) in India; monthly income increased by 1500% in China and 400% in India. Infant mortality rates decreased by 70% in China and by 58% in India, and malnutrition plummeted by 40% in both countries during that same 35–year period of increased use of abundant and affordable fossil fuels.
Surprise, surprise all major measures of U.S. air and water pollution decreased during this period. All these beneficial numbers relate directly to the availability of inexpensive energy from carbon–based fuel. Carbon dioxide continued to increase this entire period, increasing the growth rates of our forests and food crops while having absolutely no negative bearing on our planet. There is more! Over the period we are discussing, climate related deaths declined 98% to near zero. Why? Again, more available inexpensive energy enabled more people to be rescued and saved from fires, floods, and storms, etc., and hospitals have become steadily more effective. Sadly, if Mr. Biden claims the Presidency of the United States, the nation probably will begin to move backward in time just as Europe appears to have done.
The example of Europe is pertinent. In June 2000, the European Union (EU) launched the European Climate Change Programme which promoted the build–out of wind and solar capacity. Feed-in tariffs established artificially high prices for electricity from wind and solar sources, while mandates established priorities for the renewables over conventional sources.
Wind turbines were constructed and installed by the thousands and roof–top solar panels by the millions, costing the various governments more than a trillion dollars between 2000 and 2016. Residential electricity prices soared across Europe, approaching 40 cents per kWh in both Germany and Denmark. Large subsidies are now required for both renewable and conventional energy in order to keep the lights on. California is headed down this road regardless of who claims the Whitehouse in November, and several other states are also flirting with these disastrous anti-fossil-fuel policies. These are crazy times when brilliant German engineers stoop down to shoot themselves in the foot. Can we be far behind?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-22--Idaho mine could bring back salmon and jobs

Who could possibly object to a project that will boost local employment , clean up waste left over from a bygone era of mining , and reduce America ’ s dangerous dependence on China for critical minerals ?
The proposed Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho is unique in that it not only promises to supply the U.S. with lots of gold and antimony , a critical mineral with numerous applications in defense , aerospace , and consumer electronics .
As part of its effort to reduce U.S. dependence on imports of materials crucial to national security , the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ critical minerals ” that should be supplied , when possible , by domestic sources .
After the gold and antimony have been extracted , the project would also restore a long-abandoned mining site , eliminating today ’ s unsightly mining pits and cleaning up befouled nearby streams .
Located in Central Idaho ’ s Valley County , the Stibnite Gold Project would be developed by Canadian company Midas Gold Corp. Mining in the mineral-rich area , known as the Stibnite Mining District , got underway in 1899 .
By far the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and batteries during World War II .
Other , smaller-scale operations followed until the last project shut down in 1996 .
These largely unregulated operations did not distinguish themselves when it came to environmental stewardship .
They left behind a mess .
There is , for instance , a less-than-pristine lake known as the “ Glory Hole ” that now covers the old mining pit .
To create the Glory Hole , water was diverted from a local tributary of the Salmon River in 1938 .
But the pipe used for the diversion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass through .
The mine was shuttered at the end of the Korean War , allowing the river to flow back into the Glory Hole .
This could have opened a passage for salmon to continue their migration , but a man-made waterfall proved too steep for the fish , leading to the loss of local salmon .
Looking to the Future As part of its ambitious reclamation plan , Midas Gold has pledged to bring back salmon to the site by routing the river into another tunnel , one which will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salmon and other fish a clear passage .
This and other reclamation projects would be part of Midas Gold ’ s plan for a large open-pit mine on the 2,000-acre site , the chief goal of which would be to get at what is considered one of the largest gold deposits in the country .
The mine would employ over 500 workers , representing a substantial economic boost to the sparsely populated rural area where jobs are scarce .
Groups such as the Idaho Conservancy and Idaho Rivers United oppose the project , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups object to practically all mining projects .
Yet Midas Gold has pledged it will reverse the environmental degradation left behind by its predecessors and , once their work is done , restore the area far beyond what is required by U.S. environmental statutes .
This would be restoration that , in the absence of the mining project , would not take place .
Also raising concerns about the mine is the Nez Perce Tribe .
The tribe is a prominent fixture in Central and Northern Idaho and has spent several million dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It recently adopted a resolution opposing the Stibnite Gold Project , citing waste left behind by previous mining operations .
The Nez Perce have a good case to make when it comes to the misdeeds of past mining operations , but their laudable salmon-restoration efforts have fallen short of what the fish require to recover .
Their best bet is to work with Midas Gold and local communities such as Cascade and Yellow Pine that have agreed to take seats on a company-sponsored advisory panel overseeing the project .
That would give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salmon and getting much-needed mining jobs for members of the tribe .

Who could possibly object to a project that will boost local employment, clean up waste left over from a bygone era of mining, and reduce America’s dangerous dependence on China for critical minerals?
The proposed Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho is unique in that it not only promises to supply the U.S. with lots of gold and antimony, a critical mineral with numerous applications in defense, aerospace, and consumer electronics. As part of its effort to reduce U.S. dependence on imports of materials crucial to national security, the Trump administration has included antimony on its list of “critical minerals” that should be supplied, when possible, by domestic sources.
After the gold and antimony have been extracted, the project would also restore a long-abandoned mining site, eliminating today’s unsightly mining pits and cleaning up befouled nearby streams.
A mixed mining legacy
Located in Central Idaho’s Valley County, the Stibnite Gold Project would be developed by Canadian company Midas Gold Corp. Mining in the mineral-rich area, known as the Stibnite Mining District, got underway in 1899. By far the most successful operation produced materials used in bullets and batteries during World War II. Other, smaller-scale operations followed until the last project shut down in 1996.
These largely unregulated operations did not distinguish themselves when it came to environmental stewardship. They left behind a mess. There is, for instance, a less-than-pristine lake known as the “Glory Hole” that now covers the old mining pit. To create the Glory Hole, water was diverted from a local tributary of the Salmon River in 1938. But the pipe used for the diversion was too narrow for the fish to pass through. The mine was shuttered at the end of the Korean War, allowing the river to flow back into the Glory Hole. This could have opened a passage for salmon to continue their migration, but a man-made waterfall proved too steep for the fish, leading to the loss of local salmon.
Looking to the Future
As part of its ambitious reclamation plan, Midas Gold has pledged to bring back salmon to the site by routing the river into another tunnel, one which will be wide enough and tall enough to allow salmon and other fish a clear passage.
This and other reclamation projects would be part of Midas Gold’s plan for a large open-pit mine on the 2,000-acre site, the chief goal of which would be to get at what is considered one of the largest gold deposits in the country. The mine would employ over 500 workers, representing a substantial economic boost to the sparsely populated rural area where jobs are scarce.
Groups such as the Idaho Conservancy and Idaho Rivers United oppose the project, which is no surprise, since environmental groups object to practically all mining projects. Yet Midas Gold has pledged it will reverse the environmental degradation left behind by its predecessors and, once their work is done, restore the area far beyond what is required by U.S. environmental statutes. This would be restoration that, in the absence of the mining project, would not take place.
Also raising concerns about the mine is the Nez Perce Tribe. The tribe is a prominent fixture in Central and Northern Idaho and has spent several million dollars trying to restore salmon to the region. It recently adopted a resolution opposing the Stibnite Gold Project, citing waste left behind by previous mining operations. The Nez Perce have a good case to make when it comes to the misdeeds of past mining operations, but their laudable salmon-restoration efforts have fallen short of what the fish require to recover. Their best bet is to work with Midas Gold and local communities such as Cascade and Yellow Pine that have agreed to take seats on a company-sponsored advisory panel overseeing the project. That would give them a say in bringing back the salmon and getting much-needed mining jobs for members of the tribe.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-23--Wind turbines take a terrible toll on birds

There is a narrative on Wind turbines that we hear so often : Wind turbines are clean and green , and they help us tackle climate change through emission-free energy generation .
Anything contrary to that narrative might seem untrue , especially after mainstream media ’ s relentless promotion of the narrative for the past one decade or so .
As a young field ecologist , I ’ ve witnessed and studied about bird collision mortalities in the most serene Special Protected Area for bird conservation at Alentejo , Portugal .
My Master ’ s thesis involved assessing the collision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially electric lines and fences ) , thus requiring me to do detailed studies on the susceptibility of birds to artificial structures and the subsequent impact on breeding , migration , and overall survival .
For me , and many other wildlife conservationists , it is not a surprise when we hear about wind turbines killing birds .
However , in a world where Wind energy is promoted as the savior , many are not ready to accept this dirty fact about wind turbines .
But it is time to acknowledge that Wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean .
It might sound absurd or shocking to some readers , but that is the reality and the facts confirm this undeniable truth .
The Obvious Yet Untold : Wind Turbines are Bird Killers Wildlife conservationists hate Wind turbines for their infamous role as bird killer , a fact that is very rarely mentioned in the news media .
Pro-renewable lobbies argue that there are many causes for bird mortality and that the mortality contribution from Wind Turbines is quite insignificant .
However , people who do actual ground work in protecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecologists , and non-profit organizations–disagree with this argument .
According to experts , Wind turbines pose a significant risk to birds , especially to large raptors , birds of prey , and other migratory soaring birds .
Even in a very high quality habitat , Wind turbines cause .
Besides direct injury and deaths , Wind farm turbines also cause , leading to significant damage to flocks .
In the U.S. , the government is well aware of the Wind turbine potential to kill birds in large numbers .
So much so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which indicate the number of birds that the wind operator is allowed to kill in a year .
It is a fact that is so well established , that researchers no longer ponder if Wind turbines kill or not .
They have moved on to addressing how to minimize these deaths and finding solutions for to calculate the collision mortality rates .
Countries like India are even planning to introduce guidelines to protect birds from wind mills .
A 2019 study estimated that wind turbines affect the life and habitat of around in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are only going to get higher , as more wind turbines will be installed in the U.S. ( Installed wind energy capacity in the United States doubled from 2012 to 2020 ) .
The American Bird Conservancy that if 20 percent of the nation ’ s electricity comes through wind power it will potentially kill at least one million birds per year by 2030 .
The same has been true in other parts of the world .
A study on 125 wind turbines in Ethiopia revealed that they had been responsible for deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study in a South African wind farm found that at the wind farm , with a potential to kill 50 more species in the coming years .
Among those killed were two species endemic to South Africa : Cape Vultures and Black Harriers .
Germany , home to half of the global breeding population of Red Kites , witnesses a very of the Red Kites .
In Spain , collision mortality studies between 1993 and 2003 proved that there was “ no long-term temporal changes in birds ’ reactions to wind farms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presence of turbines .
” This means wind farms will pose a existential threat to the birds until they are decommissioned and removed .
Some have suggested that Wind turbines could be stopped whenever flocks of birds approach them , thus reducing collision mortality .
However , new studies reveal that bird collision mortality risk from wind turbines remains the same regardless of whether the blades are moving or not .
Wind Farms Kill in the Seas Too on offshore wind farms ( those in sea ) revealed that 1 .
Wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may or may not result in an avoidance response , 2 .
Could result in physical habitat loss/modification or gain , and 3 .
Causes collision mortality .
The study , “ individual wind farms may have minor effects on the environment , but collectively , many of these developments , especially spread out to confront individuals from a migratory avian population along the entire length of its migration corridor may have a significant effect .
This effect may be far greater than the sum of the individual parts acting alone , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many individuals.
” Last week , RSPB–Europe ’ s most prominent conservation organization that has been into protecting birds since 1889–expressed concerns over the UK government ’ s proposed move to expand offshore windmills .
Gareth Cunningham , the principal marine policy officer of RSBP , commented , “ Areas suitable for wind farm development also happen to be foraging areas for these seabirds .
They could also act as barrier in term of visual impacts .
Seabirds will fly around wind farms in foraging areas so they spend more energy and during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time away from the nest .
Ultimately this increases the chance a chick will starve , and so we are seeing a reduction in the number of chicks they have each year.
” The mainstream media may deny the , but it is an ever-present danger to conservation efforts , especially to those species which are of importance for conservation .
Real nature lovers , and those who wholeheartedly support conservation efforts to save birds , will heed to the scientist ’ s warnings .
They will stand for the protection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wind energy as a clean energy source despite their proven track record of killing birds .
It is time we as a society face up to the inconvenient and inescapable truths concerning Wind Turbines .
The solution though is more simpler than we think : As the bird habitats and migratory routes free of wind energy developments .

There is a narrative on Wind turbines that we hear so often: Wind turbines are clean and green, and they help us tackle climate change through emission-free energy generation.
Anything contrary to that narrative might seem untrue, especially after mainstream media’s relentless promotion of the narrative for the past one decade or so.
As a young field ecologist, I’ve witnessed and studied about bird collision mortalities in the most serene Special Protected Area for bird conservation at Alentejo, Portugal. My Master’s thesis involved assessing the collision mortality of birds with artificial structures (especially electric lines and fences), thus requiring me to do detailed studies on the susceptibility of birds to artificial structures and the subsequent impact on breeding, migration, and overall survival.
For me, and many other wildlife conservationists, it is not a surprise when we hear about wind turbines killing birds. However, in a world where Wind energy is promoted as the savior, many are not ready to accept this dirty fact about wind turbines.
But it is time to acknowledge that Wind (Energy) is not green and clean. It might sound absurd or shocking to some readers, but that is the reality and the facts confirm this undeniable truth.
The Obvious Yet Untold: Wind Turbines are Bird Killers
Wildlife conservationists hate Wind turbines for their infamous role as bird killer, a fact that is very rarely mentioned in the news media.
Pro-renewable lobbies argue that there are many causes for bird mortality and that the mortality contribution from Wind Turbines is quite insignificant. However, people who do actual ground work in protecting these birds–biologists, bird conservationists, wildlife ecologists, and non-profit organizations–disagree with this argument.
According to experts, Wind turbines pose a significant risk to birds, especially to large raptors, birds of prey, and other migratory soaring birds. Even in a very high quality habitat, Wind turbines cause disproportionate increases in collision mortality . Besides direct injury and deaths, Wind farm turbines also cause functional habitat loss for migratory soaring birds , leading to significant damage to flocks.
In the U.S., the government is well aware of the Wind turbine potential to kill birds in large numbers. So much so that Wind operators have been allotted bird-kill quotas which indicate the number of birds that the wind operator is allowed to kill in a year.
It is a fact that is so well established, that researchers no longer ponder if Wind turbines kill or not. They have moved on to addressing how to minimize these deaths and finding solutions for more efficient ways to calculate the collision mortality rates. Countries like India are even planning to introduce guidelines to protect birds from wind mills.
A 2019 study estimated that wind turbines affect the life and habitat of around 150,000 birds in the U.S. annually. But the numbers are only going to get higher, as more wind turbines will be installed in the U.S. (Installed wind energy capacity in the United States doubled from 2012 to 2020). The American Bird Conservancy predicts that if 20 percent of the nation’s electricity comes through wind power it will potentially kill at least one million birds per year by 2030.
The same has been true in other parts of the world. A study on 125 wind turbines in Ethiopia revealed that they had been responsible for deaths of at least 35 different bird species . A similar 4-year study in a South African wind farm found that 130 different species were killed at the wind farm, with a potential to kill 50 more species in the coming years. Among those killed were two species endemic to South Africa: Cape Vultures and Black Harriers.
Germany, home to half of the global breeding population of Red Kites, witnesses a very high collision mortality of the Red Kites. In Spain, collision mortality studies between 1993 and 2003 proved that there was “no long-term temporal changes in birds’ reactions to wind farms, implying that birds did not habituate to the presence of turbines .” This means wind farms will pose a existential threat to the birds until they are decommissioned and removed.
Some have suggested that Wind turbines could be stopped whenever flocks of birds approach them, thus reducing collision mortality. However, new studies reveal that bird collision mortality risk from wind turbines remains the same regardless of whether the blades are moving or not.
Wind Farms Kill in the Seas Too
A recent study on offshore wind farms (those in sea) revealed that 1. Wind farms act as visual stimulus, that may or may not result in an avoidance response, 2. Could result in physical habitat loss/modification or gain, and 3. Causes collision mortality.
The study concluded , “individual wind farms may have minor effects on the environment, but collectively, many of these developments, especially spread out to confront individuals from a migratory avian population along the entire length of its migration corridor may have a significant effect. This effect may be far greater than the sum of the individual parts acting alone, especially if contributing adversely to the fitness of many individuals.”
Last week, RSPB–Europe’s most prominent conservation organization that has been into protecting birds since 1889–expressed concerns over the UK government’s proposed move to expand offshore windmills.
Gareth Cunningham, the principal marine policy officer of RSBP, commented, “Areas suitable for wind farm development also happen to be foraging areas for these seabirds. They could also act as barrier in term of visual impacts. Seabirds will fly around wind farms in foraging areas so they spend more energy and during nesting season will spend a longer period of time away from the nest. Ultimately this increases the chance a chick will starve, and so we are seeing a reduction in the number of chicks they have each year.”
Stop Denying and Start Acting: Shut the Wind Farms
The mainstream media may deny the blood on the blades , but it is an ever-present danger to conservation efforts, especially to those species which are of importance for conservation.
Real nature lovers, and those who wholeheartedly support conservation efforts to save birds, will heed to the scientist’s warnings. They will stand for the protection of birds and condemn the unhinged promotion of Wind energy as a clean energy source despite their proven track record of killing birds.
It is time we as a society face up to the inconvenient and inescapable truths concerning Wind Turbines. The solution though is more simpler than we think: As scientists say, keep the bird habitats and migratory routes free of wind energy developments.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-23--Biden declares end to oil

Biden declares end to oil

At the second and final presidential debate , former Vice President Joe Biden went all in on climate change extremism .
He promised to effectively put America ’ s oil industry out of business and declared Earth was facing the point of no return in “ eight to ten years.
” President Donald Trump and even the liberal moderator , Kristen Welker of NBC News , caught the significance .
Mr. Biden said , “ I would transition away from the oil industry , yes , ” in response to Trump ’ s question “ Would you close down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gravity of his position , “ That ’ s a big statement.
” Biden agreed , and justified it by claiming , “ we have to move toward net-zero emissions.
” Mr. Biden at the outset of the climate discussion said that climate change “ is an existential threat ” to humankind , and that Earth soon faces the proverbial tipping point , after which , presumably , we can do nothing to stave off planetary catastrophe .
Wouldn ’ t you want to end fossil fuels and throw millions of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economy to try and save humans from boiling over and/or being flooded in three decades from an overheating planet and melting icebergs ?
As Biden would say in other contexts , “ C ’ mon man !
” Planetary alarmism is nothing new .
This is familiar hysteria with a long fraudulent history spoken by many a snake oil salesman ( and woman ) .
Marc Morano of Climate Depot has documented such huckster predictions going back to the Civil War era of the 1860 ’ s .
Bogus end-of-the-world claims failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years unfortunately hasn ’ t stopped people from making more .
Al Gore , a prominent modern-day example , has gotten wealthy by making planetary doomsday predictions for the last three decades .
Mr. Biden continued this dubious tradition and his are as false today as they ’ ve been from the outset .
President Trump during the debate presented a clear contrast to Biden ’ s climate extremism .
Trump embraced America ’ s energy independence and hydro-fracturing for natural gas that has lowered overall carbon emissions .
He also supported solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not replace fossil fuels .
The President further dismissed wind energy as harmful to birds and heavily reliant on other energy sources ( fossil fuels ) for their manufacture and operation .
This final presidential debate offered Americans a taste of the implications of climate extremism .
It ’ s one thing to acknowledge overall warming in the last 150 years since the end of the Little Ice Age .
That does not , however , portend the planet ’ s demise .
For too long , politicians , activists and pseudo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat ” of global warming/climate change without presenting credible scientific basis for such claims .
Computer modeling doesn ’ t cut it , as climate variables are way more complicated and unpredictable .
During each of the three debates , neither Biden nor his V.P .
running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris , was asked for scientific details that justify the coming human extinction and the justification for trillions of dollars in new spending , ending the oil industry and destroying millions of blue collar , middle class jobs .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ scientific consensus ” on these climate issues .
From a political standpoint , Biden is trying to thread a needle by maintaining his embrace of climate alarmism during the Democratic primaries while pivoting to a pro-fracking stance in the general election to win battleground states .
While Biden continues his doomsday claims about the planet and reiterates his plan to end the oil industry , he insists he won ’ t ban hydro-fracturing , despite having made such pledges repeatedly during the campaign for the Democratic nomination for president .
His late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win Pennsylvania , a major pro-fracking battleground state , and is wholly inconsistent with his parroting the climate alarmism of human extinction from a warming planet .
Mr. Biden said in the debate that he ’ s not Sen. Bernie Sanders ; that he defeated him in the primaries .
However , his alarmist claims about climate change are the exact words of Bernie .
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery , as Biden embraced climate extremism in the “ Unity Task Force ” recommendations , which are the work product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
The 36-year Senator Joe Biden with working class roots from Delaware was never associated with such Green extremism .
That has changed dramatically , as evidenced in his campaign promises and in the debates .
Climate change policies are among the many issues for American voters to sort out as Election Day draws closer .
Last night ’ s final presidential debate again revealed the contrast between the candidates .

At the second and final presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden went all in on climate change extremism. He promised to effectively put America’s oil industry out of business and declared Earth was facing the point of no return in “eight to ten years.”
President Donald Trump and even the liberal moderator, Kristen Welker of NBC News, caught the significance.
Mr. Biden said, “I would transition away from the oil industry, yes,” in response to Trump’s question “Would you close down the oil industry?”
President Trump noted the gravity of his position, “That’s a big statement.” Biden agreed, and justified it by claiming, “we have to move toward net-zero emissions.”
Mr. Biden at the outset of the climate discussion said that climate change “is an existential threat” to humankind, and that Earth soon faces the proverbial tipping point, after which, presumably, we can do nothing to stave off planetary catastrophe. Wouldn’t you want to end fossil fuels and throw millions of people out of work and destroy America’s economy to try and save humans from boiling over and/or being flooded in three decades from an overheating planet and melting icebergs? As Biden would say in other contexts, “C’mon man!”
Planetary alarmism is nothing new. This is familiar hysteria with a long fraudulent history spoken by many a snake oil salesman (and woman).
Marc Morano of Climate Depot has documented such huckster predictions going back to the Civil War era of the 1860’s. Bogus end-of-the-world claims failing to come true for the last 150-plus years unfortunately hasn’t stopped people from making more. Al Gore, a prominent modern-day example, has gotten wealthy by making planetary doomsday predictions for the last three decades. Mr. Biden continued this dubious tradition and his are as false today as they’ve been from the outset.
President Trump during the debate presented a clear contrast to Biden’s climate extremism. Trump embraced America’s energy independence and hydro-fracturing for natural gas that has lowered overall carbon emissions. He also supported solar energy yet acknowledged the obvious that it cannot replace fossil fuels. The President further dismissed wind energy as harmful to birds and heavily reliant on other energy sources (fossil fuels) for their manufacture and operation.
This final presidential debate offered Americans a taste of the implications of climate extremism. It’s one thing to acknowledge overall warming in the last 150 years since the end of the Little Ice Age. That does not, however, portend the planet’s demise. For too long, politicians, activists and pseudo scientists have asserted this abstract “existential threat” of global warming/climate change without presenting credible scientific basis for such claims. Computer modeling doesn’t cut it, as climate variables are way more complicated and unpredictable.
During each of the three debates, neither Biden nor his V.P. running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, was asked for scientific details that justify the coming human extinction and the justification for trillions of dollars in new spending, ending the oil industry and destroying millions of blue collar, middle class jobs. It’s also not enough to claim a non-existent “scientific consensus” on these climate issues.
From a political standpoint, Biden is trying to thread a needle by maintaining his embrace of climate alarmism during the Democratic primaries while pivoting to a pro-fracking stance in the general election to win battleground states. While Biden continues his doomsday claims about the planet and reiterates his plan to end the oil industry, he insists he won’t ban hydro-fracturing, despite having made such pledges repeatedly during the campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. His late pivot on fracking is a dishonest attempt to win Pennsylvania, a major pro-fracking battleground state, and is wholly inconsistent with his parroting the climate alarmism of human extinction from a warming planet.
Mr. Biden said in the debate that he’s not Sen. Bernie Sanders; that he defeated him in the primaries. However, his alarmist claims about climate change are the exact words of Bernie. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as Biden embraced climate extremism in the “Unity Task Force” recommendations, which are the work product of Sen. Sanders and fellow climate extremist, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The 36-year Senator Joe Biden with working class roots from Delaware was never associated with such Green extremism. That has changed dramatically, as evidenced in his campaign promises and in the debates.
Climate change policies are among the many issues for American voters to sort out as Election Day draws closer. Last night’s final presidential debate again revealed the contrast between the candidates.