committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-01--The Fukushima nuclear plant passed nature’s hardest safety test

Nearly ten years have passed since a major earthquake and devastating tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan .
Not a single case of radiation illness or death occurred as a result of escaped radiation .
A result we should all be celebrating .
But years of media rants left this an untold story .
The tsunami and subsequent pollution from waste water resulted in the loss of thousands of lives , yet none because the area gained its electric power from nuclear energy .
How many people in this country are aware of this outcome ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ media failed to follow up their hysterical warnings of radioactive waste reaching our shores .
None ever did .
Another celebration was in order .
Yet with no scientific reason Japan and Germany shut down most of their nuclear reactors .
Construction of additional nuclear power plants around the world was slowed for most of the decade .
Now they are largely back on track , but not in the United States .
Approximately 160,000 people were evacuated from the area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant shortly after it was damaged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tsunami .
An evacuation order forced 70,000 people to leave the area , and an additional 90,000 left voluntarily .
They returned soon afterward .
The 70,000 forced evacuees also eventually returned to their homes .
Sadly it is estimated that 1,600 people died prematurely from stress related illness in the evacuation process .
The “ precautionary ” action , taken in response to hypothetical health risks , was more harmful than the risks themselves .
This tragic event illustrates the need for public policy decisions to be made based on sound science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science was clear before the event that fears surrounding the damaged nuclear power plant were vastly overstated .
Despite the breathless media reports of radiation threats issued in the immediate wake of the earthquake and tsunami—and still repeated to this day—United Nations health experts have closed the books on any asserted risks from the nuclear power plant damage .
The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation ( UNSCEAR ) issued a press release two years later that said “ Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , still none have appeared .
It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers ” UNSCEAR explained , “ To date , there have been no health effects attributed to radiation exposure observed among workers , the people with the highest radiation exposures ” Why does uncertainty remain about the effects of low level radiation in light of any long-term negative impacts ?
All living organisms have been in a sea of radiation since their first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their genes all of this time .
Approximately 15,000 gamma rays or particles hit the average person every second .
And after more than 120 years of extensive health effect studies , we know more about ionizing radiation than we do about any other stressor on human health .
Lauriston Taylor , a founder of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ( ICRP ) observed back in 1934 that “ No one has been identifiably injured by radiation while working within the first standard set at 0.2 roentgen/day by the US National Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and now the ICRP .
After the discovery of x-rays and radioactivity more than120 years ago , hundreds of medical practitioners began testing and using the penetrating radiation to examine internal injuries and illnesses , reducing the guesswork in diagnosing diseases .
They discovered low level radiation produces remarkable beneficial effects , while they also knew high-level short-term exposures cause significant harm .
IS THERE A SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION , MOST DEFINITELY THERE IS… BUT !
So why is there a perceived radiation problem ?
What is the reason for the fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects of radiation ?
To understand this we need to consider the origin of the linear no-threshold ( LNT ) dose-response concept which forms the basis for radiation protection activities and cancer risk calculations that have been costly mistakes for decades .
The invention and use of atomic bombs in 1945 , the nuclear arms race , and the rise of the anti-nuclear movement likely induced many concerned scientists to disregard 70 years of research and experience on the use of radiation to stimulate the protection systems of living organisms .
Many scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concept that says a risk of cancer and genetic disease increases linearly with radiation dose , from a single atom of radiation .
The International Commission on Radiological Protection ( ICRP ) made a 180 degree turn by rejecting its 1934 standard that was based on the tolerance dose which had stood for many years without any problems being recognized .
It issued new recommendations based on the use of the Linear No Threshold ( LNT ) model to evaluate the statistical risk of cancer from any radiation exposure .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Edward Calabrese , a world renown Radiation toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts said in the 2013 Archives of Toxicology , “ In 1956 , the US National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation Genetics Panel issued the most far reaching recommendation in the history of risk assessment that genomic risks associated with exposure to ionizing radiation should be evaluated with a linear dose-response model , no longer via the threshold dose-response model that had long been the ‘ gold ’ standard for medicine and physiology .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no safe exposure to ionizing radiation for reproductive cells with the mutation risk being increased even with a single ionization .
In 1958 , the LNT concept was generalized to somatic cells and cancer risk assessment by the National Committee for Radiation Protection and Measurement.
” Dr. Calabrese discovered that many of the panel members had a conflict of interest in establishing this flawed rule .
As practiced by the modern radiation protection community , the LNT hypothesis is one of the greatest scientific scandals of our time .
I documented this fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies and biases in the work of early researchers in an essay at CFACT.org on August 18 , 2020 .
IT IS TIME TO CORRECT THIS TERRIBLE LNT POLICY It is essential that we revert to the ICRP standard of 1934 and the tolerance dose concept for radiation protection .
This change would remove many constraints on the use of x-rays , CT-scans , and nuclear medicine techniques for the diagnosis of many illnesses .
It would also pave the way for clinical studies on many potential applications for low radiation to treat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s and Parkinson ’ s , by reducing restrictions regulating adaptive protection systems .
The urgent justification for this change in concept is the divergence between fear and facts regarding Fukushima .
Radiophobia erupted around the world despite the scientifically expected lack of any serious radiation harms .
Germany and Japan decided to phase out nuclear energy and lifesaving radiation medical applications continue to be impeded .
Let ’ s celebrate the availability of this life saving technology rather than stopping it to appease self-interest , which is definitely the prevailing case @ @

Nearly ten years have passed since a major earthquake and devastating tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Not a single case of radiation illness or death occurred as a result of escaped radiation. A result we should all be celebrating. But years of media rants left this an untold story. The tsunami and subsequent pollution from waste water resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, yet none because the area gained its electric power from nuclear energy.
How many people in this country are aware of this outcome? The answer is very few because the media failed to follow up their hysterical warnings of radioactive waste reaching our shores. None ever did. Another celebration was in order.
Yet with no scientific reason Japan and Germany shut down most of their nuclear reactors. Construction of additional nuclear power plants around the world was slowed for most of the decade. Now they are largely back on track, but not in the United States.
PRECAUTIONARY DEATHS
Approximately 160,000 people were evacuated from the area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant shortly after it was damaged by the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami. An evacuation order forced 70,000 people to leave the area, and an additional 90,000 left voluntarily. They returned soon afterward. The 70,000 forced evacuees also eventually returned to their homes.
Sadly it is estimated that 1,600 people died prematurely from stress related illness in the evacuation process. The “precautionary” action, taken in response to hypothetical health risks, was more harmful than the risks themselves. This tragic event illustrates the need for public policy decisions to be made based on sound science rather than unsupported environmental scares. The science was clear before the event that fears surrounding the damaged nuclear power plant were vastly overstated.
CLOSING THE BOOK ON FUKUSHIMA
Despite the breathless media reports of radiation threats issued in the immediate wake of the earthquake and tsunami—and still repeated to this day—United Nations health experts have closed the books on any asserted risks from the nuclear power plant damage. The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) issued a press release two years later that said “Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. Eight years later, still none have appeared. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers”
UNSCEAR explained, “To date, there have been no health effects attributed to radiation exposure observed among workers, the people with the highest radiation exposures”
Why does uncertainty remain about the effects of low level radiation in light of any long-term negative impacts? All living organisms have been in a sea of radiation since their first appearance, and radiation has been affecting their genes all of this time. Approximately 15,000 gamma rays or particles hit the average person every second. And after more than 120 years of extensive health effect studies, we know more about ionizing radiation than we do about any other stressor on human health.
Lauriston Taylor, a founder of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) observed back in 1934 that “No one has been identifiably injured by radiation while working within the first standard set at 0.2 roentgen/day by the US National Commission on Radiological Protection (NCRP)” and now the ICRP.
IMPORTANCE OF DOSE LEVELS
After the discovery of x-rays and radioactivity more than120 years ago, hundreds of medical practitioners began testing and using the penetrating radiation to examine internal injuries and illnesses, reducing the guesswork in diagnosing diseases. They discovered low level radiation produces remarkable beneficial effects, while they also knew high-level short-term exposures cause significant harm.
IS THERE A SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION, MOST DEFINITELY THERE IS… BUT!
So why is there a perceived radiation problem? What is the reason for the fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding the effects of radiation? To understand this we need to consider the origin of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response concept which forms the basis for radiation protection activities and cancer risk calculations that have been costly mistakes for decades.
The invention and use of atomic bombs in 1945, the nuclear arms race, and the rise of the anti-nuclear movement likely induced many concerned scientists to disregard 70 years of research and experience on the use of radiation to stimulate the protection systems of living organisms. Many scientists instead accepted the new fear generating LNT concept that says a risk of cancer and genetic disease increases linearly with radiation dose, from a single atom of radiation.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) made a 180 degree turn by rejecting its 1934 standard that was based on the tolerance dose which had stood for many years without any problems being recognized. It issued new recommendations based on the use of the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model to evaluate the statistical risk of cancer from any radiation exposure. This is the basis of our unfounded radiation scare.
Dr. Edward Calabrese, a world renown Radiation toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts said in the 2013 Archives of Toxicology, “In 1956, the US National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation Genetics Panel issued the most far reaching recommendation in the history of risk assessment that genomic risks associated with exposure to ionizing radiation should be evaluated with a linear dose-response model, no longer via the threshold dose-response model that had long been the ‘gold’ standard for medicine and physiology. The Genetics Panel members believed that there was no safe exposure to ionizing radiation for reproductive cells with the mutation risk being increased even with a single ionization. In 1958, the LNT concept was generalized to somatic cells and cancer risk assessment by the National Committee for Radiation Protection and Measurement.”
Dr. Calabrese discovered that many of the panel members had a conflict of interest in establishing this flawed rule. As practiced by the modern radiation protection community, the LNT hypothesis is one of the greatest scientific scandals of our time.
I documented this fraud from Calabrese’s research into the lies and biases in the work of early researchers in an essay at CFACT.org on August 18, 2020.
IT IS TIME TO CORRECT THIS TERRIBLE LNT POLICY
It is essential that we revert to the ICRP standard of 1934 and the tolerance dose concept for radiation protection. This change would remove many constraints on the use of x-rays, CT-scans, and nuclear medicine techniques for the diagnosis of many illnesses. It would also pave the way for clinical studies on many potential applications for low radiation to treat very important diseases, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, by reducing restrictions regulating adaptive protection systems.
The urgent justification for this change in concept is the divergence between fear and facts regarding Fukushima. Radiophobia erupted around the world despite the scientifically expected lack of any serious radiation harms. Germany and Japan decided to phase out nuclear energy and lifesaving radiation medical applications continue to be impeded. Let’s celebrate the availability of this life saving technology rather than stopping it to appease self-interest, which is definitely the prevailing case today.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-30--EP 122: Black Rifle Coffee & Four Likely Picks for Biden’s Interior Secretary

In Episode 122 of District of Conservation , Gabriella revisits the failed cancellation attempts of Black Rifle Coffee Company , @ @ @ @ @ brand , and examines four likely contenders to be Biden ’ s Interior Secretary pick @ @ @ @ @ Welcome to all and thank you for your visit !
ツ from Pixabay

In Episode 122 of District of Conservation, Gabriella revisits the failed cancellation attempts of Black Rifle Coffee Company, a pro-Second Amendment, pro-conservation brand, and examines four likely contenders to be Biden’s Interior Secretary pick.
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Subscribe to Apple Podcasts
SHOW NOTES
Black Rifle Coffee
Company Letter in Response to Kenosha
Evan Hafer on Dana Show
Top Biden Interior Picks
Outgoing Montana Governor Steve Bullock (hasn’t spoken to Biden team yet)
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) (Udall, not Heinrich, retired)
Congresswoman Deb Haaland (D-NM) (Green New Deal endorsement, anti-fossil fuel views, Grijalva backing)
Credit: Image by Welcome to all and thank you for your visit ! ツ from Pixabay


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-02--EP 123: Don’t Compare National Parks to Disneyland & BLM Utah Monolith’s Disappearing Act

In Episode 123 of District of Conservation , Gabriella discusses two subjects : why National Park Services fees shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ levels/price out visitors and an update on the strange Utah monolith that appeared , then @ @ @ @ @ Management lands .

In Episode 123 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses two subjects: why National Park Services fees shouldn’t go up to Disneyland levels/price out visitors and an update on the strange Utah monolith that appeared, then disappeared on Bureau of Land Management lands.
Listen on Apple Podcasts:
SHOW NOTES
Kevin Williamson’s Article Arguing to Raise NPS Fees
NPS Entrance Fees
Proposed Park Hikes
2018 NPS Fee Hike Reconsidered
BLM Statement on Illegally Installed Monolith
Facebook Post on Monolith
Southwest Airlines mocks monolith – very funny


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-02--Economist Dr. Walter Williams RIP: Freedom’s greatest defender

“ The world has lost one of its greatest thinkers and the greatest defender of freedom .
As a former student of Dr. Willaims at George Mason University in the 1980s , his loss cuts deep .
I interviewed Dr. Williams for GMU TV , I got a ‘ C ’ in his economics class and I later featured him in my Amazon Rainforest Documentary in 2000 .
See : Rainforest Factsheet : Clear-Cutting the Myths About the Amazon and Tropical Rainforests Williams was a ferocious debater who regularly popped the Left and media misperceptions on race , economics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular guest host of Rush Limbaugh ’ s nationally syndicated radio show .
His death will leave a gaping hole in intellectual thought.
” “ Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as ‘ The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile.
’ … ‘ Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.
’ These and many other statements , along with apocalyptic predictions , are stock in trade for environmentalists .
Worse yet , this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation ’ s youth from kindergarten through college .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
” — Walter Williams in 2019 “ Prior to capitalism , the way people amassed great wealth was by looting , plundering and enslaving their fellow man .
Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.
” — Walter E. Williams “ Despite the miracles of capitalism , it doesn ’ t do well in popularity polls .
One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism .
Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with all of its warts , is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.
” – Walter Williams WALTER WILLIAMS : ‘ The biggest casualty from the COVID-19 pandemic has nothing to do with the disease .
It ’ s the power we ’ ve given to politicians and bureaucrats .
The question is how we recover our freedoms ’

“The world has lost one of its greatest thinkers and the greatest defender of freedom. As a former student of Dr. Willaims at George Mason University in the 1980s, his loss cuts deep. I interviewed Dr. Williams for GMU TV, I got a ‘C’ in his economics class and I later featured him in my Amazon Rainforest Documentary in 2000. See: Rainforest Factsheet: Clear-Cutting the Myths About the Amazon and Tropical Rainforests
Williams was a ferocious debater who regularly popped the Left and media misperceptions on race, economics, culture and freedom. He also a regular guest host of Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio show. His death will leave a gaping hole in intellectual thought.”
Williams recent quotes:
“Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as ‘The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile.’ … ‘Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.’ These and many other statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmentalists. Worse yet, this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation’s youth from kindergarten through college. That’s why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.” — Walter Williams in 2019
“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.” — Walter E. Williams
“Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn’t do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.” – Walter Williams
WALTER WILLIAMS: ‘The biggest casualty from the COVID-19 pandemic has nothing to do with the disease. It’s the power we’ve given to politicians and bureaucrats. The question is how we recover our freedoms’
Originally posted at CFACT’s Climate Depot


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-02--Why and how NASA and NOAA manipulate climate data

Climate Realists are constantly told by Climate Alarmists that if we only followed the “ science , ” we would come around to their catastrophic way of thinking – that a climate “ crisis ” exists , and that we must drastically reduce human production of carbon dioxide if we are going to “ save the planet.
” These same Climate Alarmists also maintain that Realists are “ funded by fossil fuel interests , ” and therefore have suspicious motives .
According to Alarmists , Realists are not interested in advancing facts and objective truth , because their actual intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pecuniary interest .
Are both of these arguments really well founded ?
If so , shouldn ’ t they also be applied to Alarmists as well ?
What would happen to the validity of the Alarmists ’ arguments if they are actually the ones who are failing to “ follow the science ” ?
What if their motives are less about “ saving the Planet , ” and more about job security ?
What if the keepers of the “ science ” – the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( NOAA ) – are actually fudging the climate data , and what if the source of their funding uniquely encourages this kind of behavior ?
Tony Heller , through his website RealClimateScience.com , has demonstrated conclusively that both NOAA and NASA , for at least the past 30 years , have altered and massaged their data in order to support the narrative that man-made CO2 is driving the Earth ’ s temperature .
( See Heller , “ How the US Temperature Record Is Being Altered , Parts 1-3 ” ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how NASA altered its original temperature data so that the temperature for the years 1905 – 1940 was lowered , and the data for the years 1940 – 2010 were raised , thus creating a clear upward trend in temperature over the entire time period , when , in fact , the original , unaltered data actually shows a cooling trend .
Heller also establishes how NOAA “ scientists ” have likewise reached the same warming trend conclusion .
But whereas NASA simply adjusted existing data , NOAA just made them up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a number of weather stations which do not report any data .
For these non-reporting stations , NOAA “ estimates ” the data by using a secret , proprietary algorithm .
In 1950 , NOAA “ estimated ” only 5 % of the missing stations .
By 2015 , the number of estimated stations had grown to 48 % !
It is not difficult for NOAA to plot a trend line supporting its theory if one-half of the data set is self-manufactured .
Neither NOAA or NASA has disputed Tony Heller ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
The numbers speak for themselves .
Instead , NOAA and NASA have jumped with both feet onto the man-made global warming political band wagon – facts be damned .
So then two obvious questions arise : Why would NOAA and NASA do this , and how do they do it ?
Let ’ s first examine why .
As US government agencies , both NOAA and NASA are funded entirely through the annual federal government budget process .
My first exposure to this process occurred when I was appointed by President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administrator ( CEO ) of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation – a federal government agency .
Having spent a lifetime in the private sector , I was well versed in the metrics used by it to measure organizational performance and success : balance sheet , income statement , profit and loss , stock market price , debt to equity ratio , and so forth .
When it came to measuring the performance of a federal government agency , I was in for a surprise .
None of these private sector metrics applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was only one metric that measured success or failure .
That is , did the agency receive the annual appropriations it requested from the House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees .
That was it .
No balance sheet , income statement , P & L , or other commonly used financial metric applied .
Only one measurement counted – what kind of slice of the taxpayer funded pie did the agency receive annually from Congress .
I learned quickly that this process was fiercely – at time even ruthlessly – competitive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds , agencies would do anything , be anything , and say anything so as to appear politically attractive to Congress .
This means that every federal agency constantly holds a finger to the political wind .
Every successful agency is adept at detecting the slightest shift in the political breeze .
It doesn ’ t matter if the agency is sloppily run , antiquated , or bumbling and stumbling its way through the bureaucracy forest .
If it can convince Congress of its political usefulness , then its budget request will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency will be protected .
This leads to the unassailable fact that the work product of every federal agency , including those responsible for collecting climate data , is highly politicized .
Every .
Single .
One .
The immutable law of bureaucratic survival demands it .
NASA and NOAA “ scientists ” are not ideologically neutral researchers living in a vacuum .
They do not exist in an ivory tower of data purity .
They are bureaucrats , rendering bureaucratic interpretations of climate data , and their opinions are framed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Any NOAA or NASA employee who dares to question the prevailing party line would be committing career ending suicide .
This explains why NOAA and NASA fudge climate data .
How they do it can be seen by NOAA ’ s treatment of daily temperature data .
Reading temperature records would appear to be a fairly straightforward process , right ?
Wrong .
First , the weather stations from which the data is harvested must be chosen .
The “ outliers ” are discarded – so are “ duplicates ” .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the non-reporting stations must be “ estimated ” .
But it doesn ’ t stop there .
Next comes the ‘ time of day ” adjustment .
It seems that it makes a difference if the reading was taken in the morning or afternoon .
Then there are adjustments for the urban heat island effect – the fact that the ground around many of the older stations has become developed , paved , or otherwise altered so that heat is trapped , which skews the temperature readings .
Then there are adjustments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To quote NOAA , “ some are 175 years old and some are only 1 hour old ” .
Once again , quoting NOAA , they must be “ homogenized ” and “ synthesized ” .
Perhaps this statement from NOAA best captures the extraordinary amount judgmental decision making that surrounds the collection of temperature data : “ These data are quality controlled and may not be identical to the original observations.
” There it is .
Quality Control .
NOAA ’ s secret sauce , liberally applied to all its temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how NOAA and NASA manipulate data boils down to this : NOAA and NASA ’ s climate pronouncements and determinations are not “ science ” – an objective truth .
They are discretionary bureaucratic interpretations of dozens of climate data points designed to support a conclusion that will advance the agency ’ s funding imperatives .
And that is the truth .

Climate Realists are constantly told by Climate Alarmists that if we only followed the “science,” we would come around to their catastrophic way of thinking – that a climate “crisis” exists, and that we must drastically reduce human production of carbon dioxide if we are going to “save the planet.”
These same Climate Alarmists also maintain that Realists are “funded by fossil fuel interests,” and therefore have suspicious motives. According to Alarmists, Realists are not interested in advancing facts and objective truth, because their actual intent must be designed to protect some kind of pecuniary interest.
Are both of these arguments really well founded? If so, shouldn’t they also be applied to Alarmists as well?
What would happen to the validity of the Alarmists’ arguments if they are actually the ones who are failing to “follow the science”? What if their motives are less about “saving the Planet,” and more about job security? What if the keepers of the “science” – the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – are actually fudging the climate data, and what if the source of their funding uniquely encourages this kind of behavior?
Tony Heller, through his website RealClimateScience.com, has demonstrated conclusively that both NOAA and NASA, for at least the past 30 years, have altered and massaged their data in order to support the narrative that man-made CO2 is driving the Earth’s temperature. (See Heller, “How the US Temperature Record Is Being Altered, Parts 1-3”).
For example, Heller has convincingly demonstrated how NASA altered its original temperature data so that the temperature for the years 1905 – 1940 was lowered, and the data for the years 1940 – 2010 were raised, thus creating a clear upward trend in temperature over the entire time period, when, in fact, the original, unaltered data actually shows a cooling trend.
Heller also establishes how NOAA “scientists” have likewise reached the same warming trend conclusion. But whereas NASA simply adjusted existing data, NOAA just made them up.
In any given time period, there are a number of weather stations which do not report any data. For these non-reporting stations, NOAA “estimates” the data by using a secret, proprietary algorithm. In 1950, NOAA “estimated” only 5% of the missing stations. By 2015, the number of estimated stations had grown to 48%! It is not difficult for NOAA to plot a trend line supporting its theory if one-half of the data set is self-manufactured.
Neither NOAA or NASA has disputed Tony Heller’s critique, because they can’t. The numbers speak for themselves. Instead, NOAA and NASA have jumped with both feet onto the man-made global warming political band wagon – facts be damned.
So then two obvious questions arise: Why would NOAA and NASA do this, and how do they do it? Let’s first examine why.
As US government agencies, both NOAA and NASA are funded entirely through the annual federal government budget process. My first exposure to this process occurred when I was appointed by President George W. Bush to the position of Administrator (CEO) of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation – a federal government agency. Having spent a lifetime in the private sector, I was well versed in the metrics used by it to measure organizational performance and success: balance sheet, income statement, profit and loss, stock market price, debt to equity ratio, and so forth.
When it came to measuring the performance of a federal government agency, I was in for a surprise. None of these private sector metrics applied. None were even considered relevant. There was only one metric that measured success or failure. That is, did the agency receive the annual appropriations it requested from the House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees.
That was it. No balance sheet, income statement, P&L, or other commonly used financial metric applied. Only one measurement counted – what kind of slice of the taxpayer funded pie did the agency receive annually from Congress.
I learned quickly that this process was fiercely – at time even ruthlessly – competitive. In order to succeed in garnering federal funds, agencies would do anything, be anything, and say anything so as to appear politically attractive to Congress.
This means that every federal agency constantly holds a finger to the political wind. Every successful agency is adept at detecting the slightest shift in the political breeze. It doesn’t matter if the agency is sloppily run, antiquated, or bumbling and stumbling its way through the bureaucracy forest. If it can convince Congress of its political usefulness, then its budget request will be satisfied, and the survival of the agency will be protected.
This leads to the unassailable fact that the work product of every federal agency, including those responsible for collecting climate data, is highly politicized. Every. Single. One. The immutable law of bureaucratic survival demands it.
NASA and NOAA “scientists” are not ideologically neutral researchers living in a vacuum. They do not exist in an ivory tower of data purity. They are bureaucrats, rendering bureaucratic interpretations of climate data, and their opinions are framed by the institutional imperative of obedience to political necessity. Any NOAA or NASA employee who dares to question the prevailing party line would be committing career ending suicide.
This explains why NOAA and NASA fudge climate data. How they do it can be seen by NOAA’s treatment of daily temperature data.
Reading temperature records would appear to be a fairly straightforward process, right? Wrong.
First, the weather stations from which the data is harvested must be chosen. The “outliers” are discarded – so are “duplicates”. Then, as previously explained, data from the non-reporting stations must be “estimated”. But it doesn’t stop there. Next comes the ‘time of day” adjustment. It seems that it makes a difference if the reading was taken in the morning or afternoon.
Then there are adjustments for the urban heat island effect – the fact that the ground around many of the older stations has become developed, paved, or otherwise altered so that heat is trapped, which skews the temperature readings. Then there are adjustments for different “types” of temperature data. To quote NOAA, “some are 175 years old and some are only 1 hour old”. Once again, quoting NOAA, they must be “homogenized” and “synthesized”.
Perhaps this statement from NOAA best captures the extraordinary amount judgmental decision making that surrounds the collection of temperature data: “These data are quality controlled and may not be identical to the original observations.”
There it is. Quality Control. NOAA’s secret sauce, liberally applied to all its temperature observations.
The story of why and how NOAA and NASA manipulate data boils down to this: NOAA and NASA’s climate pronouncements and determinations are not “science” – an objective truth. They are discretionary bureaucratic interpretations of dozens of climate data points designed to support a conclusion that will advance the agency’s funding imperatives.
And that is the truth.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-02--Sheldon Whitehouse’s climate inquisition

Five years ago , I said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-RI ) behaves like Torquemada , using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “ manmade climate crisis ” skeptics , and threatening to prosecute them for racketeering .
Tomas de Torquemada was the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that interrogated , tortured , imprisoned and executed thousands for religious heresy .
The senator took great umbrage , and denounced me in Senate chambers where I once worked .
But he didn ’ t change his ways .
If anything , he has become more intolerant and vindictive .
He recently said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and his colleagues to launch investigations , haul climate realists before committees ( for star-chamber show trials ) , and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate , silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers .
People could certainly conclude that the thin-skinned senator would feel right at home in Inquisition Spain , Stalinist Russia , Red Guard and Xi Jinping China , or book-burning pre-Holocaust fascist Europe .
Their history of silencing dissenters , erasing them from history , and sending them off to gulags and salt mines ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic and governing ideology is classic fascism : an extreme , intolerant system , under which an authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries outright , but does dictate what they can make , do , sell and say – while controlling citizens ’ thoughts , speech and choices – through intimidation , silencing , arrest , prosecution , and fear of being fined , jailed , fired , sent to penal or reeducation colonies , and being beaten or executed .
These tactics are reprehensible and dictatorial .
They are un-American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no progress without dissent , discussion and debate .
It requires not just hypotheses , theories and computer models , but solid , empirical evidence to confirm or disprove hypotheses , models and predictions .
Discussion , debate , dissent and evidence are especially vital in addressing the assertion that humanity faces an unprecedented manmade climate crisis .
That assertion is being used to justify demands that the United States , Europe and developed world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide over 80 % of our energy , petrochemical and pharmaceutical raw materials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is being used to justify demands that we replace this reliable , affordable energy and raw material base with wind , solar , battery and biofuel power .
Not only are these alternatives intermittent , weather-dependent and far more expensive .
They involve extensive mining , land use , wildlife , pollution and other environmental impacts .
They are not renewable , sustainable , environment-friendly or climate-safe .
In the United States alone , we would have to replace some 7.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity and electricity-equivalent fossil fuel use per year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural gas raw materials ; and overhaul our transportation , home heating and other systems .
That would require millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels , billions of 1000-pound battery modules , tens of millions of acres of corn , canola , soybean and other biofuel crops – and tens of trillions of dollars .
Democrat urban population and voter centers will likely oppose those industrial-scale installations in their backyards .
They would have little objection to locating them in what many ruling , media and Hollywood elites imperiously and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – western , Midwestern and southern states .
This “ transformation ” – under the Paris climate treaty , a Green New Deal or a Biden-Harris regulatory program – would massively disrupt America ’ s economy , jobs , living standards , health and wellbeing , especially for poor , minority , blue-collar , fixed-income and flyover country families and communities .
Climate alarmists insist that any lost jobs would be replaced with “ green ” jobs .
But those would be mostly minimum-wage positions : hauling , installing , maintaining , dismantling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and batteries .
Moreover , most of those green technologies would be manufactured overseas , especially in China , because environmentalists battle any mining in the USA , and a climate-focused energy system would provide insufficient reliable , affordable power for factories .
Those huge and unprecedented amounts of mining and manufacturing would require fossil fuels .
So the only thing that would change is where the fossil fuel use and emissions occur .
It would be mostly in Asia and Africa , in countries that are not obligated under the Paris climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions ; countries that will build as many hundreds or thousands of coal and gas-fired power plants as needed to lift their people out of poverty … and make “ green energy ” technologies they will happily sell to America , Australia , Canada and Europe .
That means , even if the US went cold-turkey on fossil fuels , it would make no difference to global GHG emissions or global atmospheric concentrations .
And that means , even if carbon dioxide is the primary factor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern economies would bring no climate benefits .
The EU ’ s and UK ’ s unwavering belief in human-caused climate cataclysms is already hammering its industries , workers and families , as numerous articles attest : here , here , here and here , for instance .
Thankfully , however , it is becoming increasingly clear that assertions of Climate Armageddon have been miscalculated , exaggerated or fabricated .
Average global temperatures are rising far less rapidly than predicted by climate models : by at least a half-degree F. Violent ( F4-F5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number the past 35 years ( 1985-2020 ) versus the previous 35 years ( 1950-1984 ) ; and in 2018 not one F5 tornado touched down in the United States .
For a record twelve years , from Wilma in 2005 until Harvey and Irma in 2017 , no Category 3 to 5 hurricane struck the US mainland .
Overall , there is little or no trend in tropical cyclone activity or intensity .
All that is not surprising in light of new research by Drs .
William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and other greenhouse gases ) in Earth ’ s atmosphere would have minuscule effects on global temperatures and climate ( but would benefit plant growth ) .
Indeed , it is impossible to distinguish human influences from natural factors , fluctuations and cycles regarding temperatures , polar ice , storms and droughts .
Some scientists certainly claim otherwise – and generally just blame humans .
But they have little or no actual , empirical evidence to support their claims , predictions and models .
They simply say the science is settled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so shut up .
With so much at stake for America and the world , this is completely intolerable .
At the very least , those claiming we face a climate calamity must be required to present solid empirical evidence to support their assertions – and engage in in robust , transparent debates with manmade climate change skeptics .
That is precisely what Senator Torquemada seems determined to prevent and punish , while transforming “ the world ’ s greatest deliberative body ” into a Russian Politburo or Chinese National People ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the $ multi-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex .
In that quest he would certainly be aided by the Big Media and Big Tech moguls who share his views on climate change , silencing scientists and evidence that contradicts climate cataclysm catechism , and blacklisting “ climate heretics ” in government , academic and corporate circles .
People have been conditioned to kowtow to government lockdown edicts , to save humanity from Covid .
Climate alarmists assume we will now be sufficiently compliant about banning fossil fuels to “ save the planet , ” when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid .
Or their Torquemadas will make us compliant .
It ’ s time to reject politicized junk science , demand debate , and resist green climate and energy edicts .
Perhaps most of all , the US Senate must assert its Advice and Consent responsibilities on the Paris climate treaty , the most far-reaching international agreement Americans were ever asked to ratify .

Five years ago, I said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) behaves like Torquemada, using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “manmade climate crisis” skeptics, and threatening to prosecute them for racketeering. Tomas de Torquemada was the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that interrogated, tortured, imprisoned and executed thousands for religious heresy.
The senator took great umbrage, and denounced me in Senate chambers where I once worked. But he didn’t change his ways. If anything, he has become more intolerant and vindictive.
He recently said Democrat control of the Senate would enable him and his colleagues to launch investigations, haul climate realists before committees (for star-chamber show trials), and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate, silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers.
People could certainly conclude that the thin-skinned senator would feel right at home in Inquisition Spain, Stalinist Russia, Red Guard and Xi Jinping China, or book-burning pre-Holocaust fascist Europe. Their history of silencing dissenters, erasing them from history, and sending them off to gulags and salt mines (or worse) is legendary. Their economic and governing ideology is classic fascism:
an extreme, intolerant system, under which an authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries outright, but does dictate what they can make, do, sell and say – while controlling citizens’ thoughts, speech and choices – through intimidation, silencing, arrest, prosecution, and fear of being fined, jailed, fired, sent to penal or reeducation colonies, and being beaten or executed.
These tactics are reprehensible and dictatorial. They are un-American and anti-science. Indeed, science achieves no progress without dissent, discussion and debate. It requires not just hypotheses, theories and computer models, but solid, empirical evidence to confirm or disprove hypotheses, models and predictions.
Discussion, debate, dissent and evidence are especially vital in addressing the assertion that humanity faces an unprecedented manmade climate crisis. That assertion is being used to justify demands that the United States, Europe and developed world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide over 80% of our energy, petrochemical and pharmaceutical raw materials, fertilizers and countless other benefits.
It is being used to justify demands that we replace this reliable, affordable energy and raw material base with wind, solar, battery and biofuel power. Not only are these alternatives intermittent, weather-dependent and far more expensive. They involve extensive mining, land use, wildlife, pollution and other environmental impacts. They are not renewable, sustainable, environment-friendly or climate-safe.
In the United States alone, we would have to replace some 7.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity and electricity-equivalent fossil fuel use per year; replace enormous amounts of oil and natural gas raw materials; and overhaul our transportation, home heating and other systems. That would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of 1000-pound battery modules, tens of millions of acres of corn, canola, soybean and other biofuel crops – and tens of trillions of dollars.
Democrat urban population and voter centers will likely oppose those industrial-scale installations in their backyards. They would have little objection to locating them in what many ruling, media and Hollywood elites imperiously and derisively refer to “flyover country” – western, Midwestern and southern states.
This “transformation” – under the Paris climate treaty, a Green New Deal or a Biden-Harris regulatory program – would massively disrupt America’s economy, jobs, living standards, health and wellbeing, especially for poor, minority, blue-collar, fixed-income and flyover country families and communities.
Climate alarmists insist that any lost jobs would be replaced with “green” jobs. But those would be mostly minimum-wage positions: hauling, installing, maintaining, dismantling, removing and landfilling turbines, panels and batteries. Moreover, most of those green technologies would be manufactured overseas, especially in China, because environmentalists battle any mining in the USA, and a climate-focused energy system would provide insufficient reliable, affordable power for factories.
Those huge and unprecedented amounts of mining and manufacturing would require fossil fuels. So the only thing that would change is where the fossil fuel use and emissions occur.
It would be mostly in Asia and Africa, in countries that are not obligated under the Paris climate treaty to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; countries that will build as many hundreds or thousands of coal and gas-fired power plants as needed to lift their people out of poverty … and make “green energy” technologies they will happily sell to America, Australia, Canada and Europe.
That means, even if the US went cold-turkey on fossil fuels, it would make no difference to global GHG emissions or global atmospheric concentrations. And that means, even if carbon dioxide is the primary factor in climate change, destroying US and other modern economies would bring no climate benefits.
The EU’s and UK’s unwavering belief in human-caused climate cataclysms is already hammering its industries, workers and families, as numerous articles attest: here, here, here and here, for instance.
Thankfully, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that assertions of Climate Armageddon have been miscalculated, exaggerated or fabricated. Average global temperatures are rising far less rapidly than predicted by climate models: by at least a half-degree F.
Violent (F4-F5) US tornadoes have actually declined in number the past 35 years (1985-2020) versus the previous 35 years (1950-1984); and in 2018 not one F5 tornado touched down in the United States. For a record twelve years, from Wilma in 2005 until Harvey and Irma in 2017, no Category 3 to 5 hurricane struck the US mainland. Overall, there is little or no trend in tropical cyclone activity or intensity.
All that is not surprising in light of new research by Drs. William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden that strongly indicates even doubling carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in Earth’s atmosphere would have minuscule effects on global temperatures and climate (but would benefit plant growth).
Indeed, it is impossible to distinguish human influences from natural factors, fluctuations and cycles regarding temperatures, polar ice, storms and droughts. Some scientists certainly claim otherwise – and generally just blame humans. But they have little or no actual, empirical evidence to support their claims, predictions and models. They simply say the science is settled, and we must ban fossil fuels, so shut up.
With so much at stake for America and the world, this is completely intolerable. At the very least, those claiming we face a climate calamity must be required to present solid empirical evidence to support their assertions – and engage in in robust, transparent debates with manmade climate change skeptics.
That is precisely what Senator Torquemada seems determined to prevent and punish, while transforming “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into a Russian Politburo or Chinese National People’s Congress – and an integral part of the $multi-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex.
In that quest he would certainly be aided by the Big Media and Big Tech moguls who share his views on climate change, silencing scientists and evidence that contradicts climate cataclysm catechism, and blacklisting “climate heretics” in government, academic and corporate circles.
People have been conditioned to kowtow to government lockdown edicts, to save humanity from Covid. Climate alarmists assume we will now be sufficiently compliant about banning fossil fuels to “save the planet,” when we’re trying to recover from Covid. Or their Torquemadas will make us compliant.
It’s time to reject politicized junk science, demand debate, and resist green climate and energy edicts. Perhaps most of all, the US Senate must assert its Advice and Consent responsibilities on the Paris climate treaty, the most far-reaching international agreement Americans were ever asked to ratify.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-03--Can we keep sea-level fears at bay?

Can we keep sea-level fears at bay?

Rising sea levels in the future are said to be a real challenge to human habitations across the world .
With many of the key cities located in the coasts , the issue has been at the center of the debate surrounding climate change .
But rising sea-level is not a new phenomenon and people have encountered it in different parts of the world .
Surprisingly , there are some modern cities and countries that have mastered adaptation to sea-level rise in their coasts .
One among them is the Netherlands .
The country has a long history of flooding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means of adaptation , the settlers built raised platforms of sediment called terps which allowed them to evade storm surges and survive inland .
But that is not sufficient today as the country ’ s population has increased rapidly in its cities .
A need for flood mitigation infrastructure became essential as 50 % of the country ’ s landscape is below sea level and the other 50 % are barely above sea level .
Also , the modern resistance to sea-level rise had to be very different to primitive methods like constructing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dutch took advantage of one of the fruits of modern industrial technology , namely steel .
To protect the city of Rotterdam and other low-lying areas of Netherlands , the Dutch built the world ’ s biggest storm surge barrier , the Maeslantkering .
Sitting at 22 meters high , the steel barrier closes when storm surges occur in the sea , protecting vast landscapes in the country that are below sea-level that are highly sensitive to even storm surges of 3 meter .
Dykes , dams , floating farms , rooftop gardens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the other flood mitigation and adaptation interventions that cities like Rotterdam are beginning to implement .
These strategies will prove their worth in gold when implemented in regions of the world that are facing similar threats from sea-level rise .
It is also important for countries to be realistic in their evaluation of threats from sea-level rise , as the impact tend to vary in different geographical areas .
Sea-level interaction with coastal region is dependent on factors other than just the global sea-level rise .
The absence or presence of vertical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the coastal region determine the magnitude of impact that sea-level rise can have on it .
This is why some regions like the Netherlands face constant threats ( where landmass keeps sinking ) , some and others Islands despite increase in sea level .
The rate of sea-level rise is also an important factor to be considered when preparing for flood mitigation in coastal regions .
According to the United Nations , there was a sea-level rise of 1.7 millimeters per year between 1900 and 2014 .
Further , studies that focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the sea-level rise during the period 1958–2014 was only around 1.3–1.5 millimeters per year .
This effectively means that the rapid rise in 20th century atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and the subsequent have failed to cause a catastrophic increase in sea-level rise .
Instead of pegging our hopes on unverified future sea-level rise , we must estimate localized threats in different regions of the world and invest in flood infrastructure that can help cities and coastal regions to adapt and mitigate even when sea level rises above the 1.7-millimeter mark annually ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sea-level threats , especially those that are said to be from climate change , and our responses to that , should always be inclusive of the available adaptation techniques .
The Dutch could have abandoned their coasts , but they did not .
For centuries , settlers in the Netherlands have shown that it is possible to thrive despite constant storm surges .
In the 21st century , the country took its adaption strategy a step higher and become a pioneer in mitigating sea-level threats using modern infrastructure like the Maeslantkering .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ where half of the country is sinking below sea-level , can come up with solutions to mitigate flooding , there is no reason to believe that such interventions are not possible in other key coastal cities across the globe .
With a strong political will and well-informed investment in infrastructure , communities across the world will be able to adapt and mitigate to sea-level rise without fear .

Rising sea levels in the future are said to be a real challenge to human habitations across the world. With many of the key cities located in the coasts, the issue has been at the center of the debate surrounding climate change.
But rising sea-level is not a new phenomenon and people have encountered it in different parts of the world. Surprisingly, there are some modern cities and countries that have mastered adaptation to sea-level rise in their coasts. One among them is the Netherlands.
The country has a long history of flooding. In the past, as a means of adaptation, the settlers built raised platforms of sediment called terps which allowed them to evade storm surges and survive inland.
But that is not sufficient today as the country’s population has increased rapidly in its cities. A need for flood mitigation infrastructure became essential as 50% of the country’s landscape is below sea level and the other 50% are barely above sea level. Also, the modern resistance to sea-level rise had to be very different to primitive methods like constructing terps.
In the 1990s, The Dutch took advantage of one of the fruits of modern industrial technology, namely steel. To protect the city of Rotterdam and other low-lying areas of Netherlands, the Dutch built the world’s biggest storm surge barrier, the Maeslantkering. Sitting at 22 meters high, the steel barrier closes when storm surges occur in the sea, protecting vast landscapes in the country that are below sea-level that are highly sensitive to even storm surges of 3 meter.
Dykes, dams, floating farms, rooftop gardens, and water storage facilities are some of the other flood mitigation and adaptation interventions that cities like Rotterdam are beginning to implement. These strategies will prove their worth in gold when implemented in regions of the world that are facing similar threats from sea-level rise.
Combating Sea-Level Rise Requires More than Infrastructure
It is also important for countries to be realistic in their evaluation of threats from sea-level rise, as the impact tend to vary in different geographical areas. Sea-level interaction with coastal region is dependent on factors other than just the global sea-level rise.
The absence or presence of vertical crustal motion and the accretion of sediments in the coastal region determine the magnitude of impact that sea-level rise can have on it. This is why some regions like the Netherlands face constant threats (where landmass keeps sinking), some Islands remain stable and others Islands even increase in size despite increase in sea level.
The rate of sea-level rise is also an important factor to be considered when preparing for flood mitigation in coastal regions. According to the United Nations , there was a sea-level rise of 1.7 millimeters per year between 1900 and 2014.
Further, studies that focused on the more recent time period discovered that the sea-level rise during the period 1958–2014 was only around 1.3–1.5 millimeters per year. This effectively means that the rapid rise in 20th century atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and the subsequent melting of ice mass have failed to cause a catastrophic increase in sea-level rise.
Instead of pegging our hopes on unverified future sea-level rise, we must estimate localized threats in different regions of the world and invest in flood infrastructure that can help cities and coastal regions to adapt and mitigate even when sea level rises above the 1.7-millimeter mark annually (the 114-year global average).
Evaluation of Sea-level threats, especially those that are said to be from climate change, and our responses to that, should always be inclusive of the available adaptation techniques.
The Dutch could have abandoned their coasts, but they did not. For centuries, settlers in the Netherlands have shown that it is possible to thrive despite constant storm surges. In the 21st century, the country took its adaption strategy a step higher and become a pioneer in mitigating sea-level threats using modern infrastructure like the Maeslantkering.
When a country like the Netherlands, where half of the country is sinking below sea-level, can come up with solutions to mitigate flooding, there is no reason to believe that such interventions are not possible in other key coastal cities across the globe. With a strong political will and well-informed investment in infrastructure, communities across the world will be able to adapt and mitigate to sea-level rise without fear.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-03--SpaceX Starship test flight cleared for launch

SpaceX is poised for another historic launch .
The Starship vehicle , designed to transport humans to the Moon and @ @ @ @ @ in Boca Chica , Texas .
The launch is scheduled for this

SpaceX is poised for another historic launch. The Starship vehicle, designed to transport humans to the Moon and Mars is cleared for launch in Boca Chica, Texas.
The launch is scheduled for this Friday, Saturday or Sunday December 4-6.
UPDATE: Now Scheduled for Monday, December 7th.
Watch Elon Musk’s update on Starship a year ago (above)
More on Starship


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-03--Dr. Walter Williams, R.I.P.

Dr. Walter Williams, R.I.P.

CFACT mourns the loss of economist Dr. Walter Williams who passed away this week .
Dr. Williams was a wise and tireless advocate for freedom .
I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Williams once after I gave a presentation in Washington .
He was a delightful man .
He has on a number of occasions mentioned CFACT ’ s work in his nationally-syndicated columns , most recently citing the work of Paul Driessen in a column this past March .
CFACT ’ s Marc Morano was a former student of Dr. Williams at George Mason University ( he got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoughts at Climate Depot and CFACT.org .
Dr. Williams was the author of The State Against Blacks and America : A Minority Viewpoint , which became a PBS documentary .
Here ’ s a tiny sample of what this great man had to say : • Liberty is the rare state of affairs in mankind ’ s history , arbitrary abuse and control by others is the standard dish even now .
All the tendencies are for us to have greater and greater amounts of our liberty usurped by government .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what slavery couldn ’ t do , what Jim Crow couldn ’ t do , what the harshest racism couldn ’ t do , and that is to destroy the black family .
• Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as “ The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile … Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.
” These and many other statements , along with apocalyptic predictions , are stock in trade for environmentalists .
Worse yet , this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez .
• Prior to capitalism , the way people amassed great wealth was by looting , plundering and enslaving their fellow man .
Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man .
• Despite the miracles of capitalism , it doesn ’ t do well in popularity polls .
One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism .
Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias .
But for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its warts , is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires .

CFACT mourns the loss of economist Dr. Walter Williams who passed away this week. Dr. Williams was a wise and tireless advocate for freedom.
I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Williams once after I gave a presentation in Washington. He was a delightful man. He has on a number of occasions mentioned CFACT’s work in his nationally-syndicated columns, most recently citing the work of Paul Driessen in a column this past March.
CFACT’s Marc Morano was a former student of Dr. Williams at George Mason University (he got a C). Marc posted detailed thoughts at Climate Depot and CFACT.org.
Dr. Williams was the author of The State Against Blacks and America: A Minority Viewpoint, which became a PBS documentary.
Here’s a tiny sample of what this great man had to say:
Liberty is the rare state of affairs in mankind’s history, arbitrary abuse and control by others is the standard dish even now. All the tendencies are for us to have greater and greater amounts of our liberty usurped by government.
The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do, and that is to destroy the black family.
Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as “The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile … Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.” These and many other statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmentalists. Worse yet, this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation’s youth from kindergarten through college. That’s why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.
Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn’t do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.
Freedom lifts up all people.
So did Dr. Walter Williams.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-03--A no fault solution to climate fear that won’t devastate the economy like the Green New Deal

This is excerpted ( and added on to ) from my book , The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War .
By nature I am a happy warrior on that loves to be challenged .
In fact Dr Jay Lehr thinks I am too nice .
I am also someone who believes and is grateful to a mighty and merciful heavenly father , and because of that , and what I was taught , I am compassionate and want to help people .
So unlike a lot of other climate change books , I delve into the spiritual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be yours ) but also in this chapter , offer what I believe is an environmentally and economically sound solution that will not cripple the economic lifeline of this nation and take money away from where it should be directed , in helping the least fortunate among us now .
The real battleground is being obscured by the smoke of the man made climate-change agenda .
There are people on both sides of the debate who are truly invested .
But if there was any kind of even playing field , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate skeptics .
They are numerous , but they are also isolated , demonized , and destroyed .
They get branded .
The dismissal of people whose PhDs required just as much knowledge as did the doctorates obtained by their peers with opposing viewpoints should instantly make any objective person dig deeper .
The constant bombardment of young minds with the idea they don ’ t have a future is something that can ’ t be overcome .
Your intentions may be noble , but the horse is out of the barn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this issue .
That voting bloc will be crucial in coming elections — enough to tip the scale .
If that happens , it allows socialism to carry the day , and Ronald Reagan ’ s warning that we can lose our freedoms in one generation will have been proven true .
The solution ?
Make this the issue of those wishing to advance prosperity and freedom .
Present a plan that won ’ t crash the economy .
Find people of good will on both sides of the political spectrum that want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will enhance the future of that voter bloc that fears this and capture its imagination .
Let them know we aren ’ t some exclusionary greedy machine but one that truly loves our neighbors and wants the best for them .
Explain the humility that comes from understanding the challenges we face.. Take CO2 off the table by implementing the following three-pronged plan I call the Real Green Deal .
• Plant trees .
In fact , create a global Marshall Plan to expand warm-season foliage .
Studies show that planting enough trees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada — would take care of the CO2 increase , no matter the cause .
The U.S. could take the lead .
It would instantly get the attention of people who think we are only about bulldozing and burning trees .
It would be far less costly than a $ 10 trillion ( or more ) Green New Deal that ’ s nothing more than a smoke screen for the redistribution of wealth .
What ’ s the other side going to do — be against planting trees ?
That response would expose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Embrace nuclear power .
It ’ s time we shake off the China Syndrome hangover in this country .
This is the 21st century , and we are the United States .
We can build safe nuclear power plants , and we can figure out a way to get rid of nuclear waste .
This is something even James Hansen — one of the prime drivers of the man-made global-warming narrative — agrees with .
It ’ s a CO2-neutral way of generating power .
• Implement carbon capture .
This would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 into the air but also protect jobs in the oil and coal fields while opening up an opportunity for more jobs .
This would have the added benefit of safeguarding fossil fuels — the most efficient source of energy we have .
Item No .
4 is the string that ties the package .
I ’ m involved with a group that has put together a brilliant economic plan that would not only prevent shutting down our economic lifeline but would put the choice into the hands of the consumer .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as importantly , puts you , the consumer , first .
It gives you a choice in how to handle this matter .
CO2 is being used as a tactical weapon that ’ s not only armed to the teeth but has created a phony war .
What ’ s the best way to counter that ?
Take the issue out of the protagonists ’ hands with ideas that will make CO2 a moot point .
If we develop a perfect balance between CO2 emitted and CO2 done away with , yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then humans can ’ t be at fault .
Either way , the issue is off the table .
Now let me explain to those that think somehow I am going “ soft ” or to “ warm and fuzzy ” .
I am not saying I am wrong , I am saying a lot of people fear this , and I do not want my neighbor to live in fear .
I will use an example of my daughter Jessie .
When she was 3 years old , already in love with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Nut Crackers .
But what she wanted was a life size Barbie .
So for her birthday , which was about 3 weeks before Christmas , we got her that Barbie .
Well about a week later she comes into our room , crying , saying the Barbie was staring at her and telling the Nutcrackers to attack her when she fell asleep .
So out of this great gift , the Barbie , an irrational fear developed , I did not believe that Barbie was leading a Nut Cracker Army .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a parent to do ?
Do I go in an destroy the room , smashing all the nutcrackers ?
Or do I simply remove the Barbie ?
I removed the Barbie .
Whether I believe co2 is the climate control knob or not is not the issue anymore in my opinion .
Sure , many purist on both sides want to continue to argue that , but the fact is a lot of people no matter what the reason BELIEVE co2 is going to destroy the planet .
I have spent much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , but a lot of people are not going to listen to that .
So what do we do ?
Do we destroy the entire system that makes life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness even possible ?
No .
Simply remove the problem .
The above ideas do just that and don ’ t burn the entire room , Nutcrackers and all !
I often look at the democrats and wonder , who among them has the guts to step up and actually look at this .
Afterall Reagan was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( perhaps the reason both were demonized so much was because people felt betrayed , but both were really torn apart by the press at the time , so this person would have to face that risk ) I look at Joe Manchin of West Virginia and he is the closest natural evolution of the party I was a part of till 1982 ( democrats ) .
He is from a state that knows full well the value of fossil fuels .
Shirley Capito just won with 70 % of the vote !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win re-election as a democrat , even if he stands against his party on the Green New Deal ( good luck with that ) .
But I would love to get in front of him with this idea for instance , or any other person that is actually concerned about reducing this fear , It is actually a no fault solution that won ’ t crash the economy .
As a political consideration beyond , it would make Joe Manchin look pretty good on a national level as a republican that came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fault solution to the climate change fear that as talked about earlier in the book , is going to use Covid as a model to dictate and control social behavior .
H.L .
Mencken ’ s words continue to ring louder than ever .
“ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ( and hence clamorous to be led to safety ) by an endless series of hobgoblins , most of them imaginary.
” Covid , Climate change , you name it , Mencken a democrat btw , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important that freedom-loving people develop a bold idea to capture this crucial set of voters and to alleviate their fears .
.
You aren ’ t going to convince them with scientific arguments since most of them have been told all their lives this is a threat and really don ’ t have the time and/or inclination to look into the counterevidence that our schools , media , socialites , and politicians have bottled up .
Instead , prove that its people that really want to find a solution — not the side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the humility to say we ’ re concerned and want to provide options .
We want to put forward true solutions and don ’ t care except to advance the freedoms that have made this country the envy of the world .
We can de-weaponize the issue and the result will be a positive one .
The opposite is true if we capitulate to zealots .
Any solution to any problem should have to answer this question : Does it do harm to life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does no harm and , in my opinion , builds on America ’ s foundation .

This is excerpted ( and added on to) from my book, The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War. By nature I am a happy warrior on that loves to be challenged. In fact Dr Jay Lehr thinks I am too nice. I am also someone who believes and is grateful to a mighty and merciful heavenly father, and because of that, and what I was taught, I am compassionate and want to help people. So unlike a lot of other climate change books, I delve into the spiritual aspect of this in my eyes ( may not be yours) but also in this chapter, offer what I believe is an environmentally and economically sound solution that will not cripple the economic lifeline of this nation and take money away from where it should be directed, in helping the least fortunate among us now.
The real battleground is being obscured by the smoke of the man made climate-change agenda. There are people on both sides of the debate who are truly invested. But if there was any kind of even playing field, you would know the names of prominent climate skeptics. They are numerous, but they are also isolated, demonized, and destroyed. They get branded. The dismissal of people whose PhDs required just as much knowledge as did the doctorates obtained by their peers with opposing viewpoints should instantly make any objective person dig deeper.
The constant bombardment of young minds with the idea they don’t have a future is something that can’t be overcome. Your intentions may be noble, but the horse is out of the barn. The man made climate change agenda owns this issue. That voting bloc will be crucial in coming elections — enough to tip the scale. If that happens, it allows socialism to carry the day, and Ronald Reagan’s warning that we can lose our freedoms in one generation will have been proven true.
The solution? Make this the issue of those wishing to advance prosperity and freedom. Present a plan that won’t crash the economy. Find people of good will on both sides of the political spectrum that want that answer. Put forward ideas that will enhance the future of that voter bloc that fears this and capture its imagination. Let them know we aren’t some exclusionary greedy machine but one that truly loves our neighbors and wants the best for them. Explain the humility that comes from understanding the challenges we face.. Take CO2 off the table by implementing the following three-pronged plan I call the Real Green Deal.
Plant trees. In fact, create a global Marshall Plan to expand warm-season foliage. Studies show that planting enough trees around the globe — enough to fill Canada — would take care of the CO2 increase, no matter the cause. The U.S. could take the lead. It would instantly get the attention of people who think we are only about bulldozing and burning trees. It would be far less costly than a $10 trillion (or more) Green New Deal that’s nothing more than a smoke screen for the redistribution of wealth. What’s the other side going to do — be against planting trees? That response would expose these extremists for what they are.
Embrace nuclear power. It’s time we shake off the China Syndrome hangover in this country. This is the 21st century, and we are the United States. We can build safe nuclear power plants, and we can figure out a way to get rid of nuclear waste. This is something even James Hansen — one of the prime drivers of the man-made global-warming narrative — agrees with. It’s a CO2-neutral way of generating power.
Implement carbon capture. This would not only significantly reduce the release of CO2 into the air but also protect jobs in the oil and coal fields while opening up an opportunity for more jobs. This would have the added benefit of safeguarding fossil fuels — the most efficient source of energy we have.
Item No. 4 is the string that ties the package. I’m involved with a group that has put together a brilliant economic plan that would not only prevent shutting down our economic lifeline but would put the choice into the hands of the consumer. But the plan puts America first and, just as importantly, puts you, the consumer, first. It gives you a choice in how to handle this matter.
CO2 is being used as a tactical weapon that’s not only armed to the teeth but has created a phony war. What’s the best way to counter that? Take the issue out of the protagonists’ hands with ideas that will make CO2 a moot point. If we develop a perfect balance between CO2 emitted and CO2 done away with, yet the cumulative number is still climbing, then humans can’t be at fault. Either way, the issue is off the table.
Now let me explain to those that think somehow I am going “soft” or to “warm and fuzzy”. I am not saying I am wrong, I am saying a lot of people fear this, and I do not want my neighbor to live in fear. I will use an example of my daughter Jessie. When she was 3 years old, already in love with Christmas, she had a virtual army of Nut Crackers. But what she wanted was a life size Barbie. So for her birthday, which was about 3 weeks before Christmas, we got her that Barbie. Well about a week later she comes into our room, crying, saying the Barbie was staring at her and telling the Nutcrackers to attack her when she fell asleep.
So out of this great gift, the Barbie, an irrational fear developed, I did not believe that Barbie was leading a Nut Cracker Army. But my daughter did
Now what is a parent to do? Do I go in an destroy the room, smashing all the nutcrackers? Or do I simply remove the Barbie? I removed the Barbie.
Whether I believe co2 is the climate control knob or not is not the issue anymore in my opinion. Sure ,many purist on both sides want to continue to argue that, but the fact is a lot of people no matter what the reason BELIEVE co2 is going to destroy the planet. I have spent much of this book showing that is not the case, but a lot of people are not going to listen to that. So what do we do? Do we destroy the entire system that makes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness even possible? No. Simply remove the problem. The above ideas do just that and don’t burn the entire room, Nutcrackers and all!
I often look at the democrats and wonder, who among them has the guts to step up and actually look at this. Afterall Reagan was a democrat. Trump was a democrat ( perhaps the reason both were demonized so much was because people felt betrayed, but both were really torn apart by the press at the time, so this person would have to face that risk) I look at Joe Manchin of West Virginia and he is the closest natural evolution of the party I was a part of till 1982 ( democrats). He is from a state that knows full well the value of fossil fuels. Shirley Capito just won with 70% of the vote! It will be very tough for him to win re-election as a democrat, even if he stands against his party on the Green New Deal ( good luck with that) . But I would love to get in front of him with this idea for instance, or any other person that is actually concerned about reducing this fear, It is actually a no fault solution that won’t crash the economy.
As a political consideration beyond, it would make Joe Manchin look pretty good on a national level as a republican that came from the left and found a no fault solution to the climate change fear that as talked about earlier in the book, is going to use Covid as a model to dictate and control social behavior.
H.L. Mencken’s words continue to ring louder than ever.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
Covid, Climate change, you name it, Mencken a democrat btw, nailed it.
It’s very important that freedom-loving people develop a bold idea to capture this crucial set of voters and to alleviate their fears. . You aren’t going to convince them with scientific arguments since most of them have been told all their lives this is a threat and really don’t have the time and/or inclination to look into the counterevidence that our schools, media, socialites, and politicians have bottled up. Instead, prove that its people that really want to find a solution — not the side jamming rhetoric down our throats — that has the humility to say we’re concerned and want to provide options. We want to put forward true solutions and don’t care except to advance the freedoms that have made this country the envy of the world.
We can de-weaponize the issue and the result will be a positive one. The opposite is true if we capitulate to zealots.
Any solution to any problem should have to answer this question: Does it do harm to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The plan outlined in this chapter does no harm and, in my opinion, builds on America’s foundation.