committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-14--Eco-anxiety: A dangerous and unscientific doomsday construct

“ Eco-anxiety ” is now a popular term .
It is being increasingly used in the media to describe an anxiety condition resulting from the fears about the coming environmental destruction .
Climate Xchange for example , defines Eco-anxiety as a “ feeling of stress , grief , helplessness , and fear of uncertainty associated with the grim outlook for our climatic and ecological systems if business continues as usual.
” The American Psychological Association Eco-anxiety as “ a chronic fear of environmental doom.
” In essence , it is a psychological condition wherein people are anxious about earth ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to burning of fossil fuels .
The mainstream media has been harping around the idea of eco-anxiety for quite sometime now .
Interestingly , it has been associated more with the climate fears of the school-going generation .
The coverage of the student climate strike movement and dramatic speeches by celebrity child activists like Greta Thunberg has only added momentum to the eco-anxiety phenomenon among the younger generations .
of 2000 children in the UK found out that 58 percent of them were worried about the impact of climate change on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 5 of those children had nightmares about climate change .
The root of the eco-anxiety condition is the belief that the climate system is doomed because of anthropogenic global warming , a belief which depends entirely on predictions about the future state of climate .
But how much of these supposedly trustworthy predictions are actually trustworthy ?
Can eco-anxiety be justified and promoted on the basis of the available evidence ?
Greenhouse Gases : Earth ’ s Temperature Control Knob , or Are they ?
Among the various Greenhouse Gases ( GHG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dioxide ( CO2 ) is one of the key gases .
Climate doomsayers believe that CO2 emission from anthropogenic energy sources are driving temperatures to dangerous levels and are likely to cause global catastrophe if CO2 emissions are not reduced .
However , this popular belief has failed to stand the test of time .
While it is true that human GHG emissions do impact atmospheric temperatures , the extent to which they do is still unclear to scientists .
The world ’ s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose rapidly between 2000 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Average Temperatures ( GAT ) did not follow the same rapid pattern .
Instead , satellite temperature measurement show that GAT has remained largely stable since the year 2000 , increasing at a rate that is much slower than the warming rate displayed between 1979 to 2000 .
What Do We Know About Climate Predictions The discrepancies between CO2 concentrations and the anticipated warming rates led scientists to admit that their computer climate models are faulty and incapable of reflecting real world temperature changes .
The models were originally designed to be highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 concentrations , and therefore consistently predicted higher than actual temperatures .
Scientists term this as “ hypersensitivity ” of models to CO2 .
The faulty nature of computer climate models ( and their hypersensitivity ) were testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science , Space & Technology in 2017 .
2020 revealed that these models exaggerate the warming rate by 4 to 5 times higher than the actual observations ( 1998 to 2014 ) .
Some models show a warming rate that is as much as 10 times higher than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very same models that the alarmists and mainstream media use to scare us about the future warming .
In fact , the model predictions are the primary justification used for the climate doomsday theory .
Unfortunately , the models have not been corrected for their errors in the past decade , and remain highly faulty .
Even the next generation of climate models—known as CMIP6—are highly inaccurate with their prediction , exaggerating the warming rate similar to levels of their predecessor models .
Though central to the climate doomsday movement , temperature has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the alarmists want us to be anxious about .
Their scare-mongering has been centered around other factors that are influenced by climate .
But sadly , they too do not stand a chance against ground reality .
Melting Poles : It is often said that the on-going global warming is melting the Arctic and Antarctic at unprecedented rates .
But the truth is that the ice extent at both the poles are currently at some of the highest levels for the 10,000-year period .
Besides , multiple claims about Arctic being ice-free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake news peddlers continue to deceive the masses .
Dying Polar Bears : When it comes to the emotional claims about the extinction of various species , it is again evident that illegal hunting and encroachment have been responsible for the decrease in population numbers , and not climate change or seasonal variations .
Through conservation efforts , various popular species like Tiger and Polar bear have made a comeback in the wild .
Extreme Weather Events : Contrary to media lies , there has been no significant increase in extreme weather events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nations—considered to be the chief authority on climate change—says that there is no significant correlation between temperature increase and extreme weather events .
Almost all the major scare-mongering about the climate and the ecosystem are false .
If anything , the world has become a better place in the past 100 years , with unprecedented improvement in energy , agriculture , technology and management practices which has enabled us to efficiently utilize the natural resources for the benefit of society .
The notion that we are in a climate emergency or that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely unscientific and amateurish .
Unfortunately , it has resulted in mass hysteria about climate , plunging millions of children and uninformed adults into an anxiety conditions that could have been averted .

“Eco-anxiety” is now a popular term. It is being increasingly used in the media to describe an anxiety condition resulting from the fears about the coming environmental destruction.
Climate Xchange for example, defines Eco-anxiety as a “feeling of stress, grief, helplessness, and fear of uncertainty associated with the grim outlook for our climatic and ecological systems if business continues as usual.” The American Psychological Association defines Eco-anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom.”
In essence, it is a psychological condition wherein people are anxious about earth’s future and the changes in climate due to burning of fossil fuels. The mainstream media has been harping around the idea of eco-anxiety for quite sometime now. Interestingly, it has been associated more with the climate fears of the school-going generation.
The coverage of the student climate strike movement and dramatic speeches by celebrity child activists like Greta Thunberg has only added momentum to the eco-anxiety phenomenon among the younger generations.
A survey of 2000 children in the UK found out that 58 percent of them were worried about the impact of climate change on their lives. It also revealed that 1 in 5 of those children had nightmares about climate change.
The root of the eco-anxiety condition is the belief that the climate system is doomed because of anthropogenic global warming, a belief which depends entirely on predictions about the future state of climate.
But how much of these supposedly trustworthy predictions are actually trustworthy? Can eco-anxiety be justified and promoted on the basis of the available evidence?
Greenhouse Gases: Earth’s Temperature Control Knob, or Are they?
Among the various Greenhouse Gases (GHG) blamed for climate change, carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the key gases. Climate doomsayers believe that CO2 emission from anthropogenic energy sources are driving temperatures to dangerous levels and are likely to cause global catastrophe if CO2 emissions are not reduced.
However, this popular belief has failed to stand the test of time. While it is true that human GHG emissions do impact atmospheric temperatures, the extent to which they do is still unclear to scientists.
The world’s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose rapidly between 2000 and 2019. But the change in Global Average Temperatures (GAT) did not follow the same rapid pattern. Instead, satellite temperature measurement show that GAT has remained largely stable since the year 2000, increasing at a rate that is much slower than the warming rate displayed between 1979 to 2000.
What Do We Know About Climate Predictions
The discrepancies between CO2 concentrations and the anticipated warming rates led scientists to admit that their computer climate models are faulty and incapable of reflecting real world temperature changes.
The models were originally designed to be highly sensitive to the increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and therefore consistently predicted higher than actual temperatures. Scientists term this as “hypersensitivity” of models to CO2.
The faulty nature of computer climate models (and their hypersensitivity) were testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology in 2017. More recent analysis in 2020 revealed that these models exaggerate the warming rate by 4 to 5 times higher than the actual observations (1998 to 2014). Some models show a warming rate that is as much as 10 times higher than the actual warming rate.
These are the very same models that the alarmists and mainstream media use to scare us about the future warming. In fact, the model predictions are the primary justification used for the climate doomsday theory.
Unfortunately, the models have not been corrected for their errors in the past decade, and remain highly faulty. Even the next generation of climate models—known as CMIP6—are highly inaccurate with their prediction, exaggerating the warming rate similar to levels of their predecessor models.
Other False Fears about Climate
Though central to the climate doomsday movement, temperature has been just one of the many issues that the alarmists want us to be anxious about. Their scare-mongering has been centered around other factors that are influenced by climate. But sadly, they too do not stand a chance against ground reality.
Melting Poles: It is often said that the on-going global warming is melting the Arctic and Antarctic at unprecedented rates. But the truth is that the ice extent at both the poles are currently at some of the highest levels for the 10,000-year period. Besides, multiple claims about Arctic being ice-free did not come to pass and the fake news peddlers continue to deceive the masses.
Dying Polar Bears: When it comes to the emotional claims about the extinction of various species, it is again evident that illegal hunting and encroachment have been responsible for the decrease in population numbers, and not climate change or seasonal variations. Through conservation efforts, various popular species like Tiger and Polar bear have made a comeback in the wild.
Extreme Weather Events: Contrary to media lies, there has been no significant increase in extreme weather events owing to climate change. The United Nations—considered to be the chief authority on climate change—says that there is no significant correlation between temperature increase and extreme weather events.
Almost all the major scare-mongering about the climate and the ecosystem are false. If anything, the world has become a better place in the past 100 years, with unprecedented improvement in energy, agriculture, technology and management practices which has enabled us to efficiently utilize the natural resources for the benefit of society.
The notion that we are in a climate emergency or that we are headed towards a climate doomsday is completely unscientific and amateurish. Unfortunately, it has resulted in mass hysteria about climate, plunging millions of children and uninformed adults into an anxiety conditions that could have been averted.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-14--A classic cherry picking example

A classic cherry picking example

I can ’ t resist !
This simply must be said .
I never attack someone personally , but I will argue with ideas .
When it comes to people on the other side of the climate issues , there are a lot of them that just walk into easily countered traps .
I can ’ t figure it out .
Do they not know if they are going to say something , almost always there is a counter argument ?
Or do they , but figure no one will call them on it .
Quite frankly and off this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annihilated Joe Biden on climate .
Especially since he made the arsonist in chief comment , when 5 times the amount of acreage was burning in the 1930s when FDR was president .
So what was he ?
( Interestingly enough like FDR apparently Joe Biden may want to pack the supreme court , which he referred to once as a bonehead idea .
And his comment about arsonist in chief was also ) .
The President IMO should have been waiting to unload with Mike Pence also having had aN opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about getting into some science argument , but just a few choice examples with the caveat that there are many more , that would just stop them dead in their tracks .
Can you imagine Joe Biden trying to explain why South Florida was hit with close to 10 major hurricanes in the 1940s , yet this “ most active time ever , only 4 majors hit the US this decade ?
Just a sample .
But the fact is , be it Joe Biden or whoever or whatever , they largely have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So a happy , though shrinking band of skeptics see all these things , and marvel at how they simply go unchallenged .
But this is a prime example .
Now if not for people that send me this stuff constantly , I would see it , I am far too busy with what I do , which is forecast to go searching for twitter wars to get into ..
I don ’ t follow a lot of the people on the other side and if you get real smart ones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their tweets .
But this got waved in front me and like the Raging Weatherbull I am on Weatherbell.com premium ( video ) I have to bring it up .
Okay so we have this statement .
Not a single major station in the U.S. was below normal during the last 5-day period .
None .
Nada .
Zip .
Sad .
And that is what happened , so , fair enough .
( Though since I am getting so old , I like it warmer so its not sad to me ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That point can not be argued .
It was warm all over and yet this is what I am talking about when it comes to either not looking , or looking and simply ignoring to push an agenda .
Look at the 6 days before .
Look at what is coming : So when its all balanced out , ITS LIKELY TO BE BELOW NORMAL .
In fact , even with all that warmth , the month has been cool over the east !
And with what I see coming the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 days after the period you see above ) , methinks a lot more people are going to be remembering the month from the plains east for the cold that showed up .
And if they do remember the warmth , yes it may be sad , but because it did not hang on long enough .
I don ’ t know about you , but I enjoy warm tranquil fall days .
Likely not to be the case much of the rest of the month .

I can’t resist! This simply must be said.
I never attack someone personally, but I will argue with ideas. When it comes to people on the other side of the climate issues, there are a lot of them that just walk into easily countered traps. I can’t figure it out. Do they not know if they are going to say something, almost always there is a counter argument? Or do they, but figure no one will call them on it.
Quite frankly and off this matter, the President could have absolutely annihilated Joe Biden on climate. Especially since he made the arsonist in chief comment, when 5 times the amount of acreage was burning in the 1930s when FDR was president. So what was he? (Interestingly enough like FDR apparently Joe Biden may want to pack the supreme court, which he referred to once as a bonehead idea. And his comment about arsonist in chief was also).
The President IMO should have been waiting to unload with Mike Pence also having had aN opportunity to do so. I am not talking about getting into some science argument, but just a few choice examples with the caveat that there are many more, that would just stop them dead in their tracks. Can you imagine Joe Biden trying to explain why South Florida was hit with close to 10 major hurricanes in the 1940s, yet this “most active time ever, only 4 majors hit the US this decade? Just a sample. But the fact is, be it Joe Biden or whoever or whatever, they largely have an unchallenged playing field on this matter. So a happy, though shrinking band of skeptics see all these things, and marvel at how they simply go unchallenged.
But this is a prime example. Now if not for people that send me this stuff constantly, I would see it, I am far too busy with what I do, which is forecast to go searching for twitter wars to get into .. I don’t follow a lot of the people on the other side and if you get real smart ones, I simply read their work rather than their tweets. But this got waved in front me and like the Raging Weatherbull I am on Weatherbell.com premium (video) I have to bring it up.
Okay so we have this statement.
Not a single major station in the U.S. was below normal during the last 5-day period. None. Nada. Zip. Sad.
And that is what happened, so, fair enough. (Though since I am getting so old, I like it warmer so its not sad to me) No name given just the example.
That point can not be argued. It was warm all over and yet this is what I am talking about when it comes to either not looking, or looking and simply ignoring to push an agenda. Look at the 6 days before.
Look at what is coming:
So when its all balanced out, ITS LIKELY TO BE BELOW NORMAL. In fact, even with all that warmth, the month has been cool over the east!
And with what I see coming the rest of the month(current forecast for the 10 days after the period you see above),
methinks a lot more people are going to be remembering the month from the plains east for the cold that showed up. And if they do remember the warmth, yes it may be sad, but because it did not hang on long enough. I don’t know about you, but I enjoy warm tranquil fall days. Likely not to be the case much of the rest of the month.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-13--EP 112: Problems with CO Prop 114, Forced Wolf Reintroduction

In Episode 112 of District of Conservation , Gabriella spoke with Mia Anstine—a hunting guide , writer , podcast host @ @ @ @ @ , commentator , and firearms , archery , hunter-ed instructor .

Gabriella Hoffman is a Media Strategist and Award-Winning Outdoor Writer. She hosts the "District of Conservation" podcast and CFACT's original YouTube series "Conservation Nation." Learn more about her work at www.gabriellahoffman.com


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-15--EIA predicts energy recovery from Covid

EIA predicts energy recovery from Covid

The US Energy Information Administration ’ s latest “ Short-Term Energy Outlook “ includes a wealth of data for the last few years presented in graphic form , often including predictions for the next year or so .
The impact of Covid is clear , with reduced energy use in 2020 .
EIA says 2021 is looking much better .
Here is their basic finding : “ The October Short-Term Energy Outlook ( STEO ) remains subject to heightened levels of uncertainty because mitigation and reopening efforts related to COVID-19 continue to evolve .
Reduced economic activity related to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand and supply patterns in 2020 and will continue to affect these patterns in the future .
This STEO assumes U.S. gross domestic product ( GDP ) declined by 4.4 % in the first half of 2020 from the same period a year ago .
It assumes that GDP will rise beginning in the third quarter of 2020 , and will grow 3.5 % year-over-year in 2021.
” Coal took the biggest hit , but is expected to rebound .
In addition to reduced demand , coal mining is labor intensive .
Coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falls from 24 % in 2019 to 20 % in 2020 and then returns to 24 % in 2021 .
Natural gas prices are expected to rise as well , causing more coal use .
Gas prices have been very low .
They say “ EIA expects total U.S. coal production in 2020 to be 525 million short tons ( MMst ) , compared with 705 MMst in 2019 , a 26 % decrease .
COVID-19 and efforts to mitigate it along with reduced demand from the U.S. electric power sector amid low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idling and mine closures .
EIA expects production to rise to 625 MMst in 2021 , up 19 % from 2020 .
This forecast increase reflects rising demand for coal from U.S. electricity generators because of higher natural gas prices compared with 2020.
” Note that we still burn well over half a billion tons of coal a year .
Forecasts of the death of coal are very premature .
Our biggest source of juice by far is a mix of coal and gas , which changes with prices .
There is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic of green stupidity , the Green New Deal .
Here are a few examples .
Wind is still a small source of power and solar is tiny .
Both show great growth numbers but that is because there is so little to start with .
By way of scale , here are some comparisons .
Wind power generation now equals hydro , at about 7 % of all power .
Solar is almost in last place , tied with biodiesel .
Only biowaste produces less power .
Burning wood is still a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile nuclear is chugging along at just over 20 % .
In short , switching to all wind and solar basically means completely replacing all of our present sources of electricity .
If we then throw in switching all vehicles and space heating to electricity , we not only have to replace our present sources of power , we have to nearly double them .
Speaking of space heating , EIA lists the number of homes by heat source .
Fossil fuels dominate , especially in the colder regions , which require the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the frigid Northeast there are about 18 million homes burning natural gas , fuel oil , or propane , with just 3.5 million heating with juice .
In the cold Midwest there are about 20 million on fossil and just 6 million electric .
Only in the balmy South does electricity beat fossil fuels .
All told there are over 70 million homes that would have to be electrified .
At an average cost of , say , $ 10,000 each that is over $ 700 billion .
Plus the cost of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that new juice .
The above is just a peek at the 50+ pages of EIA data , most of it in easy to read charts and tables .
The good news is that they forecast a steady Covid recovery .
Plus there is a lot to tell us what an enormous waste the Green New Deal would be .

The US Energy Information Administration’s latest “Short-Term Energy Outlook“ includes a wealth of data for the last few years presented in graphic form, often including predictions for the next year or so.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf
The impact of Covid is clear, with reduced energy use in 2020. EIA says 2021 is looking much better. Here is their basic finding:
“The October Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) remains subject to heightened levels of uncertainty because mitigation and reopening efforts related to COVID-19 continue to evolve. Reduced economic activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes in energy demand and supply patterns in 2020 and will continue to affect these patterns in the future. This STEO assumes U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) declined by 4.4% in the first half of 2020 from the same period a year ago. It assumes that GDP will rise beginning in the third quarter of 2020, and will grow 3.5% year-over-year in 2021.”
Coal took the biggest hit, but is expected to rebound. In addition to reduced demand, coal mining is labor intensive. Coal’s forecast share of electricity generation falls from 24% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 and then returns to 24% in 2021. Natural gas prices are expected to rise as well, causing more coal use. Gas prices have been very low.
They say “EIA expects total U.S. coal production in 2020 to be 525 million short tons (MMst), compared with 705 MMst in 2019, a 26% decrease. COVID-19 and efforts to mitigate it along with reduced demand from the U.S. electric power sector amid low natural gas prices have contributed to mine idling and mine closures. EIA expects production to rise to 625 MMst in 2021, up 19% from 2020. This forecast increase reflects rising demand for coal from U.S. electricity generators because of higher natural gas prices compared with 2020.”
Note that we still burn well over half a billion tons of coal a year. Forecasts of the death of coal are very premature. Our biggest source of juice by far is a mix of coal and gas, which changes with prices.
There is also a lot of data related to that pandemic of green stupidity, the Green New Deal. Here are a few examples.
Wind is still a small source of power and solar is tiny. Both show great growth numbers but that is because there is so little to start with. By way of scale, here are some comparisons.
Wind power generation now equals hydro, at about 7% of all power. Solar is almost in last place, tied with biodiesel. Only biowaste produces less power. Burning wood is still a bigger source of juice than solar. Meanwhile nuclear is chugging along at just over 20%.
In short, switching to all wind and solar basically means completely replacing all of our present sources of electricity. If we then throw in switching all vehicles and space heating to electricity, we not only have to replace our present sources of power, we have to nearly double them.
Speaking of space heating, EIA lists the number of homes by heat source. Fossil fuels dominate, especially in the colder regions, which require the most heat.
For example, in the frigid Northeast there are about 18 million homes burning natural gas, fuel oil, or propane, with just 3.5 million heating with juice. In the cold Midwest there are about 20 million on fossil and just 6 million electric. Only in the balmy South does electricity beat fossil fuels.
All told there are over 70 million homes that would have to be electrified. At an average cost of, say, $10,000 each that is over $700 billion. Plus the cost of a new grid and power generation to supply all that new juice.
The above is just a peek at the 50+ pages of EIA data, most of it in easy to read charts and tables. The good news is that they forecast a steady Covid recovery. Plus there is a lot to tell us what an enormous waste the Green New Deal would be.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-16--Is China sending “dark vessels” to fish near the Galapagos Islands?

Are the Chinese engaged in illegal fishing activity around the famed Galapagos Islands ?
Well that is the question conservationists are trying to get to the bottom of as reports are surfacing that numerous Chinese fishing vessels might have been seen skirting the edges of this eco-sensitive region and suspiciously evading surveillance .
Although Ecuadorian authorities claim they are unaware of any foul play by China off the Galapagos , a Virginia-based data analytics company says it believes it might have uncovered evidence to the contrary .
Using satellite technology , the firm located a number of unidentified vessels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese fleet , that entered the Galapagos waters and shut off their automatic identification system ( AIS ) — a GPS-based system that publicly transmits a vessel ’ s identity , speed and location .
“ It ’ s a legal requirement for industrial-sized fishing vessels in Ecuador to continuously transmit AIS .
There can be legitimate reasons for a break in AIS transmission , such as poor satellite coverage .
But in many instances , it indicates that a ship is deliberately trying to hide its location .
On 43 occasions between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Chinese vessels near the Galápagos turned off their AIS systems and went “ dark , ” according to a report by the conservation NGO Oceana that relied on data from the Global Fishing Watch ship-tracking platform .
On average , these vessels deactivated their AIS for two days at a time , with the longest stretch being around 17 days , the report said.
” Adding to the suspicious behavior is the fact that a number of these Chinese vessels are known to have a history of involvement in illegal fishing activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment , the good news is that uncovering the truth may get a whole lot easier – that ’ s because new technologies are on the horizon that will be better able to discover even ships that “ go dark ” and turn off their AIS transmissions .
For more information , read the original story at Mongabay here .

Are the Chinese engaged in illegal fishing activity around the famed Galapagos Islands?
Well that is the question conservationists are trying to get to the bottom of as reports are surfacing that numerous Chinese fishing vessels might have been seen skirting the edges of this eco-sensitive region and suspiciously evading surveillance.
Although Ecuadorian authorities claim they are unaware of any foul play by China off the Galapagos, a Virginia-based data analytics company says it believes it might have uncovered evidence to the contrary. Using satellite technology, the firm located a number of unidentified vessels, believed to be part of a larger Chinese fleet, that entered the Galapagos waters and shut off their automatic identification system (AIS) — a GPS-based system that publicly transmits a vessel’s identity, speed and location.
As reported in Mongabay:
“It’s a legal requirement for industrial-sized fishing vessels in Ecuador to continuously transmit AIS. There can be legitimate reasons for a break in AIS transmission, such as poor satellite coverage. But in many instances, it indicates that a ship is deliberately trying to hide its location. On 43 occasions between July 13 and Aug. 13 this year, Chinese vessels near the Galápagos turned off their AIS systems and went “dark,” according to a report by the conservation NGO Oceana that relied on data from the Global Fishing Watch ship-tracking platform. On average, these vessels deactivated their AIS for two days at a time, with the longest stretch being around 17 days, the report said.”
Adding to the suspicious behavior is the fact that a number of these Chinese vessels are known to have a history of involvement in illegal fishing activities. While nothing is proven at the moment, the good news is that uncovering the truth may get a whole lot easier – that’s because new technologies are on the horizon that will be better able to discover even ships that “go dark” and turn off their AIS transmissions.
For more information, read the original story at Mongabay here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-16--Climate change dogma lives loudly within Kamala Harris

During the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings this week on President Trump ’ s nominee for the Supreme Court , Senator Kamala Harris , Joe Biden ’ s vice presidential running mate , revealed her climate change dogma with her flaccid attempt at “ gotcha ” questions for Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
During the three days of hearings , Democratic senators on the committee tried to get Judge Barrett to blunder in her responses .
It was a fruitless pursuit .
Rather , she refused to discuss any potential issue that may go before the Supreme Court , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice of prior nominees .
Committee senators were no match for Judge Barrett , whose poise and brilliance were on full display as she schooled them .
That did not keep some senators from attempting to trap her somehow .
Sen. Harris asked a series of non-controversial questions with obvious answers in the hopes Judge Barrett would opine on weightier , controversial issues .
She asked the Judge if “ cigarettes cause cancer ” and if “ coronavirus is contagious.
” Basically , yes and yes , the Judge responded .
Then ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Do you believe climate change is threating the air we breathe and the water we drink ?
” Judge Barrett responded to the V.P .
nominee that climate change is a “ very contentious matter of public debate ” and that she will “ not express a view on a matter of public policy …that is politically controversial because that is inconsistent with the judicial role.
” Sen. Harris thought she scored big !
“ Thank you , Judge Barrett ; and you ’ ve made your point clear that you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , ” she said , with her familiar smirk .
[ Addendum : Sen. Richard Blumenthal also posed climate gotcha questions . ]
In reality , Judge Barrett stated the obvious , while Sen. Harris appeared narrow and sophomoric .
Climate change is a contentious public policy debate .
The disturbing revelation in this exchange is that the possible next Vice President—and President in waiting—believes climate change and its impact are not debatable .
To paraphrase Sen. Diane Feinstein , the climate dogma lives loudly within Kamala Harris .
As with many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a religious faith for Sen. Harris , and thus inerrant .
In contrast to traditional religious believers in America ( e.g.
, Judge Barrett ) , a Vice President or President Harris will seek to impose her religious doctrine of climate change on America .
This would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars and will harm our economy , job market and living standards , in exchange for the theoretical hope that average global temperature drops by a degree lower than its computer projection in 30 years .
Indeed , the separation of church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris ’ climate religion .
Not for the first time in history have authority figures declared a policy or scientific matter closed to debate .
Just ask Galileo , who challenged the scientific orthodoxy of his day in the early 1600 ’ s .
In Judge Barrett ’ s case , all she did was make the evident point that climate change is a “ controversial ” subject , without indicating her own view , one way or the other .
Still , that was too much for Sen. Harris , who brooks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be various scientific views on climate .
Sen. Harris playing “ gotcha ” with her climate question also indicates how untruthful she and Mr. Biden are in downplaying their support for the multi-trillion dollar Green New Deal and banning hydro-fracturing of natural gas .
They are all in on these issues .
Judge Barrett also wisely avoided the climate subject since climate policies have been , and will continue to be , litigated in the courts .
Last January , for example , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. U.S. By a 2-to-1 vote , the court ruled that the “ children ” plaintiffs lacked standing and the judicial branch lacked the constitutional power to impose a “ remedial plan ” for the climate .
You can safely wager that a Harris-Biden administration will appoint judges who rule the opposite , at least as a fallback should Congress balk at passing the Green New Deal into law .
The close-minded dogmatism on climate change represented by Kamala Harris is ominous , considering the multitude of variables that affect the planet ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the litany of catastrophic global warming predictions that failed to materialize .
It also is worrisome that such close-mindedness and groupthink on climate change from politicians and un-elected bureaucrats could lead to enormous economic harm to middle income , working class and poor Americans who are reliant on affordable energy and the millions of job-holders that depend on the same .

During the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings this week on President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Senator Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s vice presidential running mate, revealed her climate change dogma with her flaccid attempt at “gotcha” questions for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
During the three days of hearings, Democratic senators on the committee tried to get Judge Barrett to blunder in her responses. It was a fruitless pursuit. Rather, she refused to discuss any potential issue that may go before the Supreme Court, which is consistent with judicial ethics and past practice of prior nominees.
Committee senators were no match for Judge Barrett, whose poise and brilliance were on full display as she schooled them. That did not keep some senators from attempting to trap her somehow.
Sen. Harris asked a series of non-controversial questions with obvious answers in the hopes Judge Barrett would opine on weightier, controversial issues. She asked the Judge if “cigarettes cause cancer” and if “coronavirus is contagious.” Basically, yes and yes, the Judge responded.
Then (drum roll) Harris asked Barrett, “Do you believe climate change is threating the air we breathe and the water we drink?”
Judge Barrett responded to the V.P. nominee that climate change is a “very contentious matter of public debate” and that she will “not express a view on a matter of public policy …that is politically controversial because that is inconsistent with the judicial role.”
Sen. Harris thought she scored big! “Thank you, Judge Barrett; and you’ve made your point clear that you think [climate change] is a debatable point,” she said, with her familiar smirk. [Addendum: Sen. Richard Blumenthal also posed climate gotcha questions.]
In reality, Judge Barrett stated the obvious, while Sen. Harris appeared narrow and sophomoric. Climate change is a contentious public policy debate. The disturbing revelation in this exchange is that the possible next Vice President—and President in waiting—believes climate change and its impact are not debatable.
To paraphrase Sen. Diane Feinstein, the climate dogma lives loudly within Kamala Harris.
As with many others, climate change is tantamount to a religious faith for Sen. Harris, and thus inerrant. In contrast to traditional religious believers in America (e.g., Judge Barrett), a Vice President or President Harris will seek to impose her religious doctrine of climate change on America. This would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars and will harm our economy, job market and living standards, in exchange for the theoretical hope that average global temperature drops by a degree lower than its computer projection in 30 years. Indeed, the separation of church and state does not apply to Kamala Harris’ climate religion.
Not for the first time in history have authority figures declared a policy or scientific matter closed to debate. Just ask Galileo, who challenged the scientific orthodoxy of his day in the early 1600’s. In Judge Barrett’s case, all she did was make the evident point that climate change is a “controversial” subject, without indicating her own view, one way or the other.
Still, that was too much for Sen. Harris, who brooks no dissent, or even acknowledgement there could be various scientific views on climate.
Sen. Harris playing “gotcha” with her climate question also indicates how untruthful she and Mr. Biden are in downplaying their support for the multi-trillion dollar Green New Deal and banning hydro-fracturing of natural gas. They are all in on these issues.
Judge Barrett also wisely avoided the climate subject since climate policies have been, and will continue to be, litigated in the courts. Last January, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit dismissed a major climate case, Juliana v. U.S. By a 2-to-1 vote, the court ruled that the “children” plaintiffs lacked standing and the judicial branch lacked the constitutional power to impose a “remedial plan” for the climate.
You can safely wager that a Harris-Biden administration will appoint judges who rule the opposite, at least as a fallback should Congress balk at passing the Green New Deal into law.
The close-minded dogmatism on climate change represented by Kamala Harris is ominous, considering the multitude of variables that affect the planet’s climate, which always is changing, and the litany of catastrophic global warming predictions that failed to materialize. It also is worrisome that such close-mindedness and groupthink on climate change from politicians and un-elected bureaucrats could lead to enormous economic harm to middle income, working class and poor Americans who are reliant on affordable energy and the millions of job-holders that depend on the same.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-17--A review of Evan Sayet’s “The Woke Supremacy”

Political comedian Evan Sayet says he has long “ dedicated himself to conserving and promoting the values of the America that has given him freedom and allowed him to pursue his life of liberty and happiness.
” In his new book , The Woke Supremacy , he lays out the history and the characteristics of “ Wokeness.
” But in failing to examine the origins of this totalitarian intolerance , he misses the critical difference between old-style Marxism , so-called “ Democratic socialism , ” and “ cultural Marxism ” as first delineated by the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s okay , though , because Sayet masterfully describes how these subversives operate and lays out the tactical principles ( and lack of moral principles ) that drive them .
Their goal , he says , is to replace Western civilization with a nihilist premise that everything about Western culture is evil .
One fruit of this poisonous , evil tree is that Western society is racist , woke activists assert .
Indeed , it is so fraught with multiple other evils that it can not be repaired , and must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historian and self-defense advocate Sam Jacobs summarizes the origins of Wokeness by reviewing Gramsci , who spent decades in Mussolini ’ s prisons and rejected the twin ideas of a dictatorship of the proletariat and direct ownership of the means of production as losing propositions .
Instead , this son of a low-level Italian bureaucrat argued that for socialism to “ take America without firing a shot ” ( as Khrushchev would later boast ) would require a “ long march through the institutions ” of Western culture in order to penetrate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the 1960s Marshall McLuhan summed up Gramsci ’ s argument in his book , The Medium Is the Message .
Both Chairman Mao , beginning in 1966 , and Cambodia ’ s Pol Pot a decade later saw existing cultural institutions as impediments to their quest for absolute power to reshape their societies according to their Marxist ideals .
But both revolutions failed , perhaps because they had missed Gramsci ’ s point .
Success comes from slowly subverting the culture rather than destroying it .
Mao ’ s vision was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olds ” – Old Customs , Old Culture , Old Habits and Old Ideas .
In other words , everything that pre-dated communism .
As Christopher Holton writes in The Hayride , Mao ’ s Red Guards started out renaming streets , quickly escalated to destroying old buildings , old books , and old art , and ransacking homes of the disloyal .
They even desecrated cemeteries , dug up corpses and tore down monuments .
Only later did they start killing .
Pol Pot witnessed China ’ s “ Cultural Revolution ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ Super Great Leap Forward , ” instead of a “ long march.
” He expelled foreigners , closed embassies , shuttered newspapers and TV stations , confiscated radios and bicycles , outlawed mail and telephones , and put those still alive in agrarian camps .
People began starving to death .
In his 2012 book , The Kindergarten of Eden , Sayet posited four laws of “ modern liberalism , ” beginning with “ indiscriminateness , ” total rejection of the intellectual process .
This , he said , leads to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lesser and against the better , the wrong over the right , and the evil over the good .
That is what happened in China and Cambodia .
Promoting the lesser is always paired with denigrating the better .
The negative qualities of the Woke ( socialists ) are ascribed to the un-Woke ( nationalists ) – and vice versa .
Hillary Clinton thus framed President Trump for “ collusion with Russia , ” which evidence now shows she herself engaged in .
The primary goal of the modern liberal , Sayet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man back to his first days on earth .
Or as Joni Mitchell wrote , “ We ’ ve go to get ourselves back to the Garden.
” The blueprint for cultural Marxism in America , Sayet argues in both books , is John Lennon ’ s most popular song , “ Imagine.
” The perfect , peace-filled world has no heaven or hell and people live just for the moment , with no countries , no religion , no possessions , and nothing worth dying for .
This Woodstock hippies ’ quest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Left with a ready-made tool for organizing to effectuate institutional control .
Their rejection of Western civilization – their search for the innocence of “ the Garden ” – enabled them to create new curricula that lured “ useful idiots ” into the halls of academe , the arts and the political arena , where hard-core Woke nihilists could redefine “ truth.
” Sayet opens The Woke Supremacy by stating that , although Hitler ’ s National Socialism was ideologically the polar opposite of Democratic Socialism , ideology has little influence over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both rejected nationalism built on a foundation of local leadership ( hence our Tenth Amendment ) that implements policies which make sense locally even if not nationwide .
Socialism , Sayet affirms , requires top-down governance where “ one size fits all ” ( except for governing elites ) .
Enforcement of top-down government requires tyrannical control , and tremendous energy , to impose a Woke supremacy from which there can be no dissent or even debate .
Wokeness thus requires the use of hate and fear .
There is no redemption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they conflict with “ Woke truth.
” The “ Cancel Culture ” can be just as vicious against a prior ally as against longtime opponents .
Conversely , there is no “ Woke morality ” by which infidelity , theft , property crimes or even murder disqualify a person who is useful in promoting Wokeness .
The Woke proudly spotlight even criminals who shot first as “ victims ” of a “ racist ” police force that oppresses the entire society .
Deconstructing sexual norms is also a powerful tool that confuses what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science into a Woke morality play , regardless of real-world evidence to the contrary .
The Woke also use modifiers to confuse , divide and conquer .
Adding “ politically ” to “ correct ” changes objective truth or outright fiction into narratives of “ my truth.
” Similarly , the modifier “ social ” transforms the concept of “ justice ” notions that “ the oppressed ” are morally right to steal or commit voter fraud if their “ intent ” is couched in victimhood that can spark “ peaceful protests.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any means necessary , ” whether packing the Supreme Court or turning a murderer into a victim to generate hatred of the law .
Not only must evil become good to the Woke ; actual good deeds must be deconstructed .
A major tool is the “ dog whistle , ” a tactic that asserts the Woke “ know ” the “ real meaning ” behind seemingly innocent or even positive words or actions .
Sayet recognizes that a political victory this fall may slow the Woke Supremacy ’ s quest for control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war .
They are too entrenched in schools and universities , newsrooms and entertainment fields , and across social communications industries , to be easily vanquished .
Jacobs helpfully states that the first step to defusing cultural Marxism is to learn what it is and how it operates – and call it out for what it is .
Sayet provides an excellent primer for this .
Step 2 , says Jacobs , is to learn from the history of society and ideas the many benefits that Western Civilization has brought , including its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to others .
Step 3 is to reject political guilt and instead recognize that Western civilization is a constant work in progress , not a static conspiracy to rob everyone but “ old , rich , white men ” of their just rewards .

Political comedian Evan Sayet says he has long “dedicated himself to conserving and promoting the values of the America that has given him freedom and allowed him to pursue his life of liberty and happiness.”
In his new book, The Woke Supremacy, he lays out the history and the characteristics of “Wokeness.” But in failing to examine the origins of this totalitarian intolerance, he misses the critical difference between old-style Marxism, so-called “Democratic socialism,” and “cultural Marxism” as first delineated by the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci and employed by Chinese dictator Mao Zedong.
That’s okay, though, because Sayet masterfully describes how these subversives operate and lays out the tactical principles (and lack of moral principles) that drive them. Their goal, he says, is to replace Western civilization with a nihilist premise that everything about Western culture is evil.
One fruit of this poisonous, evil tree is that Western society is racist, woke activists assert. Indeed, it is so fraught with multiple other evils that it cannot be repaired, and must be eradicated and replaced.
Philosopher, historian and self-defense advocate Sam Jacobs summarizes the origins of Wokeness by reviewing Gramsci, who spent decades in Mussolini’s prisons and rejected the twin ideas of a dictatorship of the proletariat and direct ownership of the means of production as losing propositions.
Instead, this son of a low-level Italian bureaucrat argued that for socialism to “take America without firing a shot” (as Khrushchev would later boast) would require a “long march through the institutions” of Western culture in order to penetrate, infiltrate and eventually control its information institutions. In the 1960s Marshall McLuhan summed up Gramsci’s argument in his book, The Medium Is the Message.
Both Chairman Mao, beginning in 1966, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot a decade later saw existing cultural institutions as impediments to their quest for absolute power to reshape their societies according to their Marxist ideals. But both revolutions failed, perhaps because they had missed Gramsci’s point. Success comes from slowly subverting the culture rather than destroying it.
Mao’s vision was to rid China of “the four Olds” – Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits and Old Ideas. In other words, everything that pre-dated communism. As Christopher Holton writes in The Hayride, Mao’s Red Guards started out renaming streets, quickly escalated to destroying old buildings, old books, and old art, and ransacking homes of the disloyal. They even desecrated cemeteries, dug up corpses and tore down monuments. Only later did they start killing.
Pol Pot witnessed China’s “Cultural Revolution” and wanted to outdo his mentor via a “Super Great Leap Forward,” instead of a “long march.” He expelled foreigners, closed embassies, shuttered newspapers and TV stations, confiscated radios and bicycles, outlawed mail and telephones, and put those still alive in agrarian camps. People began starving to death.
In his 2012 book, The Kindergarten of Eden, Sayet posited four laws of “modern liberalism,” beginning with “indiscriminateness,” total rejection of the intellectual process. This, he said, leads to a topsy-turvy worldview that always sides with the lesser and against the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good. That is what happened in China and Cambodia.
Promoting the lesser is always paired with denigrating the better. The negative qualities of the Woke (socialists) are ascribed to the un-Woke (nationalists) – and vice versa. Hillary Clinton thus framed President Trump for “collusion with Russia,” which evidence now shows she herself engaged in.
The primary goal of the modern liberal, Sayet contends, is the total regression of man back to his first days on earth. Or as Joni Mitchell wrote, “We’ve go to get ourselves back to the Garden.” The blueprint for cultural Marxism in America, Sayet argues in both books, is John Lennon’s most popular song, “Imagine.” The perfect, peace-filled world has no heaven or hell and people live just for the moment, with no countries, no religion, no possessions, and nothing worth dying for.
This Woodstock hippies’ quest for an imaginary simpler time provided the New Left with a ready-made tool for organizing to effectuate institutional control. Their rejection of Western civilization – their search for the innocence of “the Garden” – enabled them to create new curricula that lured “useful idiots” into the halls of academe, the arts and the political arena, where hard-core Woke nihilists could redefine “truth.”
Sayet opens The Woke Supremacy by stating that, although Hitler’s National Socialism was ideologically the polar opposite of Democratic Socialism, ideology has little influence over behavior once any socialist system gains power.
Both rejected nationalism built on a foundation of local leadership (hence our Tenth Amendment) that implements policies which make sense locally even if not nationwide. Socialism, Sayet affirms, requires top-down governance where “one size fits all” (except for governing elites).
Enforcement of top-down government requires tyrannical control, and tremendous energy, to impose a Woke supremacy from which there can be no dissent or even debate. Wokeness thus requires the use of hate and fear. There is no redemption for the apostasy of believing facts when they conflict with “Woke truth.” The “Cancel Culture” can be just as vicious against a prior ally as against longtime opponents.
Conversely, there is no “Woke morality” by which infidelity, theft, property crimes or even murder disqualify a person who is useful in promoting Wokeness. The Woke proudly spotlight even criminals who shot first as “victims” of a “racist” police force that oppresses the entire society. Deconstructing sexual norms is also a powerful tool that confuses what is a “right.” Environmentalism turns science into a Woke morality play, regardless of real-world evidence to the contrary.
The Woke also use modifiers to confuse, divide and conquer. Adding “politically” to “correct” changes objective truth or outright fiction into narratives of “my truth.”
Similarly, the modifier “social” transforms the concept of “justice” notions that “the oppressed” are morally right to steal or commit voter fraud if their “intent” is couched in victimhood that can spark “peaceful protests.” The goal is victory, “by any means necessary,” whether packing the Supreme Court or turning a murderer into a victim to generate hatred of the law.
Not only must evil become good to the Woke; actual good deeds must be deconstructed. A major tool is the “dog whistle,” a tactic that asserts the Woke “know” the “real meaning” behind seemingly innocent or even positive words or actions.
Sayet recognizes that a political victory this fall may slow the Woke Supremacy’s quest for control, but will not end the culture war. They are too entrenched in schools and universities, newsrooms and entertainment fields, and across social communications industries, to be easily vanquished.
Jacobs helpfully states that the first step to defusing cultural Marxism is to learn what it is and how it operates – and call it out for what it is. Sayet provides an excellent primer for this.
Step 2, says Jacobs, is to learn from the history of society and ideas the many benefits that Western Civilization has brought, including its self-correction of prior evils – and teach them to others.
Step 3 is to reject political guilt and instead recognize that Western civilization is a constant work in progress, not a static conspiracy to rob everyone but “old, rich, white men” of their just rewards.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-18--California’s energy nightmare is coming to Virginia

“ It can ’ t happen here ” is one of the most dangerous sentences you can utter .
The comforting conviction , for example , that some other state ’ s well-publicized blunders would never be adopted by your own elected representatives can turn out to be just another of life ’ s illusions .
For Virginians , California ’ s rolling blackouts and sky-high electricity prices may seem like little more than the travails of distant strangers on the other side of the country .
But this smugness is misplaced .
California is closer than many Virginians realize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , the Golden State is moving rapidly away from carbon-based fossil fuels and mandating ever-increasing amounts of renewable energy .
California ’ s renewable energy mandates—33 percent today , 60 percent by 2030 , and 100 percent by 2045—are already having an effect , but it ’ s not the one its backers in Sacramento promised .
Environmental writer Michael Schellenberger points out that California ’ s electricity rates have risen six times the national average since 2011 .
In August , during a seasonal hot spell , large swaths of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with officials warning that more are to be expected .
No one should have been surprised .
Between 2014 and 2018 , California reduced its consumption of reliable , baseline electricity from natural gas-fired power plants by 21 percent while increasing its consumption of renewable energy over the same period by 54 percent , according to the California Energy Commission .
The state was poorly prepared for its self-imposed transition to green energy , prompting several observers to dub the blackouts “ greenouts.
” Following the example set by California ( in ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , the Democrat-controlled General Assembly last fall passed the Virginia Clean Energy Act which , among other things , calls on the state ’ s two largest electric utilities—Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power—to provide electricity solely from renewable sources ( wind and solar ) by 2045 and 2050 , respectively .
The new law came on the heels of Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s ( D ) September 2019 executive order to develop at least 2,600 megawatts ( MW ) of offshore wind power by 2026 .
Virginia is a low-wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never produce more than a negligible amount of electricity .
Furthermore , any attempt to construct land-based , industrial-scale wind projects in rural Virginia would encounter the same resistance that has sprung up against such facilities elsewhere : concerns about the health effects of the low-frequency noise emanating from the spinning turbines , loss of productive farmland , and anger over the marring of scenic countryside by giant turbines .
The only place where wind is available is off the state ’ s Atlantic Coast .
Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind , which will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Energy , is estimated to cost $ 300 million and is scheduled to be in operation in 2026 .
A smaller 12-MW pilot project is already under construction 27 miles out to sea from Virginia Beach .
Dominion has taken out full-page , full-color ads in The Washington Post proclaiming , “ As a leader in wind and solar , we take our responsibility to the planet very seriously.
” The utility boasts that it “ is developing the country ’ s largest offshore wind project—which will which will produce enough energy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes it has “ added more than 2.5 million solar panels in Virginia since 2015.
” But as California amply demonstrates , the transition to dependence on intermittent wind and solar is fraught with its own perils , which affect both consumers and the environment .
“ Experience in Europe over the past decade demonstrates that the performance of offshore wind turbines degrades rapidly—on average , 4.5 % per year , ” notes the Manhattan Institute ’ s Jonathan A .
Lesser in a recent report , “ Out to Sea : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though offshore wind blows more consistently than onshore wind , ocean-based turbines still operate at only 50 percent to 58 percent of their capacity , according to the Energy Information Administration .
This means that , at best , the giant turbines perform over 40 percent below their capacity , requiring a backup source of electricity when the wind isn ’ t cooperating .
The Manhattan Institute ’ s Lesser notes that the rapid deterioration of offshore wind turbines means higher operating costs and reduced economic lifetimes .
“ As more offshore wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the costs of addressing wind power ’ s inherent intermittency will also increase , further increasing the costs borne by electricity consumers and requiring new gas-fired generating units to operate on standby or highly expensive battery storage systems , ” he says .
Offshore wind ’ s alleged environmental benefits also turn out to be illusory .
The raw materials needed to manufacture wind turbines ( installed on land or at sea ) far exceed those needed to manufacture and install gas-fired combined-cycle turbines .
Of those raw materials , none is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of which currently come from China , from mines in Mongolia .
China ’ s environmental standards are vastly inferior to those in the West , with little regard for air pollution or the dumping of toxic materials in landfills .
This outsourcing of environmental degradation for the sake of green energy is , as British journalist Simon Parry points out , “ the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘ green ’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is intermittent and comes with environmental consequences its supporters are loathe to acknowledge .
What , for example , is to be done with toxic chemical-laden solar panels—whether on rooftops or in sprawling solar “ farms ” —once they have reached the end of their , short ( about 10 years ) , life cycle ?
Solar , like wind , is subsidized by U.S. taxpayers , but there are no federal regulations governing the disposal of used solar panels , even though they are prone to leakage , in addition to being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Grist reports that most used solar panels are shipped to developing countries with weak environmental protections , where they are routinely dumped into landfills .
The International Renewable Energy Association estimates that in 2016 there were already about 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide—and that total will increase to 78 million metric tons by 2050 .
There are other ecological costs to solar power .
A 2015 study by Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science found that nearly a third of the state ’ s solar development is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to develop solar power—rather than letting it become wildlife habitat .
California has far more sun and wind than Virginia .
Yet not even these favorable environmental conditions have enabled the Golden State to produce enough energy from either source to meet demand .
And their intermittency continues to destabilize the state ’ s fragile power grid .
For a harbinger of their energy future , Virginians need look no further than California .
It ’ s not a pretty picture .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @

“It can’t happen here” is one of the most dangerous sentences you can utter. The comforting conviction, for example, that some other state’s well-publicized blunders would never be adopted by your own elected representatives can turn out to be just another of life’s delusions.
For Virginians, California’s rolling blackouts and sky-high electricity prices may seem like little more than the travails of distant strangers on the other side of the country. But this smugness is misplaced. California is closer than many Virginians realize.
In the name of combatting climate change, the Golden State is moving rapidly away from carbon-based fossil fuels and mandating ever-increasing amounts of renewable energy. California’s renewable energy mandates—33 percent today, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045—are already having an effect, but it’s not the one its backers in Sacramento promised. Environmental writer Michael Schellenberger points out that California’s electricity rates have risen six times the national average since 2011.
In August, during a seasonal hot spell, large swaths of the state were subjected to rolling blackouts, with officials warning that more are to be expected.
No one should have been surprised. Between 2014 and 2018, California reduced its consumption of reliable, baseline electricity from natural gas-fired power plants by 21 percent while increasing its consumption of renewable energy over the same period by 54 percent, according to the California Energy Commission. The state was poorly prepared for its self-imposed transition to green energy, prompting several observers to dub the blackouts “greenouts.”
Virginia’s Risky Path
Following the example set by California (in ways lawmakers in Richmond may not have appreciated), the Democrat-controlled General Assembly last fall passed the Virginia Clean Energy Act which, among other things, calls on the state’s two largest electric utilities—Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power—to provide electricity solely from renewable sources (wind and solar) by 2045 and 2050, respectively. The new law came on the heels of Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) September 2019 executive order to develop at least 2,600 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind power by 2026.
Virginia is a low-wind state; onshore wind facilities there could never produce more than a negligible amount of electricity. Furthermore, any attempt to construct land-based, industrial-scale wind projects in rural Virginia would encounter the same resistance that has sprung up against such facilities elsewhere: concerns about the health effects of the low-frequency noise emanating from the spinning turbines, loss of productive farmland, and anger over the marring of scenic countryside by giant turbines.
The only place where wind is available is off the state’s Atlantic Coast. Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, which will be designed and operated by Richmond-based Dominion Energy, is estimated to cost $300 million and is scheduled to be in operation in 2026. A smaller 12-MW pilot project is already under construction 27 miles out to sea from Virginia Beach.
Dominion has taken out full-page, full-color ads in The Washington Post proclaiming, “As a leader in wind and solar, we take our responsibility to the planet very seriously.” The utility boasts that it “is developing the country’s largest offshore wind project—which will which will produce enough energy to power 660,000 homes by 2026” and notes it has “added more than 2.5 million solar panels in Virginia since 2015.”
The Perils of Intermittency
But as California amply demonstrates, the transition to dependence on intermittent wind and solar is fraught with its own perils, which affect both consumers and the environment.
“Experience in Europe over the past decade demonstrates that the performance of offshore wind turbines degrades rapidly—on average, 4.5% per year,” notes the Manhattan Institute’s Jonathan A. Lesser in a recent report, “Out to Sea: The Dismal Economics of Offshore Wind.”
Even though offshore wind blows more consistently than onshore wind, ocean-based turbines still operate at only 50 percent to 58 percent of their capacity, according to the Energy Information Administration. This means that, at best, the giant turbines perform over 40 percent below their capacity, requiring a backup source of electricity when the wind isn’t cooperating.
The Manhattan Institute’s Lesser notes that the rapid deterioration of offshore wind turbines means higher operating costs and reduced economic lifetimes. “As more offshore wind is integrated onto the bulk power grid, the costs of addressing wind power’s inherent intermittency will also increase, further increasing the costs borne by electricity consumers and requiring new gas-fired generating units to operate on standby or highly expensive battery storage systems,” he says.
Environmental Degradation
Offshore wind’s alleged environmental benefits also turn out to be illusory. The raw materials needed to manufacture wind turbines (installed on land or at sea) far exceed those needed to manufacture and install gas-fired combined-cycle turbines. Of those raw materials, none is more crucial than rare earths, almost all of which currently come from China, from mines in Mongolia.
China’s environmental standards are vastly inferior to those in the West, with little regard for air pollution or the dumping of toxic materials in landfills. This outsourcing of environmental degradation for the sake of green energy is, as British journalist Simon Parry points out, “the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.”
Like wind, solar power is intermittent and comes with environmental consequences its supporters are loathe to acknowledge. What, for example, is to be done with toxic chemical-laden solar panels—whether on rooftops or in sprawling solar “farms”—once they have reached the end of their, short (about 10 years), life cycle? Solar, like wind, is subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, but there are no federal regulations governing the disposal of used solar panels, even though they are prone to leakage, in addition to being difficult to recycle.
A recent article in Grist reports that most used solar panels are shipped to developing countries with weak environmental protections, where they are routinely dumped into landfills. The International Renewable Energy Association estimates that in 2016 there were already about 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide—and that total will increase to 78 million metric tons by 2050.
There are other ecological costs to solar power. A 2015 study by Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science found that nearly a third of the state’s solar development is occurring on former cropland, where many farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to develop solar power—rather than letting it become wildlife habitat.
California has far more sun and wind than Virginia. Yet not even these favorable environmental conditions have enabled the Golden State to produce enough energy from either source to meet demand. And their intermittency continues to destabilize the state’s fragile power grid.
For a harbinger of their energy future, Virginians need look no further than California. It’s not a pretty picture.
This article originally appeared in The Epoch Times


Four-quadrant model

Are you a knuckle-dragging “ climate denier ” caveman ?
If you don ’ t fully agree with the narrative @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s who you are .
According to the mainstream press you can only @ @ @ @ @ ” or an angel willing to spend countless trillions of tax dollars in a quest @ @ @ @ @ catastrophic man-caused climate change .
There is no middle ground .
Of course , this @ @ @ @ @ .
We explain how the news media shapes public opinion on climate change by borrowing @ @ @ @ @ Eric Weinstein .

Are you a knuckle-dragging “climate denier” caveman? If you don’t fully agree with the narrative of the news media, that’s who you are. According to the mainstream press you can only be a caveman “denier” or an angel willing to spend countless trillions of tax dollars in a quest to save the planet from catastrophic man-caused climate change.
There is no middle ground. Of course, this false binary choice is absurd. We explain how the news media shapes public opinion on climate change by borrowing a model created by mathematician Eric Weinstein.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-19--The dark side of Governor Newsom’s gas-powered vehicle ban

California Governor Newsom has convinced himself that green EV ’ s made from “ fairy dust ” must replace those dirty gas-powered vehicles .
Sharing a few realities of the darker side of his fairy dust beliefs may burst his bubble .
Let us get some of the bad news out of the way first .
The following is a partial list of items in an electric vehicle that come from hydrocarbons ( oil and gas ) .
Hint — plastic is made from hydrocarbons , but it is not the only petroleum product used on electric vehicles .
Tires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wires are coated in plastic including battery wires , power steering fluid , brake fluid , antifreeze , coolant for air-conditioning , transmission fluid , all plastics in the engine compartment which are too many to begin to list as most newer cars motors are shrouded in plastic .
Carbon fiber , fiberglass , most fenders , many grills , windshield wipers , sealants around windows and undercarriage , some side panels , and all paint .
Steering wheel , kick panels , air bag , dashboard , carpet , door handles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are not leather , center console .
I will stop here but point out that there are a lot of components made from oil besides the on average 1,000 parts made of plastic , or nearly 50 percent of a vehicles volume on the average electric vehicle .
Now for the darker side of the proposed EV solution to the world ’ s emission problems .
A Tesla Model S battery is made with lithium , cobalt , nickel , and manganese , and weighs approximately 1,000 pounds as compared with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in most internally combustion vehicles .
• Lithium , of which more than 50 % is sourced from the Lithium Triangle in South America , which covers parts of Argentina , Bolivia and Chile .
Today 20 % of cobalt is mined by hand .
Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels , at risk of fatal accidents and serious lung disease .
• Cobalt , of which about 60 % is sourced from one country , the Democratic Republic of the Congo ( DRC ) in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Australia , and the Philippines .
If you wish to get depressed , do an internet search for “ Congo cobalt slavery.
” This cobalt also powers our lithium-ion cellphone batteries , so do not focus your wrath on just electric vehicle batteries .
Children as young as 6-years-old “ work ” for about 65 cents per day under horrid conditions .
China runs many of the industrial mines and plants there .
• The top nickel producing countries are Indonesia , Philippines , Russia , New Caledonia , and Australia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nickel is strip mined then refined at very high temperatures and leached and processed with sulfuric acid or ammonia .
• Manganese is one of the top materials used for Tesla ’ s power walls and the primary component in other electric vehicle batteries .
The top manganese producing countries are South Africa , Australia , China , Gabon , and Brazil .
All these metals are strip mined and refined at very high temperatures from mainly coal powered furnaces .
Except for Australia , I again ask you to consider how eco-friendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ecological damage are breathtaking , but the human damage is much worse .
Humans have been utilizing metals since at least 6000 BC where Neolithic pottery kilns have been discovered that melted tin and copper .
Humans will continue to use and need metals for many centuries to come .
We would prefer to do business with countries that observe human rights and operate under strict environmental controls like the United States does .
So far , so called green energy uses materials from some of the worst ecological and human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are welcome to drive an electric vehicle .
We wish we were not forced into subsidizing you to do so at both the state and federal level .
The worldwide environmental damage from strip mining enough metals to replace every car and all electrical energy generation in California is the exact opposite of green .

California Governor Newsom has convinced himself that green EV’s made from “fairy dust” must replace those dirty gas-powered vehicles. Sharing a few realities of the darker side of his fairy dust beliefs may burst his bubble.
Let us get some of the bad news out of the way first. The following is a partial list of items in an electric vehicle that come from hydrocarbons (oil and gas). Hint — plastic is made from hydrocarbons, but it is not the only petroleum product used on electric vehicles. Tires, belts, hoses, all electrical wires are coated in plastic including battery wires, power steering fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, coolant for air-conditioning, transmission fluid, all plastics in the engine compartment which are too many to begin to list as most newer cars motors are shrouded in plastic. Carbon fiber, fiberglass, most fenders, many grills, windshield wipers, sealants around windows and undercarriage, some side panels, and all paint. Steering wheel, kick panels, air bag, dashboard, carpet, door handles, switches, most parts of the seat that are not leather, center console. I will stop here but point out that there are a lot of components made from oil besides the on average 1,000 parts made of plastic, or nearly 50 percent of a vehicles volume on the average electric vehicle.
Now for the darker side of the proposed EV solution to the world’s emission problems. A Tesla Model S battery is made with lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese, and weighs approximately 1,000 pounds as compared with a standard 40 to 50-pound lead-acid battery found in most internally combustion vehicles.
Lithium, of which more than 50% is sourced from the Lithium Triangle in South America, which covers parts of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. Today 20% of cobalt is mined by hand. Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels, at risk of fatal accidents and serious lung disease.
Cobalt, of which about 60% is sourced from one country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in Africa, followed by Russia, Cuba, Australia, and the Philippines. If you wish to get depressed, do an internet search for “Congo cobalt slavery.” This cobalt also powers our lithium-ion cellphone batteries, so do not focus your wrath on just electric vehicle batteries. Children as young as 6-years-old “work” for about 65 cents per day under horrid conditions. China runs many of the industrial mines and plants there.
The top nickel producing countries are Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, New Caledonia, and Australia. The U.S. has minimal nickel deposits. Nickel is strip mined then refined at very high temperatures and leached and processed with sulfuric acid or ammonia.
Manganese is one of the top materials used for Tesla’s power walls and the primary component in other electric vehicle batteries. The top manganese producing countries are South Africa, Australia, China, Gabon, and Brazil. All these metals are strip mined and refined at very high temperatures from mainly coal powered furnaces. Except for Australia, I again ask you to consider how eco-friendly these countries are.
The pictures of the ecological damage are breathtaking, but the human damage is much worse.
Humans have been utilizing metals since at least 6000 BC where Neolithic pottery kilns have been discovered that melted tin and copper. Humans will continue to use and need metals for many centuries to come.
We would prefer to do business with countries that observe human rights and operate under strict environmental controls like the United States does. So far, so called green energy uses materials from some of the worst ecological and human rights offenders that exist on earth.
You are welcome to drive an electric vehicle. We wish we were not forced into subsidizing you to do so at both the state and federal level. The worldwide environmental damage from strip mining enough metals to replace every car and all electrical energy generation in California is the exact opposite of green.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-19--UN busted for exaggerated report

UN busted for exaggerated report

Researchers assemble page after page of data few ever read .
Activists then staple a brief , but alarming , @ @ @ @ @ of the report , and politicians and the press only read and quote from that @ @ @ @ @ busted for putting out a report that claims the “ human cost of disasters ” @ @ @ @ @ went on to show a graph which reveals the exact opposite .
Marc Morano posted @ @ @ @ @ Climate Depot , along with the UN ’ s graph which show ’ s that @ @ @ @ @ disasters has actually decreased by 15 percent since 2000 !
” We ’ ve seen @ @ @ @ @ with reports from the UN ’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .
When you @ @ @ @ @ learn , for instance , that contrary to what politicians and the media report , @ @ @ @ @ low confidence ” that extreme weather events such as fires , floods , droughts and @ @ @ @ @ data contradicts extreme rhetoric , go with the data every time .

UN reports work like this:
Researchers assemble page after page of data few ever read.
Activists then staple a brief, but alarming, executive summary to the front of the report, and politicians and the press only read and quote from that.
The UN was just busted for putting out a report that claims the “human cost of disasters” is rising — but then went on to show a graph which reveals the exact opposite.
Marc Morano posted Pielke’s statement at Climate Depot, along with the UN’s graph which show’s that “the number of climate-related disasters has actually decreased by 15 percent since 2000!”
We’ve seen this over and over again with reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When you dig into the report you learn, for instance, that contrary to what politicians and the media report, the UN actually has “low confidence” that extreme weather events such as fires, floods, droughts and storms are increasing.
Read the full account at Climate Depot.
When data contradicts extreme rhetoric, go with the data every time.