committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-28--Forecast models encounter reality

Forecast models encounter reality

Though forecast models have been a problem in the way they are utilized in public and environmental health for decades now , they have never before crested public awareness in quite the way they have in the time of COVID-19 .
People accustomed to seeing forecasts of things that are somewhat remote , somewhat abstract in time , place , and consequences are suddenly being exposed to how the sausage is made in predictive forecasting , and many are not liking what they ’ ve seen .
Many policy analysts ( including myself ) have been critical of the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governmental decision making for decades , arguing over the validity of forecasts projecting the impacts of tiny changes in air pollution exposure , radiation and chemical exposure ; in predicting species endangerment ; in predicting transit system ridership ; in predicting “ peak oil ; ” manmade climate changes and much more , COVID-19 has brought the problem out of the tall weeds of policy analysis , and into everyone ’ s living room , where they a ) have more time on their hands than usual , and b ) have suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more than an abstract concern for policy wonks .
To be clear , computer modeling of complex systems has its place , which is mostly in the computer lab , where one can tinker with one or more variables and pit models vs. models to see which one best explains something in the real world .
That ’ s very valuable .
The problem with modeling occurs when it escapes the lab and is abused and misunderstood by policymakers and the public .
Unfortunately , space is limited , so here are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The first point should be obvious : computer models are a gross simplification of reality ( the technical term is abstraction ) .
Consider a picture of a mouse .
The picture of the mouse tells you a lot of things , but really very little about the biology of mice .
To understand those things , they must be reduced into ever more tiny aspects of mousehood – it ’ s shape , it ’ s chemical composition , its biochemistry , behavior , capabilities , and so on , ad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is an abstraction of a mouse .
When you see Mickey , you see a mouse , but in fact , Mickey tells you remarkably little ( and a lot that ’ s not realistic ) about mice .
As the great astrophysicist George O. Abell explained in my early science education , to truly model something as simple as a mouse , you would have to have the knowledge to create the mouse , and humanity is far from doing that even for as small a thing as a virus ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 years ago now ) .
The second point you should know is that the farther away from modeling the tiniest of things , the less reliably models reflect the reality of what you are studying .
Because in modeling , errors accumulate .
And all measurement includes error .
So the more complex the model , the greater uncertainty becomes .
The third thing to understand is that trying to model complex things goes well beyond looking at variables we can actually measure , especially if we ’ re trying to forecast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those variables , which entails a variety of assumptions .
( Indeed , even measuring the variables you can measure involves a host of assumptions about your ability to accurately measure what you ’ re looking at . )
Assumptions are inherently subjective , which renders model outputs relatively useless as forecasting tools .
To be fair , that ’ s why computer modelers talk about “ projections ” vs. “ predictions , ” a nuance that quickly gets lost in public policy discussion .
COVID-19 has brought these points home to people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen before .
There is only space here for one example , though there have been many , from models of COVID-19 mortality that were produced almost daily even as policymakers instituted wide-reaching restrictions on people ’ s daily lives .
The Washington Post has a good , accessible article on the evolution of modeled death-estimates from COVID-19 .
The article is long , but well worth reading .
This figure , in particular , summarizes the evolution of one of the most relied upon models , from the Institute for Health Metrics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( IHME ) .
As you can see , the estimated mortality from COVID-19 shifted massively over time as some of those variables discussed above were clarified by the incorporation of new data : As the figure shows , the plausible modeled range of fatalities from COVID-19 exceeded 150,000 deaths in the United States in early versions of the model , but they were rapidly downgraded over a matter of days in April , as the model was revised with newer and better information .
Even now , as the Post notes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different estimates of COVID-19 mortality in the US .
All of this would be relatively uninteresting to most people if instead of COVID-19 , scientists were modeling the lethality of say , a virus affecting a particular species of , well , mice .
But with people craving any kind of certainty they can get their hands on , and policymakers crafting policy in the fog of war , forecast models have to be taken with more than a grain of salt – an entire saltlick would be more appropriate .
Hopefully , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of computer modeling of complex systems will stay with them as they evaluate future forecasts of everything from health , to the environment , to economics , to pretty much everything .
As superstar-scientist Dr. Anthony Fauci , head of the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) put it recently , “ Models are really only as good as the assumptions that you put into the model .
”

Though forecast models have been a problem in the way they are utilized in public and environmental health for decades now, they have never before crested public awareness in quite the way they have in the time of COVID-19. People accustomed to seeing forecasts of things that are somewhat remote, somewhat abstract in time, place, and consequences are suddenly being exposed to how the sausage is made in predictive forecasting, and many are not liking what they’ve seen.
Many policy analysts (including myself) have been critical of the way that forecast models have been incorporated into governmental decision making for decades, arguing over the validity of forecasts projecting the impacts of tiny changes in air pollution exposure, radiation and chemical exposure; in predicting species endangerment; in predicting transit system ridership; in predicting “peak oil;” manmade climate changes and much more, COVID-19 has brought the problem out of the tall weeds of policy analysis, and into everyone’s living room, where they a) have more time on their hands than usual, and b) have suddenly realized that putting faith in model projections is more than an abstract concern for policy wonks.
To be clear, computer modeling of complex systems has its place, which is mostly in the computer lab, where one can tinker with one or more variables and pit models vs. models to see which one best explains something in the real world. That’s very valuable. The problem with modeling occurs when it escapes the lab and is abused and misunderstood by policymakers and the public. Unfortunately, space is limited, so here are a few things to understand about models.
The first point should be obvious: computer models are a gross simplification of reality (the technical term is abstraction). Consider a picture of a mouse. The picture of the mouse tells you a lot of things, but really very little about the biology of mice. To understand those things, they must be reduced into ever more tiny aspects of mousehood – it’s shape, it’s chemical composition, its biochemistry, behavior, capabilities, and so on, ad infinitum. Mickey Mouse, for example, is an abstraction of a mouse. When you see Mickey, you see a mouse, but in fact, Mickey tells you remarkably little (and a lot that’s not realistic) about mice. As the great astrophysicist George O. Abell explained in my early science education, to truly model something as simple as a mouse, you would have to have the knowledge to create the mouse, and humanity is far from doing that even for as small a thing as a virus (we still are, and that was 40 years ago now).
The second point you should know is that the farther away from modeling the tiniest of things, the less reliably models reflect the reality of what you are studying. Because in modeling, errors accumulate. And all measurement includes error. So the more complex the model, the greater uncertainty becomes.
The third thing to understand is that trying to model complex things goes well beyond looking at variables we can actually measure, especially if we’re trying to forecast. Instead, we have to approximate those variables, which entails a variety of assumptions. (Indeed, even measuring the variables you can measure involves a host of assumptions about your ability to accurately measure what you’re looking at.) Assumptions are inherently subjective, which renders model outputs relatively useless as forecasting tools. To be fair, that’s why computer modelers talk about “projections” vs. “predictions,” a nuance that quickly gets lost in public policy discussion.
COVID-19 has brought these points home to people in a way they have never been seen before.
There is only space here for one example, though there have been many, from models of COVID-19 mortality that were produced almost daily even as policymakers instituted wide-reaching restrictions on people’s daily lives.
The Washington Post has a good, accessible article on the evolution of modeled death-estimates from COVID-19. The article is long, but well worth reading. This figure, in particular, summarizes the evolution of one of the most relied upon models, from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington (IHME). As you can see, the estimated mortality from COVID-19 shifted massively over time as some of those variables discussed above were clarified by the incorporation of new data:
As the figure shows, the plausible modeled range of fatalities from COVID-19 exceeded 150,000 deaths in the United States in early versions of the model, but they were rapidly downgraded over a matter of days in April, as the model was revised with newer and better information. Even now, as the Post notes, there are battling models that generate quite different estimates of COVID-19 mortality in the US.
All of this would be relatively uninteresting to most people if instead of COVID-19, scientists were modeling the lethality of say, a virus affecting a particular species of, well, mice. But with people craving any kind of certainty they can get their hands on, and policymakers crafting policy in the fog of war, forecast models have to be taken with more than a grain of salt – an entire saltlick would be more appropriate. Hopefully, this new public insight into the limitations of computer modeling of complex systems will stay with them as they evaluate future forecasts of everything from health, to the environment, to economics, to pretty much everything. As superstar-scientist Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) put it recently, “Models are really only as good as the assumptions that you put into the model.”


Rare earth emergency

How would you feel if the United States was more than 90 percent on Iran for its oil supply ?
@ @ @ @ @ unthinkable !
We would not tolerate that kind of extreme vulnerability .
Why is it @ @ @ @ @ more than 90 percent dependent on Communist China for rare earth minerals and critical metals @ @ @ @ @ modern technologies ?
Communist China has the ability to quickly strangle the U.S. and the @ @ @ @ @ with its near monopoly of REs .

How would you feel if the United States was more than 90 percent on Iran for its oil supply? Such a thing would be unthinkable! We would not tolerate that kind of extreme vulnerability. Why is it then we will accept being more than 90 percent dependent on Communist China for rare earth minerals and critical metals that power all of our modern technologies? Communist China has the ability to quickly strangle the U.S. and the rest of the western world with its near monopoly of REs.
Authors CFACT Ed CFACT -- We're freedom people.
Mark Mathis Mark Mathis is author and documentary filmmaker as well as president of the Clear Energy Alliance, a company devoted to curing energy blindness.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-29--Colorado River water woes are real — But not climate

Unless greenhouse-gas emissions are drastically reduced , the already shrinking Colorado River could shrink another 31 % by 2050 , two scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) warned in a recent study published in the online journal Science .
The study , “ Colorado River Flow Dwindles as Warming-Driven as Loss of Reflective Snow Energizes Evaporation , ” was written by P.C.D .
Milly and K.A .
Dunne .
It appeared in Science on Feb. 20 , 2020 .
In the arid and semi-arid West , water has always been a prized commodity .
As the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too has the demand for water .
Deciding who gets how much of this scarce resource has marked water-management disputes in the West since the late 19th century .
Snowfall rates along the course of the Colorado can vary greatly from year to year , leaving the 40 million people it serves in over how much water will flow down the river .
In other words , dealing with the mighty Colorado , the river that cuts through the Grand Canyon , has always been a challenge .
Using computer simulations of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers determined that , on average , a regional temperature increase of 1.4 degrees Celsius over the last century reduced the annual amount of water flowing through the West ’ s largest river by more than 11 % .
To forecast the river ’ s future , the two researchers combined their simulations with climate models ( yes , those ) that predict temperature increases under purely hypothetical greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios .
In other words , all we have to do is curb atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by reducing our use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will live happily ever after .
Or so their argument goes .
” Writing in the American Spectator ( May 21 ) , Greg Wachler points out that “ evapotranspiration has robbed the river of vast quantities of water because public land managers have allowed forests to grow unnaturally clogged with too many trees – the same bad management that caused 100 million acres of catastrophic fires in the last 20 years.
” “ Water evaporates from the trees before ever hitting the ground , much less the river , ” he explains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated that the Colorado River loses almost four million acre feet per year from evapotranspiration … ” Wachler is president of the Natural Resources Group and is the former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources .
In addition to overgrowth of forests managed , or mismanaged , by federal agencies , the Colorado has another tormentor : Tamarisk , an invasive and non-native species .
A deciduous shrub or small tree , tamarisk ( also known as salt cedar ) originated in Eurasia .
Tamarisk has taken root in almost half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is causing trouble everywhere it spreads .
“ Tamarisk is among nature ’ s thirstiest plants , lowering water tables and drying up springs , wetlands , and riparian areas .
One tree can drink more than 200 gallons of water per day , and they often grow in stands of up to 3,000 trees per acre , ” Wachler says .
“ Tamarisk now covers nearly two million acres of river banks.
” Given what is known about the thirsty non-native species , Wachler calculates that the approximately 6 billion tamarisk trees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of water a day .
“ If replaced by the native cottonwood and willow vegetation ( which in their natural density consume less than a fourth of the water ) , 75 percent of the water would remain in the rivers – nearly a trillion gallons per day , ” he says .
The harm wrought by the tamarisk has been known for decades , but the agencies responsible for managing the millions of acres of federal land in the West have done little to address the problem .
Of necessity , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservation , most notably Grand Junction , CO-based non-profit RiversEdge West ( formerly the Tamarisk Coalition ) .
But with an annual budget of under $ 4 million , RiversEdge West can restore less than 2,000 acres of river bank a year .
Still , Wachler notes , that far surpasses what they feds have done .
Our sad experience with the lockdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a grim reminder of how public policy based on dubious models can go astray .
This is true whether the models deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Unless greenhouse-gas emissions are drastically reduced, the already shrinking Colorado River could shrink another 31% by 2050, two scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) warned in a recent study published in the online journal Science.
The study, “Colorado River Flow Dwindles as Warming-Driven as Loss of Reflective Snow Energizes Evaporation,” was written by P.C.D. Milly and K.A. Dunne. It appeared in Science on Feb. 20, 2020.
In the arid and semi-arid West, water has always been a prized commodity. As the region’s population has grown, so too has the demand for water. Deciding who gets how much of this scarce resource has marked water-management disputes in the West since the late 19th century. Snowfall rates along the course of the Colorado can vary greatly from year to year, leaving the 40 million people it serves in over how much water will flow down the river. In other words, dealing with the mighty Colorado, the river that cuts through the Grand Canyon, has always been a challenge.
Using computer simulations of the Colorado River Basin, the two USGS researchers determined that, on average, a regional temperature increase of 1.4 degrees Celsius over the last century reduced the annual amount of water flowing through the West’s largest river by more than 11%. To forecast the river’s future, the two researchers combined their simulations with climate models (yes, those) that predict temperature increases under purely hypothetical greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios.
In other words, all we have to do is curb atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by reducing our use of fossil fuels, and the Colorado River will live happily ever after. Or so their argument goes.
Evapotranspiration and an Unwelcome Intruder
” Writing in the American Spectator (May 21), Greg Wachler points out that “evapotranspiration has robbed the river of vast quantities of water because public land managers have allowed forests to grow unnaturally clogged with too many trees – the same bad management that caused 100 million acres of catastrophic fires in the last 20 years.”
“Water evaporates from the trees before ever hitting the ground, much less the river,” he explains. “The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that the Colorado River loses almost four million acre feet per year from evapotranspiration …” Wachler is president of the Natural Resources Group and is the former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
In addition to overgrowth of forests managed, or mismanaged, by federal agencies, the Colorado has another tormentor: Tamarisk, an invasive and non-native species. A deciduous shrub or small tree, tamarisk (also known as salt cedar) originated in Eurasia. Tamarisk has taken root in almost half the river systems in the U.S. and is causing trouble everywhere it spreads.
“Tamarisk is among nature’s thirstiest plants, lowering water tables and drying up springs, wetlands, and riparian areas. One tree can drink more than 200 gallons of water per day, and they often grow in stands of up to 3,000 trees per acre,” Wachler says. “Tamarisk now covers nearly two million acres of river banks.”
Given what is known about the thirsty non-native species, Wachler calculates that the approximately 6 billion tamarisk trees nationwide consume an astounding 1.2 trillion gallons of water a day. “If replaced by the native cottonwood and willow vegetation (which in their natural density consume less than a fourth of the water), 75 percent of the water would remain in the rivers – nearly a trillion gallons per day,” he says.
Private Conservation to the Rescue
The harm wrought by the tamarisk has been known for decades, but the agencies responsible for managing the millions of acres of federal land in the West have done little to address the problem. Of necessity, that task has fallen to practitioners of private conservation, most notably Grand Junction, CO-based non-profit RiversEdge West (formerly the Tamarisk Coalition). But with an annual budget of under $4 million, RiversEdge West can restore less than 2,000 acres of river bank a year. Still, Wachler notes, that far surpasses what they feds have done.
Our sad experience with the lockdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is a grim reminder of how public policy based on dubious models can go astray. This is true whether the models deal with the climate or with a virus.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-30--Weaknesses of wind and solar: CO2 is no demon — Part III

In Parts One and Two of this series we established the Ciccone/Lehr Rule of Thumb which states that All Wind and Solar Power must be backed up with an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel power running on Standby 100 % of the time .
In this concluding segment , we summarize the critical climate change facts that you need to be optimistic for a better future and do so with confidence , tolerance , and good humor .
The facts are fully substantiated in the book A HITCHHIKER ’ S JOURNEY THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE , now on Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Untold hundreds of $ billions are in play each year , and charlatans are fiercely competing for the biggest bites .
An editorial in the May 27 Wall Street Journal by Steve Milloy described how many Fortune 500 companies brag about what they are doing to stop climate change in their annual reports .
Most scientists know that human-made CO2 caused global warming is overstated , but many continue to fight for the front row of the public funding trough .
• None Global warming is not getting worse and the warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good thing the Earth has been cooling for the past 5,000-years , hitting bottom in the late 16-17 hundreds , and has been trying to inch back up to a more reasonable level in the past 250-years .
Ignore the scary red-line at the end , that ’ s staged-manipulated data .
If anything , we have been in a slight cooling trend since 2000 .
• None NO !
CO2 has increased to 420 PPM in the past 150-years .
Some say it ’ s caused by humans , but the increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dots on a page with 10,000 dots .
Scientists can not tell the difference between human-made CO2 from volcano/tectonic made CO2 .
• None IS CO2 is causing the greenhouse heating of the Earth ?
NO !
First thing , be grateful for the greenhouse effect .
Without it , the world would be 30 C colder ; the Earth would be a frozen sphere and all life dead-forever .
The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor , which accounts for about 95 % .
Human-caused CO2 would be about 0.02 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists don ’ t know the facts or data .
• None WILL CO2 destroy us and the planet ?
NO !
CO2 is the basis for all life on Earth ; it combines with water and sunshine and produces plant sugars .
Plant sugars are the food source for all plants , animals , fish , and fowl and everything that lives on this pretty blue planet .
According to NASA , over the past 35-years , the Earth has greened , meaning more plants , by an area equal to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also has been an enormous increase in leafing , meaning bigger plants and more leaves .
NASA also tells us that deserts have shrunk , especially where it ’ s most needed , like in central Africa , southern Eurasia , and India-Pakistan-China .
• None More CO2 means free and rich fertilizer , increased crop yields for the poorest people in the developing countries .
It is also free-natural fertilizer for forests , plains , and wilderness making more food for wildlife .
In Figure 2 , we see four identical trees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You see the benefits of more CO2 staring at you .
• None In the documentary PLANET FOR THE HUMANS , Michael Moore is worried that there are too many people on the planet , and we can not feed them .
No , Michael , thanks to the magic of fossil fuels , tractors , trucks , and ships , and a higher level of CO2 , hunger in the world has been disappearing .
The more limiting problem is the distribution of the excess food produced by fossil fuel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The film also worries , as many do , about the shortage of water for drinking , hygiene , and farming .
This is not a crisis ; it is solvable everywhere At higher CO2 levels , plants need 40-70 % less water .
Look at Figure 3 , [ iii ] the underside of the leaf .
There we see the stomata , the mouths of the plants .
At low CO2 levels , the mouths need to open more and stay open longer to take in sparsely available CO2 .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through them .
At higher CO2 levels , the stomata quickly gobble up the CO2 and shut down before losing much water .
• · There is actually little clean-drinking water in nature .
Most of our natural waters are polluted/contaminated not just by humans , but that is its natural state , swamps , algae , bugs , animal feces , etc .
If you want clean water , you need pipes to carry the natural water to treatment plants and more pipes to distribute the clean-treated water to where it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring the wastewater back to the treatment plants and more pipes to bring the treated water to farms , people , and nature .
AND pipes need pumps pumps need electricity to power them .
In Figure 4 , we see that more fossil fuel energy consumption leads to more clean water .
Especially in developing countries , we need to get them more fossil fuel energy to provide them not only with clean water but also the management and distribution of clean water .
• None No one will argue that life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
Here are our recommendations as to how to achieve this : • None Take 50 % of all the money now wasted on the bogus CO2 research and grant it to the developing countries so they can build their modest generators to fire up their pumps , refrigerators , treatment plants and let these people have a chance for meaningful survival .
• duce bogus EPA regulation s on CO2 emissions and let them fire up their fossil fuel plants to make electricity for their schools , hospitals , refrigeration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the World Development Bank that mandates that their grants can only be used for solar/wind plants , with no regard to their detailed failures .
Support for them would dwindle if the citizenry realized that for every kilowatt of wind or solar power placed on the electric grid that much more fossil fuel burning power must be added .
Wrapping it all up : In part one , we documented , not only the absurdities of building the solar and wind systems but we recognized in the Michael Moore movie the ravaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem that does not exist , In part two , we documented that in the operation and maintenance of wind and solar systems , we waste more money and energy , which results in no reduction in CO2 , no reduction in pollutants , no reduction in fossil fuels .
The only net positive result is the puffing of selected egos , wallets , and virtue signaling .
In this concluding segment , we recognize more CO2 is good for humanity and the planet .
Finally , everyone in the electric power industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel power when wind and solar are added to their grid .
It appears , however , that much like the well known fable , none were willing to state that “ The Emperor Had No Clothes : .
So , we came forward to coin our new Ciccone/Lehr Rule of Thumb which says : All wind and solar power on an electric grid must be backed up by an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel power running at standby 100 % of the time .
[ i ] https : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ; posted by Jason Kottke Sep 16 , 2013 [ ii ] https : //industrialprogress.com/mcffdata/ The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels , Alex Epstein-Figure 4.6 : More CO2 , More Plant Growth , S Henne , July 2 , 2019

In Parts One and Two of this series we established the Ciccone/Lehr Rule of Thumb which states that All Wind and Solar Power must be backed up with an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel power running on Standby 100% of the time.
In this concluding segment, we summarize the critical climate change facts that you need to be optimistic for a better future and do so with confidence, tolerance, and good humor. The facts are fully substantiated in the book A HITCHHIKER’S JOURNEY THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE, now on Amazon.
The climate change industry is enormous. Untold hundreds of $billions are in play each year, and charlatans are fiercely competing for the biggest bites. An editorial in the May 27 Wall Street Journal by Steve Milloy described how many Fortune 500 companies brag about what they are doing to stop climate change in their annual reports. Most scientists know that human-made CO2 caused global warming is overstated, but many continue to fight for the front row of the public funding trough.
Global warming is not getting worse and the warming that di d occur has been a good thing . Look at figure 1; the Earth has been cooling for the past 5,000-years, hitting bottom in the late 16-17 hundreds, and has been trying to inch back up to a more reasonable level in the past 250-years. Ignore the scary red-line at the end, that ’ s staged-manipulated data. If anything, we have been in a slight cooling trend since 2000.
’ IS CO2 rising and causing global warming? NO! CO2 has increased to 420 PPM in the past 150-years. Some say it ’ s caused by humans, but the increased amount is trivial, like adding 4-5 dots on a page with 10,000 dots. Scientists cannot tell the difference between human-made CO2 from volcano/tectonic made CO2.
’ IS CO2 is causing the greenhouse heating of the Earth? NO! First thing, be grateful for the greenhouse effect. Without it, the world would be 30 C colder; the Earth would be a frozen sphere and all life dead-forever. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, which accounts for about 95%. Human-caused CO2 would be about 0.02%, but that is a guess, as scientists don ’ t know the facts or data.
’ WILL CO2 destroy us and the planet? NO! CO2 is the basis for all life on Earth; it combines with water and sunshine and produces plant sugars. Plant sugars are the food source for all plants, animals, fish, and fowl and everything that lives on this pretty blue planet.
According to NASA, over the past 35-years, the Earth has greened, meaning more plants, by an area equal to the size of half of Australia. There also has been an enormous increase in leafing, meaning bigger plants and more leaves. NASA also tells us that deserts have shrunk, especially where it’s most needed, like in central Africa, southern Eurasia, and India-Pakistan-China.
More CO2 means free and rich fertilizer, increased crop yields for the poorest people in the developing countries. It is also free-natural fertilizer for forests, plains, and wilderness making more food for wildlife. In Figure 2, [ii] we see four identical trees, all planted at the same time. You see the benefits of more CO2 staring at you.
In the documentary PLANET FOR THE HUMANS, Michael Moore is worried that there are too many people on the planet, and we cannot feed them. No, Michael, thanks to the ma gic of fossil fuels, tractors, trucks, and ships, and a higher level of CO2, hunger in the world has been disappearing. The more limiting problem is the distribution of the excess food produced by fossil fuel and nuclear energy-rich developed countries.
The film also worries, as many do, about the shortage of water for drinking, hygiene, and farming. This is not a crisis; it is solvable everywhere
At higher CO2 levels, plants need 40-70% less water. Look at Figure 3,[iii] the underside of the leaf. There we see the stomata, the mouths of the plants. At low CO2 levels, the mouths need to open more and stay open longer to take in sparsely available CO2. But in doing so, they lose water through them. At higher CO2 levels, the stomata quickly gobble up the CO2 and shut down before losing much water.
· There is actually little clean-drinking water in nature. Most of our natural waters are polluted/contaminated not just by humans, but that is its natural state, swamps, algae, bugs, animal feces, etc. If you want clean water, you need pipes to carry the natural water to treatment plants and more pipes to distribute the clean-treated water to where it ’ s needed. Then more pipes to bring the wastewater back to the treatment plants and more pipes to bring the treated water to farms, people, and nature. AND pipes need pumps and pumps need electricity to power them. In Figure 4, [iv] we see that more fossil fuel energy consumption leads to more clean water. Especially in developing countries, we need to get them more fossil fuel energy to provide them not only with clean water but also the management and distribution of clean water.
’ No one will argue that life can be improved throughout parts of the world. Here are our recommendations as to how to achieve this :
: Take 50% of all the money now wasted on the bogus CO2 research and grant it to the developing countries so they can build their modest generators to fire up their pumps, refrigerators, treatment plants and let these people have a chance for meaningful survival.
Re duce or eliminate bogus EPA regulation s on CO2 emissions and let them fire up their fossil fuel plants to make electricity for their schools, hospitals, refrigeration, hygiene, etc. Stop the madness at the World Development Bank that mandates that their grants can only be used for solar/wind plants, with no regard to their detailed failures. Support for them would dwindle if the citizenry realized that for every kilowatt of wind or solar power placed on the electric grid that much more fossil fuel burning power must be added.
Wrapping it all up:
In part one, we documented, not only the absurdities of building the solar and wind systems but we recognized in the Michael Moore movie the ravaging of the environment to solve a CO2 problem that does not exist,
In part two, we documented that in the operation and maintenance of wind and solar systems, we waste more money and energy, which results in no reduction in CO2, no reduction in pollutants, no reduction in fossil fuels. The only net positive result is the puffing of selected egos, wallets, and virtue signaling.
In this concluding segment, we recognize more CO2 is good for humanity and the planet.
Finally, everyone in the electric power industry has long known the need for backup fossil fuel power when wind and solar are added to their grid. It appears, however, that much like the well known fable, none were willing to state that “The Emperor Had No Clothes:. So, we came forward to coin our new Ciccone/Lehr Rule of Thumb which says:
All wind and solar power on an electric grid must be backed up by an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel power running at standby 100% of the time.
[i] https://kottke.org/13/09/temperature-chart-for-the-last-11000-years Temperature chart for the last 11,000 years; posted by Jason Kottke Sep 16, 2013
[ii] https://industrialprogress.com/mcffdata/ The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein-Figure 4.6: More CO2, More Plant Growth, S Henne, July 2, 2019
[iii] https://www.saburchill.com/chapters/chap0025.html HOW PLANTS BREATHE


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-30--Could satellites that study distant stars help battle wildfires on Earth?

Could satellites used to peer into the galaxy and observe far-off stars be used to fight wildfires here on Earth ?
Well that ’ s what a company called “ Fireball International ” is looking into as they seek to get funding to set up a series of geosynchronous satellites around the planet in a project called FUEGO .
According to Christoph Tylor , CEO of Fireball ’ s Australian division , “ We hope to roll out a global early wildfire detection and assessment system based on space and ground based sensors…We also aim to build our own geostationary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sensitivity of the satellites used to detect wildfires.
” The idea of using far-out space technology to fight wildfires was the brainchild of astrophysicist Carl Pennypacker .
During his tenure at the University of California , Berkeley in 1991 , Pennypacker came up with the notion that space technology could be used to help firefighters after a big blaze destroyed neighborhoods and forests just a few miles from his house , ultimately causing 1.5 billion dollars of damage .
And just how will Pennypacker ’ s system actually work ?
As laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] ith FUEGO , the entire detection process can take as little as three minutes from a fire ’ s ignition .
If fully realized , geostationary satellites would be just one component of the entire FUEGO system .
According to Pennypacker ( FUEGO ’ s designer ) , the system will consist of technology at many altitudes , including mountaintop cameras , drones , air tankers , and existing low Earth orbit satellites .
With an integrated system , Pennypacker explained that the response can be almost immediate once a satellite or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more information , read the full article in Mongabay here .

Could satellites used to peer into the galaxy and observe far-off stars be used to fight wildfires here on Earth?
Well that’s what a company called “Fireball International” is looking into as they seek to get funding to set up a series of geosynchronous satellites around the planet in a project called FUEGO.
According to Christoph Tylor, CEO of Fireball’s Australian division, “We hope to roll out a global early wildfire detection and assessment system based on space and ground based sensors…We also aim to build our own geostationary FUEGO satellite hardware to improve the resolution and sensitivity of the satellites used to detect wildfires.”
The idea of using far-out space technology to fight wildfires was the brainchild of astrophysicist Carl Pennypacker. During his tenure at the University of California, Berkeley in 1991, Pennypacker came up with the notion that space technology could be used to help firefighters after a big blaze destroyed neighborhoods and forests just a few miles from his house, ultimately causing 1.5 billion dollars of damage.
And just how will Pennypacker’s system actually work? As laid out in Mongabay:
“[W]ith FUEGO, the entire detection process can take as little as three minutes from a fire’s ignition. If fully realized, geostationary satellites would be just one component of the entire FUEGO system. According to Pennypacker (FUEGO’s designer), the system will consist of technology at many altitudes, including mountaintop cameras, drones, air tankers, and existing low Earth orbit satellites. With an integrated system, Pennypacker explained that the response can be almost immediate once a satellite or camera picks up a signal.”
For more information, read the full article in Mongabay here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-31--The Global Carbon Budget: Cute numbers, feigned confidence, highly questionable — Part I

In the coming weeks I would like to pay attention in a triptych to a topic that is actually considered to be little controversial in climate skeptics circles and is therefore hardly questioned : the global carbon budget .
In my opinion , this lack of attention is unjustified , because it is precisely this subject that the climate orthodoxy uses as an established starting point to then present human emissions as a central problem .
In this first part , I will put the importance of human CO2 emissions into perspective by arguing that natural factors play a predominant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the influence of CO2 on the climate , but only with the relationship between the natural factors and the human contribution to the CO2 budget .
Climate science suffers from a form of demagogy and bias that is best illustrated with the famous CO2 flux graph in the figure above .
This beautifully coloured picture was created to illustrate how much CO2 is emitted by humans ( source ) and how much , and where , that CO2 ends up annually ( sink ) .
Since this graph was introduced by Le @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) , many variations of this picture have been published ( by the IPCC and others ) with the same alarming message .
I will try to show why this graph should be classified as scientific deception .
The question now immediately arises of how one could establish that one year the land is able to absorb , for example , 50 % of human emissions , while in another year that absorption appears to be completely absent .
The answer is that this difference has not been determined empirically , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to balance the carbon budget , based on the assumption that the annual CO2 absorption by the ocean ( purple ) of human CO2 emissions is relatively stable and not subject to large variations from year to year ( albeit gradually increasing over the years ) .
What is completely ( consciously ? )
Ignored in this graph is the gigantic natural flux ( i.e .
emissions and absorption ) between land , sea and air , because this picture is limited to the human emission history since 1870 .
By displaying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with only human emissions , without natural emissions , the false impression is created that the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration would only be related to human emissions , and has therefore no bearing on the 20 times greater annual natural flux of CO2 .
The natural emission ( source ) and absorption ( sink ) of CO2 depends on many particularly complex and difficult to measure factors , comparable to the many factors that make the climate/weather so difficult to predict .
I have reviewed the oceanographic literature on the CO2 flux @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as best as I could , and was baffled by the large number of factors and uncertainties associated with this phenomenon : ocean currents , temperature , biogenic activity ( phytoplankton ) to name just a few .
The same uncertainty applies to the degree of terrestrial CO2 flux .
The physical , chemical and biological processes that control the gigantic CO2 budget are so complex that it is highly pretentious to think that one could identify or quantify all causes of the CO2 fluctuations with any precision .
In Figure 2 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Figure 1 ( recently ≈10 GtC ) with the annual natural emissions ( ≈ 210 GtC ) to give an impression of the relationship between the two .
The three main natural sources of atmospheric CO2 are ( ref .
2 ) : plant respiration , soil respiration and ocean respiration .
The main natural uptake processes are : photosynthesis ( ≈ 120 GtC/year ) and ocean absorption ( ≈ 90 GtC/year ) .
Nearly 50 % of the natural CO2 land emissions are attributed to soil respiration ( ≈ 60 GtC/year ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decomposition of organic material in the soil and the expiration of plant roots .
Decomposition depends on two important factors : soil temperature and soil moisture .
The importance of soil temperature is shown in the following graph .
It shows a linear relationship ( determined empirically ) between soil temperature and emissions : 1 ° C temperature rise gives a 16.5 % increase in CO2 emissions ( source Wikipedia ) .
Over the past 55 years , the surface air temperature on land ( in the Northern Hemisphere ) has increased by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the world average , because the land in the Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Earth as a whole , including the sea .
A Chinese study ( 360 locations ) has shown that since 1962 the soil has heated up at a rate of 0.031 ° C /year ( ref .
3 ) .
A study on American soil ( 292 locations ) found an almost identical increase of 0.032 ° C / year at a depth of 10 cm ( ref .
4 ) .
A 1.5 ° C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is therefore a reasonable assumption .
Using the graph , we can deduce that global warming now causes 25 % more soil respiration of CO2 than it did 50 years ago .
If it is now estimated at 60 GtC , it would have been 48 GtC 50 years ago .
This means that now yearly an extra 12 GtC is emitted as a result of soil respiration than was 50 years ago , purely by temperature rise .
That is more than the total anthropogenic annual CO2 emissions of ≈ 10 GtC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trace the origin of the Wikipedia graph , but confirmation of the degree of extra soil respiration is provided by Zhang et al .
( 2016 ) : Rising soil temperature in China and its potential ecological impact ( ref .
5 ) .
They measured an increase in soil respiration of 28 % over a period of 50 years .
In view of the great uncertainties concerning the CO2 budget , I have to mention that large differences are also mentioned in the literature regarding the amount of soil respiration .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 ) , soil respiration is estimated to be 98 GtC ( =+/- 12 GtC ) .
If the 28 % increase in Zhang et al .
Is representative of the entire Earth and the 98 GtC is the actual emission , 50 years ago soil respiration would have been 76 GtC/year and the CO2 increase would therefore have been 22 GtC/year , more than double the annual human emissions .

In the coming weeks I would like to pay attention in a triptych to a topic that is actually considered to be little controversial in climate skeptics circles and is therefore hardly questioned: the global carbon budget. In my opinion, this lack of attention is unjustified, because it is precisely this subject that the climate orthodoxy uses as an established starting point to then present human emissions as a central problem.
In this first part, I will put the importance of human CO2 emissions into perspective by arguing that natural factors play a predominant role. I am not directly concerned with the influence of CO2 on the climate, but only with the relationship between the natural factors and the human contribution to the CO2 budget.
Climate science suffers from a form of demagogy and bias that is best illustrated with the famous CO2 flux graph in the figure above. This beautifully coloured picture was created to illustrate how much CO2 is emitted by humans (source) and how much, and where, that CO2 ends up annually (sink). Since this graph was introduced by Le Quéré et al. (Ref. 1), many variations of this picture have been published (by the IPCC and others) with the same alarming message. I will try to show why this graph should be classified as scientific deception.
The basic data used to compile this graph is, in my opinion, reasonably reliable, because it is based on accurate atmospheric CO2 measurements, calculations of fossil fuel consumption, cement production and observed deforestation. However, the reliability of the graph ends here. Human emissions/deforestation are shown above the horizontal axis, and below what happened to those emissions. The debit and credit side have been balanced. It is suggested, however, that nature (land, ocean and air), in an ever-varying ratio, has been able to offer human emissions a place of its own.
The question now immediately arises of how one could establish that one year the land is able to absorb, for example, 50% of human emissions, while in another year that absorption appears to be completely absent. The answer is that this difference has not been determined empirically, but is only the result of an exercise to balance the carbon budget, based on the assumption that the annual CO2 absorption by the ocean (purple) of human CO2 emissions is relatively stable and not subject to large variations from year to year (albeit gradually increasing over the years). What is completely (consciously?) Ignored in this graph is the gigantic natural flux (i.e. emissions and absorption) between land, sea and air, because this picture is limited to the human emission history since 1870. By displaying the fluctuating atmospheric CO2 increase in a graph with only human emissions, without natural emissions, the false impression is created that the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration would only be related to human emissions, and has therefore no bearing on the 20 times greater annual natural flux of CO2. The natural emission (source) and absorption (sink) of CO2 depends on many particularly complex and difficult to measure factors, comparable to the many factors that make the climate/weather so difficult to predict. I have reviewed the oceanographic literature on the CO2 flux from air to sea and vice versa as best as I could, and was baffled by the large number of factors and uncertainties associated with this phenomenon: ocean currents, temperature, biogenic activity (phytoplankton) to name just a few. The same uncertainty applies to the degree of terrestrial CO2 flux. The physical, chemical and biological processes that control the gigantic CO2 budget are so complex that it is highly pretentious to think that one could identify or quantify all causes of the CO2 fluctuations with any precision. In Figure 2, I have combined the human emissions from Figure 1 (recently ≈10 GtC) with the annual natural emissions (≈ 210 GtC) to give an impression of the relationship between the two. The three main natural sources of atmospheric CO2 are (ref. 2): plant respiration, soil respiration and ocean respiration. The main natural uptake processes are: photosynthesis (≈ 120 GtC/year) and ocean absorption (≈ 90 GtC/year).


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-31--Watch historic Space X launch AND first stage LAND to be reused

A Successful launch .
Two astronauts on the way to the ISS .
Then the icing on the cake .
@ @ @ @ @ rocket successfully landed on a drone ship at sea to be USED AGAIN , bringing @ @ @ @ @ travel .
The name of the ship ?
“ Of course I still love you.
@ @ @ @ @ industry in making America independent in space is as big as the shale revolution in @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t miss docking at the space station Sunday , 5/31 , at 10:29 @ @

A Successful launch. Two astronauts on the way to the ISS.
Then the icing on the cake. The Falcon 9 first stage rocket successfully landed on a drone ship at sea to be USED AGAIN, bringing down the cost of space travel. The name of the ship? “Of course I still love you.”
The success of private industry in making America independent in space is as big as the shale revolution in making America energy independent.
Isn’t the power of free enterprise amazing?
Don’t miss docking at the space station Sunday, 5/31, at 10:29 AM EDT


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-01--Alarmist queen Hayhoe takedown by Friends of Science

If Greta Thunberg is an alarmist princess then Katherine Hayhoe is the queen of climate alarmism , at least in the U.S. and Canada .
She was the de facto spokesperson for the atrocious third National Climate Assessment .
After that she started doing bogus “ Here ’ s what is going to happen to you ” climate studies for various states and cities .
Making big bucks scaring people .
Last year Hayhoe delivered a doomsday forecast to the Province of Alberta , Canada , and here our story begins .
Alberta is home to the Friends of Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada ’ s top skeptical organizations .
FOSS has now produced a 77 page takedown report , shredding Hayhoe ’ s so-called study in detail .
It is an elegant critical work , with implications far beyond Canada .
The topic is technical but it is written for policy makers .
The plain English table of contents gives the flavor and shows the scope , with 37 succinct chapters .
There are even chapters titled “ What is “ Climate Change ” ?
” and “ What is a Climate Model ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report is arrogantly titled “ Alberta ’ s Climate Future ” so the FOSS takedown is “ ” .
There are lots of data issues , especially since the Hayhoe report uses truncated trends .
The FOSS rebuttal does a lot of longer term analysis .
Another big issue is that the Hayhoe report is based on so-called “ downscaling ” of hot climate models .
This means taking huge crude regional results and interpolating questionable local details .
Hayhoe bills herself as an “ atmospheric scientist ” but her Ph.D. work was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science .
It is fitting that she is now in a university Political Science department , as her work is certainly political .
What Hayhoe ignores is the fact that different global climate models give wildly different regional projections .
I recall when the first U.S. National Climate Assessment came out ; it used two major models , the Canadian and the British Hadley .
For the North Central region one projected a 160 % increase in rainfall , while the other gave a 60 % decrease .
Swamp or desert !
Obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making .
Here is the Friends of Science condensed summary : “ This review shows how Hayhoe & Stoner misinform , how they did not use all available information , how they cultivate alarm regarding Black Swan events , while ignoring counter trends and evidence of cycles .
Their report style demonstrates a false , absolute certainty , of knowledge , where due qualification of assumptions and other influences can alter results as reported .
Facts and evidence , not fortune-telling , should guide public policy on climate and energy.
” Here are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Hayhoe & Stoner ’ s “ Alberta ’ s Climate Future ” report fails in a number of ways .
The report ignores climate cycles and instead forecasts continuing linear temperature increases based on global climate models , even when local trends may be quite different .
The report only addresses trends from 1950 , ignoring much warmer conditions in the past in the Province.
” “ More concerning , “ Alberta ’ s Climate Future ” is based on the use of unreasonably unlikely scenarios , such as Representative Concentration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computer simulation is a very extreme projection of the future where the world goes back to using more than five times the coal than is used today .
Most mainstream scientists believe the RCP8.5 scenario to be a critically flawed benchmark for forecasting future climate.
” “ Hayhoe & Stoner make bold and unverified statements such as : “ extreme high and low temperatures are projected to increase exponentially ” without justification .
The report creates alarm with discredited references to natural “ Black Swan ” events , ascribing human caused climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There is a great deal more criticism , which is worth looking at .
FOSS really does a job on Queen Hayhoe ’ s so-called research .
The Friends of Science takedown is a model for critical analysis of alarmist pseudoscientific hype .
The deeply flawed Hayhoe report is not unusual .
On the contrary it is typical of climate alarmism — computer based , on selected data , presenting speculative scary conclusions as facts .

If Greta Thunberg is an alarmist princess then Katherine Hayhoe is the queen of climate alarmism, at least in the U.S. and Canada. She was the de facto spokesperson for the atrocious third National Climate Assessment. After that she started doing bogus “Here’s what is going to happen to you” climate studies for various states and cities. Making big bucks scaring people.
Last year Hayhoe delivered a doomsday forecast to the Province of Alberta, Canada, and here our story begins. Alberta is home to the Friends of Science Society (FOSS), one of Canada’s top skeptical organizations. FOSS has now produced a 77 page takedown report, shredding Hayhoe’s so-called study in detail. It is an elegant critical work, with implications far beyond Canada.
The topic is technical but it is written for policy makers. The plain English table of contents gives the flavor and shows the scope, with 37 succinct chapters. There are even chapters titled “What is “Climate Change”?” and “What is a Climate Model?” In the same vein Hayhoe’s report is arrogantly titled “Alberta’s Climate Future” so the FOSS takedown is “ Facts versus Fortune Telling ”.
There are lots of data issues, especially since the Hayhoe report uses truncated trends. The FOSS rebuttal does a lot of longer term analysis.
Another big issue is that the Hayhoe report is based on so-called “downscaling” of hot climate models. This means taking huge crude regional results and interpolating questionable local details. Hayhoe bills herself as an “atmospheric scientist” but her Ph.D. work was on downscaling, which is just computer science. It is fitting that she is now in a university Political Science department, as her work is certainly political.
What Hayhoe ignores is the fact that different global climate models give wildly different regional projections. I recall when the first U.S. National Climate Assessment came out; it used two major models, the Canadian and the British Hadley. For the North Central region one projected a 160% increase in rainfall, while the other gave a 60% decrease. Swamp or desert! Obviously this junk is no good for policy making.
Here is the Friends of Science condensed summary:
“This review shows how Hayhoe & Stoner misinform, how they did not use all available information, how they cultivate alarm regarding Black Swan events, while ignoring counter trends and evidence of cycles. Their report style demonstrates a false, absolute certainty, of knowledge, where due qualification of assumptions and other influences can alter results as reported. Facts and evidence, not fortune-telling, should guide public policy on climate and energy.”
Here are some more specific and telling FOSS findings:
“Hayhoe & Stoner’s “Alberta’s Climate Future” report fails in a number of ways. The report ignores climate cycles and instead forecasts continuing linear temperature increases based on global climate models, even when local trends may be quite different. The report only addresses trends from 1950, ignoring much warmer conditions in the past in the Province.”
“More concerning, “Alberta’s Climate Future” is based on the use of unreasonably unlikely scenarios, such as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This computer simulation is a very extreme projection of the future where the world goes back to using more than five times the coal than is used today. Most mainstream scientists believe the RCP8.5 scenario to be a critically flawed benchmark for forecasting future climate.”
“Hayhoe & Stoner make bold and unverified statements such as: “extreme high and low temperatures are projected to increase exponentially” without justification. The report creates alarm with discredited references to natural “Black Swan” events, ascribing human caused climate change as the driver of floods and fires.”
There is a great deal more criticism, which is worth looking at. FOSS really does a job on Queen Hayhoe’s so-called research.
The Friends of Science takedown is a model for critical analysis of alarmist pseudoscientific hype. The deeply flawed Hayhoe report is not unusual. On the contrary it is typical of climate alarmism — computer based, on selected data, presenting speculative scary conclusions as facts.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-01--Getting real about the pandemic

Getting real about the pandemic

Several hundred physicians recently buried the pandemic narrative of staying in economic lockdown , which is still being espoused by several governors , media personalities and , until recently , Dr. Anthony Fauci , the senior advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force Long the outspoken media commentator on Covid-19 , Dr. Fauci has been the federal government ’ s voice for caution about re-opening the economy to allow all those Americans to return to their “ non-essential ” jobs .
The mainstream media enjoyed the contrast with his ultimate boss , President Trump , who has been itching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came a May 19th letter to the President from a wide variety of about 600 medical doctors that expressed “ alarm over the exponentially growing negative health consequences of the national shutdown.
” It called the shutdown a “ mass casualty incident , ” and stated that financial uncertainty and poverty are “ closely linked to poor health.
” The whole reason for shutting down the economy and Congress spending—printing , actually—trillions more dollars to sustain the public was to slow the spread of coronavirus to avoid the health care system from being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , much less waiting for a vaccine .
Rather , by slowing its spread , and “ flattening the curve ” of infections , people could be continuously treated without anyone neglected .
Part of the economic lockdown was to forbid non-urgent or routine health care since space was to be on the ready to treat victims of coronavirus .
Now , more than two months after most states shut down their economies , the doctors wrote that 150,000 Americans per month would have had cancer detected from routine screenings that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they wrote , have missed routine care to check against heart disease , stroke and even child abuse – all because they were prohibited by emergency public health powers imposed by governors .
The doctors ’ letter thrashed Dr. Fauci ’ s narrative , and he has since changed his tune .
One week before this letter appeared , Dr. Fauci warned a Senate committee about the risks of re-opening the economy too quickly .
Now , he ’ s echoing the 600 medical doctors .
Dr. Fauci just warned about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from extended lockdowns .
He said , “ [ n ] ow is the time , depending upon where you are and what your situation is , is to begin seriously looking at reopening the economy , reopening the country to try and get back to some degree of normal.
” It is easy for lifelong bureaucrats with rock-solid job security and media personalities who make seven-figure incomes to prattle about public health and staying locked down as a society when millions of other people lose their jobs .
Long after the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was spared from being overwhelmed , what is the rationale for continued economic shutdown ?
The daily number and rate of Covid deaths is clearly declining .
Early on , in February and March , our nation ’ s policy makers feared the worst and temporary lockdowns made sense .
What we learned since is comprehensive economic lockdowns make no sense when the small percentages of the general population—seniors and those with underlying health conditions—were most vulnerable Covid-19 .
Protecting these groups should have been the focus , not forcing the general public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country has been in economic shutdown , more than 100,000 Americans are now reported to have died from coronavirus , several thousands of which a the result of emergency orders in some states that required nursing homes to accept infected patients .
And , since Americans still must buy groceries to eat , crowded supermarkets certainly negated the efficacy of closing supposedly non-essential businesses that probably would have been less crowded .
When the history of Covid-19 is written , two big takeaways are : ( 1 ) the experts often guessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as any layman , and invoked “ science and data ” when they used neither ; and ( 2 ) power often corrupts politicians , but emergency powers absolutely corrupt certain politicians .
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Washington State Governor Jay Inslee are two of several examples of executives still lording it over their citizens with capricious economic restrictions masquerading as public health , long after they were warranted .
The letter by the 600 medical doctors offers a valuable reminder that other expert knowledge and experience exists and must be expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the prevailing wisdom on an issue , be it about Covid-19 , climate change , or any other salient issue that demands societal transformation , is vitally important to avoid mass groupthink and damaging public policy .

Several hundred physicians recently buried the pandemic narrative of staying in economic lockdown, which is still being espoused by several governors, media personalities and, until recently, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the senior advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force
Long the outspoken media commentator on Covid-19, Dr. Fauci has been the federal government’s voice for caution about re-opening the economy to allow all those Americans to return to their “non-essential” jobs. The mainstream media enjoyed the contrast with his ultimate boss, President Trump, who has been itching to end the economic shutdown.
Then came a May 19th letter to the President from a wide variety of about 600 medical doctors that expressed “alarm over the exponentially growing negative health consequences of the national shutdown.” It called the shutdown a “mass casualty incident,” and stated that financial uncertainty and poverty are “closely linked to poor health.”
The whole reason for shutting down the economy and Congress spending—printing, actually—trillions more dollars to sustain the public was to slow the spread of coronavirus to avoid the health care system from being overwhelmed. It was never about stopping the virus, much less waiting for a vaccine. Rather, by slowing its spread, and “flattening the curve” of infections, people could be continuously treated without anyone neglected.
Part of the economic lockdown was to forbid non-urgent or routine health care since space was to be on the ready to treat victims of coronavirus. Now, more than two months after most states shut down their economies, the doctors wrote that 150,000 Americans per month would have had cancer detected from routine screenings that did not happen. Millions more people, they wrote, have missed routine care to check against heart disease, stroke and even child abuse – all because they were prohibited by emergency public health powers imposed by governors.
The doctors’ letter thrashed Dr. Fauci’s narrative, and he has since changed his tune. One week before this letter appeared, Dr. Fauci warned a Senate committee about the risks of re-opening the economy too quickly. Now, he’s echoing the 600 medical doctors. Dr. Fauci just warned about the “irreparable harm” and health consequences from extended lockdowns. He said, “[n]ow is the time, depending upon where you are and what your situation is, is to begin seriously looking at reopening the economy, reopening the country to try and get back to some degree of normal.”
It is easy for lifelong bureaucrats with rock-solid job security and media personalities who make seven-figure incomes to prattle about public health and staying locked down as a society when millions of other people lose their jobs. Long after the coronavirus curve was flattened and our hospital system was spared from being overwhelmed, what is the rationale for continued economic shutdown? The daily number and rate of Covid deaths is clearly declining.
Early on, in February and March, our nation’s policy makers feared the worst and temporary lockdowns made sense. What we learned since is comprehensive economic lockdowns make no sense when the small percentages of the general population—seniors and those with underlying health conditions—were most vulnerable to Covid-19. Protecting these groups should have been the focus, not forcing the general public to indefinite unemployment.
While most of the country has been in economic shutdown, more than 100,000 Americans are now reported to have died from coronavirus, several thousands of which a the result of emergency orders in some states that required nursing homes to accept infected patients. And, since Americans still must buy groceries to eat, crowded supermarkets certainly negated the efficacy of closing supposedly non-essential businesses that probably would have been less crowded.
When the history of Covid-19 is written, two big takeaways are: (1) the experts often guessed and speculated about the virus as much as any layman, and invoked “science and data” when they used neither; and (2) power often corrupts politicians, but emergency powers absolutely corrupt certain politicians. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Washington State Governor Jay Inslee are two of several examples of executives still lording it over their citizens with capricious economic restrictions masquerading as public health, long after they were warranted.
The letter by the 600 medical doctors offers a valuable reminder that other expert knowledge and experience exists and must be expressed and heard. Expertise that is counter to the prevailing wisdom on an issue, be it about Covid-19, climate change, or any other salient issue that demands societal transformation, is vitally important to avoid mass groupthink and damaging public policy.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-02--CFACT Makes It Official: The Virginia Clean Energy Act is a Disaster

Over the last two weeks , four experienced CFACT analysts – David Wojick , Paul Driessen , Charles Battig , and myself – have reviewed the Virginia Clean Energy Act ( VCEA ) , passed in April of this year , and commented both on the legal framework it provides for electric energy production in the Commonwealth and also on the required mandates it imposes on Dominion Energy , the regulated monopoly authorized by law to provide electric energy for Virginia .
The reason for this enhanced attention to the VCEA is that it is one of the first pieces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formulated by a Democratic controlled Legislature and signed by a Democrat Governor , Ralph Northam , which purports to provide electricity under a mandate of “ net zero ” carbon dioxide “ emission ” by 2050 .
In other words , it is legislation crafted by “ green ” activists to fulfill their belief that the release of manmade CO2 during the production of energy should be cut to zero .
This radical philosophy , which is embodied perfectly in the “ Green New Deal ” , is a doctrine fervently embraced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What kind of electric energy world would this philosophy , when put into actual practice , impose on Virginia consumers ?
What would it cost ?
What would it do to the Virginia countryside ?
Would it be reliable ?
How would the State Corporation Commission – the body which historically has been responsible for regulating Dominion ’ s electricity monopoly – implement the novel directives contained in the VCEA ?
The answers to these questions – confirmed by the veteran observers noted above – are shocking and appalling .
Never before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a legislative mandate of such sweeping and radical proportions for electrical generation .
CFACT ’ s comprehensive analysis confirms that the VCEA will result in : – a massive increase in the yearly electricity bill for the average Virginia family of $ 500 per year , a 40 % increase over levels without the VCEA ; – a blighting of the Virginia landscape with hundreds of thousands of acres of new solar panel farms and high-tension transmission lines ; – over $ 30 billion in increased capital costs for electrical infrastructure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engineering expense embedded in such novel distribution facilities ; and – a blend of electricity sources which will severely undermine the reliability of electricity production , especially when ( spoiler alert ) the sun doesn ’ t shine and the wind doesn ’ t blow .
So radical are these mandates that , for the first time in history , the State Corporation Commission has effectively been entirely stripped of its authority to regulate electricity generation in Virginia , thereby jettisoning the SCC ’ s historical responsibility to assure Virginians of both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest reliability .
The CFACT analysis also discovered a number of other dangerous consequences which will be levied on the average Virginia family by the VCEA : • None The increase in average annual electricity prices extracted from Virginia electricity rate payers will amount to an additional $ 2,250,000,000 annually in order to finance the pipe dreams of the eco-left ; • None The construction of massive offshore wind facilities that will require significantly elevated levels of cement , steel , and rare earth metals because they will lie in the path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy on New York City , and then imagine what would have happened to the VA offshore wind farms , which would have been located directly in its path .
And to make matters worse , the wind farms will be subject to the annual “ Bermuda High ” , which sits off the VA coast for weeks at a time during the summer , meaning that no wind will be activating the turbine blades , and thus no electricity will be generated for the air conditioners of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer heat .
Because wind is so unreliable , similar wind farm in the United States requires backup generation capability powered by diesel or natural gas , an expense not even included in the Dominion plan .
And don ’ t forget – because Dominion is a regulated monopoly – every expense which it incurs as a result of the VCEA will be paid for , one way or the other , by VA ratepayers , in order to assure that Dominion shareholders earn a legally required return on capital .
As CFACT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VCEA requires – like the famous quote from the Vietnam war – that the Virginia countryside must be destroyed in order to save it .
The new solar fields coerced by the VCEA will blanket 490 square miles of Virginia farm and forest land – an area nearly half the size of the State of Rhode Island and eight times the size of the District of Columbia – in order to generate the solar power required by the VCEA .
In addition , Dominion will need to construct four massive interstate transmission lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry electricity from these solar fields to consumers .
Let ’ s just see what the county zoning commissions – much less the voters – of each impacted county have to say about the placement of these transmission lines and solar fields in their backyards .
Better yet , let ’ s just see what the voters have to say to the politicians who voted for the VCEA when they come up for re-election .
As one of the CFACT analysts concluded , “ There is nothing clean , green , renewable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then the question becomes : All of this cost , unreliability , and environmental degradation is required exactly for ……… what ?
Certainly not cheaper or more reliable energy .
As I pointed out in my previous article on this subject : The VCEA has absolutely zero positive impact on climate , and a devastating negative impact on the environment .
Under the VCEA , Virginia will not have cleaner air , purer water , or a more beautiful countryside .
Fifteen years from now , not a single Virginian will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smell any difference or improvement in the environment resulting from the VCEA .
But they will be able to see a landscape ruined by solar panel eyesores and ugly transmission towers .
In summary , the VCEA will result in : • None an annual additional electricity cost of $ 500 per household .
• None an additional $ 30 billion in capital cost for electrical infrastructure .
• None the ruination of hundreds of thousands of acres of Virginia countryside and wildlife habitat by solar farms , electric transmission line , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of electrical system reliability , such that there will be no capability of power restoration , to quote Dominion , “ in the event of a large-scale blackout ” .
In short , for the Virginia consumer , it is all pocketbook pain , and no climate gain .
By embracing radical environmentalism , Virginia seems to be vying with California for the title of the creator of the most destructive and unreliable energy policy at the highest cost to its citizens in the country .
When these consequences become known to Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VCEA may ultimately become known as the “ Political Career-Ending Energy Act of 2019 ” .
Predictably , Virginia politicians who voted for this catastrophic piece of legislation will try to blame Dominion Energy for its disastrous consequences .
Good luck with that .
Virginia voters are smart enough to see through that smokescreen .
Are you listening Governor Ralph Northam , Senate Majority Leader Dick Daskaw , Attorney General Mark Herring , and House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn ?

Over the last two weeks, four experienced CFACT analysts – David Wojick, Paul Driessen, Charles Battig, and myself – have reviewed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), passed in April of this year, and commented both on the legal framework it provides for electric energy production in the Commonwealth and also on the required mandates it imposes on Dominion Energy, the regulated monopoly authorized by law to provide electric energy for Virginia.
The reason for this enhanced attention to the VCEA is that it is one of the first pieces of energy legislation in the US, formulated by a Democratic controlled Legislature and signed by a Democrat Governor, Ralph Northam, which purports to provide electricity under a mandate of “net zero” carbon dioxide “emission” by 2050. In other words, it is legislation crafted by “green” activists to fulfill their belief that the release of manmade CO2 during the production of energy should be cut to zero.
This radical philosophy, which is embodied perfectly in the “Green New Deal”, is a doctrine fervently embraced by the far-left wing of the environmental movement.
What kind of electric energy world would this philosophy, when put into actual practice, impose on Virginia consumers? What would it cost? What would it do to the Virginia countryside? Would it be reliable? How would the State Corporation Commission – the body which historically has been responsible for regulating Dominion’s electricity monopoly – implement the novel directives contained in the VCEA?
The answers to these questions – confirmed by the veteran observers noted above – are shocking and appalling. Never before in Virginia’s history has there been a legislative mandate of such sweeping and radical proportions for electrical generation.
CFACT’s comprehensive analysis confirms that the VCEA will result in:
– a massive increase in the yearly electricity bill for the average Virginia family of $500 per year, a 40% increase over levels without the VCEA;
– a blighting of the Virginia landscape with hundreds of thousands of acres of new solar panel farms and high-tension transmission lines;
– over $30 billion in increased capital costs for electrical infrastructure, which does not even include the new engineering expense embedded in such novel distribution facilities; and
– a blend of electricity sources which will severely undermine the reliability of electricity production, especially when (spoiler alert) the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
So radical are these mandates that, for the first time in history, the State Corporation Commission has effectively been entirely stripped of its authority to regulate electricity generation in Virginia, thereby jettisoning the SCC’s historical responsibility to assure Virginians of both the lowest possible cost of electricity coupled with the highest reliability.
The CFACT analysis also discovered a number of other dangerous consequences which will be levied on the average Virginia family by the VCEA:
The increase in average annual electricity prices extracted from Virginia electricity rate payers will amount to an additional $2,250,000,000 annually in order to finance the pipe dreams of the eco-left;
The construction of massive offshore wind facilities that will require significantly elevated levels of cement, steel, and rare earth metals because they will lie in the path of Atlantic hurricanes. Just think of the damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy on New York City, and then imagine what would have happened to the VA offshore wind farms, which would have been located directly in its path. And to make matters worse, the wind farms will be subject to the annual “Bermuda High”, which sits off the VA coast for weeks at a time during the summer, meaning that no wind will be activating the turbine blades, and thus no electricity will be generated for the air conditioners of Virginians who will be broiling in the summer heat. Because wind is so unreliable, every similar wind farm in the United States requires backup generation capability powered by diesel or natural gas, an expense not even included in the Dominion plan.
And don’t forget – because Dominion is a regulated monopoly – every expense which it incurs as a result of the VCEA will be paid for, one way or the other, by VA ratepayers, in order to assure that Dominion shareholders earn a legally required return on capital.
As CFACT analyst Paul Driessen points out, the VCEA requires – like the famous quote from the Vietnam war – that the Virginia countryside must be destroyed in order to save it. The new solar fields coerced by the VCEA will blanket 490 square miles of Virginia farm and forest land – an area nearly half the size of the State of Rhode Island and eight times the size of the District of Columbia – in order to generate the solar power required by the VCEA.
In addition, Dominion will need to construct four massive interstate transmission lines at a cost of $8.4 billion to carry electricity from these solar fields to consumers. Let’s just see what the county zoning commissions – much less the voters – of each impacted county have to say about the placement of these transmission lines and solar fields in their backyards. Better yet, let’s just see what the voters have to say to the politicians who voted for the VCEA when they come up for re-election. As one of the CFACT analysts concluded, “There is nothing clean, green, renewable or sustainable about the VCEA”.
And then the question becomes: All of this cost, unreliability, and environmental degradation is required exactly for ……… what? Certainly not cheaper or more reliable energy.
As I pointed out in my previous article on this subject:
The VCEA has absolutely zero positive impact on climate, and a devastating negative impact on the environment. Under the VCEA, Virginia will not have cleaner air, purer water, or a more beautiful countryside. Fifteen years from now, not a single Virginian will be able to feel, touch, or smell any difference or improvement in the environment resulting from the VCEA. But they will be able to see a landscape ruined by solar panel eyesores and ugly transmission towers.
In summary, the VCEA will result in:
an annual additional electricity cost of $500 per household.
an additional $30 billion in capital cost for electrical infrastructure.
the ruination of hundreds of thousands of acres of Virginia countryside and wildlife habitat by solar farms, electric transmission line, and ugly towers.
the degradation of electrical system reliability, such that there will be no capability of power restoration, to quote Dominion, “in the event of a large-scale blackout”.
In short, for the Virginia consumer, it is all pocketbook pain, and no climate gain.
By embracing radical environmentalism, Virginia seems to be vying with California for the title of the creator of the most destructive and unreliable energy policy at the highest cost to its citizens in the country. When these consequences become known to Virginia voters – and they will – the VCEA may ultimately become known as the “Political Career-Ending Energy Act of 2019”.
Predictably, Virginia politicians who voted for this catastrophic piece of legislation will try to blame Dominion Energy for its disastrous consequences.
Good luck with that. Virginia voters are smart enough to see through that smokescreen.
Are you listening Governor Ralph Northam, Senate Majority Leader Dick Daskaw, Attorney General Mark Herring, and House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-03--Watch here: SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to launch 60 satellites into orbit

Fresh on the heels of its successful launch of two NASA astronauts from Cape Canaveral , Space X plans to launch 60 satellites into orbit using a Falcon 9 rocket : Wednesday , June 3 at 9:25 PM EDT .
Watch here !
This being Florida ’ s rainy season , a backup date is planned just in case , Thursday , June 4 at 9:03 PM EDT .
We at CFACT look forward to these kind of rocket launches becoming more and more common as lifting heavy payloads into orbit at last becomes affordable .
Thanks free market !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starlink network of satellites that are already girdling the globe at low Earth orbit .
The plan is to make internet access globally available at a reasonable cost , including far flung areas .
Service may begin in Canada and the northern U.S. this year .
Access to digital information is having a tremendous impact in moving developing nations forward .
The ability to access an uncensored internet worldwide will be a welcome boost for free people and those yearning to be free .
What do you think of that China , Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to block access ?
Some of the crew here at CFACT are involved in long distance ocean sailing .
They view any future Starlink internet coverage over the oceans and remote islands as a big step forward for safety at sea .
Reliable offshore communications would be a big plus , but the ability to access offshore weather forecasts would be a lifesaver .
Astronomers have expressed concerns that the satellites could interfere with their viewing .
SpaceX plans to add sun shades to Starlink satellites to mitigate their impact .
Fingers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big step forward for America in space helping to connect the world .

SUCCESS!
Fresh on the heels of its successful launch of two NASA astronauts from Cape Canaveral, Space X plans to launch 60 satellites into orbit using a Falcon 9 rocket: Wednesday, June 3 at 9:25 PM EDT. Watch here!
This being Florida’s rainy season, a backup date is planned just in case, Thursday, June 4 at 9:03 PM EDT.
We at CFACT look forward to these kind of rocket launches becoming more and more common as lifting heavy payloads into orbit at last becomes affordable. Thanks free market!
The satellites are part of a planned Starlink network of satellites that are already girdling the globe at low Earth orbit. The plan is to make internet access globally available at a reasonable cost, including far flung areas. Service may begin in Canada and the northern U.S. this year.
Access to digital information is having a tremendous impact in moving developing nations forward. The ability to access an uncensored internet worldwide will be a welcome boost for free people and those yearning to be free.
What do you think of that China, Iran, North Korea? Will they be able to block access?
Some of the crew here at CFACT are involved in long distance ocean sailing. They view any future Starlink internet coverage over the oceans and remote islands as a big step forward for safety at sea. Reliable offshore communications would be a big plus, but the ability to access offshore weather forecasts would be a lifesaver.
Astronomers have expressed concerns that the satellites could interfere with their viewing. SpaceX plans to add sun shades to Starlink satellites to mitigate their impact.
Fingers crossed for another successful launch and this big step forward for America in space helping to connect the world.
Elon Musk is on a roll!


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-03--Investors put “pedal to the metal” in self-driving car tech

What was once a dream of science fiction movies is becoming a reality , as companies the world over are raising billions to support new “ driverless ” car technologies .
While Tesla has had automated driving as a featured part of its cars for several years now , other companies are looking to vastly expand the scope of driverless technology .
According to the Wall Street Journal , Amazon is in negotiations to buy Zoox Inc. , a company that is developing the capabilities to create “ electric-powered robot taxis.
” General Motors has raised $ 7 billion for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over $ 2 billion into the sector .
And , finally , Didi Chuxing Technology Co. , a Chinese company , “ raised more than $ 500 million in a funding round led by SoftBank Group Corp. for its autonomous-driving subsidiary.
” These investments are much more than just a pipedream .
As referenced earlier , Tesla has already successfully integrated driverless technology as a main feature of its vehicles .
As you read this , many Tesla owners across the world are able to scroll on their phone , read the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost whatever else they want in the driver ’ s seat while the automated driving technology is activated .
Now , other tech and auto companies want a skin in the game .
The COVID-19 pandemic may even be spurring this big financial splash in the sector faster .
Neolix , a maker of urban robo-delivery trucks , made an interesting claim recently .
The Beijing-based company said orders for its self-driving delivery vehicles were soaring because the coronavirus epidemic had both cleared the roads of cars and opened the eyes of customers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea is that when the epidemic is over , the new habits may well persist .
Neolix last week told Automotive News it had booked 200 orders in the past two months after having sold just 159 in the eight months before .
And on 11 March , the company confirmed that it had raised US $ 29 million in February to fund mass production .
Only time will tell if the massive investment in driverless cars will push these companies across the finish line or make their bottom lines burnout .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street Journal here , and the article in Spectrum.ieee.org here .

What was once a dream of science fiction movies is becoming a reality, as companies the world over are raising billions to support new “driverless” car technologies.
While Tesla has had automated driving as a featured part of its cars for several years now, other companies are looking to vastly expand the scope of driverless technology.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon is in negotiations to buy Zoox Inc., a company that is developing the capabilities to create “electric-powered robot taxis.” General Motors has raised $7 billion for automated driving development. Volkswagen has invested over $2 billion into the sector. And, finally, Didi Chuxing Technology Co., a Chinese company, “raised more than $500 million in a funding round led by SoftBank Group Corp. for its autonomous-driving subsidiary.”
These investments are much more than just a pipedream.
As referenced earlier, Tesla has already successfully integrated driverless technology as a main feature of its vehicles. As you read this, many Tesla owners across the world are able to scroll on their phone, read the paper, have some breakfast, or do almost whatever else they want in the driver’s seat while the automated driving technology is activated.
Now, other tech and auto companies want a skin in the game.
The COVID-19 pandemic may even be spurring this big financial splash in the sector faster.
Spectrum.ieee.org, reports:
Neolix, a maker of urban robo-delivery trucks, made an interesting claim recently. The Beijing-based company said orders for its self-driving delivery vehicles were soaring because the coronavirus epidemic had both cleared the roads of cars and opened the eyes of customers to the advantages of driverlessness. The idea is that when the epidemic is over, the new habits may well persist.
Neolix last week told Automotive News it had booked 200 orders in the past two months after having sold just 159 in the eight months before. And on 11 March, the company confirmed that it had raised US $29 million in February to fund mass production.
Only time will tell if the massive investment in driverless cars will push these companies across the finish line or make their bottom lines burnout.
You can read the article in the Wall Street Journal here, and the article in Spectrum.ieee.org here.
Remember this?