committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-24--Financiers of misery – Part 2

Financiers of misery – Part 2

It ’ s easy to farm organically in the wealthy , advanced EU and USA , where consumers can afford much more expensive organic meats , eggs , fruits and vegetables .
It ’ s much harder if you have to deal with the insects and crop diseases that plague African farmers on constant massive levels and locusts that bring true catastrophes every few decades – and then sell your meager crop yields to impoverished families .
That modern pesticides might save billions of dollars of crops every year and stop locusts before they can swarm by the tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feed more people , from less land , with less water , with greater resistance to insects , with less need for chemical pesticides ( natural or manmade ) – never seems to occur , or matter , to those who demand nothing but organic for Africa .
Many African farmers are women , who today have almost no “ right to choose ” when it comes to which crops they will plant .
They labor sunup to sundown on mostly 2 to 5-acre plats , yet rarely have enough produce to feed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for extra money .
Millions live on a few dollars a day .
A 2005 Congress of Racial Equality biotechnology conference in the United Nations General Assembly hall and a related video documentary , “ Voices from Africa : Biotechnology and the subsistence farmer , ” dramatically highlighted the difficulties facing the continent ’ s farmers – and the ways GM/biotech crops can improve their lives , especially crops enhanced with Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt ) genes that enable plants to kill insects that feed on the crops , while leaving beneficial insects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of Africa ’ s most important crop .
But because of drought , poor soil , multiple plant diseases , voracious insects , and lack of modern fertilizers , irrigation and mechanized equipment , average yields per acre in Sub-Saharan Africa are about the lowest in the world .
Other crops suffer similar fates .
“ I grow maize on a half hectare ” ( 1.25 acres ) , South Africa ’ s Elizabeth Ajele explained in the video .
“ The old plants would be destroyed by insects , but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profits I get from the new Bt maize , I can grow onions , spinach and tomatoes , and sell them for extra money to buy fertilizer .
We were struggling to keep hunger out of our house .
Now the future looks good .
If someone came and said we should stop using the new maize , I would cry.
” Countryman Richard Sithole shared her excitement .
“ Now I don ’ t have to buy chemical pesticides .
With the old maize , I got 100 bags from my 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 bags .
Now I have money to buy better food and send my children and grandchildren to school and even university.
” It was the same story with cotton .
“ With the new Bt cotton , I only spray pesticides two times , instead of six .
At the end of the day , we know the crop won ’ t be destroyed and we will have a harvest and money , ” South African widow , school principal and mother of five Thandi Myeni explained .
“ I sprayed five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes the insects still destroyed my entire crop , ” Kenyan Alice Wambuii said .
“ We would get pesticides all over our bodies .
Last year , I got 3,000 shillings for my cotton , but I had to spend 5,000 shillings for sprays.
” Bt cotton changed that for her , too .
Biotech maize and cotton enabled these South African farmers to triple their profits , cut their pesticide use up to 75 % and save 35-49 days per season working in fields – mostly spraying pesticides by hand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Life looked much better .
But then the cabal of anti-biotech , anti-pesticide , agro-ecology pressure groups launched new attacks , aided by the growing network of ideologically like-minded donors that helped magnify anti-technology programs and messages – often while insulating the big financiers from direct connections to the radical , callous , eco-imperialist pressure groups .
The hopes and dreams , livelihoods and farming preferences of these African farmers mean nothing to the cabal .
The Swift Foundation was founded by an heir to a major stockholder in United Parcel Service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Endowed with over $ 60 million , it awards grants of over $ 2 million a year and has been a major supporter of pro-organic , anti-agricultural technology organizations in the USA and abroad .
They include : Greenpeace , the Pesticide Action Network , the Center for Food Safety ( long a promoter of radical anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva ) , and AgroEcology Fund ( AEF ) .
The Christensen Fund was created in 1957 by heirs of a wealthy industrial engineer .
Its $ 300 million in assets support “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Rift Valley Program , which funds “ stewards ” ( subsistence farmers ) who want to “ maintain culture-based livelihoods on their ancestral lands and adapt their resource management systems in innovative ways that advance food sovereignty and resilience.
” ( Resilience until they are confronted by droughts , locusts and other insects . )
The New Field Foundation ( NFF ) was founded in 2002 with money from San Francisco based real estate developers Barbara and D. Thomson Sargent .
It claims to support the efforts of rural women to overcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities .
But it opposes biotech crops and other modern agricultural technologies , and gives hefty sums to La Via Campesina and other activists in Africa .
The NFF supports and works with the AEF and is a grantor to the Tides Center/Foundation .
With assets of nearly $ 200 million , Tides helps philanthropies “ manage and direct ” their giving , but has been described as behaving “ less like a philanthropy and more like a money laundering enterprise.
” The Center also receives funding and support from major US foundations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fund , Charles Stewart Mott Foundation , Rockefeller Brothers Fund , and David and Lucille Packard Foundation .
The Schmidt Family Foundation ( SFF ) was established in 2006 by Wendy and Eric Schmidt , former executive chairman of Google .
Its estimated assets of $ 178 million , including Google stock primarily help finance advancing “ the wiser use of energy and natural resources to support efforts worldwide that empower communities to build resilient systems for food , water and human resources.
” ( Resilience again . )
The SFF has donated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups like the Center for Biological Diversity , Center for Food Safety , Environmental Working Group , Friends of the Earth , Pesticide Action Network – and Greenpeace , an implacable opponent of Golden Rice .
This miracle rice could prevent some 500,000 children from going blind and save 250,000 lives every year from Vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition .
But opposition to Golden Rice caused the loss of at least 1,424,680 life years in India alone just between 2003 and 2013 .
Greenpeace couldn ’ t care less .
To date , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) has provided more than $ 6 million dollars to organizations that promote subsistence farming as a supposed alternative to far more productive modern farming technologies and methods .
This includes over $ 500,000 over the years to the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa , as well as $ 200,000 to La Via Campesina and GroundSwell International .
In the USA , AEF and NFF donors and advisors have included the Packard Foundation , Ben & Jerry Foundation , Swift Foundation , Wallace Global Fund and many others around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pesticide Action Network Asia sits on AEF ’ s advisory board , and the global network of financiers finds ways to support PANA and many other ultra-radical groups .
Other callous foundations supporting Friends of the Earth ( a core member of AFSA , along with La Via Campesina ) has come from the Packard Foundation ( $ 600,000 ) , Foundation for the Carolinas ( $ 5,000,000 ) , Charles Stewart Mott Foundation ( $ 500,000 ) , Ford Foundation ( $ 328,500 ) , Rockefeller Brothers Fund ( $ 300,000 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These financiers and the radical organizations they support perpetuate what many would justifiably call crimes against humanity .
They use their tax-exempt status and clever terminology ( like agro-ecology , sustainability and food sovereignty ) to advance programs that deny people access to modern agricultural technologies that would improve crop yields , increase family wealth , prevent blindness and save lives .
They should be condemned and deprived of their tax-exempt status , for eco-imperialism and making false and ultimately lethal claims about the farming methods they promote and the modern methods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American farmers from practicing .

It’s easy to farm organically in the wealthy, advanced EU and USA, where consumers can afford much more expensive organic meats, eggs, fruits and vegetables. It’s much harder if you have to deal with the insects and crop diseases that plague African farmers on constant massive levels and locusts that bring true catastrophes every few decades – and then sell your meager crop yields to impoverished families.
That modern pesticides might save billions of dollars of crops every year and stop locusts before they can swarm by the tens of billions – or that bioengineered crops might feed more people, from less land, with less water, with greater resistance to insects, with less need for chemical pesticides (natural or manmade) – never seems to occur, or matter, to those who demand nothing but organic for Africa.
Many African farmers are women, who today have almost no “right to choose” when it comes to which crops they will plant. They labor sunup to sundown on mostly 2 to 5-acre plats, yet rarely have enough produce to feed their own families, much less sell for extra money. Millions live on a few dollars a day.
A 2005 Congress of Racial Equality biotechnology conference in the United Nations General Assembly hall and a related video documentary, “Voices from Africa: Biotechnology and the subsistence farmer,” dramatically highlighted the difficulties facing the continent’s farmers – and the ways GM/biotech crops can improve their lives, especially crops enhanced with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes that enable plants to kill insects that feed on the crops, while leaving beneficial insects unharmed.
Maize (corn) is much of Africa’s most important crop. But because of drought, poor soil, multiple plant diseases, voracious insects, and lack of modern fertilizers, irrigation and mechanized equipment, average yields per acre in Sub-Saharan Africa are about the lowest in the world. Other crops suffer similar fates.
“I grow maize on a half hectare” (1.25 acres), South Africa’s Elizabeth Ajele explained in the video. “The old plants would be destroyed by insects, but not the new biotech plants. With the profits I get from the new Bt maize, I can grow onions, spinach and tomatoes, and sell them for extra money to buy fertilizer. We were struggling to keep hunger out of our house. Now the future looks good. If someone came and said we should stop using the new maize, I would cry.”
Countryman Richard Sithole shared her excitement. “Now I don’t have to buy chemical pesticides. With the old maize, I got 100 bags from my 15 hectares. With Bt maize I get 1,000 bags. Now I have money to buy better food and send my children and grandchildren to school and even university.”
It was the same story with cotton. “With the new Bt cotton, I only spray pesticides two times, instead of six. At the end of the day, we know the crop won’t be destroyed and we will have a harvest and money,” South African widow, school principal and mother of five Thandi Myeni explained.
“I sprayed five times a season with pesticides, but sometimes the insects still destroyed my entire crop,” Kenyan Alice Wambuii said. “We would get pesticides all over our bodies. Last year, I got 3,000 shillings for my cotton, but I had to spend 5,000 shillings for sprays.” Bt cotton changed that for her, too.
Biotech maize and cotton enabled these South African farmers to triple their profits, cut their pesticide use up to 75% and save 35-49 days per season working in fields – mostly spraying pesticides by hand.
That was just 15 years ago. Life looked much better. But then the cabal of anti-biotech, anti-pesticide, agro-ecology pressure groups launched new attacks, aided by the growing network of ideologically like-minded donors that helped magnify anti-technology programs and messages – often while insulating the big financiers from direct connections to the radical, callous, eco-imperialist pressure groups. The hopes and dreams, livelihoods and farming preferences of these African farmers mean nothing to the cabal.
The Swift Foundation was founded by an heir to a major stockholder in United Parcel Service, from monies created by UPS going public. Endowed with over $60 million, it awards grants of over $2 million a year and has been a major supporter of pro-organic, anti-agricultural technology organizations in the USA and abroad. They include: Greenpeace, the Pesticide Action Network, the Center for Food Safety (long a promoter of radical anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva), and AgroEcology Fund (AEF).
The Christensen Fund was created in 1957 by heirs of a wealthy industrial engineer. Its $300 million in assets support “biocultural diversity” and fund projects like its Rift Valley Program, which funds “stewards” (subsistence farmers) who want to “maintain culture-based livelihoods on their ancestral lands and adapt their resource management systems in innovative ways that advance food sovereignty and resilience.” (Resilience until they are confronted by droughts, locusts and other insects.)
The New Field Foundation (NFF) was founded in 2002 with money from San Francisco based real estate developers Barbara and D. Thomson Sargent. It claims to support the efforts of rural women to overcome poverty, violence and injustice in their communities. But it opposes biotech crops and other modern agricultural technologies, and gives hefty sums to La Via Campesina and other activists in Africa.
The NFF supports and works with the AEF and is a grantor to the Tides Center/Foundation. With assets of nearly $200 million, Tides helps philanthropies “manage and direct” their giving, but has been described as behaving “less like a philanthropy and more like a money laundering enterprise.” The Center also receives funding and support from major US foundations, including the NFF, Wallace Global Fund, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and David and Lucille Packard Foundation.
The Schmidt Family Foundation (SFF) was established in 2006 by Wendy and Eric Schmidt, former executive chairman of Google. Its estimated assets of $178 million, including Google stock primarily help finance advancing “the wiser use of energy and natural resources to support efforts worldwide that empower communities to build resilient systems for food, water and human resources.” (Resilience again.) The SFF has donated directly to radical domestic and global agro-ecology groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network – and Greenpeace, an implacable opponent of Golden Rice.
This miracle rice could prevent some 500,000 children from going blind and save 250,000 lives every year from Vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition. But opposition to Golden Rice caused the loss of at least 1,424,680 life years in India alone just between 2003 and 2013. Greenpeace couldn’t care less.
To date, the AgroEcology Fund (discussed in Part 1) has provided more than $6 million dollars to organizations that promote subsistence farming as a supposed alternative to far more productive modern farming technologies and methods. This includes over $500,000 over the years to the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, as well as $200,000 to La Via Campesina and GroundSwell International.
In the USA, AEF and NFF donors and advisors have included the Packard Foundation, Ben & Jerry Foundation, Swift Foundation, Wallace Global Fund and many others around the world. A representative of the radical anti-technology Pesticide Action Network Asia sits on AEF’s advisory board, and the global network of financiers finds ways to support PANA and many other ultra-radical groups.
Other callous foundations supporting Friends of the Earth (a core member of AFSA, along with La Via Campesina) has come from the Packard Foundation ($600,000), Foundation for the Carolinas ($5,000,000), Charles Stewart Mott Foundation ($500,000), Ford Foundation ($328,500), Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($300,000) and Schmidt Foundation ($125,000).
These financiers and the radical organizations they support perpetuate what many would justifiably call crimes against humanity. They use their tax-exempt status and clever terminology (like agro-ecology, sustainability and food sovereignty) to advance programs that deny people access to modern agricultural technologies that would improve crop yields, increase family wealth, prevent blindness and save lives.
They should be condemned and deprived of their tax-exempt status, for eco-imperialism and making false and ultimately lethal claims about the farming methods they promote and the modern methods they prevent African, Asian and Latin American farmers from practicing.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-24--Imperiled Monarch Butterfly benefits from private conservation plan

There is an ambitious plan involving the private sector in efforts to protect the habitat of the monarch butterfly .
This holds the promise of sparing nearby communities the burden of having the creature put on the federal endangered species list and could serve as a model for the recovery of other at-risk plants and animals .
In early April , the U.S .
Fish & Wildlife Service ( FWS ) concluded an agreement with private landowners and 45 energy and transportation companies under which the private entities will provide habitat for the monarch butterfly .
It is the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ candidate conservation agreements with assurances ” ( CCAAs ) , that have been struck since 2000 .
Once a CCAA has been finalized , and provided its terms are adhered to , landowners are not required to carry out any additional conservation measures .
This means landowners and the surrounding communities will not be subjected to the rigorous land-use restrictions of the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) which can keep broad swaths of private land out of production for years .
The monarch butterfly or simply monarch ( Danaus plexippus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ butterfly and is considered an iconic pollinator species .
Its numbers have declined in California from an estimated 10 million in the 1980s to 300,000 now , according to research from Washington State University , Vancouver , Bloomberg reports .
In 2014 , the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety filed a petition requesting ESA protection for the monarch and its habitat .
The decision on whether to list the monarch is still pending , and a new deadline for completion of an internal FWS species status review report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s willingness to sign CCAAs with affected parties indicates that the Trump administration is looking for ways other than the bureaucratic ESA to protect the butterfly .
Aware of the shortcomings of the ESA – both in terms of species recovery and the economic harm it inflicts on affected areas – the Trump administration last year adopted new rules for the statute aimed at speeding up recovery and enlisting the cooperation of landowners to that end .
Referring to the CCAA program , Georgia Parham , a spokeswoman for FWS told Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encourage landowners or land managers to conserve species that are at risk of extinction , ” with the goal of avoiding listing altogether .
CCAAs are increasingly being used across the West to help protect the habitat of the greater sage grouse , a chicken-sized , ground-dwelling bird whose dwindling numbers raised concerns that it could be added to the Endangered Species List .
That could wreak havoc on the region ’ s natural resources industry , and state and local officials , along with the private sector , have welcomed CCAAs as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ By engaging early in voluntary conservation , utilities and departments of transportation can avoid increased costs and additional delays as a result of a potential listing , ” Iris Caldwell , program director at the University of Illinois at Chicago ’ s Energy Resources Center , which will administer the agreement , said in a statement .
Kathleen Sgamma , president of the Western Energy Alliance , which represents small oil and gas producers , points out that her industry has long supported CCAAs as a sensible way to protect at-risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities .
“ CCAAs can be an effective tool for protecting habitat while providing regulatory certainty for producers .
CCAAs encourage voluntary conservation , and when they are working well , can take the place of a species list , ” she told Bloomberg .
“ We support their voluntary use and other voluntary measures to protect species .
”

There is an ambitious plan involving the private sector in efforts to protect the habitat of the monarch butterfly. This holds the promise of sparing nearby communities the burden of having the creature put on the federal endangered species list and could serve as a model for the recovery of other at-risk plants and animals.
In early April, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) concluded an agreement with private landowners and 45 energy and transportation companies under which the private entities will provide habitat for the monarch butterfly. It is the latest of 51 such agreements, known as “candidate conservation agreements with assurances” (CCAAs), that have been struck since 2000. Once a CCAA has been finalized, and provided its terms are adhered to, landowners are not required to carry out any additional conservation measures.
This means landowners and the surrounding communities will not be subjected to the rigorous land-use restrictions of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) which can keep broad swaths of private land out of production for years.
The monarch butterfly or simply monarch (Danaus plexippus) is the most familiar North American butterfly and is considered an iconic pollinator species. Its numbers have declined in California from an estimated 10 million in the 1980s to 300,000 now, according to research from Washington State University, Vancouver, Bloomberg reports.
In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety filed a petition requesting ESA protection for the monarch and its habitat. The decision on whether to list the monarch is still pending, and a new deadline for completion of an internal FWS species status review report is set for December 2020. FWS’s willingness to sign CCAAs with affected parties indicates that the Trump administration is looking for ways other than the bureaucratic ESA to protect the butterfly.
Aware of the shortcomings of the ESA – both in terms of species recovery and the economic harm it inflicts on affected areas – the Trump administration last year adopted new rules for the statute aimed at speeding up recovery and enlisting the cooperation of landowners to that end.
Cooperation Instead of Coercion
Referring to the CCAA program, Georgia Parham, a spokeswoman for FWS told Bloomberg: “It’s designed to encourage landowners or land managers to conserve species that are at risk of extinction,” with the goal of avoiding listing altogether.
CCAAs are increasingly being used across the West to help protect the habitat of the greater sage grouse, a chicken-sized, ground-dwelling bird whose dwindling numbers raised concerns that it could be added to the Endangered Species List. That could wreak havoc on the region’s natural resources industry, and state and local officials, along with the private sector, have welcomed CCAAs as a viable alternative to an ESA listing.
“By engaging early in voluntary conservation, utilities and departments of transportation can avoid increased costs and additional delays as a result of a potential listing,” Iris Caldwell, program director at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Energy Resources Center, which will administer the agreement, said in a statement.
Encouraging Voluntary Conservation
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, which represents small oil and gas producers, points out that her industry has long supported CCAAs as a sensible way to protect at-risk species while minimizing economic harm to nearby communities.
“CCAAs can be an effective tool for protecting habitat while providing regulatory certainty for producers. CCAAs encourage voluntary conservation, and when they are working well, can take the place of a species list,” she told Bloomberg. “We support their voluntary use and other voluntary measures to protect species.”


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-25--Green alarmism obtuse as ever

Green alarmism obtuse as ever

Other than that , how was the play , Mrs. Lincoln ?
Not a few green activists and media-types can avoid pointing out how much “ cleaner ” is the environment ( “ the play ” ) since the economy has gone into a worldwide depression because millions of people have lost their jobs and/or remain idle at home .
The coronavirus has brought rampant death worldwide combined with now 26 million jobless Americans ( and millions more globally ) .
But , we ’ re being told by many , it ’ s splendid the environment is better !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out-of-touch thinking , all of which from people who appear to remain gainfully employed .
Christopher Jones of the “ CoolClimate Network ” at UC Berkley said , “ If we can think about how to prepare for climate change like a pandemic , maybe there will be a positive outcome to all of this.
” Excuse me , but there is no “ positive outcome ” lurking .
There is a massive , well-funded cottage industry of organizations like the CoolClimate Network , which for decades have been thinking about “ how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t need a pandemic as a reminder .
Victoria Rochard of “ SAP ” noted the clearer skies in Asia .
In an article in Forbes headlined , “ Every Day Earth Day : A Silver Lining in the Pandemic… , ” she wrote , “ Despite the hardship COVID-19 has created , people are finding comfort in the view of the [ Himalayan ] mountain range , previously denied to them.
” [ An aside : Steve Forbes , call your office ; with such drivel , what has happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t it lovely ?
People who have lost their jobs and livelihoods , along with losing friends and family members to coronavirus , can get a better view of the Himalayas .
In Italy , a nation that has suffered the worst , those in Venice can now see fish swimming in the canals .
Monica Medina and Miro Korenha , founders of Our Daily Planet , wrote , “ In the midst of the economic and health tragedy posed by the coronavirus pandemic , there is an unexpected bright side : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of the massive slowdown.
” How reassuring .
Human misery and tragedy has a bright side : environmental “ improvement.
” Sarah McFarlane , reporter for the Wall Street Journal , wrote , “ One hopeful development from the coronavirus pandemic : Global air quality is improving dramatically as the outbreak sends many countries into lockdown , climate scientists say.
” She also reported that green groups including Greenpeace and the World Resources Institute are “ seizing the crisis as an opportunity to press governments ” to impose a green agenda on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless more examples of this thinking from green alarmists ready to exploit human suffering , so let ’ s conclude with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , often featured on CFACT .
She is delighted over the collapsing oil industry in America , even though thousands of workers are in jeopardy .
Along with many in Congress , she wants to exploit the pandemic to impose a green political agenda .
“ You absolutely love to see it , ” she tweeted , referring to the oil collapse .
“ This along with record low-interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time for a worker-led , mass investment in green infrastructure to save our planet.
” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez grew up middle class in prosperous Westchester County , New York .
Affordable and viable oil and gasoline remains integral to that living standard throughout America .
She deleted her tweet .
Green extremism has long included viewpoints that too many people occupy the Earth and capitalist-style economic growth harms the planet ; i.e.
, people and prosperity are zero-sum with environmental nirvana .
But , America has demonstrated in the last half century since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living standards , increased population and robust commerce have coincided with a cleaner environment .
What good is a cleaner , “ carbon-free ” environment if tens of millions of people lose their livelihoods they spent decades building ?
Is waiting in a bread line or for an unemployment check more acceptable because satellite photos show clearer skies ?
The 26 million jobless Americans along with millions more in economic lockdown would surely tolerate the very congenial air quality we had two months ago in order to reclaim their lives .
More so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a mountain range to have a friend , colleague or loved one spared from coronavirus death .
Maybe it ’ s news when satellite photos show a clearer atmosphere during a tragic pandemic , but let ’ s not contend there is an environmental “ silver lining ” or “ bright side.
” There is no “ hopeful development ” with the environment when the cost is the death of scores of thousands of people and economic suffering of millions more .

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Not a few green activists and media-types can avoid pointing out how much “cleaner” is the environment (“the play”) since the economy has gone into a worldwide depression because millions of people have lost their jobs and/or remain idle at home.
The coronavirus has brought rampant death worldwide combined with now 26 million jobless Americans (and millions more globally). But, we’re being told by many, it’s splendid the environment is better!
Here are samples of this callous, out-of-touch thinking, all of which from people who appear to remain gainfully employed.
Christopher Jones of the “CoolClimate Network” at UC Berkley said, “If we can think about how to prepare for climate change like a pandemic, maybe there will be a positive outcome to all of this.”
Excuse me, but there is no “positive outcome” lurking. There is a massive, well-funded cottage industry of organizations like the CoolClimate Network, which for decades have been thinking about “how to prepare for climate change.” We don’t need a pandemic as a reminder.
Victoria Rochard, head of “Thought Leadership” at SAP, noted the clearer skies in Asia. In an article in Forbes headlined, “Every Day Earth Day: A Silver Lining in the Pandemic…,” she wrote, “Despite the hardship COVID-19 has created, people are finding comfort in the view of the [Himalayan] mountain range, previously denied to them.” [An aside: Steve Forbes, call your office; with such drivel, what has happened to Forbes media?]
Isn’t it lovely? People who have lost their jobs and livelihoods, along with losing friends and family members to coronavirus, can get a better view of the Himalayas. In Italy, a nation that has suffered the worst, those in Venice can now see fish swimming in the canals.
Monica Medina and Miro Korenha, founders of Our Daily Planet, wrote, “In the midst of the economic and health tragedy posed by the coronavirus pandemic, there is an unexpected bright side: the marked improvement in our environment as a result of the massive slowdown.”
How reassuring. Human misery and tragedy has a bright side: environmental “improvement.”
Sarah McFarlane, reporter for the Wall Street Journal, wrote, “One hopeful development from the coronavirus pandemic: Global air quality is improving dramatically as the outbreak sends many countries into lockdown, climate scientists say.”
She also reported that green groups including Greenpeace and the World Resources Institute are “seizing the crisis as an opportunity to press governments” to impose a green agenda on the teetering private sector.
There are countless more examples of this colossal lack of empathy from green alarmists ready to exploit human suffering, so let’s conclude with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, often featured on CFACT. She is delighted over the collapsing oil industry in America, even though thousands of workers are in jeopardy. Along with many in Congress, she wants to exploit the pandemic to impose a green political agenda.
“You absolutely love to see it,” she tweeted, referring to the oil collapse. “This along with record low-interest rates means it’s the right time for a worker-led, mass investment in green infrastructure to save our planet.”
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez grew up middle class in prosperous Westchester County, New York. Affordable and viable oil and gasoline remains integral to that living standard throughout America. She deleted her tweet.
Green extremism has long included viewpoints that too many people occupy the Earth and capitalist-style economic growth harms the planet; i.e., people and prosperity are zero-sum with environmental nirvana. But, America has demonstrated in the last half century since the first “Earth Day” that higher living standards, increased population and robust commerce have coincided with a cleaner environment.
What good is a cleaner, “carbon-free” environment if tens of millions of people lose their livelihoods they spent decades building? Is waiting in a bread line or for an unemployment check more acceptable because satellite photos show clearer skies?
The 26 million jobless Americans along with millions more in economic lockdown would surely tolerate the very congenial air quality we had two months ago in order to reclaim their lives. More so, anyone would forgo a nicer view of a mountain range to have a friend, colleague or loved one spared from coronavirus death.
Maybe it’s news when satellite photos show a clearer atmosphere during a tragic pandemic, but let’s not contend there is an environmental “silver lining” or “bright side.” There is no “hopeful development” with the environment when the cost is the death of scores of thousands of people and economic suffering of millions more.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-25--Why is the Left censoring Michael Moore’s Green energy movie?

Filmmaker Michael Moore released his latest movie , Planet of the Humans , on Earth Day .
Moore hails from the deep roving anti-capitalist Left , so imagine everyone ’ s surprise when we learned that the film powerfully skewers wind , solar , biomass , ethanol and the rest of so-called “ renewable energy.
” The global warming crowd , and of course the people making their fortunes from renewable subsidies , went apoplectic .
Leading the charge to censor and bury Moore ’ s film is fellow left-wing filmmaker Josh Fox , best known for his movie Gasland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morano has full coverage over at CFACT ’ s Climate Depot , including an incendiary series of tweets .
Here ’ s a small sample : We recommend you watch Planet of the Humans on YouTube , right away , in case the move to completely censor the film succeeds .
Keep in mind that Michael Moore is no choir boy , and certainly no friend of free markets , individual freedom and industrial prosperity .
You might want to skip around a bit , but you ’ ll love watching power company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would cover a football field , can only put out enough electricity to power ten homes , when the sun shines .
To power the entire city of Lansing , Michigan , the array would have to be three miles by five miles !
How ’ s that for a footprint ?
The last things the climate people want you to contemplate are “ solar dead zones.
” The organizer of a Green concert is greeted by cheers and applause when he shouts that the entire concert is powered by solar energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the piddling solar array is only big enough to power a single toaster .
The actual electricity comes from diesel generators !
Watch citizens hike over a pristine mountaintop , and share their dread as they prepare for the construction of 21 mega wind turbines that will drive nature off the mountain .
Watch the biomass absurdity ; burning whole trees or grinding them into chips to generate electricity , receive the contempt it deserves .
The film even exposes massive industry funding of the Sierra Club and the rest of the eco-Left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bowl of popcorn , fast forward through the Green misanthropy , and watch an arch-Leftist devour the Greens .

Filmmaker Michael Moore released his latest movie, Planet of the Humans, on Earth Day.
Moore hails from the deep roving anti-capitalist Left, so imagine everyone’s surprise when we learned that the film powerfully skewers wind, solar, biomass, ethanol and the rest of so-called “renewable energy.”
The global warming crowd, and of course the people making their fortunes from renewable subsidies, went apoplectic.
Leading the charge to censor and bury Moore’s film is fellow left-wing filmmaker Josh Fox, best known for his movie Gasland, an anti-fracking propaganda flick.
Marc Morano has full coverage over at CFACT’s Climate Depot, including an incendiary series of tweets. Here’s a small sample:
We recommend you watch Planet of the Humans on YouTube, right away, in case the move to completely censor the film succeeds.
Keep in mind that Michael Moore is no choir boy, and certainly no friend of free markets, individual freedom and industrial prosperity. You might want to skip around a bit, but you’ll love watching power company executives admit that their solar array, which would cover a football field, can only put out enough electricity to power ten homes, when the sun shines. To power the entire city of Lansing, Michigan, the array would have to be three miles by five miles! How’s that for a footprint? The last things the climate people want you to contemplate are “solar dead zones.”
The organizer of a Green concert is greeted by cheers and applause when he shouts that the entire concert is powered by solar energy. Then go behind the stage where the piddling solar array is only big enough to power a single toaster. The actual electricity comes from diesel generators!
Watch citizens hike over a pristine mountaintop, and share their dread as they prepare for the construction of 21 mega wind turbines that will drive nature off the mountain.
Watch the biomass absurdity; burning whole trees or grinding them into chips to generate electricity, receive the contempt it deserves.
The film even exposes massive industry funding of the Sierra Club and the rest of the eco-Left!
There’s plenty more to savor.
So this weekend grab a big bowl of popcorn, fast forward through the Green misanthropy, and watch an arch-Leftist devour the Greens.
Watch Now


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-26--The real climate change deniers

The real climate change deniers

Fifty years ago , I helped organize Earth Day # 1 programs on my college campus , calling attention to serious pollution problems that afflicted much of the USA .
Over the ensuing decades , laws , regulations , and changed attitudes , practices and technologies reduced most of that pollution , often dramatically .
I didn ’ t buy the 1970 end-is-nigh , doom-and-gloom , billions-will-die hysteria that Ron Stein and Ron Bailey recapture so deliciously , including the manmade global cooling crisis .
I don ’ t buy it today , either – certainly not this year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manmade global warming crisis , also blamed on emissions of carbon dioxide and water vapor , the same gases that humans and animals exhale , and plants use to grow .
We ’ re told the crisis is unprecedented , and poses existential threats to humanity and planet .
What I find fascinating in all this is the steadfast , often nasty determination of scientists , politicians and interest groups promoting alarmist themes – and profiting immensely from them – to reject and deny any science , history and evidence that undermines their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before .
The “ highest ever ” temperatures may be just a few tenths or even hundredths of a degree above previous records set many decades ago .
The United States may have enjoyed a record 12-year respite from Category 3-5 hurricanes , ended finally by Harvey and Irma in 2017 .
Violent tornadoes may be far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that , and the complete absence of violent twisters in 2018 may have been truly unprecedented .
Modern day floods and droughts may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multi-decade droughts that devastated Anasazi , Mayan and other civilizations .
However , alarmists insist , Earth ’ s climate and weather were stable and unchanging until humans began using coal , oil and natural gas .
We must eradicate fossil fuels now , they say , regardless of what biofuel , battery , wind and solar replacements ( and mining for raw materials to manufacture them ) might have on wildlife , scenery , environmental values or human rights .
The disconnect from reality is truly amazing .
Equally fascinating is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It amounts to asserting that everything was just peachy until American , European and Greenland glaciers started melting a few decades ago , threatening us with catastrophic sea level rise .
It amounts to claiming the glacial epochs never happened ; their mile-high ice sheets never blanketed a third of the Northern Hemisphere , multiple times , with balmy periods in between ; and seas haven ’ t risen some 400 feet since the Pleistocene ice age .
It amounts to claiming the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods never happened , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ice Age , when priests performed exorcisms , asking God to keep glaciers from inundating villages in the Alps of Europe .
It ’ s as though we couldn ’ t possibly be finding what we are finding today .
In the latest example , government and university researchers recently found numerous Viking-era artifacts along a Norwegian mountain pass that had been heavily traveled for at least 700 years , but then was buried beneath the ice and lost to history for 1,000 years .
Locals used the rough 2,200-foot-long pass to travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-distance trekkers used it as a trade route .
Among the treasure trove were tunics , mittens , horse shoes and bits , remnants of sleds used to haul food and gear over winter snow , a small shelter , and even the remains of a dog with a collar and leash .
They all came to light because the glacial ice is again receding , as Earth continues its post Little Ice Age warming .
Alarmists insist the warming is due to fossil fuels , and deny that it is just part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of past warming and cooling periods has also come to light in recent years .
In 1991 , German hikers found the incredible mummified and heavily tattooed remains of “ Oetzi the Ice Man ” sticking out of the ice in the Oetzal Alps near the Italian-Austrian border , at an altitude of some 10,000 feet .
A partial longbow , bearskin hat and other artifacts were found nearby .
He had died about 5,300 years ago from an arrow wound and had the blood of four different people on his clothes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human habitation in these alpine areas during past warm periods .
Tourists and archeological teams have also discovered parts of shoes , leather clothing , fragments of a wooden bowl and numerous other items from 3000 to 4500 BC ( BCE ) that have emerged from the alpine ice .
They are among the oldest objects ever found in the Alps .
A Bronze Age pin , Roman coins and early Medieval artifacts have also been found .
They show how these mountain passes and trails , impassible during cold , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routes in periodic warmer centuries .
Norwegian ice fields show shrinkage and growth patterns similar to those of the alpine glaciers , says Norwegian glacial scientist Atle Nesje .
The archaeological findings “ seem to fit quite nicely with our glacier reconstructions , ” he adds , which helps us understand past , present and future climate changes .
Years of research by Swiss and other scientists have produced similar findings – sometimes human artifacts , but also plant and animal remains , in areas of newly melted ice .
In one location @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Berne geology professor Christian Schluechter found pieces of wood 12-24 inches thick and the remains of a moor .
Melting waters had flushed them out from under the glacier .
That means the ice there is hardly “ perpetual , ” he says .
There were multiple periods of warmer weather and less ice .
In fact , carbon-14 dating shows ten “ clearly definable time windows ” over the last 10,000 years – times when glaciers were limited to regions up to 1,000 feet higher in the Alps than today .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time , “ the Alps were greener than they are today , ” Schluechter concludes .
Inca children sacrificed 500 years ago in Argentina ’ s Andes have also emerged from melting glaciers .
Off the Florida coast , the Mel and Deo Fisher archeological diving team didn ’ t just find the famous Spanish galleon Nuestra Senora de Atocha , which sank during a ferocious 1622 hurricane , or only the British slave ship Henrietta Marie , which went down during a 1700 hurricane , after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They also found charred tree branches , pine cones and other remnants from a forest fire 8,400 years ago , when this vast ocean area was still well above present day sea levels !
Even an entire forest has been discovered , protruding from the melting Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau , Alaska – an area I visited several years ago .
Roots , stumps and large segments of entire upright spruce or hemlock trees have been found across several acres already .
They are the remains of a forest that thrived there for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was buried by glacial ice around 1,000 years ago .
The chronicle of amazing discoveries yielded by melting glaciers goes on and on .
Their most important lesson is that our current climate is but a snapshot in time , on a vibrant planet where climate change and extreme weather have been “ real ” since time began .
Only a science-denying climate alarmist would refuse to recognize this .
Simply put , there is nothing “ unprecedented ” about what we are seeing today .
Now it may be that carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snorting horses , oxen and humans – laboring at the edge of exhaustion doing what our fossil-fuel-powered vehicles and equipment do for us today – caused these past climate changes .
But it ’ s far more likely that they were due to a complex and still poorly understood combination of solar and other powerful natural forces .
Climate alarmists may not want to recognize or discuss these natural fluctuations .
But the rest of us should .
Improving our knowledge of what these forces are and how they work together will enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and adapt to future climate changes .
Continuing to focus on carbon dioxide and other “ greenhouse gases , ” as the primary or sole cause of climate changes and weather events , will ensure that we never get beyond the politically driven battles in which we are now engaged .

Fifty years ago, I helped organize Earth Day #1 programs on my college campus, calling attention to serious pollution problems that afflicted much of the USA. Over the ensuing decades, laws, regulations, and changed attitudes, practices and technologies reduced most of that pollution, often dramatically.
I didn’t buy the 1970 end-is-nigh, doom-and-gloom, billions-will-die hysteria that Ron Stein and Ron Bailey recapture so deliciously, including the manmade global cooling crisis. I don’t buy it today, either – certainly not this year’s Earth Day focus on the alleged manmade global warming crisis, also blamed on emissions of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the same gases that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow. We’re told the crisis is unprecedented, and poses existential threats to humanity and planet.
What I find fascinating in all this is the steadfast, often nasty determination of scientists, politicians and interest groups promoting alarmist themes – and profiting immensely from them – to reject and deny any science, history and evidence that undermines their claim that nothing like this ever happened before.
The “highest ever” temperatures may be just a few tenths or even hundredths of a degree above previous records set many decades ago. The United States may have enjoyed a record 12-year respite from Category 3-5 hurricanes, ended finally by Harvey and Irma in 2017. Violent tornadoes may be far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that, and the complete absence of violent twisters in 2018 may have been truly unprecedented. Modern day floods and droughts may be nothing compared to past floods or the multi-decade droughts that devastated Anasazi, Mayan and other civilizations.
However, alarmists insist, Earth’s climate and weather were stable and unchanging until humans began using coal, oil and natural gas. We must eradicate fossil fuels now, they say, regardless of what biofuel, battery, wind and solar replacements (and mining for raw materials to manufacture them) might have on wildlife, scenery, environmental values or human rights. The disconnect from reality is truly amazing.
Equally fascinating is the notion that melting glaciers are something new. It amounts to asserting that everything was just peachy until American, European and Greenland glaciers started melting a few decades ago, threatening us with catastrophic sea level rise. It amounts to claiming the glacial epochs never happened; their mile-high ice sheets never blanketed a third of the Northern Hemisphere, multiple times, with balmy periods in between; and seas haven’t risen some 400 feet since the Pleistocene ice age.
It amounts to claiming the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods never happened, and weren’t followed by the Little Ice Age, when priests performed exorcisms, asking God to keep glaciers from inundating villages in the Alps of Europe. It’s as though we couldn’t possibly be finding what we are finding today.
In the latest example, government and university researchers recently found numerous Viking-era artifacts along a Norwegian mountain pass that had been heavily traveled for at least 700 years, but then was buried beneath the ice and lost to history for 1,000 years. Locals used the rough 2,200-foot-long pass to travel between summer and winter lodgings, while long-distance trekkers used it as a trade route.
Among the treasure trove were tunics, mittens, horse shoes and bits, remnants of sleds used to haul food and gear over winter snow, a small shelter, and even the remains of a dog with a collar and leash. They all came to light because the glacial ice is again receding, as Earth continues its post Little Ice Age warming.
Alarmists insist the warming is due to fossil fuels, and deny that it is just part of natural climate cycles. Much more evidence of past warming and cooling periods has also come to light in recent years.
In 1991, German hikers found the incredible mummified and heavily tattooed remains of “Oetzi the Ice Man” sticking out of the ice in the Oetzal Alps near the Italian-Austrian border, at an altitude of some 10,000 feet. A partial longbow, bearskin hat and other artifacts were found nearby. He had died about 5,300 years ago from an arrow wound and had the blood of four different people on his clothes and weapons. He is further evidence of human habitation in these alpine areas during past warm periods.
Tourists and archeological teams have also discovered parts of shoes, leather clothing, fragments of a wooden bowl and numerous other items from 3000 to 4500 BC (BCE) that have emerged from the alpine ice. They are among the oldest objects ever found in the Alps. A Bronze Age pin, Roman coins and early Medieval artifacts have also been found. They show how these mountain passes and trails, impassible during cold, more glaciated periods, served as vital trade routes in periodic warmer centuries.
Norwegian ice fields show shrinkage and growth patterns similar to those of the alpine glaciers, says Norwegian glacial scientist Atle Nesje. The archaeological findings “seem to fit quite nicely with our glacier reconstructions,” he adds, which helps us understand past, present and future climate changes.
Years of research by Swiss and other scientists have produced similar findings – sometimes human artifacts, but also plant and animal remains, in areas of newly melted ice. In one location in the Swiss Alps, University of Berne geology professor Christian Schluechter found pieces of wood 12-24 inches thick and the remains of a moor. Melting waters had flushed them out from under the glacier. That means the ice there is hardly “perpetual,” he says. There were multiple periods of warmer weather and less ice.
In fact, carbon-14 dating shows ten “clearly definable time windows” over the last 10,000 years – times when glaciers were limited to regions up to 1,000 feet higher in the Alps than today. This means that, for multiple long periods of time, “the Alps were greener than they are today,” Schluechter concludes.
Inca children sacrificed 500 years ago in Argentina’s Andes have also emerged from melting glaciers.
Off the Florida coast, the Mel and Deo Fisher archeological diving team didn’t just find the famous Spanish galleon Nuestra Senora de Atocha, which sank during a ferocious 1622 hurricane, or only the British slave ship Henrietta Marie, which went down during a 1700 hurricane, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica, to be sold as slaves. They also found charred tree branches, pine cones and other remnants from a forest fire 8,400 years ago, when this vast ocean area was still well above present day sea levels!
Even an entire forest has been discovered, protruding from the melting Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau, Alaska – an area I visited several years ago. Roots, stumps and large segments of entire upright spruce or hemlock trees have been found across several acres already. They are the remains of a forest that thrived there for as long as 2,350 years, until it was buried by glacial ice around 1,000 years ago.
The chronicle of amazing discoveries yielded by melting glaciers goes on and on. Their most important lesson is that our current climate is but a snapshot in time, on a vibrant planet where climate change and extreme weather have been “real” since time began. Only a science-denying climate alarmist would refuse to recognize this. Simply put, there is nothing “unprecedented” about what we are seeing today.
Now it may be that carbon dioxide and water vapor from wheezing, snorting horses, oxen and humans – laboring at the edge of exhaustion doing what our fossil-fuel-powered vehicles and equipment do for us today – caused these past climate changes. But it’s far more likely that they were due to a complex and still poorly understood combination of solar and other powerful natural forces.
Climate alarmists may not want to recognize or discuss these natural fluctuations. But the rest of us should. Improving our knowledge of what these forces are and how they work together will enable us to better predict, prepare for and adapt to future climate changes. Continuing to focus on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” as the primary or sole cause of climate changes and weather events, will ensure that we never get beyond the politically driven battles in which we are now engaged.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-27--Tale of two panics — Covid & Climate

Tale of two panics — Covid & Climate

While they are occurring on vastly different time scales , the Covid-19 panic and the climate change panic are remarkably similar .
Perhaps there are certain basic social panic mechanisms that always occur , which are yet to be discovered .
Yet in any case the striking similarities between these two are worth exploring a bit .
To begin with , each panic began with runaway computer models .
In the Covid case the U.S. death count was projected to be around 2,000,000 , clearly calling for draconian government action , which soon followed .
That number now stands at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad flu year , but the damage is well underway .
Claims that the ruinous actions brought the numbers down are belied by the countries that fared just as well without them .
Nor do we know what made the model so “ hot ” as it has not been analyzed , or even properly documented and released for analysis .
In the climate case the hot models take a benign increase in atmospheric CO2 and turn it into a coming catastrophe .
We actually know how they do this using massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from water vapor and clouds .
That these models have clearly been falsified by observation is ignored by their masters .
In both cases the speculative terror to come was heartily embraced by the mainstream media , accompanied by relentless cries for action .
Predictably the public responded with fear , giving the government ample room for action .
In both cases the result has been mandates for economically destructive abstinence .
In the Covid case the mandate is to hide thy self away .
Don ’ t go out , don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t go to school .
That the economy is rapidly collapsing is no surprise .
In the climate case the mandate is to stop using our primary source of energy — fossil fuels .
Don ’ t drive .
Don ’ t fly .
Don ’ t eat meat .
Build millions of windmills and solar collectors .
Commit to zero carbon suicide .
That the economy is slowly collapsing is no surprise .
Energy prices rise and rise .
In both cases the ridiculous bandaid that is applied to catastrophic collapse is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are out of work so they get just over a thousand dollars .
Windmills and solar panels do not work as needed so they get subsidies .
And still the government feeds the fear .
What is really needed in both cases is freedom and reality .
Freedom from computer driven fear , freedom from fear driven mandates , and the reality that the problem being solved by collapse never existed in the first place .
These are both panics , pure and simple .
Recovery will not be easy because fear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Children were already having nightmares fueled by climate fear , now they are afraid to go outside and play .
In both cases the worst may be yet to come because the fear mongers are relentless .
Still we will wallow out of this pit , despite the governments that put us into it .
The bigger challenge is how to prevent catastrophic panics in future ?
In communication science this sort of thing is called a “ cascade ” .
The model results trigger the press , who trigger the people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an amplifier , whereby a hot model hurts hundreds of millions of people .
Maybe the model is the place to start .
Perhaps presenting catastrophic conjectures as established facts should be punishable , so people do not do it .
Giving a false alarm that causes great harm is wrong .
Calling the false alarm science does not change this fact .
If anything it makes it worse .
Scientists are supposed to be very careful about their claims .
Of course we also need to fight the virus , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a workable virus prevention and protection system , especially one that prevents panic .
A good way to fund this system is by redirecting money slated for foolishly fighting CO2 .

While they are occurring on vastly different time scales, the Covid-19 panic and the climate change panic are remarkably similar. Perhaps there are certain basic social panic mechanisms that always occur, which are yet to be discovered. Yet in any case the striking similarities between these two are worth exploring a bit.
To begin with, each panic began with runaway computer models. In the Covid case the U.S. death count was projected to be around 2,000,000, clearly calling for draconian government action, which soon followed. That number now stands at about 60,000, about the same as a bad flu year, but the damage is well underway.
Claims that the ruinous actions brought the numbers down are belied by the countries that fared just as well without them. Nor do we know what made the model so “hot” as it has not been analyzed, or even properly documented and released for analysis.
In the climate case the hot models take a benign increase in atmospheric CO2 and turn it into a coming catastrophe. We actually know how they do this using massive (and purely speculative) positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds. That these models have clearly been falsified by observation is ignored by their masters.
In both cases the speculative terror to come was heartily embraced by the mainstream media, accompanied by relentless cries for action. Predictably the public responded with fear, giving the government ample room for action.
In both cases the result has been mandates for economically destructive abstinence. In the Covid case the mandate is to hide thy self away. Don’t go out, don’t go to work, don’t go to school. That the economy is rapidly collapsing is no surprise.
In the climate case the mandate is to stop using our primary source of energy — fossil fuels. Don’t drive. Don’t fly. Don’t eat meat. Build millions of windmills and solar collectors. Commit to zero carbon suicide. That the economy is slowly collapsing is no surprise. Energy prices rise and rise.
In both cases the ridiculous bandaid that is applied to catastrophic collapse is a so-called “stimulus”. Millions are out of work so they get just over a thousand dollars. Windmills and solar panels do not work as needed so they get subsidies. And still the government feeds the fear.
What is really needed in both cases is freedom and reality. Freedom from computer driven fear, freedom from fear driven mandates, and the reality that the problem being solved by collapse never existed in the first place.
These are both panics, pure and simple. Recovery will not be easy because fear, once begun, is long lasting. Children were already having nightmares fueled by climate fear, now they are afraid to go outside and play. In both cases the worst may be yet to come because the fear mongers are relentless.
Still we will wallow out of this pit, despite the governments that put us into it.
The bigger challenge is how to prevent catastrophic panics in future? In communication science this sort of thing is called a “cascade”. The model results trigger the press, who trigger the people, who trigger the government.
Each step is an amplifier, whereby a hot model hurts hundreds of millions of people. Maybe the model is the place to start. Perhaps presenting catastrophic conjectures as established facts should be punishable, so people do not do it.
Giving a false alarm that causes great harm is wrong. Calling the false alarm science does not change this fact. If anything it makes it worse. Scientists are supposed to be very careful about their claims.
Of course we also need to fight the virus, but medically not socially. We also need a workable virus prevention and protection system, especially one that prevents panic. A good way to fund this system is by redirecting money slated for foolishly fighting CO2.
See my https://clintel.org/fight-virus-not-carbon/.


Question climate “authority”

A growing number of Americans are getting fed up with state coronavirus lock-downs that are keeping their businesses closed and destroying their livelihoods .
They are rightly questioning the rationale and science that influenced these government edicts , including by protest , as the economically destructive effects are increasingly unacceptable and not sustainable .
Americans should do the same for political climate science that exerts pervasive influence in society to reorder our lifestyles and economy over time , since it is unwarranted .
Both coronavirus and climate policies imposed by governments in the United States and worldwide are attempting massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important difference is that coronavirus policies were imposed suddenly and swiftly out of genuine fear that millions of people were vulnerable to imminent death .
Understandably , elected officials accepted and acted on advice from public health experts to lock down the economy with stay-at-home orders and closure of “ non-essential ” businesses to save lives .
It likely is no coincidence that growing impatience from Americans over coronavirus lockdowns comes simultaneous with the drastic reduction in projected deaths from the virus models and “ flattening the curve ” of infections .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent studies that indicate millions of people were infected with coronavirus , thus reducing the death rate closer to recurring influenza levels .
If true , enduring this highly contagious virus is becoming preferable to remaining cloistered , losing economic livelihoods , waiting in food lines , and becoming wards of the state .
The analogies between the legitimate coronavirus scare and the illegitimate climate change scare are uncanny , except the latter is more long-term and gradual , with society being the metaphorical frog being slowly boiled to submission .
Politicians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have claimed for decades there is “ scientific consensus ” about man-made global warming that is getting inexorably hotter to the point where the planet itself faces an “ existential threat , ” now within three decades .
The culprit supposedly is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from too many people and too much production and use of fossil fuels like oil , coal and natural gas that will result in arctic ice melt , flooded coastal cities , extinction of animal species , and humankind itself doomed .
You ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we fight this man-made climate change by changing our lifestyles and our economic system .
Sound familiar ?
We ’ ve been hearing the same message about the coronavirus , which was warranted in the short-term , but not indefinitely .
Climate has indeed warmed by about half a degree in the last 40 years , and has been warming overall since the late 1800 ’ s , upon the end of the “ Little Ice Age.
” No denying that .
In fact , climate has warmed and cooled by several degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the planet escape from ice ages and begin to warm ?
Not from using carbon-emitting fossil fuels , which were still underground .
To warm out of an “ ice age ” also is to acknowledge the planet ’ s climate got cooler to begin one .
The climate effect of carbon dioxide emissions also must be properly understood .
As CFACT reported , carbon from fossil fuels comprises less than one-fifth of the planet ’ s CO2 emissions in the atmosphere .
Importantly , the share of all CO2 in the atmosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a percent ( 0.04 % ) .
If fossil fuel use worldwide ceased , the temperature would drop only one-tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050 , using climate data and models maintained by the National Center for Atmospheric Science , a federal agency .
Eliminating fossil fuels on a global scale accomplishes effectively nothing from a climate standpoint .
If you stood outside and the temperature changed by one degree—much less , a tenth of a degree—you wouldn ’ t notice ; nor would polar bears .
But we should destroy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuels , regardless ?
Assuming this were possible in 30 years , it is neither practical nor necessary .
This carbon scientific reality makes the costly efforts of states like California , Virginia and New York to “ fight climate change ” more pointless , as they are mere specks on a planetary scale .
Americans should question every climate alarmist who demands we reduce our lifestyle and our oil-based economies to reduce carbon to “ fight climate change.
” The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do wealthy climate alarmists such as former Vice President Al Gore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the British House of Windsor ( i.e.
, Charles and Harry ) , are not changing their opulent lifestyles any time soon to reduce their massive carbon footprints .
Neither should the rest of us .

A growing number of Americans are getting fed up with state coronavirus lock-downs that are keeping their businesses closed and destroying their livelihoods. They are rightly questioning the rationale and science that influenced these government edicts, including by protest, as the economically destructive effects are increasingly unacceptable and not sustainable.
Americans should do the same for political climate science that exerts pervasive influence in society to reorder our lifestyles and economy over time, since it is unwarranted.
Both coronavirus and climate policies imposed by governments in the United States and worldwide are attempting massive and destructive changes on societies. The important difference is that coronavirus policies were imposed suddenly and swiftly out of genuine fear that millions of people were vulnerable to imminent death. Understandably, elected officials accepted and acted on advice from public health experts to lock down the economy with stay-at-home orders and closure of “non-essential” businesses to save lives.
It likely is no coincidence that growing impatience from Americans over coronavirus lockdowns comes simultaneous with the drastic reduction in projected deaths from the virus models and “flattening the curve” of infections. The pushback also comes on the heels of recent studies that indicate millions of people were infected with coronavirus, thus reducing the death rate closer to recurring influenza levels. If true, enduring this highly contagious virus is becoming preferable to remaining cloistered, losing economic livelihoods, waiting in food lines, and becoming wards of the state.
The analogies between the legitimate coronavirus scare and the illegitimate climate change scare are uncanny, except the latter is more long-term and gradual, with society being the metaphorical frog being slowly boiled to submission.
Politicians, entertainers, bureaucrats, and media figures have claimed for decades there is “scientific consensus” about man-made global warming that is getting inexorably hotter to the point where the planet itself faces an “existential threat,” now within three decades. The culprit supposedly is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from too many people and too much production and use of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas that will result in arctic ice melt, flooded coastal cities, extinction of animal species, and humankind itself doomed. You’ve heard the riffs.
Popular culture demands we fight this man-made climate change by changing our lifestyles and our economic system. Sound familiar? We’ve been hearing the same message about the coronavirus, which was warranted in the short-term, but not indefinitely.
Climate has indeed warmed by about half a degree in the last 40 years, and has been warming overall since the late 1800’s, upon the end of the “Little Ice Age.” No denying that. In fact, climate has warmed and cooled by several degrees since time began. Just how did the planet escape from ice ages and begin to warm? Not from using carbon-emitting fossil fuels, which were still underground. To warm out of an “ice age” also is to acknowledge the planet’s climate got cooler to begin one.
The climate effect of carbon dioxide emissions also must be properly understood. As CFACT reported, carbon from fossil fuels comprises less than one-fifth of the planet’s CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Importantly, the share of all CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule, amounting to four one-hundredths of a percent (0.04%). If fossil fuel use worldwide ceased, the temperature would drop only one-tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050, using climate data and models maintained by the National Center for Atmospheric Science, a federal agency.
Eliminating fossil fuels on a global scale accomplishes effectively nothing from a climate standpoint. If you stood outside and the temperature changed by one degree—much less, a tenth of a degree—you wouldn’t notice; nor would polar bears. But we should destroy (or “replace”) fossil fuels, regardless? Assuming this were possible in 30 years, it is neither practical nor necessary.
This carbon scientific reality makes the costly efforts of states like California, Virginia and New York to “fight climate change” more pointless, as they are mere specks on a planetary scale.
Americans should question every climate alarmist who demands we reduce our lifestyle and our oil-based economies to reduce carbon to “fight climate change.”
The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do wealthy climate alarmists such as former Vice President Al Gore, Oscar-winning actors Jane Fonda and Leonardo DiCaprio, and the British House of Windsor (i.e., Charles and Harry), are not changing their opulent lifestyles any time soon to reduce their massive carbon footprints. Neither should the rest of us.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-28--Mass indoctrination on college campuses in the wake of Covid-19

There are always some people who will take advantage of a crisis to advance self-serving financial or political agendas that have nothing to do with the crisis itself .
We saw this in Nancy ’ s Pelosi ’ s shameless attempt to stuff wasteful , partisan , and controversial provisions into the coronavirus relief package , including pieces of the radical Green New Deal , all the while millions of Americans are desperately seeking financial relief and medical supplies .
In his recent book entitled The Breakdown of Higher Education ( Encounter Books ) , Professor John Ellis documents that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleges and universities is widespread , and has grown more egregious with each passing year .
Domination of academic departments by the left emboldens faculty to engage in the overt politicization of curricula they would never have attempted 50 years ago .
Ironically , the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a parallel virus : online instruction in the pursuit of the radical climate agenda .
It ’ s a national effort called Solve Climate 2030 .
Consider , for a moment , the hubris involved in an effort to change the climate in ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press release from UConn ’ s Communications office , faculty at the University of Connecticut are using the crisis and the need for on-line course delivery to inject a radical environmental agenda into their curriculum .
Michael Willig , executive director of UConn ’ s Institute of the Environment , and Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology , has announced that a national webinar , scheduled for April 7 , ” will explicitly consider environmental justice challenges posed by the climate crisis.
” And the aim is to extend this radical agenda not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but those in history , science , business , culture , economics , psychology , religion , government , media , journalism and the arts .
Moreover , it seeks to “ engage high school teachers in Connecticut , as well as other colleges and universities .
.
.
to develop materials to assist the curriculum by focusing on climate-related information that may be used even in non-scientific disciplines.
” This is mass indoctrination on steroids .
Willig exposes the ideology behind this agenda when he openly admits that “ the impetus behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlight the existential crisis that is associated with climate change and our continued dependence on fossil fuels .
.
.
it will also address the anxiety surrounding the climate crisis and help viewers answer questions about what they can do now , and how their actions will help make a difference.
” The only anxiety I can detect is that which is ginned up by irresponsible or poorly informed faculty with a political agenda that violate the basic tenets of their profession .
It was Rahm Emanuel who famously said : “ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waste.
” This online course , and the Solve Climate 2030 program generally , reflect that aphorism and the radical politicization of the modern college campus by political actors .
It not only constitutes a blatant misuse of public funds toward overtly political ends , but is hostile to the very essence of the scientific enterprise , while corruptly clothing itself in its garb .
What , for example , is likely to happen when young people in grades K-12 ( including my grandchildren ) , and beyond , are largely convinced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that threatens their very existence , as Mr. Willig falsely contends .
For whom are they likely to vote when they become of voting age if that is the issue that dominates their consciousness and political sensibility ?
It ’ s no wonder Democrats are all on the “ climate change ” bandwagon .
Clearly , this is an issue that constitutes a deep and profound threat to our freedom .
I have a good friend who teaches physics at local university .
He also teaches a course in climate science .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bent , he scrupulously seeks to present both sides of the debate , such that his students , in subsequent course evaluations , are unable to detect his own position .
His aim is to teach them how to think , not what to think .
This is the way education should be conducted , and the way it was conducted in years past when faculty took their ethical responsibilities seriously .
There is not space here for a lengthy exposition of the fraud of catastrophic global warming—the greatest scientific fraud in history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Suffice it to say that the instrumental temperature record since 1850 , and proxy data prior to that , offer no evidence of anything in recent years beyond normal climatic variation in keeping with the earth ’ s geologic experience .
Temperatures warmed globally by only 0.74 degrees Celsius for all of the 20th century , according to the IPCC , most of which took place prior to 1978 .
And even that is subject to a profound urban heat island effect , among other uncertainties .
It is utterly absurd to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like an “ existential crisis ; ” and , in fact , is mostly natural in origin .
Global warming or “ climate change ” has degenerated into a political religion , or cult , not an honest effort to ascertain the truth of what is arguably the most complex scientific phenomenon known to man .
Indeed , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) made its anti-scientific posture clear from the outset by never attempting to establish a baseline of natural climate variability before setting out to prove man ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors that impact climate , they conveniently chose the only one ( the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide ) that can be used to impose government control over the energy sector and humanity .
This was a political , not a scientifically defensible , enterprise .
They have also engaged in numerous , and documented , dishonest acts to advance this agenda , including the infamous “ hockey stick ” graph inserted in the IPCC ’ s 2001 Assessment , that wiped out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific studies and the historical record .
There are thousands of honest scientists across the globe who reject such hyperbole , but I strongly suspect that Prof. Willig will not be exposing students to their views because Solve Climate 2030 is not science , but a one-sided exercise in political advocacy that bears a remarkable similarity to the idiotic Green New Deal .
If Americans think that the absence of a limited number of products from grocery store shelves during the COROD-19 pandemic is bad , they have no idea what the truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have on the American food supply chain .
Tractors and harvesters without diesel fuel to produce our food , tractor trailers without fuel to deliver it to processing plants and grocery stores will result in food scarcity unlike any we have ever witnessed in American history .
How long do you think residents in urban centers , and elsewhere , will last when supermarkets are stripped bare .
It would also constitute the greatest case of economic masochism in American history .
You can look at Venezuela to get a hint of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozens of books , thousands of scientific articles , and hundreds of YouTube lectures that expose this fraud for what it is .
For a balanced exposition of both the science and politics of climate , I would highly recommend the late Professor Robert M. Carter ’ s Climate : The Counter Consensus ( Stacey International ) , in which he argues persuasively that “ there is no scientific study that invalidates the hypothesis of the overwhelmingly natural origin of the observed , modern climate , ” this despite over $ 200 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And for the history and totalitarian roots of the movement , I recommend Rupert Darwall ’ s Green Tyranny ( Encounter Books ) , which exhaustively documents the origins and political character of the movement .
Professor Richard Lindzen , MIT ’ s distinguished atmospheric physicist , now retired , said it best more than 20 years ago when he wrote : “ Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century ’ s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference , proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.
” Hysterical panic is what Professor Willig hopes to foist on young and impressionable minds .
Solve Climate 2030 also violates a cardinal principle of university teaching , which is to teach students how to think , not what to think .
This follows from a fundamental principle promulgated by the American Association of University Professors in 1915 , that political advocacy has no place in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professors is to teach students to think for themselves .
We can certainly teach young people about the complexities of the climate system , but that curriculum should be rooted in the data , should acknowledge the enormous uncertainties that characterize that system , and examine the competing theories of what drives it .
Taught honestly , students should not even be able to detect the views or agenda or the presenters .
But the Solve Climate 2030 project is anything but an objective pursuit of truth , but a blatant pursuit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project as an effort to solve an “ existential threat , ” they can attempt to rationalize the bias inherent in it .
However , they are advancing an unproven hypothesis that has profound policy implications of a potentially destructive kind and whose dimensions we can not begin to fathom .
Sadly , this is how far we have fallen from the disinterested pursuit of truth in our current ideologically homogeneous academic culture .

There are always some people who will take advantage of a crisis to advance self-serving financial or political agendas that have nothing to do with the crisis itself. We saw this in Nancy’s Pelosi’s shameless attempt to stuff wasteful, partisan, and controversial provisions into the coronavirus relief package, including pieces of the radical Green New Deal, all the while millions of Americans are desperately seeking financial relief and medical supplies.
In his recent book entitled The Breakdown of Higher Education (Encounter Books), Professor John Ellis documents that the indoctrination in our nation’s colleges and universities is widespread, and has grown more egregious with each passing year. Domination of academic departments by the left emboldens faculty to engage in the overt politicization of curricula they would never have attempted 50 years ago. Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a parallel virus: online instruction in the pursuit of the radical climate agenda. It’s a national effort called Solve Climate 2030. Consider, for a moment, the hubris involved in an effort to change the climate in ten years.
According to a March 25th press release from UConn’s Communications office, faculty at the University of Connecticut are using the crisis and the need for on-line course delivery to inject a radical environmental agenda into their curriculum. Michael Willig, executive director of UConn’s Institute of the Environment, and Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, has announced that a national webinar, scheduled for April 7, ”will explicitly consider environmental justice challenges posed by the climate crisis.” The aim is to extend this radical agenda not only to students in environmental studies, but those in history, science, business, culture, economics, psychology, religion, government, media, journalism and the arts. Moreover, it seeks to “engage high school teachers in Connecticut, as well as other colleges and universities . . . to develop materials to assist the curriculum by focusing on climate-related information that may be used even in non-scientific disciplines.” This is mass indoctrination on steroids.
Willig exposes the ideology behind this agenda when he openly admits that “the impetus behind Solve Climate 2030 is not to just highlight the existential crisis that is associated with climate change and our continued dependence on fossil fuels . . . it will also address the anxiety surrounding the climate crisis and help viewers answer questions about what they can do now, and how their actions will help make a difference.” The only anxiety I can detect is that which is ginned up by irresponsible or poorly informed faculty with a political agenda that violate the basic tenets of their profession.
It was Rahm Emanuel who famously said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” This online course, and the Solve Climate 2030 program generally, reflect that aphorism and the radical politicization of the modern college campus by political actors. It not only constitutes a blatant misuse of public funds toward overtly political ends, but is hostile to the very essence of the scientific enterprise, while corruptly clothing itself in its garb. What, for example, is likely to happen when young people in grades K-12 (including my grandchildren), and beyond, are largely convinced that “climate change” is a crisis that threatens their very existence, as Mr. Willig falsely contends. For whom are they likely to vote when they become of voting age if that is the issue that dominates their consciousness and political sensibility? It’s no wonder Democrats are all on the “climate change” bandwagon. Clearly, this is an issue that constitutes a deep and profound threat to our freedom.
I have a good friend who teaches physics at local university. He also teaches a course in climate science. Despite a strongly skeptical, or realist, bent, he scrupulously seeks to present both sides of the debate, such that his students, in subsequent course evaluations, are unable to detect his own position. His aim is to teach them how to think, not what to think. This is the way education should be conducted, and the way it was conducted in years past when faculty took their ethical responsibilities seriously.
There is not space here for a lengthy exposition of the fraud of catastrophic global warming—the greatest scientific fraud in history, and easily the most costly. Suffice it to say that the instrumental temperature record since 1850, and proxy data prior to that, offer no evidence of anything in recent years beyond normal climatic variation in keeping with the earth’s geologic experience. Temperatures warmed globally by only 0.74 degrees Celsius for all of the 20th century, according to the IPCC, most of which took place prior to 1978. And even that is subject to a profound urban heat island effect, among other uncertainties. It is utterly absurd to believe that that modest warming poses anything remotely like an “existential crisis;” and, in fact, is mostly natural in origin. Global warming or “climate change” has degenerated into a political religion, or cult, not an honest effort to ascertain the truth of what is arguably the most complex scientific phenomenon known to man.
Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made its anti-scientific posture clear from the outset by never attempting to establish a baseline of natural climate variability before setting out to prove man’s guilt. Of the several hundred factors that impact climate, they conveniently chose the only one (the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide) that can be used to impose government control over the energy sector and humanity. This was a political, not a scientifically defensible, enterprise. They have also engaged in numerous, and documented, dishonest acts to advance this agenda, including the infamous “hockey stick” graph inserted in the IPCC’s 2001 Assessment, that wiped out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that had been exhaustively documented by dozens of prior scientific studies and the historical record. There are thousands of honest scientists across the globe who reject such hyperbole, but I strongly suspect that Prof. Willig will not be exposing students to their views because Solve Climate 2030 is not science, but a one-sided exercise in political advocacy that bears a remarkable similarity to the idiotic Green New Deal.
If Americans think that the absence of a limited number of products from grocery store shelves during the COROD-19 pandemic is bad, they have no idea what the truly horrendous consequences of the Green New Deal will have on the American food supply chain. Tractors and harvesters without diesel fuel to produce our food, tractor trailers without fuel to deliver it to processing plants and grocery stores will result in food scarcity unlike any we have ever witnessed in American history. How long do you think residents in urban centers, and elsewhere, will last when supermarkets are stripped bare. It would also constitute the greatest case of economic masochism in American history. You can look at Venezuela to get a hint of what that would like.
There are dozens of books, thousands of scientific articles, and hundreds of YouTube lectures that expose this fraud for what it is. For a balanced exposition of both the science and politics of climate, I would highly recommend the late Professor Robert M. Carter’s Climate: The Counter Consensus (Stacey International), in which he argues persuasively that “there is no scientific study that invalidates the hypothesis of the overwhelmingly natural origin of the observed, modern climate,” this despite over $200 billion spent in its pursuit since 2000. And for the history and totalitarian roots of the movement, I recommend Rupert Darwall’s Green Tyranny (Encounter Books), which exhaustively documents the origins and political character of the movement.
Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT’s distinguished atmospheric physicist, now retired, said it best more than 20 years ago when he wrote:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Hysterical panic is what Professor Willig hopes to foist on young and impressionable minds. Solve Climate 2030 also violates a cardinal principle of university teaching, which is to teach students how to think, not what to think. This follows from a fundamental principle promulgated by the American Association of University Professors in 1915, that political advocacy has no place in the classroom, and that the role of professors is to teach students to think for themselves. We can certainly teach young people about the complexities of the climate system, but that curriculum should be rooted in the data, should acknowledge the enormous uncertainties that characterize that system, and examine the competing theories of what drives it.
Taught honestly, students should not even be able to detect the views or agenda or the presenters. But the Solve Climate 2030 project is anything but an objective pursuit of truth, but a blatant pursuit of a policy agenda. By framing the project as an effort to solve an “existential threat,” they can attempt to rationalize the bias inherent in it. However, they are advancing an unproven hypothesis that has profound policy implications of a potentially destructive kind and whose dimensions we cannot begin to fathom.
Sadly, this is how far we have fallen from the disinterested pursuit of truth in our current ideologically homogeneous academic culture.