committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-30--COVID-19 and climate change require a better understanding of science

We have all been barraged on the 24/7 news cycle for years over fearful claims about climate change and global warming .
Now for months , our lives are completely altered with a more realistic fear of the most contagious virus any of us have ever experienced .
Both , however , suffer from questionable statistics and predictions that make us wonder what is real and what is someone ’ s best guess .
Too few of us have an adequate understanding of what science is to make the most reasonable judgments for our own lives .
Hence my attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a more fundamental understanding of how science should help you rather than more commonly confuse you .
First , let ’ s define SCIENCE as the pursuit of the ability to explain the elements of the physical universe around us .
The DATA required to do this are facts , figures , and relationships obtained by measurements , mathematics , and experiments used to support a theory to then be proven or disproven .
The THEORY is a structured idea of a possible explanation of a natural process that is not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it can become a LAW , which is an explanation of a natural process or object , for example , Newton ’ s law of gravity , which explains why and how an apple falls from a tree to the ground .
All laws have a SHELF LIFE , which is the period during which the law remains valid .
This could be a thousand years , such as the Pythagorean Theorem in mathematics or until somebody comes up with a better description or explanation of why an apple falls to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mathematics .
Einstein ’ s law of relativity is always though unsuccessfully being challenged .
Now for the best part , a SKEPTIC is any person or group who challenges a scientific Law or Theory or idea or Consensus with additional data .
The Skeptic is the real scientist but uses verifiable data rather than conjecture .
Most importantly , we must continually remind ourselves that the output of computer models are not data .
They are simply a person ’ s idea conveniently and quickly run through a computer instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic concepts leads us to the six steps disciplined procedure called the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS .
4- Test the hypothesis by gathering data and experimenting and calculating .
6- Share all results , data , calculations , etc .
for a skeptical review process .
Now let ’ s look at what is not science .
BELIEF – Is an acceptance of an idea or concept that we firmly hold on to in the absence of supportive data .
OPINIONS – are how we show preferences like when we vote , choose a movie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They can play a role in science when choosing a path to create a theory to test .
CONSENSUS – is a group of people who share the same beliefs or opinions , like the dress code at a country club .
It has zero scientific value or authenticity , wherein in science , one person can prove a million educated people wrong .
Such has been the case for dozens of contrary discoveries .
The cause of ulcers and the germ theory are good examples .
DENIER – Any person or group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ACTIVIST – Any person whose aggressive behavior is shaped by their beliefs and adherence to Dogma .
You have been witnessing a great deal of non – science on the issues of both climate change and the coronavirus .
As for the latter , the political system has spoken deciding to err on the side of caution by ignoring the economic impacts of the decision to shut down the nation for fear of the virus largely .
Wouldn ’ t it be interesting if every day we learned of the daily mortality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease and strokes ?
What about old age , and the other leading causes of the daily death rate in our nation ?
Would we see it blown out of proportion ?
Some claims of a 3 percent mortality rate assume we know the numbers of folks contracting Covid-19 when common sense says unreported illnesses due to their lack of severity surely outnumber those that are counted .
As to climate change , we ignore how little we know of all the variables that must affect the earth ’ s temperature , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that desire to end the use of fossil fuels .
We can not be blamed for often being lead around like sheep when our media , TVs , news papers and magazines regularly trade in the worst cases of all productions because human nature seems always to be conned by the bad news .
It truly sells much better than good news or real science news .
No one is to blame for current worst-case scenarios based on fear when they are sold to us daily .
If you would apply the simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least , your blood pressure may improve .
Portions of this essay were excerpted from the forthcoming book A HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE with permission of the author Terigi Ciccone .

We have all been barraged on the 24/7 news cycle for years over fearful claims about climate change and global warming. Now for months, our lives are completely altered with a more realistic fear of the most contagious virus any of us have ever experienced. Both, however, suffer from questionable statistics and predictions that make us wonder what is real and what is someone’s best guess. Too few of us have an adequate understanding of what science is to make the most reasonable judgments for our own lives. Hence my attempt here is to better ground the reader in a more fundamental understanding of how science should help you rather than more commonly confuse you.
First, let’s define SCIENCE as the pursuit of the ability to explain the elements of the physical universe around us. The DATA required to do this are facts, figures, and relationships obtained by measurements, mathematics, and experiments used to support a theory to then be proven or disproven. The THEORY is a structured idea of a possible explanation of a natural process that is not as yet substantiated by data. Once substantiated, it can become a LAW, which is an explanation of a natural process or object, for example, Newton’s law of gravity, which explains why and how an apple falls from a tree to the ground.
All laws have a SHELF LIFE, which is the period during which the law remains valid. This could be a thousand years, such as the Pythagorean Theorem in mathematics or until somebody comes up with a better description or explanation of why an apple falls to the ground, proving it with further experiments and mathematics. Einstein’s law of relativity is always though unsuccessfully being challenged.
Now for the best part, a SKEPTIC is any person or group who challenges a scientific Law or Theory or idea or Consensus with additional data. The Skeptic is the real scientist but uses verifiable data rather than conjecture. Most importantly, we must continually remind ourselves that the output of computer models are not data. They are simply a person’s idea conveniently and quickly run through a computer instead of a calculator or abacus.
Understanding these basic concepts leads us to the six steps disciplined procedure called the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
1- Ask a question.
2- Do background research.
3- Construct a hypothesis ( fancy word for a guess)
4- Test the hypothesis by gathering data and experimenting and calculating.
5- Analyze the data and conclude a theory.
6- Share all results, data, calculations, etc. for a skeptical review process.
Now let’s look at what is not science.
BELIEF – Is an acceptance of an idea or concept that we firmly hold on to in the absence of supportive data.
OPINIONS – are how we show preferences like when we vote, choose a movie, or a church to attend. They can play a role in science when choosing a path to create a theory to test.
CONSENSUS – is a group of people who share the same beliefs or opinions, like the dress code at a country club. It has zero scientific value or authenticity, wherein in science, one person can prove a million educated people wrong. Such has been the case for dozens of contrary discoveries. The cause of ulcers and the germ theory are good examples.
DENIER – Any person or group who fails to adhere to the Consensus.
DOGMA – A belief so strong it replaces religion.
ACTIVIST – Any person whose aggressive behavior is shaped by their beliefs and adherence to Dogma.
You have been witnessing a great deal of non – science on the issues of both climate change and the coronavirus. As for the latter, the political system has spoken deciding to err on the side of caution by ignoring the economic impacts of the decision to shut down the nation for fear of the virus largely. Wouldn’t it be interesting if every day we learned of the daily mortality from automobile accidents, flu, heart disease and strokes? What about old age, and the other leading causes of the daily death rate in our nation? Would we see it blown out of proportion? Some claims of a 3 percent mortality rate assume we know the numbers of folks contracting Covid-19 when common sense says unreported illnesses due to their lack of severity surely outnumber those that are counted.
As to climate change, we ignore how little we know of all the variables that must affect the earth’s temperature, too often embracing the Dogma of the activists that desire to end the use of fossil fuels.
We can not be blamed for often being lead around like sheep when our media, TVs, news papers and magazines regularly trade in the worst cases of all productions because human nature seems always to be conned by the bad news. It truly sells much better than good news or real science news.
No one is to blame for current worst-case scenarios based on fear when they are sold to us daily. If you would apply the simple principles of science, at the very least, your blood pressure may improve.
Portions of this essay were excerpted from the forthcoming book A HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE with permission of the author Terigi Ciccone.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-29--Humpback whales spout out slow, but steady recovery

Humpback whales are one of nature ’ s most majestic animals .
Usually identified by their enormous size , curious songs and aerial acrobatics , they were once in numbers approximating 200,000 in the southern hemisphere alone .
Today its numbers have been reduced to about 16,200 , due primarily to unrestricted hunting that took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries .
Fortunately , humpback whales are making a comeback south of the equator .
One such place where progress is being made is at the Francisco Coloane Marine Park near the southern tip of Chile .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatically — from 40 individuals in 2003 to 190 in 2019 .
What are the reasons for its success ?
As reported in Mongabay : “ There are several reasons for the whales ’ recovery .
Humpbacks have been globally protected from commercial whaling since 1966 ( although the Soviets continued to catch large numbers of them in secret until 1973 ) , and commercial whaling of all species has been banned since 1986 .
Furthermore , the creation of marine parks [ like Francisco Coloane ] along the Pacific coast of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Based on the number of whales identified up until now and the low rate of recapture , this population unit of whales [ at the marine park ] is in the middle of experiencing a period of post-whaling recovery and is probably much greater in size than current estimates indicate , ” the Chilean Antarctic Institute ( INACH ) said in a 2014 report ( PDF ) .
Nevertheless , their recovery is still in its early days , in part due to humpbacks ’ slow rate of reproduction .
A female gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to three years , so the population is still well below the numbers recorded before commercial whaling .
‘ We are probably somewhere between 20 and 25 % of what it is thought there was before commercial whaling began , so we are relatively far off the initial population size but much better than we were 40 years ago , ’ [ wildlife expert ] Capella said.
” To read the full article on Mongabay , click here .

Humpback whales are one of nature’s most majestic animals. Usually identified by their enormous size, curious songs and aerial acrobatics, they were once in numbers approximating 200,000 in the southern hemisphere alone.
Today its numbers have been reduced to about 16,200, due primarily to unrestricted hunting that took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Fortunately, humpback whales are making a comeback south of the equator. One such place where progress is being made is at the Francisco Coloane Marine Park near the southern tip of Chile. There, the humpback whale population has risen dramatically — from 40 individuals in 2003 to 190 in 2019.
What are the reasons for its success? As reported in Mongabay:
“There are several reasons for the whales’ recovery. Humpbacks have been globally protected from commercial whaling since 1966 (although the Soviets continued to catch large numbers of them in secret until 1973), and commercial whaling of all species has been banned since 1986. Furthermore, the creation of marine parks [like Francisco Coloane] along the Pacific coast of the Americas has conferred extra protection.
… Based on the number of whales identified up until now and the low rate of recapture, this population unit of whales [at the marine park] is in the middle of experiencing a period of post-whaling recovery and is probably much greater in size than current estimates indicate,” the Chilean Antarctic Institute (INACH) said in a 2014 report(PDF).
Nevertheless, their recovery is still in its early days, in part due to humpbacks’ slow rate of reproduction. A female gives birth to a calf once every two to three years, so the population is still well below the numbers recorded before commercial whaling. ‘We are probably somewhere between 20 and 25% of what it is thought there was before commercial whaling began, so we are relatively far off the initial population size but much better than we were 40 years ago,’ [wildlife expert] Capella said.”
To read the full article on Mongabay, click here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-28--Model mayhem in the world of weather and climate

This is not a comment on the COVID-19 situation , just an attempt to draw attention to the model mayhem that goes on in weather and Climate , The March 26 comments by Dr. Birx on the modeling with this certainly raised some eyebrows , While the general public is now following this all the time and so is now understanding model variance , they are unaware for the most part of what has to be dealt with in weather and climate .
My real job is not to show up on TV or write blogs or books , etc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face for radio ” as one of my best friends have told me and b ) I am an editors nightmare But what I do is advise major companies , for energy ( any energy , wind , and solar has to be forecasted also ) to financial entities , de-icing companies in Europe , retailers , construction and trucking , basically anything and everything .
In the global economy the weather has its fingers in everything , And there are so many models out there , ( over a dozen daily ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rarely agree with each other .
Take March 26 .
The 12z run of the US model looked EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what we had forecast with a massive warm spell the first few days of April .
That would imply for instance above normal Cooling degree days in the southern plains and above norma HEATING DEGREE DAYSl in the northern Rockies .
So let us say you are swinging to this model , We know there are many more people in Texas than Montana .
And early air conditioner use ( we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks in Texas anyway ) would likely add more Cooling degree days population-wise , than the Heating Degree days in Montana .
( as a side exercise , imagine if you had major cold over the NE and major warmth in the south… You could average near normal , but have a double whammy of energy use because of Cooling needed in the south and warming in the population centers of the NE , ) But we told our clients do not buy it because the underlying conditions in the global pattern did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later it comes out with this for the same time period The current cold wave in Europe forecasted to open up April was only hinted at 2 weeks ago , as the model can see warmth but could not see the cold , except over the water where changes are slower to occur and more in line with the Sea Surface temperatures which are colder than average there .
For we are always what our situations hand us It ’ s either sadness or euphoria .
But we have to be handed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but virtual reality , If you treat them as reality , its when wild swings can occur .
As a bonafide snow lover , I have never seen so many major storms forecasted 5 days out for where I live , that have turned out to be nothing , So if I bought the model , it was euphoria at the time , only to end up with sadness .
Now lets step to climate , Knowing how bad models are , why would you buy models that have been wrong so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warmed , but let us take a look at the model forecasts and reality .
The bottom deep line is the Satellite temps of the earth , the gold standard of observation this era .
This was through 2010 , there has been an upturn in relation to the models you see ( only 3 of them ) that have been so close to that .
The thick box line north of that is Nasa .
The solid line is the consensus of all models .
Why would you base claims of catastrophic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in co2 , rather than reality ?
( supposedly the best model was the Russian model , which had the least co2 feedback factored in ) Compressed timelines also exaggerate the problems .
Take the chart above , Suppose the 5 year intervals were twice as long on the chart , so the chart covered more space and you can see individual increments better , The change would be even less imposing .
.
What can not be argued is that close to 97 % of the models ( amazing how that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus ” ) are much too warm .
But there is no Dr. Birx on TV that can point this out , even though man-made climate change agenda people are trying to portray their issue as being as dire or more dire than what we are facing now .
How in any real-world objective look , is that even a consideration , unless you are a zealot pushing an agenda for a different reason ?
A close up from Dr Roy Spencers site reveals that Super Ninos are responsible for the warming that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
while one can draw a line from the start to finish with a steady slope up , what is just as reasonable , and this is due to the nature of water vapors effect on temperature when it becomes more evenly distributed over the years ( simple correlation , A tiny increase of WV has the greatest effect where it is coldest and driest , so when a super Nino comes along and pumps that into the air , there is a step up in the temperature to a new “ pause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is my hypothesis and it was first opined before the super Nino of 15-16 ) .
Disclaimer I do not know if Dr Spencer agrees with me or not on the hypothesis .
But my point is you can draw the trend from coldest to warmest or looking into the details of how that happens .
we had an increase of close to .3C after the 97-98 super Nino .
The increase after 15-16 is about .2c .
This would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the super Ninos , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water vapor introduced to the system has produced less of a rise ( again due to the relationship of WV to temperatures , the colder the place , the more the effect ) , What can not be denied is the cyclical nature of the oceans which are in a warm phase in tandem supports the higher equilibrium , “ Hopes ” for low solar cooling in the means back to below these levels are offset by the amount of heat in the ocean now , which is very slow to change and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale effects , solar included ( 200 years of high sunspot activity ) But the point is a forecast made from the 15-16 nino on for a new higher pause point to develop , looks to have at least some interest .
This would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the super Ninos , since at the warmer level , the new water vapor introduced to the system has produced less of a rise ( again due to the relationship of WV to temperatures , the colder the place , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be denied is the cyclical nature of the oceans which are in a warm phase in tandem supports the higher equilibrium , “ Hopes ” for low solar cooling in the means back to below these levels are offset by the amount of heat in the ocean now , which is very slow to change and may be a result of many large scale effects , solar included ( 200 years of high sunspot activity ) But the point is a forecast made from the 15-16 nino on for a new higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have at least some interest .
The moral of the story : models can ’ t be trusted as we don ’ t know everything that goes into them and the WEIGHTING of the variables , co2 included , or the code used to create the model .
.
The overall trend is up to no doubt , In addition , it may be a step-up function and since it has occurred with super Ninos and co2 increase has been steady , it is much more likely that the super Ninos are responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The cause of such events are hard to pin down , but one thing I have pointed out many times is contrary to trapping hot spot ideas over the tropics , the atmosphere has been drying out leading to less cloud cover , more incoming radiation in the ENSO regions , which could act to retard cooling , But that is a solar-ocean connection not a co2 connection .
Given man only is responsible for 25 % of the co2 in the atmosphere and nature has the other 75 % , much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like nature far outweighs man in this situation , So trusting models loaded with co2 feedback that catch a general trend that nature has but the models far overdo it , is something , in my opinion , to be skeptical of when forming policy for one , or making predictions , for another .
I see some of the models have a snowstorm for me around April fools day , To quote Ronald Reagan.. well there you go again , Maybe this time we will get it .

This is not a comment on the COVID-19 situation, just an attempt to draw attention to the model mayhem that goes on in weather and climate. The March 26 comments by Dr. Birx on the modeling with this certainly raised some eyebrows. While the general public is now following this all the time and so is now understanding model variance, they are unaware for the most part of what has to be dealt with in weather and climate.
My real job is not to show up on TV or write blogs or books, etc.
A) I have a “face for radio” as one of my best friends have told me and
B) I am an editors nightmare.
But what I do is advise major companies, for energy (any energy, wind, and solar has to be forecasted also) to financial entities, de-icing companies in Europe, retailers, construction and trucking, basically anything and everything.
In the global economy the weather has its fingers in everything, and so many models are out there, (over a dozen daily ones alone from many countries) that very rarely agree with each other.
Take March 26. The 12z run of the US model looked EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what we had forecast with a massive warm spell the first few days of April.
That would imply for instance above normal Cooling degree days in the southern plains and above normal HEATING DEGREE DAYS in the Northern Rockies. So let us say you are swinging to this model. That would imply for instance above normal Cooling degree days in the southern plains and above normal HEATING DEGREE DAYS in the Northern Rockies. So let us say you are swinging to this model.
We know there are many more people in Texas than Montana. Early air conditioner use (we have had a very warm past couple of weeks in Texas anyway) would likely add more Cooling degree days population-wise, than the Heating Degree days in Montana. (As a side exercise, imagine if you had major cold over the NE and major warmth in the south… You could average near normal, but have a double whammy of energy use because of Cooling needed in the south and warming in the population centers of the NE). Yet we told our clients do not buy it because the underlying conditions in the global pattern did not support it. So 12 hours later it comes out with this for the same time period:
The “ensemble” followed suit. Look at the change in its 500 mb pattern for April 1st in just 6 hours. The orange represents what would be a lot of warmth. However we know if there is fierce red over NE North America, the pattern on the right is not likely. The pattern on the left which was the newer run took over. It was much colder. The “ensemble” followed suit. Look at the change in its 500 mb pattern for April 1st in just 6 hours. The orange represents what would be a lot of warmth. However we know if there is fierce red over NE North America, the pattern on the right is not likely. The pattern on the left which was the newer run took over. It was much colder.
The current cold wave in Europe forecasted to open up April..
..was only hinted at 2 weeks ago. As the model can see warmth but could not see the cold, except over the water where changes are slower to occur and more in line with the Sea Surface temperatures which are colder than average there. ..was only hinted at 2 weeks ago. As the model can see warmth but could not see the cold, except over the water where changes are slower to occur and more in line with the Sea Surface temperatures which are colder than average there.
Still looking at the underlying conditions in the atmosphere, the forecaster can tell his Euro clients its likely to be cold to open in April even from that chart above. Still looking at the underlying conditions in the atmosphere, the forecaster can tell his Euro clients its likely to be cold to open in April even from that chart above.
Sudden swings like what we saw on March 26, when energy is more expensive, can lead to sudden swings in futures trading. Sometimes it is hard for someone to look at a map opposite of what was forecast and resist the temptation to swing with it. I think you get the point given you may now be more aware of model variance given Dr. Birx statement. When it comes to models of the future, a quote from the book of Joel, Billy, from his song Summer at Highland Falls, applies.
For we are always what our situations hand us. It’s either sadness or euphoria.
But we have to be handed the situation, and models are not reality, but virtual reality. If you treat them as reality, its when wild swings can occur. As a bonafide snow lover, I have never seen so many major storms forecasted 5 days out for where I live which turned out to be nothing. So if I bought the model, it was euphoria at the time, only to end up with sadness.
Now lets step to climate. Knowing how bad models are, why would you buy models that have been wrong so far? It is true it has warmed, but let us take a look at the model forecasts and reality.
From Dr John Christy:
The bottom deep line is the Satellite temps of the earth, the gold standard of observation this era. This was through 2010, there has been an upturn in relation to the models you see (only 3 of them) that have been so close to that. The thick box line north of that is Nasa. The solid line is the consensus of all models.
Why would you base claims of catastrophic warming on faulty modeling that has factored in CO2, rather than reality? (Supposedly the best model was the Russian model, which had the least CO2 feedback factored in) Compressed timelines also exaggerate the problems.
Take the chart above, suppose the 5 year intervals were twice as long on the chart, so the chart covered more space and you can see individual increments better. The change would be even less imposing. What can not be argued is that close to 97% of the models (amazing how that number is given to the so-called 97% “consensus”) are much too warm. But there is no Dr. Birx on TV that can point this out, even though man-made climate change agenda people are trying to portray their issue as being as dire or more dire than what we are facing now. How in any real-world objective look, is that even a consideration, unless you are a zealot pushing an agenda for a different reason?
A close up from Dr Roy Spencers site reveals that Super El Niño’s are responsible for the warming that takes a long time to wash out. While one can draw a line from the start to finish with a steady slope rising, a tiny increase of WV has the greatest effect where it is coldest and driest. Which is just as reasonable, and this is due to the nature of water vapors effect on temperature when it becomes more evenly distributed over the years. (Simple correlation) Thus, when a Super El Niño comes along and pumps that into the air, there is a step up in the temperature to a new “pause” level higher than the one before..This is my hypothesis and it was first opined before the Super El Niño of 15-16.
Disclaimer: I do not know if Dr Spencer agrees with me or not on the hypothesis. But my point is you can draw the trend from coldest to warmest or looking into the details of how that happens. We had an increase of close to .3C after the 97-98 Super EL Niño. The increase after 15-16 is about .2c.
This would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Super El Niño’s since at the warmer level, the new water vapor introduced to the system has produced less of a rise (again due to the relationship of WV to temperatures, the colder the place, the more the effect). This would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Super El Niño’s since at the warmer level, the new water vapor introduced to the system has produced less of a rise (again due to the relationship of WV to temperatures, the colder the place, the more the effect).
What can not be denied is the cyclical nature of the oceans which are in a warm phase, in tandem, supports the higher equilibrium. “Hopes” for low solar cooling in the means back to below these levels are offset by the amount of heat in the ocean now. This, which is very slow to change and may be a result of many large scale effects, solar included (200 years of high sunspot activity). But the point is a forecast made from the 15-16 El Niño. On for a new higher pause point to develop, looks to have at least some interest.
BTW here is Dr Spencer’s site.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/
The moral of the story: models can’t be trusted as we don’t know everything that goes into them and the WEIGHTING of the variables, co2 included, or the code used to create the model. . The overall trend is up to no doubt, In addition, it may be a step-up function and since it has occurred with super Ninos and co2 increase has been steady, it is much more likely that the super Ninos are responsible for these increases, not co2. The cause of such events are hard to pin down, but one thing I have pointed out many times is contrary to trapping hot spot ideas over the tropics, the atmosphere has been drying out leading to less cloud cover, more incoming radiation in the ENSO regions, which could act to retard cooling, But that is a solar-ocean connection not a co2 connection. Given man only is responsible for 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere and nature has the other 75%, much of that in the oceans, it seems like nature far outweighs man in this situation, So trusting models loaded with co2 feedback that catch a general trend that nature has but the models far overdo it, is something, in my opinion, to be skeptical of when forming policy for one, or making predictions, for another.
I see some of the models have a snowstorm for me around April fools day, To quote Ronald Reagan.. well there you go again,Maybe this time we will get it.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-28--Do not go gentle into that good night

Do not go gentle into that good night

“ Earth Hour ” was always about nihilistic stupidity .
As we work through crisis , with our economy reeling , this is no time to surrender to the dark .
Heed the poet .
Do not go gentle into that good night , Old age should burn and rave at close of day ; Rage , rage against the dying of the light .
Though wise men at their end know dark is right , Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night .
Good men , the last wave by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have danced in a green bay , Rage , rage against the dying of the light .
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight , And learn , too late , they grieved it on its way , Do not go gentle into that good night .
Grave men , near death , who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay , Rage , rage against the dying of the light .
And you , my father , there on the sad height @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with your fierce tears , I pray .
Do not go gentle into that good night .
Rage , rage against the dying of the light .

“Earth Hour” was always about nihilistic stupidity.
As we work through crisis, with our economy reeling, this is no time to surrender to the dark. Heed the poet.
Lights on for freedom!
____
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
— Dylan Thomas
Share on Facebook


Shale out!

Russia and Saudi Arabia are trying to exploit the COVID 19 crisis and force U.S. shale oil producers into bankruptcy @ @ @ @ @ oil , dropping the price as low as $ 20 a barrel .
Should the @ @ @ @ @ are overextended ?
Here ’ s our perspective on the question of a “ SHALE-out @ @

Russia and Saudi Arabia are trying to exploit the COVID 19 crisis and force U.S. shale oil producers into bankruptcy by flooding the market with oil, dropping the price as low as $20 a barrel. Should the Trump Administration bailout producers who are overextended? Here’s our perspective on the question of a “SHALE-out”.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-27--No Green New Deal in stimulus: This time

The Senate passed a two trillion dollar stimulus bill designed to provide economic relief in response to the coronavirus crisis .
The House takes up the bill today .
Despite efforts by radical greens to ram the bill full of climate “ pork , ” it looks like their expensive wish list didn ’ t make the cut .
This is good news , thanks largely to the President and many Senators who called out their crafty attempts to sneak in a radical wish list that has nothing to do with the virus into the bill .
Of course they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see everything that ’ s in it… just as the founders intended .
“ [ The Democrats said ] ‘ We want green energy , let ’ s stop drilling oil ’ — they had things in there that were terrible…Windmills all over the place and all sorts of credits for windmills — they kill the birds and ruin the real estate .
A lot of problems , ” President Trump explained during a town hall style broadcast .
Just because America has dodged one Green New Deal bullet , don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be back .
Presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden had this to say , “ we ’ re going to have an opportunity , I believe , in the next round [ of economic aid ] here to use…my Green Deal to be able to generate both economic growth as consistent with the kind of infusion of monies we need into the system to keep it going.
” Really , Joe ?
Do you truly believe shoveling money into the Big Green wood chipper is the smartest way to shelter a great nation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million people filed for unemployment in the most recent jobs report .
The businesses forced to close their doors by government at every level have been shown no clear path as to when they might reopen .
Unless we identify those portions of the economy that can operate safely and target them to reopen , our two trillion dollars will be consumed without stimulating anything .
The call for another stimulus bill will be shrill .
Expect the Left to push harder to force their climate wish list in .
They must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s push to shoehorn radical climate and environmental policy into government stimulus plans seems to be running afoul of the author of the Green New Deal himself .
Saikat Chakrabarti , former Chief of Staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , said in a tweet when referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s proposal to tie any airline aid to emissions restrictions : “ I helped write the # GreenNewDeal and I think this is ridiculous .
The tiny little emissions standard increase doesn ’ t even do anything meaningful to stave off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but maybe Congress should actually listen to the author of the Green New Deal – this time anyway .

The Senate passed a two trillion dollar stimulus bill designed to provide economic relief in response to the coronavirus crisis. The House takes up the bill today.
Despite efforts by radical greens to ram the bill full of climate “pork,” it looks like their expensive wish list didn’t make the cut.
This is good news, thanks largely to the President and many Senators who called out their crafty attempts to sneak in a radical wish list that has nothing to do with the virus into the bill.
Of course they have to pass it for us to see everything that’s in it… just as the founders intended.
“[The Democrats said] ‘We want green energy, let’s stop drilling oil’ — they had things in there that were terrible…Windmills all over the place and all sorts of credits for windmills — they kill the birds and ruin the real estate. A lot of problems,” President Trump explained during a town hall style broadcast.
Just because America has dodged one Green New Deal bullet, don’t think the climate radicals won’t be back.
Presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden had this to say, “we’re going to have an opportunity, I believe, in the next round [of economic aid] here to use…my Green Deal to be able to generate both economic growth as consistent with the kind of infusion of monies we need into the system to keep it going.”
Really, Joe? Do you truly believe shoveling money into the Big Green wood chipper is the smartest way to shelter a great nation from depression and despair?
A record three million people filed for unemployment in the most recent jobs report. The businesses forced to close their doors by government at every level have been shown no clear path as to when they might reopen.
Uncertainty destroys.
Unless we identify those portions of the economy that can operate safely and target them to reopen, our two trillion dollars will be consumed without stimulating anything.
The call for another stimulus bill will be shrill. Expect the Left to push harder to force their climate wish list in. They must be opposed.
Ironically, the Left’s push to shoehorn radical climate and environmental policy into government stimulus plans seems to be running afoul of the author of the Green New Deal himself.
Saikat Chakrabarti, former Chief of Staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said in a tweet when referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s proposal to tie any airline aid to emissions restrictions:
“I helped write the #GreenNewDeal and I think this is ridiculous. The tiny little emissions standard increase doesn’t even do anything meaningful to stave off climate change…”
Hard to believe it, but maybe Congress should actually listen to the author of the Green New Deal – this time anyway.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-27--Biden exploits pandemic to push Green New Deal

Joe Biden made a public splash this week on various news outlets .
The Atlantic magazine will be glad to know he is alive .
We sincerely wish Mr. Biden well , but he would have done better staying off the air .
Mr. Biden ’ s incoherent interviews this week to promote counterproductive policies were ill timed .
The Green New Deal proposed by Joe Biden or anyone else is a bad idea at any time .
It is a worse idea now – like rubbing salt in a metastasizing economic wound and public health emergency , with each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President and presumptive presidential nominee said if there is another coronavirus relief bill coming out of the U.S. Congress , he wants it to include a blizzard of irrelevant policies which have nothing to do with helping Americans overcome the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic .
These policies include parts of the “ Green New Deal ” that were proposed by Nancy Pelosi , the Speaker of the House of Representatives , such as imposing limits on carbon emissions in airplanes and more tax credits for wind and solar energy development .
After three days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most of the other last-ditch House proposals by omitting them from the just completed $ 2 trillion legislation that is being passed into law this week .
Joe Biden wants to try again next time .
He told the News Hour on Public Broadcasting : “ we ’ re going to have an opportunity I believe in the next round here to use the , my green economy , my Green Deal to be able to generate both economic ground and consistent with the kind of infusion of money as we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There you have it ; or , to coin a phrase , “ Say it ain ’ t so , Joe.
” Mr. Biden gave this series of interviews to remind the country that he ’ s running for president .
It ’ s not easy getting attention these days when you have no official role in fighting the coronavirus that has afflicted tens of thousands of Americans , and so far killed well more than 1,200 people in the country .
The Congress and the President agreed on this $ 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy from collapsing into a depression , as much of the workforce remains at home , and a growing number of employees lose their jobs .
More than 3 million Americans , and counting , have been added to the unemployment rolls .
Rather than sustain American jobs and businesses , Green New Deal mandates and added costs on traditional energy would ensure the economy ’ s collapse .
Oil and natural gas are the lifeblood of the American economy , which is teetering on the biggest downturn since the Great Depression of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , law enforcement and other front-line workers do not have enough masks , ventilators and other needs to care for people stricken by the virus .
What if they have insufficient energy when the next pandemic hits because too much fossil fuel has been shut down and renewables can ’ t cut it , thanks to a Green New Deal ?
As Biden tries to get attention , he continues to fumble not merely on policies themselves , but on his presentation .
More are questioning his staying power in the presidential race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor Andrew Cuomo , who has been in full command as he leads his state ’ s response to the coronavirus .
New York State by far has been the hardest hit of any state with COVID-19 .
Whether Joe Biden can go the distance , or is somehow replaced by another presidential candidate at the Democratic Party ’ s national convention this summer , others can—and will— speculate .
From a policy standpoint , whoever is the Democratic nominee will seek to impose the Green New Deal on the country , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demise of fossil fuels and the associated jobs of Americans in related industries .
The debate will continue in America about our energy future and how we get there .
Technological ingenuity and development will bring about new energy sources to gradually supplant oil and gas to some degree , without having a Green New Deal to outlaw their use or make them prohibitively costly .
Doing so would only hurt the livelihoods of American workers and industries in the process , especially in this and certain future national emergencies .

Joe Biden made a public splash this week on various news outlets. The Atlantic magazine will be glad to know he is alive.
We sincerely wish Mr. Biden well, but he would have done better staying off the air. Mr. Biden’s incoherent interviews this week to promote counterproductive policies were ill timed.
The Green New Deal proposed by Joe Biden or anyone else is a bad idea at any time. It is a worse idea now – like rubbing salt in a metastasizing economic wound and public health emergency, with each producing real victims.
The former Vice President and presumptive presidential nominee said if there is another coronavirus relief bill coming out of the U.S. Congress, he wants it to include a blizzard of irrelevant policies which have nothing to do with helping Americans overcome the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. These policies include parts of the “Green New Deal” that were proposed by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, such as imposing limits on carbon emissions in airplanes and more tax credits for wind and solar energy development.
After three days of haggling, the Senate rejected these and most of the other last-ditch House proposals by omitting them from the just completed $2 trillion legislation that is being passed into law this week.
Joe Biden wants to try again next time. He told the News Hour on Public Broadcasting: “we’re going to have an opportunity I believe in the next round here to use the, my green economy, my Green Deal to be able to generate both economic ground and consistent with the kind of infusion of money as we need into the system to keep it going.”
There you have it; or, to coin a phrase, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.”
Mr. Biden gave this series of interviews to remind the country that he’s running for president. It’s not easy getting attention these days when you have no official role in fighting the coronavirus that has afflicted tens of thousands of Americans, and so far killed well more than 1,200 people in the country.
The Congress and the President agreed on this $2 trillion legislative package to keep the U.S. economy from collapsing into a depression, as much of the workforce remains at home, and a growing number of employees lose their jobs. More than 3 million Americans, and counting, have been added to the unemployment rolls.
Rather than sustain American jobs and businesses, Green New Deal mandates and added costs on traditional energy would ensure the economy’s collapse. Oil and natural gas are the lifeblood of the American economy, which is teetering on the biggest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
Health care, law enforcement and other front-line workers do not have enough masks, ventilators and other needs to care for people stricken by the virus. What if they have insufficient energy when the next pandemic hits because too much fossil fuel has been shut down and renewables can’t cut it, thanks to a Green New Deal?
As Biden tries to get attention, he continues to fumble not merely on policies themselves, but on his presentation. More are questioning his staying power in the presidential race, and contrasting him with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has been in full command as he leads his state’s response to the coronavirus. New York State by far has been the hardest hit of any state with COVID-19.
Whether Joe Biden can go the distance, or is somehow replaced by another presidential candidate at the Democratic Party’s national convention this summer, others can—and will— speculate. From a policy standpoint, whoever is the Democratic nominee will seek to impose the Green New Deal on the country, the central premise of which is the immediate demise of fossil fuels and the associated jobs of Americans in related industries.
The debate will continue in America about our energy future and how we get there. Technological ingenuity and development will bring about new energy sources to gradually supplant oil and gas to some degree, without having a Green New Deal to outlaw their use or make them prohibitively costly. Doing so would only hurt the livelihoods of American workers and industries in the process, especially in this and certain future national emergencies.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-27--Stop the UN takeover of airline fuel!

Stop the UN takeover of airline fuel!

While President Donald Trump prudently took the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change before we gave the entire three billion dollars that Mr. Obama promised to the United Nations Green Climate Fund , Paris still has some claws into us .
The International Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO ) appears to be allowing the UN to dictate the fuels civilian aircraft can use and how much carbon dioxide emissions are allowed for all international flights .
The UN , under the auspices of the Paris Agreement and with the backing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation ( CORSIA ) .
They accepted , without questioning , the flawed projections of Earth ’ s increasing temperatures due to carbon dioxide ( CO ) emissions .
The UN deceptively calls such emissions ‘ carbon ’ because it encourages the public to think of soot and carbon monoxide , which are real pollution , of course .
They should be thinking of CO as the breath of life that makes our planet habitable , because every grade school student knows that that is exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odorless gas .
The ICAO has been under pressure for quite some time to reign in aviation emissions from international flights thought to amount to , would you believe , 2 % of global emissions .
As small as this is , it is probably exaggerated .
Yet the bottom line is , the UN essentially wants to determine what fuel airlines can or should use and how they must either reduce emissions or buy “ carbon offsets ” .
These occur where , somewhere , someone is making provable efforts to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atmosphere .
The result is either more expensive and less efficient fuel or higher priced tickets to take into account the cost of these offsets .
CORSIA commits the airlines flying international routes to “ carbon-neutral ” growth after this year ( 2020 ) .
This means the airlines can only emit as much greenhouse gases as a certain level determined by the average sector-wide emissions in the years 2019 and 2020 .
Perhaps the craziest part of all this is that the UN body says the airlines can use biofuels which they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time this was tried was in a Navy transport plane .
The fuel ended up costing $ 600 a gallon and was never tried again .
Lets keep in mind the purpose behind all this , which has always been to totally eliminate the use of all fossil fuels .
Unfortunately , other trade groups are acting as sheep with regards to efforts on behalf of the UN .
The International Air Transport Association ( IATA ) has committed to reduce its net CO emissions to half of what it was in 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it CO and not carbon .
They state that achieving this ambitious goal will require continued investment in new technologies and strong support mechanisms for the deployment of “ sustainable aviation fuels.
” Since our submarines have long operated on nuclear power it is not unreasonable that one day an airplane will as well , but my guess is they are pandering to the wind and solar folks to believe one day our aircraft fleet can fly on electricity produced from wind and solar energy ( which is ridiculous ) .
But they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any replacement for forms of petroleum .
IATA ’ s fact sheet that buys into CORSIA describes offsetting as an action by a company to compensate for their emissions by financing a reduction in emissions elsewhere .
They state that this has been a fundamental component of “ an effective mechanism to underpin action against climate change ” .
One would have hoped that an industry as sophisticated as aviation would not be taken in by the climate change illusion .
I would guess however there is duplicity at work here when their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go along to get along ” .
Their effort to certify that , all offset expenditures are for activities that create a permanent reduction of emissions that can not be reversed is ludicrous .
Yet they take it a step further requiring that these offsets can be “ quantified using accurate measurements , valid protocols and be audited.
” To the extent that US airline companies do these things , all of us that engage in air travel and air transport are being sold down the river to the climate change religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evangelized by the United Nations promoting a “ one world government ” with energy rationing , a socialist government in which the populace must look to it for its every need .
We must speak out loudly against this growing travesty afflicting our country .

While President Donald Trump prudently took the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change before we gave the entire three billion dollars that Mr. Obama promised to the United Nations Green Climate Fund, Paris still has some claws into us.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) appears to be allowing the UN to dictate the fuels civilian aircraft can use and how much carbon dioxide emissions are allowed for all international flights.
The UN, under the auspices of the Paris Agreement and with the backing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), formed a Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). They accepted, without questioning, the flawed projections of Earth’s increasing temperatures due to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions. The UN deceptively calls such emissions ‘carbon’ because it encourages the public to think of soot and carbon monoxide, which are real pollution, of course. They should be thinking of CO 2 as the breath of life that makes our planet habitable, because every grade school student knows that that is exactly what is this benign, invisible, odorless gas.
The ICAO has been under pressure for quite some time to reign in aviation emissions from international flights thought to amount to, would you believe, 2% of global emissions. As small as this is, it is probably exaggerated. Yet the bottom line is, the UN essentially wants to determine what fuel airlines can or should use and how they must either reduce emissions or buy “carbon offsets”. These occur where, somewhere, someone is making provable efforts to reduce the amount of CO 2 going into our atmosphere.
The result is either more expensive and less efficient fuel or higher priced tickets to take into account the cost of these offsets. CORSIA commits the airlines flying international routes to “carbon-neutral” growth after this year (2020). This means the airlines can only emit as much greenhouse gases as a certain level determined by the average sector-wide emissions in the years 2019 and 2020. Perhaps the craziest part of all this is that the UN body says the airlines can use biofuels which they claim produce less CO 2 . The last time this was tried was in a Navy transport plane. The fuel ended up costing $600 a gallon and was never tried again. Lets keep in mind the purpose behind all this, which has always been to totally eliminate the use of all fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, other trade groups are acting as sheep with regards to efforts on behalf of the UN. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has committed to reduce its net CO 2 emissions to half of what it was in 2005 by 2050. At least they call it CO 2 and not carbon. They state that achieving this ambitious goal will require continued investment in new technologies and strong support mechanisms for the deployment of “sustainable aviation fuels.” Since our submarines have long operated on nuclear power it is not unreasonable that one day an airplane will as well, but my guess is they are pandering to the wind and solar folks to believe one day our aircraft fleet can fly on electricity produced from wind and solar energy (which is ridiculous). But they are giving themselves 30 years to achieve any replacement for forms of petroleum.
IATA’s fact sheet that buys into CORSIA describes offsetting as an action by a company to compensate for their emissions by financing a reduction in emissions elsewhere. They state that this has been a fundamental component of “an effective mechanism to underpin action against climate change”. One would have hoped that an industry as sophisticated as aviation would not be taken in by the climate change illusion. I would guess however there is duplicity at work here when their actual approach is that “you have to go along to get along”.
Their effort to certify that, all offset expenditures are for activities that create a permanent reduction of emissions that cannot be reversed is ludicrous. Yet they take it a step further requiring that these offsets can be “quantified using accurate measurements, valid protocols and be audited.”
To the extent that US airline companies do these things, all of us that engage in air travel and air transport are being sold down the river to the climate change religion. This bizarre and dangerous cult is evangelized by the United Nations promoting a “one world government” with energy rationing, a socialist government in which the populace must look to it for its every need. We must speak out loudly against this growing travesty afflicting our country.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-26--The Guardian’s biases produced bogus COVID-19 claims

The Guardian ( a very liberal London newspaper ) does some excellent reporting – about 40,000 children slaving and dying in the Democratic Republic of Congo ( DRC ) of Central Africa , mining cobalt for cell phones , laptops , Teslas and Green New Deal technologies , for example .
But other stories are a bizarre mix of fact , fake news , junk science , random conjecture and utter nonsense .
A case in point is its recent attempt to blame the coronavirus crisis on human activities that The Guardian and its writers tend to detest , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and living standards : road building , mining and logging .
“ Is our destruction of nature responsible for Covid-19 ?
” the headline blares , adding “ As habitat and biodiversity loss increase globally , the coronavirus outbreak may be just the beginning of mass pandemics.
” The article opens with the tragic story of an Ebola-traumatized village in Gabon , west of the DRC on Africa ’ s west coast .
Villagers had gotten the disease from eating a wild chimpanzee .
Many had died .
The ensuing eco-proselytizing took a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which attributed calamities to mankind ’ s sins against gods , God – or in this case Gaia .
Some vague “ number of researchers ” in the new academic “ discipline ” of “ planetary health ” now believe it is “ humanity ’ s destruction of biodiversity that creates the conditions for new viruses and diseases such as COVID-19.
” Humans “ invade ” wild landscapes where animals and plants live that harbor unknown viruses , says one supposed expert .
“ We disrupt ecosystems and shake viruses loose from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that outbreaks of diseases crossing over from animals to humans “ are on the rise , ” the article continues .
While rabies and bubonic plague “ crossed over centuries ago , ” it ’ s getting much worse : Marburg , Mers , Nipah , SARS , Zika and West Nile , for example .
Or the Asian flu and AIDS .
These “ zoonotic ” diseases are “ increasingly linked to environmental change and human behavior , ” such as human population growth , urbanization and the “ disruption of pristine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It sounds plausible , for those without scientific , medical or analytical background .
It definitely appeals to those who dislike these activities ( and humanity ) .
But it ignores history , reality , and the anti-technology ideologies of those who say we are “ sinning against Gaia the Earth Mother.
” Malaria , dengue , yellow fever and sleeping sickness are also mentioned .
Yet what about cholera , polio ( which I had as a child ) , smallpox , measles , multiple plagues in various cities and countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of influenza ?
We don ’ t know where they come from , and many mutate frequently , defying our best efforts to eradicate them or find vaccines and cures .
Many were brought from distant shores to Europe or the Americas , Russia or other lands by sailing ships – to populations that lacked natural or built-up immunities .
Today ’ s emergent diseases can travel far more rapidly and widely , thanks to trains , cars , ships and planes .
Add the billions that live today in crowded cities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel diseases , even with modern clinics , hospitals , vaccinations , medicines , antibiotic soaps and proper hygienic practices .
Those life-saving modern technologies and buildings didn ’ t just happen .
They are the product of mining , logging , roads , drilling , fossil fuel and nuclear energy , and modern agriculture , communication and transportation – which enable innovation to thrive , help keep Nature ’ s wrath and fury at a safer distance , and helped extend average American life spans from 40 in 1800 to 47 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues and I discuss that here , here and elsewhere .
This penicillin story is also fascinating . )
The Guardian has it completely backward .
Utilizing Earth ’ s surface and subsurface bounties – God ’ s blessings – did not unleash COVID-19 and other viruses , bacteria and diseases .
It helped save us from pestilences that have ravaged humanity throughout our time on this planet .
It still does so today .
Diseases will always be with us .
They will evolve , mutate , cross over from animals to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for as long as we inhabit this magnificent planet .
Never forget that it was the fossil fuels that so many detest which enabled so much of humanity to escape the deprivation , starvation and disease that kept human , health and civilizational progress to a barely measurable minimum until about 1800 .
Imagine what would happen if abundant , reliable , affordable heat and electricity from fossil , nuclear and hydroelectric were replaced by limited , intermittent , weather-dependent , expensive wind , solar and battery power .
The impacts on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Try to picture life in African villages and cities , where electricity , clean water , sanitation and healthcare are still almost nonexistent .
Imagine what our planet would look like , if we had to replace relatively few fossil , nuclear and hydroelectric power plants with millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels and billions of backup batteries , sprawling across hundreds of millions of acres .
We would have to open or expand thousands of mines , to provide the metals and minerals required to manufacture all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction of biodiversity would multiply by orders of magnitude .
The Guardian article subtly but harshly criticizes hunting chimpanzees and other wild animals .
But why do African villagers do that ?
It ’ s not rocket science .
They are hungry !
Living on the edge of survival .
And yet UN and EU agencies , eco-imperialist pressure groups , anti-development banks and divestment campaigners demand that they compound the misery of living without electricity , clean water and healthcare – by turning their backs on modern seeds , fertilizers , pesticides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to survive on whatever meager crops they can harvest using agro-ecology : primitive subsistence farming – and whatever might survive droughts and locust plagues .
They ’ re also supposed to be content with bed nets and avoid using insecticides to kill insects that carry diseases like malaria , dengue and sleeping sickness .
The article next cites “ disease ecologists ” who claim these diseases increasingly come from “ wet markets ” that have recently “ sprung up ” to provide fresh meat for large urban populations .
Wet markets have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they have been around for centuries , due to culture and tradition , as places to meet and gossip , as symbols of wealth , reflecting the belief that the meat is more natural and healthy .
The reality that there is not enough farm-raised meat because agricultural practices in much of Asia and Africa are still antiquated .
In a final bit of absurdity , the author says the solutions to this modern crisis of disease outbreaks “ start with education and awareness ” – like the junk science , fake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his article .
Then the newspaper weighs in , railing that under the Trump administration “ anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace.
” But with financial help from readers , The Guardian can “ keep delivering quality journalism ” – like this story .
One has to wonder .
If we can close restaurants and parks , and ban gatherings of more than ten people , can ’ t we quarantine nonsense about disease , mining , and wild ecosystems disrupted because we haven ’ t sufficiently adopted “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” wind , solar , battery and biofuel alternatives ?

The Guardian (a very liberal London newspaper) does some excellent reporting – about 40,000 children slaving and dying in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) of Central Africa, mining cobalt for cell phones, laptops, Teslas and Green New Deal technologies, for example. But other stories are a bizarre mix of fact, fake news, junk science, random conjecture and utter nonsense.
A case in point is its recent attempt to blame the coronavirus crisis on human activities that The Guardian and its writers tend to detest, even though they are essential for modern civilization and living standards: road building, mining and logging. “Is our destruction of nature responsible for Covid-19?” the headline blares, adding “As habitat and biodiversity loss increase globally, the coronavirus outbreak may be just the beginning of mass pandemics.”
The article opens with the tragic story of an Ebola-traumatized village in Gabon, west of the DRC on Africa’s west coast. Villagers had gotten the disease from eating a wild chimpanzee. Many had died.
The ensuing eco-proselytizing took a page out of ancient religious lore, which attributed calamities to mankind’s sins against gods, God – or in this case Gaia. Some vague “number of researchers” in the new academic “discipline” of “planetary health” now believe it is “humanity’s destruction of biodiversity that creates the conditions for new viruses and diseases such as COVID-19.”
Humans “invade” wild landscapes where animals and plants live that harbor unknown viruses, says one supposed expert. “We disrupt ecosystems and shake viruses loose from their natural hosts.”
“Research suggests” that outbreaks of diseases crossing over from animals to humans “are on the rise,” the article continues. While rabies and bubonic plague “crossed over centuries ago,” it’s getting much worse: Marburg, Mers, Nipah, SARS, Zika and West Nile, for example. Or the Asian flu and AIDS. These “zoonotic” diseases are “increasingly linked to environmental change and human behavior,” such as human population growth, urbanization and the “disruption of pristine forests,” says another “expert.”
It sounds plausible, for those without scientific, medical or analytical background. It definitely appeals to those who dislike these activities (and humanity). But it ignores history, reality, and the anti-technology ideologies of those who say we are “sinning against Gaia the Earth Mother.”
Malaria, dengue, yellow fever and sleeping sickness are also mentioned. Yet what about cholera, polio (which I had as a child), smallpox, measles, multiple plagues in various cities and countries through the ages, and countless iterations of influenza? We don’t know where they come from, and many mutate frequently, defying our best efforts to eradicate them or find vaccines and cures.
Many were brought from distant shores to Europe or the Americas, Russia or other lands by sailing ships – to populations that lacked natural or built-up immunities. Today’s emergent diseases can travel far more rapidly and widely, thanks to trains, cars, ships and planes. Add the billions that live today in crowded cities, often facilitating rapid transmission of virulent or novel diseases, even with modern clinics, hospitals, vaccinations, medicines, antibiotic soaps and proper hygienic practices.
Those life-saving modern technologies and buildings didn’t just happen. They are the product of mining, logging, roads, drilling, fossil fuel and nuclear energy, and modern agriculture, communication and transportation – which enable innovation to thrive, help keep Nature’s wrath and fury at a safer distance, and helped extend average American life spans from 40 in 1800 to 47 in 1900 and 78 today. (My colleagues and I discuss that here, here and elsewhere. This penicillin story is also fascinating.)
The Guardian has it completely backward. Utilizing Earth’s surface and subsurface bounties – God’s blessings – did not unleash COVID-19 and other viruses, bacteria and diseases. It helped save us from pestilences that have ravaged humanity throughout our time on this planet. It still does so today.
Diseases will always be with us. They will evolve, mutate, cross over from animals to humans, and try to ravage us for as long as we inhabit this magnificent planet. Never forget that it was the fossil fuels that so many detest which enabled so much of humanity to escape the deprivation, starvation and disease that kept human, health and civilizational progress to a barely measurable minimum until about 1800.
Imagine what would happen if abundant, reliable, affordable heat and electricity from fossil, nuclear and hydroelectric were replaced by limited, intermittent, weather-dependent, expensive wind, solar and battery power. The impacts on our healthcare and living standards would be horrific. Try to picture life in African villages and cities, where electricity, clean water, sanitation and healthcare are still almost nonexistent.
Imagine what our planet would look like, if we had to replace relatively few fossil, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants with millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels and billions of backup batteries, sprawling across hundreds of millions of acres. We would have to open or expand thousands of mines, to provide the metals and minerals required to manufacture all that pseudo-renewable energy.
Disruption of ecosystems and destruction of biodiversity would multiply by orders of magnitude.
The Guardian article subtly but harshly criticizes hunting chimpanzees and other wild animals. But why do African villagers do that? It’s not rocket science. They are hungry! Living on the edge of survival.
And yet UN and EU agencies, eco-imperialist pressure groups, anti-development banks and divestment campaigners demand that they compound the misery of living without electricity, clean water and healthcare – by turning their backs on modern seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and tractors.
Instead, Africans are supposed to survive on whatever meager crops they can harvest using agro-ecology: primitive subsistence farming – and whatever might survive droughts and locust plagues. They’re also supposed to be content with bed nets and avoid using insecticides to kill insects that carry diseases like malaria, dengue and sleeping sickness.
The article next cites “disease ecologists” who claim these diseases increasingly come from “wet markets” that have recently “sprung up” to provide fresh meat for large urban populations. Wet markets have certainly been tied to the coronavirus. But they have been around for centuries, due to culture and tradition, as places to meet and gossip, as symbols of wealth, reflecting the belief that the meat is more natural and healthy. The reality that there is not enough farm-raised meat because agricultural practices in much of Asia and Africa are still antiquated.
In a final bit of absurdity, the author says the solutions to this modern crisis of disease outbreaks “start with education and awareness” – like the junk science, fake news and half-baked ideas thrown about in his article. Then the newspaper weighs in, railing that under the Trump administration “anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace.” But with financial help from readers, The Guardian can “keep delivering quality journalism” – like this story.
One has to wonder. If we can close restaurants and parks, and ban gatherings of more than ten people, can’t we quarantine nonsense about disease, mining, and wild ecosystems disrupted because we haven’t sufficiently adopted “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” wind, solar, battery and biofuel alternatives?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-31--Russia continues to influence America’s energy sources

America has known for years that Vladimir Putin of Russia has been influencing the source of America ’ s energy consumption through his efforts to halt fracking in America .
Now , with the price of oil tanking , a price war led by Saudi Arabia and Russia is crushing the price per barrel just as the CoronaVirus is hurting demand , putting further financial pressures on the fracking industry that has elevated America to be a net oil exporter .
To control America ’ s oil production , Russia has been very supportive of environmentalist groups and wealthy individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crude oil .
As well as natural gas exploration and production within the U.S. and European borders .
As reported by the Washington Examiner in 2018 a Russian funded environmental group gave millions to anti-fracking groups .
This to stop , curtail or severely weaken US fracking of crude oil and natural gas in states like Texas , North Dakota , Colorado , Oklahoma , Louisiana and Pennsylvania .
Again , in 2018 the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science , Space , and Technology issued a 21-page report on Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markets by Exploiting Social Media : 2018 report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science , Space , and Technology .
From their own report , our elected officials in Washington have known , that Vladimir Putin of Russia has been adamantly against fracking in America .
Fracking ’ s success has upended global geopolitics and oil markets since the U.S. fracking boom began under the former U.S. administration .
America has gone from being a net oil importer to a net oil exporter .
The U.S. as a net exporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign countries and insulted from the periodic eruptions in the Middle East that threatened America ’ s energy security for decades .
The low oil prices , that will most likely go lower before they recover , are a major financial hit to the U.S. fracking industry .
They are financially more impactful than the anti-fracking movements .
Plummeting oil prices could force a reckoning for the American fracking boom .
Russia may be able to live with $ 30-per-barrel oil for an extended period , but America ’ s oil patch will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starting a price war during a global pandemic is in Russia ’ s best interest to thwart American dominance in the energy sector to put an end to the growth of the American shale production and at the same time to balance Russia ’ s budget .
Putin is a historian of World Wars I & II and believes the country that controls oil and natural gas , controls the world .
Putin knows that was Allied ingenuity and taking control of the ability to run their ships , planes and land vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The world is now accustomed to post WWII prosperity from American fracking .
To stabilize his budget , constrain U.S. shale growth , and extend his influence from Venezuela to the Middle East then the U.S. oil and natural gas industry needs to be brought to its knees .
This oil war between Russia , Saudi Arabia , and OPEC+ is just the vehicle to accomplish his geopolitical aims .
Under his leadership , Russia has pushed the power dynamic toward controlling crude oil .
This because it is well aware that electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind and industrial solar , are unable to support the energy demands of the military .
We can add the airlines , cruise ships , supertankers , container shipping , trucking infrastructures , and almost every other faction of the global economy .
More importantly , Russia is ramping up coal production to meet domestic electrical needs , and its growing military commitments from Syria to Crimea .
The world , inclusive of Russia , can easily see the published March 2019 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consumption by Source for the recent years of 2017 thru 2018 .
Energy consumption rose over that 2-year period with most of the increase coming from fossil fuels , to the amazement of Russia and the world .
• Total Renewables INCREASED slightly from 11.2 % to 11.4 % even though most cities have implemented plans to go green , with no impact on fossil fuel energy consumption .
• Total Nuclear REMAINED THE SAME at 8.4 % .
• Total Fossil Fuels INCREASED from 77.9 % to 81.2 % to meet society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from petroleum derivatives and the numerous energy consuming infrastructures .
Over 6,000 petroleum products are so intertwined with our everyday lifestyles , controlling them and their availability would control us .
Putin understands the unintended consequences of getting off fossil fuels and is willing to put his rubles behind efforts to curtail fracking ’ s successes .
He remains supportive of the deception of intermittent electricity from industrial wind and solar being the way to save the world from itself .

America has known for years that Vladimir Putin of Russia has been influencing the source of America’s energy consumption through his efforts to halt fracking in America. Now, with the price of oil tanking, a price war led by Saudi Arabia and Russia is crushing the price per barrel just as the CoronaVirus is hurting demand, putting further financial pressures on the fracking industry that has elevated America to be a net oil exporter.
To control America’s oil production, Russia has been very supportive of environmentalist groups and wealthy individual’s efforts to slow or stop crude oil. As well as natural gas exploration and production within the U.S. and European borders.
As reported by the Washington Examiner in 2018 a Russian funded environmental group gave millions to anti-fracking groups. This to stop, curtail or severely weaken US fracking of crude oil and natural gas in states like Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Pennsylvania.
Again, in 2018 the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology issued a 21-page report on Russian Attempts to Influence U.S. Domestic Energy Markets by Exploiting Social Media: 2018 report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
From their own report, our elected officials in Washington have known, that Vladimir Putin of Russia has been adamantly against fracking in America. Fracking’s success has upended global geopolitics and oil markets since the U.S. fracking boom began under the former U.S. administration. America has gone from being a net oil importer to a net oil exporter.
The U.S. as a net exporter is no longer dependent on oil from foreign countries and insulted from the periodic eruptions in the Middle East that threatened America’s energy security for decades.
The low oil prices, that will most likely go lower before they recover, are a major financial hit to the U.S. fracking industry. They are financially more impactful than the anti-fracking movements. Plummeting oil prices could force a reckoning for the American fracking boom. Russia may be able to live with $30-per-barrel oil for an extended period, but America’s oil patch will endure financial pain for a while.
Starting a price war during a global pandemic is in Russia’s best interest to thwart American dominance in the energy sector to put an end to the growth of the American shale production and at the same time to balance Russia’s budget.
Putin is a historian of World Wars I & II and believes the country that controls oil and natural gas, controls the world. Putin knows that was Allied ingenuity and taking control of the ability to run their ships, planes and land vehicles were significant factors in winning WWII.
The world is now accustomed to post WWII prosperity from American fracking. To stabilize his budget, constrain U.S. shale growth, and extend his influence from Venezuela to the Middle East then the U.S. oil and natural gas industry needs to be brought to its knees. This oil war between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and OPEC+ is just the vehicle to accomplish his geopolitical aims.
Under his leadership, Russia has pushed the power dynamic toward controlling crude oil. This because it is well aware that electricity alone, especially intermittent electricity from industrial wind and industrial solar, are unable to support the energy demands of the military. We can add the airlines, cruise ships, supertankers, container shipping, trucking infrastructures, and almost every other faction of the global economy. More importantly, Russia is ramping up coal production to meet domestic electrical needs, and its growing military commitments from Syria to Crimea.
The world, inclusive of Russia, can easily see the published March 2019 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) that shows the USA’s Primary Energy Consumption by Source for the recent years of 2017 thru 2018. Energy consumption rose over that 2-year period with most of the increase coming from fossil fuels, to the amazement of Russia and the world.
The EIA data shows America’s Primary Energy Consumption by Source:
Total Renewables INCREASED slightly from 11.2% to 11.4% even though most cities have implemented plans to go green, with no impact on fossil fuel energy consumption. Total Nuclear REMAINED THE SAME at 8.4%. Total Fossil Fuels INCREASED from 77.9% to 81.2% to meet society’s’ demands for the products from petroleum derivatives and the numerous energy consuming infrastructures.
Over 6,000 petroleum products are so intertwined with our everyday lifestyles, controlling them and their availability would control us. Putin understands the unintended consequences of getting off fossil fuels and is willing to put his rubles behind efforts to curtail fracking’s successes. He remains supportive of the deception of intermittent electricity from industrial wind and solar being the way to save the world from itself.