committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-08--Elite hypocrites issue climate warning in overdrive – C’est!

Another call-to-arms to rescue the planet has appeared .
An “ open letter ” this week from about 200 self-important signatories warned the world ’ s inhabitants that we face “ a global ecological collapse ” worse than the pandemic , and that “ massive extinction of life on Earth is no longer in doubt.
” This vacuous letter , published in the French media outlet Le Monde , reads almost as parody .
It demands a “ profound overhaul of our goals , values and economies.
” The signatories include Nobel laureates for medicine , chemistry and physics and—unsurprisingly—entertainers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsensical .
Are we are supposed to give it credence because some signatories are Nobel Prize winners ?
Signatories from the entertainment industry include : Cate Blanchett , Monica Bellucci , Jane Fonda , Robert De Niro , and Madonna – all of whom are highly successful in their professional careers and exactly the wrong messengers .
“ We believe it is unthinkable to go back to normal , ” they wrote .
If any of these do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mega-rich entertainers—who have lived opulent lifestyles for decades—now practice a smidgen of what they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inform me .
How many homes do they have ( and how large ? )
, or how many frequent-flyer miles do they accumulate in a single month ( pre-pandemic ) ?
How big are their carbon footprints , and what have they given up ?
Carbon credits , electric cars and solar-powered gadgets showcased by elites count for nothing as climate virtue , as their fellow alarmist , Michael Moore , recently reminded us .
There is more to discredit them .
Ms. Fonda has never adequately apologized for mocking our POWs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war criminals.
” Mr. De Niro has become sadly unhinged in his twilight years as evidenced by his frequent foul-mouthed tirades .
Madonna has her own challenges with the aging process based on her inability to eschew clothing worthy of a college Halloween keg party .
Successful entertainers have vastly more recognizable names than scientists , and thus draw worldwide attention to this letter .
But , they simultaneously serve to discredit its very message as a specious diatribe .
I do not begrudge entertainers from becoming super-wealthy by performing their craft since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and listen .
Rather , it is their ongoing flagrant hypocrisy that makes a mockery of their ecological message , even without refuting the dubious science it claims .
Seriously , are Madonna , De Niro and Fonda the best messengers to tell us in this letter , “ the pursuit of consumerism and the obsession with productivity have led us to deny the value of life itself ; that of plants , that of animals , and that of a great number of human beings ” ?
It is human “ productivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that enabled millions of people worldwide to purchase Madonna CDs , Jane Fonda exercise videos , and movie theater tickets and DVDs to watch De Niro , Blanchett , et.al .
It is long become tiresome to reiterate that such people are impervious to self-awareness .
What of these Malthusian-like scientists ?
This letter they also signed claims “ pollution , climate change , and the destruction of our natural zones has brought the world to a breaking point.
” Really ?
This sensationalism retreads Paul Ehrlich ’ s , The Population Bomb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite resilient and is getting cleaner and more livable by greater environmental awareness , technological advances and freer economies .
A true environmentalist should take credit for laws that reduced pollution , cleaned up waterways , and so much else .
Energy development itself is getting cleaner and more efficient , in particular , hydro fracturing for natural gas , which emits less carbon than coal and crude oil .
This is not “ an ongoing ecological catastrophe ” or “ a meta-crisis.
” As the letter says , we should “ examine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developing world has been reduced dramatically in the last 30 years .
As economic growth and prosperity spread globally , health improves , life expectancy increases , and the environment gets cleaner .
“ Climate change ” of maybe one-half degree warmer in the last four decades is no threat and hardly noticeable .
Arctic ice remains ; polar bears are flourishing .
Humans inhabited a much warmer planet in centuries past .
Yes , the world has plenty of environmental problems remaining , including plastic litter in the oceans , and still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running water .
The drivel in this letter does not address their needs , and solutions from such planet alarmists would make their condition worse .
The open letter in Le Monde has it exactly backwards .
It is a screed , bereft of substance or solutions , worthy of Hollywood actors wishing—and failing—to be seen as serious people on the environment .

Another call-to-arms to rescue the planet has appeared. An “open letter” this week from about 200 self-important signatories warned the world’s inhabitants that we face “a global ecological collapse” worse than the pandemic, and that “massive extinction of life on Earth is no longer in doubt.”
This vacuous letter, published in the French media outlet Le Monde, reads almost as parody. It demands a “profound overhaul of our goals, values and economies.” The signatories include Nobel laureates for medicine, chemistry and physics and—unsurprisingly—entertainers.
This letter is pure hysteria and nonsensical. Are we are supposed to give it credence because some signatories are Nobel Prize winners?
Those from the entertainment industry include: Cate Blanchett, Monica Bellucci, Jane Fonda, Robert De Niro, and Madonna – all of whom are highly successful in their professional careers and exactly the wrong messengers.
“We believe it is unthinkable to go back to normal,” they wrote. If any of these do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mega-rich entertainers—who have lived opulent lifestyles for decades—now practice a smidgen of what they are demanding of everyone else, please someone inform me. How many homes do they have (and how large?), or how many frequent-flyer miles do they accumulate in a single month (pre-pandemic)? How big are their carbon footprints, and what have they relinquished? Carbon credits, electric cars and solar-powered gadgets showcased by elites count for nothing as climate virtue, as their fellow alarmist, Michael Moore, inconveniently reminded everyone.
There is more to discredit them. Ms. Fonda has never adequately apologized for mocking our POWs in Vietnam or calling American soldiers “war criminals.” Mr. De Niro has become sadly unhinged in his twilight years as evidenced by his frequent foul-mouthed tirades. Madonna has her own challenges with the aging process based on her inability to eschew clothing worthy of a college Halloween keg party.
Successful entertainers have vastly more recognizable names than scientists, and thus draw worldwide attention to this letter. But, they simultaneously serve to discredit its message as a specious diatribe. I do not begrudge entertainers becoming wealthy by performing their craft since millions of people willingly pay to watch and listen. Rather, it is their ongoing flagrant hypocrisy that makes a mockery of their ecological message, even without refuting the dubious science it claims.
Seriously, are Madonna, De Niro and Fonda the best spokespersons to tell us in this letter, “the pursuit of consumerism and the obsession with productivity have led us to deny the value of life itself; that of plants, that of animals, and that of a great number of human beings”?
It is human “productivity” and “pursuit of consumerism” that enabled millions of people worldwide to purchase Madonna CDs, Jane Fonda exercise videos, and movie theater tickets and DVDs to watch De Niro, Blanchett, et.al. Will they now give refunds?
It is long become tiresome to reiterate that such people are impervious to self-awareness.
What of these Malthusian-like scientists? This letter they also signed claims “pollution, climate change, and the destruction of our natural zones has brought the world to a breaking point.” Really? This sensationalism retreads Paul Ehrlich’s, The Population Bomb, circa 1968.
The planet is quite resilient and is getting cleaner and more livable by greater environmental awareness, technological advances and freer economies. A true environmentalist should take credit for laws that reduced pollution, cleaned up waterways, and so much else. Energy development itself is getting cleaner and more efficient, in particular, hydro fracturing for natural gas, which emits less carbon than coal and crude oil.
This is not “an ongoing ecological catastrophe” or “a meta-crisis.” As the letter says, we should “examine what is essential.”
Poverty in the developing world has been reduced dramatically in the last 30 years. As economic growth and prosperity spread globally, health improves, life expectancy increases, and the environment gets cleaner. “Climate change” of maybe one-half degree warmer in the last four decades is no threat and hardly noticeable. Arctic ice remains; polar bears are flourishing. Humans inhabited a much warmer planet in centuries past.
Yes, the world has plenty of environmental problems remaining, including plastic litter in the oceans, and still millions of people globally without electricity and running water. The drivel in this letter does not address their needs, and solutions from such planet alarmists would make their condition worse.
The open letter in Le Monde has it exactly backwards. It is a screed, bereft of substance or sound ideas, worthy of Hollywood actors wishing—and failing—to be seen as serious people on the environment.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-08--Robert Redford’s virus politics

Robert Redford’s virus politics

In case you might have imagined that there was no grave misfortune that couldn ’ t be either attributed to human-caused climate change or blamed on President Trump , it may come as no big surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic is no exception .
Actor/producer Robert Redford and his Redford Center co-founder James Redford published an April 30 CNN News blog attached Trump to both causations .
Titled “ Trump ’ s Coronavirus Failures Offer Warnings and Lessons about Future Climate Change Challenges , ” it admonishes : “ Make no mistake , the worst of climate change awaits us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Trump ’ s fault ?
It goes on to say : “ Here in the U.S. , we have seen the cost of failed leadership .
As the pandemic began its global march , President Trump failed to act quickly and decisively , likely increasing its toll and worsening our pain and suffering .
As he has done with climate change.
” Here , I would venture to argue that his decision to shut down flights from China at a time that the World Health Organization ( WHO ) told us that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , in fact , a laudably rapid and bold mega-life-saving decision .
Nevertheless , the authors warrant that “ As he has done with climate change , Trump failed early on to embrace or even understand sound scientific consensus about what must be done to protect this nation and its people.
” They ’ re presumably referring here to the sound scientific advice offered by WHO that Trump so obstinately ignored .
In any case , Redford and Redford point out that the situation didn ’ t actually turn out all bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been some pleasant surprises .
As many of the world ’ s transportation and industrial sectors have reduced operations , there has been a remarkable decline in global carbon emissions.
” While noting that “ Of course , the cost in life and livelihood negates any celebration , ” they do offer a coronavirus silver lining lesson about how to finally end countless millions of years of global warming .
The Redfords sanguinely conclude , “ Nonetheless , there is no denying that we have gotten a very real glimpse of the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takeaway answer then is to permanently lock down life .
Perhaps the United Nations has much the same idea in mind .
A new “ Global Energy Review 2020 ” report issued by the U.N. ’ s International Energy Agency ( IEA ) forecasts an “ unprecedented decline ” ( an 8 % drop ) in global CO2 emissions this year due expressly to COVID-19 lockdowns .
All IEA countries are signatories of the Paris Agreement that strives to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels , and two-thirds have committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IEA ’ s Sustainable Development projects net-zero emissions in 2070 .
This was the famous fossil energy abandonment agreement that President Trump had refused to join that would require global emissions to fall nearly 8 % every single year between now and 2030 .
Ironically , few if any developed signatory countries ever came anywhere close to doing that prior to the pandemic .
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol described the COVID-19 pandemic as “ This is a historic shock to the entire energy world.
” Global use of oil fell nearly 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , the report said .
By March , global road transport was down nearly 50 % , and air traffic was down 60 % compared to 2019 .
Nevertheless , according to IEA , that one-time shock to the energy industry , to our businesses and to our lives , won ’ t be nearly long enough to save us from climate change so that we can return to nostalgic pre-industrial lifestyles .
Glen Peters , research director at the Center for International Climate Research in Norway clarified that “ A lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t get you all the way there.
” Besides , as Peters pointed out to The New York Times , even amid the sweeping lockdowns , the global economy continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels for all the power plants , trucks , planes , cars and heavy industries that are required to continue to operate during the crisis .
As for Robert Redford and James Redford blaming President Trump for having “ failed to act quickly and decisively , likely increasing its toll and worsening our pain and suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” exactly how has making America energy independent while simultaneously lowering carbon emissions either warmed the planet , or added in any way to the number of COVID-19 casualties ?
In any case , isn ’ t warm weather supposed to inhibit the spread of infectious viruses ?
And regarding failures to rapidly and decisively respond , wasn ’ t it WHO — not Trump — that delayed six fatally critical weeks before alerting the international community to prepare for the looming disaster ?
Yeah , I know what some of you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s bad news , Trump ’ s responsible anyway .

In case you might have imagined that there was no grave misfortune that couldn’t be either attributed to human-caused climate change or blamed on President Trump, it may come as no big surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic is no exception.
Actor/producer Robert Redford and his Redford Center co-founder James Redford published an April 30 CNN News blog attached Trump to both causations. Titled “Trump’s Coronavirus Failures Offer Warnings and Lessons about Future Climate Change Challenges,” it admonishes: “Make no mistake, the worst of climate change awaits us in the near future.”
Why is this Trump’s fault?
It goes on to say: “Here in the U.S., we have seen the cost of failed leadership. As the pandemic began its global march, President Trump failed to act quickly and decisively, likely increasing its toll and worsening our pain and suffering. As he has done with climate change.”
Here, I would venture to argue that his decision to shut down flights from China at a time that the World Health Organization (WHO) told us that human-to-human transmission wasn’t a problem was, in fact, a laudably rapid and bold mega-life-saving decision.
Nevertheless, the authors warrant that “As he has done with climate change, Trump failed early on to embrace or even understand sound scientific consensus about what must be done to protect this nation and its people.” They’re presumably referring here to the sound scientific advice offered by WHO that Trump so obstinately ignored.
In any case, Redford and Redford point out that the situation didn’t actually turn out all bad after all. “There have also been some pleasant surprises. As many of the world’s transportation and industrial sectors have reduced operations, there has been a remarkable decline in global carbon emissions.”
While noting that “Of course, the cost in life and livelihood negates any celebration,” they do offer a coronavirus silver lining lesson about how to finally end countless millions of years of global warming. The Redfords sanguinely conclude, “Nonetheless, there is no denying that we have gotten a very real glimpse of the potential for global environmental repair.”
Their apparent takeaway answer then is to permanently lock down life.
Perhaps the United Nations has much the same idea in mind.
A new “Global Energy Review 2020” report issued by the U.N.’s International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts an “unprecedented decline” (an 8% drop) in global CO2 emissions this year due expressly to COVID-19 lockdowns.
All IEA countries are signatories of the Paris Agreement that strives to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels, and two-thirds have committed to emission neutrality in 2050, whereas IEA’s Sustainable Development projects net-zero emissions in 2070.
This was the famous fossil energy abandonment agreement that President Trump had refused to join that would require global emissions to fall nearly 8% every single year between now and 2030. Ironically, few if any developed signatory countries ever came anywhere close to doing that prior to the pandemic.
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol described the COVID-19 pandemic as “This is a historic shock to the entire energy world.”
Global use of oil fell nearly 5% in the first quarter of this year, the report said. By March, global road transport was down nearly 50%, and air traffic was down 60% compared to 2019.
Nevertheless, according to IEA, that one-time shock to the energy industry, to our businesses and to our lives, won’t be nearly long enough to save us from climate change so that we can return to nostalgic pre-industrial lifestyles.
Glen Peters, research director at the Center for International Climate Research in Norway clarified that “A lockdown is just a one-off event, it can’t get you all the way there.”
Besides, as Peters pointed out to The New York Times, even amid the sweeping lockdowns, the global economy continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels for all the power plants, trucks, planes, cars and heavy industries that are required to continue to operate during the crisis.
As for Robert Redford and James Redford blaming President Trump for having “failed to act quickly and decisively, likely increasing its toll and worsening our pain and suffering as he has done with climate change,” exactly how has making America energy independent while simultaneously lowering carbon emissions either warmed the planet, or added in any way to the number of COVID-19 casualties?
In any case, isn’t warm weather supposed to inhibit the spread of infectious viruses?
And regarding failures to rapidly and decisively respond, wasn’t it WHO — not Trump — that delayed six fatally critical weeks before alerting the international community to prepare for the looming disaster?
Yeah, I know what some of you are still thinking.
So long as it’s bad news, Trump’s responsible anyway.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-08--Pulling the curtain off energy subsidies

It is time to end the quagmire of outdated energy subsidies built up over a century of programs once intended to help develop innovative ideas for energy development .
They are now nearly all aiding and abetting taxpayers money flowing to companies and individuals no longer deserving to feed at the government trough .
No one in the lifetime of my readers will ever see energy shortages in the United States again .
Awesome new technologies have allowed our nation to move from worrying about running out of oil to no longer having space to store all the oil and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course that problem of abundance has been exacerbated by the pandemic that has shut our nation and the world down for weeks .
That will in time pass away and our abundance will settle back to normalcy .
Sadly the energy industry will shake out with the survival of the fittest , but that ultimately is the way of the world for all industries .
While the vast dollars expended on dozens of subsidy type programs are near impossible to pin down , the great number of programs developed long ago can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars .
Most of these programs should have ended long ago , but as we all know government programs never die .
An example is that , believe it or not , Peter Ferrara was able to track the names of 187 different means tested welfare programs in his 2016 book , Power To The People .
Obviously many of them should have been phased out long ago .
I will not attempt to uncover the breadth of all energy subsidies but rather to make a case that it is time to end @ @ @ @

It is time to end the quagmire of outdated energy subsidies built up over a century of programs once intended to help develop innovative ideas for energy development. They are now nearly all aiding and abetting taxpayers money flowing to companies and individuals no longer deserving to feed at the government trough.
No one in the lifetime of my readers will ever see energy shortages in the United States again. Awesome new technologies have allowed our nation to move from worrying about running out of oil to no longer having space to store all the oil and gas we are capable of developing.
Of course that problem of abundance has been exacerbated by the pandemic that has shut our nation and the world down for weeks. That will in time pass away and our abundance will settle back to normalcy. Sadly the energy industry will shake out with the survival of the fittest, but that ultimately is the way of the world for all industries.
While the vast dollars expended on dozens of subsidy type programs are near impossible to pin down, the great number of programs developed long ago can give us an idea of wasted tax dollars. Most of these programs should have ended long ago, but as we all know government programs never die. An example is that, believe it or not, Peter Ferrara was able to track the names of 187 different means tested welfare programs in his 2016 book, Power To The People. Obviously many of them should have been phased out long ago. I will not attempt to uncover the breadth of all energy subsidies but rather to make a case that it is time to end all of them.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-08--Elites issue climate warning in overdrive – C’est!

Another call-to-arms to rescue the planet has appeared .
An “ open letter ” this week from about 200 self-important signatories warned the world ’ s inhabitants that we face “ a global ecological collapse ” worse than the pandemic , and that “ massive extinction of life on Earth is no longer in doubt.
” This vacuous letter , published in the French media outlet Le Monde , reads almost as parody .
It demands a “ profound overhaul of our goals , values and economies.
” The signatories include Nobel laureates for medicine , chemistry and physics and—unsurprisingly—entertainers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsensical .
Are we are supposed to give it credence because some signatories are Nobel Prize winners ?
Those from the entertainment industry include : Cate Blanchett , Monica Bellucci , Jane Fonda , Robert De Niro , and Madonna – all of whom are highly successful in their professional careers and exactly the wrong messengers .
“ We believe it is unthinkable to go back to normal , ” they wrote .
If any of these do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mega-rich entertainers—who have lived opulent lifestyles for decades—now practice a smidgen of what they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inform me .
How many homes do they have ( and how large ? )
, or how many frequent-flyer miles do they accumulate in a single month ( pre-pandemic ) ?
How big are their carbon footprints , and what have they relinquished ?
Carbon credits , electric cars and solar-powered gadgets showcased by elites count for nothing as climate virtue , as their fellow alarmist , Michael Moore , inconveniently reminded everyone .
There is more to discredit them .
Ms. Fonda has never adequately apologized for mocking our POWs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals.
” Mr. De Niro has become sadly unhinged in his twilight years as evidenced by his frequent foul-mouthed tirades .
Madonna has her own challenges with the aging process based on her inability to eschew clothing worthy of a college Halloween keg party .
Successful entertainers have vastly more recognizable names than scientists , and thus draw worldwide attention to this letter .
But , they simultaneously serve to discredit its message as a specious diatribe .
I do not begrudge entertainers becoming wealthy by performing their craft since millions of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather , it is their ongoing flagrant hypocrisy that makes a mockery of their ecological message , even without refuting the dubious science it claims .
Seriously , are Madonna , De Niro and Fonda the best spokespersons to tell us in this letter , “ the pursuit of consumerism and the obsession with productivity have led us to deny the value of life itself ; that of plants , that of animals , and that of a great number of human beings ” ?
It is human “ productivity ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people worldwide to purchase Madonna CDs , Jane Fonda exercise videos , and movie theater tickets and DVDs to watch De Niro , Blanchett , et.al .
Will they now give refunds ?
It is long become tiresome to reiterate that such people are impervious to self-awareness .
What of these Malthusian-like scientists ?
This letter they also signed claims “ pollution , climate change , and the destruction of our natural zones has brought the world to a breaking point.
” Really ?
This sensationalism retreads Paul Ehrlich ’ s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The planet is quite resilient and is getting cleaner and more livable by greater environmental awareness , technological advances and freer economies .
A true environmentalist should take credit for laws that reduced pollution , cleaned up waterways , and so much else .
Energy development itself is getting cleaner and more efficient , in particular , hydro fracturing for natural gas , which emits less carbon than coal and crude oil .
This is not “ an ongoing ecological catastrophe ” or “ a meta-crisis.
” As the letter says , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poverty in the developing world has been reduced dramatically in the last 30 years .
As economic growth and prosperity spread globally , health improves , life expectancy increases , and the environment gets cleaner .
“ Climate change ” of maybe one-half degree warmer in the last four decades is no threat and hardly noticeable .
Arctic ice remains ; polar bears are flourishing .
Humans inhabited a much warmer planet in centuries past .
Yes , the world has plenty of environmental problems remaining , including plastic litter in the oceans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without electricity and running water .
The drivel in this letter does not address their needs , and solutions from such planet alarmists would make their condition worse .
The open letter in Le Monde has it exactly backwards .
It is a screed , bereft of substance or sound ideas , worthy of Hollywood actors wishing—and failing—to be seen as serious people on the environment .


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-09--Michael Moore and Driessen agree! Wind, solar and biofuel energy are devastating Planet Earth

Never in my wildest dreams did I envision a day when I ’ d agree with anything filmmaker Michael Moore said – much less that he would agree with me .
But mirabile dictu , his new film , Planet of the Humans , is as devastating an indictment of wind , solar and biofuel energy as anything I have ever written .
The documentary reflects Moore ’ s willingness to reexamine environmentalist doctrine .
It ’ s soon obvious why more rabid greens tried to have the “ dangerous film ” banned .
Indeed , Films for Action initially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off its website , but then put it back up .
The film is also on YouTube .
Would-be censors included Josh Fox , whose Gasland film Irish journalists Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney totally eviscerated with their FrackNation documentary ; Michael Mann , whose hockey stick global temperature graph was demolished by Canadian analysts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre , and many others ; and Stanford professor Mark Jacobson , who just got slapped with a potential $ 1-million penalty ( in legal fees ) for bringing a SLAPP ( strategic litigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a mathematician who criticized Jacobson ’ s renewable energy claims .
These critics and their allies are rarely willing to discuss any climate or energy issues that they view as “ settled science , ” much less engage in full-throated debate with “ deniers ” or allow former colleagues to stray from the catechism of climate cataclysm and renewable energy salvation .
They prefer lawsuits .
But they sense the Planet documentary could be Fort Sumter in a green civil war , and they ’ re terrified .
Their main complaint , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct but irrelevant .
The film ’ s key point is the same as my own : wind , solar and biofuel energy are not clean , green , renewable or sustainable , and they are horrifically destructive to vital ecological values .
The censors believe admitting that is sacrilegious .
Director-narrator Jeff Gibbs never talks to coal , oil or natural gas advocates – or to “ renewable ” energy and “ manmade climate crisis ” skeptics .
Instead , he interviews fellow environmentalists who are justifiably aghast at what wind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenic areas , wildlife habitats , rare and endangered species , and millions of acres of forests , deserts and grasslands .
He peeks backstage to expose bogus claims that solar panels actually provided the electricity for a solar promotion concert .
After speaking with “ renewable ” advocates in Lansing , Michigan , and learning that the Chevy Volt they ’ re so excited about is actually recharged by a coal-fired generating plant , Gibbs visits a nearby football-field-sized solar farm .
It can power 50 ( ! )
homes at peak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( not including the Michigan State University campus ) would require 15 square miles of panels – plus wind turbines and a huge array of batteries ( or a coal or gas power plant ) for nights and cloudy days .
The crew films one of those turbines being erected outside of town .
Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete , steel , aluminum , copper , plastic , cobalt , rare earths , fiberglass and other materials .
Every step in the mining , processing , manufacturing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 years later ) removal process requires fossil fuels .
It bears repeating : wind and sun are renewable and sustainable ; harnessing them for energy to benefit mankind absolutely is not .
( Go to 36:50 for a fast-paced mining tutorial on where all these “ clean , green ” technologies really come from . )
Then they ’ re off to Vermont , where a wooded mountaintop is being removed to install still more wind turbines .
Removing mountaintops to access coal , bad ; to erect huge bird-killing wind turbines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 350,000 garage-door-sized mirrors sprawling across six square miles of former Mojave Desert habitat – with the giant Ivanpah “ solar ” power plant in the center .
The system gets warmed up each morning by natural gas-powered heaters , so that it can generate a little electricity by sundown .
This “ environmentally benign ” solar facility now sits where 500-year-old yuccas and Joshua trees once grew .
“ Outdated ” footage shows them being totally shredded to destroy any evidence they ever existed .
Gibbs and Moore next discuss ethanol – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuels required to create this “ clean , green , renewable ” gasoline substitute , which emits lots of carbon dioxide when burned .
Even worse is the total devastation of entire forests – clear cut , chopped into chips , maybe pelletized , and shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles … to be burned in place of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity that makes modern homes , factories , hospitals , living standards and life spans possible .
The crew gets “ five seconds ” to leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power plant area in Vermont – or be arrested .
Haunting images of a bewildered indigenous native in Brazil and a terrified , mud-covered orangutan in Indonesia attest to the destruction wrought in the name of saving Earth from climate change .
You ’ re left to wonder how many acres of corn , sugarcane or canola it took for Richard Branson to fly one biofuel-powered jet to mainland Europe .
How many it would take to produce the 96 billion gallons of oil-based fuel the airline industry consumed in 2019 .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the millions of acres of slow-growth forest that are incinerated each year as a “ carbon neutral ” alternative to coal .
“ Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization ?
” the producers wonder .
“ Renewable ” energy systems last only 15-20 years , and then must be torn down and replaced , using more non-renewable resources , “ if there ’ s enough planet left , ” they say .
“ We ’ re basically being fed a lie.
” Maybe we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burning fossil fuels in the first place , ” than doing this .
Indeed .
But bear in mind , the devastation that so deeply concerns Moore and Gibbs is happening in a world that is still some 85 % dependent on oil , natural gas and coal , 4 % on nuclear and 7 % on hydroelectric .
Imagine what our planet would look like if we went 100 % ( pseudo ) renewable under various Green New Deals : millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels , billions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denuded forests , thousands of new and expanded mines , and more .
But where some see devastation , others see opportunity .
Or as Arnold Schwarzenegger says in the film , where some see the Mojave Desert as miles and miles of emptiness , he sees a vast “ gold mine.
” Al Gore sees endless millions in profits , a lovely seaside mansion and cushy private jets .
Koch Industries sees bigger solar and biofuel empires .
The Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists envision raking in more millions off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 350.org founder Bill McKibben can ’ t seem to remember that the Rockefeller Brothers and other fat-cat foundations gave him millions of dollars , too .
But Moore and Gibbs aren ’ t indicting free market capitalism .
They ’ re indicting government-mandated and subsidized crony corporatist opportunism .
Yet the solution they ultimately proffer isn ’ t recognizing that climate change has been “ real ” since Earth began ; that humans and fossil fuels play only minimal roles amid the powerful natural forces that brought glacial epochs and interglacial periods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; or that modern nuclear power plants generate abundant CO2-free electricity .
Instead , they propose that we humans must “ get ourselves under control.
” This means not just slashing our living standards ( may we all have “ carbon footprints ” as small as Al Gore ’ s ) and “ de-developing ” and “ de-industrializing ” the United States and Europe , while simultaneously dictating to still impoverished nations how much they will be “ permitted ” to develop , in accordance with former Obama science advisor John Holdren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having far fewer humans on this glorious planet .
( How exactly that is to be achieved they don ’ t say , though several twentieth century dictators offer ideas . )
This is where Planet of the Humans takes a troubling , wrongheaded , neo-Malthusian turn .
But these final minutes should be viewed attentively , to understand what still motivates far too many “ environmentalists , ” who too often get lionized or even canonized for their devotion to Mother Earth – even if the price is measured in billions left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deprivation , and millions dying long before they should .
Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs have done us a great service in exposing the environmental degradation from pseudo-renewable energy .
Now they just need to reexamine neo-Malthusian doctrines as well .

Never in my wildest dreams did I envision a day when I’d agree with anything filmmaker Michael Moore said – much less that he would agree with me. But mirabile dictu, his new film, Planet of the Humans, is as devastating an indictment of wind, solar and biofuel energy as anything I have ever written.
The documentary reflects Moore’s willingness to reexamine environmentalist doctrine. It’s soon obvious why more rabid greens tried to have the “dangerous film” banned. Indeed, Films for Action initially caved to the pressure and took Planet off its website, but then put it back up. The film is also on YouTube.
Would-be censors included Josh Fox, whose Gasland film Irish journalists Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney totally eviscerated with their FrackNation documentary; Michael Mann, whose hockey stick global temperature graph was demolished by Canadian analysts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, and many others; and Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, who just got slapped with a potential $1-million penalty (in legal fees) for bringing a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) and defamation lawsuit against a mathematician who criticized Jacobson’s renewable energy claims.
These critics and their allies are rarely willing to discuss any climate or energy issues that they view as “settled science,” much less engage in full-throated debate with “deniers” or allow former colleagues to stray from the catechism of climate cataclysm and renewable energy salvation. They prefer lawsuits. But they sense the Planet documentary could be Fort Sumter in a green civil war, and they’re terrified.
Their main complaint, that some footage is outdated, is correct but irrelevant. The film’s key point is the same as my own: wind, solar and biofuel energy are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable, and they are horrifically destructive to vital ecological values. The censors believe admitting that is sacrilegious.
Director-narrator Jeff Gibbs never talks to coal, oil or natural gas advocates – or to “renewable” energy and “manmade climate crisis” skeptics. Instead, he interviews fellow environmentalists who are justifiably aghast at what wind, solar and biofuel projects are doing to scenic areas, wildlife habitats, rare and endangered species, and millions of acres of forests, deserts and grasslands. He peeks backstage to expose bogus claims that solar panels actually provided the electricity for a solar promotion concert.
After speaking with “renewable” advocates in Lansing, Michigan, and learning that the Chevy Volt they’re so excited about is actually recharged by a coal-fired generating plant, Gibbs visits a nearby football-field-sized solar farm. It can power 50 (!) homes at peak solar intensity. Powering all of Lansing (not including the Michigan State University campus) would require 15 square miles of panels – plus wind turbines and a huge array of batteries (or a coal or gas power plant) for nights and cloudy days.
The crew films one of those turbines being erected outside of town. Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials. Every step in the mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and (20 years later) removal process requires fossil fuels. It bears repeating: wind and sun are renewable and sustainable; harnessing them for energy to benefit mankind absolutely is not. (Go to 36:50 for a fast-paced mining tutorial on where all these “clean, green” technologies really come from.)
Then they’re off to Vermont, where a wooded mountaintop is being removed to install still more wind turbines. Removing mountaintops to access coal, bad; to erect huge bird-killing wind turbines, good?
An aerial shot features 350,000 garage-door-sized mirrors sprawling across six square miles of former Mojave Desert habitat – with the giant Ivanpah “solar” power plant in the center. The system gets warmed up each morning by natural gas-powered heaters, so that it can generate a little electricity by sundown.
This “environmentally benign” solar facility now sits where 500-year-old yuccas and Joshua trees once grew. “Outdated” footage shows them being totally shredded to destroy any evidence they ever existed.
Gibbs and Moore next discuss ethanol – and the corn, water, fertilizer and fossil fuels required to create this “clean, green, renewable” gasoline substitute, which emits lots of carbon dioxide when burned.
Even worse is the total devastation of entire forests – clear cut, chopped into chips, maybe pelletized, and shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles … to be burned in place of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity that makes modern homes, factories, hospitals, living standards and life spans possible. The crew gets “five seconds” to leave a denuded forest and “biomass” power plant area in Vermont – or be arrested. Haunting images of a bewildered indigenous native in Brazil and a terrified, mud-covered orangutan in Indonesia attest to the destruction wrought in the name of saving Earth from climate change.
You’re left to wonder how many acres of corn, sugarcane or canola it took for Richard Branson to fly one biofuel-powered jet to mainland Europe. How many it would take to produce the 96 billion gallons of oil-based fuel the airline industry consumed in 2019. How many decades it will take to replace the millions of acres of slow-growth forest that are incinerated each year as a “carbon neutral” alternative to coal.
“Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?” the producers wonder. “Renewable” energy systems last only 15-20 years, and then must be torn down and replaced, using more non-renewable resources, “if there’s enough planet left,” they say. “We’re basically being fed a lie.” Maybe we’d be “better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place,” than doing this.
Indeed. But bear in mind, the devastation that so deeply concerns Moore and Gibbs is happening in a world that is still some 85% dependent on oil, natural gas and coal, 4% on nuclear and 7% on hydroelectric. Imagine what our planet would look like if we went 100% (pseudo)renewable under various Green New Deals: millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of batteries, thousands of biofuel plantations and denuded forests, thousands of new and expanded mines, and more.
But where some see devastation, others see opportunity. Or as Arnold Schwarzenegger says in the film, where some see the Mojave Desert as miles and miles of emptiness, he sees a vast “gold mine.” Al Gore sees endless millions in profits, a lovely seaside mansion and cushy private jets. Koch Industries sees bigger solar and biofuel empires. The Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists envision raking in more millions off climate doom and renewable salvation, while 350.org founder Bill McKibben can’t seem to remember that the Rockefeller Brothers and other fat-cat foundations gave him millions of dollars, too.
But Moore and Gibbs aren’t indicting free market capitalism. They’re indicting government-mandated and subsidized crony corporatist opportunism. Yet the solution they ultimately proffer isn’t recognizing that climate change has been “real” since Earth began; that humans and fossil fuels play only minimal roles amid the powerful natural forces that brought glacial epochs and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Ages; or that modern nuclear power plants generate abundant CO2-free electricity.
Instead, they propose that we humans must “get ourselves under control.” This means not just slashing our living standards (may we all have “carbon footprints” as small as Al Gore’s) and “de-developing” and “de-industrializing” the United States and Europe, while simultaneously dictating to still impoverished nations how much they will be “permitted” to develop, in accordance with former Obama science advisor John Holdren’s totalitarian instincts. It also means having far fewer humans on this glorious planet. (How exactly that is to be achieved they don’t say, though several twentieth century dictators offer ideas.)
This is where Planet of the Humans takes a troubling, wrongheaded, neo-Malthusian turn. But these final minutes should be viewed attentively, to understand what still motivates far too many “environmentalists,” who too often get lionized or even canonized for their devotion to Mother Earth – even if the price is measured in billions left in unimaginable poverty, malnutrition and energy deprivation, and millions dying long before they should.
Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs have done us a great service in exposing the environmental degradation from pseudo-renewable energy. Now they just need to reexamine neo-Malthusian doctrines as well.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-09--Global “weirding” or nature being nature?

1 ) That “ climate change ” would be blamed for cold the way it is warm .
2 ) That the cold we jumped on 2 Sundays ago had merit .
But are things getting weirder ?
The question is how hard did you look for weird things , or what you consider weird , Now lets take 1966 .
The DNS at 500 mb are pretty darn close to the DNs with this outbreak Same kind of look with the tail sticking back and the collapse into the northeast Many all-time Record highs were reached .
Yet a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the east with record and near-record cold !
But wait there is more , within 10 days RECORD HEAT in some places that had just had record cold Chicago had 9 consecutive days of 90 plus !
here is another interesting tidbit .
Cold Mays are notorious for early season tropical cyclone development in the western Atlantic Gulf or Caribbean , So you will look for that kind of thing .
In fact , it happens more often than not .
So if we get that is someone going to say what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weird ?
One more example for the road , ( Seriously I can bore you silly with more ) June 22 , 1972 .
Agnes .
A piece of the vortex crashed into the east and captured the storm and early season version of Sandy for instance , But on the first day of summer sleet was reported at Phillipsburg Pa with 4 inches of snow atop Snowshoe Mountain And therein may be a problem , You see if you have not looked at past events with a fine-tooth comb and wonder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1950 November Superstorm , 38 hurricane , and countless other examples , and you look at models , then you may be tempted to say , wow , this is really weird .
And it is out of the ordinary , I think you can agree , despite the winter bust , we always said we had to look for the return of major cold before we would shake all this out .
I was in Mt Pleasant Michigan Jan 31 telling farmers that , which made me about as popular as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show .
But at least they knew , And you know it too , Once enso 4 cooled the MJO starting behaving the way I thought it would later in winter and that set a lot of this off .
At last look , the MJO was a natural phenomenon , BTW I don ’ t think its making things more extreme , but instead telegraphing better where models may go astray .
And we have a wonderful example of that this year .
Since November 3 months have been cold in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the models a month out had no idea there was that kind of cold coming .
10 days into the month it did ( btw how is that a forecast ) but 20 days out , when energy companies , hedge funds , retailers , and in fact almost anyone needs to know , they were nowhere to be found .
Here are the forecasts vs reality now ( 7 days into the month ) Look at the change in the temperatures over the arctic it had forecasted for May , June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are repercussions of the global temperatures being warmer , something that is distorted .
Modeling can not handle it , Instead of arguing over the cause or say things are getting weirder , or more extreme , which if you look back in the past you can see is likely not the case , we should be developing modeling that can handle when something different is going to happen , The first thing I would do , given the warmth of the tropical oceans , would be to get on the MJO forecast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you can see where that is going to go , you know the model will have to at least have its influence blended in .
That is exactly what we do , We look at the models , but then correct them for the strength of the MJO , Why ?
because where ts the most energy in relation to source regions of the weather ?
Right where the MJO patrols .
We are seeing a graphic example of that now , and in fact the last 7 months , It got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November , it was cold , It has done it again .
There are repercussions of the global temperatures being warmer , something that is distorted .
Modeling can not handle it , Instead of arguing over the cause or say things are getting weirder , or more extreme , which if you look back in the past you can see is likely not the case , we should be developing modeling that can handle when something different is going to happen , The first thing I would do , given the warmth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get on the MJO forecast over a longer period of time , If you can see where that is going to go , you know the model will have to at least have its influence blended in .
That is exactly what we do , We look at the models , but then correct them for the strength of the MJO , Why ?
because where ts the most energy in relation to source regions of the weather ?
Right where the MJO patrols .
We are seeing a graphic example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last 7 months , It got into cold phases for a time in November , it was cold , It has done it again .
So I don ’ t think the greater amplitude MJO is going to cause extra mayhem , but instead , it could be a valuable clue to when to look for something the models may not be seeing .
But academia/gvt who are on the cutting edge of this should be looking into this .
The danger is going to be like winters of 13-14,14-15 that modeling like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major cold periods , April/May are saddle months , not that big a deal .
But if you had it occur in a 60 -90 day period in the heart of the winter season , well it was not so long ago we saw what happens , Conversely , we saw what happened this year .
So this is an opportunity to improve forecasting IMO The second danger is that if there is a sudden snap to colder in the global pattern which would be economically problematic given the number of people on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , models will likely never see it , We all know I feel they over attribute co2 since the model that had the least warming and closest to what happened supposedly had the least co2 feedback in it , But once going in a direction , it is very tough for the model to see something UNTIL IT STARTS HAPPENING , The warmth of the oceans means that until they cool , we are likely not to have to worry about that , and the state of the oceans are a product of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have a handle on it , So we know the result of what we see now , but 30 years from now , well I am skeptical of “ knowing ” what is going on , If you forecast enough you know 30 hours can be something to be skeptical of knowing , Listen I would love to be able to say , wow this is getting wilder by the day , you need me to forecast it cause those that know me know I am like a starving dog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of them when it comes to the love of Extremes .
Extreme weather and hitting it , from far out or close , is like competing in the Olympics to me .
( cue Billy Joel , go to Extremes ) Perhaps my attitude is that even a sunny day awes me now , and if you look globally there is always something happening somewhere that has the potential to go to extremes .
But that is nature , and the limits on nature are set by nature .
Is it weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it one way , you may think so .
Another way , you view it in awe and understand that its the creation on display .

1) That “climate change” would be blamed for cold the way it is warm.
2) That the cold we jumped on 2 Sundays ago had merit.
But are things getting weirder? The question is how hard did you look for weird things, or what you consider weird? Now lets take 1966. The DNS at 500 mb are pretty darn close to the DNs with this outbreak.
Same kind of look with the tail sticking back and the collapse into the northeast.
You really want to see Weird. Look at this, Easter Sunday 1976 at 500 mb You really want to see Weird. Look at this, Easter Sunday 1976 at 500 mb
Many all-time Record highs were reached. Yet a week before a monster cold shot into the east with record and near-record cold!
A month later, May 19th, snow flew all the way into NE Piedmont with this. A month later, May 19th, snow flew all the way into NE Piedmont with this.
Now lets look at May 9-10, 1977. Now lets look at May 9-10, 1977.
You want global weirding? Look at the intensity of the positive that shoved the negative into the northeast with the latest heavy snow on record in parts of southern New England. (Providence for instance 6 inches) You want global weirding? Look at the intensity of the positive that shoved the negative into the northeast with the latest heavy snow on record in parts of southern New England. (Providence for instance 6 inches)
But wait there is more, within 10 days of RECORD HEAT in some places that had just record cold Chicago experienced 9 consecutive days of 90 plus!
So isn’t that weird? No its weather. It’s nature doing what nature does. So isn’t that weird? No its weather. It’s nature doing what nature does.
Here is another interesting tidbit. Cold Mays are notorious for early season tropical cyclone development in the western Atlantic Gulf or Caribbean. So you will look for that kind of thing. In fact, it happens more often than not. So if we get that is someone going to say what is something we have seen many times before weird?
One more example for the road, ( Seriously I can bore you silly with more) June 22, 1972. Agnes. A piece of the vortex crashed into the east and captured the storm and early season version of Sandy for instance, but on the first day of summer sleet was reported at Phillipsburg Pa with 4 inches of snow atop Snowshoe Mountain.
Now if one wants to play the climate change game (btw it is warmer as I have said countless times but I think its primarily natural) there an argument, given if one looks they can find such extremes, that instead of this being weird, its a case of us returning to where we were? Now I don’t believe that either, but if you are seeing things that rival previous events or perhaps go a bit beyond. It is 40 to 50 years later, why is that not nature doing what nature does? Now if one wants to play the climate change game (btw it is warmer as I have said countless times but I think its primarily natural) there an argument, given if one looks they can find such extremes, that instead of this being weird, its a case of us returning to where we were? Now I don’t believe that either, but if you are seeing things that rival previous events or perhaps go a bit beyond. It is 40 to 50 years later, why is that not nature doing what nature does?
And therein may be a problem. You see if you have not looked at past events with a fine-tooth comb and wonder, how the heck did that happen (a November 1950 Superstorm, a 1938 hurricane, and countless other examples). You look at models, then you may be tempted to say, wow, this is really weird. It is out of the ordinary, I think you can agree, despite the winter bust. We always said we had to look for the return of major cold before we would shake all this out. I was in Mt Pleasant Michigan Jan 31 telling farmers that, which made me about as popular as the plague given last year’s horror show. But at least they knew, and you know it too, once enso 4 cooled the MJO starting behaving the way I thought it would later in winter and that set a lot of this off. At last look, the MJO was a natural phenomenon. BTW I don’t think its making things more extreme, but instead telegraphing better where models may go astray. And we have a wonderful example of that this year. Since November, 3 months have been cold in the plains east, and 4 warms. But the models a month out had no idea there was that kind of cold coming. 10 days into the month it did (btw how is that a forecast) but 20 days out, when energy companies, hedge funds, retailers, and in fact almost anyone needs to know, they were nowhere to be found.
Here are the forecasts vs reality
Nov
actual actual
April
actual actual
May from March 10
From April 10 From April 10
now ( 7 days into the month)
No question it is great picking out the warmth, but the most it can do is hint at cool by making it less warm. No question it is great picking out the warmth, but the most it can do is hint at cool by making it less warm.
Look at the change in the temperatures over the arctic it had forecasted for May, June, and July 2 months ago
vs now vs now
There are repercussions of the global temperatures being warmer, something that is distorted. Modeling can not handle it, Instead of arguing over the cause or say things are getting weirder, or more extreme, which if you look back in the past you can see is likely not the case, we should be developing modeling that can handle when something different is going to happen. The first thing I would do, given the warmth of the tropical oceans, would be to get on the MJO forecast over a longer period of time. If you can see where that is going to go, you know the model will have to at least have its influence blended in. That is exactly what we do. We look at the models, but then correct them for the strength of the MJO. Why? because where its the most energy in relation to source regions of the weather? Right where the MJO patrols. We are seeing a graphic example of that now, and in fact the last 7 months, it got into cold phases for a time in November. It was cold. It has done it again. There are repercussions of the global temperatures being warmer, something that is distorted. Modeling can not handle it, Instead of arguing over the cause or say things are getting weirder, or more extreme, which if you look back in the past you can see is likely not the case, we should be developing modeling that can handle when something different is going to happen. The first thing I would do, given the warmth of the tropical oceans, would be to get on the MJO forecast over a longer period of time. If you can see where that is going to go, you know the model will have to at least have its influence blended in. That is exactly what we do. We look at the models, but then correct them for the strength of the MJO. Why? because where its the most energy in relation to source regions of the weather? Right where the MJO patrols. We are seeing a graphic example of that now, and in fact the last 7 months, it got into cold phases for a time in November. It was cold. It has done it again.
So I don’t think the greater amplitude MJO is going to cause extra mayhem, but instead, it could be a valuable clue to when to look for something the models may not be seeing. But academia/gvt who are on the cutting edge of this should be looking into this.
The danger is going to be like winters of 2013-14, 2014-15 that modeling like those years, will not see significant major cold periods. April/May are saddle months, not that big a deal. But if you had it occur in a 60 -90 day period in the heart of the winter season, well it was not so long ago we saw what happens. Conversely, we saw what happened this year. So this is an opportunity to improve forecasting IMO.
The second danger is that if there is a sudden snap to colder in the global pattern which would be economically problematic given the number of people on the planet now and where they live, models will likely never see it, We all know I feel they over attribute co2 since the model that had the least warming and closest to what happened supposedly had the least co2 feedback in it. But once going in a direction, it is very tough for the model to see something UNTIL IT STARTS HAPPENING. The warmth of the oceans means that until they cool, we are likely not to have to worry about that, and the state of the oceans are a product of many things some of which we really don’t have a handle on it. So we know the result of what we see now, but 30 years from now, well I am skeptical of “knowing” what is going on. If you forecast enough you know 30 hours can be something to be skeptical of knowing,
Listen I would love to be able to say, wow this is getting wilder by the day, you need me to forecast it cause those that know me know I am like a starving dog with a piece of red meat in front of them when it comes to the love of Extremes. Extreme weather and hitting it, from far out or close, is like competing in the Olympics to me. ( cue Billy Joel, go to Extremes) Perhaps my attitude is that even a sunny day awes me now, and if you look globally there is always something happening somewhere that has the potential to go to extremes. But that is nature, and the limits on nature are set by nature. Is it weird, well if you are looking at it one way, you may think so. Another way, you view it in awe and understand that its the creation on display.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-10--USA Today pushes climate panic

USA Today pushes climate panic

I recently described the all too often case where extreme computer modeling results feed the media into then feeding a public panic .
A cascade of mindless fear .
See my https : //www.cfact.org/2020/04/27/tale-of-two-panics-covid-climate/ .
USA Today has now provided a perfect example of promoting model based panic .
Here is their panicky title : “ Unsuitable for ‘ human life to flourish ’ : Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070 , study warns “ Three billion people will live where humans can not survive ?
Seriously ?
Will they become billions of climate refugees ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
USA Today is a trusted source for many people , but here they publish pure nonsensical alarmist speculation as accepted fact .
Note that the headline does not say “ study suggests ” .
No it is “ study warns ” as though this nonsense were real and something to act on .
Perhaps a ten year lockdown is called for , or even greater green sacrifices .
The article merely mentions in passing that this is just another ( hyperbolic ) computer result , nowhere even hinting that this is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no hint of scientific caution .
No alternative view , no questioning analysis or opinion , nothing .
The entire article is written as though this nonsense were somehow an established fact .
They even use a picture of the Sahara desert , which is more dry than hot .
Three billion people who are now doing okay are going to find themselves in a new Sahara-like desert , in just 50 years ?
I think not .
This is obviously pure alarmist junk .
But USA Today says it is so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The question is how to change how the major news outlets report this stuff ?
We now have data about children being terrorized by climate change fears .
Perhaps suing for an injunction against panic mongering ?
There is of course freedom of the press .
But there is also the well known limit that one is not allowed to cry “ fire ” when there is none .
This is the law against creating false panics .
This law needs to be brought to bear on the rampant climate alarmism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This “ unsuitable ” article exhibits what I call the one word hoax .
Will versus might .
This fallacy is the essence of AGW .
Then there is the legal issue of intent .
Climate alarmist ’ s clearly intend to scare people , including children .
Is intent an issue in an equity case ?
We are just calling for balance , which in this case means pointing out that this is just a computer speculation , against which there are other computers and opinions .
Mind you I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to distress .
Absent intent there is still negligence .
This is negligent journalism .
The virus panic should help make the point .
Here scare filled journalism can ruin whole economies .
My favorite legal maxim is you can always sue .
One need not win to make the point .
I once zeroed a federal agency by suing them , then dropping the suit .
The publicity was enough to win .
So maybe all we need is for frightened children to start suing the evergreen press for scaring them @ @ @ @ @ @

I recently described the all too often case where extreme computer modeling results feed the media into then feeding a public panic. A cascade of mindless fear. See my https://www.cfact.org/2020/04/27/tale-of-two-panics-covid-climate/.
USA Today has now provided a perfect example of promoting model based panic.
Here is their panicky title: “Unsuitable for ‘human life to flourish’: Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070, study warns“
Three billion people will live where humans cannot survive? Seriously? Will they become billions of climate refugees? That is the absurd idea, right?
USA Today is a trusted source for many people, but here they publish pure nonsensical alarmist speculation as accepted fact. Note that the headline does not say “study suggests”. No it is “study warns” as though this nonsense were real and something to act on. Perhaps a ten year lockdown is called for, or even greater green sacrifices.
The article merely mentions in passing that this is just another (hyperbolic) computer result, nowhere even hinting that this is not something even remotely real. There is no hint of scientific caution. No alternative view, no questioning analysis or opinion, nothing. The entire article is written as though this nonsense were somehow an established fact.
They even use a picture of the Sahara desert, which is more dry than hot. Three billion people who are now doing okay are going to find themselves in a new Sahara-like desert, in just 50 years? I think not. This is obviously pure alarmist junk.
But USA Today says it is so. Their prestigious endorsement is the real problem.
The question is how to change how the major news outlets report this stuff? We now have data about children being terrorized by climate change fears. Perhaps suing for an injunction against panic mongering?
There is of course freedom of the press. But there is also the well known limit that one is not allowed to cry “fire” when there is none. This is the law against creating false panics. This law needs to be brought to bear on the rampant climate alarmism, such as this USA Today panic mongering.
This “unsuitable” article exhibits what I call the one word hoax. Will versus might. This fallacy is the essence of AGW.
Then there is the legal issue of intent. Climate alarmist’s clearly intend to scare people, including children. Is intent an issue in an equity case? We are just calling for balance, which in this case means pointing out that this is just a computer speculation, against which there are other computers and opinions.
Mind you I would not rule out a suit for damages due to distress. Absent intent there is still negligence. This is negligent journalism. The virus panic should help make the point. Here scare filled journalism can ruin whole economies.
My favorite legal maxim is you can always sue. One need not win to make the point. I once zeroed a federal agency by suing them, then dropping the suit. The publicity was enough to win.
So maybe all we need is for frightened children to start suing the evergreen press for scaring them. Stranger things have happened.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-11--No to leveraging coronavirus for old state debts

Thanks to Trump administration leadership and bi-partisan congressional support , U.S. taxpayers have urgently ponied up trillions of dollars to save desperate unemployed workers , small businesses , and vital industries from viral victimhood .
Hundreds of billions of relief funds have been pumped into the healthcare system , unemployment insurance and small business loan programs , and federal reimbursements to state and local governments earmarked specifically for coronavirus-related expenses .
And most assuredly , there must and will be more financial help on the way .
We all have a huge stake in supporting this national recovery effort .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-Fla. avows in an Apr .
28 Wall Street Journal piece , the one thing Congress absolutely shouldn ’ t do , is shield states from the consequences of their own bad budgetary decisions over past decades .
Most particularly , Sen. Scott argues that citizens of his state should not be responsible to bail out underwater public pension plans several Democratic governors are requesting .
Whereas Florida ’ s pension system was recently funded at about 84 % , those of Illinois ( 38 % ) , California ( 70 % ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) are in a bad way despite imposing significantly higher taxes .
Scott points out that just as American families are required to make responsible budgetary decisions every day , poorly-run state and local government administrations must be held to the same requirements they legally impose upon their citizens .
But this being primarily a blue state issue , Democrats have predictably expressed outrage .
Speaking on the House floor , Rep. Max Rose D-NY , equated refusals to attach billions of federal taxpayer dollars of coronavirus aid to state and local pension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firefighters and schoolteachers to “ drop dead.
” The budgetary crossfire began last month , when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , pointedly observed , “ There ’ s not going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations.
” New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo was quick to respond , charging that it is “ irresponsible ” and “ reckless ” not to bail out states like his .
The opposite is true .
It ’ s irresponsible and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s taxpayers and use it to save generations of liberal politicians from consequences of reckless spending .
There is nothing new in this economic disaster-in-waiting .
Chicago , for example , was dropped by Moody to junk bond status five years ago , long before the virus .
As I wrote in a Dec. 18 , 2012 Forbes interview with then-Illinois Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas , her district ’ s homeowners and retirees faced dire hazards even before then , ( which have since , only grown worse ) .
County Treasurer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention is directed to national , state and large-city debt issues , she warns homeowners and taxpayers to also pay careful attention to mounting local public debt in their communities .
To put the magnitude of the problem in perspective , consider that Cook County , the second most populous county with the 19th largest government in the United States , at that time collected $ 11 billion from annual property taxes .
In May , 2012 , the collective debt reported by the local primary taxing agencies in Cook County was more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in context , the total debt-per-household in the City of Chicago was $ 87,720 , and $ 35,774 in the suburbs .
Since local governments can not print money , they rely on property taxes as their main revenue source to operate .
Pappas warned , “ Homeowners might be able to give their homes to their children , but that future generation won ’ t be able to afford to keep them because of the property taxes , which have doubled over a 10-year period.
” At the time of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a population of 74,486 , reported total debts of more than $ 331 million .
Evanston ’ s pension obligations added another $ 388 million , funded at only 47 percent .
The City of Berwyn reported $ 143 million in debt for a population of 56,657 .
Its pension liability was nearly $ 160 million , funded at even a worse ratio of 40 percent .
The Gail Borden Library in suburban Elgin alone was $ 23.7 million in debt , owing $ 11 million in pension liability .
Cook County taxpayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual property tax bills to education .
So , on top of the debt incurred by their village or town , they also had debt from schools , libraries , fire districts and more .
Simply put , constantly increasing property tax burdens couldn ’ t keep pace with rising costs , including debt interest , required to service generous and ever-accumulating retirement pension plans awarded to government workers .
The consequence ?
More and more increasingly overtaxed citizens pulled up stakes , moving to states that afforded warmer weather and tax policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rather than learn from this , state and local government leaders responded by raising taxes even more in hopes that the inevitable free-fall economic death spiral wouldn ’ t occur during their terms in office — or before their personal pensions miraculously got bailed out by some remarkably naïve benevolent benefactor .
They must be counting on a wonderfully unified American spirit of COVID-19 crisis generosity as a timely federal hand-out opportunity not to be wasted .

Thanks to Trump administration leadership and bi-partisan congressional support, U.S. taxpayers have urgently ponied up trillions of dollars to save desperate unemployed workers, small businesses, and vital industries from viral victimhood.
Hundreds of billions of relief funds have been pumped into the healthcare system, unemployment insurance and small business loan programs, and federal reimbursements to state and local governments earmarked specifically for coronavirus-related expenses.
And most assuredly, there must and will be more financial help on the way.
We all have a huge stake in supporting this national recovery effort.
But as U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. avows in an Apr. 28 Wall Street Journal piece, the one thing Congress absolutely shouldn’t do, is shield states from the consequences of their own bad budgetary decisions over past decades.
Most particularly, Sen. Scott argues that citizens of his state should not be responsible to bail out underwater public pension plans several Democratic governors are requesting. Whereas Florida’s pension system was recently funded at about 84%, those of Illinois (38%), California (70%), and New Jersey (36%) are in a bad way despite imposing significantly higher taxes.
Scott points out that just as American families are required to make responsible budgetary decisions every day, poorly-run state and local government administrations must be held to the same requirements they legally impose upon their citizens.
But this being primarily a blue state issue, Democrats have predictably expressed outrage. Speaking on the House floor, Rep. Max Rose D-NY, equated refusals to attach billions of federal taxpayer dollars of coronavirus aid to state and local pension bailouts amounted to telling police officers, firefighters and schoolteachers to “drop dead.”
The budgetary crossfire began last month, when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pointedly observed, “There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations.”
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was quick to respond, charging that it is “irresponsible” and “reckless” not to bail out states like his.
The opposite is true. It’s irresponsible and reckless to take money from America’s taxpayers and use it to save generations of liberal politicians from consequences of reckless spending.
There is nothing new in this economic disaster-in-waiting. Chicago, for example, was dropped by Moody to junk bond status five years ago, long before the virus.
As I wrote in a Dec. 18, 2012 Forbes interview with then-Illinois Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, her district’s homeowners and retirees faced dire hazards even before then, (which have since, only grown worse).
County Treasurer Pappas told me that while much public attention is directed to national, state and large-city debt issues, she warns homeowners and taxpayers to also pay careful attention to mounting local public debt in their communities.
To put the magnitude of the problem in perspective, consider that Cook County, the second most populous county with the 19th largest government in the United States, at that time collected $11 billion from annual property taxes.
In May, 2012, the collective debt reported by the local primary taxing agencies in Cook County was more than $140 billion!
To put that in context, the total debt-per-household in the City of Chicago was $87,720, and $35,774 in the suburbs. Since local governments cannot print money, they rely on property taxes as their main revenue source to operate.
Pappas warned, “Homeowners might be able to give their homes to their children, but that future generation won’t be able to afford to keep them because of the property taxes, which have doubled over a 10-year period.”
At the time of the interview, the City of Evanston, a population of 74,486, reported total debts of more than $331 million. Evanston’s pension obligations added another $388 million, funded at only 47 percent.
The City of Berwyn reported $143 million in debt for a population of 56,657. Its pension liability was nearly $160 million, funded at even a worse ratio of 40 percent.
The Gail Borden Library in suburban Elgin alone was $23.7 million in debt, owing $11 million in pension liability.
Cook County taxpayers were then paying 60-70 percent of their individual property tax bills to education. So, on top of the debt incurred by their village or town, they also had debt from schools, libraries, fire districts and more.
Simply put, constantly increasing property tax burdens couldn’t keep pace with rising costs, including debt interest, required to service generous and ever-accumulating retirement pension plans awarded to government workers.
The consequence? More and more increasingly overtaxed citizens pulled up stakes, moving to states that afforded warmer weather and tax policy climate, such as Florida and Texas.
Rather than learn from this, state and local government leaders responded by raising taxes even more in hopes that the inevitable free-fall economic death spiral wouldn’t occur during their terms in office — or before their personal pensions miraculously got bailed out by some remarkably naïve benevolent benefactor.
They must be counting on a wonderfully unified American spirit of COVID-19 crisis generosity as a timely federal hand-out opportunity not to be wasted.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-12--Socialism and science don’t mix

Socialism and science don’t mix

“ Listen to the scientists !
” shouts the Left .
If only they would .
The scientific method requires pain-staking investigation , rigid questioning , cordial dialogue , free exchange of ideas , and open minds .
Data drives conclusions .
Data is never altered , dismissed or politicized to protect a cherished theory .
David Wojick provides a cogent example of the Left feeding distorted climate science to an all-too-complicit media at CFACT.org : Here is their panicky title : “ Unsuitable for ‘ human life to flourish ’ : Up to 3B will live in extreme heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion people will live where humans can not survive ?
Seriously ?
Will they become billions of climate refugees ?
That is the absurd idea , right ?
The article merely mentions in passing that this is just another ( hyperbolic ) computer result , nowhere even hinting that this is not something even remotely real .
There is no hint of scientific caution .
No alternative view , no questioning analysis or opinion , nothing .
The entire article is written as though this nonsense were somehow an established fact .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the bank : Socialists always lie .
Socialism has been tried and failed in so many countries , at so many levels , that the evidence against this destructive ideology is overwhelming .
That ’ s why their arguments are clever , yet false .
That ’ s why they seize control of processes and institutions and use them to suppress speech that proves them wrong .
How frustrating is it that the Left , while actively demanding obedience to politicized science , at the same time wholesale rejects solid science that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Scientists developed safe , efficient nuclear energy and the Left fights it .
Scientists developed superior strains of wheat , corn and rice and the Left slanders them .
Scientists developed technology to feed the world and the means to transport us around it and the Left works to propel us backward .
Science and Socialism surely do not mix .

“Listen to the scientists!” shouts the Left.
If only they would.
The scientific method requires pain-staking investigation, rigid questioning, cordial dialogue, free exchange of ideas, and open minds. Data drives conclusions. Data is never altered, dismissed or politicized to protect a cherished theory.
David Wojick provides a cogent example of the Left feeding distorted climate science to an all-too-complicit media at CFACT.org:
USA Today provided a perfect example of promoting model based panic.
Here is their panicky title: “Unsuitable for ‘human life to flourish’: Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070, study warns“
Three billion people will live where humans cannot survive? Seriously? Will they become billions of climate refugees? That is the absurd idea, right?
The article merely mentions in passing that this is just another (hyperbolic) computer result, nowhere even hinting that this is not something even remotely real. There is no hint of scientific caution. No alternative view, no questioning analysis or opinion, nothing. The entire article is written as though this nonsense were somehow an established fact.
Here’s a maxim you can take to the bank: Socialists always lie. Socialism has been tried and failed in so many countries, at so many levels, that the evidence against this destructive ideology is overwhelming. That’s why their arguments are clever, yet false. That’s why they seize control of processes and institutions and use them to suppress speech that proves them wrong.
How frustrating is it that the Left, while actively demanding obedience to politicized science, at the same time wholesale rejects solid science that is essential to sustaining and advancing society?
Scientists developed safe, efficient nuclear energy and the Left fights it. Scientists developed superior strains of wheat, corn and rice and the Left slanders them. Scientists developed technology to feed the world and the means to transport us around it and the Left works to propel us backward.
Science and Socialism surely do not mix.
Freedom is sustainable.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-12--Modular nuclear reactors for defense and disasters

While there has been little interest of late in developing new-generation nuclear reactors to power the U.S. electric grid , some new initiatives at the Department of Defense – spurred in part by complaints of dumping by U.S. uranium miners – may just be the spark needed to move the U.S. back into worldwide leadership in the peaceful ( as well as wartime ) uses of nuclear energy .
In mid-April Energy Secretary Daniel Brouillette released a shocking report , “ Restoring America ’ s Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage , ” which announced that the U.S. has lost its competitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear energy to state-owned enterprises ( Russia and China ) .
A week later , in an interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt , Brouillette explained that in July 2018 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross had initiated an investigation into whether the present quantity and circumstances of uranium ore and product imports into the United States threaten to impair national security .
Secretary Ross asserted he was responding to a petition filed by two U.S uranium mining companies , UR-Energy and Energy Fuels , who claimed nation-state actors were dumping uranium into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices so low it made domestic production unprofitable .
The investigation canvassed the entire uranium sector from the mining industry through enrichment , defense , and industrial consumption .
At the time , uranium still powered 99 U.S. commercial nuclear reactors that produced 20 percent of the nation ’ s electricity .
Uranium is also the primary fuel for the U.S. Navy ’ s fleet of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers .
But U.S.-produced uranium had dwindled from 40 percent in 1987 to just 5 percent in 2018 .
Three U.S. companies had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two petitioners ( who in 2018 produced over half of U.S.-mined uranium ) had laid off over half their workforces and were operating at 9 and 13 percent capacity .
Once a facility has been shuttered , current regulations require an entirely new round of environmental permitting – a costly and time-consuming nightmare that has no guarantees .
Armed with this information , President Trump created a working group to look at the entirety of the U.S. uranium industry with a focus on the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the domestic marketplace .
Secretary Brouillette told Hewitt that the review showed that the U.S. has lost its leadership in the nuclear space on both the technology side and the market side .
Brouillette explained that the credibility of the U.S. nonproliferation regime depends upon the U.S. having a viable , healthy and even robust civilian nuclear energy industry and a cutting edge technology leadership position .
But today , of the 100-plus new nuclear reactors scheduled for completion by 2030 , 43 are Chinese , 29 are Russian , 10 are Indian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none are American .
The lack of a domestic nuclear ENERGY industry is extremely troubling for the U.S. nuclear fleet as well as for replenishing the U.S. nuclear arsenal ( which remains in place to protect the U.S. from a nuclear assault ) .
Brouillette asserted that it is in the U.S. national security interest to preserve and grow the assets and investments of the entire U.S. nuclear enterprise .
We can do so by addressing domestic and international security interests , expanding nuclear generation , minimizing commercial fleet fiscal vulnerabilities , assuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the playing field against state-owned enterprises .
He stated that the initial U.S. response is focused on two major initiatives .
The Energy Department has begun a new $ 115 million Energy Department pilot project to create high-assay low-enriched uranium ( HALEU ) , a fuel that is enriched to about 19.5 percent .
The use of a higher density fuel will enable these microreactors to become smaller .
A second initiative is the virtual test reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory that is intended to allow quick identification of materials suitable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn that the Pentagon has a special interest in these new mobile modular reactors , which if deployable in the field could drastically reduce the need for fossil fuel fired generators and other makeshift energy sources vital to field operations .
Waksman had explained that 52 percent of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan happened on land convoy missions bringing fuel and water to the troops .
The Defense Science Board in early 2018 issued a report citing energy logistics as an increasing risk , and that nuclear power had evolved to become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Department of Defense then awarded contracts under Project Pele ( named after the Hawaiian goddess of creation and fire ) to three companies to develop competing designs for a mobile miniature nuclear reactor .
According to program manager Jeff Waksman , the reactors that will be built in this project will be safer than any existing reactors .
“ We now have the capability to build completely , inherently safe reactors , ” Waksman promised .
The reason is the revolutionary new tri-structural isotropic particle fuel ( TRISO ) , which replaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pellets , each of them sufficiently hardened to lock radioactivity inside so that they can remain intact at temperatures as high as 1,8000 C – hot enough to melt steel .
The TRISO reactors thus can not physically melt down , even if an enemy missile hits the TRISO reactor dead on .
Waksman added that these miniature reactors should be especially helpful for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions .
Had they been available when Puerto Rico lost its entire electric grid in the wake of hurricane Maria , these reactors could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These reactors could also provide first-time electricity reliability in some of the world ’ s darkest areas .
Hopefully , the military ’ s interest in these miniature reactors will also spur renewed interest in their slightly larger cousins – small modular reactors .
SMRs allow for less on-site construction , increased containment efficiency , and enhanced safety in comparison to the massive conventional reactors that in the U.S have become difficult to near-impossible to bring online .

While there has been little interest of late in developing new-generation nuclear reactors to power the U.S. electric grid, some new initiatives at the Department of Defense – spurred in part by complaints of dumping by U.S. uranium miners – may just be the spark needed to move the U.S. back into worldwide leadership in the peaceful (as well as wartime) uses of nuclear energy.
In mid-April Energy Secretary Daniel Brouillette released a shocking report, “Restoring America’s Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage,” which announced that the U.S. has lost its competitive global position as the world leader in nuclear energy to state-owned enterprises (Russia and China).
A week later, in an interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Brouillette explained that in July 2018 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross had initiated an investigation into whether the present quantity and circumstances of uranium ore and product imports into the United States threaten to impair national security.
Secretary Ross asserted he was responding to a petition filed by two U.S uranium mining companies, UR-Energy and Energy Fuels, who claimed nation-state actors were dumping uranium into the U.S market – dumping uranium at prices so low it made domestic production unprofitable. The investigation canvassed the entire uranium sector from the mining industry through enrichment, defense, and industrial consumption.
At the time, uranium still powered 99 U.S. commercial nuclear reactors that produced 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Uranium is also the primary fuel for the U.S. Navy’s fleet of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. But U.S.-produced uranium had dwindled from 40 percent in 1987 to just 5 percent in 2018.
Three U.S. companies had idled their uranium mining operations, and the two petitioners (who in 2018 produced over half of U.S.-mined uranium) had laid off over half their workforces and were operating at 9 and 13 percent capacity. Once a facility has been shuttered, current regulations require an entirely new round of environmental permitting – a costly and time-consuming nightmare that has no guarantees.
Armed with this information, President Trump created a working group to look at the entirety of the U.S. uranium industry with a focus on the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle – the site of the catastrophic collapse of the domestic marketplace. Secretary Brouillette told Hewitt that the review showed that the U.S. has lost its leadership in the nuclear space on both the technology side and the market side.
Brouillette explained that the credibility of the U.S. nonproliferation regime depends upon the U.S. having a viable, healthy and even robust civilian nuclear energy industry and a cutting edge technology leadership position. But today, of the 100-plus new nuclear reactors scheduled for completion by 2030, 43 are Chinese, 29 are Russian, 10 are Indian, 9 are South Korean – and none are American.
The lack of a domestic nuclear ENERGY industry is extremely troubling for the U.S. nuclear fleet as well as for replenishing the U.S. nuclear arsenal (which remains in place to protect the U.S. from a nuclear assault).
Brouillette asserted that it is in the U.S. national security interest to preserve and grow the assets and investments of the entire U.S. nuclear enterprise. We can do so by addressing domestic and international security interests, expanding nuclear generation, minimizing commercial fleet fiscal vulnerabilities, assuring defense needs for uranium, and leveling the playing field against state-owned enterprises.
He stated that the initial U.S. response is focused on two major initiatives. The Energy Department has begun a new $115 million Energy Department pilot project to create high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), a fuel that is enriched to about 19.5 percent. The use of a higher density fuel will enable these microreactors to become smaller. A second initiative is the virtual test reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory that is intended to allow quick identification of materials suitable for the new modular reactors.
Now we learn that the Pentagon has a special interest in these new mobile modular reactors, which if deployable in the field could drastically reduce the need for fossil fuel fired generators and other makeshift energy sources vital to field operations.
Waksman had explained that 52 percent of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan happened on land convoy missions bringing fuel and water to the troops. The Defense Science Board in early 2018 issued a report citing energy logistics as an increasing risk, and that nuclear power had evolved to become a viable option even on the battlefield.
The Department of Defense then awarded contracts under Project Pele (named after the Hawaiian goddess of creation and fire) to three companies to develop competing designs for a mobile miniature nuclear reactor. According to program manager Jeff Waksman, the reactors that will be built in this project will be safer than any existing reactors. “We now have the capability to build completely, inherently safe reactors,” Waksman promised.
The reason is the revolutionary new tri-structural isotropic particle fuel (TRISO), which replaces large uranium cores with millions of tiny pellets, each of them sufficiently hardened to lock radioactivity inside so that they can remain intact at temperatures as high as 1,8000 C – hot enough to melt steel. The TRISO reactors thus cannot physically melt down, even if an enemy missile hits the TRISO reactor dead on.
Waksman added that these miniature reactors should be especially helpful for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. Had they been available when Puerto Rico lost its entire electric grid in the wake of hurricane Maria, these reactors could safely power refugee centers or hospitals. These reactors could also provide first-time electricity reliability in some of the world’s darkest areas.
Hopefully, the military’s interest in these miniature reactors will also spur renewed interest in their slightly larger cousins – small modular reactors. SMRs allow for less on-site construction, increased containment efficiency, and enhanced safety in comparison to the massive conventional reactors that in the U.S have become difficult to near-impossible to bring online.