committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-13--Banning neonics hurts farmers and bees

Banning neonics hurts farmers and bees

The honeybees , bumblebees and other little pollinators swarming over my flowers remind me what important roles they play – and how some misguided folks could inadvertently hurt them .
Montgomery County , Maryland now prohibits “ weed-and-feed ” lawn fertilizer and most “ synthetic pesticides.
” But it allows homeowners , farmers and orchardists to use “ organic ” products that are often more dangerous to bees , other wildlife and even humans .
New York is considering a five-year statewide ban on neonicotinoid insecticides ; this action too would likely result in the use of chemicals that may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birds and bees it seeks to protect .
US Rep. Nydia Velázquez ( D-NY ) is still promoting a bill to reinstate an Obama era ban on using neonics in the nation ’ s wildlife refuges .
She mistakenly believes these pesticides threaten biodiversity , bees and other wildlife in these important habitats – whereas alternatives would be safe and harmless .
Other jurisdictions are pondering comparable actions that could pose similar problems .
Neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990s to replace less targeted , more toxic pest control chemicals .
Primarily used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly reduce the need for aerial and ground-level spraying with other chemicals that actually do harm bees and other pollinators .
They become part of the plant tissue and target only pests that actually feed on the crops , particularly during early growth stages .
This advance has helped boost crop yields while protecting the environment .
Losing neonics would put many states ’ farming economies at risk .
Support for neonic use comes from all over the world .
Up in Canada , the same misinformation that ’ s motivating US legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass a neonic ban in 2015 .
Farmers have since reported paying four times more for an alternative pesticide that is less effective , can not be used on some crops and can harm bees .
Activists persuaded Europe to ban neonics in 2013 .
But subsequent studies found the ban disastrously counterproductive .
For instance , after the ban , British farmers had to spray four times more often than before , using older pesticides like pyrethroids and organophosphates that are less effective , must be sprayed several times during the growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other non-target insects and even birds .
Insect pests increased dramatically , and across Europe the canola ( oilseed rape ) industry suffered revenue losses of over $ 430 million in just a few years .
As was the case in Europe , proposed prohibitions are often the result of environmentalist pressure campaigns and false claims that bees are threatened by neonics .
Actual data show the opposite is true .
Despite warnings of a “ bee-pocalypse , ” except during the latest “ colony collapse disorder ” ( CCD ) , honeybee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990s , when neonics first came on the market .
US Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) surveys show that U.S. honeybee hive numbers have increased seven out of the last ten years , and there are now over 150,000 more beehives than in 1995 .
A closer look at New York ’ s crop yields also confirms that honeybee colonies are healthy .
Apple yields are almost exactly the same as they were ten years ago , indicating that pollinators are thriving and busy doing their job .
Similar lessons apply elsewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honeybees have recurring problems .
Overwinter losses are still high some years and , while bees reproduce rapidly and beekeepers can quickly replenish their hives , these losses can significantly strain this small but important industry .
Most experts agree , however , that the worldwide spread of the deadly Varroa destructor mite was a primary factor in the recent mass die-offs , and a recurrent problem over the centuries .
They arrived in the United States in the late 1980s and spread widely over the next decade .
The parasites attach to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying deadly diseases and creating pathways for other diseases to enter bee bodies .
The triple whammy can have disastrous impacts on bee colonies .
Thankfully , the USDA has made progress in efforts to breed more Varroa-resistant or Varroa-tolerant honey bees , which somehow have better hygienic habits : they remove mites from one other .
That ’ s important , because many available Varroa treatments no longer work as well , due to the mite ’ s uncanny ability to develop resistance to treatments .
Other USDA research has identified a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disrupt the reproduction of Nosema ceranae – another bee parasite that is the honeybee ’ s second-worst scourge .
Unfortunately , crusading activists , journalists , legislators and regulators spent years ignoring these microscopic predators and parasites .
Instead , they blamed pesticides , especially neonics .
How wrongheaded and counterproductive that was is further illustrated by the vast canola fields in western Canada .
The canola is 100 % grown with neonic-coated seeds , and successful professional beekeepers actually cart their hives into the middle of the canola fields because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as domesticated bees recovered , anti-pesticide activists began talking about wild bees , which can also be important for pollination .
The activists get their facts wrong here , too .
There are thousands of wild bee species .
According to a 2015 study published in Nature – probably the most extensive survey of wild bees ever done – 98 % of wild bees don ’ t even pollinate agricultural crops .
Moreover , the few species that do , and thus would come into greatest contact with neonics , are thriving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk from insecticides that people have been falsely led to believe are safe .
Organic farmers don ’ t use neonics or other modern chemicals , but they do employ a number of crop protecting pesticides .
These “ organic ” products may be “ natural , ” but some are highly toxic to bees – rotenone , copper sulfate , spinosad , hydrogen peroxide , azidirachtin , citronella oil , and even garlic extract and acetic acid , for instance – chemical risk analyst Dr. David Zaruk points out .
Montgomery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bearing EPA registration numbers are prohibited and say gardeners should rely on a 113-page , tiny-type list of chemicals certified by the Organic Materials Review Institute , an organic industry support and advocacy group .
However , OMRI doesn ’ t mention that some of its “ approved ” products harm bees or pose other serious risks – to wildlife and humans .
For example , OMRI ( and thus Montgomery County , among others ) approves rotenone , but neglects to mention that this nasty chemical kills bees , is highly toxic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can enhance the onset of Parkinson ’ s disease , Zaruk and other experts note .
Pyrethrin pesticides themselves are powerful neurotoxins that can cause leukemia and other health problems .
Copper sulfate can damage human brains , livers , kidneys and stomach linings .
Prolonged exposure to boron fertilizer can affect people ’ s brains , livers and hearts .
Lime sulfur mildew and insect killer causes irreversible eye damage , and can be fatal if inhaled , swallowed or absorbed through the skin .
Nicotine sulfate is a neurotoxin that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in lab animal offspring , and can lead to irregular heart-rates and even death .
All are approved “ organic ” chemicals .
Journalists , legislators , regulators , homeowners and gardeners need to do their homework more carefully .
They should read reputable scientific studies , rely less on anti-pesticide press releases and apocalyptic news stories , read product labels carefully , wash up afterward , and view with extreme skepticism any claims that the word “ organic ” means pesticide-free or a chemical is safe ( or not even a chemical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use all chemicals carefully and appropriately , under the assumption that any chemical ( synthetic or organic ) we are handling or applying may be toxic and dangerous – to bees , other insects and wildlife , or even ourselves .

The honeybees, bumblebees and other little pollinators swarming over my flowers remind me what important roles they play – and how some misguided folks could inadvertently hurt them.
Montgomery County, Maryland now prohibits “weed-and-feed” lawn fertilizer and most “synthetic pesticides.” But it allows homeowners, farmers and orchardists to use “organic” products that are often more dangerous to bees, other wildlife and even humans. New York is considering a five-year statewide ban on neonicotinoid insecticides; this action too would likely result in the use of chemicals that may actually be much more toxic to the birds and bees it seeks to protect.
US Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) is still promoting a bill to reinstate an Obama era ban on using neonics in the nation’s wildlife refuges. She mistakenly believes these pesticides threaten biodiversity, bees and other wildlife in these important habitats – whereas alternatives would be safe and harmless.
Other jurisdictions are pondering comparable actions that could pose similar problems.
Neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990s to replace less targeted, more toxic pest control chemicals. Primarily used to coat seeds, “neonics” significantly reduce the need for aerial and ground-level spraying with other chemicals that actually do harm bees and other pollinators. They become part of the plant tissue and target only pests that actually feed on the crops, particularly during early growth stages.
This advance has helped boost crop yields while protecting the environment. Losing neonics would put many states’ farming economies at risk. Support for neonic use comes from all over the world.
Up in Canada, the same misinformation that’s motivating US legislative and regulatory actions persuaded Ontario lawmakers to pass a neonic ban in 2015. Farmers have since reported paying four times more for an alternative pesticide that is less effective, cannot be used on some crops and can harm bees.
Activists persuaded Europe to ban neonics in 2013. But subsequent studies found the ban disastrously counterproductive.
For instance, after the ban, British farmers had to spray four times more often than before, using older pesticides like pyrethroids and organophosphates that are less effective, must be sprayed several times during the growing season, and often harm bees, other non-target insects and even birds. Insect pests increased dramatically, and across Europe the canola (oilseed rape) industry suffered revenue losses of over $430 million in just a few years.
As was the case in Europe, proposed prohibitions are often the result of environmentalist pressure campaigns and false claims that bees are threatened by neonics. Actual data show the opposite is true.
Despite warnings of a “bee-pocalypse,” except during the latest “colony collapse disorder” (CCD), honeybee colonies have been rising worldwide since the 1990s, when neonics first came on the market. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) surveys show that U.S. honeybee hive numbers have increased seven out of the last ten years, and there are now over 150,000 more beehives than in 1995.
A closer look at New York’s crop yields also confirms that honeybee colonies are healthy. Apple yields are almost exactly the same as they were ten years ago, indicating that pollinators are thriving and busy doing their job. Similar lessons apply elsewhere.
There’s no doubt that honeybees have recurring problems. Overwinter losses are still high some years and, while bees reproduce rapidly and beekeepers can quickly replenish their hives, these losses can significantly strain this small but important industry.
Most experts agree, however, that the worldwide spread of the deadly Varroa destructor mite was a primary factor in the recent mass die-offs, and a recurrent problem over the centuries. They arrived in the United States in the late 1980s and spread widely over the next decade. The parasites attach to bees, suppressing their immune systems, carrying deadly diseases and creating pathways for other diseases to enter bee bodies. The triple whammy can have disastrous impacts on bee colonies.
Thankfully, the USDA has made progress in efforts to breed more Varroa-resistant or Varroa-tolerant honey bees, which somehow have better hygienic habits: they remove mites from one other. That’s important, because many available Varroa treatments no longer work as well, due to the mite’s uncanny ability to develop resistance to treatments.
Other USDA research has identified a promising new approach of using RNA interference to disrupt the reproduction of Nosema ceranae – another bee parasite that is the honeybee’s second-worst scourge.
Unfortunately, crusading activists, journalists, legislators and regulators spent years ignoring these microscopic predators and parasites. Instead, they blamed pesticides, especially neonics.
How wrongheaded and counterproductive that was is further illustrated by the vast canola fields in western Canada. The canola is 100% grown with neonic-coated seeds, and successful professional beekeepers actually cart their hives into the middle of the canola fields because they produce such delicious honey.
Not surprisingly, as domesticated bees recovered, anti-pesticide activists began talking about wild bees, which can also be important for pollination. The activists get their facts wrong here, too.
There are thousands of wild bee species. According to a 2015 study published in Nature – probably the most extensive survey of wild bees ever done – 98% of wild bees don’t even pollinate agricultural crops. Moreover, the few species that do, and thus would come into greatest contact with neonics, are thriving.
Ironically, bees may be more at risk from insecticides that people have been falsely led to believe are safe. Organic farmers don’t use neonics or other modern chemicals, but they do employ a number of crop protecting pesticides. These “organic” products may be “natural,” but some are highly toxic to bees – rotenone, copper sulfate, spinosad, hydrogen peroxide, azidirachtin, citronella oil, and even garlic extract and acetic acid, for instance – chemical risk analyst Dr. David Zaruk points out.
Montgomery County’s guidelines specify that products bearing EPA registration numbers are prohibited and say gardeners should rely on a 113-page, tiny-type list of chemicals certified by the Organic Materials Review Institute, an organic industry support and advocacy group. However, OMRI doesn’t mention that some of its “approved” products harm bees or pose other serious risks – to wildlife and humans.
For example, OMRI (and thus Montgomery County, among others) approves rotenone, but neglects to mention that this nasty chemical kills bees, is highly toxic, especially when combined with pyrethrins, and can enhance the onset of Parkinson’s disease, Zaruk and other experts note. Pyrethrin pesticides themselves are powerful neurotoxins that can cause leukemia and other health problems.
Copper sulfate can damage human brains, livers, kidneys and stomach linings. Prolonged exposure to boron fertilizer can affect people’s brains, livers and hearts. Lime sulfur mildew and insect killer causes irreversible eye damage, and can be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Nicotine sulfate is a neurotoxin that interferes with nerve-muscle transmissions, causes abnormalities in lab animal offspring, and can lead to irregular heart-rates and even death. All are approved “organic” chemicals.
Journalists, legislators, regulators, homeowners and gardeners need to do their homework more carefully. They should read reputable scientific studies, rely less on anti-pesticide press releases and apocalyptic news stories, read product labels carefully, wash up afterward, and view with extreme skepticism any claims that the word “organic” means pesticide-free or a chemical is safe (or not even a chemical).
Above all, everyone should use all chemicals carefully and appropriately, under the assumption that any chemical (synthetic or organic) we are handling or applying may be toxic and dangerous – to bees, other insects and wildlife, or even ourselves.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-13--Selling relevance means survival for ivory tower colleges

As nation-wide university administrations ponder if or how they will reopen in the fall due to the COVID-19 pandemic , countless students and parents are inevitably reassessing if or why the value of learning and life opportunity experiences those institutions afford are worth the high costs .
Brick and mortar campus programs have been facing the same economically impactful transitions to internet-connected virtual alternatives that have led to a thriving new tele-work business era .
Growing numbers of young people have good reason to wonder which types of both traditional and online offerings will best prepare and qualify them for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skill sets they ’ ll need in an uncertain future .
Even in a healthy economy , a variety of jobs they may be considering today are likely to be nonexistent by the time they are in their 30s .
Many of the more conventional work opportunities will be performed or at least transformed by new waves of automation and artificial intelligence ( AI ) -driven algorithms .
Many college program sponsors , including federal and state taxpayers and stakeholders , have similarly legitimate interests regarding how their support will innovate and benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs .
Such programs are essential to prepare participants to respond to the next crisis , to create resilience and adapt to unfamiliar territory , and to help lead society forward .
Competing tele-work and distance learning opportunities , for example , can be expected to increasingly affect all professions and jobs sectors , community settings , and geographic regions .
This rapidly advancing trend has already become particularly evident in finance , insurance , real estate , transportation , manufacturing and construction , and retail industries , along with steady gains in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boundaries extends both new and existing program accessibilities to unlimited international , national , state and regional student markets , including underserved rural populations .
Innovative and effective technical non-degree programs are also in growing demand to teach specialized problem-solving skills — for example to support operations and maintenance of automated systems of warehousing , production and distribution that businesses and industries will increasingly depend upon .
The American Council on Education , a university trade group , has predicted that nationwide college enrollment this fall will drop up to 15 % over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service recently projected that enrollment will rise , but that families will seek lower-cost options .
This will reduce by 5 % to 13 % what colleges earn from tuition along with room and board fees .
Higher education leaders must seize upon this period of upheaval and uncertainty as an incentive to apply and optimize benefits of virtual classrooms at every level to make learning more effective — both off campus or on .
To remain relevant in the post-COVID-19 world , universities must be able to demonstrate real progress toward leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valued ways .
As noted by Harvard Physics Professor Eric Mazur and former Nebraska governor and U.S .
Senator Bob Kerrey in a May 5 Wall Street Journal piece , “ Higher Ed ’ s Coronavirus Opportunity , ” the entire purpose of a college education has now become questionable .
Mazur and Kerrey observe that the quality of preparation — of actual learning — at many of these institutions has come into doubt , with employers bemoaning the lack of professional readiness in recent graduates : “ Even as technological advances have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been largely immune to the forces that have driven innovation and transformation elsewhere.
” The two authors attribute much of the blame to a lack of institutional performance accountability : “ As long as universities could continue attracting new students , expanding their endowments and paying tenured faculty members , there was little pressure to make substantial change .
With similar educational offerings and little incentive to reform , U.S. institutions have been content to divide the applicant pool among themselves , using rankings to determine primacy in any given year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ core offerings , they have collectively spent billions on amenities and athletics to compete for top students .
They ’ ve modernized their campuses instead of their teaching methods and educational approaches.
” The authors add that the pandemic lays bare the shortcomings of contemporary higher education : “ Although there is ample evidence that online learning can lead to better outcomes for graduates , many students are reconsidering their plans for the fall , not sure if school is worth the money without the campus environment , social connections and athletics.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more and more universities are offering competitive low-cost , high quality options , each must either adapt and lead , or forfeit economically sustainable opportunities and advantages to others that do .
Directly put , universities and colleges are being challenged as never before to “ sell ” the relevance and quality of their educational products to increasingly skeptical consumers and contributors .
Think of this as an introductory higher education crash course lesson in free market capitalism .

As nation-wide university administrations ponder if or how they will reopen in the fall due to the COVID-19 pandemic, countless students and parents are inevitably reassessing if or why the value of learning and life opportunity experiences those institutions afford are worth the high costs.
Brick and mortar campus programs have been facing the same economically impactful transitions to internet-connected virtual alternatives that have led to a thriving new tele-work business era.
Coronavirus social distancing safety priorities turbocharged these transformational trends.
Growing numbers of young people have good reason to wonder which types of both traditional and online offerings will best prepare and qualify them for practical and rewarding technical mind sets and skill sets they’ll need in an uncertain future.
Even in a healthy economy, a variety of jobs they may be considering today are likely to be nonexistent by the time they are in their 30s. Many of the more conventional work opportunities will be performed or at least transformed by new waves of automation and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven algorithms.
Many college program sponsors, including federal and state taxpayers and stakeholders, have similarly legitimate interests regarding how their support will innovate and benefit constituent economies, industries, businesses and jobs.
Such programs are essential to prepare participants to respond to the next crisis, to create resilience and adapt to unfamiliar territory, and to help lead society forward.
Competing tele-work and distance learning opportunities, for example, can be expected to increasingly affect all professions and jobs sectors, community settings, and geographic regions.
This rapidly advancing trend has already become particularly evident in finance, insurance, real estate, transportation, manufacturing and construction, and retail industries, along with steady gains in healthcare and law.
Learning without geographic boundaries extends both new and existing program accessibilities to unlimited international, national, state and regional student markets, including underserved rural populations.
Innovative and effective technical non-degree programs are also in growing demand to teach specialized problem-solving skills — for example to support operations and maintenance of automated systems of warehousing, production and distribution that businesses and industries will increasingly depend upon.
The American Council on Education, a university trade group, has predicted that nationwide college enrollment this fall will drop up to 15% over last year. Moody’s Investors Service recently projected that enrollment will rise, but that families will seek lower-cost options. This will reduce by 5% to 13% what colleges earn from tuition along with room and board fees.
Higher education leaders must seize upon this period of upheaval and uncertainty as an incentive to apply and optimize benefits of virtual classrooms at every level to make learning more effective — both off campus or on.
To remain relevant in the post-COVID-19 world, universities must be able to demonstrate real progress toward leading broader societal and business transformations in demonstrably valued ways.
As noted by Harvard Physics Professor Eric Mazur and former Nebraska governor and U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey in a May 5 Wall Street Journal piece, “Higher Ed’s Coronavirus Opportunity,” the entire purpose of a college education has now become questionable.
Mazur and Kerrey observe that the quality of preparation — of actual learning — at many of these institutions has come into doubt, with employers bemoaning the lack of professional readiness in recent graduates:
“Even as technological advances have upended markets everywhere, brand name universities have been largely immune to the forces that have driven innovation and transformation elsewhere.”
The two authors attribute much of the blame to a lack of institutional performance accountability:
“As long as universities could continue attracting new students, expanding their endowments and paying tenured faculty members, there was little pressure to make substantial change. With similar educational offerings and little incentive to reform, U.S. institutions have been content to divide the applicant pool among themselves, using rankings to determine primacy in any given year.
“Instead of focusing on improvements in core offerings, they have collectively spent billions on amenities and athletics to compete for top students. They’ve modernized their campuses instead of their teaching methods and educational approaches.”
The authors add that the pandemic lays bare the shortcomings of contemporary higher education:
“Although there is ample evidence that online learning can lead to better outcomes for graduates, many students are reconsidering their plans for the fall, not sure if school is worth the money without the campus environment, social connections and athletics.”
Just as in other industries, as more and more universities are offering competitive low-cost, high quality options, each must either adapt and lead, or forfeit economically sustainable opportunities and advantages to others that do.
Directly put, universities and colleges are being challenged as never before to “sell” the relevance and quality of their educational products to increasingly skeptical consumers and contributors.
Think of this as an introductory higher education crash course lesson in free market capitalism.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-14--The extreme of non-extremes in the tropics

All 4 tropical basins over the next 10 days with the euro not seeing any tropical storms are freaky quiet .
Distortion of heat build due to warming ( more north than the south ) may be ruining normal convergence .
A positive result of warming ?
Perhaps , but fat chance that is brought up .
While 6 storms have developed in the Atlantic Basin , 2 of them were in the weatherbell.com non-consequential development zone , which we labeled that way because those storms would have never been named in previous years , Yet what has hyped ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them lasting less than 24 hours .
Yet where is the playing up of the longest stretch since at least 1966 , where no hurricane , typhoon intensity storm has developed and looking down the road that amazingly quiet stretch may last another week to 10 days ?
All the storms have been no more than tropical storms and the “ ACE ” index in the Pacific basins is likely near record lows Now let me be clear , We think our forecast for a big Atlantic season has merit .
So far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas are where we think more than 50 % of the total ACE index for the season will be concentrated , the yellow area 75 % .
So here is the map ( first issued April 7 ) and the impact storms so far A large part of this , and why so far , so good , is because we correctly ( again so far ) thought the MJO would come out of the phases it had this winter , which promoted the very warm winter , into the phases that favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , This chart of the MJO phases ( 8,1,2,3 are the big phases in the Atlantic basin while 4-7 are the down phases and also warm in the winter ) speaks loudly as to the impact so far even from nontropical origin systems as they can quickly convert over in close warm water .
All of the have formed in the favorable impact phases Now we just saw Cristina die in the eastern Pacific without becoming a hurricane , something that is rare for a storm lasting that long on that track .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed massive sinking ( yellow and beyond ) in the Pacific basin .
This effectively shuts down much of the Pacific basin , When we look at outgoing longwave radiation in this period , which can approximate where its dry since the sun is out so much , the surface is warmed and hence more OLR The deeper the blue , the more the outgoing radiation and the dry air is indicative of sinking air , a big enemy of tropical cyclones Look closely at the area just west of the dateline , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see there is massive sinking going on there Now during the winter , notice that area near the equator , just west of the dateline But these are natural phenomena , The reason for the reversal is the sea surface temperatures are cooling in the ENSO regions of the Pacific as the La Nina comes on , The change in the anomaly of the SST is nearly as important as the SST itself as if it has not reached a certain equilibrium the reversal of the sign of the upward motion continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to grow and the areas of upward motion shift , But this is not at all related to co2 but instead a natural process we see ( it goes the other way too , shifts back to the other phases ) The trick is to catch it before and models are notoriously bad at forecasting the MJO and don ’ t even attempt it after 40 days .
Now think about what that means .
The most important source of energy for the global pattern can not be quantified to help with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to make a forecast off a forecast , We thought the MJO flip would start earlier in winter , and instead it waited for April and May which turned very cold and so the winter forecast took the hit as it stayed warm Feb and Mar .
But we knew it was coming and so we learned from that and made the forecast we did going forward .
But the danger is that it tries to change back , I don ’ t think that is going to happen , so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be impactful , We have been looking closely since spring at 2005 The global SST pattern is where we thought it would be , with the warm pool in the NE Pacific , the cooler tongue now coming off the west coast of S America and the Main Development region the Atlantic looking alike , though the cooling in the gulf was caused by hurricane Dennis moving through But here is the point , The extreme here of no hurricane-intensity numbers anywhere on the planet since June 3 , a record-breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as climate .
But its also consistent with an idea I have been pushing this for close to a decade , I have explained several times why warming , the way it is , maybe a limiting factor on tropical cyclone impact on N America and even mainland Asia .
Long tracked storms if convergence is distorted ( too much low-pressure north of the tropics ) may mean the storm as it approaches the coast spreads out .
The danger is the short tracked storm that hits at max intensity when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples of Harvey and Michael as they both wound up within 48 hours of landfall .
But in the last 30 years , most storms that hit were not at their peak intensity , For instance , Katrina , Rita and Wilma all had weakened But here is the point , The extreme here of no hurricane-intensity numbers anywhere on the planet since June 3 , a record-breaking one , intuitively is a positive as far as climate .
But its also consistent with an idea I have been pushing this for close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several times why warming , the way it is , maybe a limiting factor on tropical cyclone impact on N America and even mainland Asia .
Long tracked storms if convergence is distorted ( too much low-pressure north of the tropics ) may mean the storm as it approaches the coast spreads out .
The danger is the short tracked storm that hits at max intensity when the pattern gets disrupted , You saw classic examples of Harvey and Michael as they both wound up within 48 hours of landfall .
But in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hit were not at their peak intensity , For instance , Katrina , Rita and Wilma all had weakened In any case , the total energy budget of the planet has to be increasing , But it may be like someone getting heavier but the weight gain is all fat , How do I mean that ?
Well if you put on weight in the wrong places , it decreases your overall look .
If you warm the globe in a distorted fashion more to the north than to the south , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convergence and Global Wind Oscillation and SLP patterns are changed .
The danger , of course , is with more energy available if you do get the right set up , then you can get the powerful events that reach the coast at peak But over the last 25 years , that is certainly rarer than the 30s , 40s , and 50s which as a colder time planet wise .
So while 6 named storms have developed 2 likely would not have been named years ago , The idea of the weaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is not a significant negative factor for the US .
In addition , while 6 named storms have developed the ACE index per storm is at the lowest level for 6 storms on record .
Combine that with what is going on in the Pacific .
the real extreme is a non-extreme , With a lower than normal tornado season and a near-record low hail season , is that not a positive ?
When it goes back up again and it will , because the weather swings back and forth , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people weaponizing the weather , without any mention of how quiet it has been , And since we have been saying since March the Atlantic basin should have a big season , hopefully , pieces like this give you a perspective when all the usual hype starts again

All 4 tropical basins over the next 10 days with the euro not seeing any tropical storms are freaky quiet. Distortion of heat build due to warming ( more north than the south) may be ruining normal convergence. A positive result of warming? Perhaps, but fat chance that is brought up. While 6 storms have developed in the Atlantic Basin, 2 of them were in the weatherbell.com non-consequential development zone, which we labeled that way because those storms would have never been named in previous years, Yet what has hyped? 6 Atlantic tropical storms with 3 of them lasting less than 24 hours. Yet where is the playing up of the longest stretch since at least 1966, where no hurricane, typhoon intensity storm has developed and looking down the road that amazingly quiet stretch may last another week to 10 days? All the storms have been no more than tropical storms and the “ACE” index in the Pacific basins is likely near record lows
Now let me be clear, We think our forecast for a big Atlantic season has merit. So far our ideas have. The high impact areas are where we think more than 50% of the total ACE index for the season will be concentrated, the yellow area 75%. So here is the map ( first issued April 7) and the impact storms so far
All in the high impact areas
A large part of this, and why so far, so good, is because we correctly ( again so far) thought the MJO would come out of the phases it had this winter, which promoted the very warm winter, into the phases that favor impact events on the North American coast, This chart of the MJO phases ( 8,1,2,3 are the big phases in the Atlantic basin while 4-7 are the down phases and also warm in the winter) speaks loudly as to the impact so far even from nontropical origin systems as they can quickly convert over in close warm water. All of the have formed in the favorable impact phases
Now we just saw Cristina die in the eastern Pacific without becoming a hurricane, something that is rare for a storm lasting that long on that track. And with good reason, The JMA showed massive sinking ( yellow and beyond) in the Pacific basin.
This effectively shuts down much of the Pacific basin, When we look at outgoing longwave radiation in this period, which can approximate where its dry since the sun is out so much, the surface is warmed and hence more OLR The deeper the blue, the more the outgoing radiation and the dry air is indicative of sinking air, a big enemy of tropical cyclones
Look closely at the area just west of the dateline, and the entire basin.
( this is from the Physical science lab and their color scheme is opposite the JMA, The yellow in the JMA is the sinking, on the charts below its the blue)
You can see there is massive sinking going on there
Now during the winter, notice that area near the equator, just west of the dateline
that is the sweet spot for phase 6 of the MJO . Less than normal OLR means more convection is going off releasing heat into the high levels of the atmosphere and in that position it pumps the ridge south of Alaska near the dateline. When that ridge is there, it puts a trough in western North America and a big ridge across much of the US, It tightens the arctic jet to the north, meaning a positive Arctic Oscillation, opposite of the patterns that send the much-hyped “Polar vortex” ( blocking patterns have been happening thru the years) Hence the very warm winter that is the sweet spot for phase 6 of the MJO . Less than normal OLR means more convection is going off releasing heat into the high levels of the atmosphere and in that position it pumps the ridge south of Alaska near the dateline. When that ridge is there, it puts a trough in western North America and a big ridge across much of the US, It tightens the arctic jet to the north, meaning a positive Arctic Oscillation, opposite of the patterns that send the much-hyped “Polar vortex” ( blocking patterns have been happening thru the years) Hence the very warm winter
But these are natural phenomena, The reason for the reversal is the sea surface temperatures are cooling in the ENSO regions of the Pacific as the La Nina comes on, The change in the anomaly of the SST is nearly as important as the SST itself as if it has not reached a certain equilibrium the reversal of the sign of the upward motion continues to feedback, And so the sinking areas continue to grow and the areas of upward motion shift, But this is not at all related to co2 but instead a natural process we see ( it goes the other way too, shifts back to the other phases) The trick is to catch it before and models are notoriously bad at forecasting the MJO and don’t even attempt it after 40 days. Now think about what that means. The most important source of energy for the global pattern can not be quantified to help with the long-range forecast. So its high risk to make a forecast off a forecast, We thought the MJO flip would start earlier in winter, and instead it waited for April and May which turned very cold and so the winter forecast took the hit as it stayed warm Feb and Mar. But we knew it was coming and so we learned from that and made the forecast we did going forward. But the danger is that it tries to change back, I don’t think that is going to happen, so I have confidence that African wave season is going to be impactful, We have been looking closely since spring at 2005 The global SST pattern is where we thought it would be, with the warm pool in the NE Pacific, the cooler tongue now coming off the west coast of S America and the Main Development region the Atlantic looking alike, though the cooling in the gulf was caused by hurricane Dennis moving through
But here is the point, The extreme here of no hurricane-intensity numbers anywhere on the planet since June 3, a record-breaking one, intuitively is a positive as far as climate. But its also consistent with an idea I have been pushing this for close to a decade, I have explained several times why warming, the way it is, maybe a limiting factor on tropical cyclone impact on N America and even mainland Asia. Long tracked storms if convergence is distorted ( too much low-pressure north of the tropics) may mean the storm as it approaches the coast spreads out. The danger is the short tracked storm that hits at max intensity when the pattern gets disrupted, You saw classic examples of Harvey and Michael as they both wound up within 48 hours of landfall. But in the last 30 years, most storms that hit were not at their peak intensity, For instance, Katrina, Rita and Wilma all had weakened But here is the point, The extreme here of no hurricane-intensity numbers anywhere on the planet since June 3, a record-breaking one, intuitively is a positive as far as climate. But its also consistent with an idea I have been pushing this for close to a decade, I have explained several times why warming, the way it is, maybe a limiting factor on tropical cyclone impact on N America and even mainland Asia. Long tracked storms if convergence is distorted ( too much low-pressure north of the tropics) may mean the storm as it approaches the coast spreads out. The danger is the short tracked storm that hits at max intensity when the pattern gets disrupted, You saw classic examples of Harvey and Michael as they both wound up within 48 hours of landfall. But in the last 30 years, most storms that hit were not at their peak intensity, For instance, Katrina, Rita and Wilma all had weakened
In any case, the total energy budget of the planet has to be increasing, But it may be like someone getting heavier but the weight gain is all fat, How do I mean that? Well if you put on weight in the wrong places, it decreases your overall look. If you warm the globe in a distorted fashion more to the north than to the south, you decrease zonal potential energy and so convergence and Global Wind Oscillation and SLP patterns are changed. The danger, of course, is with more energy available if you do get the right set up, then you can get the powerful events that reach the coast at peak But over the last 25 years, that is certainly rarer than the 30s, 40s, and 50s which as a colder time planet wise.
So while 6 named storms have developed 2 likely would not have been named years ago, The idea of the weaker storm further north and more of them, is not a significant negative factor for the US. In addition, while 6 named storms have developed the ACE index per storm is at the lowest level for 6 storms on record. Combine that with what is going on in the Pacific. the real extreme is a non-extreme, With a lower than normal tornado season and a near-record low hail season, is that not a positive? When it goes back up again and it will, because the weather swings back and forth, we are most certainly going to hear from people weaponizing the weather, without any mention of how quiet it has been, And since we have been saying since March the Atlantic basin should have a big season, hopefully, pieces like this give you a perspective when all the usual hype starts again


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-14--Message to the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

In the ongoing effort to clearly summarize their position , CLINTEL has published a Scientific Manifesto in the form of ten propositions .
These specifically address , among other things , the role of National Academies in protecting the integrity of science , in the face of alarmist dogma .
Since the U.S. National Academy of Sciences ( NAS ) has evolved from guardians of science to an alarmist fortress , I thought it interesting to contrast the basic CLINTEL Manifesto with the statements of NAS President Marcia McNutt .
First , here are the ten basic CLINTEL propositions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ elaborated with regard to the sorry state of climate science today .
All-caps are in the original . )
• THE COMPLEXITY OF MULTI-FACTOR , MULTI-SCALE SYSTEMS DEMANDS CLOSE CO-OPERATION BETWEEN A WIDE RANGE OF SCIENTIFIC FIELDS AND DISCIPLINES • SOUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS OPEN-MINDED AND CHARACTERIZED BY A WIDE VARIETY OF VIEWPOINTS WITHOUT DOGMAS AND PREJUDICES • FAITH IN SCIENTIFIC MODELS IS FAITH IN THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ; ONLY CORRECTASSUMPTIONS LEAD TO CORRECT ANSWERS • WITH ENOUGH MODEL PARAMETERS IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO RECONSTRUCTMEASUREMENTS FROM THE PAST ; MODEL VALIDATION REQUIRES @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SYSTEMS ARE DECISIVE IN SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS ; SOUNDSCIENCE REQUIRES A BALANCE IN THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL SCIENCE • THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE SHOWS THAT NEW INSIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM FOLLOWERS BUTFROM DISSENTERS ; DOUBTERS AND DISSENTERS MAKE HISTORY IN SCIENCE • SEPARATION OF SCIENCE AND POLITICS IS A GREAT GOOD ; ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES SHOULD PROTECT SCIENTISTS FROM POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES • ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO WARN SOCIETY OF SENSELESS CONCLUSIONS THAT FOLLOW FROM NAÏVE BELIEF IN IMMATURE SCIENTIFIC MODELS • THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHOULD BE MORE HONEST ABOUT THE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SUBDUE NATURAL VARIABILITY • THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED IS A CONSENSUS STATEMENT THAT WILL NEVER BE USED BYSCIENTISTS OF INTEGRITY Note that propositions 7 and 8 speak specifically to National Academies of Science .
But the US NAS is doing the very opposite .
They are endorsing a political ideology and promoting the senseless conclusions that flow from the immature climate models , via the IPCC and US National Climate Assessments .
That science is getting more and more intertwined with politics is most worrying .
If the US NAS President can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we trust ?
More specifically , a year ago President McNutt signed an ideologically loaded NAS position statement , along with the presidents of the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine .
Here are some telling excerpts : “ Scientists have known for some time , from multiple lines of evidence , that humans are changing Earth ’ s climate , primarily through greenhouse gas emissions .
The evidence on the impacts of climate change is also clear and growing .
The atmosphere and the Earth ’ s oceans are warming , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are increasing , and sea level is rising along our coasts.
” This is a very unscientific statement .
That humans are the sole cause , or even the primary cause , of these changes is far from known .
Research on this deeply uncertain hypothesis should be the focus of NAS ’ s efforts .
Not uncritically supporting it .
Look at what proposition 3 says : ‘ Only correct model assumptions lead to correct model answers ’ “ A solid foundation of scientific evidence on climate change exists .
It should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most importantly , acted upon for the benefit of society.
” Again , this is an embarrassing statement from a President of the US NAS .
Calls for action on climate change are scientifically unfounded .
Looking again at propositions 7 and 8 , “ a call for action ” should never be coming from the National Academies .
Just a few months ago President McNutt issued an even more strident call for action , announcing that NAS was convening a panel to come up with so-called “ solutions ” to climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough senseless solutions proposed already .
All these “ solutions ” are not based on science but on political ideology .
In fact her hyperbolic title is “ Not a decade to spare for climate action.
” Here again are some excerpts : “ The reality of climate change is sinking in , with millions now feeling its effects—from rising sea levels and disappearing coastlines to more frequent extreme weather such as droughts , floods , and wildfires.
” Dear President , indeed that is what the computer models say , but measurements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is NO climate crisis at all .
Your statement is pure political posturing , causing a lot of fear and unrest in the world .
Actually , a warmer climate may even be net-beneficial if we use a slim adaptation policy .
Look also at proposition 5 , stating that superior measurement systems are decisive in scientific progress .
“ Scientists have been sounding the alarm for decades that climate change is real and getting worse .
As the adverse effects of unabated emissions keep mounting , the alarm is getting deafening.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists to behave as a present-day Don Quixote .
It is naïve and arrogant to think that mankind can stop natural variability .
Mainstream climate research has taken a direction that may be profitable to its practitioners and beneficiaries , but it is unworthy of science .
Should integrity not be your first priority ?
“ Today ’ s leaders must not bequeath a dangerously destabilized planet to future generations , and we will be placing special emphasis on engagement with today ’ s young people.
” Dear President , poisoning our youngsters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irresponsible act .
CLINTEL ’ s message to the young generation is : “ Forget about the preachers of doom and gloom and consider the challenges outlined in the Manifesto and the World Climate Declaration as your mission in life .
Conclusion : President Marcia McNutt and her National Academy of Sciences are clearly well off the track of rationality .
This is political ideology at its worst , a clear violation of propositions 7 and 8 .
No doubt it flows from ignoring the prior propositions as well .

In the ongoing effort to clearly summarize their position, CLINTEL has published a Scientific Manifesto in the form of ten propositions. These specifically address, among other things, the role of National Academies in protecting the integrity of science, in the face of alarmist dogma.
Since the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has evolved from guardians of science to an alarmist fortress, I thought it interesting to contrast the basic CLINTEL Manifesto with the statements of NAS President Marcia McNutt.
First, here are the ten basic CLINTEL propositions. (In the Manifesto document each is elaborated with regard to the sorry state of climate science today. All-caps are in the original.)
THE COMPLEXITY OF MULTI-FACTOR, MULTI-SCALE SYSTEMS DEMANDS CLOSE CO-OPERATION BETWEEN A WIDE RANGE OF SCIENTIFIC FIELDS AND DISCIPLINES SOUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS OPEN-MINDED AND CHARACTERIZED BY A WIDE VARIETY OF VIEWPOINTS WITHOUT DOGMAS AND PREJUDICES FAITH IN SCIENTIFIC MODELS IS FAITH IN THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS; ONLY CORRECTASSUMPTIONS LEAD TO CORRECT ANSWERS WITH ENOUGH MODEL PARAMETERS IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO RECONSTRUCTMEASUREMENTS FROM THE PAST; MODEL VALIDATION REQUIRES A LOT MORE EFFORT IMPROVED MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ARE DECISIVE IN SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS; SOUNDSCIENCE REQUIRES A BALANCE IN THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL SCIENCE THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE SHOWS THAT NEW INSIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM FOLLOWERS BUTFROM DISSENTERS; DOUBTERS AND DISSENTERS MAKE HISTORY IN SCIENCE SEPARATION OF SCIENCE AND POLITICS IS A GREAT GOOD; ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES SHOULD PROTECT SCIENTISTS FROM POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO WARN SOCIETY OF SENSELESS CONCLUSIONS THAT FOLLOW FROM NAÏVE BELIEF IN IMMATURE SCIENTIFIC MODELS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHOULD BE MORE HONEST ABOUT THE LIMITS ON THE POWER OF MANKIND TO SUBDUE NATURAL VARIABILITY THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED IS A CONSENSUS STATEMENT THAT WILL NEVER BE USED BYSCIENTISTS OF INTEGRITY
Note that propositions 7 and 8 speak specifically to National Academies of Science. But the US NAS is doing the very opposite. They are endorsing a political ideology and promoting the senseless conclusions that flow from the immature climate models, via the IPCC and US National Climate Assessments. That science is getting more and more intertwined with politics is most worrying. If the US NAS President cannot be trusted anymore, who else can we trust?
More specifically, a year ago President McNutt signed an ideologically loaded NAS position statement, along with the presidents of the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine. Here are some telling excerpts:
“Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence on the impacts of climate change is also clear and growing. The atmosphere and the Earth’s oceans are warming, the magnitude and frequency of certain extreme events are increasing, and sea level is rising along our coasts.”
This is a very unscientific statement. That humans are the sole cause, or even the primary cause, of these changes is far from known. Research on this deeply uncertain hypothesis should be the focus of NAS’s efforts. Not uncritically supporting it. Look at what proposition 3 says: ‘Only correct model assumptions lead to correct model answers’
“A solid foundation of scientific evidence on climate change exists. It should be recognized, built upon, and most importantly, acted upon for the benefit of society.”
Again, this is an embarrassing statement from a President of the US NAS. Calls for action on climate change are scientifically unfounded. Looking again at propositions 7 and 8, “a call for action” should never be coming from the National Academies.
Just a few months ago President McNutt issued an even more strident call for action, announcing that NAS was convening a panel to come up with so-called “solutions” to climate change. As though we did not have enough senseless solutions proposed already. All these “solutions” are not based on science but on political ideology. In fact her hyperbolic title is “Not a decade to spare for climate action.” Here again are some excerpts:
“The reality of climate change is sinking in, with millions now feeling its effects—from rising sea levels and disappearing coastlines to more frequent extreme weather such as droughts, floods, and wildfires.”
Dear President, indeed that is what the computer models say, but measurements tell us a completely different story. There is NO climate crisis at all. Your statement is pure political posturing, causing a lot of fear and unrest in the world. Actually, a warmer climate may even be net-beneficial if we use a slim adaptation policy. Look also at proposition 5, stating that superior measurement systems are decisive in scientific progress.
“Scientists have been sounding the alarm for decades that climate change is real and getting worse. As the adverse effects of unabated emissions keep mounting, the alarm is getting deafening.”
President McNutt, you ask capable scientists to behave as a present-day Don Quixote. It is naïve and arrogant to think that mankind can stop natural variability. Mainstream climate research has taken a direction that may be profitable to its practitioners and beneficiaries, but it is unworthy of science. Should integrity not be your first priority?
“Today’s leaders must not bequeath a dangerously destabilized planet to future generations, and we will be placing special emphasis on engagement with today’s young people.”
Dear President, poisoning our youngsters with fear for the future is an irresponsible act. CLINTEL’s message to the young generation is: “Forget about the preachers of doom and gloom and consider the challenges outlined in the Manifesto and the World Climate Declaration as your mission in life.
Conclusion: President Marcia McNutt and her National Academy of Sciences are clearly well off the track of rationality. This is political ideology at its worst, a clear violation of propositions 7 and 8. No doubt it flows from ignoring the prior propositions as well.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-14--EU steps up hydrogen energy efforts

EU steps up hydrogen energy efforts

The EU is promoting hydrogen as one of its fuels of choice to propel the region off of fossil fuels .
As reported in Bloomberg News , “ The European Union said the hydrogen industry will benefit from stimulus packages to revive the economies of its member states which have been hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic .
Using hydrogen will also accelerate the energy transition and help reach the bloc ’ s goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
” Hydrogen fuel has long been used for rockets , cars , trains , boats and airplanes .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is difficult , particularly in cars , because it is hard to store in a high pressure or cryogenic tank .
It is also very combustible , something which is made even more dangerous given that it can easily leak out .
Explosions have been reported at some hydrogen filling stations .
Nevertheless , the EU is hip on its potential .
A pair of French companies , Engie SA and Air Liquide SA , are putting forward a proposal to build solar farms big enough to power 450,000 homes with enough electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water .
Their project , called HyGreen Provence , plans to take its hydrogen and sell it to refineries and chemicals makers helping them reduce their greenhouse emissions .
Again , as detailed in Bloomberg : The HyGreen Provence project would produce renewable hydrogen on a much bigger scale than anywhere else , and trim CO2 emissions that come from the refining and petrochemical complex .
The French industrial sector uses about 1 million tons of hydrogen each year , and the government would like between 20 % to 40 % of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the companies need government subsidies to do it .
While producing so-called green hydrogen , which is done using water electrolysis and emits no CO2 , it costs about three times as much as steam methane reforming — a process used by refiners which does produce the greenhouse gas .
Will hydrogen ultimately prove to be a good energy bet ?
Time will tell .
It certainly has potential , but free market analysts say they are skeptical of such government initiatives that create artificial markets to achieve political ends .
They note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunately in the case of hydrogen is already connected to one of the worst disasters in history : The Hindenburg .
For more information , you can read the original article in Bloomberg News HERE .

The EU is promoting hydrogen as one of its fuels of choice to propel the region off of fossil fuels.
As reported in Bloomberg News, “The European Union said the hydrogen industry will benefit from stimulus packages to revive the economies of its member states which have been hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic. Using hydrogen will also accelerate the energy transition and help reach the bloc’s goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.”
Hydrogen fuel has long been used for rockets, cars, trains, boats and airplanes. But it is not without its drawbacks. Hydrogen is difficult, particularly in cars, because it is hard to store in a high pressure or cryogenic tank. It is also very combustible, something which is made even more dangerous given that it can easily leak out. Explosions have been reported at some hydrogen filling stations.
Nevertheless, the EU is hip on its potential. A pair of French companies, Engie SA and Air Liquide SA, are putting forward a proposal to build solar farms big enough to power 450,000 homes with enough electricity left over to produce hydrogen by electrolyzing water. Their project, called HyGreen Provence, plans to take its hydrogen and sell it to refineries and chemicals makers helping them reduce their greenhouse emissions.
Again, as detailed in Bloomberg:
The HyGreen Provence project would produce renewable hydrogen on a much bigger scale than anywhere else, and trim CO2 emissions that come from the refining and petrochemical complex. The French industrial sector uses about 1 million tons of hydrogen each year, and the government would like between 20% to 40% of this to be carbon-free by 2028.
But the companies need government subsidies to do it. While producing so-called green hydrogen, which is done using water electrolysis and emits no CO2, it costs about three times as much as steam methane reforming — a process used by refiners which does produce the greenhouse gas.
Will hydrogen ultimately prove to be a good energy bet? Time will tell. It certainly has potential, but free market analysts say they are skeptical of such government initiatives that create artificial markets to achieve political ends. They note these usually end in disaster – which unfortunately in the case of hydrogen is already connected to one of the worst disasters in history: The Hindenburg.
For more information, you can read the original article in Bloomberg News HERE.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-15--The Shellenberger chronicles part one : A rude awakening

In June of 2020 Michael Shellenberger published a very important book titled APOCALYPSE NEVER : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All .
In an interview with the Heartland Institute , Mr. Shellenberger indicated that he thought it was the most important book yet to be written on the delusion that has engulfed the entire world for decades , man caused global warming .
He is confidant the book will be a game changer in eventually releasing people everywhere from the false fear that has been rained upon them .
While there is nothing in the book that has not been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often before , I for one am inclined to agree with him as to the books importance .
I certainly hope he is correct .
As one who has been directly involved in the publishing of 31 science books as an author , co-author or editor , I am intimidated by having reviewed his1220 endnotes , appearing on 111 pages , supporting everything he has written .
I must conclude that he is among the best researchers and writers I have encountered , and clearly one of the smartest .
So one must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century to learn and understand the truth .
This first of 3 articles on Mr. Shellenberger and his book is not intended as a book review .
Many have already been written , all positive except for some disgruntled leftists .
I will tell you straight out , unless you are confident that you have all the facts on the false assertions claiming man plays a significant roll in controlling the Earth ’ s thermostat , I strongly recommend that you buy the book at Amazon now .
My intent is to interpret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy fashion in which it is written and entice you to share its contents with others in an effort to make the authors confidence in its value , a reality .
I will begin with an honest wish that the author had not been on the wrong side of science for so very long , sewing the very seeds that could yet destroy us if wrong headed people seize the leadership of the United States on Nov 3 of this year .
Mr. Shellenberger was a political and environmental activist for the better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not understanding the damage he was doing .
A few years back he evidently had an epiphany allowing real science to intrude on his many wrong-headed ideas .
As one finds with many religious converts , they become the most passionate .
The author fits that bill and may well turnout to be the very best weapon real scientists have to fight the battle many of us have waged for much of our professional lives .
In the first third of the book Mr. Shellenberger piles up the horrendous scaremongering in recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , The Washington Post and the International Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , and even a NASA scientist who predicted the collapse of food systems on many continents .
This was in total disregard of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations saying that increasing carbon dioxide was resulting in significantly increasing crop yields .
It is probable that the radical New York Congresswomen who presented the Green New Deal played a major roll in opening the authors eyes , or Britains Extinction Rebellion whose dystopian view of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was actually way more than that , he had traveled the world as early as 2014 with his wife to see first hand what he once thought were the good works of the Non Government Organizations ( NGOs ) .
While certainly not all NGOs had politically motivated goals to grow government and socialism , a great number do .
He says “ anyone interested in seeing the end of the world up close and in person could do little worse than to visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting first-world prophesies of climate apocalypse unto perspective.
” He learned there that most everything the NGOs were doing to save Gorillas and provide fuel through harvesting charcoal was really convoluted and flat out stupid .
When Shellenberger was only 16 he raised money for the Rainforest Action Network to save the Amazon , but in recent years he learned that almost everything he thought he knew of the Amazon rainforest was wrong .
They are not the lungs of the Earth .
Their contribution to the planets oxygen supply is a net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing the inhabitants to turn some forest land into farms to yield their food supply is not a bad idea .
He exposed the near hoax that the National Geographic produced when they flew over the Amazon with Tom Brady ’ s wife , Brazilian model Gisele Bundechen , with the head of Greenpeace Brazil in 2016 exposing her only to the sites that would yield a false picture of devastation .
The authors new knowledge of the real and imagined problems in Brazil are frankly worth the price of the book .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth exceeds tree loss during the past 35 years by an area that would equal that of Texas and Alaska combined .
Yes you read that correctly .
Well into the writing of this book the author and his wife vacationed in New Zealand where they learned more misinformation as to penguins being threatened by climate change .
They realized the problems were being focused in the wrong direction when over-fishing was more important to understand .
However he never puts climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions completely aside feeling it still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorite chapter of mine is titled Enough With The Plastic Straws .
In 2016 a young marine biologist Christine Figgener videoed a colleague extracting a plastic straw from the nose of a sea turtle .
The video eventually had 60 million views and the rest is history .
Shellenberger interviewed Ms. Figgener in 2019 and learned a great deal about plastic waste which he described well in his book .
It turns out that much plastic degrades faster than most scientists believed and that plastic straws make up only .03 per cent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends up in the oceans each year .
One of the most insightful elements in the book is a telephone interview which Shellenberger made with Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University and formerly with Environmental Defense .
Oppenheimer ranks among the most strident wrongheaded fear mongers in the nation and with Princeton University behind him totally he wreaks great damage on our nations understanding of real science .
Oppenheimer who is convinced that sea level is now rising way more than the 7 inches per century over the past millennium is unmanageable .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed to withstand the sea encroaching on its land why could not Bangladesh and other low lying countries be able to manage as well .
His weak unscientific answers when cornered said volumes about the alarmists we are up against .
I can not say enough about the value of this book .
In part two of the Shellenberger Chronicles I will unveil what he has learned about how the planet ’ s environment can be protected intelligently .

In June of 2020 Michael Shellenberger published a very important book titled APOCALYPSE NEVER: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. In an interview with the Heartland Institute, Mr. Shellenberger indicated that he thought it was the most important book yet to be written on the delusion that has engulfed the entire world for decades, man caused global warming. He is confidant the book will be a game changer in eventually releasing people everywhere from the false fear that has been rained upon them. While there is nothing in the book that has not been said and printed by elite climate scientists often before, I for one am inclined to agree with him as to the books importance. I certainly hope he is correct.
As one who has been directly involved in the publishing of 31 science books as an author, co-author or editor, I am intimidated by having reviewed his1220 endnotes, appearing on 111 pages, supporting everything he has written. I must conclude that he is among the best researchers and writers I have encountered, and clearly one of the smartest. So one must ask why it took him a quarter century to learn and understand the truth.
This first of 3 articles on Mr. Shellenberger and his book is not intended as a book review. Many have already been written , all positive except for some disgruntled leftists. I will tell you straight out, unless you are confident that you have all the facts on the false assertions claiming man plays a significant roll in controlling the Earth’s thermostat, I strongly recommend that you buy the book at Amazon now.
My intent is to interpret the book for you in the same easy fashion in which it is written and entice you to share its contents with others in an effort to make the authors confidence in its value , a reality. I will begin with an honest wish that the author had not been on the wrong side of science for so very long, sewing the very seeds that could yet destroy us if wrong headed people seize the leadership of the United States on Nov 3 of this year.
Mr. Shellenberger was a political and environmental activist for the better part of his 30 year career, not understanding the damage he was doing. A few years back he evidently had an epiphany allowing real science to intrude on his many wrong-headed ideas. As one finds with many religious converts, they become the most passionate. The author fits that bill and may well turnout to be the very best weapon real scientists have to fight the battle many of us have waged for much of our professional lives.
In the first third of the book Mr. Shellenberger piles up the horrendous scaremongering in recent years, practiced by the New York Times, The Washington Post and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and even a NASA scientist who predicted the collapse of food systems on many continents. This was in total disregard of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations saying that increasing carbon dioxide was resulting in significantly increasing crop yields.
It is probable that the radical New York Congresswomen who presented the Green New Deal played a major roll in opening the authors eyes, or Britains Extinction Rebellion whose dystopian view of the future was difficult to stomach.
It was actually way more than that, he had traveled the world as early as 2014 with his wife to see first hand what he once thought were the good works of the Non Government Organizations (NGOs). While certainly not all NGOs had politically motivated goals to grow government and socialism, a great number do.
He says “anyone interested in seeing the end of the world up close and in person could do little worse than to visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa. The Congo has a way of putting first-world prophesies of climate apocalypse unto perspective.” He learned there that most everything the NGOs were doing to save Gorillas and provide fuel through harvesting charcoal was really convoluted and flat out stupid.
When Shellenberger was only 16 he raised money for the Rainforest Action Network to save the Amazon, but in recent years he learned that almost everything he thought he knew of the Amazon rainforest was wrong. They are not the lungs of the Earth. Their contribution to the planets oxygen supply is a net zero. Actual deforestation is minimal and allowing the inhabitants to turn some forest land into farms to yield their food supply is not a bad idea.
He exposed the near hoax that the National Geographic produced when they flew over the Amazon with Tom Brady’s wife, Brazilian model Gisele Bundechen, with the head of Greenpeace Brazil in 2016 exposing her only to the sites that would yield a false picture of devastation. The authors new knowledge of the real and imagined problems in Brazil are frankly worth the price of the book.
Shellenberger tells us accurately that new tree growth exceeds tree loss during the past 35 years by an area that would equal that of Texas and Alaska combined. Yes you read that correctly.
Well into the writing of this book the author and his wife vacationed in New Zealand where they learned more misinformation as to penguins being threatened by climate change. They realized the problems were being focused in the wrong direction when over-fishing was more important to understand. However he never puts climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions completely aside feeling it still exists but of little consequence.
A favorite chapter of mine is titled Enough With The Plastic Straws. In 2016 a young marine biologist Christine Figgener videoed a colleague extracting a plastic straw from the nose of a sea turtle. The video eventually had 60 million views and the rest is history. Shellenberger interviewed Ms. Figgener in 2019 and learned a great deal about plastic waste which he described well in his book. It turns out that much plastic degrades faster than most scientists believed and that plastic straws make up only .03 per cent of the nine millions tons of plastic that ends up in the oceans each year.
One of the most insightful elements in the book is a telephone interview which Shellenberger made with Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University and formerly with Environmental Defense. Oppenheimer ranks among the most strident wrongheaded fear mongers in the nation and with Princeton University behind him totally he wreaks great damage on our nations understanding of real science.
Oppenheimer who is convinced that sea level is now rising way more than the 7 inches per century over the past millennium is unmanageable. When Shellenberger was asked why if the Netherlands managed to withstand the sea encroaching on its land why could not Bangladesh and other low lying countries be able to manage as well. His weak unscientific answers when cornered said volumes about the alarmists we are up against.
I can not say enough about the value of this book. In part two of the Shellenberger Chronicles I will unveil what he has learned about how the planet’s environment can be protected intelligently.


Fact-checking the fact-checkers

Is there a more insidious threat to free speech online than biased fact-checking ?
Global warming pressure groups are using every trick in their book to censor and besmirch Michael Shellenberger after he posted an article apologizing for the climate scare on behalf of environmentalists .
Forbes actually succumbed to the pressure and pulled his article down .
Other online platforms labeled the article as “ fact-checked false.
” Climate scientist Roger Pielke , Jr. fact-checked the self-appointed fact-checkers and found their attacks on Shellenberger “ incontrovertibly false.
” He took particularly precise aim at MIT professor Kerry Emanuel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change is not making natural disasters or human suffering worse as being “ not defensible.
” The facts , as Pielke reveals , are exactly opposite to what Emanuel ’ s so-called “ fact-checking ” tries to claim .
“ Every study that has looked at global economic losses after normalization ( for GDP or other factors ) has consistently failed to identify any increase in losses at all , ” Pielke revealed .
Even the UN ’ s top climate science body , the IPCC , backs Shellenberger and Pielke and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events concluded ( on a much thinner evidence base ) that ‘ long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change , ' ” Pielke explained .
Biased fact-checkers are a menace to open , fair and free dialogue online .
They assume an unearned mantle of authority and use it to skew debate .
Facebook , Google , YouTube , Amazon and the rest should not rely on them .
Take a look at Marc Morano ’ s full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting charts , graphs and data .
Dr. Pielke lays out a devastating case .

Is there a more insidious threat to free speech online than biased fact-checking?
Global warming pressure groups are using every trick in their book to censor and besmirch Michael Shellenberger after he posted an article apologizing for the climate scare on behalf of environmentalists.
Forbes actually succumbed to the pressure and pulled his article down.
Other online platforms labeled the article as “fact-checked false.”
Climate scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. fact-checked the self-appointed fact-checkers and found their attacks on Shellenberger “incontrovertibly false.” He took particularly precise aim at MIT professor Kerry Emanuel, who labeled Shellenberger’s assertions that climate change is not making natural disasters or human suffering worse as being “not defensible.” The facts, as Pielke reveals, are exactly opposite to what Emanuel’s so-called “fact-checking” tries to claim. “Every study that has looked at global economic losses after normalization (for GDP or other factors) has consistently failed to identify any increase in losses at all,” Pielke revealed.
Even the UN’s top climate science body, the IPCC, backs Shellenberger and Pielke and is at odds with fact-checker Emanuel. “The IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events concluded (on a much thinner evidence base) that ‘long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change,'” Pielke explained.
Biased fact-checkers are a menace to open, fair and free dialogue online. They assume an unearned mantle of authority and use it to skew debate. Facebook, Google, YouTube, Amazon and the rest should not rely on them.
Take a look at Marc Morano’s full post at Climate Depot with all the supporting charts, graphs and data. Dr. Pielke lays out a devastating case.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-15--Anti-fossil fuel lobbyists pressure Facebook to ban inconvenient science

The “ Climate Power 2020 ” organization published a July 1 open letter signed by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams , former presidential candidate Tom Steyer , and 13 leaders of groups working to ban fossil fuels urging Facebook to shut down the page of the CO2 Coalition , a non-profit professional organization of distinguished climate scientists and energy economists that present opposing “ denial ” facts and views .
Addressed to Facebook Oversight co-chair/former Denmark Prime Minister Ms. Helle Thorning-Schmidt , the letter chastises Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for refusing to “ acknowledge that climate denial on his platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generations as any.
” As one of the earliest CO2 Coalition members , I can offer firm assurance that none in the organization have ever denied the reality of climate change , a natural phenomenon that has been occurring for complex reasons over many millions of years .
Nor is there any dispute that the climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last ice age thawed about 12,000 years ago or so , and most recently since the Little ice age ended in the mid-1800s ( before the Industrial Revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coalition members include highly distinguished atmospheric physicists , climatologists and statisticians who indeed know a great deal about how climate and energy systems actually work .
They are also very familiar with ways that computerized models that are widely used to project future global temperatures don ’ t work .
Established in 2015 as a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) , the CO2 Coalition publishes open source studies and articles .
Some of these investigations have demonstrated that when tested after a few years against actual temperatures , model projections used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Climate Change ( IPCC ) have proved to run three times too hot .
CO2 Coalition Chair Patrick Moore and Executive Director Caleb Rossiter have also responded to the “ denialist ” charges with basic undeniable facts .
For example : “ The UN IPCC and U.S. government scientific agencies agree that their data show no statistically significant increases in rates of sea-level rise , hurricanes , floods , wildfires , and other dangerous or damaging weather in the 70 years since carbon dioxide emissions became a factor in global temperature.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon thousands of guesses about mathematical values to be put on many poorly understood variables and interactions over decades-long cycles .
Or as Oxford physicist Fred Taylor says in his textbook , “ Elementary Climate Physics , ” the models are “ opaque ” and “ in their infancy.
” The CO2 Coalition argues that demonstrably failed modeled projections are by their nature far too unlikely and uncertain to use as a basis for alarmist justifications to ban the source of 80 percent of U.S. and world energy in exchange for unreliable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy .
They point out that mining , shipping , refining , construction , transmission , and disposal of these intermittent sources of power are almost entirely fossil-fueled , thus hardly renewable .
In addition , wind and solar are also four times more expensive than natural gas-fired electricity and gasoline transportation .
The CO2 Coalition has invited the Climate Power 2020 ’ s letter signatories along with any others to “ identify a single denial of a scientific or economic fact in our publications or public statements.
” They add , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate models , and even though model projections are more opinion than fact , more mathematical art than science , we look forward to such a debate.
” Meanwhile , the Department of Justice is recently exploring a list of reform laws aimed at curbing biased censorship of information by Big Tech giants such as Facebook , Google , Twitter and YouTube .
Most particularly , DOJ is reexamining the infamous Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 , which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in certain circumstances .
Congress originally enacted the statute to nurture a nascent industry while also incentivizing online platforms to remove content harmful to children .
Expansive interpretation that courts have given Section 230 , however , has left online platforms both immune for a wide array of illicit activity on their services and free to moderate content with little transparency or accountability .
Unfortunately , any such reforms may not be enough to keep Big Tech from moderating political content on so-called “ misinformation ” grounds using bogus “ fact checking ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is famously pervasive in attacking climate alarm skeptics and publications .
In June , President Trump weighed in on this problem by issuing an Executive Order targeting viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech companies including Facebook , Twitter , Instagram , YouTube , and Google .
As the president explained in a press conference , “ One egregious example is when they try to silence views they disagree with by selectively applying a ‘ fact check.
’ What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political activism .
And it ’ s inappropriate .
If you look at what ’ s happened , you look at where they ’ re going , where they ’ re coming from , I think you all see it yourselves.
” Labeling articles or videos that express “ climate change ” skepticism as “ fact checked false ” are perfect examples .

The “Climate Power 2020” organization published a July 1 open letter signed by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, former presidential candidate Tom Steyer, and 13 leaders of groups working to ban fossil fuels urging Facebook to shut down the page of the CO2 Coalition, a non-profit professional organization of distinguished climate scientists and energy economists that present opposing “denial” facts and views.
Addressed to Facebook Oversight co-chair/former Denmark Prime Minister Ms. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the letter chastises Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for refusing to “acknowledge that climate denial on his platform is as dangerous a threat to future generations as any.”
As one of the earliest CO2 Coalition members, I can offer firm assurance that none in the organization have ever denied the reality of climate change, a natural phenomenon that has been occurring for complex reasons over many millions of years.
Nor is there any dispute that the climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last ice age thawed about 12,000 years ago or so, and most recently since the Little ice age ended in the mid-1800s (before the Industrial Revolution introduced smokestacks and SUVs).
CO2 Coalition members include highly distinguished atmospheric physicists, climatologists and statisticians who indeed know a great deal about how climate and energy systems actually work. They are also very familiar with ways that computerized models that are widely used to project future global temperatures don’t work.
Established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3), the CO2 Coalition publishes open source studies and articles. Some of these investigations have demonstrated that when tested after a few years against actual temperatures, model projections used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have proved to run three times too hot.
CO2 Coalition Chair Patrick Moore and Executive Director Caleb Rossiter have also responded to the “denialist” charges with basic undeniable facts.
For example: “The UN IPCC and U.S. government scientific agencies agree that their data show no statistically significant increases in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and other dangerous or damaging weather in the 70 years since carbon dioxide emissions became a factor in global temperature.”
In reality, the models are based upon thousands of guesses about mathematical values to be put on many poorly understood variables and interactions over decades-long cycles. Or as Oxford physicist Fred Taylor says in his textbook, “Elementary Climate Physics,” the models are “opaque” and “in their infancy.”
The CO2 Coalition argues that demonstrably failed modeled projections are by their nature far too unlikely and uncertain to use as a basis for alarmist justifications to ban the source of 80 percent of U.S. and world energy in exchange for unreliable and costly “renewable” wind and solar energy. They point out that mining, shipping, refining, construction, transmission, and disposal of these intermittent sources of power are almost entirely fossil-fueled, thus hardly renewable.
In addition, wind and solar are also four times more expensive than natural gas-fired electricity and gasoline transportation.
The CO2 Coalition has invited the Climate Power 2020’s letter signatories along with any others to “identify a single denial of a scientific or economic fact in our publications or public statements.” They add, “Surely some of the answers will involve climate models, and even though model projections are more opinion than fact, more mathematical art than science, we look forward to such a debate.”
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is recently exploring a list of reform laws aimed at curbing biased censorship of information by Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.
Most particularly, DOJ is reexamining the infamous Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.
Congress originally enacted the statute to nurture a nascent industry while also incentivizing online platforms to remove content harmful to children. Expansive interpretation that courts have given Section 230, however, has left online platforms both immune for a wide array of illicit activity on their services and free to moderate content with little transparency or accountability.
Unfortunately, any such reforms may not be enough to keep Big Tech from moderating political content on so-called “misinformation” grounds using bogus “fact checking” by crony political cohorts.
This practice is famously pervasive in attacking climate alarm skeptics and publications.
In June, President Trump weighed in on this problem by issuing an Executive Order targeting viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech companies including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Google.
As the president explained in a press conference, “One egregious example is when they try to silence views they disagree with by selectively applying a ‘fact check.’ What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing more than a political activism group or political activism. And it’s inappropriate. If you look at what’s happened, you look at where they’re going, where they’re coming from, I think you all see it yourselves.”
Labeling articles or videos that express “climate change” skepticism as “fact checked false” are perfect examples.
Hope springs eternal.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-17--Dallas-to-Houston bullet train: A Texas-sized boondoggle

As Americans continue to stagger through the economic wreckage brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic , a group of hustlers in Texas is eager to add to their misery by having taxpayers nationwide bail out a high-speed rail project in the Lone Star State that has already gone off the tracks .
In 2015 , Texas Central Railway ( TCR ) announced plans to build a privately financed 240-mile high-speed rail system connecting Dallas and Houston .
TCR ’ s developers assured the world that they would raise $ 10 billion in private capital to cover the entire cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be completed and up and running by 2021 .
That was the promise ; the reality has been something else altogether .
Instead of raising $ 10 billion from investors , all the project ’ s developers have been able to scrape up is $ 110 million in the U.S. and another $ 40 million from sovereign Japanese entities .
Desperate for funds , TCR “ welcomed a $ 300 million interest-bearing loan from Tokyo deposited in an offshore Cayman Islands ‘ special purpose vehicle ’ account , which is now depleted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times ( July 10 ) .
The reluctance of investors to fork over money for the project is not surprising .
TCR has never run a railroad or laid track .
And there are widespread doubts that the train will ever attract enough passengers to turn a profit .
With no more takers among private investors , TCR is now seeking up to $ 30 billion in grants or loans from the U.S. Department of Transportation – in other words – from you , the American taxpayer .
TCR ’ s last roll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration and Congress agree to a giant public infrastructure deal , which would include billions for the otherwise doomed train to nowhere in Texas .
Every bit as odious as putting the taxpayers on the hook for the project , are TCR ’ s threats to use the power of eminent domain to gobble up privately owned land for the tracks running between Dallas and Houston .
Initially , TCR sought to use state eminent domain to force landowners along the proposed route to sell their property to the developers .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prohibiting the land grab , TCR switched from state to federal eminent domain to acquire the land it wanted .
How can you claim that a transportation project that is limited to east Texas qualifies for federal eminent domain ?
Easy .
As Sitilides explains , you get “ the Surface Transportation Board [ to ] grant federal jurisdiction based on a spurious non-physical connection to a Houston Amtrak station , to render the Texas project part of the federal rail network.
” The implications of TCR ’ s petition to the Surface @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
“ If the STB approves the petition , ” Sitilides points out , “ it will set a precedent enabling every urban light-rail system near an Amtrak station anywhere in America to access federal transportation funds and eminent domain powers.
” Tons of pork stuffed into an infrastructure bill , along with the granting of federal eminent domain powers , are the only things standing in the way of the project ’ s being put to rest .
Concerned that U.S. taxpayers and Lone Star State property owners will pay dearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ron Wright , and Michael McCaul – all Republicans from Texas – have issued statements opposing the project .
All the Trump administration needs to do is follow their lead , and tell TCR the White House is not onboard .

As Americans continue to stagger through the economic wreckage brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of hustlers in Texas is eager to add to their misery by having taxpayers nationwide bail out a high-speed rail project in the Lone Star State that has already gone off the tracks.
In 2015, Texas Central Railway (TCR) announced plans to build a privately financed 240-mile high-speed rail system connecting Dallas and Houston. TCR’s developers assured the world that they would raise $10 billion in private capital to cover the entire cost of the project and that the system would be completed and up and running by 2021.
That was the promise; the reality has been something else altogether.
Instead of raising $10 billion from investors, all the project’s developers have been able to scrape up is $110 million in the U.S. and another $40 million from sovereign Japanese entities. Desperate for funds, TCR “welcomed a $300 million interest-bearing loan from Tokyo deposited in an offshore Cayman Islands ‘special purpose vehicle’ account, which is now depleted,” writes John Sitilides in the Washington Times (July 10).
The reluctance of investors to fork over money for the project is not surprising. TCR has never run a railroad or laid track. And there are widespread doubts that the train will ever attract enough passengers to turn a profit.
With no more takers among private investors, TCR is now seeking up to $30 billion in grants or loans from the U.S. Department of Transportation – in other words – from you, the American taxpayer. TCR’s last roll of the dice is hoping that the Trump administration and Congress agree to a giant public infrastructure deal, which would include billions for the otherwise doomed train to nowhere in Texas.
Fun and Games with Eminent Domain
Every bit as odious as putting the taxpayers on the hook for the project, are TCR’s threats to use the power of eminent domain to gobble up privately owned land for the tracks running between Dallas and Houston.
Initially, TCR sought to use state eminent domain to force landowners along the proposed route to sell their property to the developers. But when state lawmakers threatened to pass legislation prohibiting the land grab, TCR switched from state to federal eminent domain to acquire the land it wanted.
How can you claim that a transportation project that is limited to east Texas qualifies for federal eminent domain? Easy. As Sitilides explains, you get “the Surface Transportation Board [to] grant federal jurisdiction based on a spurious non-physical connection to a Houston Amtrak station, to render the Texas project part of the federal rail network.”
The implications of TCR’s petition to the Surface Transportation Board should be lost on no one.
“If the STB approves the petition,” Sitilides points out, “it will set a precedent enabling every urban light-rail system near an Amtrak station anywhere in America to access federal transportation funds and eminent domain powers.”
Tons of pork stuffed into an infrastructure bill, along with the granting of federal eminent domain powers, are the only things standing in the way of the project’s being put to rest. Concerned that U.S. taxpayers and Lone Star State property owners will pay dearly for this boondoggle, Reps. Kevin Brady, Ron Wright, and Michael McCaul – all Republicans from Texas – have issued statements opposing the project.
All the Trump administration needs to do is follow their lead, and tell TCR the White House is not onboard.