committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-28--Climate alarmism versus integrity at National Academies of Science

National Academies of Science should speak out against climate alarmism , not support it .
This is the major message in a recent from Professor Guus Berkhout , president of CLINTEL , to the new head of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences .
The integrity of science is at stake .
This letter is a model for how all alarmist National Academies should be addressed .
For example , the US National Academy of Sciences ( NAS ) is painfully alarmist .
Even worse , NAS has been joined in by its two siblings , the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that these Academies have become a servant of supranational political organizations such as IPCC shows how serious the crisis in climate science really is .
The Netherlands Academy is called , from its Dutch name .
KNAW was established in 1808 as an advisory body to the government , a task it still performs today .
NAS was established by Congress in 1868 .
Both NAS and KNAW derive their authority from their high profile members , rigorously selected top scientists from a large range of scientific fields .
Professor Berkhout is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is addressed to Prof. Dr. Ineke Sluiter , President of KNAW .
It begins with a clear statement of the issue : “ I am addressing you in your capacity as the new President of the KNAW because the climate issue is escalating .
The IPCC and the associated activist climate movement have become highly politicised .
Sceptical scientists are being silenced .
As an IPCC expert reviewer , I critically looked at the latest draft climate report .
My conclusion is that there is little evidence of any intent to discover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s doomsday scenarios are far from representative of reality , they play an important role in government climate policy .
Only courageous individuals dare to point out that the predictions of the IPCC ’ s computer models of climate have not come to pass , in that contemporary measurements contradict them .
IPCC ’ s confidence in its own models does not match the real-world outturn .
In the past , scientific societies such as ours would have sounded the alarm .
( Emphasis added . )
In your interview with Elsevier Weekblad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Dutch science should be proud of itself ” and , a little later , “ A hallmark of high-quality research must be a wide variety of viewpoints – fewer dogmas , more viewpoints.
” I agree .
Unfortunately , your observations do not seem to apply to climate science .
There , diversity is suppressed and the Anthropogenic Global Warming ( AGW ) dogma is promoted .
That is why I am writing to you.
” After discussing the well known problems with the IPCC science , Professor Berkhout states his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not warn society that all these climate-change doom and gloom scenarios have little or no scientific justification ?
I know that there are many scientists around the world who doubt or disagree with the IPCC ’ s claims .
I also know from my own experience and from correspondence with colleagues that there is much pressure on researchers to conform to what we are told is the climate “ consensus ” .
But the history of science shows time and again that new insights do not come from followers but from critical thinkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trump models .
The KNAW , as the guardian of science , must surely take action now .
The more governments invest in expensive climate policies in the name of climate science , the more difficult it becomes to point out that climate science in its present state falls a long way short of providing any justification for such policies .
There are more and more indications that things are not right .
If the scientific community waits for the dam to burst , the damage to science will be enormous .
Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : why were the Academies of Sciences silent ?
Surely there has been enough warning from scientific critics of the official position ?
The KNAW must , of course , stay clear of politics and focus on excellence in finding the truth .
But I repeat that the KNAW is also the guardian of science .
In climate policy in particular , science is abused on a global scale .
How can one plausibly state , on such a highly complex subject as the Earth ’ s climate , that “ the science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excellence : it is stupidity.
” There is a lot more and the letter ends with a specific proposal from CLINTEL : “ I propose to organise an international open blue-team/red-team meeting together with the KNAW , in which both teams can present their scientific views† .
These discussions could be the start of a new era in climate science .
Audiatur et altera pars.
” The US National Academy of Sciences is a lot worse than KNAW in this regard .
Not only does NAS not speak out against the anti-scientific climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know there are skeptical members of NAS , probably many .
They need to speak out , just as Professor Berkhout has done .
Nothing less than the integrity of science is at stake .
Failure to acknowledge the scientific climate change debate is making science look like a political tool .
This can only turn out badly for science .

National Academies of Science should speak out against climate alarmism, not support it. This is the major message in a recent letter from Professor Guus Berkhout, president of CLINTEL, to the new head of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The integrity of science is at stake.
This letter is a model for how all alarmist National Academies should be addressed. For example, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is painfully alarmist. Even worse, NAS has been joined in promoting alarmism by its two siblings, the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine. The fact that these Academies have become a servant of supranational political organizations such as IPCC shows how serious the crisis in climate science really is.
The Netherlands Academy is called KNAW , from its Dutch name. KNAW was established in 1808 as an advisory body to the government, a task it still performs today. NAS was established by Congress in 1868. Both NAS and KNAW derive their authority from their high profile members, rigorously selected top scientists from a large range of scientific fields. Professor Berkhout is a member of KNAW.
The letter is addressed to Prof. Dr. Ineke Sluiter, President of KNAW. It begins with a clear statement of the issue:
“I am addressing you in your capacity as the new President of the KNAW because the climate issue is escalating. The IPCC and the associated activist climate movement have become highly politicised. Sceptical scientists are being silenced. As an IPCC expert reviewer, I critically looked at the latest draft climate report. My conclusion is that there is little evidence of any intent to discover the objective scientific truth.
Though IPCC’s doomsday scenarios are far from representative of reality, they play an important role in government climate policy. Only courageous individuals dare to point out that the predictions of the IPCC’s computer models of climate have not come to pass, in that contemporary measurements contradict them. IPCC’s confidence in its own models does not match the real-world outturn. In the past, scientific societies such as ours would have sounded the alarm. (Emphasis added.)
In your interview with Elsevier Weekblad (6 June 2020) you say: “Dutch science should be proud of itself” and, a little later, “A hallmark of high-quality research must be a wide variety of viewpoints – fewer dogmas, more viewpoints.” I agree. Unfortunately, your observations do not seem to apply to climate science. There, diversity is suppressed and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dogma is promoted. That is why I am writing to you.”
After discussing the well known problems with the IPCC science, Professor Berkhout states his case:
“Why do scientific institutions not warn society that all these climate-change doom and gloom scenarios have little or no scientific justification? I know that there are many scientists around the world who doubt or disagree with the IPCC’s claims. I also know from my own experience and from correspondence with colleagues that there is much pressure on researchers to conform to what we are told is the climate “consensus”. But the history of science shows time and again that new insights do not come from followers but from critical thinkers. For valid new insights, measurements trump models.
The KNAW, as the guardian of science, must surely take action now. The more governments invest in expensive climate policies in the name of climate science, the more difficult it becomes to point out that climate science in its present state falls a long way short of providing any justification for such policies. There are more and more indications that things are not right. If the scientific community waits for the dam to burst, the damage to science will be enormous. Society will then rightly ask itself the question: why were the Academies of Sciences silent? Surely there has been enough warning from scientific critics of the official position?
The KNAW must, of course, stay clear of politics and focus on excellence in finding the truth. But I repeat that the KNAW is also the guardian of science. In climate policy in particular, science is abused on a global scale. How can one plausibly state, on such a highly complex subject as the Earth’s climate, that “the science is settled”? That is not excellence: it is stupidity.”
There is a lot more and the letter ends with a specific proposal from CLINTEL:
“I propose to organise an international open blue-team/red-team meeting together with the KNAW, in which both teams can present their scientific views†. These discussions could be the start of a new era in climate science. Audiatur et altera pars.”
The US National Academy of Sciences is a lot worse than KNAW in this regard. Not only does NAS not speak out against the anti-scientific climate movement, it openly supports it. I know there are skeptical members of NAS, probably many. They need to speak out, just as Professor Berkhout has done.
Nothing less than the integrity of science is at stake. Failure to acknowledge the scientific climate change debate is making science look like a political tool. This can only turn out badly for science.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-28--The Saharan dust burst and the hurricane season

Surges of African dust have little if nothing to do with man-made climate change .
But this year , blaming it is yet another case of the people saying that not bothering to look at what is actually going on Which is an alarming tendency among some , as they seek to hype things .
Lord knows I love when the weather goes wild .
I am ashamed to admit that sometimes , but I suspect any weather nut has similar feelings But one must balance feelings with facts .
And the fact is this is big there done that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the hurricane season turns out the way we are forecasting ( since early March ) , what you are seeing now has happened before .
Now this is not Climate Bell , but every now and climate issues come up that give me a chance to relate them to the weather and this may be the case here So in the case of the Saharan dust hysteria .
Every year there are major surges of it at this time of the year as the subtropical ridge pulls north and the easterlies increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ridge pulls further north , dust decreases.Water Vapor /rain across the MDR African source regions have been above ave !
So does this mean we are right ?
Well only God knows that .
But what we are seeing now is in line with the 2 biggest impact seasons on the US coast since 2005 ( we can argue over 2004 ) which also had heavy rain over Texas but was centered further east with the hits ( Ivan the second was the furthest west ) .
So does this mean we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what we are seeing now is in line with the 2 biggest impact seasons on the US coast since 2005 ( we can argue over 2004 ) which also had heavy rain over Texas but was centered further east with the hits ( Ivan the second was the furthest west ) .
So why would this be happening ?
Well , it is likely a sign of troughs making inroads into these areas underneath the big eastern North American ridge centered abnormally far north , which we know is a precursor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the season wears on , split away and are much smaller , and in front of them as they back southwest , is a prime area for where tropical cyclones can be “ ventilated ” ( air flowing out from over the top , which when air is converging in the lower levels leads to intensification ) .
So while not a lock ( no future event is ) the overall pattern in areas that are being gawked at over Saharan dust now , is pointing the finger at the ideas of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the irony .
The gawking over the African dust gave me a chance to write this now .
So if gawking occur at future major hurricane threats .
you can look back at this and say , in both cases , NATURE pointed the finger at .
Once again , for me , digging in when I hear climate change is being blamed gives me a chance to point out things that are a ) natural and b ) pointing away to another aspect of this , that will feed the hysteria .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there for the taking .
if you bother looking at the past .
Believe me , I am GRATEFUL for what I am seeing and hearing , for it forces me to look deeper and helps me , right or wrong , learns more .
The weather is a great teacher if you keep an open mind and search beyond what you see .

Surges of African dust have little if nothing to do with man-made climate change. But this year, blaming it is yet another case of the people saying that not bothering to look at what is actually going on. Which is an alarming tendency among some, as they seek to hype things.
Lord knows I love when the weather goes wild. I am ashamed to admit that sometimes, but I suspect any weather nut has similar feelings.
But one must balance feelings with facts. The fact, this is been there, done that and actually what is going on now if the hurricane season turns out the way we are forecasting (since early March). As what you are seeing now has happened before.
Now this is not Climate Bell, but every now and then climate issues come up that give me a chance to relate them to the weather and this may be the case here.
So in the case of the Saharan dust hysteria, every year there are major surges of it at this time as the subtropical ridge pulls north and the easterlies increase over Africa. However, as the ridge pulls further north, dust decreases.Water vapor/rain across the MDR African source regions have been above average!
5k Water Vapor:
Here is the rainfall rate: Here is the rainfall rate:
Total precipitable water (red is positive): Total precipitable water (red is positive):
Now, why isn’t any of this being shown? Perhaps because people gawking at the dust have not looked. Now, why isn’t any of this being shown? Perhaps because people gawking at the dust have not looked.
The Friday morning dust shot from NASA GEOS
day 10
The center of the surges are liable to be stronger but as we head toward the heart of the hurricane season you will notice this diminishing. In fact Euro 46 day precipitation forecasts have much of the Main Development Region well above average The center of the surges are liable to be stronger but as we head toward the heart of the hurricane season you will notice this diminishing. In fact Euro 46 day precipitation forecasts have much of the Main Development Region well above average
Now look at that compared to 2005: Now look at that compared to 2005:
and 2017: and 2017:
Interesting how in both cases and on the model, there is heavier than average precip around east Texas. Interesting how in both cases and on the model, there is heavier than average precip around east Texas.
Close up 2005:
Hits in 2005: Hits in 2005:
2017 rain: 2017 rain:
Hits: Hits:
Our impact forecast, issued in April: Our impact forecast, issued in April:
The same period precip anomaly forecast this year: The same period precip anomaly forecast this year:
So does this mean we are right? Well only God knows that. But what we are seeing now is in line with the 2 biggest impact seasons on the US coast since 2005 (we can argue over 2004) which also had heavy rain over Texas but was centered further east with the hits (Ivan the second was the furthest west). So does this mean we are right? Well only God knows that. But what we are seeing now is in line with the 2 biggest impact seasons on the US coast since 2005 (we can argue over 2004) which also had heavy rain over Texas but was centered further east with the hits (Ivan the second was the furthest west).
2004 tracks:
But again a lot of impact on the US coast. But again a lot of impact on the US coast.
So why would this be happening? Well, it is likely a sign of troughs making inroads into these areas underneath the big eastern North American ridge centered abnormally far north, which we know is a precursor to big seasons. The troughs, as the season wears on, split away and are much smaller, and in front of them as they back southwest, is a prime area for where tropical cyclones can be “ventilated” (air flowing out from over the top, which when air is converging in the lower levels leads to intensification).
So while not a lock (no future event is) in the overall pattern areas that are being gawked at over Saharan dust now, is pointing the finger at the ideas of the big season. And here is the irony. The gawking over the African dust gave me a chance to write this now. So if gawking occur at future major hurricane threats, you can look back at this and say, in both cases, NATURE pointed the finger at.
Once again, for me, digging in when I hear climate change is being blamed gives me a chance to point out things that are a) natural and b) pointing away to another aspect of this, that will feed the hysteria. Yet if it happens it was all there for the taking. If you bother looking at the past. Believe me, I am GRATEFUL for what I am seeing and hearing, for it forces me to look deeper and helps me, right or wrong, learn more. The weather is a great teacher if you keep an open mind and search beyond what you see.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-29--Clean coal is essential to America

Clean coal is essential to America

In March of this year , as COVID-19 began its upward climb , the State of Pennsylvania chose to include coal mining among its “ essential ” activities .
This decision presumably didn ’ t sit well with those wanting to ban coal altogether due to environmental concerns .
The problem with their position is two-fold .
First , we can ’ t get rid of coal .
It is essential to this nation .
As Gov .
Jim Justice of neighboring West Virginia said at the time , “ Coal is so essential it is unbelievable .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes.
” Second , we don ’ t have to get rid of coal .
We just need to make it cleaner , which is what President Trump and his Administration are doing .
To understand why coal is so vital , imagine if during the height of COVID-19′s spread , when Pennsylvania ’ s hospitalizations had reached their peak , the flow of electricity had been drastically interrupted .
The cost to human life would have been both tangible and tragic .
Yet that is what could have happened had coal become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 percent of America ’ s electricity needs and about 20 percent of Pennsylvania ’ s .
Critics contend that coal can be replaced by emissions-free renewables like wind and solar power .
Granted , there is a growing place in our electric grid for these and other sources like natural gas and nuclear energy .
Under the president ’ s plan for innovation-driven energy dominance , we are committed to developing , producing , using , and exporting every fuel source and technology we have .
Through the power of innovation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” American energy strategy .
But what happens to renewables when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine ?
Contrast that with the rock-solid reliability of coal , which is available 24 hours a day , seven days a week , and 365 days a year .
In fact , during the 2019 polar vortex , coal was critical for heating homes in many of the affected areas of the nation .
And the good news is that America ’ s coal is as abundant as it is reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other country , 474 billion short tons of it , enough to last for hundreds of years .
In short , coal contributes significantly to the energy security of Pennsylvania and the nation .
Coal is also crucial to our economic security .
A strong coal future will power our manufacturing base , preserving American jobs and creating new employment and economic opportunity across the country .
By some estimates , new coal production could result in up to 47,500 new coal mining jobs , while the resulting carbon products could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of new manufacturing jobs .
As the third largest coal producing state , Pennsylvania is at the heart of this economic activity .
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration , American coal exports were 54 percent higher in 2019 than in 2016 , and you should be proud that Pennsylvania is playing such an important role in the expansion of American coal .
Finally , coal is vital to our national security , not just by keeping our grid up and running , but also by producing our steel and its potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare earth elements .
The United States has some of the highest quality metallurgical coal in the world to make steel , and our coal reserves contain vast quantities of rare earths which we use in items ranging from defense technology to health care and iPhones to jet engines .
As for coal ’ s environmental footprint , coal-fired electricity generation is now cleaner than ever and one reason is the work done by the U.S. Department of Energy .
According to our National Energy Technology Laboratory , which has a site in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollution controls reduces nitrogen oxides by 83 percent , sulfur dioxide by 98 percent , and particulate matter by 99.8 percent compared to plants without controls .
That is one reason the United States continues to lead the world in reducing energy-related carbon emissions .
And by continuing to drive down emissions , we do not need to eliminate coal from our menu of energy options .
Rather , as we look to the future , we can make coal even cleaner .
Through a new initiative called Coal FIRST , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal plants .
“ FIRST ” stands for flexible , innovative , resilient , small , and transformative .
We want these plants to be emissions-free .
We also seek to advance the commercial deployment of carbon capture utilization and storage , or CCUS , technologies .
Perhaps the greatest hurdle to commercializing CCUS are the costs associated with carbon capture , which represent 75 percent of total CCUS costs .
We need to reduce carbon capture costs by about 50 percent and we ’ re engaged in world-leading research and development to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
American clean coal technology is essential to the future of our energy industry , our economy , and our national security .
As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic and reopen our economy , we must apply our ingenuity to expand the use of American coal , while making it cleaner , to ensure its viability for generations to come .

In March of this year, as COVID-19 began its upward climb, the State of Pennsylvania chose to include coal mining among its “essential” activities.
This decision presumably didn’t sit well with those wanting to ban coal altogether due to environmental concerns.
The problem with their position is two-fold.
First, we can’t get rid of coal. It is essential to this nation.
As Gov. Jim Justice of neighboring West Virginia said at the time, “Coal is so essential it is unbelievable. We have to have good electricity flowing into our homes.”
Second, we don’t have to get rid of coal. We just need to make it cleaner, which is what President Trump and his Administration are doing.
To understand why coal is so vital, imagine if during the height of COVID-19′s spread, when Pennsylvania’s hospitalizations had reached their peak, the flow of electricity had been drastically interrupted. The cost to human life would have been both tangible and tragic.
Yet that is what could have happened had coal become unavailable. Indeed, coal provides around 24 percent of America’s electricity needs and about 20 percent of Pennsylvania’s.
Critics contend that coal can be replaced by emissions-free renewables like wind and solar power. Granted, there is a growing place in our electric grid for these and other sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. Under the president’s plan for innovation-driven energy dominance, we are committed to developing, producing, using, and exporting every fuel source and technology we have. Through the power of innovation, we are truly pursuing an “all-of-the-above” American energy strategy.
But what happens to renewables when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine? Contrast that with the rock-solid reliability of coal, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. In fact, during the 2019 polar vortex, coal was critical for heating homes in many of the affected areas of the nation.
And the good news is that America’s coal is as abundant as it is reliable. The United States has more coal than any other country, 474 billion short tons of it, enough to last for hundreds of years.
In short, coal contributes significantly to the energy security of Pennsylvania and the nation.
Coal is also crucial to our economic security. A strong coal future will power our manufacturing base, preserving American jobs and creating new employment and economic opportunity across the country. By some estimates, new coal production could result in up to 47,500 new coal mining jobs, while the resulting carbon products could support the creation of hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs.
As the third largest coal producing state, Pennsylvania is at the heart of this economic activity. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, American coal exports were 54 percent higher in 2019 than in 2016, and you should be proud that Pennsylvania is playing such an important role in the expansion of American coal.
Finally, coal is vital to our national security, not just by keeping our grid up and running, but also by producing our steel and its potential to create a domestic supply chain for rare earth elements.
The United States has some of the highest quality metallurgical coal in the world to make steel, and our coal reserves contain vast quantities of rare earths which we use in items ranging from defense technology to health care and iPhones to jet engines.
As for coal’s environmental footprint, coal-fired electricity generation is now cleaner than ever and one reason is the work done by the U.S. Department of Energy. According to our National Energy Technology Laboratory, which has a site in Pittsburgh, a new coal plant with pollution controls reduces nitrogen oxides by 83 percent, sulfur dioxide by 98 percent, and particulate matter by 99.8 percent compared to plants without controls.
That is one reason the United States continues to lead the world in reducing energy-related carbon emissions.
And by continuing to drive down emissions, we do not need to eliminate coal from our menu of energy options. Rather, as we look to the future, we can make coal even cleaner.
Through a new initiative called Coal FIRST, we are laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s coal plants. “FIRST” stands for flexible, innovative, resilient, small, and transformative. We want these plants to be emissions-free.
We also seek to advance the commercial deployment of carbon capture utilization and storage, or CCUS, technologies. Perhaps the greatest hurdle to commercializing CCUS are the costs associated with carbon capture, which represent 75 percent of total CCUS costs.
We need to reduce carbon capture costs by about 50 percent and we’re engaged in world-leading research and development to produce the technologies to get us there.
American clean coal technology is essential to the future of our energy industry, our economy, and our national security.
As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic and reopen our economy, we must apply our ingenuity to expand the use of American coal, while making it cleaner, to ensure its viability for generations to come.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-01--Reporting renewable energy risks

Reporting renewable energy risks

Joe Biden has drifted far to the left and made it clear that , if elected president , he would restrict or ban fracking , pipelines , federal onshore and offshore drilling , and use of oil , coal and even natural gas .
He ’ s selected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his climate and energy advisor and is expected to choose an equally “ progressive ” woman of color as his running mate ( and president-in-reality ) .
He may also employ federal financial regulations to slow or strangle fossil fuel companies ’ access to low-cost capital , further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and coal .
His official climate plan promises to require “ public companies to disclose climate risks and the greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains.
” By compelling them to present a litany of climate and weather risks supposedly caused or worsened by fossil fuel emissions , the rules could sharply reduce lender and investor interest in those fuels and hasten the transition to wind , solar , battery and biofuel technologies .
Those risks exist primarily in highly unlikely worst-case scenarios generated by computer models that reflect claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other powerful natural forces that have always driven Earth ’ s climate ( including multiple ice ages ) and extreme weather .
Actual data are often “ homogenized ” or otherwise manipulated to make the models appear more accurate than they are .
Models consistently predict average global temperatures 0.5 degrees C ( 0.9 F ) higher than measured .
The 12-year drought ( 2005-2017 ) in US-landfalling hurricanes is consistently ignored , as are the absence of any increase in tropical cyclones , the unprecedented absence of any violent tornadoes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twisters were far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that .
However , pressure group mob politics and the refusal of climate alarmists to discuss model failures and contradictory scientific evidence would likely make these realities irrelevant in a Biden administration .
That would have devastating consequences for a US economy struggling to recover from Covid-19 and compete in a world where Asian , African and other countries are not going to stop using fossil fuels to improve living standards while mining the raw materials and manufacturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ batteries and biofuel equipment the USA would have to import under a Green New Deal ( since no mining and virtually no manufacturing would be permitted or possible under Biden era regulations ) .
Replacing coal , gas and nuclear electricity , internal combustion vehicles , gas for home heating , and coal and gas for factories – and using batteries as backup power for seven windless , sunless days – would require some 8.5 billion megawatts .
Generating that much electricity would require some 75 billion solar panels … or 4.2 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10-MW offshore wind turbines … or a combination of those technologies … some 3.5 billion 100-kWh batteries … hundreds of new transmission lines – and mining and manufacturing on scales far beyond anything the world has ever seen .
That is not clean , green , renewable energy .
It is ecologically destructive and completely unsustainable – financially , ecologically and politically .
That means any company , community , bank , investor or pension fund venturing into “ renewable energy ” technologies would be taking enormous risks .
Once citizens , voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) the quicksand foundations under alarmist climate models and forecasts ; ( b ) the fact that African , Asian and even some European countries will only increase their fossil fuel use for decades to come ; ( c ) the hundreds of millions of acres of US scenic and wildlife habitat lands that would be covered by turbines , panels , batteries , biofuel crops and forests clear cut to fuel “ climate-friendly ” biofuel power plants ; and ( d ) the bird , bat and other animal species that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebel .
Renewable energy markets will implode .
Growing outrage over child labor , near-slave labor , and minimal to nonexistent worker health and safety , pollution control and environmental reclamation regulations in foreign countries where materials are mined and “ renewable ” energy technologies manufactured will intensify the backlash and collapse .
As the shift to GND energy systems brings increasing reliance on Chinese mining and manufacturing , sends electricity rates skyrocketing , kills millions of American jobs and causes US living standards to plummet , any remaining support for wind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will evaporate .
Pension funds and publicly owned companies should therefore be compelled to disclose the risks to their operations , supply chains , “ renewable energy portfolio ” mandates , subsidies , feed-in tariffs , profits , employees , valuation and very existence from embarking on or investing in renewable energy technologies or facilities .
They should be compelled to fully analyze and report on every aspect of these risks .
The White House , Treasury Department , Securities and Exchange Commission , Federal Reserve , Committee on Financial Stability , Pension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should immediately require that publicly owned companies , corporate retirement plans and public pension funds evaluate and disclose at least the following fundamental aspects of “ renewable ” operations : * How many wind turbines , solar panels , batteries , biofuel plants and miles of transmission lines will be required under various GND plans ?
Where ?
Whose scenic and wildlife areas will be impacted ?
* How will rural and coastal communities react to being made energy colonies for major cities ?
* How much concrete , steel , aluminum , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earth elements and other material will be needed for every project and cumulatively – and where exactly will they come from ?
* How many tons of overburden and ore will be removed and processed for every ton of metals and minerals required ?
How many injuries and deaths will occur in the mines , processing plants and factories ?
* What per-project and cumulative fossil fuel use , CO2 and pollution emissions , land use impacts , water demands , family and community dislocations , and other impacts will result ?
* @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much child labor will be involved ?
What labor , workplace safety , pollution control and other laws , regulations , standards and practices will apply in each country ?
* What human cancer and other disease incidents and deaths are likely ?
How many wildlife habitats will be destroyed ?
How many birds , bats and other wildlife displaced , killed or driven to extinction ?
* For ethanol and biodiesel , how much acreage , water , fertilizer , pesticide and fossil fuel will be required ?
For power plant biofuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be cut , and how long they will take to regrow ?
* What “ responsible sourcing ” laws apply for all these materials , and how much will they raise costs ?
* How will home , business , hospital , defense , factory , grid and other systems be protected against hacking and power disruptions caused by agents of overseas wind , solar and other manufacturers ?
* What costs and materials are required to convert existing home and commercial heating systems to all-electricity , upgrade electrical grids and systems for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intermittent , unpredictable , weather-dependent realities of Green New Deal energy sources ?
* What price increases per kWh per annum will families , businesses , offices , farms , factories , hospitals , schools and other consumers face , as state and national electrical systems are converted to GND sources ?
* How many power interruptions will occur every year , how will they hurt families , factories and other users – and what will be the cumulative economic and productivity damage from those power outages ?
* To what extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court decisions , and citizen opposition , protests , legal actions and sabotage delay or block wind , solar , biofuel , battery , mining and transmission projects ?
* How many solar panels , wind turbine blades , batteries and other components ( numbers , tons and cubic feet ) will have to be disposed of every year ?
How much landfill space and incineration will be required ?
* How accurately are climate model predictions of temperatures , sea levels , tornadoes , hurricanes , floods , droughts and extreme weather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable energy programs ?
These issues ( and many others ) underscore the extremely high risks associated with Green New Deal energy programs – and why it is essential for lenders , investment companies , pension funds , manufacturers , utility companies and other industries to analyze , disclose and report renewable energy risks , with significant penalties for failing to do so or falsifying any pertinent information .

Joe Biden has drifted far to the left and made it clear that, if elected president, he would restrict or ban fracking, pipelines, federal onshore and offshore drilling, and use of oil, coal and even natural gas. He’s selected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his climate and energy advisor and is expected to choose an equally “progressive” woman of color as his running mate (and president-in-reality).
He may also employ federal financial regulations to slow or strangle fossil fuel companies’ access to low-cost capital, further preventing them from producing oil, gas and coal. His official climate plan promises to require “public companies to disclose climate risks and the greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains.” By compelling them to present a litany of climate and weather risks supposedly caused or worsened by fossil fuel emissions, the rules could sharply reduce lender and investor interest in those fuels and hasten the transition to wind, solar, battery and biofuel technologies.
Those risks exist primarily in highly unlikely worst-case scenarios generated by computer models that reflect claims that manmade carbon dioxide has replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have always driven Earth’s climate (including multiple ice ages) and extreme weather. Actual data are often “homogenized” or otherwise manipulated to make the models appear more accurate than they are.
Models consistently predict average global temperatures 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) higher than measured. The 12-year drought (2005-2017) in US-landfalling hurricanes is consistently ignored, as are the absence of any increase in tropical cyclones, the unprecedented absence of any violent tornadoes in 2018 – and the fact that violent twisters were far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that.
However, pressure group mob politics and the refusal of climate alarmists to discuss model failures and contradictory scientific evidence would likely make these realities irrelevant in a Biden administration. That would have devastating consequences for a US economy struggling to recover from Covid-19 and compete in a world where Asian, African and other countries are not going to stop using fossil fuels to improve living standards while mining the raw materials and manufacturing the wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and biofuel equipment the USA would have to import under a Green New Deal (since no mining and virtually no manufacturing would be permitted or possible under Biden era regulations).
Replacing coal, gas and nuclear electricity, internal combustion vehicles, gas for home heating, and coal and gas for factories – and using batteries as backup power for seven windless, sunless days – would require some 8.5 billion megawatts. Generating that much electricity would require some 75 billion solar panels … or 4.2 million 1.8-MW onshore wind turbines … or 320,000 10-MW offshore wind turbines … or a combination of those technologies … some 3.5 billion 100-kWh batteries … hundreds of new transmission lines – and mining and manufacturing on scales far beyond anything the world has ever seen.
That is not clean, green, renewable energy. It is ecologically destructive and completely unsustainable – financially, ecologically and politically. That means any company, community, bank, investor or pension fund venturing into “renewable energy” technologies would be taking enormous risks.
Once citizens, voters and investors begin to grasp (a) the quicksand foundations under alarmist climate models and forecasts; (b) the fact that African, Asian and even some European countries will only increase their fossil fuel use for decades to come; (c) the hundreds of millions of acres of US scenic and wildlife habitat lands that would be covered by turbines, panels, batteries, biofuel crops and forests clear cut to fuel “climate-friendly” biofuel power plants; and (d) the bird, bat and other animal species that would disappear under this onslaught – they will rebel. Renewable energy markets will implode.
Growing outrage over child labor, near-slave labor, and minimal to nonexistent worker health and safety, pollution control and environmental reclamation regulations in foreign countries where materials are mined and “renewable” energy technologies manufactured will intensify the backlash and collapse. As the shift to GND energy systems brings increasing reliance on Chinese mining and manufacturing, sends electricity rates skyrocketing, kills millions of American jobs and causes US living standards to plummet, any remaining support for wind, solar and other “renewable” technologies will evaporate.
Pension funds and publicly owned companies should therefore be compelled to disclose the risks to their operations, supply chains, “renewable energy portfolio” mandates, subsidies, feed-in tariffs, profits, employees, valuation and very existence from embarking on or investing in renewable energy technologies or facilities. They should be compelled to fully analyze and report on every aspect of these risks.
The White House, Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Committee on Financial Stability, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and other relevant agencies should immediately require that publicly owned companies, corporate retirement plans and public pension funds evaluate and disclose at least the following fundamental aspects of “renewable” operations:
* How many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, biofuel plants and miles of transmission lines will be required under various GND plans? Where? Whose scenic and wildlife areas will be impacted?
* How will rural and coastal communities react to being made energy colonies for major cities?
* How much concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements and other material will be needed for every project and cumulatively – and where exactly will they come from?
* How many tons of overburden and ore will be removed and processed for every ton of metals and minerals required? How many injuries and deaths will occur in the mines, processing plants and factories?
* What per-project and cumulative fossil fuel use, CO2 and pollution emissions, land use impacts, water demands, family and community dislocations, and other impacts will result?
* What wages will be paid? How much child labor will be involved? What labor, workplace safety, pollution control and other laws, regulations, standards and practices will apply in each country?
* What human cancer and other disease incidents and deaths are likely? How many wildlife habitats will be destroyed? How many birds, bats and other wildlife displaced, killed or driven to extinction?
* For ethanol and biodiesel, how much acreage, water, fertilizer, pesticide and fossil fuel will be required? For power plant biofuel, how many acres of forest will be cut, and how long they will take to regrow?
* What “responsible sourcing” laws apply for all these materials, and how much will they raise costs?
* How will home, business, hospital, defense, factory, grid and other systems be protected against hacking and power disruptions caused by agents of overseas wind, solar and other manufacturers?
* What costs and materials are required to convert existing home and commercial heating systems to all-electricity, upgrade electrical grids and systems for rapid electric vehicle charging, and address the intermittent, unpredictable, weather-dependent realities of Green New Deal energy sources?
* What price increases per kWh per annum will families, businesses, offices, farms, factories, hospitals, schools and other consumers face, as state and national electrical systems are converted to GND sources?
* How many power interruptions will occur every year, how will they hurt families, factories and other users – and what will be the cumulative economic and productivity damage from those power outages?
* To what extent will policies, laws, regulations, court decisions, and citizen opposition, protests, legal actions and sabotage delay or block wind, solar, biofuel, battery, mining and transmission projects?
* How many solar panels, wind turbine blades, batteries and other components (numbers, tons and cubic feet) will have to be disposed of every year? How much landfill space and incineration will be required?
* How accurately are climate model predictions of temperatures, sea levels, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events that are being used to justify renewable energy programs?
These issues (and many others) underscore the extremely high risks associated with Green New Deal energy programs – and why it is essential for lenders, investment companies, pension funds, manufacturers, utility companies and other industries to analyze, disclose and report renewable energy risks, with significant penalties for failing to do so or falsifying any pertinent information.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-30--Will biotechnology help save the American chestnut?

In the 1800 ’ s , it was said that a squirrel could go from Maine to Georgia and never touch the ground jumping from one American chestnut tree to another .
But then in 1904 , a chestnut blight ( Cryphonectria parasitica ) was accidentally introduced to North America from the introduction of Japanese chestnut trees into the United States for commercial purposes .
Since then they have become exceedingly rare .
Fortunately , thanks to some breakthroughs in the field of biotechnology , the fate of the American chestnut may soon begin to improve .
As reported on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regulators are now reviewing a new blight resistant version of the American Chestnut developed by William Powell and his colleagues at the State University of New York ’ s College of Environmental and Forest Biology .
“ Darling 58 , ” the name of this research team ’ s newfound GE chestnut tree , employs a single gene from wheat for an enzyme called oxalate oxidase ( OxO ) .
Taking decades to develop , the recombinant tree can be bred in a traditional manner and still retain its blight resistant properties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team has raised over 10,000 such blight-resistant chestnuts that could ultimately be used for reforestation efforts to return the American chestnut to the wild .
Is this sort of genetic approach problematic for the environment ?
The researchers don ’ t think so , and provide this explanation why it should pose no problem on the GLP website : Oxalate oxidase is a common enzyme found in all grains , several other crops and food products , and many wild plants and microbes .
OxO and other enzymes that detoxify oxalate function as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathogens that produce oxalic acid .
OxO is well understood and has been studied for over 100 years .
There are even functionally similar genes in Chinese chestnuts , which may partially contribute to the blight tolerance observed in these trees .
At the end of 2019 , Powell petitioned the USDA for “ non-regulated status , ” the way the federal agency determines if a new agricultural product can be introduced publicly .
The proposal is now open to the public for a 60-day comment period .
To read the full article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

In the 1800’s, it was said that a squirrel could go from Maine to Georgia and never touch the ground jumping from one American chestnut tree to another. But then in 1904, a chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) was accidentally introduced to North America from the introduction of Japanese chestnut trees into the United States for commercial purposes. Since then they have become exceedingly rare.
Fortunately, thanks to some breakthroughs in the field of biotechnology, the fate of the American chestnut may soon begin to improve.
As reported on the website of the Genetic Literacy Project, regulators are now reviewing a new blight resistant version of the American Chestnut developed by William Powell and his colleagues at the State University of New York’s College of Environmental and Forest Biology.
“Darling 58,” the name of this research team’s newfound GE chestnut tree, employs a single gene from wheat for an enzyme called oxalate oxidase (OxO). Taking decades to develop, the recombinant tree can be bred in a traditional manner and still retain its blight resistant properties. In fact, Powell’s team has raised over 10,000 such blight-resistant chestnuts that could ultimately be used for reforestation efforts to return the American chestnut to the wild.
Is this sort of genetic approach problematic for the environment? The researchers don’t think so, and provide this explanation why it should pose no problem on the GLP website:
Oxalate oxidase is a common enzyme found in all grains, several other crops and food products, and many wild plants and microbes. OxO and other enzymes that detoxify oxalate function as natural defenses against the effects of specific pathogens that produce oxalic acid. OxO is well understood and has been studied for over 100 years. There are even functionally similar genes in Chinese chestnuts, which may partially contribute to the blight tolerance observed in these trees.
At the end of 2019, Powell petitioned the USDA for “non-regulated status,” the way the federal agency determines if a new agricultural product can be introduced publicly. The proposal is now open to the public for a 60-day comment period.
To read the full article on the GLP website, click here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-30--The Green delusion continues to push costs upon the poor

Those marketing the green delusion have convinced themselves and the public that intermittent electricity from wind and solar are somehow “ clean , green , renewable and sustainable ” .
They have successfully kept transparency from those paying for the green delusion of any information that would damage their message .
Facts about greater human and ecological impacts around the world from intermittent electricity systems favored by the climate cult are numerous and purposely withheld from the Californians .
Of which are those who can least afford rates that are already among the highest in the nation for electricity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than half of one percent ( 0.5 % ) of the world ’ s population ( 40 million vs. 8 billion ) .
Among a few subjects the climate cult avoids transparency are : • Moving to electricity ALONE and eliminating fossil fuels would mean America would have to replace 100 % of its gasoline and all oil and natural gas feed stocks for pharmaceuticals , cosmetics , paints , synthetic fibers , fertilizers , and plastics for cell phones , computers , car bodies , packaging , wind turbine blades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products that are manufactured from petroleum derivatives .
As a reminder , without transportation and the leisure and entertainment industries that did not exist before 1900 , we would have no commerce .
• Dependency on intermittent electricity from wind and solar resulted in California importing up to 29 percent of its electricity to meet its demands .
To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy , that lavishly expensive imported electricity has contributed to the poorest residents , particularly Latinos and African Americans , paying more than 50 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
• The impact of power plant closures in California are destined to increase the cost of power as California plans to shuttle three natural gas power plants and its last nuclear power plant .
Those four power plants have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity to Californians .
With the state having no plans to replace the closure capacity with intermittent electricity from wind and solar , the state will need to import more high-priced electricity to fill the void and let residents and businesses pay the premium .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the mineral products and metals needed to make wind turbines , solar panels , and EV batteries are mined and processed in places like Baotou , Inner Mongolia , Bolivia , and the Democratic Republic of Congo , mostly under Chinese control , under minimal to nonexistent labor , wage , environmental , reclamation , and worker health and safety regulations .
The mere extraction of those exotic minerals presents social challenges , human rights abuses , and environmental degradations worldwide .
• Those numerous documentaries about the atrocities that the workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , i.e .
actually digging the mines by hand along with the horrendous living conditions .
Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals .
• For cobalt alone , over 40,000 Congolese children , as young as four years old , slave away alongside their parents in mines , for a dollar a day , risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy , toxic , radioactive mud , dust , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and human rights travesties can happen only under a system of rampant double standards , i.e.
, if they do NOT occur in the backyard of the climate cult , they are okay with any and all adverse impacts on foreign sites .
• Even if California or the entire USA eliminated all fossil fuel use tomorrow – it would not make an iota of difference for global carbon dioxide levels as China and India have more than 5,000 coal fired power plants and are building 600 more to provide their populations with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that will continue to increase emissions .
Since 1990 CO2 emissions from the Developed world have decreased , whereas the Developing world has shown a fourfold increase since 1985 .
This differential has arisen because of : • • the off shoring of major CO2 emitting industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards or who care less about CO2 emissions .
• the growing use of Coal-firing for electricity generation in the Developing world .
The primary reason that the climate cult is voraciously against transparency of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar favored by them , is that they would need to justify to the rural , poor , minority and working-class families and communities .
All of which the public needs to accept the worldwide ecological , health and economic damages being inflicted in pursuit of their pseudo-renewable electricity utopia .
Additionally , for those that can least afford the passion for intermittent electricity , they need to morally accept that Africans , Asians , and Latin Americans must endure slave labor status to advance the climate cult agenda .
Let us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , order , civil debate , thoughtful reflection on our complex history , and rational resolution of these thorny problems as current climate policies are essentially discriminatory toward poor people and minorities worldwide .

Those marketing the green delusion have convinced themselves and the public that intermittent electricity from wind and solar are somehow “clean, green, renewable and sustainable”. They have successfully kept transparency from those paying for the green delusion of any information that would damage their message.
Facts about greater human and ecological impacts around the world from intermittent electricity systems favored by the climate cult are numerous and purposely withheld from the Californians. Of which are those who can least afford rates that are already among the highest in the nation for electricity and fuel. The same Californians that represent less than half of one percent (0.5%) of the world’s population (40 million vs. 8 billion). Among a few subjects the climate cult avoids transparency are:
Moving to electricity ALONE and eliminating fossil fuels would mean America would have to replace 100% of its gasoline and all oil and natural gas feed stocks for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and plastics for cell phones, computers, car bodies, packaging, wind turbine blades, solar panel films and more than 6,000 products that are manufactured from petroleum derivatives. As a reminder, without transportation and the leisure and entertainment industries that did not exist before 1900, we would have no commerce.
Dependency on intermittent electricity from wind and solar resulted in California importing up to 29 percent of its electricity to meet its demands. To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy, that lavishly expensive imported electricity has contributed to the poorest residents, particularly Latinos and African Americans, paying more than 50 percent more for electricity than the rest of the country.
The impact of power plant closures in California are destined to increase the cost of power as California plans to shuttle three natural gas power plants and its last nuclear power plant. Those four power plants have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity to Californians. With the state having no plans to replace the closure capacity with intermittent electricity from wind and solar, the state will need to import more high-priced electricity to fill the void and let residents and businesses pay the premium.
The climate cult is fearful of sharing that all the mineral products and metals needed to make wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries are mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, Bolivia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control, under minimal to nonexistent labor, wage, environmental, reclamation, and worker health and safety regulations. The mere extraction of those exotic minerals presents social challenges, human rights abuses, and environmental degradations worldwide.
Those numerous documentaries about the atrocities that the workers are put through in the cobalt mines , i.e. actually digging the mines by hand along with the horrendous living conditions. Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals.
, i.e. actually digging the mines by hand along with the horrendous living conditions. has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals. For cobalt alone, over 40,000 Congolese children , as young as four years old, slave away alongside their parents in mines, for a dollar a day, risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air.
, as young as four years old, slave away alongside their parents in mines, for a dollar a day, risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air. These environmental and human rights travesties can happen only under a system of rampant double standards, i.e., if they do NOT occur in the backyard of the climate cult, they are okay with any and all adverse impacts on foreign sites.
Even if California or the entire USA eliminated all fossil fuel use tomorrow – it would not make an iota of difference for global carbon dioxide levels as China and India have more than 5,000 coal fired power plants and are building 600 more to provide their populations with scalable, reliable, and affordable electricity, that will continue to increase emissions.
Since 1990 CO2 emissions from the Developed world have decreased, whereas the Developing world has shown a fourfold increase since 1985. This differential has arisen because of:
the off shoring of major CO2 emitting industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards or who care less about CO2 emissions. the growing use of Coal-firing for electricity generation in the Developing world.
The primary reason that the climate cult is voraciously against transparency of any data about intermittent electricity from wind and solar favored by them, is that they would need to justify to the rural, poor, minority and working-class families and communities. All of which the public needs to accept the worldwide ecological, health and economic damages being inflicted in pursuit of their pseudo-renewable electricity utopia. Additionally, for those that can least afford the passion for intermittent electricity, they need to morally accept that Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans must endure slave labor status to advance the climate cult agenda.
Let us hope the now-silent majority can restore law, order, civil debate, thoughtful reflection on our complex history, and rational resolution of these thorny problems as current climate policies are essentially discriminatory toward poor people and minorities worldwide.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-29--Book Review: “Apocalypse Never” by Michael Shellenberger

The way to a cleaner , sustainable planet is not to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear power , but rather to expand their use , especially in developing countries to bring economic growth and prosperity , the way such sources did for the developed world .
This is one of the primary themes in the new book , Apocalypse Never , written not by a “ climate denier ” or “ corporate shill.
” Instead , author Michael Shellenberger is a 30-year environmental activist with street cred in various causes including saving California ’ s redwood forests and co-founding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2002 for the New Apollo Project , a renewable energy initiative that long predated the Green New Deal .
He also is a Time magazine “ Hero of the Environment.
” Shellenberger ’ s background is a key reason Apocalypse Never is so devastating to extremist environmentalism that has taken hold in politics , the media , K-12 education and popular culture .
This book , which was released just last week , destroys numerous claims of the environmental alarmist industry , spearheaded by robustly funded organizations including the Sierra Club , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council , Environmental Defense Fund and lesser known groups .
Shellenberger is presently the founder and president of Environmental Progress , a nonpartisan research organization in Berkeley , California .
He espouses what he calls “ environmental humanism , ” which is grounded in the “ transcendent moral purpose of universal human flourishing and environmental progress , and then in rationality.
” He also is a strong supporter of nuclear energy , and makes the compelling case that it is safe , abundant , carbon free , and vitally important to expand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s subtitle , Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All , especially describes the counterproductive impact of climate policies on populations in the developing world , including in Congo , Bangladesh , Brazil and Rwanda where the author traveled .
He faults international organizations such as the World Bank for trying to force on such nations renewable energy projects such as wind and solar and bio-fuels .
Instead , these nations , which remain heavily reliant on wood burning , need investment in hydroelectric dams , fossil fuel development and infrastructure to industrialize and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that brought the economic growth and prosperity to Europe and the U.S .
Yet , the aforementioned Green groups vigorously oppose this to and instead push what Shellenberger calls “ energy leapfrogging ” to renewables , which have neither the efficiency nor capacity to raise living standards .
Such climate policies toward the developing world are a form of neo-colonialism .
“ It is hypocritical and unethical to demand that poor nations follow a more expensive and thus slower path to prosperity that the West followed , ” Shellenberger writes .
I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding the West reverse its prosperity by crippling fossil fuels and nuclear energy .
There is almost no issue propagated by the environmental alarmist camp that is spared in this book of nearly 300 pages , not counting another 104 pages of endnotes .
I suspect because of Shellenberger ’ s takedown of so many environmental narratives and shibboleths , he meticulously documented his substantial research .
Environmental falsehoods are exposed regarding hydro-fracturing , including the bogus film , Gasland ; polar bears ; population control ; wind energy , which is devastating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green groups ) ; and recent wild fires and extreme weather events , which are not historically significant and claim significantly fewer lives today .
Solar and wind energy , he notes , are far less efficient and take 100 to 1,000 times the land space of fossil fuel plants .
The book also decries the deforestation necessary to expand wind , solar and bio-fuels , which threaten wildlife habitats .
Politicians and elites also are exposed for hypocrisy , including former California Governor Jerry Brown , whose family and political donors benefitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made more necessary from his impeding nuclear energy .
Green groups are shown being financially supported by fossil fuel billionaires , even as these groups attack climate skeptics for the same transgression .
Environmental scientists , journalists and activists are often criticized in the book for embellishments and dishonesty , for example , in reporting on the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change , and for parroting unfounded catastrophic consequences of climate change .
The book makes perhaps its most riveting discussion around the religious backdrop of apocalyptic environmentalism , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose ” and helps them “ find meaning in their lives.
” The trouble is that it also has become destructive such that it “ leads its adherents to demonize their opponents , often hypocritically , ” while they refuse to acknowledge genuine science and facts .
Shellenberger calls himself a “ rational environmentalist ” who wrote this book because the “ conversation about climate change and the environment [ has ] spiraled out of control.
” Indeed , rationalism is in woefully short supply in present day environmental discourse .
Michael Shellenberger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a welcome boost

The way to a cleaner, sustainable planet is not to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear power, but rather to expand their use, especially in developing countries to bring economic growth and prosperity, the way such sources did for the developed world.
This is one of the primary themes in the new book, Apocalypse Never, written not by a “climate denier” or “corporate shill.” Instead, author Michael Shellenberger is a 30-year environmental activist with street cred in various causes including saving California’s redwood forests and co-founding a “progressive Democratic, labor-environment push” in 2002 for the New Apollo Project, a renewable energy initiative that long predated the Green New Deal. He also is a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment.”
Shellenberger’s background is a key reason Apocalypse Never is so devastating to extremist environmentalism that has taken hold in politics, the media, K-12 education and popular culture. This book, which was released just last week, destroys numerous claims of the environmental alarmist industry, spearheaded by robustly funded organizations including the Sierra Club, 350, Greenpeace, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and lesser known groups.
Shellenberger is presently the founder and president of Environmental Progress, a nonpartisan research organization in Berkeley, California. He espouses what he calls “environmental humanism,” which is grounded in the “transcendent moral purpose of universal human flourishing and environmental progress, and then in rationality.”
He also is a strong supporter of nuclear energy, and makes the compelling case that it is safe, abundant, carbon free, and vitally important to expand for a sustainable future.
The book’s subtitle, Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, especially describes the counterproductive impact of climate policies on populations in the developing world, including in Congo, Bangladesh, Brazil and Rwanda where the author traveled. He faults international organizations such as the World Bank for trying to force on such nations renewable energy projects such as wind and solar and bio-fuels.
Instead, these nations, which remain heavily reliant on wood burning, need investment in hydroelectric dams, fossil fuel development and infrastructure to industrialize and improve living conditions – the very things that brought the economic growth and prosperity to Europe and the U.S. Yet, the aforementioned Green groups vigorously oppose this, and instead push what Shellenberger calls “energy leapfrogging” to renewables, which have neither the efficiency nor capacity to raise living standards.
Such climate policies toward the developing world are a form of neo-colonialism. “It is hypocritical and unethical to demand that poor nations follow a more expensive and thus slower path to prosperity that the West followed,” Shellenberger writes. I would add, these Green groups are effectively demanding the West reverse its prosperity by crippling fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
There is almost no issue propagated by the environmental alarmist camp that is spared in this book of nearly 300 pages, not counting another 104 pages of endnotes. I suspect because of Shellenberger’s takedown of so many environmental narratives and shibboleths, he meticulously documented his substantial research.
Environmental falsehoods are exposed regarding hydro-fracturing, including the bogus film, Gasland; polar bears; population control; wind energy, which is devastating birds and bats (yet downplayed by Green groups); and recent wild fires and extreme weather events, which are not historically significant and claim many fewer lives today. Solar and wind energy, he notes, are far less efficient and take 100 to 1,000 times the land space of fossil fuel plants. The book also decries the deforestation necessary to expand wind, solar and bio-fuels, which threaten wildlife habitats.
Politicians and elites also are exposed for hypocrisy, including former California Governor Jerry Brown, whose family and political donors benefitted from Indonesian crude oil and natural gas made more necessary from his impeding nuclear energy. Green groups are shown being financially supported by fossil fuel billionaires, even as these groups attack climate skeptics for the same transgression.
Environmental scientists, journalists and activists are often criticized in the book for embellishments and dishonesty, for example, in reporting on the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change, and for parroting unfounded catastrophic consequences of climate change.
The book makes perhaps its most riveting discussion around the religious backdrop of apocalyptic environmentalism, which he writes, “gives people a purpose” and helps them “find meaning in their lives.” The trouble is that it also has become destructive such that it “leads its adherents to demonize their opponents, often hypocritically,” while they refuse to acknowledge genuine science and facts.
Shellenberger calls himself a “rational environmentalist” who wrote this book because the “conversation about climate change and the environment [has] spiraled out of control.”
Indeed, rationalism is in woefully short supply in present day environmental discourse. Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never succeeds in providing a welcome boost


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-29--Forbes pulls Shellenberger apology for climate scare

Forbes apparently doesn ’ t want you to know that team climate has lost Michael Shellenberger .
Here are some excerpts from the article Forbes pushed down the memory hole : “ On behalf of environmentalists everywhere , I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years .
Climate change is happening .
It ’ s just not the end of the world .
It ’ s not even our most serious environmental problem.
” “ I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this .
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an environmentalist for 30 .
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony , and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report , I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
” “ Here are some facts few people know : – Humans are not causing a “ sixth mass extinction ” – The Amazon is not “ the lungs of the world ” – Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – Fires have declined 25 % around the world since 2003 – The amount of land we use for meat humankind ’ s biggest use of land has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska – The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests , not climate change , explain why there are more , and more dangerous , fires in Australia and California – Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain , Germany and France in the mid-seventies – Adapting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich not poor – We produce 25 % more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter – Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change – Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels – Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “ industrial ” agriculture I know that the above facts will sound like “ climate denialism ” to many .
But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , but CFACT has been explaining these FACTS and more all along .
Who pressured Forbes to kill the story and why did they cave ?

Forbes apparently doesn’t want you to know that team climate has lost Michael Shellenberger. Here are some excerpts from the article Forbes pushed down the memory hole:
“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”
“I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.”
“Here are some facts few people know:
– Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
– The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
– Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
– Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
– The amount of land we use for meat humankind’s biggest use of land
has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
– The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate
change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in
Australia and California
– Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and
peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies
– Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
– We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will
continue to rise as the world gets hotter
– Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to
species than climate change
– Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
– Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial”
agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.”
They’ve slandered and attack us, but CFACT has been explaining these FACTS and more all along.
Who pressured Forbes to kill the story and why did they cave?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-29--A winning trifecta for climate science and rationality

First there was Michael Moore ’ s Planet of the Humans , then came Bjorn Lomborg ’ s False Alarm , and now Michael Schellenberger ’ s Apocalypse Never .
All three authors sound the common theme that the hyper-green environmental activists who have captured , politicized , and monetized the concern for the environment have , as Lomborg explains , created a false climate alarm which has “ costs us trillions , hurts the poor , and fails to fix the planet.
” To varying degrees , all three authors come from a strong environmental activist background , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noteworthy .
Planet of the Humans , the recent film produced by Michael Moore , caused consternation and a considerable backlash from the green activists and their allied backers by pointing out how traditional energy companies had co-opted the environmental movement by donning a green alter-ego and embracing renewable energy .
By doing so , the corporations gained access to government funding/subsidies for wind turbine and commercial solar power installations and created a public relations victory for their vociferous eco-shareholders .
Moore ’ s revelation that the reality of needing to provide 24/7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel plants will remain the primary energy sources because of the failure of wind or solar to provide power if there is no wind or sufficient sun .
Renewables do not displace reliable fossil-fuel power plants .
Consumers energy bills do not go down , but go up , when renewables are imposed .
Moore also documented that renewables require large amounts of rare earths , cement , and fossil fuel energy in their production .
They are both notoriously inefficient in land use , and impose destruction of large areas of native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fact that the best wind or solar location is often remote from the most needed consumer base , thereby requiring the construction of massive electric transmission lines .
“ Factories claiming to have gone ‘ beyond coal ’ again and again turn out to be relying on natural gas.
” The film notes that biomass/wood chip power plants in England now rely on American forests .
Rather than just using lumber waste as was first proposed , this has now turned into a major sub-set of the logging industry .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned into wood chips .
The whole process of logging , processing , and trans-Atlantic shipping is all powered by fossil fuels .
The basic premise of using “ renewable ” lumber as a bio-fuel is that the carbon dioxide released upon its burning will become fertilizer for a new generation of trees and thus the cycle is carbon neutral .
The basic fallacy of it is that the time scale of new tree growth greatly exceeds the day-to-day weather cycle .
No matter .
Just imagine , American lumber keeping England eco-green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down its own forests .
With his recent book , False Alarm , Bjorn Lomborg continues to straddle the fence on global warming , aka climate change .
As the original “ skeptical environmentalist , ” Bjorn has argued that there are more productive ways to aid humanity than spending billions trying to influence climate change .
He has argued for improving sanitation , clean water supplies , basic nutrition , and providing paths out of poverty for the millions living in underdeveloped countries .
In this book , he continues to press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ills , rather than accepting the decades of panic driven calls for “ fixing the climate.
” He provides numerous references to substantiate his claims that climate change is real but is not the apocalyptic threat so widely advertised .
“ Science ” , he says , “ shows that landfalling hurricanes in the US are not more frequent than in the past .
Droughts here have actually become shorter , less frequent , and cover a smaller area .
Seventeen times more people currently die from cold than heat , and these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , global climate related deaths are an all-time low.
” …the projections of Earth ’ s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics .
In a politicized panic , world leaders have committed to wildly expensive , but largely ineffective policies , that hamper growth and crowd out other pressing investments in a better world , from immunization to education .
And yet , a schizophrenic-like mindset co-inhabits this rational evaluation of climate change and related issues .
Section 1 of the book is titled “ Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Michael Crichton ’ s 2004 “ State of Fear.
” A few pages into his introduction , Lomborg states , “ Climate change is real , it is caused predominantly by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels….
” No question that climate change is real ; however , he gives no reference for this unsubstantiated claim of human causation , which is the basic UN position , and the foundation for much green eco-activism .
A few lines later , he seems to criticize the same UN : After a 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims by activists , one of the scientists wrote : “ We risk turning off the public with extremist talk that is not carefully supported by the science.
” Media reports that we have to act by 2030 to solve the problem of climate change .
Is the media defining what the science is ?
Lomborg points out that this is indeed not science , but “ what politics tells us.
” He does not clarify what the “ problem ” is with the climate , though his chapter 6 is titled “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and chapter 11 offers “ Carbon Tax : The Market-Based Solution.
” Chapter 14 “ Geoengineering : A Backup Plan ” is recognized as “ entering uncharted territory , ” but “ could play a role if we found that we needed fast action to avoid a looming catastrophe.
” After calling for consideration of this back-up plan , the chapter continues with an extended discussion of the pluses and minuses of actually implementing it .
The reader will have to evaluate this recent book to get the full import of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most basic premise remains that there are better ways to alleviate human misery than spending taxpayer subsidies on panic-driven , political non-solutions to a changing climate .
Few would argue with that goal .
Michael Shellenberger has green activist credentials going back to his high school years .
Yet over the ensuing years , he has had an environmental reality epiphany which now has manifested itself most clearly in his recent book “ Apocalypse Never , ” and with his starting the ecomodernism movement .
The subtitle of the book , “ Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ echoes the similar conclusions of Moore and Lomborg .
Schellenberger had a few road bumps on the way to his current reality check .
Notable was his 2002 support of the “ New Apollo Project , ” which called for a major global science and economics research program to make carbon-free baseload electricity less costly than electricity from coal by the year 2025 at an expenditure of $ 150 billion over a decade .
The Obama administration adopted many of the renewable energy proposals , but Schellenberger documents that much of the money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Obama campaign ” but failed to produce the promised renewable energy advances .
Disillusionment gave way to reality , and in 2017 , Shellenberger told The Australian : “ Like most people , I started out pretty anti-nuclear .
I changed my mind as I realized you can ’ t power a modern economy on solar and wind… .
All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.
” He has made numerous efforts to support nuclear power .
His current book skewers many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extinctions , saving of the whales by Greenpeace , waste plastic fouling the ocean for thousands of years , and increases in extreme weather events .
He reflects upon his early devotion to environmentalism as a manifestation of an “ underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.
” It became a quasi-religion offering “ emotional relief ” and “ spiritual satisfaction ” for those , like him , who may have lost the guidance of traditional spiritual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic , destructive , and self-defeating.
” So here are three environmentalists with different degrees of eco-activism in their past , but all now willing to speak out against the incessant climate propaganda of human-related guilt , the purveyors of anxiety , and the poisoners of childhood joy and wonder .
Climate change is the norm ; it is not mankind ’ s original sin .
The readers here are encouraged to read the works of these climate @ @

First there was Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans, then came Bjorn Lomborg’s False Alarm, and now Michael Schellenberger’s Apocalypse Never. All three authors sound the common theme that the hyper-green environmental activists who have captured, politicized, and monetized the concern for the environment have, as Lomborg explains, created a false climate alarm which has “costs us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet.” To varying degrees, all three authors come from a strong environmental activist background, which observation makes their public revelations even more noteworthy.
Planet of the Humans, the recent film produced by Michael Moore, caused consternation and a considerable backlash from the green activists and their allied backers by pointing out how traditional energy companies had co-opted the environmental movement by donning a green alter-ego and embracing renewable energy. By doing so, the corporations gained access to government funding/subsidies for wind turbine and commercial solar power installations and created a public relations victory for their vociferous eco-shareholders. Moore’s revelation that the reality of needing to provide 24/7 reliable electricity to consumers ensures that fossil fuel plants will remain the primary energy sources because of the failure of wind or solar to provide power if there is no wind or sufficient sun. Renewables do not displace reliable fossil-fuel power plants. Consumers energy bills do not go down, but go up, when renewables are imposed.
Moore also documented that renewables require large amounts of rare earths, cement, and fossil fuel energy in their production. They are both notoriously inefficient in land use, and impose destruction of large areas of native habitats. Further environmental destruction is due to the fact that the best wind or solar location is often remote from the most needed consumer base, thereby requiring the construction of massive electric transmission lines. “Factories claiming to have gone ‘beyond coal’ again and again turn out to be relying on natural gas.”
The film notes that biomass/wood chip power plants in England now rely on American forests. Rather than just using lumber waste as was first proposed, this has now turned into a major sub-set of the logging industry. Our southern forests are leveled and the trees turned into wood chips. The whole process of logging, processing, and trans-Atlantic shipping is all powered by fossil fuels. The basic premise of using “renewable” lumber as a bio-fuel is that the carbon dioxide released upon its burning will become fertilizer for a new generation of trees and thus the cycle is carbon neutral. The basic fallacy of it is that the time scale of new tree growth greatly exceeds the day-to-day weather cycle. No matter. Just imagine, American lumber keeping England eco-green — a country well versed in cutting down its own forests.
With his recent book, False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg continues to straddle the fence on global warming, aka climate change. As the original “skeptical environmentalist,” Bjorn has argued that there are more productive ways to aid humanity than spending billions trying to influence climate change. He has argued for improving sanitation, clean water supplies, basic nutrition, and providing paths out of poverty for the millions living in underdeveloped countries. In this book, he continues to press for a concerted effort to alleviate these ills, rather than accepting the decades of panic driven calls for “fixing the climate.”
He provides numerous references to substantiate his claims that climate change is real but is not the apocalyptic threat so widely advertised. “Science”, he says, “shows that landfalling hurricanes in the US are not more frequent than in the past. Droughts here have actually become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller area. Seventeen times more people currently die from cold than heat, and these people will benefit from moderate warming. In fact, global climate related deaths are an all-time low.”
He claims:
…the projections of Earth’s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In a politicized panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive, but largely ineffective policies, that hamper growth and crowd out other pressing investments in a better world, from immunization to education.
And yet, a schizophrenic-like mindset co-inhabits this rational evaluation of climate change and related issues. Section 1 of the book is titled “Climate of Fear,” and evokes memories of Michael Crichton’s 2004 “State of Fear.” A few pages into his introduction, Lomborg states, “Climate change is real, it is caused predominantly by carbon emissions from humans burning fossil fuels….” No question that climate change is real; however, he gives no reference for this unsubstantiated claim of human causation, which is the basic UN position, and the foundation for much green eco-activism. A few lines later, he seems to criticize the same UN:
After a 2019 UN climate science report led to over-the-top claims by activists, one of the scientists wrote: “We risk turning off the public with extremist talk that is not carefully supported by the science.” Media reports that we have to act by 2030 to solve the problem of climate change. Is the media defining what the science is ?
Lomborg points out that this is indeed not science, but “what politics tells us.” He does not clarify what the “problem” is with the climate, though his chapter 6 is titled “You Can’t Fix Climate Change,” and chapter 11 offers “Carbon Tax: The Market-Based Solution.” Chapter 14 “Geoengineering: A Backup Plan” is recognized as “entering uncharted territory,” but “could play a role if we found that we needed fast action to avoid a looming catastrophe.” After calling for consideration of this back-up plan, the chapter continues with an extended discussion of the pluses and minuses of actually implementing it.
The reader will have to evaluate this recent book to get the full import of Lomborg’s latest effort. His most basic premise remains that there are better ways to alleviate human misery than spending taxpayer subsidies on panic-driven, political non-solutions to a changing climate. Few would argue with that goal.
Michael Shellenberger has green activist credentials going back to his high school years. Yet over the ensuing years, he has had an environmental reality epiphany which now has manifested itself most clearly in his recent book “Apocalypse Never,” and with his starting the ecomodernism movement. The subtitle of the book, “Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All,” echoes the similar conclusions of Moore and Lomborg.
Schellenberger had a few road bumps on the way to his current reality check. Notable was his 2002 support of the “New Apollo Project,” which called for a major global science and economics research program to make carbon-free baseload electricity less costly than electricity from coal by the year 2025 at an expenditure of $150 billion over a decade. The Obama administration adopted many of the renewable energy proposals, but Schellenberger documents that much of the money went to “companies that enriched donors to the Obama campaign” but failed to produce the promised renewable energy advances.
Disillusionment gave way to reality, and in 2017, Shellenberger told The Australian: “Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear. I changed my mind as I realized you can’t power a modern economy on solar and wind…. All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.” He has made numerous efforts to support nuclear power.
His current book skewers many of the claims of eco-environmentalists, including mass extinctions, saving of the whales by Greenpeace, waste plastic fouling the ocean for thousands of years, and increases in extreme weather events.
He reflects upon his early devotion to environmentalism as a manifestation of an “underlying anxiety and unhappiness in my own life that had little to do with climate change or the state of the natural environment.” It became a quasi-religion offering “emotional relief” and “spiritual satisfaction” for those, like him, who may have lost the guidance of traditional spiritual faiths.
Schellenberger concludes with the observation that “the trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating.”
So here are three environmentalists with different degrees of eco-activism in their past, but all now willing to speak out against the incessant climate propaganda of human-related guilt, the purveyors of anxiety, and the poisoners of childhood joy and wonder. Climate change is the norm; it is not mankind’s original sin. The readers here are encouraged to read the works of these climate realists.