committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-30--Extra warm U.S. winter had nature’s thumbprint on it

Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas when it comes to the planetary weather and climate .
Meteorologist look at “ saturation mixing ratios ” which show a correlation of water vapor to temperature .
Basically the colder and drier the air mass , the more the introduction of water vapor will lead higher temperatures , there is no place like the arctic to prove this is the case .
The cyclically warmed oceans have put more water vapor ( and CO2 ) into the air .
When Super El Niño ’ s go off , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up of the temperature .
The colder regions leading the way as will be opined on below .
Basically the rules of the game are , if its warm like this winter , its climate change , if it is cold , its climate change .
It is typical of everyone gets a trophy in that any answer even if opposite , means you get credit .
I am not going to waste time attacking here , except to say this kind of one-sided journalism and the fact that nowhere did anyone show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you , should raise questions of any objective person .
2 ) I will point out that nowhere in this article did the massive natural physical drivers that far outweigh the effect of CO2 , which is only .041 % of the atmosphere .
Pointedly , of which man is only responsible for 25 % and the US only 15 % of that total .
Now look at the table below .
Notice how small the correlated increase of WV is between -40 and -30 ( less than .1gram/kg ) .
The introduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause lower pressure and more turbulent mixing .
All of which act to increase temperatures where its very cold .
( Also in the high levels of the atmosphere , which is why the “ trapping hot spot theory of warming in the upper levels over the tropics has gone the opposite way .
ITS DRYING OUT NOT GETTING MORE MOIST ) .
While its true this creates a distortion in the global temperature pattern , this is inherent in the system anyway .
Notice at higher temperatures it takes much more water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The warming is in the very cold time of the year which skews the overall temp upward .
Missing from this are the actual arctic temps which will still be frigid but not as low as they were in the winters 30 years ago .
Still , no one is going to survive an arctic winter unless as prepared as they would have been 30 years ago .
BUT THERE IS NO SUMMER WARMING meaning the amount of water vapor from the cyclically warmed oceans has little effect where it is warmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cold .
The fact that no such correlation chart exists for CO2 and temps should make one understand the minute effect it has on temperature anyway .
Then when factoring in mans % and the US , the amount is minuscule compared to the big forcing .
The warming is in the very cold time of the year which skews the overall temp upward .
Missing from this are the actual arctic temps which will still be frigid but not as low as they were in the winters 30 years ago .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an arctic winter unless as prepared as they would have been 30 years ago .
BUT THERE IS NO SUMMER WARMING meaning the amount of water vapor from the cyclically warmed oceans has little effect where it is warmer , much more when it ’ s cold .
The fact that no such correlation chart exists for CO2 and temps should make one understand the minute effect it has on temperature anyway .
Then when factoring in mans % and the US , the amount is minuscule compared to the big forcing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecast for a colder than normal winter ( 1-3 below average with wide swings back and forth ) over the heartland .
The reason was based on SST models that revealed the classic warm ring in the Pacific from east of the dateline , northeast to off the west coast of the US then back up into the NE Pacific .
Such a pattern favors a western Canadian ridge , and when the area just east of the dateline is warm and off south America is not as warm , cold flows into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spread out .
Models are tricky things as was discussed in my last blog .
But SST forecasts are usually better because the ocean is so slow to change .
So put heartland cold into the pattern , and have warm water in the Gulf and off the east coast , you have the formula for a wild winter , worse in the middle and end than at the start .
So we blend them and use them and have done quite well in past years , not this winter for look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favors a western Canadian ridge , and when the area just east of the dateline is warm and off south America is not as warm , cold flows into the center of the nation and tries to spread out .
Models are tricky things as was discussed in my last blog .
But SST forecasts are usually better because the ocean is so slow to change .
So put heartland cold into the pattern , and have warm water in the Gulf and off the east coast , you have the formula for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle and end than at the start .
So we blend them and use them and have done quite well in past years , not this winter for look at what happened : That warm water in area 1 favors enhanced thunderstorms and the release of heat in the upper levels in a way that changes the pattern in the Pacific .
If we look at the Madden Julian Oscillation , we see that favors a phase 6 .
Notice where the heavy precipitation is in the winter in phase 6 Look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
But wait there is more .
If we take the last 4 very warm winters 98-99 , 2001-2002 , 2011-2012 , 2019-2020 ..
Almost exactly that .
The phase 6 look feeds heat into the ridge NNE of it .
This , in turn , tightens the upper air jet due to increased gradients .
Sinking air southeast of the main jet feeds the ridge , rising air northeast of the main jet helps intensify the trough .
Once the feedback starts , with the SST not as warm on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is , tries to go into the west , not the Great Lakes .
That in turn also allows the ridge to feed back in the southeast and the pattern repeats itself until such time the seasonal change or other large scale events can change it .
Now look up there to compare and contrast that to the “ snowmageddon ” winter where heavy snow amounts were being blamed on “ climate change ” .
Almost exactly that .
The phase 6 look feeds heat into the ridge NNE of it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ upper air jet due to increased gradients .
Sinking air southeast of the main jet feeds the ridge , rising air northeast of the main jet helps intensify the trough .
Once the feedback starts , with the SST not as warm on the west coast , it means what trough there is , tries to go into the west , not the Great Lakes .
That in turn also allows the ridge to feed back in the southeast and the pattern repeats itself until such time the seasonal change or other large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look up there to compare and contrast that to the “ snowmageddon ” winter where heavy snow amounts were being blamed on “ climate change ” .
These are big natural cyclical events .
You never hear or see about this stuff when articles like this come out .
Yet we can see them .
Are they amplified with warmer oceans ?
I believe so .
Is CO2 responsible ?
( Again , remember the numbers , man responsible for 25 % of the .041 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bands that CO2 absorbs radiation in from the warmer earth already saturated as per what Dr Will Happer has been trying to tell anyone that would listen ) IS not actually looking at the major natural forcing , inherent in the tropical oceans , the Sea Surface temperatures and responses , worth the look and the examination in looking , the cause ?
These are big natural cyclical events .
You never hear or see about this stuff when articles like this come out .
Yet we can see them .
Are they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
Is CO2 responsible ?
( Again , remember the numbers , man responsible for 25 % of the .041 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere the US only 15 % , with the bands that CO2 absorbs radiation in from the warmer earth already saturated as per what Dr Will Happer has been trying to tell anyone that would listen ) IS not actually looking at the major natural forcing , inherent in the tropical oceans , the Sea Surface temperatures and responses , worth the look and the examination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always have to say , give people the why before the what , and in this case the great lesson is SST models can not be trusted all the time .
Again , they are usually better .
( BTW they are forecasting a La Niña next winter , which should lead to a reduction in overall global temperatures but not back to where they were before the SUPER El Niño and a whole new set of problems with that forecast . )
But I have to question the messenger when the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , even the novice can link this together and see that this winter had NATURES THUMBPRINT ALL OVER IT .
At the very least there is plenty of reason to believe that this winter , like the other ones shown , is simply nature doing what nature does .
No matter what CO2 does , get the same pattern and the same thing will happen .
How does the increase since the 2009-2010 winter of 15ppm of CO2 lead to the opposite effect ?
Yet both are a sign of climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its no answer at all .

Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas when it comes to the planetary weather and climate. Meteorologist look at “saturation mixing ratios” which show a correlation of water vapor to temperature. Basically the colder and drier the air mass, the more the introduction of water vapor will lead higher temperatures, there is no place like the arctic to prove this is the case. The cyclically warmed oceans have put more water vapor (and CO2) into the air. When Super El Niño’s go off, the immense amounts dispersed lead to a step up of the temperature. The colder regions leading the way as will be opined on below.
Basically the rules of the game are, if its warm like this winter, its climate change, if it is cold, its climate change. It is typical of everyone gets a trophy in that any answer even if opposite, means you get credit.
I am not going to waste time attacking here, except to say this kind of one-sided journalism and the fact that nowhere did anyone show what I am about to reveal to you, should raise questions of any objective person.
2) I will point out that nowhere in this article did the massive natural physical drivers that far outweigh the effect of CO2, which is only .041% of the atmosphere. Pointedly, of which man is only responsible for 25% and the US only 15% of that total.
Now look at the table below. Notice how small the correlated increase of WV is between -40 and -30 ( less than .1gram/kg). The introduction of those slight amounts create clouds, cause lower pressure and more turbulent mixing. All of which act to increase temperatures where its very cold. (Also in the high levels of the atmosphere, which is why the “trapping hot spot theory of warming in the upper levels over the tropics has gone the opposite way. ITS DRYING OUT NOT GETTING MORE MOIST). While its true this creates a distortion in the global temperature pattern, this is inherent in the system anyway. Notice at higher temperatures it takes much more water vapor to correlate to the temperature increase.
So look at the warming in the arctic: So look at the warming in the arctic:
The warming is in the very cold time of the year which skews the overall temp upward. Missing from this are the actual arctic temps which will still be frigid but not as low as they were in the winters 30 years ago. Still, no one is going to survive an arctic winter unless as prepared as they would have been 30 years ago. BUT THERE IS NO SUMMER WARMING meaning the amount of water vapor from the cyclically warmed oceans has little effect where it is warmer, much more when it’s cold. The fact that no such correlation chart exists for CO2 and temps should make one understand the minute effect it has on temperature anyway. Then when factoring in mans % and the US, the amount is minuscule compared to the big forcing. The warming is in the very cold time of the year which skews the overall temp upward. Missing from this are the actual arctic temps which will still be frigid but not as low as they were in the winters 30 years ago. Still, no one is going to survive an arctic winter unless as prepared as they would have been 30 years ago. BUT THERE IS NO SUMMER WARMING meaning the amount of water vapor from the cyclically warmed oceans has little effect where it is warmer, much more when it’s cold. The fact that no such correlation chart exists for CO2 and temps should make one understand the minute effect it has on temperature anyway. Then when factoring in mans % and the US, the amount is minuscule compared to the big forcing.
Now watch this. I had a forecast for a colder than normal winter (1-3 below average with wide swings back and forth) over the heartland. The reason was based on SST models that revealed the classic warm ring in the Pacific from east of the dateline, northeast to off the west coast of the US then back up into the NE Pacific.
Such a pattern favors a western Canadian ridge, and when the area just east of the dateline is warm and off south America is not as warm, cold flows into the center of the nation and tries to spread out. Models are tricky things as was discussed in my last blog. But SST forecasts are usually better because the ocean is so slow to change. So put heartland cold into the pattern, and have warm water in the Gulf and off the east coast, you have the formula for a wild winter, worse in the middle and end than at the start. So we blend them and use them and have done quite well in past years, not this winter for look at what happened: Such a pattern favors a western Canadian ridge, and when the area just east of the dateline is warm and off south America is not as warm, cold flows into the center of the nation and tries to spread out. Models are tricky things as was discussed in my last blog. But SST forecasts are usually better because the ocean is so slow to change. So put heartland cold into the pattern, and have warm water in the Gulf and off the east coast, you have the formula for a wild winter, worse in the middle and end than at the start. So we blend them and use them and have done quite well in past years, not this winter for look at what happened:
1) The warm water was near and west of the dateline. This is huge as I will explain later. 2) The water was cooler near and off the west coast than further west. 3) Warm water off the east coast, which we knew, but with no cold attacking, it was free to overtake the pattern at will. 1) The warm water was near and west of the dateline. This is huge as I will explain later. 2) The water was cooler near and off the west coast than further west. 3) Warm water off the east coast, which we knew, but with no cold attacking, it was free to overtake the pattern at will.
That warm water in area 1 favors enhanced thunderstorms and the release of heat in the upper levels in a way that changes the pattern in the Pacific. If we look at the Madden Julian Oscillation, we see that favors a phase 6. Notice where the heavy precipitation is in the winter in phase 6
Look at this winter almost right on top of it.
What does a mean phase 6 give us for the US temperature-wise? What does a mean phase 6 give us for the US temperature-wise?
Guess what happened this winter, what phase 6 gives us. Now if this is CO2, why doesn’t it simply occur every winter? Because its not, its large scale natural forcing. Minute increases in CO2 are not going to push around the oceans, whose cycles are decades and in some cases even longer in the making. Guess what happened this winter, what phase 6 gives us. Now if this is CO2, why doesn’t it simply occur every winter? Because its not, its large scale natural forcing. Minute increases in CO2 are not going to push around the oceans, whose cycles are decades and in some cases even longer in the making.
But wait there is more. If we take the last 4 very warm winters 98-99, 2001-2002, 2011-2012, 2019-2020 ..
..and looked at the upper air pattern, we notice a powerfully positive arctic oscillation (for the sake of ease, severe cold over the pole), ..and looked at the upper air pattern, we notice a powerfully positive arctic oscillation (for the sake of ease, severe cold over the pole),
we see a positive eastern Pacific oscillation. Cold in Alaska, ridging north of Hawaii. This in turn forces ridging over the eastern US which is then fed by very warm water as it prevents cold intrusions, the ridging over Europe where it was quite warm and in much of Russia. What did we see this year? we see a positive eastern Pacific oscillation. Cold in Alaska, ridging north of Hawaii. This in turn forces ridging over the eastern US which is then fed by very warm water as it prevents cold intrusions, the ridging over Europe where it was quite warm and in much of Russia. What did we see this year?
Almost exactly that. The phase 6 look feeds heat into the ridge NNE of it. This, in turn, tightens the upper air jet due to increased gradients. Sinking air southeast of the main jet feeds the ridge, rising air northeast of the main jet helps intensify the trough. Once the feedback starts, with the SST not as warm on the west coast, it means what trough there is, tries to go into the west, not the Great Lakes. That in turn also allows the ridge to feed back in the southeast and the pattern repeats itself until such time the seasonal change or other large scale events can change it. Now look up there to compare and contrast that to the “snowmageddon” winter where heavy snow amounts were being blamed on “climate change”. Almost exactly that. The phase 6 look feeds heat into the ridge NNE of it. This, in turn, tightens the upper air jet due to increased gradients. Sinking air southeast of the main jet feeds the ridge, rising air northeast of the main jet helps intensify the trough. Once the feedback starts, with the SST not as warm on the west coast, it means what trough there is, tries to go into the west, not the Great Lakes. That in turn also allows the ridge to feed back in the southeast and the pattern repeats itself until such time the seasonal change or other large scale events can change it. Now look up there to compare and contrast that to the “snowmageddon” winter where heavy snow amounts were being blamed on “climate change”.
Think back to that winter. After the big December, snowstorm winter disappeared till the last 10 days of January then February went wild. Notice where that oscillation was in February 2010 (green) mainly in phase 8 certainly not in 6 (it was for a little while in January and it was mild). Think back to that winter. After the big December, snowstorm winter disappeared till the last 10 days of January then February went wild. Notice where that oscillation was in February 2010 (green) mainly in phase 8 certainly not in 6 (it was for a little while in January and it was mild).
Now notice where the center of the heavy precip was in Feb 2010.. Now notice where the center of the heavy precip was in Feb 2010..
..to the east not west of the dateline. That had to do with the SST centering of the warmth just east of the dateline. Warmer than what it is off South America and SST’s off the west coast warmer than what they are further west. The cold water off the east coast was a factor. ..to the east not west of the dateline. That had to do with the SST centering of the warmth just east of the dateline. Warmer than what it is off South America and SST’s off the west coast warmer than what they are further west. The cold water off the east coast was a factor.
These are big natural cyclical events. You never hear or see about this stuff when articles like this come out. Yet we can see them. Are they amplified with warmer oceans? I believe so. Is CO2 responsible? (Again, remember the numbers, man responsible for 25% of the .041% of the CO2 in the atmosphere the US only 15%, with the bands that CO2 absorbs radiation in from the warmer earth already saturated as per what Dr Will Happer has been trying to tell anyone that would listen) IS not actually looking at the major natural forcing, inherent in the tropical oceans, the Sea Surface temperatures and responses, worth the look and the examination in looking , the cause? These are big natural cyclical events. You never hear or see about this stuff when articles like this come out. Yet we can see them. Are they amplified with warmer oceans? I believe so. Is CO2 responsible? (Again, remember the numbers, man responsible for 25% of the .041% of the CO2 in the atmosphere the US only 15%, with the bands that CO2 absorbs radiation in from the warmer earth already saturated as per what Dr Will Happer has been trying to tell anyone that would listen) IS not actually looking at the major natural forcing, inherent in the tropical oceans, the Sea Surface temperatures and responses, worth the look and the examination in looking , the cause?
I always have to say, give people the why before the what, and in this case the great lesson is SST models can not be trusted all the time. Again, they are usually better. (BTW they are forecasting a La Niña next winter, which should lead to a reduction in overall global temperatures but not back to where they were before the SUPER El Niño and a whole new set of problems with that forecast.) But I have to question the messenger when the entire message is not given. In this case, even the novice can link this together and see that this winter had NATURES THUMBPRINT ALL OVER IT. At the very least there is plenty of reason to believe that this winter, like the other ones shown, is simply nature doing what nature does. No matter what CO2 does, get the same pattern and the same thing will happen. How does the increase since the 2009-2010 winter of 15ppm of CO2 lead to the opposite effect? Yet both are a sign of climate change. When any answer will do, its no answer at all.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-01--CAFE standards reform means safer cars and saved lives

In the midst of the fight to save lives from the COVID-19 pandemic , the Trump administration earlier today announced a regulatory change on another issue that also will save lives .
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) and the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) said they will increase—at a slower pace than existing regulations—the required average miles per gallon that automobiles and light trucks must attain .
Specifically , the new regulations require automakers to increase the current year “ corporate average fuel economy ” ( CAFÉ ) standard of 36.8 miles per gallon by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40.4 miles among their respective fleet of vehicles by 2026 .
That means heavier , safer cars overall , and more lives protected when accidents occur , compared to the prior standards .
According to data from the NHTSA , the new regulations over the next decade will save 3,300 lives and result in nearly 400,000 fewer injuries from auto accidents .
The environmental cottage industry is nonetheless apoplectic .
Gina McCarthy , president of the National Resources Defense Council ( NRDC ) , claimed the new regulations “ will harm the air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate crisis and increase the cost of driving.
” Mind you , the administration ’ s new regulations are increasing the CAFÉ standard to more than 40 miles per gallon in the next six years from the current mandate of 36.8 miles .
That means greater fuel efficiency , lower per capita usage of oil , and lower driving costs .
The previous mileage mandate of 46.6 miles per gallon by 2025 was imposed by the Obama administration in 2012 .
We ’ re talking six measly miles per gallon – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the assertion by the NRDC , this is not “ gutting the clean car standards.
” Former President Obama was not happy with this change to CAFE by his successor administration .
He tweeted the new regulatory standard was akin to “ climate denial ” and compared the supposed consequences of this action to “ those who denied warnings of a pandemic.
” Not unlike so many politicians , Barack Obama has long made such straw-man arguments .
Whoever he claims was denying “ warnings of a pandemic ” he did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include officials in his own administration who were no more prepared for the worst pandemic in a century from COVID-19 than any other administration .
As for “ climate denial , ” does anyone seriously believe that higher CAFÉ standards in the U.S. in five years , but six miles per gallon below what was previously promulgated , will accelerate the warming of the planet ?
Should the former president and Mrs. Obama now put a “ for-sale ” sign on their recently purchased , multi-million dollar Martha ’ s Vineyard oceanfront mansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ gutting ” the CAFÉ standard , will sea levels rise and flood his yard , and perhaps reach into the parlor ?
But , I digress .
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were first imposed in 1975 to force auto manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars so Americans would consume less gasoline .
World oil reserves at the time were thought to be more limited , and gas was rising sharply in price .
CAFÉ was not originally about global warming theory , especially since the world then was thought by many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invoke climate change to further increase CAFÉ standards believe we must curtail fossil fuel use , as if such a vast phenomenon like climate would stop changing by driving more “ Smart Cars , ” which are little more than go-carts with an engine ; a 21st century Yugo .
Higher CAFÉ standards always came with a price – in human lives .
A multitude of studies over the last 40 years confirms this ; however , other simultaneous developments have offset to a degree this impact , including more airbag and seatbelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel economy standards , like so many public policies , have always been about trade-offs , including saving energy , reducing pollution and mitigating accidents and death .
The revised regulations attempt to achieve that difficult balance .
Regardless of the competing studies on CAFÉ , no one disputes that higher gas mileage mandates necessitated more cars be smaller in size and lighter in weight .
Indeed , a Toyota Corolla gets better gas mileage than a Chevy Suburban .
If I ’ m in a car accident , I ’ d rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would you , regardless of your position on the climate ’ s trajectory .

In the midst of the fight to save lives from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration earlier today announced a regulatory change on another issue that also will save lives.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said they will increase—at a slower pace than existing regulations—the required average miles per gallon that automobiles and light trucks must attain. Specifically, the new regulations require automakers to increase the current year “corporate average fuel economy” (CAFÉ) standard of 36.8 miles per gallon by 1.5 percent annually to a standard of 40.4 miles among their respective fleet of vehicles by 2026.
That means better built, safer cars overall, and more lives protected when accidents occur, compared to the prior standards. According to data from the NHTSA, the new regulations over the next decade will save 3,300 lives and result in nearly 400,000 fewer injuries from auto accidents.
The environmental cottage industry is nonetheless apoplectic. Gina McCarthy, president of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), claimed the new regulations “will harm the air we breathe, stall progress in fighting the climate crisis and increase the cost of driving.”
Mind you, the administration’s new regulations are increasing the CAFÉ standard to more than 40 miles per gallon in the next six years from the current mandate of 36.8 miles. That means greater fuel efficiency, lower per capita usage of oil, and lower driving costs. The previous mileage mandate of 46.6 miles per gallon by 2025 was imposed by the Obama administration in 2012; hence, the enviros strenuously object.
We’re talking a difference of six measly miles per gallon – and the world is coming to an end? Contrary to the assertion by the NRDC, this is not “gutting the clean car standards.”
Former President Obama also was not happy with this change to CAFE by his successor administration. He tweeted the new regulatory standard was akin to “climate denial” and compared the supposed consequences of this action to “those who denied warnings of a pandemic.”
Not unlike so many politicians, Barack Obama has long made such straw-man arguments. Whoever he claims was denying “warnings of a pandemic” he did not say, but those would have to include officials in his own administration who were no more prepared for the worst pandemic in a century from COVID-19 than any other administration.
As for “climate denial,” does anyone seriously believe that higher CAFÉ standards in the U.S. in five years, but six miles per gallon below what was previously promulgated, will accelerate the warming of the planet? Should the former president and Mrs. Obama now put a “for-sale” sign on their recently purchased, multi-million dollar Martha’s Vineyard oceanfront mansion? If the climate warms faster from “gutting” the CAFÉ standard, will sea levels rise and flood his yard, and perhaps reach into the parlor? But, I digress.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were first imposed in 1975 to force auto manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars so Americans would consume less gasoline. World oil reserves at the time were thought to be more limited, and gas was rising sharply in price. CAFÉ was not originally about global warming theory, especially since the world then was thought by many to be cooling.
Those who today invoke climate change to further increase CAFÉ standards believe we must curtail fossil fuel use, as if such a vast phenomenon like climate would stop changing by driving more “Smart Cars,” which are little more than go-carts with an engine; a 21st century Yugo.
Higher CAFÉ standards always came with a price – in human lives. A multitude of studies over the last 40 years confirms this; however, other simultaneous developments have offset to a degree this impact, including more airbag and seatbelt use.
The debate over corporate average fuel economy standards, like so many public policies, has always been about trade-offs, including saving energy, reducing pollution and mitigating accidents and death. The revised regulations attempt to achieve that difficult balance.
Regardless of the competing studies on CAFÉ, no one disputes that mandates for higher gas mileage vehicles necessitated more cars be smaller in size and lighter in weight. Indeed, a Toyota Corolla gets better gas mileage than a Chevy Suburban. If I’m in a car accident, I’d rather be in the Chevy, and so would you, regardless of your position on the climate’s trajectory.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-01--Civil rights lawyers: COVID-19 reusable shopping bag bans violate religious liberty

Seeking to curb the spread of disease from cloth shopping bags , governors such as New Hampshire ’ s Chris Sununu and Massachusetts ’ Charlie Baker attempted a bold move and banned them outright .
“ From now on , reusable bags are prohibited and all regulations on plastic bag bans are lifted , ” Baker said during a COVID-19 briefing on Beacon Hill .
“ Not so fast , ” said civil rights lawyers in a press statement issued last night .
“ Reusable shopping bags are a statement of Green faith , community and devotion to Mother Gaia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Banning reusable bags and requiring single use bags violates the separation of church and state .
New age religion is religion , pure and simple .
You can no more ban people ’ s beloved shopping bags than you can ban the burqa , the crucifix , or the Star of David.
” “ The Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution applied the prohibition of religious discrimination enshrined in our First Amendment directly to the states , ” civil rights attorneys explained .
“ The right of the people to proclaim their faith through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sacred .
Unless Governors Sununu , Baker and the rest reverse these bans immediately , or create reasonable accommodations such as bag disinfection stations and sensitivity training , we are prepared to file suit under the Civil Rights Act .
We will also apply for an immediate injunction to a Federal District Court judge in California and expect a national stay on this bigoted bag policy will issue nationwide.
” Green congregationalists are in shock from coast to coast .
Many expressed fear .
“ What will they come for next ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose the bigots come after renewable energy subsidies , which to us are sacred ?
Our wind turbines shine upon the mountain tops as the Cristo Redentor shines above Rio de Janeiro .
Our solar panels proclaim the Green way from the rooftops .
We give up meat for tofu .
Separating trash and coming together to recycle is a treasured act of faith .
We must draw the line here and now or the entirety of Green devotional activity is threatened.
” A climate fundamentalist leader added , “ yea verily I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come when climate crisis will drown the wicked in a great flood .
No act of faith is too small to help avert that day of reckoning .
One person ’ s soiled cloth bag is another ’ s act of spiritual self-sacrifice.
” When asked whether today ’ s Green devotional should be taught in public schools , the civil rights lawyers demurred .
“ We must tackle these questions one at a time , ” they told our reporter , “ we ’ ll revisit that issue once the right of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proclaim their faith through the boutique shopping bag of their choice has been irrevocably redeemed.
” One woke shopper did not mince words saying , “ they ’ ll have to pry my fair trade , organic sisal , indigenous-crafted bag off my cold dead shoulder !
”

Seeking to curb the spread of disease from cloth shopping bags, governors such as New Hampshire’s Chris Sununu and Massachusetts’ Charlie Baker attempted a bold move and banned them outright. “From now on, reusable bags are prohibited and all regulations on plastic bag bans are lifted,” Baker said during a COVID-19 briefing on Beacon Hill.
“Not so fast,” said civil rights lawyers in a press statement issued last night.
“Reusable shopping bags are a statement of Green faith, community and devotion to Mother Gaia,” the statement reads. “Banning reusable bags and requiring single use bags violates the separation of church and state. New age religion is religion, pure and simple. You can no more ban people’s beloved shopping bags than you can ban the burqa, the crucifix, or the Star of David.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution applied the prohibition of religious discrimination enshrined in our First Amendment directly to the states,” civil rights attorneys explained. “The right of the people to proclaim their faith through reusable shopping bags in retail stores is sacred. Unless Governors Sununu, Baker and the rest reverse these bans immediately, or create reasonable accommodations such as bag disinfection stations and sensitivity training, we are prepared to file suit under the Civil Rights Act. We will also apply for an immediate injunction to a Federal District Court judge in California and expect a national stay on this bigoted bag policy will issue nationwide.”
Green congregationalists are in shock from coast to coast. Many expressed fear. “What will they come for next?” one Green spiritual leader asked, “suppose the bigots come after renewable energy subsidies, which to us are sacred? Our wind turbines shine upon the mountain tops as the Cristo Redentor shines above Rio de Janeiro. Our solar panels proclaim the Green way from the rooftops. We give up meat for tofu. Separating trash and coming together to recycle is a treasured act of faith. We must draw the line here and now or the entirety of Green devotional activity is threatened.”
A climate fundamentalist leader added, “yea verily I say unto thee, the day will come when climate crisis will drown the wicked in a great flood. No act of faith is too small to help avert that day of reckoning. One person’s soiled cloth bag is another’s act of spiritual self-sacrifice.”
When asked whether today’s Green devotional should be taught in public schools, the civil rights lawyers demurred. “We must tackle these questions one at a time,” they told our reporter, “we’ll revisit that issue once the right of every Green to signal their virtue and proclaim their faith through the boutique shopping bag of their choice has been irrevocably redeemed.”
One woke shopper did not mince words saying, “they’ll have to pry my fair trade, organic sisal, indigenous-crafted bag off my cold dead shoulder!”
——————– APRIL FOOLS!———————


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-02--Trump Administration Dumps Obama-era Fuel-Efficiency standards

Dealing a long-anticipated setback to the Obama administration ’ s signature effort to transform the U.S. transportation sector in the name of combating climate change , the Trump administration has scrapped an Obama-era gas-mileage standard and replaced it with a much less-stringent fuel-efficiency rule .
On March 31 , the U.S. Department of Transportation ’ s National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) unveiled the final Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ( SAFE ) Vehicle Rule setting standards for corporate average fuel economy ( CAFÉ ) and CO2 emissions standards for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SUVs , and pickups .
The rules will require U.S. cars to improve fuel efficiency by 1.5 % per year for the model years 2021 through 2026 , compared to a nearly 5 % annual increase mandated by the Obama administration in 2012 .
Under the Trump rule , the projected overall industry required fuel economy for the model year 2026 will be 40.4 mpg , compared to 46.7 mpg under the 2012 Obama standards .
EPA and NHTSA say the new rules will make new vehicles more affordable , which will lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and injuries as consumers will replace their older , less-safe models with new cars that have better safety features .
“ President Trump inherited a CAFÉ mandate from his predecessor that was impossible to achieve without dramatically altering the automobile market or making the cost of vehicles out of reach for most American families , ” notes Tom Pyle , president of the American Energy Alliance .
And that ’ s exactly what the Obama administration intended to do : Create an impossible standard , “ forcing ” the government to step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and raise the price of vehicles so that people would be forced to buy a car they can ’ t afford or turn to public transportation as a last resort , even if it didn ’ t meet their needs .
This is social engineering via the administrative regulatory state ; have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats set the rules so that people will have no choice but to change their ways , putting the country on a glide path to a green utopia .
The Trump administration ’ s move follows its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California that allowed it to set its own , more stringent tailpipe emissions standards .
California , along with nearly two dozen other states , are suing the administration for the right to set their own fuel efficiency standards .
An earlier version of the rollback envisioned freezing the CAFÉ standards at current levels , with requiring no increase in fuel efficiency during the 2021 – 2026 timeframe .
Instead , the administration blinked and came up with a 1.5 % annual increase .
The administration should have stuck to its guns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo .
The days of U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil are long past , and Washington should butt out of mandating gas-mileage standards and allow consumers to make the choices that fit their needs .
For their part , environmentalists made no attempt to hide their disdain for the administration ’ s action , conjuring up an impending climate disaster in the process .
“ At a time when scientists are telling us we must transform our economy and build a 100 % clean future as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrageous action moves us closer to a future climate that is inhospitable to humanity , ” opined Christy Goldfuss , senior vice president at the left-leaning Center for American Progress .
( Washington Times , April 1 ) Some things never change , and climate alarmism is one of them .

Dealing a long-anticipated setback to the Obama administration’s signature effort to transform the U.S. transportation sector in the name of combating climate change, the Trump administration has scrapped an Obama-era gas-mileage standard and replaced it with a much less-stringent fuel-efficiency rule.
On March 31, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled the final Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicle Rule setting standards for corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) and CO2 emissions standards for model years 2021 – 2026 cars, SUVs, and pickups.
The rules will require U.S. cars to improve fuel efficiency by 1.5% per year for the model years 2021 through 2026, compared to a nearly 5% annual increase mandated by the Obama administration in 2012. Under the Trump rule, the projected overall industry required fuel economy for the model year 2026 will be 40.4 mpg, compared to 46.7 mpg under the 2012 Obama standards.
EPA and NHTSA say the new rules will make new vehicles more affordable, which will lead to a major reduction in traffic deaths and injuries as consumers will replace their older, less-safe models with new cars that have better safety features.
“President Trump inherited a CAFÉ mandate from his predecessor that was impossible to achieve without dramatically altering the automobile market or making the cost of vehicles out of reach for most American families,” notes Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance.
Social Engineering via the Administrative Regulatory State
And that’s exactly what the Obama administration intended to do: Create an impossible standard, “forcing” the government to step in when automakers couldn’t achieve it, and raise the price of vehicles so that people would be forced to buy a car they wouldn’t choose, or can’t afford, or turn to public transportation as a last resort, even if it didn’t meet their needs.
This is social engineering via the administrative regulatory state; have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats set the rules so that people will have no choice but to change their ways, putting the country on a glide path to a green utopia.
The Trump administration’s move follows its 2019 revoking of a waiver Obama granted California that allowed it to set its own, more stringent tailpipe emissions standards. California, along with nearly two dozen other states, are suing the administration for the right to set their own fuel efficiency standards.
CAFÉ: A Relic from the Past
An earlier version of the rollback envisioned freezing the CAFÉ standards at current levels, with requiring no increase in fuel efficiency during the 2021 – 2026 timeframe. Instead, the administration blinked and came up with a 1.5% annual increase. The administration should have stuck to its guns. CAFÉ is an antiquated program adopted in response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. The days of U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil are long past, and Washington should butt out of mandating gas-mileage standards and allow consumers to make the choices that fit their needs.
For their part, environmentalists made no attempt to hide their disdain for the administration’s action, conjuring up an impending climate disaster in the process.
“At a time when scientists are telling us we must transform our economy and build a 100% clean future as soon as we possibly can, this outrageous action moves us closer to a future climate that is inhospitable to humanity,” opined Christy Goldfuss, Senior Vice President at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. (Washington Times, April 1)
Some things never change, and climate alarmism is one of them.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-02--Millennials given responsibility to pay for retirement program deficiencies

In these trying times coping with the Coronavirus , and its huge impact on businesses and employment , the younger generations have been set up to pick up some the costs of the lucrative defined benefits that their parents and grandparents voted in for themselves .
For the government union employees , it ’ s enticing for them to retire early and receive lucrative guaranteed retirement checks .
In many cases , enjoy more retirement years than the working years they put in to qualify for those “ guaranteed defined ” benefits .
As we all know , over time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the time of service required to retire reduced .
We ’ re constantly reading about those “ unfunded ” pension liabilities , as the monies set aside to pay for that endless commitment are apparently not earning enough annual returns to pay for that commitment , thus “ unfunded ” is appropriate and scary for the younger generations .
Government pension systems are generally funded by four revenue sources that vary in each jurisdiction : deductions from an employee ’ s paycheck ; contributions from the employer ; investment earnings from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case of taxpayers , it ’ s going to be the youth that had no vote on these financial obligations .
Unless pension funds around the nation continue to earn 7 % or more per year on their investments , it ’ s likely that taxpayers will be on the hook for trillions of dollars of promises to government unions .
These promises have been made by politician ’ s past and present , resulting in pressure to increase taxes and cut government services .
Our kids had no say in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upcoming taxpayers , they are the safety shield for the Unions efforts to maximize lush guaranteed retirement packages for their union members .
Our kids will have the financial responsibility to make up for any deficiencies from the pension fund investments .
The Unions have no guilt feelings about DEFINED benefits , regardless of available funds to pay for those benefits .
The responsibility to pay them will be on the backs of the younger generations that had no vote on their future financial responsibilities .
It ’ s amazing that “ entitlement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will drive the so called “ entitled ” parents and grandparents to put the costs of those entitlements onto their kids !
State and local workers are promised generous DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PROGRAMS that few private sector companies offer any longer because they are unaffordable and unsustainable .
The private sector offers defined “ contribution ” programs , i.e.
, 401k plans or something similar , which NEVER impact current or future taxpayers .
Making matters worse , thanks to complicit politicians , the state and local governments have failed to adequately fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The huge unfunded pension liability debt crisis is the inevitable result that younger generations , unable to vote today , that will bear the costs .
Fully funding these pensions is unfair to current hard working taxpayers , so the “ consensus ” of the courts and current taxpayers is to defer the responsibilities of paying for these overly-generous “ defined retirement benefit ” pension programs to younger generations .
All paying higher taxes and work later into their lives to pay for the promises of previous generations , to subsidize older Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other states—because pension obligations , once made , are virtually impossible to renegotiate or discharge .
Since states are sovereign entities with unlimited ability to tax , and because they can not declare bankruptcy , any government pension shortfall must eventually be paid by the taxpayer .
It ’ s frustrating and appalling the “ courts ” are saying that future generations will continue to be legally responsible for DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PROGRAMS established by previous generations !
Are the courts really supporting taxation on younger generations without representation ?

In these trying times coping with the Coronavirus, and its huge impact on businesses and employment, the younger generations have been set up to pick up some the costs of the lucrative defined benefits that their parents and grandparents voted in for themselves.
For the government union employees, it’s enticing for them to retire early and receive lucrative guaranteed retirement checks. In many cases, enjoy more retirement years than the working years they put in to qualify for those “guaranteed defined” benefits. As we all know, over time, defined pensions have become more generous and the time of service required to retire reduced.
We’re constantly reading about those “unfunded” pension liabilities, as the monies set aside to pay for that endless commitment are apparently not earning enough annual returns to pay for that commitment, thus “unfunded” is appropriate and scary for the younger generations.
Government pension systems are generally funded by four revenue sources that vary in each jurisdiction: deductions from an employee’s paycheck; contributions from the employer; investment earnings from the pension fund; and taxpayers. In the case of taxpayers, it’s going to be the youth that had no vote on these financial obligations.
Unless pension funds around the nation continue to earn 7% or more per year on their investments, it’s likely that taxpayers will be on the hook for trillions of dollars of promises to government unions. These promises have been made by politician’s past and present, resulting in pressure to increase taxes and cut government services.
Our kids had no say in the implementation of those programs, but as upcoming taxpayers, they are the safety shield for the Unions efforts to maximize lush guaranteed retirement packages for their union members. Our kids will have the financial responsibility to make up for any deficiencies from the pension fund investments.
The Unions have no guilt feelings about DEFINED benefits, regardless of available funds to pay for those benefits. The responsibility to pay them will be on the backs of the younger generations that had no vote on their future financial responsibilities.
It’s amazing that “entitlement” to those promised DEFINED benefits, will drive the so called “entitled” parents and grandparents to put the costs of those entitlements onto their kids!
State and local workers are promised generous DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PROGRAMS that few private sector companies offer any longer because they are unaffordable and unsustainable. The private sector offers defined “contribution” programs, i.e., 401k plans or something similar, which NEVER impact current or future taxpayers.
Making matters worse, thanks to complicit politicians, the state and local governments have failed to adequately fund these overly generous DEFINED benefit pensions. The huge unfunded pension liability debt crisis is the inevitable result that younger generations, unable to vote today, that will bear the costs.
Fully funding these pensions is unfair to current hard working taxpayers, so the “consensus” of the courts and current taxpayers is to defer the responsibilities of paying for these overly-generous “defined retirement benefit” pension programs to younger generations. All paying higher taxes and work later into their lives to pay for the promises of previous generations, to subsidize older Americans.
This matters for taxpayers in California—and other states—because pension obligations, once made, are virtually impossible to renegotiate or discharge. Since states are sovereign entities with unlimited ability to tax, and because they cannot declare bankruptcy, any government pension shortfall must eventually be paid by the taxpayer.
It’s frustrating and appalling the “courts” are saying that future generations will continue to be legally responsible for DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PROGRAMS established by previous generations! Are the courts really supporting taxation on younger generations without representation?
This article originally appeared at California Political Review


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-02--Carbon credit scam exposed: carbon markets fail as CO₂ declines

Environmentalists and green bureaucrats have watched in shock as the coronavirus global shut down has now caused carbon credit markets to crash .
The European Union ’ s carbon credits price has fallen by 40 % this year so far .
This market was worth $ 215 billion last year , according to Bloomberg Environment .
The price drop has rubbed out two years of EU carbon market gains .
It turns out that if there are extremely low levels of carbon dioxide emissions , as is the case currently with businesses and industries shuttered , the companies doing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy any carbon credits to make up for it .
And if no one is buying carbon credits to offset emissions , well , then the so-called “ market ” for carbon dies .
Wait a minute , isn ’ t the whole idea of these carbon credits to reduce CO₂ emissions ; what climate campaigners refer to as horrible pollution ?
As Luke Skywalker said when approaching the Death Star for the first time in Star Wars Episode IV : A New Hope , “ I have a very bad feeling about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the ultimate goal of near zero CO₂ emissions is achieved , the long-coveted carbon credit market crashes ?
Quite plainly , it is because the existence of these markets sets up a perverse incentive .
To the average climate campaigner , the goal of such a “ market ” is to eventually bring CO₂ emissions to as close to zero as possible .
But for those companies making big bucks off of carbon credits , when the so-called “ pollution ” falls , so do their profits .
They don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any time soon .
Until recently , climate activists have been very successful convincing corporations and governments into going along with the scheme of “ carbon credits.
” This means , essentially , the more CO₂ you emit , the more credits you have to buy .
The cost of those credits is then supposedly invested into renewable energy projects , etc .
But the real goal isn ’ t to reduce CO₂ emissions at all .
The real goal is to make money .
Whatever good , yet misplaced , intent there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely hijacked by those who see money making opportunities – and not in a way that encourages innovation through free market capitalism , but by creating schemes like carbon credit markets that siphon funds off of legitimate businesses and redistributes them to companies and individuals with the right connections in government .
You can ’ t claim to have a free market solution to something with a faux market only put in place by mandating government regulations .
A faux market is all carbon credits , carbon taxes , carbon pricing , carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand them , will ever amount to .

Environmentalists and green bureaucrats have watched in shock as the coronavirus global shut down has now caused carbon credit markets to crash.
The European Union’s carbon credits price has fallen by 40% this year so far. This market was worth $215 billion last year, according to Bloomberg Environment. The price drop has rubbed out two years of EU carbon market gains.
It turns out that if there are extremely low levels of carbon dioxide emissions, as is the case currently with businesses and industries shuttered, the companies doing the carbon emitting don’t have to buy any carbon credits to make up for it.
And if no one is buying carbon credits to offset emissions, well, then the so-called “market” for carbon dies.
Wait a minute, isn’t the whole idea of these carbon credits to reduce CO₂ emissions; what climate campaigners refer to as horrible pollution?
As Luke Skywalker said when approaching the Death Star for the first time in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, “I have a very bad feeling about this.”
How is it then that if the ultimate goal of near zero CO₂ emissions is achieved, the long-coveted carbon credit market crashes?
Quite plainly, it is because the existence of these markets sets up a perverse incentive.
To the average climate campaigner, the goal of such a “market” is to eventually bring CO₂ emissions to as close to zero as possible. But for those companies making big bucks off of carbon credits, when the so-called “pollution” falls, so do their profits. They don’t plan on giving that cash flow up any time soon.
Until recently, climate activists have been very successful convincing corporations and governments into going along with the scheme of “carbon credits.” This means, essentially, the more CO₂ you emit, the more credits you have to buy. The cost of those credits is then supposedly invested into renewable energy projects, etc.
But the real goal isn’t to reduce CO₂ emissions at all.
The real goal is to make money.
Whatever good, yet misplaced, intent there is in climate action policies has been completely hijacked by those who see money making opportunities – and not in a way that encourages innovation through free market capitalism, but by creating schemes like carbon credit markets that siphon funds off of legitimate businesses and redistributes them to companies and individuals with the right connections in government.
You can’t claim to have a free market solution to something with a faux market only put in place by mandating government regulations.
A faux market is all carbon credits, carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon transfers, or whatever you want to brand them, will ever amount to.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-02--Trump Administration dumps Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards

Dealing a long-anticipated setback to the Obama administration ’ s signature effort to transform the U.S. transportation sector in the name of combating climate change , the Trump administration has scrapped an Obama-era gas-mileage standard and replaced it with a much less-stringent fuel-efficiency rule .
On March 31 , the U.S. Department of Transportation ’ s National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) unveiled the final Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ( SAFE ) Vehicle Rule setting standards for corporate average fuel economy ( CAFÉ ) and CO2 emissions standards for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SUVs , and pickups .
The rules will require U.S. cars to improve fuel efficiency by 1.5 % per year for the model years 2021 through 2026 , compared to a nearly 5 % annual increase mandated by the Obama administration in 2012 .
Under the Trump rule , the projected overall industry required fuel economy for the model year 2026 will be 40.4 mpg , compared to 46.7 mpg under the 2012 Obama standards .
EPA and NHTSA say the new rules will make new vehicles more affordable , which will lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and injuries as consumers will replace their older , less-safe models with new cars that have better safety features .
“ President Trump inherited a CAFÉ mandate from his predecessor that was impossible to achieve without dramatically altering the automobile market or making the cost of vehicles out of reach for most American families , ” notes Tom Pyle , president of the American Energy Alliance .
And that ’ s exactly what the Obama administration intended to do : Create an impossible standard , “ forcing ” the government to step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and raise the price of vehicles so that people would be forced to buy a car they wouldn ’ t choose , or can ’ t afford , or turn to public transportation as a last resort , even if it didn ’ t meet their needs .
This is social engineering via the administrative regulatory state ; have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats set the rules so that people will have no choice but to change their ways , putting the country on a glide path to a green utopia .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 revoking of a waiver Obama granted California that allowed it to set its own , more stringent tailpipe emissions standards .
California , along with nearly two dozen other states , are suing the administration for the right to set their own fuel efficiency standards .
An earlier version of the rollback envisioned freezing the CAFÉ standards at current levels , with requiring no increase in fuel efficiency during the 2021 – 2026 timeframe .
Instead , the administration blinked and came up with a 1.5 % annual increase .
The administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CAFÉ is an antiquated program adopted in response to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo .
The days of U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil are long past , and Washington should butt out of mandating gas-mileage standards and allow consumers to make the choices that fit their needs .
For their part , environmentalists made no attempt to hide their disdain for the administration ’ s action , conjuring up an impending climate disaster in the process .
“ At a time when scientists are telling us we must transform our economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon as we possibly can , this outrageous action moves us closer to a future climate that is inhospitable to humanity , ” opined Christy Goldfuss , senior vice president at the left-leaning Center for American Progress .
( Washington Times , April 1 ) Some things never change , and climate alarmism is one of them .


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-03--Throwing cold water on hot climate models

The only climate model that agrees with observations says there is NO climate emergency .
Meanwhile half of the IPCC models are getting hotter than ever before , hence getting further from reality than ever before .
A modeling showdown is looming and CLINTEL is a leader among the climate critics .
They make a strong plea that in the current health emergency any climate action should be put on hold .
“ Why construct a false climate crisis on top of a true corona crisis ?
” My previous article — “ CLINTEL Manifesto blasts climate scaremongering ” — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatic divergence of the IPCC climate model predictions from the satellite temperature readings .
The models are all running much hotter than reality .
See https : //www.cfact.org/2020/01/29/clintel-manifesto-blasts-climate-scaremongering/ There is however one major model that agrees with the satellites , that being the Russian model .
The reason is simple , yet profound .
CLINTEL President professor Guus Berkhout explains it this way : “ I have studied Russia ’ s climate model INM .
Unlike IPCC ’ s models , the Russian INM model predictions fit the measurements remarkably well .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative cloud feedback : –0.13 W/m2/degree C , while the IPCC models use a large positive cloud feedback : up to + 0.80 W/m2/degree C. This large positive cloud feedback is responsible for the catastrophic IPCC predictions.
” The physics behind this explanation is pretty simple .
Warming leads to more water vapor on the air , which causes increased cloudiness .
Clouds can then either increase the warming ( positive feedback ) or decrease it ( negative feedback ) .
The scientific question is which occurs ?
The Russians are finding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support them .
CLINTEL is an international climate science advisor so it makes sense that they look closely at these findings .
Their vision is : “ Progress requires Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Scientific Inquiry.
” In fact Professor Berkhout has been officially invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences to learn more about the INM model and to share the climate vision of CLINTEL .
Unlike the U.S. and European modelers , the Russian modeling community has not been captured by the alarmists .
This has given them the freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the alarmists have refused to do , at least so far .
But even within the alarmist community we see a promising development , as a big fight is shaping up over cloud feedbacks .
The IPCC is in the process of writing the latest of its big Assessment Reports , which it does every five years or so , this being the sixth report ( AR6 ) .
Most of the major alarmist climate models are run to feed into this report .
This time we see that in AR6 about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotter than they did for the fifth report ( AR5 ) .
Although the review process is not yet finished , it appears that the AR6 modelers have juiced up the positive cloud feedback .
We are not aware of any big new science to support this exaggeration .
Has it been done to support the political push for radical zero-carbon laws ?
The hotter the model the worse the catastrophe it predicts from fossil fuel use , justifying a higher level of panic .
A lot of people within the climate community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the AR6 model outputs .
For one thing it suggests that at least half of the models are wrong , either the half that haven ’ t become hotter ( predicting the same level of panic as in AR5 ) or the half that have ( predicting a higher level of panic as in AR679 ) .
In the process the alarmist consensus is coming apart .
How the IPCC will handle this schism remains to be seen .
A higher positive cloud feedback may not solve all inconsistencies , but for sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most unlikely assumption on the modeler ’ s part .
No science compels this choice and measurements strongly advise against it .
This opens the door for the empirically confirmed Russian findings , which call into question the entire catastrophe narrative of AR5 and even more AR6 .
Professor Berkhout puts it succinctly : “ If the Russians are right , the carbon budget – being the amount of carbon mankind may emit before we reach the 1.5 and 2 degree C warming thresholds in The Paris Accord – is very , very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no problem with continuing CO2 emissions until we have a technologically reliable and economically affordable alternative .
Zero emission in 2050 is totally foolish .
Looking at the the current health emergency it is a crime against humanity.
” It is ironic , yet fitting , that the “ blue sky ” fantasy of climate alarmism may be brought back down to earth by clouds .
Negative feedback is a truly positive message .
Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this drama unfolds .

The only climate model that agrees with observations says there is NO climate emergency. Meanwhile half of the IPCC models are getting hotter than ever before, hence getting further from reality than ever before. A modeling showdown is looming and CLINTEL is a leader among the climate critics. They make a strong plea that in the current health emergency any climate action should be put on hold. “Why construct a false climate crisis on top of a true corona crisis?”
My previous article — “CLINTEL Manifesto blasts climate scaremongering” — includes the all important graphic showing a dramatic divergence of the IPCC climate model predictions from the satellite temperature readings. The models are all running much hotter than reality. See https://www.cfact.org/2020/01/29/clintel-manifesto-blasts-climate-scaremongering/
There is however one major model that agrees with the satellites, that being the Russian model. The reason is simple, yet profound. CLINTEL President professor Guus Berkhout explains it this way: “I have studied Russia’s climate model INM. Unlike IPCC’s models, the Russian INM model predictions fit the measurements remarkably well. A plausible explanation is that it uses a negative cloud feedback: –0.13 W/m2/degree C, while the IPCC models use a large positive cloud feedback: up to + 0.80 W/m2/degree C. This large positive cloud feedback is responsible for the catastrophic IPCC predictions.”
The physics behind this explanation is pretty simple. Warming leads to more water vapor on the air, which causes increased cloudiness. Clouds can then either increase the warming (positive feedback) or decrease it (negative feedback). The scientific question is which occurs? The Russians are finding that it is a negative feedback. Measurements support them.
CLINTEL is an international climate science advisor so it makes sense that they look closely at these findings. Their vision is: “Progress requires Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Scientific Inquiry.” In fact Professor Berkhout has been officially invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences to learn more about the INM model and to share the climate vision of CLINTEL.
Unlike the U.S. and European modelers, the Russian modeling community has not been captured by the alarmists. This has given them the freedom to explore the negative feedback option, which the alarmists have refused to do, at least so far.
Yet even within the alarmist community we see a promising development, as a big fight is shaping up over cloud feedbacks. The IPCC is in the process of writing the latest of its big Assessment Reports, which it does every five years or so, this being the sixth report (AR6). Most of the major alarmist climate models are run to feed into this report.
This time we see that in AR6 about half of these models are running much hotter than they did for the fifth report (AR5). Although the review process is not yet finished, it appears that the AR6 modelers have juiced up the positive cloud feedback. We are not aware of any big new science to support this exaggeration. Has it been done to support the political push for radical zero-carbon laws? The hotter the model the worse the catastrophe it predicts from fossil fuel use, justifying a higher level of panic.
A lot of people within the climate community are questioning this increased global warming in the AR6 model outputs. For one thing it suggests that at least half of the models are wrong, either the half that haven’t become hotter (predicting the same level of panic as in AR5) or the half that have (predicting a higher level of panic as in AR679). In the process the alarmist consensus is coming apart. How the IPCC will handle this schism remains to be seen.
A higher positive cloud feedback may not solve all inconsistencies, but for sure we may state that it is a most unlikely assumption on the modeler’s part. No science compels this choice and measurements strongly advise against it. This opens the door for the empirically confirmed Russian findings, which call into question the entire catastrophe narrative of AR5 and even more AR6.
Professor Berkhout puts it succinctly: “If the Russians are right, the carbon budget – being the amount of carbon mankind may emit before we reach the 1.5 and 2 degree C warming thresholds in The Paris Accord – is very, very large. In other words, there is no problem with continuing CO2 emissions until we have a technologically reliable and economically affordable alternative. Zero emission in 2050 is totally foolish. Looking at the the current health emergency it is a crime against humanity.”
It is ironic, yet fitting, that the “blue sky” fantasy of climate alarmism may be brought back down to earth by clouds. Negative feedback is a truly positive message.
Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this drama unfolds.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-03--CAFE standards reform and the Big Green lie

The Trump Administration finalized its reform of the “ CAFE , ” or Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that impact every vehicle we buy and drive .
This is a big boost for the American economy that coincidentally arrives just in time , with the economy reeling from the emergency brought on by COVID-19 .
“ By making newer , safer , and cleaner vehicles more accessible for American families , more lives will be saved and more jobs will be created , ” U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao said in a statement .
The rules will require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.5 % per year for the model years 2021 through 2026 , compared to a nearly 5 % annual increase mandated by the Obama administration in 2012 .
Under the Trump rule , the projected overall industry required fuel economy for the model year 2026 will be 40.4 mpg , compared to 46.7 mpg under the 2012 Obama standards .
The ideologically driven Obama rule was not practically or technologically feasible , and as Bonner explains : That ’ s exactly what the Obama administration intended to do : Create an impossible standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step in when automakers couldn ’ t achieve it , and raise the price of vehicles so that people would be forced to buy a car they wouldn ’ t choose , or can ’ t afford , or turn to public transportation as a last resort , even if it didn ’ t meet their needs .
The usual suspects on the Left are apoplectic .
Surprised ?
“ The Administration is unraveling the biggest and most successful climate policy on the books , one that has also saved consumers millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollution , and helped grow the auto industry , ” Ken Kimmell , president of the Union of Concerned Scientists , said in a statement The truth is that left-wing math never adds up , and left-wing economics ?
“ Fahgettaboudit !
” Here ’ s the biggest myth they are pushing everywhere , and here it is coming from David Frideman from of all places Consumer Reports , a source many Americans usually trust : At a time when many Americans are going without a paycheck , it ’ s unconscionable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying more for gas for years to come .
This is nonsense .
The Obama CAFE standards force car makers to average out their fleets by either building extremely expensive electric and hybrid vehicles , or alternatively buying credits from companies with a high proportion of EVs in their fleet .
Elon Musk has been raking it in .
Under the Obama rule , manufacturers that don ’ t meet CAFE standards are forced to buy credits from manufacturers that do .
General Motors and Fiat Chrysler purchased hundreds of millions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas-fueled vehicles in its all electric fleet .
One year ago Tesla disclosed that it had operated at a loss of $ 702 million .
Factored into that number is $ 200.6 million dollars in sales of ZEV regulatory credits .
Tesla did not disclose its valuable sales of non ZEV credits .
ZEV credits are Zero emission vehicle credits mandated by a handful of states led by California .
CAFE credits are non ZEV .
In addition , the Obama standards led to vehicles with all sorts of absurdities such as smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if forcing vehicles to make more trips to the fuel pump is anyone ’ s idea of efficiency .
Stripping down vehicle weight through inferior build standards is no one ’ s realistic idea of safety .
Auto manufacturers have even proposed replacing side view mirrors with cameras to make tiny reductions in drag .
Vehicles are being made to shut off at stops and red lights , to the consternation of those who drive them , solely to meet CAFE targets .
Peter Murphy focuses on what the reformed CAFE rule means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better built , safer cars overall , and more lives protected when accidents occur , compared to the prior standards .
According to data from the NHTSA , the new regulations over the next decade will save 3,300 lives and result in nearly 400,000 fewer injuries from auto accidents .
Sensible people should welcome the reforms to the CAFE standards , the big boost it means to the economy , and the safety , savings and choice it means for consumers .
This is good news just when we need it most .

The Trump Administration finalized its reform of the “CAFE,” or Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that impact every vehicle we buy and drive.
This is a big boost for the American economy that coincidentally arrives just in time, with the economy reeling from the emergency brought on by COVID-19.
The Obama Administration rushed ou t a last minute “mid-term” determination that its unrealistic CAFE standards were “adequate” in an attempt to lock in the standards before the Trump Administration took office. The new Administration was having none of it, and immediately began reevaluating and reforming the policy.
“By making newer, safer, and cleaner vehicles more accessible for American families, more lives will be saved and more jobs will be created,” U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao said in a statement.
Senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen explains at CFACT.org:
The rules will require U.S. cars to improve fuel efficiency by 1.5% per year for the model years 2021 through 2026, compared to a nearly 5% annual increase mandated by the Obama administration in 2012. Under the Trump rule, the projected overall industry required fuel economy for the model year 2026 will be 40.4 mpg, compared to 46.7 mpg under the 2012 Obama standards.
The ideologically driven Obama rule was not practically or technologically feasible, and as Bonner explains:
That’s exactly what the Obama administration intended to do: Create an impossible standard, “forcing” the government to step in when automakers couldn’t achieve it, and raise the price of vehicles so that people would be forced to buy a car they wouldn’t choose, or can’t afford, or turn to public transportation as a last resort, even if it didn’t meet their needs.
The usual suspects on the Left are apoplectic. Surprised?
“The Administration is unraveling the biggest and most successful climate policy on the books, one that has also saved consumers millions of dollars in gasoline costs, cut air pollution, and helped grow the auto industry,” Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement
“Of all the bad things President Trump has done to the environment, this is the worst,” said Dan Becker , director of the Safe Climate Campaign. “He is rolling back the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight global warming, cut oil use and save money at the pump. He is rejecting cleaner, efficient cars in favor of pollution-spewing, gas-guzzling Trump-mobiles.
The truth is that left-wing math never adds up, and left-wing economics? “Fahgettaboudit!”
Here’s the biggest myth they are pushing everywhere, and here it is coming from David Frideman from of all places Consumer Reports, a source many Americans usually trust:
At a time when many Americans are going without a paycheck, it’s unconscionable to approve a plan that will have consumers paying more for gas for years to come.
This is nonsense. The Obama CAFE standards force car makers to average out their fleets by either building extremely expensive electric and hybrid vehicles, or alternatively buying credits from companies with a high proportion of EVs in their fleet. Elon Musk has been raking it in.
Under the Obama rule, manufacturers that don’t meet CAFE standards are forced to buy credits from manufacturers that do. General Motors and Fiat Chrysler purchased hundreds of millions of dollars in credits from Tesla which has no gas-fueled vehicles in its all electric fleet. One year ago Tesla disclosed that it had operated at a loss of $702 million. Factored into that number is $200.6 million dollars in sales of ZEV regulatory credits. Tesla did not disclose its valuable sales of non ZEV credits. ZEV credits are Zero emission vehicle credits mandated by a handful of states led by California. CAFE credits are non ZEV.
In addition, the Obama standards led to vehicles with all sorts of absurdities such as smaller fuel tanks to save weight, as if forcing vehicles to make more trips to the fuel pump is anyone’s idea of efficiency. Stripping down vehicle weight through inferior build standards is no one’s realistic idea of safety. Auto manufacturers have even proposed replacing side view mirrors with cameras to make tiny reductions in drag. Vehicles are being made to shut off at stops and red lights, to the consternation of those who drive them, solely to meet CAFE targets.
Peter Murphy focuses on what the reformed CAFE rule means for safety at CFACT.org:
That means better built, safer cars overall, and more lives protected when accidents occur, compared to the prior standards. According to data from the NHTSA, the new regulations over the next decade will save 3,300 lives and result in nearly 400,000 fewer injuries from auto accidents.
Sensible people should welcome the reforms to the CAFE standards, the big boost it means to the economy, and the safety, savings and choice it means for consumers.
This is good news just when we need it most.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-04--A more robust way of predicting COVID-19 than models

This coronavirus is very nasty business and I hope this catches you still free of Covid-19 .
The spread of Covid-19 is exponential in nature with one person infecting another and then two people infecting two others and then four people infecting four others etc..
This makes the rate of increase in new cases equivalent to acceleration which is also exponential .
Basic physics tells us that force equals mass times acceleration ( f=ma ) so as long as the force and mass remain constant so will the acceleration .
In the case of Covid-19 “ force ” is equivalent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of people who infected people come in contact with .
Then “ mass ” is equivalent to measures being taken to stop the spread , so any changes in either of these two factors will affect the acceleration which is the percentage of new cases per day .
New York City has become the epicentre for Covid-19 in the USA because of the sudden introduction of 100 new cases in New Rochelle demonstrated by the change in the curve around March 15 , 2020 If you look at this graph as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being equivalent to distance versus time which is essentially velocity ( first derivative of distance with respect to time ) and take the second derivative which is equivalent to acceleration , the plot of percentage increase in new cases per day This because the same increase relative to a larger number becomes a smaller percentage , which if nothing else gives some degree of hope that the end is in sight !
Because a same large number of new cases as a percentage of progressively larger numbers of total cases produces lower and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peak value of 116.5 % the percentage rapidly drops back to the background rate as demonstrated by this plot of the New York City data as a percentage increase in new cases per day .
This is the same plot at a smaller scale with the curve plotted from March 20 after the recovery from the spike showing a trajectory to zero percent new cases sometime in the not too distant future .
This plot of percentage increase in new cases per day is very sensitive to any large cluster of new cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 25 .
If this plot is done for individual states it will provide an alternative metric demonstrating the effectiveness of measures being taken for each state and a rough estimate of when the point of zero new cases will be reached .
Since this uses the same official numbers for each state that are plotted as the total number of cases , there is no fiddling with the data in producing this graph .
The best thing about plotting the numbers in this way ( percentage derived from new cases each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the curve points down instead of up , giving the public hope by demonstrating that the measures being put in place are having the effect intended .
To date projections have been based on models of “ flattening the curve ” from the maximum destructive curve to a more benign curve modelled on the basis of measures being put in place .
Models are based on assumptions and are only as good as the assumptions being made .
By contrast by plotting the actual data in this way makes no assumptions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero new cases are perfectly valid with the only questionable aspect being how the trajectory will behave and how long it will take to reach the zero point .
There is something to be said for plotting data by hand because unlike having a computer plot data from a computer generated spreadsheet , the individual numbers plotted have meaning and small anomalies can be identified that would never be seen in computer outputs which would likely average out anything that does not fit the curve .
A perfect example of this is Admiral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO claiming correlation at Ted Cruz ’ s December 8 , 2015 hearing at which you were one of the witnesses .
This is what was presented as evidence of correlation which clearly does not hold up when the temperature data is analyzed in detail and the actual emissions are plotted at each of the temperature inflection points .
On April 18 , 2007 I gave this presentation to the Rotary Club of Calgary Centennial which included this hand drawn graph showing the departure of increasing CO emissions from decreasing global temperature in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Appreciation for “ Speaking on Global Warming Ended in 2002 !
!
!
” That same year Al Gore blamed global warming on increasing CO based on Hansen ’ s 1988 computer model prediction for which Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize for warning the world about man made climate change that never actually existed !
Please pass this on to your Whitehouse contacts with my compliments

This coronavirus is very nasty business and I hope this catches you still free of Covid-19.
The most disheartening aspect of the Covid-19 pandemic is that nothing in the numbers presented gives any indication of hope of the end being in sight. This with all the graphs continuing to point upwards, coupled with the fake news media inflammation of an already dire situation. https://www.businessinsider.com/figures-show-us-soon-coronavirus-worse-china-2020-3
The spread of Covid-19 is exponential in nature with one person infecting another and then two people infecting two others and then four people infecting four others etc.. This makes the rate of increase in new cases equivalent to acceleration which is also exponential.
Basic physics tells us that force equals mass times acceleration (f=ma) so as long as the force and mass remain constant so will the acceleration.
In the case of Covid-19 “force” is equivalent to how infectious the coronavirus is and the number of people who infected people come in contact with. Then “mass” is equivalent to measures being taken to stop the spread, so any changes in either of these two factors will affect the acceleration which is the percentage of new cases per day.
New York City has become the epicentre for Covid-19 in the USA because of the sudden introduction of 100 new cases in New Rochelle demonstrated by the change in the curve around March 15, 2020
If you look at this graph as the number of cases versus time, being equivalent to distance versus time which is essentially velocity (first derivative of distance with respect to time) and take the second derivative which is equivalent to acceleration, the plot of percentage increase in new cases per day creates a downward pointing graph. This because the same increase relative to a larger number becomes a smaller percentage, which if nothing else gives some degree of hope that the end is in sight!
Because a same large number of new cases as a percentage of progressively larger numbers of total cases produces lower and lower percentage values, after reaching a peak value of 116.5% the percentage rapidly drops back to the background rate as demonstrated by this plot of the New York City data as a percentage increase in new cases per day.
This is the same plot at a smaller scale with the curve plotted from March 20 after the recovery from the spike showing a trajectory to zero percent new cases sometime in the not too distant future.
This plot of percentage increase in new cases per day is very sensitive to any large cluster of new cases as demonstrated by the one day peak on March 25.
If this plot is done for individual states it will provide an alternative metric demonstrating the effectiveness of measures being taken for each state and a rough estimate of when the point of zero new cases will be reached.
Since this uses the same official numbers for each state that are plotted as the total number of cases, there is no fiddling with the data in producing this graph.
The best thing about plotting the numbers in this way (percentage derived from new cases each day divided by previous total) is that the curve points down instead of up, giving the public hope by demonstrating that the measures being put in place are having the effect intended.
To date projections have been based on models of “flattening the curve” from the maximum destructive curve to a more benign curve modelled on the basis of measures being put in place.
Models are based on assumptions and are only as good as the assumptions being made. By contrast by plotting the actual data in this way makes no assumptions and therefore the data driven projections of reaching zero new cases are perfectly valid with the only questionable aspect being how the trajectory will behave and how long it will take to reach the zero point.
There is something to be said for plotting data by hand because unlike having a computer plot data from a computer generated spreadsheet, the individual numbers plotted have meaning and small anomalies can be identified that would never be seen in computer outputs which would likely average out anything that does not fit the curve.
A perfect example of this is Admiral Titley presenting a temperature graph plotted against CO 2 claiming correlation at Ted Cruz’s December 8, 2015 hearing at which you were one of the witnesses.
This is what was presented as evidence of correlation which clearly does not hold up when the temperature data is analyzed in detail and the actual emissions are plotted at each of the temperature inflection points.
On April 18, 2007 I gave this presentation to the Rotary Club of Calgary Centennial which included this hand drawn graph showing the departure of increasing CO 2 emissions from decreasing global temperature in 2002 for which I received a Certificate of Appreciation for “Speaking on Global Warming Ended in 2002!!!”
That same year Al Gore blamed global warming on increasing CO 2 based on Hansen’s 1988 computer model prediction for which Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize for warning the world about man made climate change that never actually existed!
the models used in predicting the outcome of the Covid-19 epidemic are both useful and necessary . Yet equally necessary is to use data based predictions as a complimentary alternative to the model based predictions that provides the positive outlook that a stressed US population is in desperate need of. Unlike the faked computer models responsible for creating the UN’s fabricated climate emergency https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-press-briefing.pdf Yet equally necessary is to use data based predictions as a complimentary alternative to the model based predictions that provides the positive outlook that a stressed US population is in desperate need of.
Please pass this on to your Whitehouse contacts with my compliments