Tag Archive for: global warming

DAVID BLACKMON: Having Biden Declare A Climate Emergency Is A Crazy Idea

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

I recorded a podcast this week in which the host told me I am an “outlier” for being willing to write the truth about the destructive nature of the Biden administration’s energy policies. It was one of the kindest things anyone has ever said to me, frankly.

So, I guess I will be an outlier again when I write that the idea being considered again by White House officials of having President Biden declare a climate emergency so he can implement a draconian crackdown on the domestic oil and gas industry is frankly crazy. That’s the truth.

Bloomberg reported Thursday that unnamed officials inside the White House said the idea of declaring a climate emergency, first considered in 2021 and again in 2022, is once again under consideration. The only “emergency,” of course, is the president’s flagging approval ratings among impressionable young voters that threaten to derail his re-election chances. Declaring a climate emergency would arm the president with dictatorial powers to hamstring the domestic industry more than his regulators and hundreds of executive orders have already managed to do.

According to Bloomberg’s sources, actions being considered would include suspending offshore drilling, restricting exports of oil and LNG, and “throttling” the industry’s ability to transport its production via pipelines and rail. Given the industry’s crucial nature, it all sounds like a recipe for massive economic disaster.

“The average American is certainly not demanding a climate emergency declaration. It’s the losing team of left-wing Democrat activists and the shrinking base of elites who are,” U.S. Oil and Gas Association President Tim Stewart told me in an interview. “It’s not about climate, it’s about control: Control over the entire U.S. economy, control of production, manufacturing, distribution, and consumption. If you control energy, you control all these things. Which means you have control of the people.”

Stewart notes that the use of emergency powers in this instance would represent the same playbook used by federal, state, and local governments to restrict citizens’ freedoms and choices during COVID pandemic. But for the president, it would also be a means of shoring up support among the billionaire class that funds both the climate alarmist movement and so many Democrat Party campaigns, including his own campaign for re-election.

That angle was echoed by Tom Pyle, president of the D.C.-based think tank, the Institute for Energy Research. “By now, we have gotten used to incredibly damaging and stupid decisions from the Biden administration, but the idea of declaring a ‘climate emergency’ is in a class by itself,” Pyle told me. “Like the freeze on new LNG permits, the only emergency President Biden is seeking to address with this latest threat is his slippage in the polls among young voters.”

Others with whom I spoke on the matter were skeptical that the White House would really take such an extreme step in the middle of a re-election effort, but that outlook seems naïve, really. After all, who would have predicted last December that the administration would halt all permitting of new LNG export facilities purely for political reasons? Who would have predicted in late 2021 that the president would order the draining of 40% of the nation’s wartime Strategic Petroleum Reserve for no reason other than a pure political calculation designed to try to influence the 2022 midterm election?

Anyone thinking such a move would be made out of a real, good faith effort to somehow impact climate change needs to consider this: Demand for oil and natural gas is a global phenomenon that will not be reduced just because Biden cracks down on the U.S. domestic industry. Such a crackdown would inevitably create the flight of billions of dollars in capital to other parts of the world where environmental regulations are far less stringent than in the United States.

The climate alarmists advocating for this crazy policy action like to ignore the reality that the Earth has only one atmosphere which everyone shares. The U.S. oil and gas industry has dramatically cut emissions of both methane and CO2 even as it has achieved new records in production. No other nation on Earth can make a similar claim.

This is indeed a crazy idea, but it would be a mistake to assume it is not being seriously considered, and for all the wrong reasons.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Vowed To Protect American Steel — But Another Effort Of His Could Destroy It

‘Clear Violation Of The Law’: Biden’s Multi-Billion Dollar Broadband Plan Defies Congressional Mandate, Experts Say

Biden Admin Trampled States’ Rights To Signal ‘Extreme’ Abortion Views, Idaho AG Says Before Major SCOTUS Case

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

It’s Official! Climate PSYOP replaces COVID PSYOP – Global ‘boiling’ replaces ‘warming’ – NYT declares end of summer vacations

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

NYT: ‘Climate change’ May Make Summer Vacation A Thing of the Past!

NYT warns of “scorching heat…fires, floods, tornadoes and hail storms”- August 5, 2023: “This year, everything from scorching heat to fires, floods, tornadoes and hail storms driven by climate change have disrupted the plans of travelers around the world. A summer getaway remains a powerful desire, but it’s at a tipping point…For decades, science has confirmed that unabated climate change will cause more misery, more hardship and cost millions of lives in the years to come. We’re getting a taste of the results this summer. Our relationship to travel has reached a tipping point. What happens when we can’t just vacation through it?”

Watch: Morano on Fox & Friends – The climate ‘psychological operation’ is beginning – NYT claiming vacations are a thing of the past due to climate is an attempt to restrict ‘freedom of movement’

Morano: “This is the COVID PSYOP ending and the climate PSYOP beginning. This is the New York Times signaling that the ruling class is telling us that vacations are now a thing of the past. They’re trying to set our mindset to give up on vacations. And they’re giving up our freedom of movement…What the New York Times is claiming is that somehow people have to stay home, and it is literally in the article suggesting people need to huddle around their air conditioners at home because the weather is too extreme — because our previous travel has made the earth uninhabitable. this is insane, unscientific, silly.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘It is terrifying’: UN chief declares: ‘The era of global boiling has arrived’ – ‘The era of global warming has ended’ – ‘Children swept away by monsoon rains’

Flashback: UN Picks former president of Socialist International As New Secretary-General (Antonio Guterres)

Top climate scientists rubbish claims July was the hottest month ever – Public being ‘misinformed on a massive scale’

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue mocks study claiming heatwaves were ‘virtually impossible’ without ‘climate change’ – ‘I guess politicizing the weather means we have to suspend disbelief and erase the past’

No, the Earth Did Not have an ‘Unprecedented and Terrifying … All-Time High Temperature’ on July 4th – Not the hottest in 100,000 years – NOAA & AP back away from claim

Analysis: Antarctic sea ice extent ‘record low’ due to ‘wind patterns’ – ‘Sea ice is actually thicker than normal’ as ‘the ice edge’ being ‘squeezed closer together’ – Sea ice volume ‘is NOT lowest on record’

Extreme Weather Expert Pielke Jr. rips Wash Post claim of hottest ‘world record’ ocean temp – ‘No it is not a world record. It’s not even highest at that station in past 6 years’

Extreme Weather Expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:  “Science journalism is broken. No it is not a world record. It’s not even the highest at that station in the past 6 years. When did journalists and editors stop doing journalism and start turning incorrect but viral Tweets into headlines? Recipe for misinformation.”

Florida Meteorologist Jeff Berardelli told CNBC:  “These buoys that are inside Florida Bay — so that’s to the north of the Florida Keys and to the South Florida peninsula — they’re all in very shallow, murky, dark water…it’s contaminated with sediment, the water temperatures are reflective of the fact that darker surfaces absorb more heat…“it’s not really comparable to most water measurements…“there are no official records that are kept on water temperature.”

Even though CNBC debunked the ‘hot tub’ ocean temperature claims, its sister organization MSNBC went full alarmist, ignoring CNBC reporting. See: MSNBC Warns of ‘Boiling Seas’ from Climate Change – MSNBC warned Monday of “boiling seas” due to climate change, citing ocean readings of 100ºF off the coast of Florida. Never shy about employing incendiary rhetoric, MSNBC seems to have forgotten that while the boiling point of water is 100º Celsius, it is actually 212º on the Fahrenheit scale.

LA Times says quiet part out loud: ‘Would an occasional blackout help solve climate change?’ – ‘We might not have a choice’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “The LA Times question is not theoretical. Blackouts are happening globally due to the inhuman climate agenda demanding an end to reliable and affordable fossil fuel energy.” See:Bloomberg News: ‘South Africa Beats Climate Goal as Blackouts Slash Emissions’ – ‘Unintentional…power plant breakdowns are reducing industrial activity’

Watch: Morano debunks Media Hysteria on heatwaves & ‘Global BOILING’ – O’Connor Tonight

Depot Ranked #2 in 2023 Survey of Top 11 ‘Climate Deniers’: ‘Morano’s influence in shaping public opinion on climate change is significant’ – 2023 ‘Climate Denial’ Ranking by the website Before The Flood

Watch: Morano on Fox News w/ Jesse Watters on how arsonists are responsible for ‘climate’ wildfires – Not ‘climate change’ – ‘There are other forces at work’

Fox News Channel – Jesse Watters Primetime – Broadcast July 28, 2023 – Are arsonists responsible for global wildfires? ‘The Green Fraud’ author Marc Morano says there are ‘other forces at work’ as wildfires rage across the planet on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime.’

Watch: Morano on Real America’s Voice TV: RFK Jr. had ‘a red-pill moment’ on climate agenda – He now realizes ‘the same sausage that the UN,WHO & WEF make for COVID claims were also made for climate claims’

Watch: Fox host Stuart Varney challenges Morano over heatwave-climate link

Watch: Morano’s 1-hour Updated Great Reset & Climate Lockdown Speech – ‘This is the Sovietization of America to meet climate compliance rules!’ – Presented in person in Tucson Arizona

Copyright © 2023 Climate Depot, All rights reserved.

Kept Husband and Private-Jet Connoisseur Kerry Ripped for Demanding Agriculture Emission Cuts: ‘Bankrupt Every Farmer in America’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

John Kerry’s deranged ‘Green’ policies are wreaking havoc on American families. And Kerry flies around the world on private jets to promote this crap. Kerry has been wrong on practically everything, but he continues to exert significant power in American and global affairs. Watch below.

Kerry made controversial comments during speech in May

By Fox News, July 31st, 2023

Kerry ripped for demanding agriculture emission cuts: ‘Bankrupt every farmer in America’

U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry was blasted on social media over the weekend by critics who accused him of trying to destroy the agriculture industry in order to achieve “net zero” emissions.

“Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world, depending a little bit on how you count it, but it’s anywhere from 26 to 33, and we can’t get to net zero, we don’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution,” Kerry told a climate change summit in May.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden’s World Bank Pick Calls For ‘Trillions’ In Climate Spending

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Ajay Banga, the former CEO of Mastercard that President Joe Biden has nominated to head the World Bank, told Axios Wednesday that both the bank and the private sector needed to spend “trillions” to combat both climate change and poverty.

Banga has been aggressively campaigning for the job, meeting with officials from 37 different governments in the past three weeks, Axios reported. The World Bank faces competing pressure from wealthy and developing countries over whether to focus on combating climate change or poverty mitigation, but Banga said he does not view the two goals as inherently opposed to one another.

“I think it’s a fallacious argument that says, either-or,” Banga said to Axios. “I have every intention of focusing the bank and its people on the idea that this is an intertwined challenge.”

The efforts to combat both climate change and poverty would cost “trillions of dollars a year” each, and the private sector would need to be a “constructive part of the solution,” Banga told Axios.

A group of developing nations including Russia, China and Iran signed a letter in February calling for the World Bank to “avoid measures” that might jeopardize its triple-A credit rating, the Financial Times reported. Banga said that the “only way” the World Bank can effectively combat climate change is if it maintains its triple-A rating, according to Axios.

Biden’s decision to nominate Banga, a former Wall Street executive with little background in climate issues, drew significant pushback from some environmentalists, who had been calling for a nominee that would aggressively tackle climate issues.

Banga was nominated after Trump appointee David Malpass — who is married to Daily Caller News Foundation president Adele Malpass — announced he would step down early from his role as the bank’s head on June 30.

AUTHOR

JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Major Banks Bend The Knee To Climate Activists, Accelerate Plans To Cut Coal Investments

Senate Votes To Overturn Expansive Biden Water Regulation

Left-Wing Climate Activists Targeted In Massive Email Hacking Campaign: REPORT

‘We Got No Return’: Sen. Rick Scott Rips Commerce Secretary For ‘Social Engineering’ In CHIPS Act

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Latest Madness: Coffee Is Contributing To Climate Change

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Researchers Claim Coffee Is Contributing To Climate Change

By Anthony Scott, Gateway Pundit, January 19, 2023:

First red meat, then gas stoves, and now coffee.

Researchers from Canada are currently analyzing coffee’s “contribution to climate change”.

The new analysis was published by researchers from the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in a piece titled “Here’s how your cup of coffee contributes to climate change”

In their analysis researchers concluded “Limiting your contribution to climate change requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception. Choosing a mode of coffee preparation that emits less GHGs (greenhouse gases) and moderating your consumption are part of the solution.”

In their study, the researchers compared the climate impact of traditional filter coffee, Encapsulated filter coffee, Brewed coffee (French Press) and Soluble coffee (instant coffee).

The study concluded traditional coffee has the highest carbon footprint.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Climate Extremism Is Making America Mentally Ill. Here’s How

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

America is floundering in an epidemic of anxiety, depression and drug use.

One in six Americans takes some kind of psychiatric drug, mostly antidepressants, a medical study concluded, and some of them (Prozac and Paxil) are linked to acts of violence. A third of high school students cannot shake feelings of sadness or hopelessness, another report found, and nearly 2 0% of teens have contemplated suicide.

Still more frightening, both studies are based on data collected before the COVID pandemic sent college, teenage and younger children into lockdowns, social isolation, minimal physical activity, hours spent playing video games and reading censored and self-selected online media — and rampant depression and “chronic incapacitating mental illness.” Nor is the problem confined to America.

Researchers and psychologists are constantly finding new reasons to explain the growing inability to cope. Their newest “explanation” is — climate change!

“Climate grief” is “real,” they insist, and it’s spreading rapidly among young people. “The future is frightening,” 77% of 10,000 young people aged 16-25 from the USA and other countries told analysts who investigate “climate anxiety.” Large numbers of children are having climate nightmares.

“The climate mental health crisis” already affects people who have “lost everything in worsening climate infernos,” laments a NASA scientist and climate activist fear-monger who’s convinced we face “the end of life on Earth as we know it.”

“I don’t want to be alive anymore. The animals are all going to die, and I don’t want to be here when all the animals are dead,” a four-year-old child wailed.

Parents fantasize about killing their children, over fears of the “climate-ravaged future” they face. Parents and children alike consider suicide. Indeed, there’s a clear link between increased global temperatures and suicide rates, a Stanford economist asserts.

Dr. Thomas Doherty has built an entire psychology practice around climate psychoses, the Climate Psychology Alliance provides an online directory of “climate-aware therapists,” and a “peer support network” offers grief therapy modeled on twelve-step drug addiction programs.

There’s only one real solution to this epidemic, “experts” insist: Governments must act immediately to “fix” the climate, and eliminate “the death knell of climate chaos hanging over people’s heads.”

Excuse the bad pun — but this is insane! The hysteria and histrionics have gotten completely out of hand. They have no basis in reality.

We do not have a climate “crisis.” We have a climate fear-mongering and cancel-culture crisis.

The solution to the climate drug and mental health crisis is not to “fix” grotesquely exaggerated climate problems. It is to end the indoctrination and censorship that dominate discussions about climate change, from kindergarten through graduate school, and in almost every realm of science, politics and news.

The supposed climate crisis exists in computer models, headlines and hype about “unprecedented” temperatures, extreme weather, floods and droughts that have scant basis in Real World evidence. Viewpoints, evidence and experts questioning and challenging these claims are banned from classrooms, school curricula, news and social media, and government policy discussions – starting at the top.

The White House “national climate adviser,” for example, works hand-in-glove with Big Tech and news organizations, suppressing facts about climate change reality. Most federal (and many state) government agencies have similar officials and programs. Meta (Facebook), Twitter, YouTube and other Big Tech companies routinely, consistently and happily assist with this deplatforming and censorship.

The so-called Next Generation Science Standards feature climate alarmism as a guiding principle for students K-12, and determine what is being taught in over a third of America’s classrooms.

Meanwhile, as America and Europe are propagandized and prodded to eliminate their fossil fuel use — with enormous costs in jobs, living standards and lives — China, India and 100 other countries are rapidly expanding their oil, gas and coal use, to lift people out of rampant poverty.

Worse, China increasingly dominates raw material and “green tech” supply chains — and gets a free pass on its fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental destruction, and slave and child labor.

All these realities are studiously and systematically ignored and cancelled.

Fortunately, millions of parents are becoming more involved in their children’s homework and school boards. Fight for Schools and other such efforts are working to bring science, honesty and accountability back to education. They recognize that we desperately need diversity of political and scientific thought.

Without it, the United States and Western Civilization will see their liberties and living standards rolled backward by decades.

The shrill, alarmist cries of climate extremists must be confronted and doused with sound reason. This, for the sake of the children and everyone’s peace of mind.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

CRAIG RUCKER

Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLE: Tens Of Thousands March Against Rising Energy Costs, Inflation Across Germany

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

If Climate Change Is a Dire Threat, Why Is No One Talking about Nuclear Power?

/in , , , , , , /by

A common (legitimate) concern with nuclear is unhealthy radiation, its usage actually emits less radiation than the burning of coal.

There is a deafening silence surrounding nuclear energy. Yet, if you are to believe the current climate alarmism on display, the world’s future is hanging by a thread. Indeed, the forceful climate marches in London last week, the Greta Thunberg-ization of the world’s youth, and David Attenborough’s new Netflix documentary are all symptoms of a growing call to arms. According to them, climate change is real and impending, and, in young Greta’s words, they “want you to panic.”

The situation appears dire. Yet, assuming it is, there seems to be a gap in reasoning. Politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for a “Green New Deal,” which would seek to remove America’s carbon footprint by 2030 by “upgrading” every single one of the 136 million houses in America, completely overhauling the nation’s transport infrastructure (both public and private), and somehow simultaneously guaranteeing universal health care, access to healthy food, and economic security—without any consideration of cost. In other words, a complete pie-in-the-sky scheme that is more concerned with virtue-signaling than with pragmatic reality.

But if these people truly care about the environment and the damage being caused by climate change, why is no one talking about nuclear?

Nuclear is fully carbon-free and therefore a “clean” energy source in carbon terms. This is crucial considering the primary villain of climate change is CO2; switching to nuclear would directly cut out carbon emissions and thus represent a significant step forward, except for the construction phase (which would create a one-off nominal carbon debt about equal to that of solar farms). It has successfully contributed to decarbonizing public transport in countries such as Japan, France, and Sweden.

It is also often overlooked that nuclear is the safest way to generate reliable electricity (and far safer than coal or gas) despite Frankenstein-esque visions of nuclear meltdowns à la Chernobyl, which are ridiculously exaggerated and exceedingly rare.

Nuclear is also incredibly reliable, with an average capacity of 92.3 percent, meaning it is fully operational more than 330 days a year, which is drastically more reliable than both wind and solar—combined.

Finally, whereas a common (legitimate) concern with nuclear is that it creates unhealthy radiation, its usage actually emits less radiation than, for example, the burning of coal. Moreover, the problem posed by waste is more psychological and political nowadays than it is technological. Despite the Simpsons-inspired image of green, murky water, nuclear waste is, in fact, merely a collection of old steel rods; the nuclear waste produced in America over the last 60 years could all fit into a single medium-sized Walmart. Furthermore, it is not only securely stored in concrete-and-steel casks in the middle of deserts, but it also loses radiation over time and can actually be recycled to extend the life of nuclear production by centuries.

There are explicit success stories that attest to the power of nuclear. France and Sweden, which have some of the lowest per capita carbon emissions in the developed world, both rely heavily on nuclear (72 percent and 42 percent, respectively) rather than on wind or solar power. France generated 88 percent of its electricity total from zero-carbon sources, and Sweden got an even more impressive 95 percent. At the same time, these countries have some of the lowest energy prices in Europe, whereas renewable-heavy countries such as Germany and Denmark have the two highest energy prices on the continent—without much carbon reduction to show for it relative to France and Sweden.

So why, if people such as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez care as much about the climate as they claim to, are they seemingly so blindly attracted to over-ambitious, unrealistic proposals? Indeed, a near-utopiazation of renewables fails to take into account many of the issues associated with these while neglecting the advantages of nuclear.

Renewable energy isn’t always reliable, as mentioned (which makes sense when you consider the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow). When the reliability of these renewables falters (wind turbines only provide energy 34.5 percent of the time, and solar panels an even lower 25.1 percent), expensive and carbon-heavy stop-gap measures act as backup.

There are also ecological problems. Wind and solar farms require tremendous amounts of wildlife-cleared land and are often protested by local conservationists. Electricity from solar panels on individual homes, on the other hand, a plan AOC apparently endorses, is twice as expensive, thus making it unaffordable for many American households. Though the debate rages, there is also a case to be made for the fact that wind turbines represent serious hazards to rare and threatened birds such as eagles and other birds of prey. They also threaten marine wildlife such as porpoises and coral reefs.

When compared more directly with various forms of renewable energy, the narrative also skews in nuclear’s favor. Solar farms require 450 times more land than do nuclear power plants; nuclear plants require far fewer materials for production than solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal; and solar produces up to 300 times more hazardous waste per terawatt-hour of energy than nuclear.

Yet the issues aren’t merely technological and ecological. Indeed, there is an argument that renewables such as solar and wind will become more and more efficient and cheaper over time, which is certainly true (though some experts dispute the net validity of this claim). A different problem, however, is that the context within which they are promoted, such as the “Green New Deal,” often translates into economic madness (the GND would cost up to $90 trillion according to some). It is striking how the Green New Deal encapsulates not only climate change but also health care, jobs, and housing.

Indeed, it goes much further than simply combating the issues facing our environment, incorporating a much wider agenda of socio-economic transformation. And this is why some, such as Michael Shellenberger (president of Environmental Progress—a pro-nuclear, climate change NGO), argue that left-wing politicians in the mold of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez idealize renewables: they provide an environmentalist façade for increased government intervention in areas far beyond the climate.

Of course, nuclear isn’t perfect; it is still very expensive (though this is increasingly solvable through more standardization and long-termism), the risk of Fukushima-like disasters will probably always exist, and the localized environmental impacts are concerns to be addressed. Most importantly, the political will is still lacking.

Despite the fact that the public and private sectors spent a combined $2 trillion between 2007 and 2016 on solar and wind power, solar energy still only accounted for 1.3 percent, and wind power 3.9 percent, of the world’s electricity generation in 2016. Operating at a scale of 94 times more in federal subsidies in America for renewables than for nuclear, this looks like an unsustainable trend. Imagine if it had been invested in nuclear instead.

Rather, the Ocasio-Cortezes of the world, who are by far the most vociferous when it comes to climate change, should put money where their mouths are. Though this article is far from exhaustive and was unable to account for all the nuances and intricacies of environmental and energy policy, it seems that, at the very least, nuclear deserves a spot at the table if we are serious about saving our planet.

AUTHOR

Christopher Barnard

Christopher Barnard is the Head of Campaigning & Events for Students For Liberty UK, as well as a final-year Politics & International Relations student at the University of Kent. He tweets at @ChrisBarnardDL.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Global Warming Was Going to Destroy Skiing, Then the Snow Fell

/in , , , , , , , /by

Vail, Colorado concluded its skiing season on May 1 a year after the Denver Post warned that “climate change is shrinking the Colorado ski season.”

It’s almost as if some higher power has made a point of mocking doomsday predictions by climate pagans who think the weather can be changed by raising taxes and driving Teslas.

But like a Gore-Tex parka, the climate consensus is impermeable to mere snowfall.

A week after Vail Mountain announced that it was extending its skiing season for “the longest continuous season in Vail Mountain history” just after 9 inches of snow fell in early March, a local news station wondered, “With warmer winters, what will happen to the ski industry?”

It may have to extend to June.

In February 2022, Denver broke weather records to hit the coldest temperature in 109 years. At a balmy -7 degrees, the latest outbreak of global warming plunged the city down to a low that had not been seen since 1899.

Still not done mocking Al Gore, March temperatures at Denver International Airport broke a new low with -3. The last time that happened was 1932. Or back before Gore Sr. had even graduated from law school to begin his family’s long slimy political career.

Talk about an inconvenient truth.

Even as activists and resort owners were crying to the media that the entire skiing industry was about to disappear because there would be no more snow, it snowed for the first 9 out of 10 weeks of the year. That was the most starting snow that there had been in 63 years.

“It’s supposed to snow in Denver — but maybe not quite like it has this year,” a local media outlet reluctantly conceded.

This is what happens when the weather makes a mockery of the climate consensus.

The climate must “hate science”.

So what’s a good lefty to do? Ask Facebook and Twitter to deplatform the sky? Fact check the winter? Denounce the disinformation on the slopes? Ask the UN to condemn the snowpack?

Just ignore the facts and continue lobbying to outlaw cars, home heating, and all life on earth.

“Climate change threatens the future of ski resorts,” Quartz warned in January.

“A business-as-usual path to a warming planet impacts industries beyond fossil fuels. At this point, there are about as many jobs in coal mining as there are jobs at snow-sports facilities. Coal miners, however, have an outsized influence in US politics,” it grumbled.

O, those mighty coal miners, and the poor oppressed ski resort owners who are furiously lobbying to destroy Appalachia to save Aspen.

The National Ski Areas Association had already demanded a “transition to an equitable clean energy economy” by taxing those filthy carbon emitters. Since all life on earth, except members of the NSAA, emit carbon, that would be bad news for you and me. And our survival.

The industry, which has almost as many minorities as a Burlington Communist Party meeting, also demanded “justice and equity” for “communities of color”.

Auden Schendler, the VP of “Sustainability” at the Aspen Skiing Company and board chair of Protect Our Winters, ranted to the New York Times, “The outdoor industry is bigger, wealthier, crazier and more influential than the N.R.A. We need CEOs and trade groups and leadership to wield that power ruthlessly.”

Protect Our Winters is fighting against domestic drilling so that Americans can pay $6 a gallon for gas. Eliminating car ownership by the poor and the middle class to protect Aspen is a hell of a platform. Almost as compelling as protecting the home values of Oprah and Jerry Seinfeld.

“Home values in mountain towns like Vail and Aspen are some of the highest in the nation, and those values are at risk. By 2050, home values near ski resorts could drop by at least 15 percent due to warmer winters,” CNBC warned during what turned out to be the 5th coldest winter in Colorado’s history.

Ignoring the science of reading thermometers, CNBC instead quoted a worried realtor who sells “multimillion dollar homes in the Vail area” who was deeply concerned about his “livelihood”.

“So we do certainly worry that we wouldn’t be able to sustain one or two or three consecutive years low snow volume due to climate change,” he complained. “And as far as the real estate business that I own and that I also am a broker within, what will happen? You know, where is my livelihood in the future, in three to four, five years?”

That was in 2019. Housing prices in Eagle County, where Vail is located, shot up 54% since 2019. Over February alone, there were $347 million in real estate transactions.

Would that things were as good in coal country as they are on slopes of the rich and famous.

The Left wants to economically destroy some of the poorest parts of the country in Appalachia to protect some of the wealthiest, like Vail and Aspen, from a crisis that isn’t even real.

Now that’s actual class warfare.

The good news is that snow, like Aspen real estate values, isn’t going anywhere. The bad news is that neither are the lies.

In 2000, an article in The Independent claimed that “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, was quoted as saying that in the United Kingdom, “within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he falsely claimed.

Dr. Viner has since become a lead author for the UN’s IPCC climate change reports, considered the official scientific consensus for governments, businesses, and unhinged climate lunatics.

Next time the media hypes an IPCC report about the end of all life on earth, go look at the snow.

Over the next decade, not only did British children still retain the lost knowledge of what snow is, but the UK was hammered with record snowfalls. Eight years later over 3,000 schools had to be closed and much of the country was shut down by the heaviest snowfall in 18 years.

Snow is still very much around, but the article has been removed from The Independent’s site.

In 2018, the isles were hit by the “heaviest snowfall in decades”. The New York Times described  “Mediterranean beaches blanketed in white”, “blizzards and ‘life threatening’ conditions in normally snowless areas of Britain”, and dozens of people dead in a “Siberian weather pattern.”

“It was like coming in from a ski resort,” one Briton trying to get to London described.

Instead of ski resorts looking like cities, cities are looking like ski resorts.

But two years later, the BBC and the Met Office falsely claimed that “snow will virtually disappear for much of the UK by the end of the century because of climate change.”

The Met Office’s Lizzie Kendon told the BBC that, “We’re saying by the end of the century much of the lying snow will have disappeared entirely.”

It’s not the snow that’s lying.

But like any good doomsayers and conspiracy theorists, the warmunists have learned to postpone the apocalypse to a distant future when everyone will be dead.

Meanwhile springtime in London was interrupted by a March snowstorm.

And in April, Denver recorded the coldest temperature since 1953, of only 10 degrees.

AUTHOR

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

CLICK HERE: To read more climate change and global warming columns.

California Effectively Ends Fracking, Cites ‘Urgent Climate Effects’

/in , , , , , , , /by

California has gradually weaned itself off fossil fuel fracking well ahead of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2024 ban of the oil and gas extraction method.

The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), the agency that oversees new permits, has denied 109 new permits from fossil fuel firms this year, according to Department of Conservation data. State regulators have approved just 12 permits in 2021, the most recent of which came in February.

Uduak-Joe Ntuk, the state’s oil and gas supervisor, said he couldn’t approve new fracking grants “in good conscience” in a September letter to the energy firm Aera Energy, The Associated Press reported. Ntuk cited the “increasingly urgent climate effects of fossil-fuel production” and “the continuing impacts of climate change and hydraulic fracturing on public health and natural resources.”

“Unfortunately, the State of California continues to take arbitrary actions that deliver little positive benefits for our fight against climate change but imposes big impacts on Californians – to our finances, to our freedoms, essentially to how we live and work every day,” Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) President and CEO Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement last month.

“Real solutions do not come through arbitrary bans, mandates, and the whim of elected leaders,” she said.

On Oct. 8, the WSPA sued the Newsom administration over the mass denial of fracking permits. One month earlier, the Kern County Board of Supervisors also filed suit, challenging the state’s authority to ban access to oil and gas resources, according to The Bakersfield Californian.

“The decisions (Newsom) has made to unilaterally come after the oil and gas industry in violation of standing rules and standing law, that’s been established by the state Legislature, has been a gross overreach of his power,” Board Chairman Phillip Peters said after the suit was filed in September.

In April, Newsom ordered CalGEM to end new fracking permits by January 2024. He also asked the California Air Resources Board to conduct an analysis of how the state could completely wean off fossil fuel extraction by 2045.

The governor said the state “needs to move beyond oil.”

“In California, this is an industry that is used to getting its way,” Hollin Kretzmann, a senior attorney at environmental group the Center for Biological Diversity, told The San Francisco Chronicle on Tuesday. “It is a sign that the tide is starting to turn, and the state is starting to prioritize public health and the environment over the profits of the oil industry.”

While California’s crude oil consumption has stayed level over the last several decades, it has become more reliant on foreign producers, state data showed. More than half of the state’s oil over the last ten years was imported.

Meanwhile, gasoline prices, which are tied to the cost of oil, have surged nationwide to multi-year highs, according to the Energy Information Administration. California has experienced the largest increase with prices hitting $4.79 per gallon on average.

COLUMN BY

THOMAS CATENACCI

Energy and environmental reporter. Follow Thomas on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Massive Attempt to Slow Global Warming Will Cut a Big Path Through US Corn Belt

‘Boston Green New Deal’: Boston To Divest From Fossil Fuels, 15% Of City’s Revenue

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

It’s the Weather, Not the Climate, Stupid!

/in , , , , , , /by

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, describing for example the degree to which it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.

What is Weather?

According to BYJU’S

  • The day-to-day conditions of the atmosphere at a place with respect to elements like humidity, temperature, wind speed, rainfall, etc. is called the weather of that place.
  • Weather can be cloudy, sunny, rainy, stormy or clear. It is a part of the natural phenomenon which maintains the equilibrium in the atmosphere.
  • But conditions can be worse sometimes. When the atmospheric conditions are extreme or intense enough to cause property loss or life loss, such weather is termed as severe weather.
  • These also vary according to the altitudes, latitudes, and region and pressure differences. Tornadoes, cyclones, heavy rainfall, fog, winter storms come under this category. They are disastrous and hazardous. Proper disaster management and strategies are required to handle these conditions.

Weather is the key factor in our daily lives. The weather determines how we heat/cool our homes, how we dress to keep warm or fight the heat and how we live our lives. If your an Eskimo living in Alaska you deal with different weather conditions than someone who is living in Florida, for example.

Why are we so focused on the Climate?

Climate was in use in English for well over a hundred years before we began to use the word in the 16th century to refer to weather conditions. So climate is synonymous with the weather. Then mankind began to use the phrase climate change in 1956.

Skeptical Science, whose mission is to debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial, noted this about the phrase climate change:

“The roots of the term have been around since 1956, when a scientist referred to it as ‘climactic change’ in a paper. By the ’80s, ‘climactic change’ had morphed into ‘climate change’ and entered popular discourse.”

BYJU’S Factors Affecting Weather:

  • All the changes that happen in the weather are made by the sun. Because the sun has a very high temperature and it is a huge sphere of hot gases. It is the main source of heat and light for the earth. It is even the primary source of energy hence affects the weather.
  • The energy reflected and absorbed by the earth’s surface, the oceans and the atmosphere play an important role in determining the weather at any place.
  • Gases like methane, water vapour and carbon dioxide also play a role in determining the weather.

So is it weather or climate?

Why I’m a Conservationist and not an Environmentalist

I deeply care about the planet earth and about all of the creatures living on the land and in our seas, rivers and oceans. However, I am not a environmentalist. Rather I am a conservationist.

According to Merriam-Webster, a conservationist is “a person who advocates conservation especially of natural resources.”

In contrast, an environmentalist is defined as one “concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution.”

Do you see the difference?

Conservationism

A conservationist uses what has been given to us to use. He or she does not want to control people but give people access to all natural resources but task people to use these natural resources for the good of all of mankind. Not to do so is blasphemy.

I believe that it is mankind’s duty to use our God given natural resources. I also believe that God tasks us to use them wisely. I believe in waste not, want not.

Environmentalism

Environmentalists, unlike conservationists, want to prevent mankind from using earth’s natural resources. Environmentalism wants to “save the planet” by sacrificing the lives, liberties and prosperity  of mankind.

An environmentalist is focused neither on nature nor on science. An environmentalist is focused on controlling pollution by controlling people. Environmentalists have killed millions of people (e.g. when environmentalists banned DDT which lead to the deaths of millions who succumbed to malaria in third world countries from infected mosquitoes).

In order to control the people environmentalists have over time pushed three myths (big lies):

  1. Myth #1: Human Extinction Due To Climate Change Is Imminent

Conclusion

I believe Theodore Roosevelt said it best, “To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”

It’s not about pollution at all.

Environmentalists want to reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. They forget that it’s CO2 that feeds the plants and makes them green and grow faster thereby producing more for mankind to consume. Remember learning about photosynthesis in high school? Photosynthesis is when plants convert sunlight into energy.

According to AskNature.org:

or the first half of Earth’s life to date, oxygen was all but absent from an atmosphere made mostly of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane. The evolution of animals and life as we now know it owe everything to .

About 2.5 billion years ago, —the first organisms that used sunlight and carbon dioxide to produce oxygen and sugars via photosynthesis—transformed our atmosphere. Later, algae evolved with this ability, and about 0.5 billion years ago, the first land plants sprouted.

Algae, plankton, and land plants now work together to keep our atmosphere full of oxygen.

Genesis 1: 27-30 reads:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground–everything that has the breath of life in it–I give every green plant for food.’ And it was so.

Don’t fall for the environmentalist’s big lies. Believe in the truth. God’s truth.

We have been given great bounty and we are tasked to give thanks for it.

Remember what Edmund Burke wrote,

“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity – the law of nature and of nations.”

As we approach Thanksgiving Day 2021 perhaps we should bow our heads in prayer and be most thankful for our conservationists who give us food, drink and with this bounty, health and prosperity.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court to weigh EPA authority to regulate greenhouse pollutants

Panicking over climate change has a cost, too

/in , , , /by

“False Alarm: How Climate Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” is the new book by the Danish political scientist and author, Bjørn Lomborg.

In it, Lomborg hones in on the subject which is rapidly becoming the most consequential area of political and social debate: climate change.

The risks posed by climate change, he argues, are exaggerated. Furthermore, the policy measures which governments around the world have embraced – like subsidising solar and wind power – are failing miserably.

Most importantly of all, a continuation of this fear-driven approach will result in serious costs to the world’s population over the next century, particularly poorer people in developing countries who cannot enter the middle-class without access to the affordable and reliable energy which comes from fossil fuels.

In spite of the obvious trade-off, it has almost become an axiom that climate change is an existential threat to mankind, and that all measures which could be taken to cut emissions should be taken, regardless of the financial or practical cost.

Just a few years ago, for instance, calls for a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions over the next decade would have been dismissed as being completely unachievable.

Yet now, that target is part of a Programme for Government which Ireland has happily signed up to.

These policy changes could not have occurred if a large segment of the population were not deeply worried.

A narrative this dominant inevitably seeps through to most of society. This is shown in polls cited by Lomborg which show that significant percentages of the world’s population – including four in ten Americans – believe global warming will lead to mankind’s extinction.

Here, as he has done in previous books such as “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” Lomborg calmly examines the facts and argues that this extreme pessimism is unfounded, given the undeniable progress which humankind has made.

Since 1900, average life expectancy has more than doubled, from 33 to 71. Rates of absolute poverty and illiteracy have shrunk and child labour has become rarer.

On the whole, people are living longer, healthier, more prosperous and more peaceful lives than ever before, and there is a very good chance that this progress will continue, with UN researchers estimating that by 2100 average incomes will be at 450 percent of today’s levels.

This much is hard to dispute given the abundance of data available, but interestingly Lomborg also asserts that the health of the planet is actually improving in ways which benefit us substantially.

“Higher agricultural yields and changing attitudes to the environment have meant rich countries are increasingly preserving forests and reforesting. And since 1990, 2.6 billion more people gained access to improved water sources, bringing the global total to 91 percent,” Lomborg notes. “Many of these improvements have come about because we have gotten richer, both as individuals and as nations.”

This is a core point in his overall argument. While many self-described environmentalists and socialists (these days, the two groups are scarcely distinguishable) claim that economic prosperity threatens the planet, Lomborg takes the opposite viewpoint.

Not only does greater wealth improve the quality of life, enhanced affluence also allows us to focus more attention on protecting the world around us.

To be clear, Lomborg is not a “climate change denier.”

A committed environmentalist, he refrains from eating meat, and welcomes the recent tendency to avoid giving the oxygen of publicity to those who dispute the science about rising temperatures.

Lomborg believes that climate change will have a negative impact overall, and insists it needs to be tackled.

However, he takes aim at those who have exaggerated the damage which has been occurring.

In the wake of any extreme weather events, politicians and campaigners are quick to point to the enormous economic toll as a reason to support measures such as new taxes, the closure of high-emitting industries, anti-car policies or dramatic changes to farming practices.

This, to Lomborg, is a false alarm.

True, the costs related to increased flooding or forest fires have increased, and rare events such as hurricanes or tropical storms can also pose enormous challenges.

But this increased cost comes at a time when we are much better able to afford to repair what nature has wrought, and where our improved material conditions mean we are far less likely to be physically harmed.

As Lomborg observes, deaths from climate-related disasters have dropped dramatically over the last century, at a time when carbon emissions and temperatures were going up. In the 1920s, such disasters killed almost 500,000 people annually, but now claim fewer than 20,000 lives annually, in spite of the world’s population having increased fourfold over the last century.

Higher incomes make for better and more secure housing, and as the developing world continues to make economic advances, the numbers dying needlessly due to natural disasters will likely fall even further.

While increased economic damage over the next century is very likely, there is an explanation for this too. As the world’s population has increased, so too has the number of houses and the amount of infrastructure in place.

The same sized flood or storm today will cause more financial damage than it would have a century ago, but recent economic growth means we are better able to afford this.

One of the areas where alarmist media coverage has been most evident is the issue of rising sea levels.

Prominent media outlets frequently point to a future where many large cities are submerged below water, as if this was going to happen suddenly, and as if humans were powerless to take defensive action.

Here again, Lomborg draws attention to what should be obvious.

Significant portions of the world are already at or below sea level and thriving regardless. The Netherlands and large areas of Vietnam, for instance, have long safeguarded low-lying areas by investing in dikes, dams and other flood protection measures.

As sea levels rise, a large amount of additional investment will be needed elsewhere in the next century, but again, this is far from being beyond the means of developed – and even developing – countries.

The greatest value of Lomborg’s analysis lies in his examination of the costs and benefits of existing policy approaches.

Given the consistent failure of solar and wind power to deliver results, he is deeply sceptical about large-scale investment in those areas, but he does have a number of policy recommendations, including the dedication of far more resources to efforts to adapt to a warming planet; a universal but modest carbon tax; and a dramatic increase in R&D spending on new technologies.

Above all else, Lomborg’s message is that we need to view the problem differently. Climate change, he writes, “is not like a huge asteroid hurtling towards Earth, where we need to stop everything else and mobilise the entire global economy to ward off the end of the world. It is instead a long-term chronic condition like diabetes – a problem that needs attention and focus, but one that we can live with.”

In this new reality, where every facet of government policy is likely to be impacted by how we respond to our planet’s changing climate, remaining out of this debate is no longer an option.

As such, it is well-worth taking the time to hear the views of a true humanist, a man who is confident that we have the ability not just to adapt and survive, but to prosper and improve as well.

James Bradshaw

James Bradshaw works for an international consulting firm based in Dublin, and has a background in journalism and public policy. Outside of work, he writes for a number of publications, on topics including… 

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Riddle of Climate Change

/in , /by

The Riddle: What climate does climate change change?

The Answer: The political climate of course.

Let me explain.

Pollution and climate change are two separate issues. Environmental pollution is a man-made problem that humans can and should remedy. Taking responsibility for our behavior is a necessary part of civilized life and eliminating environmental horrors like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is something we all need to support. So far so good.

Climate change, on the other hand, is a natural phenomenon that is an intrinsic part of the earth’s environmental history. For the past millions of years the natural climate on Earth has fluctuated between warm periods and ice ages in approximately 100,000 year cycles. 80-90,000 years of ice age are followed by 10-20,000 years of a warm period. 

Climate change was originally called global warming but environmental politicians had to change its name because the earth was embarrassing them by cooling. A rose by any other name is still a rose and so is climate change. The cooling and warming patterns of climate change are a natural, enduring, and ongoing phenomenon. 

It is absurd to insist that man is responsible for changing the earth’s climate so why does the narrative persist? Let’s find out by identifying who the the climate activists are and by determining who benefits from the narrative of man-made climate change. 

Radical leftist political ideologues have taken control of legitimate environmental concerns and torqued them to promote their own agendas. In a previous article titled, “The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change: Killing America With Kindness” I explain how the original mission of environmental groups like Greenpeace was abandoned in support of the unscientific politically motivated insistence upon man-made climate change. Greenpeace founding member Dr Patrick Moore unequivocally rejects the pseudo-science being used to support the unsupportable claims of man-made global warming and climate change. 

Why do leftist politicians and environmental lobbyists continue to support their climate change narrative? Because man-made climate change is not scientific – it is a political scheme designed to transfer the wealth of industrialized nations, particularly the United States, to non-industrialized nations. It is globalized socialism where assets of productive countries are confiscated and awarded to non-productive nations using the ruse of “saving the planet.”

America-first President Donald Trump withdrew from Obama’s commitment to the costly anti-American Paris Climate Accord. Americans for Tax Reform reports that the Paris Agreement was the product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris where Obama committed to reduction goals that would reduce the US GDP by over 2.5 trillion dollars and a shortfall of 400,000 jobs by 2035. Unsurprisingly, President Trump’s withdrawal was loudly criticized by the globalist nations seeking to diminish the manufacturing capabilities of the USA. 

The leftist Democrats recently unveiled their latest scheme to advance their man-made climate change narrative – the economy killing Green New Deal. In a scathing indictment of the plan Investor’s Business calls it enviro-socialism which describes its foundational objective perfectly. Like the Paris Climate Accord, the Green New Deal is designed to be the death knell to free-market capitalism because that is the goal of the leftist Democrats insistence upon man-made climate change.

More doomsday fear mongering is featured in a Breitbart article discussing David Wallace-Wells’ new book The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming that predicts there will be 100 million climate refugees by 2050. SERIOUSLY? Wallace-Wells defends his cataclysmic predictions saying that he worked from the worst warming scenario presented by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A stunning Forbes article published 2.5.13 titled, In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ’Science’ quotes Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, who admits, “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.” 

The same Forbes article quotes former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev who “emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives saying, ‘The threat of environmental crisis will be the international key to unlock the New World Order.’” Gorbachev was referring, of course, to the new world order of an internationalized world community administered under the auspices of the United Nations.

So, what climate does climate change change?

The political climate of course. 

Climate fearmongering advances the international political agenda to internationalize the world into a new world order. Climate alarmism is political science masquerading as environmental science. It is part of the despicable effort to de-industrialize the United States of America and collapse her economy.

Radical leftist Barack Obama, the most anti-American president in US history, pledged to make climate change a second-term priority during his 2013 inaugural address. In an exceedingly condescending message of epic hyperbole he prophesied, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

What made America the freest, wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth was the United States Constitution and free market capitalism. The war against America targets both.   

Obama’s foreign policy willingly subsidized European socialized economies and military readiness through our disproportionate NATO contributions. His parting gift to our enemy Iran was 150 billion US dollars and 1.8 billion more in pallets of cash. Obama’s crushing domestic economic policies deliberately sent businesses and jobs out of the country and increased our welfare rolls. 

Obama utilized the Cloward-Piven political strategy to collapse the US economy by overloading the public welfare system but that still was not enough to do the job. Open borders and climate change policies were required to destroy America’s economy and replace it with socialism.

The Green New Deal is a continuation of the redistribution of American wealth through the United Nations globalization efforts. The UN’s global man-made climate change campaign unfairly targets the United States and ignores Russia, China, and India’s non-compliance. Why? Because the goal of the deceitful campaign is to collapse America’s economy. 

Politics is war.

The next big battle in the war between Americanism and Socialism will be fought in 2020 at the ballot box. War makes strange bedfellows and the radical leftist Democrats have allied themselves with the RINOs and Islamists to bring down America. Here is the problem.

The RINOs are closet globalists who represent the most dangerous element in this unholy anti-American alliance because globalists consider socialism and Islamism to be temporary means to an end. The long term objective of globalism is the New World Order of one world government ruled by the globalist elite of course. 

Socialism promises prosperity and delivers poverty. Islamism promises peace and delivers supremacist religious tyranny. Globalism promises both peace and prosperity but delivers a return to feudalism where a small ruling class has absolute power over a world population of serfs that it rules. 

We the people have the power to reject the radical leftist political climate and make America the freest, wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth again. We can preserve and protect our Constitutional freedom and free market economy by voting for Americanism in 2020.

Make America great again. It is very presidential.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Science is Falsifiable. Take Climate Change As An Example.

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Clear Energy Alliance produced the below video on global warming stating:

In order to know if a theory could be true, there must be a way to prove it to be false. Unfortunately, many climate change scientists, the media and activists are ignoring this cornerstone of science. In this bizarre new world, all unwelcome climate events are caused by climate change. But as legendary scientific philosopher Karl Popper noted, “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.” Guest host Marc Morano explains.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Global Warming Theory Scientific?

EDITORS NOTE: This video by Clear Energy Alliance is republished from their YouTube channel. The featured image is from Pixabay.

Three years to save the Earth? [This time]

/in , , , , , , /by

Former UN top climate official Christiana Figueres just told the world we only have “three years” to save the planet … and all it will cost is $1.5 trillion per year.

Gee, guess we should hurry and jump on that deal … not.

Call us suspicious, but this is the same Figueres who infamously in 2015 announced the UN’s intention to replace free-market capitalism with bureaucratic control saying:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

That Figueres would now make such a doomsday prediction and then ask for such large sums of money, especially in light of her ambitious stated goal to control and direct the economic path of the whole earth, should be enough to make anyone roll their eyes.

But not so with Fake News media. They eat this all up.

If they bothered to look, they’d see there’s a long history of these so-called climate “tipping points” made by alarmists – all of which harmlessly passed without incident.

For those of us old enough to remember, the UN announced a 10-year tipping point way back in 1982, and then did so again in 1989. In both cases, these dates passed without any of the predicted doom-and-gloom taking place.

In 2006 Al Gore told us in An Inconvenient Truth the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. He gave the planet only 10 years to escape before what, as Jim Morrison of TheDoorsmight say, would be “The End.”

Not surprisingly, as CFACT’s undercover film review operative found out at the Sundance Film festival earlier this year, Al doesn’t like it much if you ask him today how we survived.

Of course there’s more.

In 2008, ABC’s Bob Woodruff hosted a program where scientists told us that agriculture would collapse by “2015,” that a carton of milk would be $12.99, a gallon of gas $9 and large portions of NYC would be underwater.

And in 2009, Prince Charles declared we only had 96 months to save the Earth.  That same year NASA’s James Hansen said we only had until the end of President Obama’s first term, though U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said we only had 50 days until the global warming apocalypse took place.

It goes on and on.

You’d think the embarrassment of potentially being labeled “false prophets” would make them, well, shut up. But no, the soothsaying doesn’t stop. It just gets more insane.

Marc Morano does a great job of keeping track of all the climate tipping points that came and went at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

Our advice: If warming campaigners want to keep doing this Nostradamus gig, perhaps they should at least wait until they get one of their prophecies right before demanding a $1.5 trillion ransom.

RELATED ARTICLE: Don’t Believe the Hysteria Over Carbon Dioxide

EDITORS NOTE: Read the facts at CFACT.org

Pittsburgh Not Paris: And That’s The Way We Like It

/in , , , , /by

President Donald Trump withdrew from Obama’s anti-American Paris Climate Agreement saying, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” 

The Paris Accord was one of many anti-American agreements made by the most lawless anti-American president ever to hold office.

Obama is a Globalist whose “hope and change” for America was/is the destruction of American democracy and sovereignty in favor of socialism and internationalism.

Oama’s anti-American Paris agreement was another attempt to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. Obama joined the Paris Agreement in 2016 without Senate approval, pledging to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) explains,

“The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. . .It empowers one administration to make  legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections.” 

Of course it does. That was Obama’s purpose and was his intention for his globalist legacy Hillary Clinton. The unexpected defeat of Hillary Clinton threw Obama’s eight year Globalist march into disarray. No matter. True to his radical Leftist training, Obama followed mentor Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and reconstituted himself as the leader of the “resistance” movement to overthrow our Constitutionally elected President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump is an unapologetic America-first nationalist and the single greatest obstacle to one-world government in the world today. In spite of intense lobbying efforts from globalist corporations, globalist green lobbyists, globalist U.N. bureaucrats, infamous globalists like Al Gore, and even some family members, Trump recognized the Paris Accord as a very bad deal for American sovereignty and jobs and he kept his campaign promise to withdraw.

Staying in a bad deal for “diplomatic” reasons is absurd. Donald Trump was elected precisely because he does not play diplomatic political games. Trump is an anomaly in politics because he actually means and does what he says.

Surrendering control of the Internet to the United Nations was another one of Obama’s anti-American effort to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. 

The Obama administration surrendered American control of the internet to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) without getting Congress approval, another example of Obama executive overreach. Assigned names and numbers refers to the Domain Name System (DNS) on the Internet which is how a specific web address, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), connects to the correct server and opens a specific website. All of the information including names, numbers, and any other data that DNS needs to do get to the specific website is stored in one central file known an the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

Before the surrender ICANN’s function was to oversee how web addresses on the Internet were passed out and to regulate the IANA. Now, ICANN formally owns the IANA. It is not difficult to see how internationalizing the operation of the Internet could be used to help the globalist elites impose one-world government by manipulating information or access to information worldwide.

Obama surrendered United States technical management of the Internet to ICANN which is a global organization of governments around the world. ICANN includes a Government Advisory, which has representation from 111 states around the world, including 108 UN members and the Holy See, the Cook Islands and Taiwan. Many of these governments are anti-American and pro-globalism.

In the sixties Americans openly criticized Communist countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. In the 21st century after 9/11 Americans openly criticized Islamic countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. Obama’s surrender of Internet control to ICANN makes it possible for the United States to lose our freedom of speech on the Internet – Obama sacrificed American interests to the international community he supports.

Ted Cruz has argued that online freedom is now in jeopardy and that authoritarian governments who are members of ICANN can inhibit freedom of speech on the Internet. Cruz observes, “foreign governments and global corporations will have an increased voice within ICANN moving forward,” which can allow them to censor speech.

It is no surprise that the giant globalized technology companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Cloudflare and Yahoo all support a more globally controlled Internet – of course they do. These giant corporations are run by Globalists whose businesses are global and whose self-interest is in internationalizing the world for greater profits and marketshare. They are using a business profit prism not a human rights prism for policy decisions even though their owners talk of humanitarianism, altruism, social justice, and income equality.

There must be no confusion between global trade and Globalism. Global trade is simply the sale of goods around the world between nations. Global trade can be fair or unfair among nations. If the New World Order of one-world government is imposed then global trade will be a meaningless concept because there will be only one nation, one marketplace, and one government.

Globalism and the New World Order has been romanticized and dishonestly marketed as the international system that will provide the world with income equality and social justice. Songs have been written about Globalism. John Lennon’s “Imagine” is the globalist anthem. Consider its lyrics:

Imagine

John Lennon

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Lennon’s lyrics clearly describe a Utopian New World Order of peace and harmony. So far so good. The problem with Lennon’s dreamscape as the anthem for Globalism  is that it has no relationship to objective reality. The essential quality of dreams is that they are not encumbered by time, space, gravity, people, or any other consideration in objective reality. Dreams are the epitome of subjective reality.

In objective reality all groups large and small have some organizing principle. Families, communities, states, countries – the larger the group the more important the organizing principle becomes.

Lennon’s dreamscape is not encumbered by an organizing principle even though the world is the largest conceivable group. The New World Order most definitely has an organizing principle even if John Lennon does not sing about it. The left-wing liberals singing John Lennon’s song are imagining their own personal dreams of one internationalized world at peace in harmony with all people of the world equal in every way. The problem is their imagined universe has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of one-world government imagined and described in unapologetic chilling detail by elitist aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.

Russell’s one-world government is a binary socio-political system of the ruling few and the enslaved population whop serve them. The left-wing liberals, progressives, and anarchists lobbying for Globalism are the useful idiots unwittingly advocating for the regressive return to a master/slave society of tyranny.

Globalism is a very old song being sung anew by the naive Left and the laughing globalist elite who have successfully duped them.

Americans who wish to preserve their national sovereignty and individual freedoms understand Pittsburgh is the priority not Paris – and that’s the way we like it!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Withdraws U.S. from Paris Climate Accord

Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

The Global Warming-Climate Change Scam: One of the Great Soviet/Russian Deceptions

EDITORS NOTE: Here is KC & The Sunshine Band singing their 1975 hit single That’s The Way (I Like It):