Plastic Bag Bans Won’t Help the Environment, But They’ll Cause More Foodborne Illnesses

Plastic bags are less than one percent of all litter.


New York lawmakers have followed California’s lead and decided to ban grocery stores from giving customers plastic bags. They hope shoppers will use their own cloth bags instead. This ban on plastic bags will harm shoppers in multiple ways.

As Daniel Frank sarcastically notes, “Reusable tote bags” can “cause food poisoning but at least they’re worse for the environment than plastic bags.” He cites Jon Passantino of BuzzFeed News, who observes, “Those cotton tote bags that are so trendy right now have to be used *131 times* before it has a smaller climate impact than a plastic bag used only once.” Yet, there are progressives who want to ban plastic grocery bags in favor of reusable cloth bags.

Plastic bags are less than one percent of all litter. Moreover, alternatives like cloth and paper bags are in many cases worse for the environment than plastic bags, and far worse for public health. That was illustrated by a 2011 legal settlement between plastic bag makers and an importer of reusable bags, ChicoBag. The plastic bag makers sued ChicoBag for its use of false claims about the recycling rate and environmental impacts of plastic grocery bags in its promotional materials. (Those false claims are also the basis for municipal bans and taxes on plastic bags.)

Under that settlement, ChicoBag was required to discontinue its use of its counterfeit EPA website and make corrections to its deceptive marketing claims, which had included sharing falsified government documents with schoolchildren. It was also required to disclose to consumers on its website that reusable bags, in fact, need to be washed.

Reusable bags “are a breeding ground for bacteria and pose public health risks — food poisoning, skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections,” noted a 2009 report.  Harmful bacteria like E. coli, salmonella, and fecal coliform thrive in reusable bags unless they are washed after each use, according to an August 2011 peer-reviewed study, “Assessment of the Potential for Cross-contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags.”

Among the inaccurate claims that ChicoBag could no longer make after the settlement is one that contrasted the environmental impact of plastic versus reusable bags. Contrary to ChicoBag’s previous claims, a study done for the U.K. Environmental Agency showed it would take 7.5 years of using the same cloth bag (393 uses, assuming one grocery trip per week) to make it a better option than a plastic bag reused three times. See “Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags,” Executive Summary, 2nd page.

As an earlier report on the subject noted (see p. 60):

[A]ny decision to ban traditional polyethylene plastic grocery bags in favor of bags made from alternative materials (compostable plastic or recycled paper) will be counterproductive and result in a significant increase in environmental impacts across a number of categories from global warming effects to the use of precious potable water resources. … [T]he standard polyethylene grocery bag has significantly lower environmental impacts than a 30% recycled content paper bag and a compostable plastic bag.

cotton bag has a greater [harmful environmental] impact than the conventional [plastic] bag in seven of the nine impact categories even when used 173 times. … The impact was considerably larger in categories such as acidification and aquatic & terrestrial ecotoxicity due to the energy used to produce cotton yarn and the fertilisers used during the growth of the cotton (see p. 60).

Similarly,

Starch-polyester blend bags have a higher global warming potential and abiotic depletion than conventional polymer bags, due both to the increased weight of material in a bag and higher material production impacts (see Executive Summary).

As Environmental Protection noted in 2010:

Reusable grocery bags can serve as a breeding ground for dangerous food-borne bacteria and pose a serious risk to public health, according to a joint food safety research report issued by researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University. The study — which randomly tested reusable grocery bags carried by shoppers in the Los Angeles area, San Francisco, and Tucson, Ariz. — also found consumers were almost completely unaware of the need to regularly wash their bags.

“Our findings suggest a serious threat to public health, especially from coliform bacteria including E. coli, which were detected in half the bags sampled,” said Charles Gerba, Ph.D., a University of Arizona environmental microbiology professor and co-author of the study. “Furthermore, consumers are alarmingly unaware of these risks and the critical need to sanitize their bags after every use.” The bacteria levels found in reusable bags were significant enough to cause a wide range of serious health problems and even lead to death — a particular danger for young children, who are especially vulnerable to food-borne illnesses, he said.

The study also found that awareness of potential risks was very low. A full 97 percent of those interviewed have never washed or bleached their reusable bags, said Gerba, who added that thorough washing kills nearly all bacteria that accumulate in reusable bags.

Plastic bags are “less than 0.5% of the litter stream,” according to the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. That low percentage is confirmed by EPA data. (See, e.g., EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures, p. 53, showing that the entire category of plastic sacks, wraps, and bags—including trash bags as well as grocery bags—together account for only a little over one percent of all municipal solid waste, and only a small fraction of overall plastics.)

This article is republished with permission from Liberty Unyielding. 

COLUMN BY

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission.

This Veteran, Who Supplied Water to Firefighters, Went to Prison for Digging Ponds [Video]

An elderly veteran who ran a business supplying water to fight forest fires was prosecuted by the federal government and sent to prison for digging ponds on his own property, one of his lawyers says.

Joe Robertson, a Navy veteran from Montana, was 78 when he was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks.

His crime?

Robertson, whose business supplied water trucks to Montana firefighters, dug a series of small ponds close to his home in 2013 and 2014. The site was a wooded area near a channel, a foot wide and a foot deep, with two to three garden hoses’ worth of flow, according to court documents.

The U.S. government prosecuted Robertson for digging in proximity to “navigable waters” without a permit, a violation of the Clean Water Act administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Tony Francois, a senior attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public interest law firm specializing in property rights, described the events leading up to Robertson’s prosecution during a panel discussion Monday at The Heritage Foundation.

Also on the panel was Kevin Pierce, vice president of Hawkes Co., a Minnesota-based family business that harvests peat for golf course greens. Daren Bakst, Heritage’s senior research fellow for agriculture policy, was moderator of the event, called “Horror Stories of EPA and Corps Overreach under the Clean Water Act.”

Pacific Legal Foundation filed a petition on behalf of Robertson, asking the Supreme Court to review his case, which turns on the definition of “navigable waters.”

The Navy veteran argued that he didn’t violate the Clean Water Act because
digging the ponds did not discharge any soil to navigable waters, since the trickle in the channel didn’t constitute navigable waters.

The largest navigable body of water anywhere near the Robertson home is more than 40 miles away, Francois said.

Because Robertson lived in a wooded area that is “increasingly fire prone,” he was “concerned about the safety and vulnerability of his property,” Francois said. He built the ponds “with a view toward being well-prepared should a fire strike.”

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in April whether it will hear Robertson’s appeal.

Robertson, sentenced in 2016, completed his 18 months behind bars in late 2017.

He was still on parole for the next 20 months when he died March 18 at age 80 of natural causes, according to his widow.

Pacific Legal Foundation filed papers this week to substitute Robertson’s widow, Carri Robertson, as the petitioner in the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Another case Francois cited concerns a proposed road in Marquette County, Michigan. The project, known as CR-595, would shorten the travel time between a nickel mine and a refinery 22 miles away.

The only route now available to the mine, called Eagle Mine, is three times as long, Francois said. The nickel mine, currently the only one in the U.S., is expected to bring about $4 billion in economic activity to the county, according to Pacific Legal Foundation.

The Marquette County Road Commission’s CR-595 proposal called for  a direct road from the mine to a refinery.

“The new route would bypass the city of Marquette altogether, eliminate nearly 30 miles of travel per trip, a million and a half miles annually, as well as save 500,000 gallons of fuel per year,” Francois said.

Since the proposed route goes through wetlands, however, the road commission sought a wetlands permit under the Clean Water Act. The state approved the permit, but the EPA rejected it.

“The final version [of the commission’s planned route] proposed to protect 63 acres of wetlands for every acre the road project would disturb,” Francois said. “But the EPA continued to object to CR 595 because in their view the commission still had not provided adequate plans to minimize impacts, and that its 63-1 mitigation ratio was not a comprehensive mitigation plan that would sufficiently compensate for unavoidable impacts.”

The EPA vetoed the commission’s plan and the Supreme Court declined a petition from Pacific Legal Foundation to review that decision.

Pacific Legal Foundation also represented Hawkes Co. in a 2016 case before the high court. In a 8-0 decision, the justices ruled that landowners have a right to challenge wetland determinations made by federal agencies.

Pierce, the Hawkes Co. official, described a difficult and arduous process to prevail over opposition from the Army Corps of Engineers to secure a permit allowing the company to expand on a 200-acre peat mining site. The company began the application process in 2006.

“I really don’t like how it worked. No. 1, there was a lot of fabrication from the Corps people, Pierce said at the Heritage event, adding:

They actually went to the landowner that we had the option to buy the land with. They sent two people up from St. Paul to his house for two and half hours for a meeting to try to convince him to sell the real estate to someone else, while we got $200,000 already invested in a permit application.

And they gave names and numbers of people who would buy it for preservation to sell it out from under us. Well knowing that we had options to buy and contracts with that landowner, which then forced us to have to buy the land seven years before we got our permit and had to follow through on it.

When I confronted them about it, they literally lied to me and said, ‘We didn’t know you had a permit or an option to buy.’ But then later in the conversation, they say, ‘Well, we thought it ran out.’

Congress initially passed the Clean Water Act in 1948, but lawmakers greatly altered and expanded it into the current form with amendments in 1972.

The law “establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters,” according to the EPA’s website.

Under the 1972 amendments, it is illegal to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters without a permit from the EPA. The Corps oversees the permitting process and shares enforcement authority with the EPA.

In 2015, the Obama administration implemented its Clean Water Rule, widely known as the Waters of the United States rule or WOTUS rule, which expanded the regulatory reach of the EPA and the Corps over bodies of water throughout the country.

The Trump administration has taken steps to withdraw the Obama administration’s rule and replace it with a new one that limits the regulatory reach of federal agencies.

Although Heritage’s Bakst said he approves of the Trump administration’s efforts, he has argued that it ultimately falls to Congress to clarify what waterways are subject to EPA regulations.

The Daily Signal sought comment for this report from both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.

“We cannot comment on ongoing litigation even as it pertains to actions of the previous administration,” EPA spokesman James Hewitt said in an email. “However, EPA is moving forward with a replacement WOTUS rule to ensure farmers and ranchers have more certainty when it comes to federal jurisdiction over waters.”

A Corps spokesman said in an email that it would not comment on the Robertson case since it is still active and has nothing to add to the Hawkes case beyond what is already “a matter of public record.”

COLUMN BY

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: The Democrat’s Green No-Deal. They Lied!

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell allowed a vote on H.Res. 109 Green New Deal co-sponsored by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). After the vote where no Senator voted for the bill, while all the Democrats voted “present” Senator McConnell posted this video.

The Democrats can’t bring themselves to even vote for it.

The Green New Deal is a hoax.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pelosi Introduces New Climate Bill One Day After Green New Deal Collapsed

U.S. Senate Votes on Green New Deal: Not a Single Senator Voted For It!

VIDEO: Senate fails to break filibuster to begin debate on Green New Deal – Fox News:

Florida Senator Marco Rubio issued the following statement on the Green New Deal vote in the U.S. Senate:

After ceremoniously introducing the Green New Deal, and all but canonizing it as a historic policy proposal, not one single Senator supported the measure, and 43 Senate Democrats today voted “Present.” U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement regarding the vote:

“Today’s vote makes clear that even the Green New Deal’s proponents agree that it is not a serious policy effort. Instead, it is a publicity stunt designed to pander to a progressive base seeking to repackage socialism that will do nothing to address the actual problems Americans face every day. The Green New Deal makes for a great slogan, but it is a fundamentally unserious proposal. If actually implemented, it would bankrupt our nation and leave our communities more vulnerable. That cannot, and will not, be the future of America.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

AFL-CIO President Opposes Green New Deal

Democrats Refuse to Vote for Green New Deal They Endorsed

ICYMI: Marco Rubio: Green New Deal Litmus Test Makes it Harder to Deal with Climate Change

Recent Energy & Environmental Newsletter

Recently we put together a definitive list of reasonable books on climate change — and it has been well-received. As a parallel effort, we now have a brand new list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. As before, if you have any suggested additions or deletions, please send them on, and we will update. Enjoy!

We’re strong supporters of PragerU and other sources (e.g. Clear Energy Alliance) that try to digest complicated matters into more understandable short videos. Welcome a relative newcomer: TPPF. Here is a collection of their videos, and a great example of a spot-on short (2 minutes) energy video.

Since there is such a diversity of interesting news worthy articles, for awhile I’ll try to divide them further:

Energy —

Wind & Solar Are Always Ruinously Expensive

NY Turbine Leaseholders hit with Liens for Wind Developer’s Unpaid Bills

President Trump Seeking Major Cuts to Renewable Subsidies

How did  Rick Perry and DOE get into the Ditch???

The Green New Deal —

The American Way of Life will be on the 2020 Ballot

Carlson video: Dems Say The End of the World in 12 Years!

The Green New Deal Is Unserious and Juvenile

The PCCS —

Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee

It’s Time To Expose The Shoddy Climate Science Of The Obama Years

Dr. Happer will set them free

Global Warming —

Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

New way to turn carbon dioxide into coal could ‘rewind the emissions clock’

It’s Not about the Climate—It Never Was

Powerful video: Nicholas Lewis and Climate Sensitivity

Media touts ‘clear sign of human-caused climate change.’ Here are the facts

Revealing Worldwide Poll as to What Our Priorities Should Be

House Climate Hearing off to Bad Start

Misc (Education, Science, etc.) —

Feds Push Climate Alarmism on our Children

Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and the Leftist Takeover of the Colleges

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone. Some documents (e.g. PDFs) are easier to read on a computer. We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. The most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

America Finally Admits Recycling Doesn’t Work [+Video]

It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.


A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I was taught in elementary school.

“Reduce, reuse, recycle,” she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote learning.

The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States. It has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a recent trip to the Caribbean, my friend’s wife exhibited nervous guilt while collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash since our resort offered no recycling bins.

“I feel terrible throwing these into garbage,” she said, wearing a pained look on her face.

I didn’t have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the bottles she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on the Caribbean island we were visiting.

As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky business. A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the plastic collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was “recyclable.”

“This results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,” researchers concluded.

Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country are abandoning recycling efforts.

Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’ recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed to huge price increases.

One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage to alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.

“We are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,” Fiona Ma, the treasurer of California, told the Times.

Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an economic activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have been dubious for some time.

“Recycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,” Mitch Hedlund, executive director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.

How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago, Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and local governments were pursuing—mostly through mandates, naturally—with a religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he observed.

The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesn’t. In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of every proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that something be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even occur.

If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reed’s advice, or that of John Tierney, who offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.

Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded that recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense–for some materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since there’s no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there’s no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.

That’s economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we don’t have sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.

According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for the next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles across on each side–not that big (unless you happen to live in the neighborhood). Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we’re running out of landfill space–the original impetus for the recycling boom–turns out to have been a red herring.

And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How much water do Americans spend annually rinsing items that end up in a landfill? How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across highways and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that belch their own emissions?

The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped only to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises would say, is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making decisions instead of consumers through free markets.

Most market economists, Reed points out, “by nature, philosophy, and experience” a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.

As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,

Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed and powered.

All this also produces pollution – from the factories that build the trucks and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that produce the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the fuel burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper, then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used. However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.

Again, economics is the key.

It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the planet is highly dubious.

It’s taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not a moral or legal imperative.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times. Reach him at jmiltimore@FEE.org.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with video is republished with permission.

Global Warming — Science vs Political Science

Since you have an interest in the Global Warming issue, I’m sending along a current public exchange I’m having with a well-known climatologist. As he publicly disparaged my qualifications to even discuss the AGW matter (!), it should be no problem for a person of such elevated expertise, to win this debate. You decide…

[FYI, if you’re pressed for time, or only have a passing interest in the Global Warming issue, then just look at #7 and #8.]

Here’s a brief chronological history:

1) the Adirondack Park (in upstate NY) is the largest park on the continental US (6 million acres). It is an extraordinary place that has unparalleled natural beauty. I’ve been a lifetime resident of the Park, so I have plenty of first-hand experiences with most of it. As an environmentalist, I’m a Park protector.

2) The Park is overseen by a powerful NYS agency, called the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). They establish a wide assortment of zoning rules, etc. that cover the entire Park. In general these are beneficial. For example, to date, industrial wind energy and solar are both prohibited. Excellent!

3) Political activists are pushing the APA to change their renewable energy restrictions. Their ultimate goal is to get industrial wind energy into the Park. As a feeler, in November the APA proposed this Renewable Energy Policy.

4) I then immediately sent the APA a 12-point objection to their proposal. (I have yet to hear any response back from them.)

5) In addition, to make citizens aware of this profoundly anti-environmental plan, I wrote a layman overview of the situation, which was published in some Adirondack newspapers.

6) After that was seen, I was asked by the editor of the well-respected bi-monthly Adirondack Explorer magazine to submit commentary for a feature they have, where major issues are debated. I submitted the con-piece about the APA’s proposed renewable energy policy. It came out a few weeks ago.

7) A NYS paleoclimatologist, Dr. Curt Stager, took issue with my Adirondack Explorer commentary, and last week got a lengthy op-ed published (attacking my competence, etc.).

8) I just finished a response to Curt’s polemic— and submitted it for publication, today. I’m sharing a slightly longer version with you, as I thought you might like to see a rather impassioned exchange between scientists about some of the key Global Warming issues.

There are multiple things to learn from this exchange. Although this is a moderate amount of reading, it’s an interesting, informative discussion of the Global Warming matter — making some points rarely seen.

Global Warming is THE issue of our times. After reading this you’ll have a much better understanding of this whole matter, and what’s really going on.

Let me know any questions.

As usual, please forward this information to any other open-minded parties you think might profit from it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.

‘Massively incorrect’: Point-by-point rebuttal to Michael Mann’s Newsweek smear of Trump, Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Moore & Princeton’s Dr. Happer

Climate Depot Special Report

Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University, has done a smear piece on President Donald Trump, Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore and Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer in Newsweek. Mann and other climate activists are working overtime trying to suppress scientific debate and stop the  proposed Presidential Climate Commission. See:All Eyes On The Scientist Set To Upend The ‘Climate Change’ Narrative – Under ‘All-Out Attack’ by Media – ‘Dr. Will Happer is one of the most important scientists in the U.S.’ & Trump touts Greenpeace co-founder declaring ‘the whole climate crisis’ is ‘fake science’ – Video

Mann, known his exploits in the Climategate scandal and his discredited Hockey Stick temperature graph, took to Newsweek to try to quash the upcoming threat of a Presidential commission on climate which would challenge his “consensus” catastrophic man-made climate change views.  [Note: Two Chapters devoted to Mann’s Hockey Stick Claims & his role in the Climategate scandal in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.]

A point-by-point rebuttal to Mann’s claims by Marc Morano of Climate Depot.
[Note: Morano and Mann had a debate on BBC radio previously. See: Mann v. Morano: Climategate’s Michael Mann debates Climate Depot’s Morano on Live BBC Radio: Mann: ‘Morano’s a hired assassin’ — Morano: ‘Mann plays the part of martyr very well’]

Michael Mann’s March 13, 2019 Newsweek article: “DONALD TRUMP’S CLIMATE DENIAL GETS MORE RIDICULOUS BY THE DAY”

Michael Mann claim: “Once upon a time, Donald Trump accepted the scientific reality that human activity, primarily burning fossil fuels, causes climate change. He signed on to an ad calling on President Obama to take action on climate change.That was 2009.”

Climate Depot Response: Nice try Professor Mann. In December 2009, Donald Trump’s name appeared in a long list of corporate America in a newspaper ad urging the U.S. to pass so-called climate regulations. Having Trump’s name appear along with a lengthy list of business does not even mean Trump himself was aware that his organization (perhaps his daughter Ivanka approved his name in the ad. Her name also appears on the list)  The letter stands out in Trump’s public statements at the time. Just two months later, despite his name appearing in a form letter in a newspaper, Trump was publicly declaring himself a climate skeptic.

See: Feb. 2010: Donald Trump says Al Gore should return his Nobel Prize: ‘The Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore’ – Donald Trump is not a big believer in global warming. “With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore,” the tycoon told members of his Trump National Golf Club in Westchester in a recent speech. “Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.” The crowd of 500 stood up and cheered.”

As Marc Morano told Sky News in 2017: “Donald Trump has been consistent about — if you go back to the 1980s with his Oprah Winfrey interviews. He’s been America first and he has been concerned about sovereignty. So he is not going to look at this and think it is a good deal for America when the UN has actually said they will redistribute wealth by climate policy. This has nothing to do with climate policy. This is a no brainer for Trump to withdraw the U.S. from”

Trump also expresses very accurate climate science views: Trump Aces Climate Change Debate on ’60 Minutes’

Reality check to Michael Mann, President Trump has been remarkably consistent on his view on man-made climate change.

Michael Mann claim: “Patrick Moore, who falsely claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace…”

Climate Depot response: WRONG Professor Mann! Greenpeace’s own history has featured Moore as one of its “founders”! Do some basic research Prof. Mann before you try to smear. See:

BUSTED: GREENPEACE’S OWN WEBSITE LISTED PATRICK MOORE AS ONE OF ‘THE FOUNDERS OF GREENPEACE’ – MOORE CALLS OUT HIS FORMER GROUP FOR ‘HISTORICAL REVISIONISM’ – Greenpeace’s website listed Moore among its “founders and first members” before quietly removing it around 2007. Moore is only listed as a member of the group’s 1971 maiden voyage to oppose nuclear testing.

BUSTED: Greenpeace own website used to show Patrick Moore as one of “the founders of Greenpeace”

Prof. Mann, will you issue a retraction and apology to Dr. Moore for your obviously incorrect and poorly researched claims?

Michael Mann claim: Moore “claimed that the ‘climate crisis’ is ‘Fake Science’ and that ‘carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.’”

Climate Depot response: Dr. Moore nailed it scientifically and has support from many of his fellow prominent scientific colleagues. Excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change – Page 46: Einstein’s Successor Touts the Virtues of Carbon Dioxide: Renowned physicist Freeman Dyson of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, who has been called Einstein’s successor,16 says, “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It’s good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife. “The effects of CO2 on climate are really very poorly understood. . . . The experts all seem to think they understand it, I don’t think they do . . . Climate is a very complicated story. And we may or may not understand it better (in the future). The main thing that is lacking at the moment is humility. The climate experts have set themselves up as being the guardians of the truth and they think they have the truth and that is a dangerous situation.

Nobel Prize wining scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever explained: “The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels…You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal life span, but nevertheless the Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health.”

Page 53:  Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, former chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, has spoken about the “natural interplay” between temperature. Giegengack noted that “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” In my interview with him for my film Climate Hustle, he said, “I’m impressed by the fact that the present climate, from the perspective of a geologist, is very close to the coldest it’s ever been.” He also said, “The concentration CO2  in the atmosphere today is the close to the lowest it has ever been.” Giegengack has authored two hundred peer-reviewed studies and spent much of his academic career in the doing field research on the history of climate on almost every continent.

Michael Mann claim: “First off, the people who call Puerto Rico home, or Paradise, California, or any number of cities and towns across the country and indeed the planet who have felt the already devastating impacts of climate change would beg to differ.”

Climate Depot response: “Devastating impacts” from hurricanes are not evidence of man-made climate change. Puerto Rico suffered from a bad hurricane and was unprepared and is still suffering the consequences from their lack of readiness and from the inefficient federal government response. Try as you might, Prof. Mann, hurricanes activity is not supporting your “extreme weather” claims, not even Hurricane Maria which hit Puerto Rico in 2017. See: Hurricane Maria had the eighth-lowest landfall pressure (917 mb) on record in the Atlantic Basin. Meteorologist Anthony Watts noted, “With Irma ranked 7th, and Harvey ranked 18th, it’s going to be tough for climate alarmists to try connecting these two storms to being driven by CO2/global warming. But they’ll do it anyway.”

But on every metric, extreme weather is on no trend or declining trend on climate timescales. Even the UN IPCC admits this. See: UN IPCC Report Admits Extreme Weather Events Have Not Increased & See: The UN IPCC Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 found, “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century…. No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

Michael Mann claim: “Climate change is already making the heat waves that cause heat strokes worse.”

Climate Depot response: Mann’s heat waves claims are not supported in the peer-review literature. See: Claims Of More Heat Waves Refuted By Multiple Recent Studies, Longterm Data

Michael Mann claim: “It’s already raised sea levels, making coastal flooding more common and problematic.”

Climate Depot response: Wrong again Prof. Mann. See: NOAA: Average global sea level rising at rate of only 1.7-1.8 mm/yr – ‘A measly 5.6 inches by 2100’ 

UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level

World Leading Ocean Expert Calls Sea Level Rise Claims ‘Anti-Scientific Nonsense’

Scientists, studies & data agree: ‘Global warming’ not fueling acceleration in sea level rise –

Climatologist’s sea-level rise study disputes climate-disaster predictions – In many cases, ‘half of the sea-level rise is really from land sinking’

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: “If you look at the total global sea level from about 1850 until the present time it’s been rising at a fairly constant rate, rather slow—about 7 inches a century…. It’s about 1 to 2 mm a year so if you’re 50 years old you experienced a sea level rise about 3 ½ inches and you probably didn’t even notice it,”

Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer:  “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years.”

Michael Mann claim: “It’s already doubled the area burned by wildfires in the past few decades.”

Climate Depot response: Short term trends do not make climate trends. See: ‘Less fire today than centuries ago’ – Scientists, studies counter claim that wildfires due to ‘climate change’ – Book Excerpt

The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s new best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.

“There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail.”…

“The ‘wildfire problem’ is essentially more a social than a natural one.” Researchers from the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid found that “climate change” is not to blame for increased forest fires in the Mediterranean basin.”…

“In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees. In 2014, forestry professor David B. South of Auburn University testified to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that “data suggest that extremely  large megafires were four-times more common before 1940,” adding that “we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.” As he explained, “To attribute this human-caused increase in fire risk to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific.”

Wildfires are not worse — despite media hype about ‘global warming’

Fires far worse last century: Claim global warming causing wildfires goes up in — flames

Michael Mann claim: “My own research, in fact, shows that state-of-the-art climate models, if anything, are underestimating the impact climate change is having on extreme weather events.”

Climate Depot response: The scientific fact is that your heralded “state-of-the-art climate models could “show” any outcome you wish to create. Mann admitted in 2017: “Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.”

Prominent scientists have exposed your climate model con. See: Page 113: In 2007, top UN IPCC scientist Jim Renwick admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well,” Renwick conceded.

Page 110: Predictions Are Suddenly “Evidence,” Models are Now “Data” – And yet, such is the climate establishment’s attachment to their computer
models that they have begun to refer to their predictions as “evidence” and “data.” Scientists affiliated with the federal Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee claimed in 2011, “We find evidence from nine climate models that intensity and duration of cold extremes may occasionally, or in some
cases quite often, persist at end-of-20th-century levels late into the 21st century in many regions.” And Seth Wenger of the University of Georgia has said that “the most dire climate models show temperatures in Idaho rising an average of 9 degrees in 70 years. That would make Boise pretty unpleasant. None of us
want to believe that.” But Wenger added, “I have to set aside my feelings and use the best data.”

Models Do Not Equal Evidence: The assertion that models are now “evidence” raised the ire of former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. “The use of the term ‘evidence’ with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves,” Pielke explained.

[ … ]

Page 114: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Vincent Gray of New Zealand, the author of more than one hundred scientific publications and an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, declared in that IPCC claims were “dangerous unscientific nonsense”16 because, “All the [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,’” Gray noted.

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed software engineers. “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society,” Tennekes wrote in 2007.

The late atmospheric scientist Augie Auer ridiculed climate model predictions, comparing them to video games: “Most of these climate predictions or models, they are about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3. They’re really not justified in what they are saying. Many of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not right.” And atmospheric physicist James Peden compared the climate models to children’s toys, calling them “computerized tinker toys with which one can construct any outcome he chooses.”

New Santer Climate Study Claim: 97% Consensus is now 99.99997%! Climatologist debunks: ‘Climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming’

6 New Papers: Climate Models Are Literally Worth ZERO

Spate Of Recent Papers: Climate Models Still Unable To Reproduce Even Most Fundamental Cycles!

Climate Models Over-Estimated Warming

Recent Research Shows Climate Models Are Mostly “Black Box” Fudging, Not Real Science

Michael Mann claim: “Unlike Moore, I’m actually a climate scientist.”

Climate Depot response: We will all genuflect to you and never question you now that you have declared “I’m actually a climate scientist.” Dr. Moore is PhD ecologist and a first rate scientist. But what scientific discipline is required to study climate? The answer: It has been estimated 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: ‘There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies’ & Science magazine confused about who is a ‘prominent climate scientist’ — ‘there is no specific climate discipline’

Climatologist Dr. John Christy (even Mann has to admit is a real ‘climate scientist’) refutes Mann’s claims.

Excerpt from: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,”:

Climatologist John Christy testified before Congress in 2012, “There is a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they’ve happened in the past before CO2 levels rose.” As Christy pointed out, “There are innumerable types of events that can be defined as extreme events—so for the enterprising individual (unencumbered by the scientific method), weather statistics can supply an unlimited, target-rich environment in which to discover a ‘useful’ extreme event.”

Christy explained why the extreme weather claims are unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in any way informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is ‘anything may happen.’ In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.”

Michael Mann claim: “But even if I weren’t, these findings are readily apparent in even a cursory reading of the National Climate Assessment. That’s the major climate report Trump’s own administration released last year, and it goes into detail about how climate change is already hurting American communities from coast to coast.”

Climate Depot response: Yes, even a cursory reading of The National Climate Assessment reveals it is a pre-determined report written by environmental activists and overseen by President Obama’s former UN Paris climate pact negotiator. Science! Climate Depot’s Morano: “The National Climate Assessement is a political report masquerading as science. The media is hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again pre-determined science.  The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is! Two key authors are longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists, Donald Wuebbles and Katharine Hayhoe.”

See: Fed climate con job : Obama’s UN Paris negotiator & green activists helped prepare dire federal climate report

A former Obama administration official with ties to a liberal advocacy group funded by Democratic megadonors George Soros and Tom Steyer helped prepare the Fourth National Climate Assessment, whose dire predictions have since been attacked as overblown. Andrew Light, who worked on the 2015 Paris accord negotiations as a senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, served as a review editor for the assessment, overseeing the pivotal final chapter that concluded under a worst-case scenario that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100…Light also spent five years as senior fellow and director of international climate policy at the Center for American Progress, which was founded and now led by longtime Democratic insider John Podesta. The center is also financed by liberal billionaires such as Mr. Soros and Mr. Steyer. …

“The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is,” said Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”

Morano described two of the authors — Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe and Donald J. Wuebbles of the University of Illinois — as “longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists.” “These are not ‘Trump’s own scientists’ as the media likes to claim,” Mr. Morano said.

“The key authors are in fact left-wing environmental activists with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for American Progress, and the Obama Administration. And they cited outlier studies funded by Steyer and [Michael] Bloomberg.”

Scientists rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically flawed’ – Key claim based on study funded by Steyer & Bloomberg

Climate experts call out new federal report for hiding the decline in hurricanes – ‘Were they thinking, no one would notice?’

Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: The claim of economic damage from climate change is based on a 15 degree F temp increase that is double the “most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report.” The “sole editor” of this claim in the report was an alumni of the Center for American Progress, which is also funded by Tom Styer.”

Climate analyst Paul Homewood: ‘Cherry picks’ a few bad weather events…extrapolates using the most scary scenarios’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels on the report: ‘Systematically flawed’ – Report ‘should be shelved’

Trump v. Trump?!: Dr. Ken Haapala: ‘The global warming chorus immediately seized on the new USGCRP report claiming the Trump administration is contradicting President Trump’s claims about global warming. Amusingly, some of the chorus interviewed people who worked on the USGCRP, who were political appointees under the Obama Administration.’

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: “The science must be addressed head-on. If POTUS has his reasons for letting this Obama-era committee continue to peddle tripe I wish he would tell us what they are.”
Dr. John Dunn: “Two years into the Trump administration it is sad to see this 400-page pile of crap.”

The new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change: MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen wrote of the National Academy of Sciences: “Regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.”

Michael Mann claim: “CO2 is classified as a deadly toxin at high concentrations. I’d challenge Moore to prove he believes what he’s saying by trying to survive on carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot response:  Page 47 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: Professor Happer and NASA moonwalker and geologist Harrison H. Schmitt pointed out in the May 8, 2013, Wall Street Journal, “Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case.”

Corrupting the Language “Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind . . . CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning.” —Princeton professor William Happer to Congress

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has mocked claims that carbon dioxide is dangerous. “CO2 , it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher),” he said in 2017.

Michael Mann claim: “William Happer is also the man chosen by Trump to potentially lead a panel to conduct an ‘adversarial’ review of climate science. Happer is a former physics professor who was caught in a sting in 2015 agreeing to take money from unknown oil and gas interests in exchange for writing a report full of climate denial.”

Climate Depot response: Former New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin explained this so-called Greenpeace “sting.” “Happer’s been a frequent target of environmental groups and scientists focused on slowing climate change. Greenpeace staff, pretending in 2015 emails to represent a Beirut company focused in part on energy, tricked him into agreeing to write reports on the virtues of carbon dioxide. His replies directed hoaxers to pay fees to a non-profit group he had launched with others to convey the upside of the greenhouse effect. “My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love,” Happer wrote.

It was an attempt by in — Revkin’s words — Greenpeace “hoaxers” to entrap Dr. Happer, who was clearly not seeking money to promote his well established scientific views on carbon dioxide.

As for racking up money in exchange for promoting climate fears, Mann has that angle covered.

Climategate’s Michael Mann Racks Up Millions in Climate Stimulus Funds: – ‘More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than Penn State’s Michael Mann…Mann came by his grants via National Science Foundation, which received $3 billion in stimulus money…He received another grant worth nearly $1.9 million to investigate the role of ‘env. temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases.’…Both grants say they were ‘funded under American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.’

Report: Michael Mann has received ‘almost $6 million for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years’: ‘Note also the generally escalating grant amounts in recent years. A lot of that is from the government’s National Science Foundation and NOAA teats’

Michael Mann claim: “As to the quality of Happer’s climate science, well that’s hard to speak to because he doesn’t actually do any climate science, and never has.”

Climate Depot response: Mann is massively incorrect on this key point. Claiming Dr. Happer “doesn’t actually do any climate science, and never has” is an outrageous distortion of science and Mann should retract this claim.

Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl responds to such charges about Dr. Will Happer: “When it comes to the main physical effect that is supposed to drive “climate change”, he’s not only an expert. He’s one of the world’s leading experts.”

By their (the media & climate activists) definition, this scam is nearly universally accepted as “science” by these scammers. If you’re an expert in the climate hysteria who is approved by other experts in the climate hysteria, you usually accept that the climate hysteria is rational. Otherwise you wouldn’t be an expert over the climate hysteria. Instead, the real question is whether a rational society should nurture and pay “experts” in the climate hysteria – “experts” in a discipline where the big answer is decided from the beginning and it’s a scientifically ludicrous one.
We also learn:

CNN: “Happer, who is not a climate expert, specialized in atomic physics and the study of optics at Princeton.”

Motl: “Is Happer a climate expert? How should we interpret the negative sentence above? You know, as some “climate experts” don’t know, the global warming is supposed to be caused by the greenhouse effect which is physically the absorption of the infrared radiation by the air. Is Happer an expert in that? Well, search Google Scholar for “w happer” infrared.

Unsurprisingly, he has written numerous articles that are “mainly” about the infrared absorption bands and Google Scholar finds over 1,000 articles that contain his name as well as “infrared”. So when it comes to the main physical effect that is supposed to drive “climate change”, he’s not only an expert. He’s one of the world’s leading experts. CNN and doomsaying crackpots in general surely find this fact inconvenient but this inconvenience doesn’t make it less true.”  [Climate Depot Note:  Motl later added: “The whole alleged threat – the greenhouse effect – is a straightforward homework exercise in the exact same subfield of optics (absorption of radiation) in which Happer is a top ten expert in the world.” – Motl called the attacks on Happer’s climate expertise “ludicrous terminological sophistry.” Motl explained: “E.g. here is a peer-reviewed paper on turbulence in the atmosphere which is really atmospheric physics and by content, the very same field.]

Michael Mann claim: “What he has done, though, is say insane (and offensive) things, like comparing the treatment of carbon dioxide to the ‘demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.’ That’s the quality of advice Trump is seeking.”

Climate Depot response: Dr. Happer’s point on CO2 was well taken. Other prominent scientists agree:

Page 54 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:

Question to Giegengack: Is carbon dioxide the control knob?

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, who has authored two hundred peer-reviewed studies and spent much of his academic career in the doing field research on the history of climate on almost every continent, explained: “I don’t see anything in the long term geologic record to support that conclusion. CO2 is one of many, many, many variables that influence the Earth’s temperature. There may be variables we don’t know about, that we haven’t yet discovered.”

Question: Are you afraid of rising CO2 concentrations?

Giegengack: “No, no I’m not. CO2 is not the villain that it has been portrayed.”

Giegengack explained to me that “natural processes close to the earth’s surface move CO2 around in quantities that dwarf the amount that we are generating.” “The record that shows how much higher CO2 has been in the past under circumstances when life on earth as we know it continued to thrive,” he explained. “I haven’t been impressed by the kinds of climate change that I have observed in my lifetime,” he added.

Michael Mann claim: “It’s one thing for Fox’s primary audience, with their failing faculties and dulled critical thinking skills, to be suckered in by their constant barrage of alternative facts and persuasive fictions. It’s quite another for the supposed leader of the free world, who has a thousand scientists at his disposal, to embrace such obviously unscientific claims with such conviction.”

Climate Depot response: Prof. Mann is a great example of someone who promotes “dulled critical thinking skills.” Mann has tried to “sucker” the public for years on his “alternative facts and persuasive fictions.”

Here are a few examples of the “dulled” thoughts of Prof. Mann from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:

Page 167: Penn State Professor Michael Mann was even more explicit. “We can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real
time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” Mann said at a Democrat platform draft hearing in 2016.

Page 197: The UN IPCC’s Michael Mann, a Penn State professor embroiled in the Climategate scandal, couldn’t restrain himself from engaging in climate porn after Harvey hit Texas. “We’re starting to talk about conditions that will literally force us to relocate the major coastal cities of the world, to relocate the better part of the billion people.”

Page 220: Penn State Professor Michael Mann weighed in with a 2036 deadline. “There is an urgency to acting unlike anything we’ve seen before,”
Mann explained.31 Media outlets reported Mann’s made a huge media splash with his prediction, noting “Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036.”

Page 238: Even before the elections, climate activist and Penn State professor Michael Mann warned that Trump was a “threat to the planet,” whose
future “could quite literally lie in the balance.”

Page 148:  UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita, for example, publicly declared that his colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones, who had both been implicated
in Climategate, “should be barred from the IPCC process…. They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how petty and punitive the global warming science had become: “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.” Zorita was making reference to Climategate emails in which IPCC scientists had discussed how to suppress data and scientific studies that did not agree with the UN IPCC line. He noted how scientists who deviated from the UN IPCC’s position were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.” Zorita was a contributing author to the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. He has published more than seventy peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Michael Mann reveals he is no rocket man scientist as his claims rebutted by data – Mann claims that ‘climate change was behind this summer’s extreme weather’

Oh No! Not again! Warmist Michael Mann on UN climate summit: ‘Paris is probably the last chance’

Michael Mann: ‘Paris is probably the last chance to bring the necessary emission reductions on the way – we had begun 15 years ago, the required transformation of the energy system would gently can proceed.’

Reality Check: Every UN Climate Summit Hailed as ‘Last Chance’ To Stop ‘Global Warming’ Before It’s Too Late – Previous ‘last chance’ deadlines turned out to be — well — not the ‘last chance’ after all.

Also see: Warmist Michael Mann pushing ‘global warming’ blizzard connection

Mann has also claimed: “Reducing global carbon emissions should be understood as an extremely well-advised planetary insurance policy. Indeed, Americans take out fire insurance on their homes for levels of risk that pale in comparison to those associated with dangerous and irreversible climate change.”

Climate Depot Response to Mann:“Would anyone purchase fire insurance on their home with a huge up-front premium but virtually no payout if their home burned down? Only those who answer YES to such an “insurance” policy would like the “climate” regulations “deal” offered by Congress, the EPA, and the UN. If we actually did face a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the U.S. Congress or the United Nations to save us, we would all be DOOMED. The UN’s Paris climate agreement and EPA regulations can’t control the climate University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has noted, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate, if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Michael Mann claim: “Fortunately, some in his party appear to now recognize that outright denial of human-caused climate change has no place in honest political discourse and they seem to be embracing a pivot to the more worthy debate over what we do to address it. Let us encourage this shift and allow climate change deniers to become increasingly isolated as the fringe, irrelevant relic that they are.”

Climate Depot response: On the contrary, the global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of ‘climate cause deniers.’ They deny the hundreds of causes and variables of climate change and pretend CO2 is the ‘control knob’ overriding all the others and that every bad weather even it somehow “proof” of their claims.

Related Links: 

Mann v. Morano: Climategate’s Michael Mann debates Climate Depot’s Morano on Live BBC Radio: Mann: ‘Morano’s a hired assassin’ — Morano: ‘Mann plays the part of martyr very well’

Morano: ‘It was very refreshing when, after the Climategate emails, people could see the collusion behind the scenes, with Mann & the other upper echelons of UN crafting a narrative of how they were going to, basically, have a partisan campaign to present the science and exclude people they didn’t like’

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, By Marc Morano

 

Page 150: I myself was actually mentioned in one of the Climategate scandal emails. On July 23, 2009, AP reporter Seth Borenstein had emailed one of the Climategate scientists, Penn State professor Michael Mann of hockey stick fame, about a “a paper in JGR [Journal of Geophysical Research] today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly.” Mann wrote back to Borenstein, “The aptly named Marc ‘Morano’ has fallen for it!”

Page 152: Clive Crook, writing for the Atlantic, also slammed the Penn State investigation: “The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who came up with ‘the hockey stick’—would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for ‘lack of credible evidence’, it will not even investigate them…. You think I exaggerate?…In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no.” As Crook explained, “The [Penn State] report…says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers—so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.”

FacebookTwitterEmailCopy LinkPocketLinkedInShare

Trump touts Greenpeace co-founder declaring ‘the whole climate crisis’ is ‘fake science’ [Video]

President Donald Trump touted Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore’s statements that “the whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science.” Trump responded “Wow” at the end of his tweet.

Moore continued: “There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” Patrick Moore is featured prominently in the new skeptical book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”

Moore made his comments while appearing on Fox & Friends today. He also explained why he called AOC A ‘Pompous Little Twit’


Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” @foxandfriends Wow!

56.7K
8:29 AM – Mar 12, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

37.4K people are talking about this

Dr. Patrick Moore replied to President Trump:


Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
· 4h

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” @foxandfriends Wow!


Patrick Moore@EcoSenseNow

Thanks President Trump. I am in DC for a meeting of the CO2 Coalition founded by William Happer, who I admire greatly. CO2 is entirely beneficial. The EPA finding that CO2 is pollution must be reversed.

1,822
8:42 AM – Mar 12, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,016 people are talking about this

Moore referenced Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer who is not part of the Trump administration and set to head a presidential commission on climate change. See: All Eyes On The Scientist Set To Upend The ‘Climate Change’ Narrative – Under ‘All-Out Attack’ by Media – ‘Dr. Will Happer is one of the most important scientists in the U.S.’

Partial transcript of Patrick Moore Fox & Friends segment. Broadcast March 12, 2019

Watch Fox News video: Greenpeace co-founder tears into ‘pompous little twit’ Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): It sounds like you don’t think [the Green New Deal] plan is a good one. What’s your major problem with it? 

PATRICK MOORE (AUTHOR): Well, it’s a silly plan. That’s why I suggested [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] was a pompous little twit. “Twit,” meaning, “silly” in the British lexicon and, “pompous,” meaning, “arrogant.” She really rubbed me the wrong way when she said she’s “the boss,” because she can make up a proposal that’s completely ridiculous and no one else did. And that is what’s wrong about this. 

In fact, the whole climate crisis, as they call it, is not only fake news, it’s fake science. There is no climate crisis. There is weather and climate all around the world. And, in fact, carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life. That’s where the carbon comes from in carbon-based life, which is all life on land and in the sea. And, not only that, a little bit of warming would not be a bad thing for myself, being a Canadian, and the people in Russia wouldn’t mind a little couple of degrees warmer either. 

DOOCY: But, Patrick, you know, there are so many scientists who have come out and say — and have said that climate change is real. 

MOORE: Yes, of course climate change is real, it’s been happening since the beginning of time, but it’s not dangerous and it’s not made by people. Climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon. 

Moore, an ecologist, has testified to the U.S. Senate: 

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’

Watch full senate hearing here. 

Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:

‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.’

‘Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming…When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.’

Skeptical ‘Politically Incorrect’ climate book surges to #1 Amazon Best Seller in ‘Climatology’ – Goes into its 4th printing as it surpasses Carl Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’ book

Greenpeace co-founder: ‘Global warming’ is ‘strictly a fear campaign’ – It has taken ‘over science with superstition…& combo of religion and political ideology’

Dr. Patrick Moore: “Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign — well, fear and guilt — you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two.”

Watch: Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore rejects climate fear: ‘CO2 is not the enemy. It is actually the reason that we are alive’

Moore shows unequivocally that CO2 and temperature have NOT moved in unison. In fact, during the Jurassic, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plummeted while temperatures rose. The same thing disparity occurred in the Eocene. “It is (therefore) not possible to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature over the long-term history,” Dr. Moore concludes. “Carbon is not the enemy. It is actually the reason that we are alive.”

Meteorologist Anthony Watts reveals how Greenpeace tries to downplay Moore’s role as founding member

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20021119050900/http://www.greenpeace.org.au/aboutus/founders.html

Read the whole thing here

FacebookTwitterEmailCopy LinkPocketLinkedInShare

RELATED ARTICLE: Here Are 5 Hysterical Environmentalist Claims in Modern History

Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy [Video]

To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.

RELATED ARTICLE: Global Cooling: The Real Climate Threat

EDITORS NOTE: Please consider donating today to PragerU! 

A Presidential Committee on Climate Security (PCCS) is needed now

Congratulations President Trump on having the interest in and courage to ask that the American people be given the benefits of a fact based and unbiased examination of the topic of climate change. Your Presidential Committee on Climate Security (PCCS) holds the first promise of an open, and fact-based examination of the much talked about, but not scientifically quantified buzz-word “man-made, dangerous climate change.” Journalists, the media, and many of the scientific community usually drop the qualifier “man-made,” and treat it as a new and alarming phenomenon.

No student of history or of the scientific record denies that the climate changes. It is an indisputable attribute of the phenomenon known as climate that it has and will forever be changing on some time scale at all places on earth. No one knows why the last ice-age began or ended around 10,000 years ago. No one knows why the medieval warm period (950AD-1250AD) began, nor ended and was followed by the little ice age (1300AD-1850AD) …fossil fuels were not in any significant use.

As a graduate engineer and physician, I am attuned to classical scientific inquiry in attempting to explain physical phenomena. Open inquiry with multiple possible theoretical explanations is essential to determining the valid one, resulting from a process of hypothesis, testing of that hypothesis, and final formation of a theory. That theory is only so good until another one can be formulated with greater predictive accuracy.

The American people are rightly concerned about being good stewards of the environment. They deserve to be reassured that in their daily lives and activities that warnings issued concerning impacts on the climate are based on the scientific method, and not the result of biased motivations based on monetary, reputation enhancement, or misplaced good intentions

It is of concern that this expected scientific methodology and due process has been largely ignored by those promoting the fear of catastrophic climate change. I recall that Vice President Al Gore would not take questions from his audience when challenged on his claims. The earth did not exhibit a fever as he claimed. Beginning in 1979, satellite data became available and they show cycles of temperature change, with a long period of temperature stability. When verifiable satellite temperature did not show the proclaimed fever, global warming was rebranded with the amorphous term “climate change,” and somehow natural earth rhythms became an aberration. Polar bears have continued to thrive, droughts have come and gone, and pacific islands have not sunk beneath a rising ocean. I recall no publicized series of debates on the merits of a quantifiable change in global climate attributable to human activity. No one has defined the ideal earth climate.

Fast forward to the present. The idea that catastrophic, man-made climate change is factual has become an unassailable point in the media and academia. There has been no open proof of this…yet to question it brings ridicule and threats, but never any validated scientific proof. There is reference to a vague collection of scientists at the 97% level, but never any explanation of who they are or how that oft repeated number actually came about. Climate change disasters have become the stuff of urban legends, always imminent but never documented, always off in the future. The human remedy to change the climate has never been proved. Faulty climate models and computers portray a runaway climate, but those predictions have not matched the real-world record, which is mostly benign and without ominous trend.

As a physician, I can give another analogy. Another respected physician refers a patient to me with a serious diagnosis. I prescribe a plan of treatment based on that diagnosis. The patient does not respond and gets worse. Concerned, I refer the patient to another physician and provide the same diagnosis. He looks at my record and tries another therapy for that diagnosis. He sends the patient to another expert in the field, who treats the patient. The patient dies. What went wrong? None of the physicians questioned the original diagnosis, there was a consensus of thought and an appeal to authority which no one dared to question. They all treated the patient for the wrong disease.

This is the current status of climate dogma in America. Climate policy is being set in the media on the free-thought ramblings of a former cocktail waitress, and school children reciting the agenda of their handlers. Our British friends might label these as tweets by twits.

America needs your PCCS and Dr. Happer is the qualified adult in the room to head it up.

Charles G. Battig, MD

Houston, TX

RELATED ARTICLE: Congress Should Keep Its Promise to End Energy Subsidies

INFOGRAPHIC: Green New Deal would unleash a catastrophic food collapse across America

Natural News in a column titled “How AOC’s Green New Deal would unleash a catastrophic food collapse and Venezuela-style mass starvation across America” published the following infographic. This picture shows how fossil fuels are critical to the production of food.

View infographic at this link

Shutting down fossil fuels would collapse the U.S. food supply and lead to mass starvation

Natural News has conducted a straightforward analysis of the agricultural use of fossil fuels and how the food production industry would be impacted by ending the use of fossil fuels in the next decade. A detailed infographic, shown below, summarizes these important findings.

What we’ve found should be alarming for anyone paying attention to reality. Here are the main points:

  • The agricultural industry depends heavily on fossil fuels for farming, harvesting, milling, manufacturing, transport and even for fertilizers. (See statistics in the infographic, below.)
  • Food imports depend almost entirely on fossil fuel-powered ships, shipping port transport equipment (such as cranes and forklifts), long haul rigs and other heavy equipment that run almost exclusively on fossil fuels.
  • There are no “green energy” replacements capable of powering most of the heavy equipment used in food production, manufacturing and transportation, aside from small, battery-powered forklifts that must be recharged for many hours between uses. (There are no battery-powered ocean freighter ships that can cross the Pacific Ocean on battery power, for example. They simply do not exist.)
  • Ending fossil fuels and combustion engines would result in a catastrophic collapseof national food production.
  • Our rough estimate is that food supplies would collapse by 80% within the first 12 months after fossil fuels are outlawed.
  • The result would be mass starvation, social chaos, uncontrolled outbreaks of infectious disease, a collapse of government, widespread mayhem and lawlessness.
  • Under the scenario, the GDP of the United State of America would plummet by an estimated 70% as the national economy grinds to a halt.
  • America would cease to exist as a nation and would be especially vulnerable to invasions by foreign forces such as China, Russia or even migrant waves of military-aged men from Central and South America. (Is this what Ocasio-Cortez wants to see happen?)

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Immediate Harm to Millions’: AFL-CIO Tears Apart Green New Deal

Former Greenpeace President Continues AOC Criticism, Blasts Climate Change Movement for ‘Using Kids as a Front’

Democrats seek to evade GOP trap on Green New Deal vote

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image and infographic are by NaturalNews.com.

Congressional Testimony: Green New Deal = Redistribution


Marc Morano

Submitted Written Testimony of Marc Morano to Congressional Hearing on Green New Deal – Western Caucus – Capitol Hill

Morano to Congress: “‘Global warming” is merely the latest environmental scare with the same solutions of wealth redistribution and central planning. “Global warming” is merely the latest environmental scare with the same big government solution. The “Green New Deal” has very little to do with the environment or climate.

The environmental Left has been using green scares to push for the same solutions we see today — wealth redistribution, central planning, sovereignty limiting treaties — since the overpopulation scars of the 1960s and 1970s.

2019 Green New Deal proposed “solution”: OCASIO-CORTEZ CAMPAIGN AIDE CALLS ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ A PLAN TO ‘REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH AND POWER’ FROM RICH TO POOR

The Green New Deal borrows from previous proposed “solutions”: Flashback: UN IPCC official admits UN seeks to ‘redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy’–  UN: ‘This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.’

Flashback 1974 proposed “solution” to battle environmental degradation: Different Environmental Scare, Same Solution: Future Obama science czar John Holdren testified to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, “The neo-Malthusian view proposes conscious accommodation to the perceived limits to growth via population limitation and redistribution of wealth in order to prevent the ‘overshoot’ phenomenon. My own sympathies are no doubt rather clear by this point. I find myself firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp.” …

In summary, the Green New Deal has to be opposed, exposed and defeated. We must challenge the economics, ideology and science claims of this deal. I thank the Western Caucus for this opportunity and look forward to them leading the battle.”

Watch Morano’s Full Testimony

Watch: Morano’s Q&A with Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) At Green New Deal Hearing

Morano’s Full Submitted Written Testimony

Climate Depot
Related image

Submitted Written Testimony of Marc Morano, Publisher of CFACT’s Climate Depot

Author of Best Selling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change & former staff of U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee

Presented to Western Caucus’ Green New Deal Forum on Capitol Hill – February 27, 2019  

Western Caucus Policy Forum and Press Conference
Green New Deal Bill introduced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14)
Wednesday, February 27, 2018

Legislative Forum | 2:00-3:30p.m. | 1300 Longworth House Office Building 
Press Conference | 4:00-4:15p.m. | House Triangle (House side, outside U.S. Capitol).

Submitted Testimony of Marc Morano – Publisher of Climate Depot

February 27, 2019 – I want to thank Congressional Western Caucus for hosting this hearing on the Green New Deal. My background is in political science, which happens to be an ideal background for examining the Green New Deal and man-made global warming claims they are based upon.  I am the author of the best-selling 2018 book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”  

I have been passionate about environmental issues since I began my career in 1991 as a journalist. I produced a documentary on the myths surrounding the Amazon Rainforest in 2000 and I was a fully credentialed investigative journalist with both White House and Capitol Hill press badges and I reported extensively on environmental and energy issues such as deforestation, endangered species, pollution and climate change.  In 2016, I wrote and starred in the film Climate Hustle, which debuted in over 400 theaters in the U.S. and Canada.

In my capacity as Communications Director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Senator James Inhofe, I was speechwriter and hosted the award-winning U.S. Senate blog. I released the first ever U.S.  Government “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” in 2006. I also authored the 255-page Senate report of over 700 dissenting scientists on man-made global warming originally published in 2007 and updated in 2008, 2009. In 2010, the number of dissenting international scientists exceeded 1000. I am now the publisher of the award-winning Climate Depot and work daily with scientists who examine the latest peer-reviewed studies and data on the climate as well as the feasibility of the alleged “solutions.”

The Green New Deal is neither “Green” or “New” and it is a “Raw Deal.” It is one Big Bowl of Crazy.

Key points:

“Global warming” is merely the latest environmental scare with the same solutions of wealth redistribution and central planning. “Global warming” is merely the latest environmental scare with the same big government solution. 

The “Green New Deal” has very little to do with the environment or climate. 

The Deal claims Free college or trade schools for every citizen.

The government will ensure “healthy food” to all, “safe, affordable, adequate housing,” incomes for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work.

Seeks to go after meat eating and “farting cows.” 

Will end all traditional forms of energy in the next ten years. The Green New Deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

The cost of the Green New Deal is not cheap. See: Bloomberg News: Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion (or $65k per year per family) – “The so-called Green New Deal may tally between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years, concludes American Action Forum, which is run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the non-partisan CBO from 2003 to 2005. That includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the plan’s call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $42.8 trillion and $80.6 trillion for its economic agenda including providing jobs and health care for all.”

Recycling The Same “Solutions”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ of New York has acknowledged that her “deal” will require “massive government intervention.” See: OCASIO-CORTEZ: FIXING ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ REQUIRES ‘MASSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION’ & Green New Deal” will bring “a massive transformation of our society.”

Ocasio-Cortez is echoing the former UN Climate chief’s rhetoric. See: Flashback: UN climate chief Christiana Figueres seeks ‘centralized transformation’ that is ‘going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different’ in order to fight ‘global warming’

But, as I said earlier, the “Green New Deal” is neither “green” or “new.” The environmental Left has been using green scares to push for the same solutions we see today — wealth redistribution, central planning, sovereignty limiting treaties — since the overpopulation scars of the 1960s and 1970s.

2019 Green New Deal proposed “solution”: FORMER OCASIO-CORTEZ CAMPAIGN AIDE CALLS ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ A PLAN TO ‘REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH AND POWER’ FROM RICH TO POOR

The Green New Deal borrows from previous proposed “solutions”: Flashback: UN IPCC official admits UN seeks to ‘redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy’– ‘This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.’

Flashback 1974 proposed “solution” to battle environmental degradation: Different Environmental Scare, Same Solution: In 1974, future Obama science czar John Holdren proposed “redistribution of wealth” to battle environmental degradation. Holdren testified to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, “The neo-Malthusian view proposes conscious accommodation to the perceived limits to growth via population limitation and redistribution of wealth in order to prevent the ‘overshoot’ phenomenon. My own sympathies are no doubt rather clear by this point. I find myself firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp.”

2019 “Solution:” AOC explains why ‘farting cows’ were considered in Green New Deal – ‘Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner’

AOC Borrowing from the UN: Former UN Climate Chief: Meat eaters should be banished, treated ‘the same way that smokers are treated” – Christiana Figueres, the former United Nations official responsible for the 2015 Paris climate agreement, has a startling vision for restaurants of the future: Anyone who wants a steak should be banished. “How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated?” Figueres suggested during a recent conference. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”

2019 Green New Deal proposed “solution”: ‘Green New Deal’ Unveiled: Entire economy would operate it – Govt would have ‘appropriate ownership stakes’ in ALL Green New Deal businesses

Flashback 1974 proposed solution to overpopulation: Different Environmental Scare, Same Solution: Amherst College professor Leo Marx warned in 1974 about the “global rate of human population growth. All of this is only to say that, on ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”

In 2012,  The UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared she sought a ‘centralized transformation’ that is ‘going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different’

There is nothing new about the Green New Deal. “Global warming ” is merely the latest alleged environmental scare that is being substituted to push the same “solutions.” Instead of arguing the merits of the economic and political changes of the Green New Deal, they are using — in the words of Al Gore – a “torqued up” climate change scare to urge quick imposition of the policies to protect us from a climate emergency.

In my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, I showcase how the environmental Left has used the same rhetoric and “solutions” for the different environmental scares in the 1960s and 70s, whether it’s resource scarcity, over-population, rainforest clearing, et cetera.

They will say, we need a global solution; we need global governance; we need wealth redistribution; we need sovereignty threatening treaty, or some kind of economic limiting activity limiting. And there is no shortage of activists and bureaucrats willing to appoint themselves in charge in order to oversee the “solution.”  No matter what environmental scare in the past that they tried to scare people with, it was the same solutions they’re proposing now.

In the book, I feature climate activist Naomi Klein, who’s an adviser to Pope Francis, who wrote the book, “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” Klein actually says that they would be seeking the same solutions even if there was no global warming and that essentially, capitalism is incompatible with a livable climate. She urges people, that they need to jump on this because solving global warming will solve what we’ve been trying to achieve all along.

Even the New York Times recognizes the Green New Deal as a cover for other non-environmental issues. NYT gets it! Is the Green New Deal ‘merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies?’ – NYT Editorial Board: “Is the Green New Deal aimed at addressing the climate crisis? Or is addressing the climate crisis merely a cover for a wish-list of progressive policies and a not-so-subtle effort to move the Democratic Party to the left? At least some candidates — Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota among them — seem to think so….Read literally, the resolution wants not only to achieve a carbon-neutral energy system but also to transform the economy itself.”

Even the Washington Post is souring on it. WASHINGTON POST RIPS GREEN NEW DEAL: ‘WE CAN’T AFFORD BAD IDEAS’ “They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy, such as creating a federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be,” the editorial board wrote. The Post also called the Green New Deal’s goal of reaching “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years “impossible” and criticized the resolution’s “promise to invest in known fiascos such as high-speed rail.”

The climate activists openly are using climate scare tactics to achieve their ends. And in order to get those ends achieved, they have to hype and scare. It’s been a very effective strategy because they’ve bullied Republican politicians, who should know better, into at least submissiveness and silence.

AOC and Sen. Markey have bungled the release of the Green New Deal. They had to pull parts of it from their website. There’s a whole dispute over what they meant on nuclear power. They haven’t even gotten this straightened out.

But what they do have straightened out: this is the litmus test for the 2020 Democratic contenders. And in a way they, have given anyone who cares about free markets, liberty, and science, a grand opening to expose anyone who signs on to this plan.

Another aspect that is remarkable is that the “Green New Deal” is how it is not sitting well with many environmental activists and other factions of the Democratic Party base.

Prominent environmentalist Shellenberger: ‘I am calling Bullsh*t’ on Ocasio-Cortez! Declares AOC is ‘a climate fraud’ – Rips ‘Green New Deal’ as ‘climate fakery’ – Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, President of “Environmental Progress” & an activist Time Magazine called a “Hero of the Environment”: – “I am calling bullshit not just on AOC but on her progressive enablers in the news media who are giving her a pass on the most crucial test of moral and political leadership of our time when it comes to climate change: a person’s stance on nuclear power.” “I am calling bullshit on climate fakery. Anyone who is calling for phasing out nuclear is a climate fraud perpetuating precisely the gigantic ‘hoax’ that [Oklahoma] Sen. James Inhofe (R) famously accused environmentalists of perpetuating.” “If you want to be a self-respecting progressive or journalist who is fairly considering or covering the climate issue, please stop giving Ocasio-Cortex and other supposedly climate-concerned greens a pass. THEY ARE INCREASING EMISSIONS.”

Major labor union (which endorsed Hillary & Obama twice for Prez) unloads on ‘Green New Deal’ as ‘unrealistic manifesto’ that will ‘destroy workers’ livelihoods’ – & cause ‘economic and social devastation’ – Labor leader Terry O’Sullivan, who’s union twice endorsed President Obama for President and endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, is have come out swinging against the “Green New Deal” from New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Statement of Terry O’Sullivan, General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, On the “Green New Deal” “It is exactly how not to win support for critical measures to curb climate change…It is difficult to take this unrealistic manifesto seriously, but the economic and social devastation it would cause if it moves forward is serious and real…threatens to destroy workers’ livelihoods, increase divisions and inequality, and undermine the very goals it seeks to reach. In short, it is a bad deal.”

Despite lofty rhetoric and religious like fervor, the Green New Deal cannot achieve its objectives of eliminating fossil fuels. The government cannot ban energy that works (fossil fuels) to mandate energy that is not ready for prime time (solar and wind).

Reality Check: In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. energy consumption. In 2015, more or less the same

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28592 …

graph of energy consumption in the United States, as explained in the article text

In summary, the Green New Deal has to be opposed, exposed and defeated. We must challenge the economics, ideology and science claims of this deal. I thank the Western Caucus for this opportunity and look forward to them leading the battle.

Thank you.

Marc Morano

#

Related: 

Flashback 2013: Previous Testimony of Marc Morano at Congressional Hearing on Climate Change

Morano to Testify: House GOP To Hold Congress’s First Public Forum On The Green New Deal

Schumer pledges to defund Trump’s ‘fake climate panel’

DEAD ON ARRIVAL: DEMOCRATS WON’T BACK ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ IN ‘SHAM’ VOTE – Would vote ‘present’ to avoid a public intraparty fight

Morano to testify on Capitol Hill – Warmists Outraged – Accuse GOP of stacking Congressional Green New Deal forum with ‘prominent climate deniers’

Forum Witnesses and Potential Witnesses

  • Michael Zehr, Federal Policy Advisor, Consumer Energy Alliance (Confirmed) (Testimony)
  • Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute (Confirmed) (Testimony)
  • Katie Tubb, Policy Analyst for energy and environmental issues, Heritage Foundation (Testimony)
  • Rick Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government (Confirmed) (Testimony)
  • Mandy Gunasekara,Founder & President, Energy 45 Fund (Confirmed) (Testimony)
  • Marc Morano, Director of Communication, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) (Confirmed) (Testimony)
  • Dr. David Legates, Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware (Confirmed) (Testimony)
  • Thomas Pyle, President, American Energy Alliance (Confirmed) (Testimony)
  • Bill Imbergamo, Federal Forest Resource Coalition (Confirmed)
  • Laborers’ International Union of North America(Declined Invite) (Directed to Previous Statement)
  • Demond Drummer, Co-founder and Executive Director of New Consensus (Invited)
  • Sierra Club (Declined Invite)
  • Sunrise Movement (Invited)
  • Paul Krugman (Invited)

Climate Skeptic: Ocasio-Cortez Makes The Case Against Man-Made Global Warming Despite Her Fearmongering

WATCH:

Marc Morano, the executive director of Climate Depot, says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s extreme views on climate change actually help him make the case against man-made global warming.

“She’s doing the work of climate skeptics for us. Having her out there every day making these wacky claims, questioning whether we should have kids — I can’t think of anything better to discredit the man-made global warming fear movement than AOC,” said Morano.

Morano also slammed the congresswoman’s “Green New Deal” bill, saying he believes the bill is more about wealth redistribution and central planning than the environment or climate.


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

“America Uncensored” is a Daily Caller program dedicated to political stories dominating the news cycle. TheDC’s Stephanie Hamill is a straight shooter who isn’t afraid to tell you what she thinks.

Hamill has put the Left on blast for turning a blind eye to the violent MS-13 gang, talked about the Left’s war on white men and highlighted the dangers of socialized medicine in some of her recent monologues. Check out a few of Hamill’s other greatest videos and subscribe to our YouTube channel to avoid missing out.

SUBSCRIBE HERE!

RELATED ARTICLES:

ANALYSIS: How AOC’s Green New Deal would unleash a catastrophic food collapse and Venezuela-style mass starvation across America

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Green New Deal Haters: ‘I’m the Boss. How ‘Bout That?’

NOW CHECK OUT The Daily Caller’s Most Popular Shows:

Would You Rather Date A Trump Supporter or MS-13 Gang Member?

‘Trophy Culture’ Hijacks New Jersey High School Cheer Squad

Fact Checking White House ‘Truth Seekers’ On North Korea

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission.

Economist: The Green New Deal Is Built on Fear, Not Facts

Last week, environmental activist and leader of the anti-carbon campaign group 350.org, Bill McKibben, sent a valentine to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey arguing that the Green New Deal, far from resulting in a return to the Dark Ages, would instead prevent exactly that.

He tells us that those opposed to the measure “have one plan for dealing with the popularity of the Green New Deal: scaring the hell out of people.” Predictably, however, McKibben does precisely what he accuses others of doing—purveying falsehoods and half-truths in order to frighten people into believing that the so-called cure for climate change is not far worse than the disease.

He begins by characterizing polling for the Green New Deal as “through the roof,” when the link he provides puts its approval at 43.7 percent (a plurality, sure, but through the roof?), and a survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change and Communication notes that “strong bipartisan support” for the measure corresponds to a whopping 97 percent of respondents who knew “a little” or “nothing at all” about it. He then links to a poll by The Nation that asked the question:

Would you support or oppose a Green New Deal to end fossil fuel use in the United States and have the government create clean energy jobs? The plan would be paid for by raising taxes, including a tax on carbon emissions.

That the question presupposes outcomes that have never happened before and are likely impossible (a massive retooling of energy provision in a decade and government creation of jobs on a net basis) is never deemed to be a problem.

McKibben then presents a gallery of horrors: Hurricane Katrina, “what happened in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, when most of the island went dark for months as workers struggled to rebuild power lines,” the California wildfires, the Syrian civil war, the Zika virus, child labor, and starvation. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

That, he says, is “what a modern Dark Ages looks like.” The chief problem with this list—at least related to those not factually wrong—is that even to the extent that these things may be in some way affected by climate change, the Green New Deal will do little if anything to address them.

The contention that climate change has resulted in stronger and/or more intense hurricanes is far from demonstrated. While one recent study purports to correlate climate change with a more rapid increase in hurricane severity since 1982 (a relatively short period given the length of the hurricane cycle and considering the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, commonly known as NOAA, found the findings to be “suggestive but not definitive”), NOAA released a report less than a week before Mr. McKibben’s diatribe that found:

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic…. Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.

And, of course, the duration of power loss in Puerto Rico has had more to do with the poor infrastructure in place to begin with.

The notion that California wildfires are the result of climate change has largely been rejected, and globally, studies have shown that burn areas have been decreasing over the last couple of decades.

While it has been argued that the 2007-2011 drought that struck Syria has exacerbated the conflict, few if any characterize it as a direct cause (conflict began with protests demanding democratic reforms, the release of political prisoners, and an end to corruption; religious animosity has also played a material part). And the reference to the Zika virus presupposes a northern migration of mosquitoes that has not occurred and infection by a virus that has not been deemed a global threat since 2017.

As for the increase in child labor and starvation due to climate change, no such evidence exists—none. Quite to the contrary, child labor has been steadily declining, particularly in India and China due to their greater embrace of market reforms. As for starvation, it appears that Mr. McKibben has misrepresented data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), which reports on “undernourished people.” That is not the same thing.

To put things in perspective, the percentage of undernourished persons plummeted from 14.5 percent globally in 2005 to 10.6 percent in 2015. Their most recent estimates put the figure at 10.9 percent in 2017. This small uptick is not attributed solely to climate change but also to multiple other causes. Conflicts around the globe including not just Syria but Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and a host of others not attributable to climate change have been a major factor, as has been the socialist disaster that is Venezuela.

Of course, if the UN’s IPCC climate sensitivity figures are correct, the most one could expect from a full implementation of the Green New Deal is reduced future warming of 0.137 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Having been shown the horror show of doing nothing, we are presented the unicorns and rainbows of the Green New Deal.

“What the future looks like is electric cars,” we are told, “[that] outperform combustion vehicles on every metric.” Apparently, he has never heard of the range constraints, particularly in colder weather, of electric vehicles or the higher average costs of repair. 

And we are told that “they cost less to own and operate,” but there is a caveat to that left unmentioned. According to a University of Michigan study, it costs, on average, about 43.4 percent as much to operate an electric car than it does one with an internal combustion engine, as electricity is so much cheaper in relative terms.

But the likelihood of that remaining the case once the Green New Deal eliminates electricity generation from fossil fuels (currently 63 percent) and nuclear sources (currently 20 percent) rapidly approaches zero.

“What the future looks like is mass transit,” we were told two days after the California governor canceled much of the boondoggle that is the high-speed rail project. You can’t make this stuff up.

McKibben would have you believe that adopting these things is “easy to do” and “costs pennies on the dollar compared to the future,” but as he demonstrably cannot get his facts right about conditions as they exist now, I find it hard to accept his assessment of the future at anywhere near face value.

Given that a mere 3 percent of those surveyed had heard “a lot” about the Green New Deal, it seems the most effective plan for dealing with its current popularity is to simply present the facts. You won’t be getting them from Bill McKibben.

COLUMN BY

William  E.  Fleischmann

William E. Fleischmann

William E. Fleischmann is an economist and financial professional with more than thirty years of experience in banking, insurance, and healthcare. Bill has a passion for economic history and, in particular, the extensive harm done by minimum wage laws.

RELATED ARTICLES:

WSJ From 1989: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

ANALYSIS: How AOC’s Green New Deal would unleash a catastrophic food collapse and Venezuela-style mass starvation across America

MSNBC Host Says There’s A “Need To Scare People” On The Issue Of Global Warming, Promotes New Alarmist Book

Study: Green New Deal Would Cost Up to $94 Trillion

Ocasio-Cortez on Climate Change: ‘Is It OK to Still Have Children?’

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by geralt on Pixabay.