Climategate: Ten years later

This month marks the tenth anniversary of “Climategate” – the release of thousands of emails to and from climate scientists who had been (and still are) collaborating and colluding to create a manmade climate crisis that exists in their minds and computer models, but not in the real world. The scandal should have ended climate catastrophism. Instead, it was studiously buried by politicians, scientists, activists and crony capitalists, who will rake in trillions of dollars from the exaggerations and fakery, while exempting themselves from the damage they are inflicting on everyday families.

Few people know the Inconvenient Facts about the supposed manmade climate and extreme weather “crisis.” For example, since 1998, average global temperatures have risen by a mere few hundredths of a degree. (For a time, they even declined slightly.) Yet all we hear is baseless rhetoric about manmade carbon dioxide causing global warming and climate changes that pose existential threats to humanity, wildlife and planet. Based on this, we are told we must stop using fossil fuels to power economic growth and better living standards. This is bad news for Africa and the world.

We keep hearing that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause rising global temperatures. But satellite data show no such thing. In fact, computer model predictions for 2019 are almost a half degree Celsius (0.9 degrees F) above actual satellite measurements. Even worse, anytime a scientist raises questions about the alleged crisis, he or she is denounced as a “climate change denier.”

A major source of data supporting the human CO2- induced warming proposition came from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

Then on the morning of 17 November 2009 a Pandora’s box of embarrassing CRU information exploded onto the world scene. A computer hacker penetrated the university’s computer system and took 61 Megs of material that showed the CRU had been manipulating scientific information to make global warming appear to be the fault of mankind and industrial CO2. Among many other scandals, the shocking leaked emails showed then-CRU-director Prof. Phil Jones boasting of using statistical “tricks” to remove evidence of observed declines in global temperatures.

In another email, he advocated deleting data rather than providing it to scientists who did not share his view and might criticize his analyses. Non-alarmist scientists had to invoke British freedom of information laws to get the information. Jones was later suspended, and former British Chancellor Lord Lawson called for a Government enquiry into the embarrassing exposé.

The affair became known as “Climategate,” and a group of American University students even posted a YouTube song, “Hide the Decline,” mocking the CRU and climate modeler Dr. Michael Mann, whose use of the phrase “hide the decline” in temperatures had been found in the hacked emails.

So what is the truth? If one considers the composition of the atmosphere and equates it to the height of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the extra plant-fertilizing CO2 added to the atmosphere since California became the 31st state of the United States in 1850 is less than the thickness of tiles under the Tower.

Can this tiny increase really explain any observed global warming since the Little Ice Age ended, and the modern industrial era began? Since California became a state, the measured global rise in atmospheric temperature has been less than 1C. But most of this increase occurred prior to 1940, and average planetary temperatures fell from around 1943 until about 1978, leading to a global cooling scare. Temperatures rose slightly until 1998, then mostly remained stable, even as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. Rising CO2 levels and temperature variations do not correlate very well at all.

Moreover, during the well-documented Medieval Warm Period from about 950 to 1350, warmer global temperatures allowed Viking farmers to raise crops and tend cattle in Greenland. The equally well documented 500-year Little Ice Age starved and froze the Vikings out of Greenland, before reaching its coldest point, the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715. That’s when England’s River Thames regularly froze over, Norwegian farmers demanded compensation for lands buried by advancing glaciers, and priests performed exorcism rituals to keep alpine glaciers away from villages. Paintings from the era show crowds of people ice skating and driving horse-drawn carriages on the Thames.

Industry and automobile emissions obviously played no role in either the MWP or the LIA.

These dramatic events should ring warning bells for any competent, honest scientist. If the Medieval Warm Period occurred without industrial CO2 driving it, why should industrial CO2 be causing any observed warming today? Europe’s great plague wiped out nearly a quarter of its population during the Little Ice Age. The warm period brought prosperity and record crops, while cold years brought misery, famine and death.

Ten years before Climategate, Dr. Mann released a computer-generated graph purporting to show global temperatures over the previous 1500 years. His graph mysteriously made the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Maunder extreme cold years disappear – and planetary temperatures spike suddenly the last couple decades of twentieth century. The graph had the shape of a hockey stick, was published worldwide and became a centerpiece for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Many scientists were highly suspicious of the hockey stick claims. Two of them, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, completely discredited Mann’s computer program and revisionist history. Of course, that did not stop former US vice president Al Gore from using the discredited graph in his doom and gloom climate change movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The hacked CRU emails also showed exchanges between Mann and Jones, in which they discussed how to intimidate editors who wanted to publish scientific views contrary to theirs, to suppress any contradictory studies. In one email, Jones expressed his desire to get rid of the “troublesome editor” of the Climate Research journal for daring to publish differing views. The editor got sacked.

When University of Colorado climate skeptic Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. asked the CRU for its original temperature readings, he was told the data had been (conveniently) lost. Lost!?! Do professionals lose something as valuable as original data? Many suspected they just didn’t want anyone to expose their clever manipulations and fabrications.

But if industrial carbon dioxide did not cause recent global warming, what did? A Danish research group, led by Prof. Henrik Svensmark, has found a very credible match between levels of sunspot activity (giant magnetic storms) on our Sun and global temperatures over the last fifteen hundred years. This all-natural mechanism actually fits the evidence! How terribly inconvenient for alarmists.

Cosmic rays from deep space constantly impinge on the Earth’s upper atmosphere and produce clouds, much like high-flying jets leave white contrails behind their engines. More clouds can trap heat, but they also cause global cooling because not as much sunlight strikes the Earth. More sunspots mean a stronger magnetic shield, therefore fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth, thus less cloud cover and more global warming. The Sun is currently in a near-record period of low sunspot activity.

All sorts of interest groups are suppressing this information. Maybe worse, when Climategate broke, “climate justice” campaigner for Friends of the Earth Emma Brindal said bluntly: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” Not protecting Earth from manmade CO2 emissions or natural and manmade climate change – but redistributing wealth and resources, according to formulas that self-appointed ruling elites decide is “socially just.”

Climate campaigners also oppose “excessive” air travel for business or pleasure, 4×4 vehicles as “unnecessary luxuries,” and modern homes for Africans. Some even say Africans must continue living in mud huts and avoid the use of electricity and modern farming technologies. Minor US actor Ed Begley has said “Africans should have solar power where they need it most: on their huts.” They, Al Gore, Phil Jones and Mike Mann are exempted from these restrictions, of course.

Real social justice and human rights mean everyone has access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy, especially universally important electricity. Not from expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels. From fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.

We in the developing world will no longer let climate truth be suppressed. We will not allow loud, radical activists to put the brakes on African economic development, jobs, and improved health and living standards, in the name of advancing their anti-human, wealth redistribution agendas.

Author

Kelvin Kemm

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and CEO of Nuclear Africa (Pty) Ltd, a project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa. He does international consultancy work in strategic development.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Climate Change Fears and Polarization

Solar Panels Produce Tons of Toxic Waste—Literally

A closer look at solar panels opens a wide array of questions that need answers.


Solar panels have been heralded as the alternative to fossil fuels for decades. Most readers have likely seen exciting headlines claiming we could power the world’s energy demands multiple times were we simply to cover the Sahara Desert with a solar farm the size of China. The fact that such endeavors would be unsustainable due to their size and the sheer amount of maintenance required or that the necessary infrastructure to bring this energy all around the world is simply unimaginable is irrelevant to those who dream of a solar future.

That’s fine; we’re all dreamers in one way or another. This fantasy has grasped many voters, however, and politicians are all too keen to jump on the gravy train of alternative energy. Solar panels are subsidized to an enormous extent, as are solar farms, be they public or private. In the age of emissions trading and international climate conferences, nothing is applauded more than showing off some big investments into harvesting the sun as an electricity supplier.

This zeitgeist is reflected in solar panel sales. The different arrows in the chart below point to the moments when Solar Investment Tax Credits (ITC) were introduced, extended, or expanded.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE SEIA CHART

Beyond the clear misallocation of resources and energy market price distortions, there is a further environmental problem associated with solar panels.

Beyond the inefficient use of these resources to begin with (in the process of making crystalline silicon from silicon, as much as 80 percent of the raw silicon is lost), there are numerous human health concerns directly related to the manufacture and disposal of solar panels.

According to cancer biologist David H. Nguyen, PhD, toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic.

The pro-solar website EnergySage writes:

There are some chemicals used in the manufacturing process to prepare silicon and make the wafers for monocrystalline and polycrystalline panels. One of the most toxic chemicals created as a byproduct of this process is silicon tetrachloride. This chemical, if not handled and disposed of properly, can lead to burns on your skin, harmful air pollutants that increase lung disease, and if exposed to water can release hydrochloric acid, which is a corrosive substance bad for human and environmental health.

For any user of solar panels, this is not an immediate risk as it only affects manufacturers and recyclers. More disconcerting, however, is the environmental impact of these chemicals. Based on installed capacity and power-related weight, we can estimate that by 2016, photovoltaics had spread about 11,000 tons of lead and about 800 tons of cadmium. A hazard summary of cadmium compounds produced by the EPA points out that exposure to cadmium can lead to serious lung irritation and long-lasting impairment of pulmonary functions. Exposure to lead hardly needs further explanation.

In one 2003 study, researchers drew attention to the fact that cadmium is the benefactor of special environmental treatment, which allows solar energy to be more economically efficient (as far as that word quite applies to solar energy even in the current state of subsidization). They wrote:

If they were classified as “hazardous” according to Federal or State criteria, then special requirements for material handling, disposal, record keeping, and reporting would escalate the cost of decommissioning.

This mirrors an answer given by Cara Libby, Senior Technical Leader of Solar Energy at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), who admits that there is no lucrative amount of salvageable parts on any type of solar panel. She adds:

In Europe, we’ve seen that when it’s mandated, it gets done. Either it becomes economical or it gets mandated. But I’ve heard that it will have to be mandated because it won’t ever be economical.

It is no wonder that Chinese factories, when confronted with the exorbitant costs (both financial and environmental) of decomposing solar panel chemicals properly, prefer to release them into the environment rather than dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner.

Stanford Magazine also points out that solar energy has a higher carbon footprint than wind and nuclear energy. Ray Weiss, a professor of Geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains that a number of solar panels release nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a chemical compound 17,000 times worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. As recently as 2015, he explained that many manufacturers were still struggling to figure out how to contain its release into the atmosphere.

Energy policy is not a place for emotion or action based on instinct. We throw around a lot of buzz words that lead us to the belief that one energy supply is “cleaner” than the other. The reality is that human action and interaction require a constant supply of energy. All forms of energy production have an impact on the environment.

Questioning certain narratives regarding the eco-friendliness of those classified as “renewable” but do not live up to an environmental standard that reasonable people could support is essential to both innovation and environmental protection.

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is a Young Voices Advocate and a FEE Eugene S. Thorpe Fellow. His work has been featured in several outlets, including Newsweek, Rare, RealClear, CityAM, Le Monde and Le Figaro. He also works as a Policy Analyst for the Consumer Choice Center. Learn more about him at his website.

RELATED ARTICLES:

French Protesters Didn’t Want Macron’s Gas Tax. They Should Reject His Climate Agenda.

Green New Deal: Unnecessary, Illogical, and Immoral

Does Justice Demand Fossil Fuel Divestment?

RELATED VIDEO: Harvard-Yale football game has been delayed due to students protesting climate change.

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

Radicals Fail to Silence German Scientific Conference

A mob of left-wing protesters wanted to stop EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy, from holding its annual two-day scientific conference in Munich. CFACT helped form EIKE 10 years ago to give Germany and Europe a climate skeptic voice as part of their political and scientific discourse.

The conference, which is a forum for scientists and experts who challenge global warming alarmism to express their views, was scheduled for months. It was scheduled for months.  Conference space, hotel rooms, and catering were booked.  Then the protesters showed up and marched around the hotel with a bullhorn weeks before it began.

The hotel chain contacted EIKE and canceled their contract.

Polar bear expert Susan Crockford who is speaking at the conference wrote:

I found out late yesterday that the organizers of the Munich conference had had their venue cancelled at the last minute due to intimidation by activists from a group called the ‘Anti-Capitalist Climate Society.‘ Apparently, a crowd of about 20 thugs staged a flash mob at the hotel booked to host the EIKE meeting and threatened further havoc and disruption to guests if the conference was allowed to go ahead.

Breitbart reports:

‘The safety and well-being of our guests and staff is always our top priority,’ hotel management declared in its cancellation letter. ‘Due to the polarizing effect of the EIKE association we could not guarantee this security for our hotel guests or for the participants of the event. For this reason, our responsibility as hosts requires you to cancel this booking.’

EIKE’s scientists are polarizing?  How’s that for victim blaming!?  Maybe it’s the radicals trying to bully their neighbors into Socialism who are polarizing.

EIKE quickly scrambled and worked to move their conference to a Holiday Inn.  Then the Holiday Inn backed out!
The good news is that the conference opened today.  The protesters showed up, but did not succeed in their mission to shut down science.  Their banner (above) reads, “we found you.”

Germany is not only several steps further down the road to bad energy policy, Germans do not enjoy the degree of free speech Americans take for granted.  The Left hates free speech and looks forward to the day when people who value freedom cannot gather or speak on either side of the Atlantic.

Take heed.

Exclusive: Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg And The UN Climate Conference

  • More than 200 media outlets and journalists partnered together with activists to coordinate and hype climate change news before the 2019 U.N. climate summit.
  • Two of the largest media outlets — BuzzFeed News and HuffPo — did not disclose their role in the project to their readers, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
  • The project raises questions about whether journalists should work side-by-side with activists to hype climate change. 
Over 250 news outlets and journalists partnered with Columbia University School of Journalism’s flagship magazine to shape control of “climate crisis” coverage in the lead up to the United Nations climate conference. The coverage-coordination initiative included directing how much time, space and prominence should be devoted to the coverage, and asking that climate “news” be added to seemingly unrelated stories.

Some of the biggest media outlets in the country, such as CBS and Bloomberg, joined the effort. But others, such as The Washington Post and The New York  Times, declined to participate in a project they reportedly feared appeared activist in nature. More troubling, a number of the major outlets that joined did not disclose participation to their readers.

In addition to CBS and Bloomberg, the effort, called Covering Climate Now, involved BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, the Center for Public Integrity, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair and The Weather Channel, among many others. BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post were among the major outlets that did not disclose the coordination. When asked by the Daily Caller News Foundation, the lack of disclosure was criticized by the Society of Professional Journalists.

The coordination effort was organized in part by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), a nonprofit that represents professional journalists and was traditionally focused primarily on journalism ethics. Covering Climate Now’s founders hope to continue elevating climate news even after the project ends. The effort’s target was the lead-up to, and coverage of, the U.N. “Climate Action Summit,” held Sept. 15-23.

BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.

Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September. The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.

WaPo and others did not contribute because they believe Covering Climate Now has the “aroma” of advocacy, he complained in September.

“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR posted May 22. Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”

Covering Climate Now has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.

Thunberg’s activism and Covering Climate Now’s media blitz seemed to fall flat with the crowd of United Nations diplomats: No major promises were made to tackle climate change at the summit. The European Union, for instance, didn’t go along with environmentalists’ wishes and set a goal to be carbon neutral by mid-century out of fear that such ambitions would tank its member state’s struggling economies.

“Large parts of the mainstream media have stopped pretending to strive for objectivity in their reporting,” Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic and director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told the DCNF. “On the climate issue, many outlets and reporters are now publicly boasting about the fact that they are promoting their own prejudices on the grounds that increasing global energy poverty is a noble cause.”

Ebell was not the only energy advocate to criticise the program. “This is nothing more than what used to be known as ‘civic journalism’ … or propaganda for the left dressed up as news reporting,” Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com publisher, told the DCNF. He also suggested the media are being hypocritical. They would thrash the fossil fuel industry if it attempted to recruit reporters in a quest to support natural gas, Milloy said.

Much Of The Content Was Not Disclosed

BuzzFeed News and HuffPost did not divulge their participation in Covering Climate Now in any of the articles they published on climate change during that week, according to a DCNF review of the project. They never mention the words “Covering Climate Now” in any of their posts during the week-long coverage leading up to the climate summit.

HuffPost did not respond to numerous requests for comment while BuzzFeed News said the partnership did not affect the outlet’s coverage. “Our coverage of climate change is year-round and unaffected by outside partnerships,” Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for BuzzFeed, told the DCNF.

Covering Climate Now published a list of articles on its website throughout September that promoted climate coverage.

Nearly 40 of the articles on the list of 128 failed to mention the project. The list included pieces from CBS News, Bloomberg News and The Nation, all of whom produced pieces that failed to mention their participation in an outside project designed to direct their editorial bent. Many of the articles on the list bore labels containing the words “Covering Climate Now” but do not otherwise explain what the project entails or which groups are involved.

CBS News, which has not returned requests for comment, produced a Sept. 21 feature on clear cutting in Oregon that did not include a disclosure. The title of that feature was “Who should be in charge of America’s ancient forests: industry or environmentalists?” which discussed the impact clearing U.S.’ forests has on the environment and if private companies should be allowed to use forests.

CBS News included disclosures on articles throughout September that discuss how Americans feel about climate change. The channel also mentioned its participation in a Sept. 17 feature highlighting how U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is considering a summit to discuss ways of re-invigorating the Paris Climate agreement, which he says needs to be re-booted.

Bloomberg News, for its part, published a statement on Sept. 16 announcing its role in the project, but the outlet still produced content that did not contain disclosures. The outlet published a Sept. 22 article titled “Big Oil Prepares to Defend Big Gas as Climate Week Begins,” which discusses how the oil industry is defending the use of natural gas as a clean alternative to coal. The article did not mention the outlet’s participation in Covering Climate Now.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg founded Bloomberg News. Bloomberg, who flirted with the idea of running for president in 2020 and filed in the paperwork to participate in Alabama’s Democratic primary, has devoted much of his philanthropic work to funding various anti-coal projects. Bloomberg News has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The Nation, Covering Climate Now’s co-founder, published a 2,400-word article on Sept. 18 with an alarmist headline suggesting that Americans are “fueling the next global extinction.” The piece did not contain a disclosure but notes that it was originally published by Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch.com, though the DCNF was unable to locate the article on Engelhardt’s website.

The Nation, which announced the project in a July post, also published a journalistic piece on Sept. 19 by Nation associate editor Zoe Carpenter that fails to mention Covering Climate Now. Nobody from the outlet has responded to requests for comment.

Wealthy Climate Activists Also Participated

Covering Climate Now was aided by wealthy advocacy groups, some of which help journalists edit and craft stories discussing climate change from an alarmist perspective. One nonprofit group associated with the project is Climate Central, which provides extensive guidance to reporters.

“We contribute data and charts plus a science reporter and an editor,” the group’s website notes. “For a text story, we help craft a feature in a way that puts climate change in appropriate and accurate context. For broadcast media, we provide story and interview suggestions and help develop and review scripts.”

Climate Central has not responded to the DCNF’s request for detailed information about how it contributes to journalists’ content. The group is funded in part by the Energy Foundation, a charity providing grants to various groups with the hope of transitioning the U.S. away from fossil fuels.

Is This Ethical?

Reuters did not participate in the project, yet its editors did not object when Yereth Rosen, a freelancer for the wire service, contributed. Reuters, which opposes advocacy journalism, dismissed any suggestion that Rosen’s contributions are inappropriate.

“We do not see this cause in conflict with the Trust Principles. All stories, under the Trust Principles, are required to be accurate, fair and free from bias. Ms. Rosen’s work for Reuters has been exemplary in this regard,” Brian Ross, Reuters’s ethics and standards representative, wrote in an Aug. 15 email reviewed by the DCNF.

Ross was responding to an Aug. 13 email complaint from a former reporter who was concerned about Rosen’s role in Covering Climate Now. The person made the complaint through the outlet’s online support option. Reuters was more circumspect in later emails to the DCNF on the subject.

“While we do not comment on individuals in our newsroom, all Reuters journalists, including freelancers, are bound by our Trust Principles of ‘integrity, independence and freedom from bias,’” Heather Carpenter, a spokeswoman for Reuters, told the DCNF.

“Our journalists are to remain free from personal conflicts on the subjects they are assigned to cover,” she added. Reuters has not made Rosen available for comment nor did it address whether it is appropriate to allow an external group to dictate what content its reporters publish.

The Society of Professional Journalists, however, criticized the lack of transparency.

“We encourage journalists to be transparent,” Lynn Walsh, a national board member and former president of the Society of Professional Journalists, one of the oldest groups representing journalists, told the DCNF. “If they did not include any disclosure there is nothing we can do though. SPC is not a regulatory body.” She went on to say that any group involved must explain exactly what the project entails.

Why Didn’t WaPo And The NYT Contribute?

Most legacy media are unwilling to break away from the idea that journalism should not advocate for a position, according to Hertsgaard, who co-founded Covering Climate Now in part to impress upon journalists the importance of covering climate without feeling compelled to provide a platform to climate skeptics.

“The New York Times is not on there, The Wall Street Journal is not on there, The Washington Post is not on there,” Hertsgaard said in a September podcast with Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of CJR. Hertsgaard was referring to the major outlets that did not contribute content to Covering Climate Now.

“This has an aroma — in their minds — of activism,” Hertsgaard continued, explaining why the big three legacy outlets preferred not to join. He and Pope noted Covering Climate Now intends on breaking up that perception by wrapping climate coverage in the blanket of science rather than politics.

The Post refused to comment for this story. The NYT, WSJ and Hertsgaard have not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Advocacy-style journalism is the new in-thing, according to David Blackmon, an independent consultant and analyst who has nearly 40 years experience in the energy industry.

“I don’t think that anyone would object to any of it if they were upfront about their agenda,” he told the DCNF. “There’s no effort to properly identify agenda-driven pieces. They are backed up with factual information, but it usually tells just half the story. It’s become the norm.”

Blackmon, a Forbes contributor, noted that much of the reporting is one-sided and focuses exclusively on one narrative: Climate change must be stopped at any cost. Such reporting rarely gives coverage to the economic consequences of climate activists’ preferred policies, he noted.

“We are at a point where we were at the turn of the 21st century,” Blackmon told the DCNF. “You had partisan affiliated outlets and almost no objective journalism at all. We’ve gone to that place after a period of time.

RELATED ARTICLE: UN’s New Report Shows There’s ‘Little Basis’ For A Favorite Claim Of Climate Activists

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

Left progressive antisemitism must be a US electoral ‘wedge’ issue

As the Democratic primaries approach, leading candidates seem to be reinforcing their anti-Israel credentials to appease their progressive base. Antisemitism already is a ‘wedge’ issue – although Democrats are urging voters to ignore it.


The left’s anti-Israel agenda has been energized recently by radical politicians using their Congressional visibility to slander the Jewish State and its supporters with classical slurs and stereotypes.  Simultaneously, there has been an increase in antisemitic agitation among progressives invoking blood libel imagery and repugnant myths of disproportionate Jewish wealth, influence, and disloyalty.

Such is the backdrop against which Democrats are urging Jewish voters not to treat Israel as a “wedge issue” during the 2020 election season, though what they are really asking is for Jews to ignore the pro-BDS, anti-Israel, and antisemitic vitriol being spewed by reactionaries who influence party doctrine and to overlook party leadership’s appeasement of the left and disregard of hateful prejudice.

By lamenting the use of Israel as a “wedge issue,” Democrats are acknowledging that it already is and that their base’s hostility towards the Jewish State is motivated not by policy concerns, but by antisemitism.  And just as they did in 2016, they are enlisting Jewish party loyalists to promote the fiction that conservatives pose a more serious threat to fellow Jews, despite public opinion research indicating that antisemitic sentiment is prevalent among radicals, progressives and left-wing Democrats.  The same surveys suggest conservative Republicans are more likely to support Israel and condemn Jew-hatred.

The antisemitic Squad

These trends help explain some recent disturbing Democratic behaviors, including the failure to censure Representatives Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for their inflammatory rhetoric and for validating antisemitic public figures like Louis Farrakhan.  Examples of moral disingenuity abound, as when Democrats criticized the Netanyahu government for blocking Tlaib and Omar from a planned trip to Israel that was to be sponsored by an anti-Israel organization. Supporters of the congresswomen were unconcerned that their proposed visit was neither planned as part of an official Congressional delegation nor intended to serve any legitimate governmental purpose.

The Israeli government had initially agreed to allow Tlaib and Omar entry into the country, but withdrew its approval after determining they would not be part of the scheduled Congressional delegation and that their itinerary was intended to disparage Israel and promote boycotts.  The purpose of the trip was no surprise considering it was to be partially sponsored and coordinated by Miftah, the anti-Israel organization founded by Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO Executive Committee member and outspoken Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate, who was barred by the State Department from entering the United States last May.

It seems incongruous that Democrats who express concern about Jewish voters could defend Tlaib or Omar in light of their aspersions against Israel and sponsorship of House Resolution 496, a bill essentially supporting the antisemitic BDS movement.  Though that bill was defeated in a rare display of bipartisanship, its limited support came mainly from progressive Democrats, including Tlaib, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez. Liberal support for such politicians – or for any who express contempt for Israel, condone violence against Israelis, or spread loathsome stereotypes – suggests that party loyalty and disdain for President Trump often outweigh any sense of Jewish fealty or recognition of antisemitism on the left.

Despite progressive hostility regarding Jewish national rights and affinity for traditional conspiracy theories, Democrats argue their support for Israel and opposition to prejudice are unshakable; and when mentioning leftist antisemitism at all, they chalk it up to aberration or misunderstanding.

Anti-Jewish bigotry is not limited to the “hard left,” however, but rather has infected the party’s mainstream:

  • Congressman Ted Lieu of California, for example, evoked the ancient canard of Jewish disloyalty with a tweet questioning the allegiance (and demanding the resignation) of David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel;
  • Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris, implicitly impugned Israel’s integrity when they snubbed last year’s AIPAC conference.
  • Not a single Democrat vying for the party’s nomination criticized Bernie Sanders (who has falsely accused Israel of killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza) for using Linda Sarsour as a campaign shill
  • None have defended Israel against apartheid claims that are facially absurd.

According to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute of 2002, apartheid is a humanitarian crime “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”  Considering the freedoms that characterize Israeli society – where Arabs are professionals, judges, and legislators and have a higher standard of living than anywhere in the Arab-Muslim world – it is unconscionable when Democrat politicians refuse to defend Israel against spurious charges of racist oppression.

As the Democratic primaries approach, leading candidates instead seem to be reinforcing their anti-Israel credentials to appease their progressive base.

  • The Warren campaign, for example, brought aboard Max Berger, founder of the liberal group IfNotNow, whose members have attempted to infiltrate Taglit Birthright and Jewish summer camp programs to indoctrinate youth against Israel.
  • And Pete Buttigieg stated his intention to cut aid to Israel (though as a foreign policy neophyte he articulated no credible reason for singling out Israel)
  • Warren, Sanders and other prominent Democrats made similar statements at this year’s J Street conference.

It is important to note that:

  • Whereas most potential nominees did support an anti-BDS resolution in the Senate, they have uniformly failed to sanction antisemites within their party, who have instead been rewarded with prestigious appointments to influential committees.
  • Furthermore, the refusal of House Democrats to pass a resolution specifically condemning antisemitism or sanctioning Omar’s outrageous remarks indicates an odious tolerance for bigotry, as long as it targets Israel and comes from the left.

Discomfort regarding Israel is systemic because most Democrats continue to cling to the two-state paradigm, though it is based on revisionist Palestinian mythology that denies Jewish history and is rejected by most Israelis.

Sadly, Jewish liberals are often willing to ignore progressive antisemitism and instead direct their outrage at Mr. Trump (who despite his foibles is the most pro-Israel president ever to occupy the White House), while criticizing Israel for supposedly occupying “Palestinian” lands and oppressing Palestinian-Arabs.  However, “occupation” exists only in the minds of revisionist zealots and propagandists, who must ignore historical and geopolitical reality to justify their position.

Falsified history and ignorance

Progressives’ knowledge of Israeli history is typically sketchy and exhibits little understanding of (or respect for) the Jews’ unbroken connection to their homeland, which is supported by the historical, archeological, and scriptural records.  Moreover, their anti-Israel criticisms are characterized by a refusal to acknowledge Jewish history or the pedigree of lands comprising the modern Jewish State and territories. Instead, liberal angst focuses on the rights of Palestinian-Arabs, whose history is a contemporary political invention of questionable foundation.  The two-state fantasy seeks to restore Palestinian-Arabs to a country that never existed in a land where they never established cultural institutions, exercised political sovereignty, or exhibited any indicia of nationality or statehood.

This historical awareness is crucial for countering the revisionism embraced by progressives who impute ancient stereotypes to the Jewish State – including modern reworkings of the Blood Libel, classical global conspiracy theories, and the myths of disproportionate Jewish influence, power and perfidy.  It is also necessary for dispelling ridiculous and apocryphal claims that Palestinians are descended from ancient Phoenicians or Canaanites – assertions that are intended to imply aboriginal validity but which crumble under the weight of objective scrutiny.

The role of Jewish progressives

For generations, Americans have been rejecting normative Jewish values in favor of progressive ideals that contravene traditional Judaism.  Though most liberal Jews profess support for Israel, their true feelings should be judged not by self-serving affirmations, but by their political priorities and alliances.  Their proclamations of fidelity to Israel are contradicted by the endorsement of candidates who delegitimize the Jewish State, staff campaigns with anti-Israel activists, or snub Jewish organizations like AIPAC.  Moreover, they cannot claim fairness to Israel if they tolerate BDS, support organizations like J Street, or provide forums in their synagogues for Israel-hating artists, activists, and politicos. Or, if they believe hatred of Jews and Israel is merely a partisan “wedge issue.”  Such thinking betrays the elevation of temporal politics over authentic Judaism and concern for cultural survival.

What would Jewish liberals say if Democratic leaders were to ask African-Americans, feminists, or gay activists to disregard racism, misogyny, or homophobia as “wedge issues”?  Certainly, they would denounce such pleas as offensive and lambaste those with the temerity to make them. And liberal rabbis would be shouting from the rooftops about cultural insensitivity and beseeching their congregants to hit the streets in protest.

So how can they accept Democratic condescension that exhorts them to ignore antisemitism within their party and excuse party leadership for trivializing the problem and protecting the perpetrators?

Whether their obsessive political loyalties arise from ignorance, delusion, or self-rejection, the end result is always the same – the abandonment of Jewish kith and kin, the denial of history and heritage, and the devaluation of the Jewish spirit.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Campaigning for Catholics

TRANSCRIPT

You may remember your mom saying to you, “Never talk about religion or politics.”

Well, here at Church Militant, that’s all we do. And for the record, my mom, Mother Vortex, never said that. It was just the opposite — but I digress.

Catholics have traditionally voted and been involved in U.S. politics in numbers far greater than their percentage of the population. That’s something that political parties have noted in the past, most recently President Donald Trump when he was still just Candidate Trump.

In 2016, Trump scored gains among Catholic voters and may have been the first Republican who did better with Catholics than the electorate at large. There is a dispute among the so-called experts about that stat, however. Exit polls showed him beating Hillary among Catholic voters by 4% while losing the popular vote by two points.

If that’s true, Trump likely owes the White House to Catholic voters, who gave him the majority of the vote in blue wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Hillary failed to produce the so-called Catholic margin that Obama did in 2008 and again in 2012.

In fairness, a later academic survey claimed he lost Catholics by three points. But that would be a whopping seven-point swing between the exit polls and the later survey, so it remains an open question.

But however you slice it, Catholicism is a major factor in 2020, even in the face of a shrinking Catholic population. Trump, as he did in 2016, already has an active Catholic outreach in his campaign.

However, the only candidate from the Party of Death who openly claims the label “Catholic” is Joe Biden, the pro-abort phony — who was denied Holy Communion a couple weeks ago by a good priest in South Carolina — who is also singing hymns on the campaign trail.

Aware of Trump’s appeal to a seeming majority of Catholic voters, Biden is courting them, if even in a low-key kind of way. In Dubuque, Iowa last week, specifically Dubuque County, he sounded pretty devout, as you might expect.

Dubuque has the nickname “Rome of America,” and is one of only 74 counties out of 3,000+ that has a Catholic majority. So Biden used the opportunity to play up his faith, talking about it, but saying he doesn’t seek to impose it on anyone.

Notably, his campaign manager Greg Schultz is Catholic as well, and repeats the same mantra often on behalf of Biden in numerous press interviews.

Trump was able to secure his victory, at least in part, by convincing white working-class voters, especially in Midwestern rural areas and small towns, to get out and vote for him. Many of those places, like Dubuque County, also happen to be heavily Catholic.

In 2016, Trump won the county by roughly 500 votes, out of more than 45,000 cast. While the margin was razor thin in the more urban county, he cut deeply enough into it to neutralize it. That allowed him to secure a majority of Catholics in the more rural areas to win the entire state by a 51–41 margin over Hillary.

That win, incorporating a Catholic strategy, put Iowa in Trump’s column by the largest margin for any Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1980, and that is a hallmark accomplishment.

Biden still has to get past the raucous Democratic primary process, which changes frontrunners and margins almost daily.

One thing to keep an eye on, as a kind of political crystal ball for next November, is to see how Biden performs specifically in Dubuque County among Catholic voters in the Iowa caucuses — which, for the record, are less than 90 days away. Yes, you heard that right — February 3, it all kicks off in Iowa.

Two points worth noting in Campaign 2020: First, this may be the last election where the Catholic vote is so important. With the rapidly decreasing Catholic population as a share of the overall population, coupled with the upsurge of those with no religion, 2020 may signal the end of any intense politicking for the Catholic vote.

A short while ago, so-called nones (those professing no religious adherence) overtook Catholics as the most populous group in the nation in terms of religion, or lack thereof. In 2024, that lead will increase significantly, as the consequences of horrible catechesis drives more young people from the Church, and the culture remains unchallenged by compromised bishops.

Second point to note: Too many of the U.S. bishops equivocate on important topics like abortion, pushing a substitute morality instead, where issues like immigration and fake man-made climate change take center stage. Those issues are made-to-order Democratic talking points and play right into the hands of the Party of Death.

So we are left with the very interesting and curious situation that a man like Trump is actually pushing policies more Catholic than the Catholic bishops.

So when you hear “Don’t ever talk about religion and politics,” don’t believe it. Religion and politics are so tightly bound with each other that they are sometimes indistinguishable, especially on the campaign trail.

Church Militant will be your leading Catholic source for news and coverage of Campaign 2020 as election day approaches — now just 357 days away. And yes, we will be doing a lot of talking about it — religion and politics.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Lettuce Pray: Climate Change, Neo-Paganism, and the End of the World

The climate change movement has become the “modern world’s secular religion,” declared Wall Street Journal columnist Gerard Baker recently.

Climate activists preach a gospel of conservation that aims to redeem humanity’s environmental sins. They counsel us to abstain from eating meat to reduce our “carbon footprint,” and prophesy that Earth will perish unless governments worldwide trust the oracle from whom we received this hallowed revelation.

Climate cultists appropriate aspects of Christianity to call the world to repent for its “Original Sin of a carbon industrial revolution,” wrote Baker. They do that and more. Climate cultists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have adopted the schema of the Christian eschaton, or end of the world. They have also incorporated into their faith elements of neo-paganism.

Baker wasn’t the first to spot traces of the eschaton in the climate gospel. Researchers Rachelle Peterson and Peter Wood remarked in “Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism” that “sustainability, like Christianity, offers a view of the Earth as once-pristine and pure but now fallen; recognizes the sinfulness of humanity,” and “offers forms of expiation and absolution.”

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

However, rather than seeking to redeem humanity in the “next life,” sustainability promises to stave off the end times and save sinners in the “here and now.”

Some episodes have emphasized the climate cult’s resemblance to neo-paganism. Sumantra Maitra at The Federalist pointed to an event at Union Theological Seminary in New York City where students confessed their sins to plants. Maitra argued that this means climate activists are “pagan animists.” In other words, they believe that worshipping nature enables one to “grow as a living soul connected to the universe.”

Maitra also highlighted a gathering at the Glarus Alps where 250 Swedes hosted a funeral to mourn a melting glacier. And Martha Sheen at The Irish Times identified shades of paganism in the climate gospel’s code of how to live, which prescribes “ritualistic sacrifices” like abstaining from meat to “satisfy the gods.”

Maitra and Sheen noted that, as opposed to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, who worship a personal creator that engages humanity from without space and time, neo-pagans worship Earth and other created things.

The emergence of pagan themes in climate activist circles is part of a trend away from Judeo-Christian-based faiths and toward religions like Wicca, which has surged in popularity among millennials, the demographic that worries most about climate change.

Wiccans aren’t the only neo-pagan sect. “Druids, Goddess worshipers, Heathens, and Shamans” count too. And although neo-pagan beliefs vary, historian Ronald Hutton of Bristol University has said that neo-pagans practice “forms of worship which regard nature as sacred.”

Some worship inanimate objects such as “trees, plants, and animals” to glorify the “soul” of each. Pre-Christian Celts, for example, worshipped the River Boyne in Ireland as Boann, the “Celtic Goddess of Poetry, Fertility, Inspiration, Knowledge, and Creativity,” to quote one feminist writer. Almost all pagans consult an astrology guru and play with tarot cards.

Neo-pagans form a small segment of Americans, but their ideas have permeated elites. Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in March indulged fans who obsessed over what her time of birth and horoscope meant for the future of the republic. In response to “fervent public interest,” she allowed astrologer Arthur Lipp-Bonewits to tweet the information.

Singer and climate crisis believer Lana Del Ray described herself in 2017 as a “witch” and said she hexed President Donald Trump. She bade her Twitter followers do the same, directing them to “bind” the president on dates that “corresponded to monthly waning crescent moons.”

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady trumpeted his connections to neo-paganism after winning his sixth Super Bowl title in February. He told reporters that his wife, supermodel and climate crisis apologist Gisele Bundchen, “always makes a little altar” for him before the big game and provides him with “healing stones and protection stones.”

Bundchen allegedly predicted that the Patriots would overcome the Los Angeles Rams in Super Bowl 53 and said to Brady later that night, “You’re lucky you married a witch.”

There have also been reports claiming that conservative icon and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who played a formative role in persuading the United States to sign on to the Montreal Protocol in 1987, consulted an astrologer after she was nearly assassinated in 1984 by IRA terrorists. The Irish Times in 1996 quoted astrologist Marjorie Orr alleging she was asked by Thatcher to “warn her of future threats.”

Former President Ronald Reagan, without whom there wouldn’t have been a Montreal Protocol, leveraged his influence to help the treaty along for reasons, said The New York Times in 2013, “no one has ever quite understood.”

Reagan was, of course, warned that failing to join the protocol would deplete the earth’s ozone layer. But according to former White House Chief of Staff Don Regan, “virtually every major move” at the Reagan White House was cleared by Joan Quigley, an astrologer hired by Mrs. Reagan after John Hinckley Jr. failed to assassinate the president outside the Washington Hilton in March 1981.

At one point, wrote historian H. W. Brands in “Reagan: The Life,” it appeared to some in the administration that Quigley’s consultations determined even the president’s medical regimen.

None of this suggests that all climate crisis believers are neo-pagans, but wherever one hears among elites a call to save the planet, one also finds neo-paganism.

The outbreak of essays revealing the climate change movement’s religious underpinnings bothered at least some of its defenders.

According to a blog post at Sightings, an outlet published by The University of Chicago’s Martin Marty Center for the Public Understanding of Religion, conservatives have made similar arguments about everything from “Marxism to socialism, liberal progressivism, [and] Silicon Valley capitalism,” all of which also combined the Christian eschaton with its own worldview.

Critiquing secular ideas about the eschaton isn’t a niche market for right-wingers, however. In “God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World,” historian Walter Russell Mead traced the Christian, or, Abrahamic origins of today’s secular ideologies not to discredit them, but to explain how they influence domestic political movements and foreign policy.

The Abrahamic understanding of history teaches that events are “part of a narrative that extends back into the misty prehistoric past and forward to some unimaginable climax in the future.”

Liberalism borrowed from Abrahamism the idea that history has a “shape and purpose: a beginning, middle, and an end”: Humanity began prehistory in a state of natural freedom. The first despotic governments sank it into an era darkened by class warfare, wars over religion, and arbitrary state rule. History ends when representative democracies, religious liberty, free markets, and low tariffs between trading countries fulfill liberalism’s purpose to create a “peaceful, liberal, and prosperous world order.”

Climate activists (and most secular liberals) fall under the category of what Mead called “Unconscious Abrahamists,” or, “those whose mental and political worlds are shaped in an Abrahamic context without the influence of a conscious religious belief.”

In the climate activist’s version of history, Earth’s “Garden of Eden” spanned the years that preceded the Industrial Revolution. Man fell into history when he began to deforest the world and burn carbon-emitting fossil fuels to shelter his offspring and grow the economy. The last days will come when his refusal to recognize the “integrity of non-human nature” causes a global catastrophe that destroys the planet as we know it. An eschaton.

Appropriating Abrahamic themes isn’t likely to make climate cultists treat their political opponents amiably.

“Wars of religion are largely an Abrahamic trait, found among the Abrahamic peoples and, in self-defense, among their neighbors,” Mead wrote.

A survey of the news stories coming out of the world of climate activism shows that even secular citizens who claim to be relativists share the Abrahamic faiths’ tendency to insist upon the universality of truth. And like the warring sides in conflicts past, they intend to shape human beings and political institutions to reflect that understanding.

Climate cultists so far haven’t organized to resist the carbon-emitting powers by the sword, but they have assumed responsibility for remaking civilization in their image.

Ocasio-Cortez became an icon of climate cultism when she proposed the Green New Deal in February. The bill alleged that “human activity” is melting glaciers, and increasing the rate of occurrence of wildfires, severe storms, and droughts.

If the earth warms “two degrees Celsius beyond pre-industrialized” temperatures, she warned, 99% of coral reefs will go extinct and over 350 million people will fall victim to “deadly heat stress.”

Ocasio-Cortez also catastrophized that the climate crisis will cause the American economy to crumble. She predicted the United States will lose $1 trillion caused by damage to public infrastructure and “coastal real estate.” This detail likely hit home with AOC’s big-money donors and members of Congress.

The Green New Deal counted pilots, farmers, and coal miners together. It proposed that we mobilize the country to a degree not seen “since World II” to purge the earth of farting cows and airplanes.

To get there, we must first “overhaul transportation and agriculture,” which is to say the federal government must shut down transportation and agricultural industries as they currently exist. These policies will guarantee that the United States emits “zero greenhouse gases.”

Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old of Swedish origin, bore witness to Ocasio-Cortez’s testimonial when she addressed the United Nations in September.

“My message is that we will be watching you,” Thunberg began before an audience of world leaders. She upbraided the carbon-emitting civilization that transmitted her image around the world crowing, “You have stolen my dreams.” Even 50% cuts won’t suffice to heal the planet. “If you choose to fail us,” she concluded, millennials “will never forgive you.”

The climate gospel of Thunberg and Ocasio-Cortez is spreading. Extinction Rebellion, a British environmentalist group, recently blockaded thoroughfares in London to “address the climate crisis.” It entreats its followers to create a “world that is fit for generations to come.” And hopes to regenerate our culture by making it “healthy, resilient, and adaptable.” Its members actively hose nonbelievers with fake blood. What does this mean for us?

No civilization has a pass to trash the planet, of which the post-industrialized world is guilty. Nevertheless, climate cultists have amalgamated ideas that should not mix. The heirs of the Wicker Man should not be flattered to think that they can deliver humanity’s salvation.

Despite their talk of bringing us together, neo-pagans behave like people unfit to rule. They mock climate skeptics, prophesy phony predictions, worship themselves more than “Mother Earth,” and threaten to harm us unless we do what they say.

A 2018 Gallup Poll survey showed that climate cultists are winning the minds of millennials. We’re running out of time to stop the disciples of AOC from taking their agenda to Washington. The best we can do now is show that climate cultists are exaggerating their claims to attain political power.

Perhaps we can. The concept of “solar geoengineering,” which would have us blast particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays back into space to cool the planet, is gaining favor among climate scientists. Research is ongoing, though it appears we’ll be spared after all.

COMMENTARY BY

Dion Pierre is a research associate with the National Association of Scholars. He is co-author of the book series, “Neo-Segregation in American Higher Education.”

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

Recent Energy and Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy & Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

To accommodate the diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into ten (10) categories (see below) — our most ever!

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle:

Energy Economics

Everything You Hear About Billion-Dollar Disasters Is Wrong
Wind turbines don’t lead to a windfall
Perpetual Infants: $100 Billion in Subsidies and US Wind & Solar Want More
US wind seeking ‘tax policy parity’ with solar
NY State blows smoke to hide wind costs
California Subsidizes Natural Gas Plants to Prevent Widespread Blackouts
The Electric Car Fantasy
Sale of indulgences dominates Madrid climate summit

Wind Energy Health and Ecosystem Impacts

Germany stipulates countrywide turbine setbacks to be 3300± feet
Wind Turbine Noise — Sensing but not Hearing: Part1 and Part 2
Conventional Wind Energy – A Design Deadly for Birds
Inherit The Wind
PUC’s Former Lawyer Says Approval of Hawaii Wind Project Violated Law

Nuclear Energy

The BIG Potential for Nuclear Micro-Reactors
Energy Essentials: Clean, Safe & Reliable – Nuclear Is The Obvious Choice
Global Energy Forecast to 2050: Nuclear, biomass and CCS
Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima

Energy Misc

First-of-a-kind US grid cyber-attack hit wind & solar
How Renewable Energy Models Can Produce Misleading Indications
The Giga and Terra Scam of Offshore Wind Energy
US Military Wants More Rules for Turbines to Protect Helicopters
Why Renewables Need Gas
Coastal NC storm damage raises even more solar project questions
Was There Another Reason for Electricity Shutdowns in California?
Modern transportation — a miracle under attack

Paris Climate Agreement

Paris climate agreement leaking oil as emissions rise
The Pain and Pointlessness of the Paris Accord
Official Statement: On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
Lawsuit Says Obama Entered Paris Climate Agreement Illegally
Madrid to host Cop25 climate talks in December after Chile withdraws

New Alarmist Climate Poll

Video: Dubunking the 11000 scientists claims
Doomsday poll shrinks 25%
Critics Blast Proposal To Curb Climate Change By Halting Population Growth

Global Warming (AGW)

Escape from Model Land
New Climate Models: Even More Wrong
Climategate: Ten Years Later
When Wolves Infiltrate the Flock: Discerning Climate Truth From Falsehood in Churches
Scientocracy Busts Open the Motivation behind Global Warming Politics
Climate Stalinism
Schiller Institute video: CO₂ Reduction is Costly, Deadly, and Unnecessary
Video: Geologist’s short talk on AGW to PA Legislature
Groupthink on Climate Change Ignores Inconvenient Facts
Carbon Dioxide and the Global Warming Hoax

Misc Education Articles

First Common Core HS Grads Worst-Prepared for College in 15 Years
Outnumbered: Academia’s Tilted Ideological Landscape
Univ of Michigan replaces Bias Response Team with Campus Climate Support

Misc US Politics Articles

An impeachment Enemy Within?
I am offended by…
The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name
New Book: The Plot Against the US President
Reverend Graham: Trump is President Because of God
The Trump Administration Continues to Streamline and Modernize EPA

Science and Misc Related Articles

Why People Are So Unreasonable These Days
Ecocide: Granting Nature Legal Status at the Expense of Humans
Pseudo scientists wreak havoc on society’s mental stability with fake data
The long history of eco-pessimism
Short video: Size of world’s religions: 1945-2019
Who Fact-Checks The Fact-Checkers?
What is Conservatism? The Fusionist Fight over Everything

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

Note 2: Originally this was a monthly Newsletter. However, as pertinent material proliferated, it has been issued more frequently. As a guideline once we collect a hundred worthwhile articles, a new Newsletter will be issued on the following Monday. Recently this has resulted in a once every three weeks frequency — and occasionally once every two weeks.

Note 3: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy, environmental and education issues… As always, please pass the Newsletter on to open-minded citizens, and link to it 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 4: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 5: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the 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.

Staying in Paris Agreement Would Have Cost Families $20K

Editor’s note: The U.S. just took a new, major step to leaving the Paris Agreement, a climate change deal between several countries. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations. The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification.”

Pompeo added in his statement, made late Monday:

As noted in his June 1, 2017 remarks, President [Donald] Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the agreement. The United States has reduced all types of emissions, even as we grow our economy and ensure our citizens’ access to affordable energy.  Our results speak for themselves:  U.S. emissions of criteria air pollutants that impact human health and the environment declined by 74% between 1970 and 2018. U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions dropped 13% from 2005-2017, even as our economy grew over 19 percent.

Here’s a version of a previously published article from Heritage Foundation researcher Nick Loris on why the Paris Agreement wouldn’t significantly affect the climate—but would cost America jobs and would hurt some families’ incomes.


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


President Donald Trump is right to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. While the climate is indeed changing and human activity is playing a role, the chances of looming climate catastrophe are simply unrealistic and not grounded in reality.

But even granting such a looming catastrophe, the Paris Agreement itself would do little to alter the climate. To have any impact whatsoever on climate, the entire world would either have to quickly change the way it consumes energy or simply remain undeveloped. Both options are devoid of reality.

While many countries are rapidly expanding their use of renewable power, forecasts indicate that coal, oil, and natural gas will continue to provide the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs well into the future. For developing countries, the highest priorities are to reduce energy poverty and improve living standards.

Those who are clamoring for action on climate change are the ones who should actually be most upset with what a sham the Paris Agreement is. It’s been celebrated as a breakthrough achievement of the world’s developed and developing countries coming together, but it is anything but that.

With no enforcement mechanisms in place and no repercussions for failing to meet emissions reduction targets, countries are essentially free to do whatever they want, meaning they will continue on their business-as-usual trajectory without making any changes. China, for instance, can peak its emissions in 2030 even though projections have its peak emissions falling before that year.

India, for its part, has pledged to reduce its emissions levels, or cut its ratio of carbon emissions to gross domestic product. That ratio may well go down so long as carbon emissions rise at a slower rate than GDP, but carbon emissions will keep rising all the same.

Actually, India committed to emissions reductions that are less than what the country would achieve if it continues on the same track it is currently on today. In other words, it set the bar so low that it can continue along its businesses-as-usual trajectory of emissions intensity and come out looking like a climate hero.

As the Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass wrote, “It’s easy to slim down to 180 pounds, if you weigh 175 to begin with.”

Pakistan was more honest than most about its emissions prospects, stating bluntly, “Given the future economic growth and associated growth in the energy sector, the peaking of emissions in Pakistan is expected to take place much beyond the year 2030. An exponential increase of [greenhouse gas] emissions for many decades is likely to occur before any decrease in emissions can be expected.”

Global compliance with the Paris Agreement has been nothing short of abysmal. In fact, most nations will soon fail to meet the deadlines they agreed to.

The original hope that each nation’s contribution might somehow push other countries to “do more” is not playing out. This deal was a hodgepodge of arbitrarily defined commitments with no enforcement mechanism. It was doomed from the start.

Following through with the Obama administration’s commitments would impose clear economic harm on the U.S. by driving energy prices higher—and that’s just a small part of the overall cost. Americans would pay more for food, health care, education, clothes, and every other good and service that requires energy.

These higher costs would be spread across the entire economy and would shrink overall economic growth and employment. Heritage Foundation analysts estimated that the regulations required to meet the Obama administration’s commitments would impose the following costs by 2035:

  • An overall loss of nearly 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing.
  • A average total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four.
  • An aggregate GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion.

Other countries would continue getting a free pass under the agreement, but if the U.S. signed back on, one can be sure that environmental activist lawsuits would make sure the U.S. kept its obligations.

To make matters worse, the climate regulations encompassing the U.S. target may not even achieve the desired results and would require additional regulations. And that would just be the beginning. The Paris Agreement requires ever-increasing targets as time goes on, which would further increase the cost of compliance. These efforts would return us to the same costly and ineffective policies that the current administration is unwinding.

Congress should instead advance pragmatic policies that will actually drive innovation in energy and environmental protection.

COMMENTARY BY

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: AOC Pushes Population Control to Stop Climate Change: Kill More People to Save the Planet


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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

BREAKING: Chilean unrest cancels COP 25, the UN climate conference

Chilean President Sebastian Pinera just announced that his country is cancelling COP 25, the UN climate conference that was scheduled to take place in Santiago December 2 -13.

Chile also canceled APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Conference that was to open November 16th and at which President Trump had hoped to sign a major accord with China.

The shocking cancellations come as Chile has been rocked by violent protests.  It appears that Chile can no longer ensure the safety of international diplomats.

The UN COP, or conference of the parties, is the UN’s most important climate summit each year.  CFACT as a UN recognized observer organization was planning to once again send a delegation.

The cancellation of the UN climate conference is massively ironic as the riots in Chile were sparked by plans to hike public transit prices to keep up with higher energy costs from, as you’ve likely guessed, “green” energy.  Chile has been bragging about plans to source most of the power for its subway system from wind and solar. It was to be the perfect climate talking point — until reality intruded. The inefficient, intermittent nature of so-called “renewables” increases prices wherever they are used.

The refusal of Chilean citizens to tolerate with Green energy price hikes have been compared to the “Yellow Vest” protests in France.

Chile has rolled back the Metro fare hikes, yet the protests have gone on.  Up to a million protesters took to the streets of Santiago last week.  They tried to force entry into the Chilean Congress forcing legislators to flee as riot police covered their escape with tear gas.

There is no word yet on UN plans to delay / move the conference.  With just a month until the conference was scheduled to begin, rescheduling will be very difficult logistically.

Chile is South America’s greatest economic success story. However, like other countries in the region, it still has its struggles.

Forcing people to tighten their belts to pay for inefficient “Green” energy may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

UPDATE:

Statement by UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa

Earlier today, I was informed of the decision by the Government of Chile not to host COP25 in view of the difficult situation that the country is undergoing. We are currently exploring alternative hosting options.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

Based on a LOT of good inputs, I decided to do a major update of our popular AWG book list — it is now EIGHT (8) pages long! There are multiple interesting and informative books there for anyone. Please post it and pass it on!

To accommodate the diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into six (6) categories (see below).

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle: Draft Study (comments solicited): Human CO2 has little effect on the carbon cycleBernie Sanders’ Perpetual Motion Green New Deal, Report: Energy Illiteracy Must Not be Enshrined in LawThe Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate ChangeUS in Moral DeclineEnvironmentalism as Totalitarianism.

Energy Economics

After $100+ Billion in subsidies, U.S. wind industry demands more
Full cost of living impact of renewables subsidies revealed
Math is Hard for the Green-Minded
Bill Gates: Fossil Fuel Divestment has “Zero” Climate Impact

Nuclear Energy

What is a Nuclear Microreactor?
New DOE and NRC Agreement Will Lead to Faster US Nuclear Deployment
Report: Potential Adverse Human Health Impacts from Retirement of Illinois Nuclear Plants
Nobel Laureate: Lasers could cut lifespan of nuclear waste from “a million years to 30 minutes”

Energy Misc

Sierra Club Chickens on Wind Energy Infrasound
US Electrical Energy Reliability Gone With the Wind
Can This World Survive Without Fossil Fuels?
Bernie Sanders’ Perpetual Motion Green New Deal
Short video: All Electric?
California’s ‘green energy’ fail should be a warning to us all
On energy, New York’s head is in the sand
Report: Energy Illiteracy Must Not be Enshrined in Law
Video: President Trump’s Remarks at Shale Insight Conference
Video of full debate between Alex Epstein and Robert Kennedy Jr.

Global Warming (AGW)

Climate Change: Reality vs Apocalyptic Rhetoric
What you know about climate change is probably wrong
An Overview of the Latest Climate Science for Policymakers
The Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate Change
Did the IPCC predict a climate apocalypse? No.
Report: Eleven Empty Climate Claims
The Politics, Science, and Politicized Science of Climate Change
The Elite Machine Behind Greta Thunberg
Understanding the Climate Movement: Part 1Part 2, & Part 3
Short video: A message to the UN – from a little old lady
Who are the “Experts” on Climate Change?
Physicist: CO2 Retains Heat For Only 0.0001 Second, Warming ‘Not Possible’
Draft Study (comments solicited): Human CO2 has little effect on carbon cycle

Education

Misc (Science, Politics, etc.)

How the Traditional Husband was Shattered into a Million Pieces
US in Moral Decline
Bad Scientists Make for Bad Government
Environmentalism as Totalitarianism
The Academic Rants of Eco-Fascism
Will we keep our Republic in 2020, or will we bow to Socialism?
Agenda 2030Critique#1 and Critique #2
Nationalism Doesn’t Mean Isolationism
The UNHRC: Slaving Away for Human Rights

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

Note 2: Originally this was a monthly Newsletter. However, as pertinent material proliferated, it has been issued more frequently. As a guideline once we collect a hundred worthwhile articles, a new Newsletter will be issued on the following Monday. Recently this has resulted in a once ever 3 weeks frequency — and occasionally once every two weeks.

Note 3: 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 the Newsletter on to open-minded citizens, and link to it 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 4: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 5: 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.

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright © 2019; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

The secret story behind the Green New Deal: Metals Needed for Carbon Neutrality in Short Supply

Solar panels, wind turbines, and electric car batteries are made from some of the most hard-to-get metals on earth— dysprosium, neodymium, manganese, cobalt, and lithium. According to UK scientists, the current annual global production of cobalt needs to double by 2050 to produce the electric vehicles required to just satisfy British climate targets. Another study found that if countries were to meet the Paris accord and keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, demand for cobalt and lithium would exceed the current supply by 2022 and 2023, respectively.

China leads the world in rare earth metal production (a group of 17 chemical elements), supplying 90 percent of the export market. The United States purchases 80 percent of its rare earth metals from China, despite having the resources to produce its own supply. These metals could be extracted profitably in the United States, but are not because of our restrictive and redundant environmental regulations.

Current Production, Reserves, and Prices for Major Metals

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, global production of rare earth metals in 2018 totalled 167 thousand metric tons, with China producing 72 percent of the world’s production. China also controls 38 percent of the world’s reserves, which total 117 million metric tons. China’s reserves are the largest at 44 million metric tons, followed by the United States and Brazil, each with 22 million metric tons, and Russia with 17 million metric tons.

Global production of graphite totals 896 thousand metric tons, with China supplying 71 percent. Graphite reserves total 307 million metric tons with China and Brazil each controlling 24 percent.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo produced the most cobalt in 2018 at 112 thousand metric tons—a 71 percent share of the 158 thousand metric tons produced. Cobalt reserves total 6.6 million metric tons, with the DR Congo controlling 52 percent. However, there are ongoing problems with environmental and child labor issues in the DR Congo; labor abuses linked to cobalt mining have been widely documented by human rights groups and by media organizations across the world.

Australia and Chile lead the world in lithium production with 27 million metric tons and 16 million metric tons, respectively, produced in 2018 from a total of 62 million metric tons. World reserves of lithium total almost 14 million metric tons with Chile controlling 58 percent.

Lithium prices set a record high in 2018 at $14,656 per metric ton—21 percent higher than in 2017. Cobalt prices totaled $72,923 per metric ton in 2018—30 percent higher than in 2017.

U.S. Dependence on Foreign Metals

China leads the world in producing and exporting minerals and metals, supplying many that are critical to U.S. manufacturing, technology and energy production, and national defense. Many critical metals are on U.S. federally-owned lands, including manganese, cobalt, nickel, graphite, aluminum, and several of the rare earth metals. The United States is 100 percent import-reliant for 18 minerals—14 of them are considered “critical” by the Department of Defense or the Department of the Interior.

The United States has a duplicative and inefficient system of regulatory permits and oversight that governs domestic mining. Generally, the U.S. mining industry is faced with a regulatory system that forces them to wait seven to 10 years to obtain a mining permit, compared to Canada and Australia where the process takes two to three years, which limits our nation’s ability to capitalize on our mineral wealth. The United States needs to retool our permitting process so that minerals from U.S. public lands can fuel our advanced energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing technologies, which would increase U.S. manufacturing and its position in the global economy and reduce our dependence on foreign imports.

Conclusion

The United States needs to develop its critical metals and remove its reliance on foreign imports, particularly from the Chinese, who are leaders in rare earth metals and graphite production. These metals are used in many technologies and in national defense systems. To become self-reliant the United States needs to modify its regulatory permitting system and oversight. The sooner we can remove our dependence on these critical metals from foreign interests as we did for oil and natural gas, the better our nation with be economically and militarily. Otherwise, we risk dependency on other international actors for minerals at much higher rates than the United States was ever dependent upon OPEC.


Further reading on the global supply of rare earth metals is available here.

Further reading on the environmental impacts of rare earth metal production in China is available here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Here’s Why Californians Pay Way More for Gasoline Than Everyone Else

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

Green New Deal = Hugo Chavez’s Constitution?

After noting that a former chief of staff for socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admitted that her “Green New Deal” is not about climate but changing the entire economy, Steve Milloy at Breitbart News drew up a list of similarities between it and the constitution ushered in by late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez in 1999.

Milloy found similarities between the two plans in the areas of sustainable agriculture, education, markets, health care, housing, clean environment, social costs of human activity, no emissions, guaranteed jobs, work safety, unions, trade policy, and indigenous populations.

“Their common source,” Milloy notes, “is likely a United Nations document called the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ which was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1966 at the behest of the Soviet Union. The UN Covenant itself can be traced back to the Stalin-written Soviet Constitution of 1936.”

And just like Chavez’s and Stalin’s constitutions, the socialist vision of the Green New Deal will lead to economic ruin and untold human misery.

Hugo Chavez

In 1992, Hugo Chavez attempted a military coup of Venezuela. His revolutionary power grab failed and he was jailed until 1994 when he was freed by a presidential pardon. He was elected president in 1998 and has gradually increased his power and armed his personal militia.

Chavez has many links to violent terrorist organizations and totalitarian dictators. On Oct 12, 1999, Chavez was the guest of Communist China. While in China, he declared: “I have been very Maoist all of my life.” Like the Soviet, Cuban, and North Korean hosts of past WFYS meetings, Chavez is a proud Communist and an enemy of the USA.

To learn more about Hugo Chavez, click on the profile link here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Metals Needed for Carbon Neutrality in Short Supply

Here’s Why Californians Pay Way More for Gasoline Than Everyone Else

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

World’s largest ice sheet growing

The West Antarctic ice sheet, the biggest mass of ice in the world, has been growing since the end of the nineteenth century.

Marc Morano featured a post about a fascinating Chinese study from Dr. Patrick Michaels at the website of CFACT’s friend and ally the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The forthcoming study by six Chinese authors is scheduled to appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.  The study concludes that Antarctic ice exhibited a “significant negative trend” during the nineteenth century, then a “significant positive trend” throughout the 20th.

This doesn’t help the narrative for those seeking to spread climate alarm one bit.

Here’s the latest example:  Artist Thomas Starr of Northeastern University has been placing fake historical markers in New England towns.  “Gazebo relocated due to recurring flooding caused by sea level rise, March, 2058,” reads a plaque on a gazebo in Durham, New Hampshire. He calls it the Seacoast Remembrance Project.  Starr’s plaques have been garnering the laudatory media write-ups we’re sure you’d expect.

Hey Durham Town Council, want to sell us the land your lovely seaside gazebo’s on at a generous discount?  We’ll take the problem off your hands.  It is doomed after all.

That sea level has been slowly rising at only 1 to 3 mm per year since before the industrial revolution, with no sign of meaningful acceleration, does not make it into the articles.  Hysterical sea level claims are not based on reality.  Dangerously rising seas exist only in the virtual world of climate computer simulations.

Those ever-faulty computer models project extreme Antarctic ice melt.  That it has not actually occurred does not seem to matter.  They even stoop to attributing extra high tides caused by natural lunar cycles, combined with ground level subsidence, to sea level rise.

Pity the tide gauges don’t show it.  Sorry Miami, your occasionally wet streets were not caused by electrical generation, air travel, bovine flatulence, or even SUVs.

Dr. Michaels speculates that the media will have no appetite for a study showing Antarctic ice gaining.  What do you think?

We’ll do him one better.  If they do cover it, they’ll try and spin it as justifying global warming alarm!

We factored the situation into our own computer models.  They project shamelessly disseminated climate propaganda.

Let’s see whose projections pan out.

Polar bear expert purged

Global warming campaigners have done an effective job at convincing the media and much of the world that polar bears are dying out.

It’s not true. 

In fact, thanks to a hunting ban, polar bears are a major conservation success story.  Their population ballooned from around 5,000 in the 1960s to (depending on whose estimate) from 22,000 to over 30,000 today.  Today the North is loaded with fat, happy, fecund bears (sorry seals).

It appears that telling the truth about polar bears made Dr. Susan Crockford, a respected, published Canadian zoologist, the victim of an ideological purge.  First she was removed from the University of Victoria’s speakers bureau, and then not renewed to her position as an adjunct professor.

“The loss of adjunct status,” Crockford wrote, “will primarily prevent me from continuing scientific research on speciation and domestication mechanisms in evolution: without an academic affiliation I will be unable to secure research funds or academic collaborations.”

But this woman of science is fearless.

“What a lack of academic affiliation has not done, and cannot do,” Crockford continued, “is stop me from investigating and commenting on the failures and inconsistencies of science that I see in published polar bear research papers and reflected in public statements made by polar bear specialists.  I am still a former adjunct professor and I will not be silenced.”

Free speech is anathema to the Left.

They don’t fear false or misleading information, that’s their stock in trade.  They fear the facts that prove them wrong.  They are prepared to wreak great harm on any who dare utter them.  They know they can’t silence Susan Crockford, but know also that harming her creates an atmosphere of fear that most others lack the courage to confront.

Warming campaigners are actively hunting scalps.  Take a look at this shocking anonymous admission from one of them that CFACT’s friend Russell Cook found, on of all places, CFACT’s own comment forum!

“You will be pleased to know that in the past two years I successfully had two deniers fired (forced resignations) from their university positions.  One was a prolific WUWT contributor.  I discovered a nice twist to the freedom of speech tale.  You can say almost anything except yell fire in a crowded room and are free to make a fool of oneself but can’t invoke one’s pedigree to do so i.e. you can state your doctorate or disciplines, but not your college, professional body memberships and imply they agree.  So that’s how I’ve been knocking them off by going to their employer, professional registration, professional memberships or their alma mater.  I have three scalps lined up now — infant stage But they will collapse like dominoes.”

Think of the malice and lack of respect and concern for others these people exhibit!  Academic freedom and the ability of all of us to participate in public discussion is truly under assault.

What would happen if our nasty commenter’s methods were applied equally to everyone?  How often do you read misleading and outright false pronouncements from climate campaigners in the press?  Do they not cite their academic and professional affiliations in their bios?

Donna Laframboise covered Dr. Crockford’s situation at Financial Post:

“Jeffrey Foss, a former chair of UVic’s philosophy department, says Crockford has been punished for speaking her own mind about matters of fact, which means she has been denied academic freedom and free speech. ‘I’m beginning to lose faith and hope in the university system,’ he says.”

Dr. Crockford said:

“It appears certain to me that the Anthropology Department bowed to pressure from the administration, who themselves bowed to pressure from outside the university community, in an attempt to stifle my legitimate scientific criticisms of polar bear conservation issues. This kind of bullying has been happening far too often at universities, even in Canada.”

The idea that climate pressure groups cannot demand unprecedented control over our economies, freedoms and personal lives, and obtain this without open public debate is monstrous.

Governments, universities, professional associations, the media and all institutions must be made aware of the dirty, destructive trick being played in the name of global warming.

We must insist on unfettered scientific discussion and the right of researchers like Dr. Susan Crockford, and each and every one of us, to speak without fear.