The Tragedy of Greta Thunberg

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful era humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.

In a just world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations thanking capitalist countries for bequeathing her this remarkable inheritance. Instead, she, like millions of other indoctrinated kids her age, act as if they live in a uniquely broken world on the precipice of disaster. This is a tragedy.

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” Thunberg lectured the world. And maybe she’s right. We’ve failed her by raising a generation of pagans who’ve filled the vacuum left by the absence of faith, not with rationality, but with a cultish worship of Mother Earth and the state. Although, to be fair, the Bible-thumping evangelical’s moral certitude is nothing but a rickety edifice compared to the moral conviction of a Greta Thunberg.

It’s not, of course, her fault. Adults have spent a year creating a 16-year-old because her soundbites comport with their belief system. It was “something about her raw honesty around a message of blunt-force fear [that] turned this girl from invisible to global,” says CNN in a news report about a child with a narrow, age-appropriate grasp of the world.

It should be noted that “blunt-force fear” is indeed the correct way to describe the concerted misinformation that Thunberg has likely been subjected to since nursery school.

There probably isn’t a public school in America that hasn’t plied the panic-stricken talk of environmental disaster in their auditoriums over and over again. New York City and other school systems offered millions of kids an excused absence so they could participate in political climate marches this week, as if it were a religious or patriotic holiday.

We’ve finally convinced a generation of Americans to be Malthusians. According to Scott Rasmussen’s polling, nearly 30% of voters now claim to believe that it’s “at least somewhat likely” that the earth will become uninhabitable and humanity will be wiped out over the next 10-15 years. Half of voters under 35 believe it is likely we are on the edge of extinction. Is there any wonder why our youngest generation has a foreboding sense of doom?

It’s the fault of ideologues who obsess over every weather event as if it were Armageddon, ignoring the massive moral upside of carbon-fueled modernity. It’s the fault of the politicians, too cowardly to tell voters that their utopian vision of a world run on solar panels and windmills is fairy tale.

It’s the fault of media that constantly ignores overwhelming evidence that, on balance, climate change isn’t undermining human flourishing. By nearly every quantifiable measure, in fact, we are better off because of fossil fuels. Though there is no way to measure the human spirit, I’m afraid.

Thunberg might do well to sail her stern gaze and billowing anger to India or China and wag her finger at the billions of people who no longer want to live in poverty and destitution. Because if climate change is irreversible in the next 10-12 years, as cultists claim, it can be blamed in large part on the historic growth we’ve seen in developing nations.

China’s emissions from aviation and maritime trade alone are twice that of the United States, and more than the entire emissions of most nations in the world. But, sure, let’s ban straws as an act of contrition.

Boomers, of course, have failed on plenty of fronts, but the idea that an entire generation of Americans should have chosen poverty over prosperity to placate the vacuous complaints of privileged future teenagers is absurd. No generation would do it. Until recently, no advanced nation has embraced Luddism. Although these days, Democrats who advocate for bans on fossil fuels and carbon-mitigating technologies such as fracking and nuclear energy are working on it.

Climate activists could learn something from Thunberg’s honesty, though. She argues that “money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth” have to come to an end. The emission cuts that environmentalists insist are needed to save the earth would mean economic devastation and the end of hundreds of years of economic growth. This is a tradeoff progressives pretend doesn’t exist.

And Thunberg’s dream for the future means technocratic regimes will have to displace capitalistic societies. We can see this future in the radical environmentalist plans of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, one supported by leading Democratic Party candidates. It’s authoritarianism. There is no other way to describe a regulatory regime that dictates exactly what Americans can consume, sell, drive, eat, and work on.

One imagines that most Americans, through their actions, will continue to reject these regressive ideas. One reason they should is so that Greta Thunberg’s generation won’t have to suffer needlessly.

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

American Thinker: The Cynical Plot Behind Global Warming Hysteria


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in 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.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Zero Population Growth (ZPG): Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The Humanitarian Hoax series has discussed the Humanitarian Hoax of Globalism,  The Humanitarian Hoax of Socialism,  The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate ChangeThe Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change IIThe Riddle of Climate Change, and the Humanitarian Hoax of the United Nations. Now it is time to examine the Humanitarian Hoax of Zero Population Growth and see how these hoaxes are all connected.

The humanitarian hoaxes are globalist cons designed to redistribute the world’s wealth and the world’s population to establish a new internationalized world order of one world government under the corrupt auspices of the United Nations. The 2020 American presidential election is a domestic political contest between Americanism and globalism that reflects the worldwide political contest between national sovereignty and globalism.

President Donald J. Trump stunned the world 9.24.19 with his brilliant speech to the 74th United Nations General Assembly. It was a calm, measured, powerful statement of purpose and resolve highlighting the 21st century conflict between the United States demand for national sovereignty under the Trump administration, and the United Nation’s increasing efforts to globalize the world. President Trump presented his proud, America-first leadership unapologetically and with equal respect for the national sovereignty, cultures, and religions of the nations of the world represented in the general assembly saying:

“In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people where it belongs. In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens, to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values. As president of the United States, I will always put America first. Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first.”

President Trump reminded the world that the United Nations was founded as an international body respectful of national differences and dedicated to mutual cooperation among sovereign nations to achieve international peace. President Trump criticized and warned the United Nations against its efforts to internationalize the world and impose one world government with his stunning admonition:

“The future does not belong to the globalists, the future belongs to the sovereign and independent nations, who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.” So, what do the United Nations efforts to globalize the world have to do with the Zero Population Growth movement (ZPG) and Thomas Malthus?

Zero Population Growth (ZPG) is the condition of demographic balance where the population is stable and neither grows nor declines.

In the late 1960s ZPG was a powerful political movement in the United States and western Europe. ZPG marketed its message to an unsuspecting public as the altruistic humanitarian method for limiting the growing world population. ZPG was going to save the planet from the catastrophic Malthusian prophesy that population growth would outstrip agricultural production resulting in too many people and not enough food. Sound familiar? It should – it is the basis of the United Nations egregious Agenda 2030, its 17 Sustainability goals, and the Green New Deal. Let’s review.

English theologian and scholar Thomas Robert Malthus wrote his famous prediction in his 1798 book, “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” The Malthusian Theory is based on the assumption that population increases geometrically (2,4,8,16,32,64, etc.), but food supplies increase arithmetically (2,4,6,8,10,12).

The obvious flaws in the assumption are twofold. First, Malthus’s fatalistic prediction never materialized. Second, Malthus lived over two hundred years ago when agricultural practices were limited by 18th century technology. Malthus simply could not imagine a time of 21st century science and agricultural technology. So, why is the United Nations resurrecting the dire predictions of an 18th century Malthusian catastrophe with apocalyptic warnings of catastrophic manmade climate change? Let’s find out.

Fear is a powerful force used by the globalist community to effect seismic socio-political change. Young people worldwide are indoctrinated in the globalized educational initiative of the United Nations. They are terrified that the world is coming to an end and that they will surely drown or starve. Many indoctrinated millennials refuse to have children to protect their unborn from such catastrophic certainties. The problem, of course, is that their fears are manmade and designed to dupe them into becoming global citizens in a globalized world where accepting the radical leftist global environmental narrative will protect them and keep them safe.

The zero population growth movement of the late 60s succeeded in reducing the populations of Western countries. What is the globalist solution?? Massive uncontrolled immigration being marketed deceitfully as the replacement population that will bring economic stability and growth to the depleted workforce.

What is the reality?

President Trump provided the answer in his extraordinary speech to the 74th United Nations General Assembly:

“We have learned that over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries. For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms. For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are born overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.”

So, the humanitarian hoax of zero population growth, the resurrected Malthusian prophesy, manmade climate change, open borders, uncontrolled immigration, and globalized education are all efforts of the United Nations globalist elite to internationalize the world and impose one world government.

All function to blur ethnic, cultural, religious, and racial boundaries. The result is sameness – one people, one religion, one flag, one language, one currency, one globalized culture all controlled by the globalist elite under the auspices of the United Nations and one world government.

President Trump understands that the globalist “new” world order is a return to the old feudal system where the very few enslave the many. President Trump rejects globalism and feudalism entirely and is deeply committed to upholding the United States Constitution that guarantees the self-rule of American citizens, the independence of America, and the sovereignty of the nations of the world.

Globalism is socialism on a massive international scale where the assets of producing countries are confiscated and given to non-producing countries. President Trump is profoundly opposed to such an arrangement, and has renegotiated unfair trade deals that penalize the United States and confiscate America’s wealth.

Manmade climate change is based on fraudulent science that was exposed in the staggering 2009 Climategate scandal, yet the United Nations continues to promote its false narrative with the Paris Accord and apocalyptic warnings that the world will end in 12 years. The manmade climate change hysteria is the globalized political effort of the United Nations to unite the world’s population in fear.

The environmental lobby that promoted ZPG has moved on to manmade climate hysteria in its global effort to con the world’s population into accepting globalism as deliverance from the apocalyptic climate predictions. The problem, of course, is that globalism is the 21st century name for the feudal structure of centralized internationalized one world government that deprives individual nations of their national sovereignty.

The 2020 presidential election is a pivotal election in our nation’s history. A vote for President Trump is a vote for national sovereignty, freedom, the Constitution, and individual rights. A vote for any of the Democrat candidates is a vote for socialism, globalism, and a return to feudalism.

America-first President Donald J. Trump told the world at the 74th United Nations General Assembly: America will never be a socialist nation – NOT ON MY WATCH!!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

The religion of climate change & the new doomsday scenario

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

VIDEOS: Who is behind Greta Thunberg and is she being used?

A 16-year old girl named Greta Thunberg has become the face of the environmental movement at the United Nations. Some see her as a hero speaking out about a world about to end. Others have called her a pawn and question why should we listen to a 16-year old when there are thousands of scientists who know more about the climate than Greta will ever know.

The answer: This is a battle between science and emotion.

Science is unemotional, measured and at times boring. Greta, on the other had, is the embodiment of visceral emotion.

What we are presenting here are three videos on climate change. The first deals with who is behind Greta. The second is a discussion about Greta being abused to push the end of times scenario. The third video is about Kenny Stein who has a different view on climate change and how Stein is treated on an American college campus. Stein believes politicians cannot legislate weather, storms, and the climate; knows how fossil fuels save lives in Africa and America; rejects renewable energy fantasies; and understands how science informs economic and political trade-offs.

Please watch all these videos to understand why Greta and why now.

First, Who is behind climate saint, Greta Thunberg?

Second, Who Stole Greta’s Childhood?

Next Greta Thunberg: The Progressive Use and Abuse of Teen Climate Activist-Actor

Finally, Protesters shut down climate event featuring Kenny Stein, Director of Policy and Federal Affairs for the American Energy Alliance, at Georgetown University. The event was hosted by GU College Republicans.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

Greta’s “Green” coming to America was via petrochemicals worthy of a royal

Tucker: Greta Thunberg Is ‘A Kind Of Human Shield’ Politicians Use To ‘Demand Power’

Bernie Sanders Says ‘We Need Young People Leading Our Climate Justice Movement’

Al Gore Tells CNN Trump Is ‘The Face Of Global Climate Denial’

Fox News Apologizes After Panelist Calls Greta Thunberg A ‘Mentally Ill Swedish Child’

Democrat On AOC Fracking Claim: ‘We Do Ourselves No Favors When We Ignore Science’

© All rights reserved.

How many cars are there on Mars?

The title of this relatively short essay may seem odd at first, but read on and all will be revealed.

When President elect, Barack Obama, chose members of his new administration back in 2008, he selected physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary and Carol Browner to lead a White House council on energy and climate. Ms. Browner had headed the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration. Mr. Chu was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases.

Carol Browner was described as a “neon-green radical” in an early article by Michelle Malkin titled, “The Trouble with Obama’s Energy Czar.” With both Chu and Browner at Obama’s energy helm, the United States was destined to be in a world of trouble, and that too became clear when Obama later uttered the dread words: “I have come to fundamentally transform America.”

Obama’s notorious Cap in Trade policy thankfully died in the Republican controlled Congress. His baleful eight long year term of “fundamentally transforming America” finally ended but, if President Trump loses the general election in 2020 and the Left come to power, a similar and perilous version of a Cap in Trade policy is almost certain to rise from its erstwhile deathbed. It will inevitably saddle the middle class with higher taxes and cause painful job losses to Americans. The Democrats, ever anxious to redistribute America’s wealth to the developing nations, will adopt loony tunes domestic policies. Just listen to the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, et al.

It was no coincidence that Hillary Clinton, President Obama’s Secretary of State, was calling for the U.S. to donate $100 billion of U.S. taxpayer’s money through the United Nations to developing countries. This while the United States was reeling from growing trillion dollar deficits, courtesy of the Obama regime’s dire economic policies.

A great deal of the present lunacy began when Al Gore, ushered in his revelation that the world is in peril from man-made Global Warming, now renamed man-made Climate Change. He took his theory and created a veritable new secular religion, replete with its own priesthood and acolytes in abundance. It is now venerated by multitudes of adoring and unquestioning faithful who cleave to his secular version of Holy Writ, known as ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’

Like so many other beliefs, which labor under original and fundamental error, its believers arrogantly ridicule and treat all doubters as heretics not worthy of consideration. So far there has not been an actual auto da fé (a burning of perceived heretics) but, like the inquisitors who meted them out in the not too distant past, the faith of climate change may yet exact cruel and unusual punishment upon all who refuse to accept its doctrine as infallible. But it has now morphed into pure insanity with the likes of she who I call Occasional Cortex telling us that our present lifestyle guarantees the end of planet Earth in twelve short years.

Paul Johnson, a British historian who never failed to pierce the veil of deception cloaking so much of our understanding of human foibles, once remarked to a friend who had become a recent convert to the belief in man-made global warming or man-made climate change that, in fact, August, 2008 in England had been remarkably cold and miserable with “… torrential rain, a hailstorm or two, cold, bitter winds and mists.”

His friend agreed that, “… yes, the weather was unprecedented and that England has never had such an August before.” But then, true to all new and fanatical converts, his friend opined with righteous and unassailable conviction that it was “man-made global warming, of course.”

For the believer, the knee jerk reply to questions as to why there is too much sun, or too little sun, or drought, or floods, or freezing cold, or hurricanes and tornadoes is that it is all because of, yes you guessed it, man-made climate change. So there you have it; a ready-made and unshakable dogma that explains away the malevolent cause of weather patterns and natural disasters: man-made Climate Change.

Now untold thousands of children are indoctrinated in public schools to become puerile mouthpieces for the so-called man made climate change cult. They are used and abused by their teachers into marching in the streets while shouting slogans. But they know not what they do. Have we not seen throughout history similar mass exploitations of children as occurred among the Hitler youth and the horrifyingly and tragic thirteenth century children’s crusade?

In that papal driven nightmare, fervently believing boys and girls were urged to march across Europe on their way to the Holy Land to convert Muslims. Along the way, thousands perished at the hands of bandits or were enslaved while others starved to death or contracted deadly diseases.

So now we have a pernicious dogma and the faux environmentalists are the priests and bishops of man-made climate change and what is fast becoming a new secular religion – one allied with that other present day secular religion of liberalism. They vociferously intervene in man’s affairs and brook no disagreement with their creed. They impose decrees, which force governments to implement all manner of policies that further the propagation of the new faith but beggar the economy.

But the climate change doctrine contains little scientific fact yet demands much political action and abject compliance with its rules.

The environmentalists are not swayed any more than the medieval priesthoods were willing to accept that their rigid belief in a flat world was wrong or that the earth went around the sun and not the other way round.

Windmills now dot the landscape. They may not be as picturesque as the old European windmills and time will tell whether we will be tilting at them with equal frustration as Don Quixote did in his time. Meanwhile millions of our feathered friends die each year as they fly into the revolving blades of these windmills of death.

Paul Johnson suggested that these wind turbines are a grotesquely expensive and inefficient form of energy and added that, “… the new windmills are hideous things, ruining the landscape.” But don’t tell that to the environmental cadres as they promulgate their man-made climate change message and proselytize all who flock to their new faith.

There is an immense peril lurking beneath the words of those faithful worshipers of the new religion. They target the United States and coerce its gullible politicians and the more than favorably inclined leftists who are revealing an increasingly warped face of the Democrat Party. They repeat, ad nauseum, that these are extreme times that require extreme measures.

America must be driven to accept disabling restraints on its economy, they proclaim. First they sermonized, in the seventies, that it was Global Cooling and that a new Ice Age was upon us. Now it is man-made Global Warming, quickly and expediently changed to man-made Climate Change.

If they succeed and come to power in 2020 the United States, the world’s only superpower, will be economically, politically and militarily crippled and no longer able to defend human freedoms around the globe. Our allies will be left vulnerable as the true and growing threat to the peoples of the earth – not bogus man made climate change – but the real and existential threat of resurgent Islamic jihad linked with resurgent Communism (the Red-Green alliance) will emerge stronger and more vicious as America falters.

The fanatics who espouse man-made climate change and global warming should consider the research carried out several years ago by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at the Russian Academy of Sciences at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St Petersburg and director of the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

Several years ago Abdussamatov said that global warming is equally apparent upon the planet Mars as it is upon Earth. The reason was because of “…a long-term increase in solar irradiance, which is heating both Earth and Mars.” In other words it is the activity of the Sun.

Abdussamatov believed then that changes in the sun’s heat output account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it is dwarfed by the increase in solar irradiance,”

Abdussamatov’s work, however, was not well received by other climate scientists. Perhaps those scientists, who are now the bishops of the new religion and, like their medieval predecessors were unwilling to accept ideas or proofs that contradicted their rigidly held dogma, are growing more violent and vindictive towards the skeptics.

Even though some 6,000 eminent scientists around the world have provided contradictory evidence towards the notion of man-made global warming or climate change, the followers of the prophet Gore will have none of it. Perhaps that is why they included the term, climate change, to quickly obfuscate the matter.

The very idea that Mars, just like Earth, warms and cools because of the natural activity of the sun is hardly revelatory or revolutionary. But it makes nonsense of the current and fashionable belief that humanity, because of its reliance upon industry and the internal combustion engine , produces a disastrous effect upon Earth’s climate.

Many environmentalists hate the automobile. They prefer bike paths to new roads and work tirelessly to reduce carbon emissions as if they are exorcists driving out demons. Suddenly C02, which we all breathe out and which, if drastically reduced, leads to the death of oxygen giving plant life, now is treated as almost a poisonous gas.

Simply put, Sun’s radiation patterns are responsible for temperature change, not CO2 levels. Dr. Abdussamatov goes further and suggests that rather than the earth entering a potentially catastrophic global warming phase, he posits that we are in fact entering a new mini-ice age.

In the minds of so many environmentalists the car is one of the main culprits and its eventual disappearance as a gasoline driven machine will, they are convinced, help end man made global warming and save the planet. But banning fossil fuels, fracking, nuclear energy along with  cows are also on the list of those aspiring to lead the Democrat Party.

If America and much of the West submits to such nonsense it will surely descend rapidly into a not so brave new world. The dubious reliance on alternative forms of energy will inevitably reduce the world’s population through mass starvation. Not a very sanguine prospect!

The Earth was once much warmer than it is today. During the years between the 14th century and the middle of the 19th century a mini ice age occurred and it is no accident that present day ice covered Greenland was indeed a much warmer and greener land able to sustain an agricultural population. Hence its name: Greenland.

During the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods the climate was significantly warmer than today. In fact our present climate is markedly cooler and, as far as I know, there were no carbon emitting automobiles sharing the Earth with the dinosaurs.

Habibullo Abdussamatov pointed out that the sun is overwhelmingly responsible for global warming or global cooling, aka climate change, not only on Earth but on planet Mars. He had added that the polar caps on Mars are displaying a warming trend even though there is no Martian industry or carbon emitting cars on the red planet.

So if the polar caps on Mars as well as on Earth melt because of the sun and not by man-made contributions or cars, a legitimate question could be asked:

How many cars are there on Mars?

©  Victor Sharpe 2019

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. ‘Youth Climate Strike’ Founder is Ilhan Omar’s 16-Year-Old Daughter

New Video: My Gift To Climate Alarmists

On September 21st, 2019 Tony Heller posted the below video with comment on Real Climate Science.

This is my most concise expose of the climate scam.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

VIDEO: What would a young woman who was a sane environmental activist sound like?

Posted by Eeyore

Direct link.

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Hostages Obey Their Climate Captors: Julie Kelly

The Environmental Costs of Renewable Energy Are Staggering

“If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels,” warns a recent article from Foreign Policy.


“The Limits of Clean Energy” is the title of an article by Jason Hickel in Foreign Policy, with the sub-title “If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels.” Here’s the opening:

The conversation about climate change has been blazing ahead in recent months. Propelled by the school climate strikes and social movements like Extinction Rebellion, a number of governments have declared a climate emergency, and progressive political parties are making plans—at last—for a rapid transition to clean energy under the banner of the Green New Deal.

This is a welcome shift, and we need more of it.

But a new problem is beginning to emerge that warrants our attention. Some proponents of the Green New Deal seem to believe that it will pave the way to a utopia of “green growth.” Once we trade dirty fossil fuels for clean energy, there’s no reason we can’t keep expanding the economy forever.

This narrative may seem reasonable enough at first glance, but there are good reasons to think twice about it. One of them has to do with clean energy itself. The phrase “clean energy” normally conjures up happy, innocent images of warm sunshine and fresh wind. But while sunshine and wind is obviously clean, the infrastructure we need to capture it is not. Far from it. The transition to renewables is going to require a dramatic increase in the extraction of metals and rare-earth minerals, with real ecological and social costs.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

MP: As we learned from Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” See video below.

This article was reprinted from the American Enterprise Institute.

COLUMN BY

Mark J. Perry

Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More Buckets of Icy Cold Energy Reality

Climate Change: The End Is Near (And It Can’t Come Fast Enough)

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

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

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.

Here is a useful list of reputable agencies trying to help the people of the Bahamas. Also add Catholic Relief Services. Please be generous to this devastated area.

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into seven (7) categories.

My vote for the three most outstanding articles this cycle: 12 Reasons Why Wind & Solar Power Make No SenseThe Cynical Myth of a Global Warming “Consensus” and How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World.

Energy Economics

Wind Turbine Health Matters

Nuclear Energy

Solar Energy

Energy Misc

Global Warming (AGW)

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

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: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.
Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

© All rights reserved.

Video of an Exceptional Speech on ‘Green economy’ in the German Parliament by Alice Weidel, Co-leader of AfD

Posted by Eeyore

This is a must watch.

Direct link.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Environmental Costs of Renewable Energy Are Staggering

Climate Kid Greta’s Global Strike Underway

41 Climate Doomsday Predictions That Didn’t Come True

Canada Deletes 100 Years of Inconvenient Temperature Data

Cannibalism and the Democratic Progressive Caucus’ Green New Deal love affair

The 98 member Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus (which includes the four members of The Squad) sent out an email titled, “Read what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal just said.” Here is the content of the email:

Scientists estimate that we only have 12 YEARS until the effects of climate change become IRREVERSIBLE. We have to act, now!

That’s why Progressive Caucus members like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal are speaking out:

We must pass bold initiatives, like a Green New Deal, if we want to stop climate change in its tracks.

But we can’t do that unless we elect a wave of pro-environment Progressives who will fight to keep our planet habitable for future generations.

We’re starting an ambitious $20,000 fundraiser to make that happen, so we’re reaching out to our top supporters (that’s you!) for help.

What do you say? Chip in a few dollars now to help elect Progressives to Congress who will pass a Green New Deal:

Climate alarmism has become even more alarmist than it ever has. Laura Williams wrote a column titled “4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True.” Laura listed the following as alarmist predictions that never happened:

  1. GLOBAL COOLING. The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.
  2. THE GREAT DIE-OFF. The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
  3. POLLUTION PARTICLE CLOUDS. The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.
  4. 75% OF SPECIES WILL GO EXTINCT. The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Progressives have gone through phases in their climate alarmism. As each alarm doesn’t happen they just change the narrative: from global cooling, to global warming to climate change.

Cannibalism

If you think killing unborn children and selling their body parts is bad, the latest woke on the liberal left is cannibalism.

Breitbart reported in a September 6, 2019 article titled “Swedish Scientist Proposes Cannibalism to Fight Climate Change” reported:

Swedish behavioural scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change.

The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding “food of the future”.

Söderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled “Gastro Summit — about the future of food” where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

Read more.

But this idea of eating human flesh in order to save the planet is not new with progressives. In this video from the Charlie Rose Show on PBS on April 1, 2008 Ted Turner said that Global warming can lead to cannibalism.

Shawn Hannity in an article titled “GREEN NEW MEAL: Scientist Says ‘Consuming Human Flesh’ May Be Needed to Fight Climate Change” reports:

A European scientist speaking at a summit in Sweden last week suggested a controversial new trend to combat climate change: consuming human flesh as an alternative to animal products.

“Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund reportedly said he believes eating human meat, derived from dead bodies, might be able to help save the human race if only a world society were to ‘awaken the idea,’” reports the New York Post.

“At a summit for food of the future (the climate-ravaged future) called Gastro Summit, in Stockholm on Sept. 3 to 4, a professor held a PowerPoint presentation asserting that we must ‘awaken the idea’ of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change,” adds the Epoch Times.

Conclusion

The opposite of peace is not war. The opposite of peace is fear. If you believe the progressive bunk on climate change then you are in fear. Fear that the planet earth will die and take you along with it.

Of course this has been a big lie propagated by the progressives to take control of all means of production, especially fossil fuels.

There are three absolute truths about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes follow natural cycles (i.e. summer, fall, winter, spring)
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to alter these natural cycles.

Eating our dead will not save the planet. What will save the planet is exposing this big lie for what it is – a United Nations effort to impose a one world government. This, as it always has, will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of human being, born and unborn.

RELATED VIDEO: The Vortex — Climate Change.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change II – Debunking the Bunk

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The humanitarian hoax of climate change is so enormous and far-reaching that one article on the subject is simply not enough.

My first article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 4, was published two years ago on 7.21.2017. The second, The Riddle of Climate Change, published on 2.27.19 continued the discussion. Now it is necessary to explore the ever-expanding climate change hoax and examine the progress the hucksters have made in advance of the pivotal 2020 elections.

Let’s begin with huckster-in-chief Barack Obama and his recent staggeringly hypocritical purchase of a 15 million dollar waterfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard. Why would Obama purchase a waterfront mansion doomed to sink underwater in twelve years? He wouldn’t. Let’s review.

In Obama’s first inaugural address 1.20.09 he pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.” In his second inaugural address 1.21.13 he affirmed climate change saying: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagreed with his assessment saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

The overwhelming judgment of science?? Why did Obama ignore the damning 2009 Climategate scandal, NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s 2010 book, and later the 2014 Senate testimony of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore? Let’s find out.

Climategate is the scandal that erupted on 11.19.09 when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the global warming theory. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history.

It’s findings revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. For instance, it was discovered that the reported warming trend in New Zealand over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by manmade adjustments of the temperature data.” WHAT?

The Climategate emails showed how all the data centers worldwide, including American NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.

Climategate occurred in the first year of Obama’s first term. Climategate’s stunning revelations showed that the “settled science” of climate change was completely fraudulent and politically motivated. Yet, the mainstream media attempted to bury the story for years and continued to push for passage of Obama’s Paris Accord during his second term.

Obama committed his second term to promoting the fiction of manmade climate change, and implementing regulatory environmental policies through the Environmental Protection Agency. New York Times writers Stevenson and Broder compared Obama’s environmental efforts in their 1.21.13 article, Speech Gives Climate Goals Center Stage. “The approach is a turnabout from the first term, when Mr. Obama’s guiding principle in trying to pass the cap-and-trade bill was that a negotiated legislative solution was likely to be more politically palatable than regulation by executive fiat.”

Executive fiat is an executive order – a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law. The Paris Agreement aka Paris Climate Accord was enacted by Barack Obama during his second term by executive order. The Paris Agreement was made with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, never ratified by Congress, and effective 11.4.16. Remember the date.

Doomsday articles warning of cataclysmic flooding and drought began appearing. The narrative of manmade climate change hysteria was launched to support Obama’s executive order limiting emissions, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media kept repeating the narrative incessantly. The problem, of course, was that unbiased scientists continued challenging the narrative and climate “science” of the the United Nations. Let’s review.

The climate changes, but “manmade” climate change is the deliberately misleading narrative that human behavior is causing cataclysmic changes to the Earth’s climate. The Climategate scandal exposed the fraudulent “research” that supported its politically motivated claims and exposed the hoax.

Former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives saying, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international key to unlock the New World Order.” Gorbachev was referring, of course, to the new world order of an internationalized world community administered under the auspices of the United Nations. Oh my!

Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist, author, and former NASA senior scientist helped debunk the bunk being foisted on an increasingly worried American voting population in 2010. Dr Spencer explained that climate sensitivity is the critical issue in finding the truth of climate changes. “Climate sensitivity is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing,’ of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.”

Political science and climate change huckster extraordinaire Al Gore claimed climate sensitivity is very high. Dr Spencer relied on satellite evidence that suggest climate sensitivity is very low. He made the claim for natural climate change and that climate change happens with or without our help.

Dr Spencer’s 2010 book, The Great Global Warming Blunder presented stunning new evidence that warming is not the fault of humans, it is the result of chaotic internal natural cycles that have been responsible for fluctuating periods of warming and cooling for millennia. The book reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect of cloud behavior and fallen prey to group-think acceptance of misguided political global warming policy proposals.

Dr Spencer’s analysis is atmospheric science not political science – he completely discards the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that greenhouse gases are all that are needed to explain global warming. Spencer shows that a natural, internally generated climate variability called “climate chaos” that is generated by clouds is responsible. Spencer exposes the political motivations of the United Nations IPCC reports saying, “The IPCC process for reviewing the science of global warming and climate change has been a peculiar perversion of the usual practice of scientific investigation. Science normally involves the testing of alternative hypotheses, not picking the first one that comes along and then religiously sticking to it. But that is exactly what the IPCC has done.”

Of course it is. Dr Spencer discovered the IPCC politicization of science saying,

“As I wrote this book, I found myself increasingly criticizing the IPCC’s leadership and the way it politicized my scientific discipline, atmospheric science, in order to promote specific policies. The truth is that the IPCC doesn’t actually do scientific research. It is primarily a political advocacy group that cloaks itself in the aura of scientific respectability while it cherry-picks the science that best supports its desired policy outcomes, and marginalizes or ignores science that might contradictory the party line. It claims to be policy-neutral, yet it will not entertain any science that might indicate there is no need for policy change on greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the IPCC’s relatively brief Summary for Policymakers is not written by hundreds of scientists, but by about fifty handpicked true believers who spin the science of climate change to support specific policy goals.”

The United Nations IPCC goals are unapologetically stated in United Nations Agenda 2030 – the manifesto for imposing the new world order of one world government. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals reaffirm the United Nations globalist stance that planet Earth and its ecosystems are “our common home and that ‘Mother Earth’ is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.” This is all Orwellian doublespeak to rationalize imposition of a new world order of one world government under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

Nazi Joseph Goebbels infamously remarked, “If you repeat a lie often enough people believe it.” That is exactly what happened with manmade climate change. Let’s recap.

Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama presented himself as your children’s advocate who is altruistically implementing policies for their safety. The presidential huckster issued executive orders that seriously restricted the emissions you are told are killing your children and the planet. The lie was told so often by so many that the general population started believing it, and then began ostracizing and shaming anyone who didn’t believe the lie.

Apostate Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore told a US Senate Committee unequivocally on 2.25.14, “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

Patrick Moore exposes the lie of “settled science.” He explains how environmental science has been completely co-opted by political science. There is not a shred of credible evidence that manmade climate change exists – but no matter. The truth never stops a determined huckster. Moore explains:

“When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false number. But most of the scientists — put it in quotes, scientists — who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money, they are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it — build a better mousetrap type of idea.”

Patrick Moore described the details of the climate change hoax and the green movement:

“And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children.”

Shaming is a powerful tool used and abused by humanitarian hucksters to promote their manmade climate change narrative, and to silence any opposition to their false claims of “settled” climate science.

The manmade climate change hucksters continue to perpetrate their monstrous hoax through fear and guilt. Fear is a powerful motivator for behavior change. If parents can be convinced that catastrophe will strike their children unless they change their own behavior, their guilt will motivate parents to change and the big lie of manmade climate change becomes generational.

Children are being indoctrinated to believe the lie by their parents and by the collaborating educational curriculum courtesy of Obama’s Common Core and UN Agenda 2030. More on that later.

The big lie continues today. A recent bill proposed by Democrat Senator Edward Markey (MA) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a “Climate Change Education Program.” This legislation deceitfully denies that manmade climate change is a disputed scientific theory and, instead, presents its disinformation as undeniable.

Markey, like his fellow Democrats, ignore Patrick Moore’s emphatic warning, “The narrative of anthropogenic [manmade] global warming or ‘climate change’ is an existential threat to reason:

It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff. If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.

So this was around the beginning of what we call the Enlightenment, when science became the way in which we gained knowledge instead of using superstition and instead of using invisible demons and whatever else, we started to understand that you have to have observation of actual events and then you have to repeat those observations over and over again, and that is basically the scientific method.

But this abomination that is occurring today in the climate issue is the biggest threat to the Enlightenment that has occurred since Galileo,” declared Moore. “Nothing else comes close to it. This is as bad a thing that has happened to science in the history of science.”

Moore concluded, “It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.”

Obama’s Paris agreement deceitfully ignored the Climategate scandal, Dr Spencer’s theory, and Patrick Moore’s testimony. It required individual countries to comply with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance starting in the year 2020. The contribution required of each participating country were labelled “nationally determined contributions.” What happened?

President Donald J. Trump defeated Obama’s legacy candidate and fellow manmade climate change huckster Hillary Clinton. One of the first things President Trump did was withdraw the United States from the egregious Paris Agreement. WHY?

The climate change hoax is being perpetrated worldwide by globalists in charge of global education and the United Nations Agenda 2030. The hucksters do not care about Climategate and that their “science” is demonstrably false. They continue to perpetrate the lie with confidence that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough it will be believed. So it is with climate “science.”

Manmade climate change hysteria has reached epic proportions in advance of the 2020 elections. America-first President Donald Trump recognizes the humanitarian hoax of climate change being perpetrated by the enemies of American sovereignty, and stands firm on his decision to withdraw from the deceitful Paris Accord.

The Paris Accord is an anti-America humanitarian hoax designed to transfer the wealth from industrialized countries, especially the United States, to non-industrialized countries. The purpose of the climate change hoax is to de-industrialize the United States of America and collapse her economy in preparation for one world government.

American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government with President Donald Trump as America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama is exposed as a con man it leaves them without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and socialism with his “resistance” movement. The globalist elites who fund the leftist humanitarian hucksters are using them as useful idiots to facilitate climate alarmism and the great humanitarian hoax of climate change worldwide. It is a deliberate plan to create the overwhelming social chaos necessary to impose their own special brand of a new world order.

Debunking the bunk of the humanitarian hoax of climate change exposes its sinister objective to return the world to the feudal system of one world government. Obama ignored Climategate, Dr Spencer, and Patrick Moore because he knew they were all telling the truth. Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama, his 15 million dollar waterfront mansion, and his family are all safe because manmade climate change is bunk.

RELATED ARTICLE: Climate Change and the Democrats

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

An open letter to Greta Thunberg

Dear Greta –

Congratulations on making a carbon-free trip to New York. You are setting a great example for people who believe fossil fuel use is destroying the planet. While I fully support your right to protest, I hope you’ll allow me to explain why I’m skeptical of the cause you embrace.

I’m not a scientist, but do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I have at least some basis for arriving at reasoned opinions concerning dire claims about the climate. I guess I’m what’s referred to as a climate denier, but I bend over backwards to limit my own carbon footprint. I use less than two gallons of hot water to shower, wash dishes by hand, wash clothes in cold water, never use my electric clothes dryer, never have my groceries put in plastic bags, and keep my thermostat at 61 in winter, 81 in summer. The monthly energy bill of my 1,800 sf home has never been above $100. I believe we all are duty-bound to be good stewards of the planet, but I have many doubts about man-made global warming theory. In the interest of brevity, I’ll touch on just one of those concerns here.

As you may have noticed, the wealthy people who talk the loudest about the need for “each and every one of us” to make dramatic cutbacks in the way we live aren’t making dramatic cutbacks in the way they live. These wealthy climate preachers are many in number. Since you’re aware of the most prominent, I won’t list them here. Suffice it to say that not a single member of their living-large alliance practices what they preach.

Please allow me to cite one example.

Since leaving the White House, President and Mrs. Obama have amassed an enviable fortune of $100 million. President Obama speaks passionately about how we all must choose to live in smaller homes that require less energy to heat and cool. During a speech in South Africa last year, he criticized rich people for their lavish lifestyles:

“There’s only so big a house you can have; there’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough.”

Big houses…

The first major purchase the Obamas made as private citizens was an 8,200 sf mansion in the nation’s capitol. They reportedly are buying another spacious mansion, a luxurious oceanside estate in Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe it’s impolite to say, but two high profile climate preachers living in such spacious homes just because they can afford it is not what most people would refer to as of environmental leadership.

Nice trip …

President Obama speaks with deep conviction about how we all must dramatically cut back on leisure trips fueled by carbon energy. As I’m sure you know, Greta, private planes are the most planet-abusive way to fly. Here’s a list of leisure trips President Obama took during the first four months of his retirement:

► The day he left office, he flew 2,200 miles in a near-empty U.S. government Boeing 747 all the way across the continent to Palm Springs, California for his first post-presidency vacation.

► After relaxing in an 11,000 sf villa at the exclusive Thunderbird Heights Resort in nearby Rancho Mirage, he flew 3,300 miles, by private jet, all the way back across the continent to the Caribbean, where he vacationed with Richard Branson on Branson’s private island.

► After that vacation, he flew 6,000 miles, by private jet, for a brief stay at Marlon Brando’s French Polynesian hideaway in Tahiti.

► He left Tahiti, by private jet, on a 2,700-mile trip to Hawaii, where he golfed for a few days before leaving, by private jet, for the 4,800-mile return trip to his DC mansion.

► Once home, he twice traveled 400 roundtrip miles to New York, both times by private jet, the first to take in a play on Broadway, the second to have dinner with U2’s Bono.

► In early May, he flew 8,400 roundtrip miles, by private jet, to Milan, Italy, where a caravan of 14 carbon-powered SUVs took him to a conference to give a speech about—sit down for this—people burning more than their fair share of fossil fuels.

► While in Italy, he flew, by private jet, from Milan to Tuscany, where he unwound at Borgo Finocchieto, an exclusive resort featuring luxury villas measuring out at 9,500 sf.

► After leaving Italy, he returned, by private jet, to his home in DC.

During his first four months of retirement, America’s most recent former president flew more than 27,000 miles, a distance greater that Earth’s circumference. There’s no telling how many private jet leisure trips he’s taken in the last two years.

Other prominent climate preachers indulge in the same type of lavishness as the Obamas. To justify living large, some purchase ‘carbon offsets,’ which allegedly are used for some green purpose, such as planting a few trees. When eco-preacher Prince Harry recently took heat for his incessant use of private jets, Elton John came to his defense by purchasing a carbon offset that purportedly neutralized the atmospheric degradation caused by the private jet flight Harry and his wife took for a leisurely stay at the famous singer’s extravagant home in Nice, France.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems carbon offsets are little more than a clever fig leaf that enables wealthy climate preachers explain away unlimited private jet travel, which cannot occur without using copious quantities of fossil fuel. These mega-rich people rationalize pigging out on fossil fuel energy by purchasing offsets, the cost of which is an infinitesimal drop in their immense financial buckets. Offsets are useful for environmental chest thumping, but do nothing to change the fact that the virtue signaling rich folks who purchase them are nevertheless guilty of burning unconscionable amounts of carbon energy in their insatiable pursuit of lavish living.

Despite your young age, Greta, you have considerable sway with the wealthy elitists whose only contribution toward saving the planet is preaching. Because you walk the walk, you have the moral standing to call them out. And you should, because they’re the same self-indulgent carbon gluttons who terrified you when you were a little girl. Their opulent lifestyles are unmistakable proof that not a single one of them is the least bit concerned that CO2 is destroying the environment.

Call them out, Greta. Make them man up. They owe it to you and the millions of other young people they traumatized, all while burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow.

Respectfully and best wishes,

John Eidson
Atlanta, GA

RELATED ARTICLES:

Free Greta Thunberg From Her Cruel Political Exploitation By Leftists

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax

CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change Revealed More Than Intended

America Tunes Out the Demented Dems

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don’t know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.

If you’re under 50, there’s a good chance you’re expecting to see climate change create chaos and death in your lifetime. Scientists and pundits seem so certain we’re headed for global collapse and their predictions can be terrifying—especially if you’re young enough not to remember the last dozen times they predicted imminent collapse and were wrong. In each case, claims of impending environmental disaster were backed by allegedly irrefutable data and policymakers were encouraged to act before it was too late.

The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.

The Prophecies:

  • Newsweek Magazine’s “The Cooling World” Peter Gwynne April 28, 1975 
  • Time Magazine’s “A New Ice Age?” April 28, 1974
  • BBC’s Nigel Calder International Wildlife magazine, 1975
  • Betty Friedan in Harper’s magazine, 1958
  • University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1974

What Actually Happened: Global cooling trends didn’t continue unabated, and temperatures stabilized. Within a few years, the same alarmists were predicting a life-threatening rise in temperatures, presaging many of the same dire effects on plant and animal life. Those new predictions were continually revised as their “near certainty” collided with the truth year after year, but prophets seem unchastened by their abysmal historical accuracy. Newsweek issued a correction to the 1975 article in 2006.

The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: Motivated by the urgent call for population control and fears of famine, India and China performed millions of forced abortions and sterilizations. But the number of people at risk of starvation dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent globally as genetically modified seeds and advances in irrigation improved crop yields. Far from the Great Die-Off, the global population nearly doubled while agricultural capacity soared and rates of starvation plummeted. Ehrlich’s star has continued to rise, though his signature predictions were nonsense, and now holds an endowed chair in Population Studies at Stanford. The millions scapegoated by his fear-mongering have not fared as well.

The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: When these doomsayers were pronouncing the imminent death of our atmosphere, the rate of air pollution had already been falling for most of the world, usually in the absence of dedicated policy changes. Developments like air filtration, as well as an overall decline in household pollutants (like the smoke from cooking with coal or wood) greatly reduced the health risks of the particles that remained. Increased adoption of fossil fuels and electricity grids, rather than traditional stoves, accelerated the improvements.

The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: You may have noticed that earth has not lost three-quarters of its 8.7 million species, and indeed total biomass continues to grow. 99 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct, and natural rates of extinction predict we might lose anywhere from 200 to 2,000 species per year without any human intervention. Since 2000, we’ve identified fewer than 20.

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism. Before we make unprecedented sacrifices to fight a climate phantom, let’s review the credibility of claims that the end is near—but really, this time.

COLUMN BY

5 Surprising Scientific Facts about Earth’s Climate

There are many environmental facts that run contrary to popular belief. Here are five of them.


On the weekend of August 10–11, as if in chorus, major online news websites called on people to stop consuming meat. The calls echoed a recent United Nations report that recommended doing so to fight climate change.

It surprised many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.

Below are some facts—scientifically recognized and published in peer-reviewed journals—that may raise your eyebrows.

All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. There is not a single climate scientist who denies this well-established fact. It doesn’t matter what your position on the causes and magnitude and danger (or not) of current climate change is—you have to be on board on this one. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.

Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.

Yes, you read that right. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.

If you paid attention to the previous fact, then the following one is not hard to understand. Polar bears—often used as a symbol of climate doomsday—are one of the key species in the Arctic. Contrary to the hype surrounding their extinction fear, the population numbers have actually increased in the past two decades.

Last year, the Canadian government considered increasing polar bear killing quotas as their increasing numbers posed a threat to the Inuit communities living in the Nunavut area.

The increase in population size flies in the face of those who continue to claim otherwise in the popular news media. And it is not just the polar bears in the Arctic. Other critical species elsewhere, like tigers, are also making a comeback.

While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.

The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.

This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob.

These are some of the many climate facts that the media refuses to acknowledge, like the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of 17th century.

There are other facts that run contrary to popular belief, such that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming—manmade or not—was driving increases in extreme weather events.

The list is endless. It would be naïve not to acknowledge this blatant and lopsided reporting in our news media.

COLUMN BY

Vijay Jayaraj

Vijay Jayaraj (M.S., Environmental Science) is the Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He currently lives in Udumalpet, India.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Data on Amazon Rainforest Fires Tell a Much Different Story Than Social Media

List: Craziest Things Said at CNN Climate Event…

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

CNN Climate Townhall: Cements the Re-election of Donald J. Trump and insures Republican Majorities in U.S. House and Senate

CNN has done a great service to America. I know, you’re asking yourself why did I write this?

CNN hosted a seven hour townhall with key Democratic primary candidates for president. The topic was climate change. During the CNN Climate Townhall each Democrat put forth policies that would make any American citizen cringe. It seems that Democrats just can’t help themselves. Let’s look at some of the highlights.

Highlights of CNN’s Climate Townhall

Here are some key statements made by Democrats who participated in the Climate Townhall:

  • Socialist presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders says if he’s elected, he wants American taxpayers to pay for abortions in poor countries around the world to limit population growth. Why? Because Sanders claims mass abortions will limit climate change. (Source: BizPac Review)
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders tell his town hall audience, his sweeping Green New Deal is a logical and practical response to climate change. But Sanders’ description of how he plans to raise the money to fund his plan — an estimated $16 trillion over the course of a decade — shows he is planning to profoundly transform American society. (Source: CNN)
  • As for the people in the oil and gas business who would lose their jobs, Sanders says he would provide 5 years of income as well as education for displaced workers. (Source: CNN)
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren embraced flawed policy priorities during the CNN town hall, rejecting nuclear energy and calling for expensive, job-killing carbon mandates and $3 trillion in new taxpayer spending. Her proposal to ban offshore oil drilling would hike gas prices and the cost of household goods, hurting middle-class families. (Source: CNN)
  • Andrew Yang supports ending subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. He wants everyone to love driving electric cars, as opposed to “gas guzzlers” and “clunkers.” Andrew Yang said, “This is not a country where you take someone’s clunker away from them. But you are going to offer to buy the clunker back and help them upgrade.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro highlighted an ambitious plan aiming to get the United States to net-zero by 2045, meaning all coal-generated electricity will be phased out and replaced by zero-emission sources. And while Castro focused on taxing “corporate polluters,” he could not name one of the culprits when asked. (Source: CNN)
  • Senator Kamala Harris, “If Republicans continue to block progress, I’ll get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.” (Source: CNN/Twitter)
  • Joe Biden, “I will bring the world together — and that’s what we need to address climate change.”
  • Amy Klobuchar, “[T]alked about the importance of environmental justice for communities of color living on the front lines of pollution; she touted plans for moving money from polluters’ pockets into programs that can lift these communities up with a price on carbon.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro, “more people are protected by national flood insurance” by subsidizing it. That would be a mistake. Flood insurance encourages people to live in flood zones that should never have been populated in the first place, and are now more vulnerable than ever. It’s sad, but the reality is that climate adaptation will necessarily involve relocating some Americans out of high-risk flood zones. (Source: CNN)
  • Beto O’Rourke promised that he would re-enter the Paris agreement on “day-one” of his presidency. The Texas Democrat announced his climate plan in April, which will cost $5 trillion over 10 years to build out renewable energy and infrastructure, among a host of other pet projects. (Source: The Daily Caller)
  • Pete Buttigieg, Industrial America — including South Bend and the Studebaker cars we once produced — was built on oil and gas. But just as my community has moved forward, so must our country. So we’ll launch a 21st-century Industrial Revolution, investing in mass transit, transitioning to electric vehicles, and making buildings and homes more energy efficient. And with scientists indicating our soil can absorb as much carbon as the global transportation system emits, we’ll put American farmers at the center of our climate revolution. Too often, rural America has been told they’re the problem, not invited to be part of the solution. Through investments in soil management and other technologies, we can make a farm in Iowa as much a symbol of confronting climate disruption as an electric vehicle in California. ( Source: CNN Op-ed)
  • Democrats concur that rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement is important. (Source: CNN)

How CNN became the Committee to Re-elect Donald J. Trump

President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, which every Democrat wants to rejoin. There is a reason for this. The reason is that the Paris Climate Accord punishes America and the American worker and rewards China, the worlds largest polluter.

I have learned three things about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes in the climate follow natural cycles (e.g. summer, fall, winter, spring)
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles. Nothing.

The policies put forth during the CNN Climate Crisis townhall are not only inhuman but will certainly lead to greater centralized government control of all aspects of our lives. The goal is to achieve the fantasy of “environmental justice.” At whose expense exactly?

You guessed it, America’s working class.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Fox & Friends hosted Marc Morano on the CNN Climate Crisis town hall.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change Revealed More Than Intended

List: Craziest Things Said at CNN Climate Event…

Bernie Sanders Says Abortion Will Help Fight Climate Change

Democrat Prez Candidate Castro Proposes New Category of Refugees—Climate Refugees

Banning Plastic Straws, Fossil Fuels: Here Are Seven Standout Moments From CNN’s Climate Town Hall

Pete Buttigieg: Combatting Climate Change May Be ‘More Challenging Than’ Winning WWII

Elizabeth Warren To Struggling Families Dependent On Oil Jobs: ‘That’s Not the Only Job’