“The findings of the … paper were peer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.” Co-author Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake. “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.” …
Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘For decades now those of us trying to publish papers which depart from the climate doom-and-gloom narrative have noticed a trend toward both biased and sloppy peer review of research submitted for publication in scientific journals.’
‘If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that. If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience. I have had at least one paper rejected based upon a single reviewer who obviously didn’t read the paper…he criticized claims not even made in the paper.’
The peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication.’
The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations. Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming. Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected. Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.
Last year I spoke to 2,000 college students at Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit. This year I’ve been invited back–and Turning Point has asked me to debate one of today’s leading fossil fuel opponents.
The biggest challenge, however, is finding someone willing to debate me. I recently decided to invite Elon Musk and Michael Mann to debate, given their outspoken opposition to fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, both had already blocked me; Musk after I criticized the ethics of his subsidy-based business model and Mann after I asked him to substantiate a public lie he told about me.
Feel free to share my offer with them.
More “bite-sized” videos
One of the easiest and most effective way you can increase your energy influence is by sharing persuasive resources. That’s why I’ve been releasing “bite-sized” clips featuring a few minutes of the best portions of my speeches and interviews.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rawpixel-651335-unsplash.jpg360640Alex Epsteinhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlex Epstein2018-11-14 19:59:242018-11-14 20:01:38Debate invitation to Elon Musk and Michael Mann
Massive wildfires continue to rage out of control in Northern California, causing historic loss of life and billions of dollars in damage.
The images coming out of California towns, which look like bombed-out cities from World War II, are a sobering reminder of man’s occasional futility in the face of nature unleashed.
Stopping these huge blazes is, of course, a priority. The firefighters who have been battling these infernos have at times done a miraculous job under extremely difficult circumstances.
However, policymakers should also look at ways to curtail the long-term trend of growing numbers of major wildfires. While some argue that climate change is to blame for the uptick in fires, it’s also worth grappling with the drastic alterations in forest management that have occurred over the last four decades.
Many have argued that this is driving the surge in huge fires.
As a Reason Foundation study noted, the U.S. Forest Service, which is tasked with managing public wildland, once had success in minimizing widespread fires in the early 20th century.
But many of these successful methods were abandoned in large part because of efforts by environmental activists.
The Forest Service became more costly and less effective as it increasingly “rewarded forest managers for losing money on environmentally questionable practices,” wrote Randal O’Toole, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Spending on the Forest Service has risen drastically, but these additional resources have been misused and haven’t solved the underlying issues.
“Fire expenditures have grown from less than 15 percent of the Forest Service budget in [the] early 1990s to about 50 percent today. Forest Service fire expenditures have increased from less than $1 billion in the late 1990s to $3.5 billion in 2016,” O’Toole wrote.
Perhaps now, Americans will begin to re-evaluate forest management policies.
In a May congressional hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said, “Forty-five years ago, we began imposing laws that have made the management of our forests all but impossible.”
He went on to say that federal authorities have done a poor job of implementing methods to reduce the number of deadly fires, and that this has been devastating for America’s wildlands.
“Time and again, we see vivid boundaries between the young, healthy, growing forests managed by state, local, and private landholders, and the choked, dying, or burned federal forests,” McClintock said. “The laws of the past 45 years have not only failed to protect the forest environment—they have done immeasurable harm to our forests.”
In a recent House address, McClintock pinned the blame of poor forest management on bad 1970s laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. He said these laws “have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.”
Members of the Western Caucus have proposed legislation to dramatically change the way forests are managed. If passed, this bill would give power back to local authorities and allow for more aggressive forest thinning without subjecting them to the most onerous of environmental reviews.
While state and federal governments can take measures to enhance forest and wilderness management, private management can also get involved to improve conditions.
One idea is to adopt a policy popularized by the school choice movement: create charter forests that are publicly owned, but privately managed. This would allow forest management to move away from top-down, bureaucratic control to a decentralized and varied system that may better conform with local realities.
As professor Robert H. Nelson wrote for The Wall Street Journal, the charter forest “would be exempt from current requirements for public land-use planning and the writing of environmental impact statements. These requirements long ago ceased to perform their ostensible function of improving public land decision making.”
“There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail.”…
“The ‘wildfire problem’ is essentially more a social than a natural one.” Researchers from the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid found that “climate change” is not to blame for increased forest fires in the Mediterranean basin.”…
“In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees. In 2014, forestry professor David B. South of Auburn University testified to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that “data suggest that extremely large megafires were four-times more common before 1940,” adding that “we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.” As he explained, “To attribute this human-caused increase in fire risk to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific.”
California Governor Jerry Brown is blaming “climate deniers” for more California’s devastating wildfires despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that wildfires are not historically worse or caused by “global warming.” See:
The mainstream media seems to be very sure that wildfires are getting worse because of man-made global warming. ABC World News Tonight warned in 2014 that “here in America, more wildfires, intense burns” have arrived courtesy of climate change. CBS This Morning featured climate fear promoter Michio Kaku, predicting “hundred-year droughts, hundred-year forest fires” and claiming that “something is very dangerously happening with the weather.”
Al Gore also thinks he knows all about wildfires. “All over the West we’re seeing these fires get much, much worse,” Gore said in 2017, adding, “the underlying cause is the heat.”
But the science tells a very different story. A 2016 study published by the Royal Society reported, “There is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago” and the “global area burned” has seen a “slight decline over past decades.” The study, by Stefan Doerr and Cristina Santín of Swansea University in Wales, noted that “many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.”
The study also found that the data for the western U.S. indicates “little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades.” The researchers concluded, “The data available to date do not support a general increase in area burned or in fire severity for many regions of the world. Indeed there is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail.”
According to the study, “fire is a fundamental natural ecological agent in many of our ecosystems and only a ‘problem’ where we choose to inhabit these fire-prone regions or we humans introduce it to non-fire-adapted ecosystems.
The ‘wildfire problem’ is essentially more a social than a natural one.” Researchers from the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid found that “climate change” is not to blame for increased forest fires in the Mediterranean basin. “The change in the occurrence of fires that are recorded in the historical research cannot be explained by the gradual change in climate.” The fires instead “correspond to changes in the availability of fuel, the use of sources of energy, and the continuity of the landscape.”
In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees. In 2014, forestry professor David B. South of Auburn University testified to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that “data suggest that extremely large megafires were four-times more common before 1940,” adding that “we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.”
As he explained, “To attribute this human-caused increase in fire risk to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific.” The evidence is so strong that even the Los Angeles Times featured an article rebuking Governor Jerry Brown for his claims that California’s 2015 wildfires were “a real wake-up call” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which he claimed were “in many respects driving all of this.” The Times article noted, “But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year’s wildfires and global warming, or support Brown’s assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say.”
Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist at the Geos Institute in Ashland, Oregon, has conducted research on fires in the western United States and found them declining. “If we use the historical baseline as a point in time for comparison, then we have not seen a measurable increase in the size or the severity of fires,” DellaSala said. “In fact, what we have seen is actually a deficit in forest fires compared to what early settlers were dealing with when they came through this area.”
A 2014 study found that Colorado wildfires have not become more severe since the 1900s. “The severity of recent fires is not unprecedented when we look at fire records going back before the 1900s,” said research scientist Tania Schoennagel. The study, “one of the largest of its kind ever undertaken in the western United States,” was published in the journal PLOS ONE and funded by the National Science Foundation.
California’s ‘new normal’ of winter wildfires doused by climate scientists – Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, compiled data from 1926-2017 showing that the acreage burned by U.S. wildfires has dropped fourfold since peaking in the 1930s, which was posted on the skeptics’ website Climate Depot. “The destructive fires in California are not unexpected given the wet winter last year and resultant plant growth, followed by hot and dry weather since then in which the vegetation dried out,” University of Colorado Boulder meteorologist Roger A. Pielke Sr. said. “An important issue is an extent humans have deliberately or inadvertently started the fires,” Mr. Pielke said. “If these were not started by people (including sparks from power lines), how many fires would there have been naturally? Probably none.” “As to whether this is a ‘new normal,’ it is easy (and inaccurate) to blame climate change just from added CO₂,” said Mr. Pielke, “when in reality the reasons for the fires and the damage they are causing are more complex.”
Never ones to let a “serious crisis go to waste,” Green pressure groups are shamelessly attributing the fires to global warming and claiming that this year’s fires ravaged the largest area ever recorded. “But that is because the National Interagency Fire Center curiously – and somewhat conveniently – only shows the annual burnt area back to 1960, when fire suppression indeed was going strong, and hence we had some of the lowest amounts of burnt forests ever,” explains Bjørn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. “Yet, the official historical data of the United States tells a different story. Look at the Historical Statistics of the United States – Colonial Times to 1970, There we have statistics for area burnt since 1926 and up to 1970. Reassuringly, the data for 1960-1970 ‘completely overlap.’ This is the same data series.” Professor Lomborg shared the graph above.
STUDY: HUMANS, NOT GLOBAL WARMING, SPARKED ALMOST ALL OF CALIFORNIA’S WILDFIRES – Ninety-five percent of wildfires that ravaged California in the past 100 years were caused by humans, according to a forthcoming study in the International Journal of Wildland Fire. “In most of California, if we could stop ignition during extremely high winds and drought and heat spells, like now, that will be an effective approach,” lead author and U.S. Geological Survey wildfire expert Jon Keeley told The San Jose Mercury News of his soon-to-be-published study. While the public debate largely rages around global warming’s role in wildfires, Keeley’s study shows that human interaction with the landscape, no matter the climate, is causing most fires.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/luke-flynt-370180-unsplash-e1542057431863.jpg369640Marc Moranohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMarc Morano2018-11-12 16:17:202018-11-12 16:17:20California Wildfires are NOT due to ‘climate change’
Maybe due to the recent US elections, there’s a very high quantity of reports and articles in this cycle. I’ve tried to simplify this by having a special section on Nuclear Energy in this issue of the Newsletter. There are quite a few excellent (and surprising) articles in that part (like this and this), so please check them out.
In my continuous effort to make it clearer to citizens how to succeed in a local wind war, I just added a new page to my website: Winning. Let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions for improvements to that significant page.
I was asked an interesting question: what are some of the better books about the Climate Change issue? I know others have tackled this before, but I thought an update was appropriate — so I put together a list of good book related to this topic. If you have corrections and/or additions, please let me know and I will update.
Speaking of Climate Change, I’m starting the highlights of this Newsletter with a short video from Dr. Jordan Peterson — a phenomena. If you don’t know who this no-hold-barred scientist is, you’re in for a treat and a breath of fresh air.
Some of the more informative Global Warming articles are:
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone. Some documents (e.g. PDFs) are easier to read on a computer. We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize issues.
Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. The most important page there is the Winning page.
Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.
The Department of the Interior approved what could be the first-ever oil and gas production facility in U.S.-controlled Arctic waters Wednesday.
Hilcorp Alaska submitted a proposal to build a 9-acre gravel island off the coast of Alaska in the Beaufort Sea. The artificial island, called the Liberty Project, will serve as a well-pad that will support a drilling rig, pipelines and storage facilities similar to other artificial islands in the area.
2019-2024 Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program Areas (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)
“We’re announcing approval of the Hilcorp Liberty Project, which if completed, will be the first production facility ever located in federal waters off Alaska,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said in a statement. “American energy dominance is good for the economy, the environment, and our national security.”
“Responsibly developing our resources, in Alaska especially, will allow us to use our energy diplomatically to aid our allies and check our adversaries,” Zinke added. “That makes America stronger and more influential around the globe.”
Environmentalists have been critical of Trump’s energy policies in Alaska and have singled out the Liberty Project as “a big risk.”
“Giving us Liberty could give us the death of imperiled whales and polar bears. Conditions in the Arctic are brutal, and a major oil spill in this remote location would be impossible to clean up,” Center for Biological Diversity attorney Kristen Monsell said in a statement after the project was proposed. “There are too many things that could go wrong with this project to take such a big risk.”
Former President Barack Obama banned oil and gas drilling in the Beaufort Sea in December 2016. After taking office, President Donald Trump rescinded Obama’s Five-Year-Plan controlling oil and gas leasing in federal waters. Scrapping the plan lifted the Beaufort Sea ban and reopened vast stretches of the Outer Continental Shelf along the coasts of the U.S. to potential oil and gas development.
“Available information indicates that the Beaufort Sea possesses great oil and gas potential,” Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska OCS director James Kendall said in a statement announcing the reversal of the ban.
The Liberty Project represents a goal Alaska’s congressional delegation has shared since Obama took the oil reserves beneath the Beaufort Sea out of play. Alaska’s GOP lawmakers, Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan as well as Rep. Don Young, have insisted that opening the Beaufort Sea, as well as the Cook Inlet, back up to oil and gas development be a top priority for the Trump administration’s energy policy in Alaska.
“Such a program will maximize agency resources and reflect the areas with the broadest support for development among Alaskans,” the three lawmakers told Zinke in a January letter.
EDITORS NOTE: 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Roxanne Desgagnés on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/roxanne-desgagnes-87838-unsplash-e1540462820675.jpg368640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-10-25 06:21:262018-10-25 06:23:24Trump Approved the First-Ever U.S. Oil Facility in Arctic Waters
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.7 percent from 2016 levels, according to the EPA.
Emissions on a per-capita basis hit a 67-year low last year, federal data shows, and supporters are touting EPA’s data as proof Trump’s agenda is working.
EPA’s new data comes on news that, globally, greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to historic highs by the end of the year, despite nearly 200 countries signing the Paris climate accord.
Greenhouse gas emissions continued to plummet during President Donald Trump’s first year in office, according to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.
Based on data from more than 8,000 large facilities, EPA found greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide, fell 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017. Emissions from large power plants fell 4.5 percent from 2016 levels, according to EPA.
“Thanks to President Trump’s regulatory reform agenda, the economy is booming, energy production is surging, and we are reducing greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sources,” EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.
Earlier this year, the Energy Information Administration reported that per-capita greenhouse gas emissions hit a 67-year low during Trump’s first year in office.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
EPA’s new data follows news that, globally, greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to historic highs by the end of the year, despite nearly 200 countries signing the Paris climate accord. Global greenhouse gas emissions also rose in 2017.
China is the main culprit behind rising emissions, but India and other developing countries contribute. However, recent reports have detailed how European countries aren’t on track to meet their own emissions reduction goals.
A recent report from the Climate Action Network Europe found that emissions cuts among most European Union members were “nowhere close enough” to meet the goals of the Paris accord. Trump pledged to withdraw from the Paris accord at the earliest possibility, in 2020.
On the flip side, the U.S. led the world in emissions cuts for the ninth time this century, according to the oil giant BP’s annual energy statistics. BP reported that European Union “emissions were also up (1.5%) with just Spain accounting for 44% of the increase.
German and French emissions increased 0.1 and 2 percent, respectively, last year, BP reported, while the “UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history.”
Long held up as a poster child for fighting global warming, Germany is on track to miss its 2020 emissions targets. The government will likely instead push its goal of cutting CO2 emissions back to 2030.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel attends a Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leadership meeting in Berlin, Germany, October 15, 2018. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch.
Europe’s recent struggles with emissions cuts has emboldened supporters of Trump’s approach to emissions cuts, prioritizing private sector technology over government regulations.
“These achievements flow largely from technological breakthroughs in the private sector, not the heavy hand of government,” Wheeler said in a statement.
However, critics of the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda say actions today will cause emissions to increase in the future. Environmentalists and some states have sued to stop the administration rolling back Obama-era environmental regulations.
Democrats and environmentalists hope to use Trump’s rolling back of environmental regulations to drive voters to the polls in November.
“We know what everyone who wants to fight back must do: vote on November 6th. We know where the allegiances of Trump and his accomplices in Congress lie. Now it is up to us to make the change that is needed,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement.
Civil rights activist Julian Bond (top row, 3rd L), Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune (top row, 4th L), and activists opposed to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project tie themselves to the White House fence during an environmental protest in Washington, DC, United States on February 13, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo.
A major reason the U.S. has been able to cut emissions is the availability of low-priced natural gas. In the last decade, drillers have been able to use hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to unlock vast shale gas reserves.
Low-priced natural gas has replaced much U.S. coal-fired capacity in recent years, which has in turn lowered emissions. Additions of wind and solar energy have also played a smaller role in reducing emissions.
“The Trump Administration has proven that federal regulations are not necessary to drive CO2 reductions,” Wheeler said. “While many around the world are talking about reducing greenhouse gases, the U.S. continues to deliver, and today’s report is further evidence of our action-oriented approach.”
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. 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 email@example.com.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-trump-serious-1-e1515234805617.jpg356640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-10-18 12:17:232018-10-18 12:17:23U.S. CO2 Emissions Plummet Under Trump While The Rest Of The World Emits More
I mentioned that I spoke to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) on the topic of “How to Win Hearts and Minds.”
In that speech I shared what I think are three of the biggest challenges in communicating about oil and gas and my basic strategy for overcoming them. A video of the speech is now online. You can watch it here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/alex-epstein.jpg360640Alex Epsteinhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlex Epstein2018-10-17 19:16:452018-10-17 19:24:44VIDEO: The 3 Communication Obstacles Oil and Gas Supporters Face--and How to Overcome Them
Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl on UN IPCC report: “I am no longer reading this garbage – and neither does an overwhelming majority of the people. There’s absolutely no true, useful, or original content in this stuff. Almost identical predictions have been proven incorrect hundreds of times…We’ve been bombarded by effectively equivalent garbage hundreds of times, the specifics of the newest report are completely irrelevant and uncorrelated with any events, insights, or new scientific evidence. All this fearmongering is just a random mutation of nonsense that everyone has seen many times, with some completely irrelevant and random new noise.”
“Only the people who consider themselves to be obedient soldiers of any far left-wing movement pay lip service to that junk but they don’t really believe it, either.”
“Message to all climate fearmongers: Give it up. This unscientific movement has already peaked in 2009, it has been dying a slow and painful death for about a decade, and you will be much happier if you accelerate it and make the climate hysteria die quickly and abruptly.”
“Climate fearmongers, you’ve become some of the most dishonest as well as useless people in the Earth’s history.”
A decade ago, I would probably read the press release in its entirety – plus several pages of the full report that I would pick as important or representative. The climate hysteria was already perfectly understood to be pseudoscientific hogwash promoted by left-wing activists. But there was still something new in it, something that provoked us, something we were afraid of.
I am no longer reading this garbage – and neither does an overwhelming majority of the people. There’s absolutely no true, useful, or original content in this stuff. Almost identical predictions have been proven incorrect hundreds of times. Self-described “climate scientists” and their public faces such as Al Gore have been predicting the end of the world for 2000, 2009, 2010, 2015, and every other year. Jehovah’s Witnesses can no longer compete in the number of these failed predictions of the end of the world. Nothing that would even remotely resemble their doomsday predictions has ever materialized.
These days, similar claims are on par with the spam about penis enlargement. Who was interested in such things has probably undergone the procedure, whatever it is. Others just treat it as the pollution in their mailboxes, newspapers, and on TV screens.
I believe that the number 15 identifying the report only refers to 1.5 °C, a revived temperature change that is promoted – not for the first time. Well, maybe I missed 14 similar previous reports. (I only know the numbering of the IPCC reports that recently ended with 5 or so.) OK, these people repeat their screaming that the Earth is frying and collapsing, tropical forests and everything else will evaporate by 2030 if not by the next Christmas, we need to stop our civilization more abruptly than previously claimed and reduce our planned temperature increase from 2 °C to 1.5 °C. And the temperature change must be measured not relatively to the pre-industrial era but relatively to a new randomly chosen period, 1850-1900.
Well, I don’t even have energy to repeat more of this stuff. We’ve been bombarded by effectively equivalent garbage hundreds of times, the specifics of the newest report are completely irrelevant and uncorrelated with any events, insights, or new scientific evidence. All this fearmongering is just a random mutation of nonsense that everyone has seen many times, with some completely irrelevant and random new noise. One example of such noise is that these folks try to revive and praise biofuels again – many years after even Al Gore has admitted that the promotion of biofuels has been a giant and harmful blunder. In the absence of any genuine evidence, should we pay any attention to some random people’s effort to resuscitate this completely misguided direction in the fuel industry? Also, these new authors label nuclear energy “dangerous”. Anti-nuclear, pro-biofuel: the only thing you can say is that the IPCC was retaken by some of the even more unhinged green activists than during the previous reports.
The Earth’s climate is not threatened at all. The forest area was increasing in recent decades – by as much as 35% in Europe, mostly due to the reforestation of Eastern Europe. There is absolutely nothing special about 1850-1900 or about 1.5 °C or about 2 °C. Nothing special will happen when some temperature change reaches 1.5 °C or 2 °C. We won’t even be able to pinpoint that moment, not even with a decadal accuracy, not even with the most precise apparatuses, and not even with additional decades of hindsight. Even a warming by 10 °C would be safe but we’re pretty sure that we can’t get more than 1-2 °C in a century, the same change that has occurred in the recent 100 years and led to no clearly enough negative developments.
The tropical forests are also doing fine. The climate is more stable in these climatic zones. On top of that, the forests themselves create a local, even more stable climate for the flora and fauna that lives under the trees. There is simply zero justification for any kind of climate-related worries. The people spreading this ideology still believe in the efficiency of Goebbels’ “The lie that is repeated 100 times becomes the truth”.
But I no longer think that this stuff is efficient. This fearmongering is just spam and almost all people treat it like spam. The number of people who are inclined to be attracted by it is negligible and it is not growing. Only the people who consider themselves to be obedient soldiers of any far left-wing movement pay lip service to that junk but they don’t really believe it, either. Just look at the attractiveness of this stuff through an example on the web. Take the U.S. government’s most famous technological institution – yes, it’s NASA, the men who sent 12 other men on the Moon – and its department for climate hysteria. Yes, I am talking NASA’s GISS.
Who is the boss of it right now? Yes, it’s Gavin Schmidt, the successor of James Hansen. Did he promote the “special report”? Yes, he did. He promoted it on the professional climate fearmongers’ most important website, the Real Climate, funded by the wealthiest manipulator with the information in the world, George Soros, in 2004. How influential is RealClimate.org? Use Alexa to see that Real Climate is less influential than this blog.
But surely the special IPCC report about the looming end of the world changes this arithmetics, doesn’t it?
OK, here is Gavin Schmidt’s Real Climate blog post about this new special report about the Armageddon that is around the corner. It is short and you can see that he was frustrated when he was writing it – it was just another waste of time when he repeated all these superstitions that no one believes, not even himself. What is the reaction of the public to this NASA’s #1 fearmonger with an amplifier provided by George Soros?
After two days, the article has 10 comments. None of them commenters seems really interested in this stuff anymore, either. The IPCC wants to dramatically change the behavior of 7+ billion people but they can’t find more than 10 people in the world who would actually be attracted by such an idea. Not even a quote by a recent Berlin marathon winner at the end of Schmidt’s text allowed him to attract readers. But the previous sentence of mine will actually double the number of his readers! 😉
Message to all climate fearmongers: Give it up. This unscientific movement has already peaked in 2009, it has been dying a slow and painful death for about a decade, and you will be much happier if you accelerate it and make the climate hysteria die quickly and abruptly. If you help to accelerate this dying, if you will help all the sane people to expose how utterly idiotic and corrupt this movement has been, you will feel much happier. And you will also save lots of money because it may cost you, George Soros, a million dollars to brainwash another person – and most of these converts are just inconsequential simpletons. Climate fearmongers, you’ve become some of the most dishonest as well as useless people in the Earth’s history.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/neonbrand-441844-unsplash.jpg378639Marc Moranohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMarc Morano2018-10-16 12:28:592018-10-16 12:30:52Former Harvard U. Physicist rejects new UN IPCC report: ‘Similar claims are on par with the spam about penis enlargement’
Much of President Donald Trump’s “60 Minutes” interview Sunday consisted of responding to veteran CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl’s questions on what have been Democrats’ talking points for months.
During one exchange, Trump described to Stahl how the media treated his predecessor, President Barack Obama, much differently.
“I disagree, but I don’t want to have that fight with you,” Stahl replied. “All right, I’ll get in another fight with you.”
Trump responded: “Lesley, it’s OK. In the meantime, I’m president—and you’re not.”
Here’s a look at six of the biggest topics discussed and Trump’s responses.
1. Separating Illegal Immigrant Families
Stahl pressed Trump on his administration’s suspended policy of separating children and parents who illegally cross the southern border.
“Well, that was the same as the Obama law. You know, Obama had the same thing,” Trump said.
Stahl shot back: “It was on the books, but he didn’t enforce it. You enforced it. You launched that, the zero tolerance policy, to deter families with children coming.”
Trump defended his position, saying: “When you allow the parents to stay together, OK, when you allow that, then what happens is people are going to pour into our country.”
Stahl asked: “So are you going to go back to that?”
After some back and forth, Trump said: “No, I want all the laws changed.”
2. A Lecture on Climate Change
Although it began as a question, Stahl seemed to be lecturing Trump on climate change by saying she wished he would travel to Greenland to see the melting ice.
“Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?” Stahl asked.
Trump answered in the negative, adding:
I think something’s happening. Something’s changing, and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made. I will say this. I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars [to counter climate change]. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.
Stahl then talked about some presidential travel to prove her point.
“I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels,” Stahl said, without a question.
She went on to tell Trump that scientists with the federal government contend climate change is man-made.
“We have scientists that disagree with that,” Trump said, later adding: “I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back.”
Stahl: “But that’s denying it.”
The exchange then devolved into Trump and Stahl challenging each other to name a scientist who backs up their point.
“They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael,” Trump said.
Stahl: “Who says that?”
Trump: “People say.”
Stahl: “But what about the scientists who say it’s worse than ever?”
Trump challenged her to name some scientists.
“You’d have to show me the scientists,” he said, “because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley.”
Stahl conceded: “I can’t bring them in.”
3. Kavanaugh and Ford
Trump said Democrats acted “horribly” during the confirmation battle over new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused by a California woman at the 11th hour of sexually assaulting her when they were teens in the early 1980s.
Stahl, however, questioned whether Trump had created more divisions and asked him about a speech in Mississippi where he specified the gaps and contradictions in research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the incident she alleged occurred about 36 years ago.
“You go out and you go to Mississippi and you mimicked Professor Blasey Ford. You mimicked her,” Stahl said.
Trump said of his remarks: “Had I not made that speech, we would not have won [the confirmation fight]. I was just saying she didn’t seem to know anything, and you’re trying to destroy a life of a man who has been extraordinary.”
“Washington, D.C., is a vicious, vicious place,” @realDonaldTrump says.
Stahl asked in a shocked tone: “Why did you have to make fun of her?”
Trump: “I didn’t really make fun of her.”
Stahl: “Well, they were laughing.”
The CBS reporter recalled Ford being asked by a senator about “the worst moment” during the alleged incident.
“And she said, ‘When the two boys laughed at me, at my expense,’” Stahl said, paraphrasing, then telling the president: “And then I watched you mimic her and thousands of people were laughing at her.”
Trump pushed back, saying: “The way now Justice Kavanaugh was treated has become a big factor in the midterms. Have you seen what’s gone on with the polls?”
He told Stahl that he believed he treated Ford with respect.
“But you seem to be saying that she lied,” Stahl said.
“You know what?” Trump shot back. “I’m not going to get into it, because we won. It doesn’t matter. We won.”
4. Russia, China, and Election Meddling
When Stahl asked whether Russian President Vladimir Putin was involved in assassinations, Trump replied: “Probably he is, yeah.”
During the segment aired on “60 Minutes,” Stahl noted that 32 people have been charged, convicted, or pleaded guilty in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election interference
The network showed images of Trump’s short-term campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was convicted for unrelated financial crimes, and of Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying on a government disclosure form, also unrelated to the Russia probe.
However, Stahl didn’t mention that her 32 number includes two dozen Russians indicted for meddling in the presidential campaign, largely through social media.
Trump told Stahl: “They [Russians] meddled, but I think China meddled too.”
Stahl looked shocked, asking: “Why do you say China? The Russians meddled.”
Trump replied: “Because I think China meddled also.”
Stahl seemed to break into an admonishing mood.
“This is amazing,” Stahl said. “You’re diverting the whole Russian thing.”
She later asked: “Will you pledge that you will not shut down the Mueller investigation?”
Trump was noncommittal.
“Well, I don’t pledge anything,” Trump said. “I don’t want to pledge. Why should I pledge to you? If I pledge, I’ll pledge. I don’t have to pledge to you.”
5. Trusting White House Staff
First lady Melania Trump said in a recent interview with ABC News that she doesn’t trust some people in the White House.
“I feel the same way. I don’t trust everybody in the White House, I’ll be honest with you,” Donald Trump told Stahl.
Stah asked whether Trump ever wonders about White House staffers, “Is he wearing a wire?”
“Not so much a wire. I’m usually guarded,” Trump said. “I think I’m guarded anyway. But I’m not saying I trust everybody in the White House. I’m not a baby. It’s a tough business.”
“This is a vicious place,” Trump said. “Washington, D.C., is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the bad mouthing, the speaking behind your back. You know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here.”
6. Relations With NATO
Trump has warmed up to NATO, made up of the United States and Western allies that assure one another of mutual defense, largely because more NATO members have agreed at his insistence to spend 2 percent of their annual GDP on defense.
But Stahl pressed the president as if he were still hostile to NATO.
“Are you willing to get rid of that Western alliance?” Stahl asked.
Trump said he likes NATO.
“But you know what? We shouldn’t be paying almost the entire cost of NATO to protect Europe and then on top of that, they take advantage of us on trade,” the president added. “They’re not going to do it anymore. They understand that.”
Stahl: “Are you willing to disrupt the Western alliance? It’s been going for 70 years. It’s kept the peace for 70 years.”
Trump: “You don’t know that.”
Stahl asked whether Defense Secretary James Mattis had warned Trump to stick with NATO.
“Is it true Gen. Mattis said to you, ‘The reason for NATO and the reason for all these alliances is to prevent World War III?’”
Trump denied this.
“Frankly, I like Gen. Mattis,” Trump said. “I think I know more about it than he does, and I know more about it from the standpoint of fairness, that I can tell you.”
After more back and forth, Trump asserted: “I will always be there with NATO, but they have to pay their way. I’m fully in favor of NATO, but I don’t want to be taken advantage of.”
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos and videos is republished with permission. The featured image is of President Donald Trump talking to reporters as he departs Monday with first lady Melania Trump to tour hurricane damage in Florida. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Umbrella-Trump-1250x650-e1539686705337.jpg375640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-10-16 06:53:122018-10-16 06:54:286 Big Moments in Trump-Stahl Rumble on ‘60 Minutes’
A Climate Depot analysis finds that President Trump’s climate remarks were scientifically, politically and economically accurate. Finally, the United States has a president who understands “global warming”! See: Full climate transcript: Trump: Scientists who promote ‘climate’ fears ‘have a very big political agenda’ – [As Variety noted, Trump understands how to battle the mainstream media: Reporter Lesley Stahl asked Trump about “the scientists who say [the effects of climate change are] worse than ever,” but was [she] unprepared to cite one; knowing, now, that the human factor will not work on Trump, a broadcaster should be prepared to cite hard facts in a faceoff with the President.]
President Trump to 60 Minutes: “I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.” … “I’m not denying climate change,” he said in the interview.
Reality Check: President Trump is frankly giving his assessment of man-made climate change and his understanding is in agreement with some very high profile scientists. Trump has been remarkably consistent with his climate views, demanding that the “The Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore” in the wake of the Climategate revelations in 2010.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giever told the new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” that “The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels…You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal lifespan, but nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health.”
The claim here is that carbon dioxide can have a warming impact on the atmosphere, but this does not mean CO2 is the control knob of the climate. As the University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”
Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, a pioneer in development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, has declared (as quoted in my book): “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”
Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate scientist, said that believing CO2 controls the climate “is pretty close to believing in magic.” Climate Depot revealed the real way they find the “fingerprint” of CO2.
“We are creating great anxiety without it being justified … there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic,” award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!
Trump on 60 Minutes: Lesley Stahl tells Trump: “I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.” – President Trump responds: “And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.”
Reality Check: Once again, President Trump has peer-reviewed science on his side.
President Trump to 60 Minutes: “But it (climate change) could very well go back. You know, we’re talking about over a … millions of years.”
Reality Check: Once again, President Trump is accurately citing Earth’s history. The climate has varied over billions of years, millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, thousands of years, hundreds of years and decades.
Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, former chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, spoke out against fears of rising CO2 impacts promoted by Al Gore and others. Giegengack noted that “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” He explained: “[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat. That’s just wrong … It’s a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. … It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2.”
In 2014, Giegengack told Climate Depot: “The Earth has experienced very few periods when CO2 was lower than it is today.”
President Trump to 60 Minutes: “They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael,” said Trump, who identified “they” as “people” after being pressed by “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl.
Reality Check: Bravo, President Trump. The “they” that President Trump is referring to even include the UN IPCC reports! See:
President Trump to 60 Minutes: Stahl asked Trump, “What about the scientists who say it’s worse than ever?” the president replied, “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda.”
Reality Check: Yes! Once again, President Trump is correct. ‘Global warming’ fears are predicated on “a very big political agenda” and that agenda is pushed hard by the activist scientists. See:
Prof. John Brignell: “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage, it rapidly attracted acolytes. ‘Peer review’ soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship.”
Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan, is another UN IPCC scientist who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori declared that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history….When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted the IPCC is an arm of world governments and serves at their “beck and call.” “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” Pachauri told the Guardian in 2013.
In 2012, a year before the report came out, former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer announced that the next IPCC report “is going to scare the wits out of everyone.” He added, “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”
Statement by Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and author of the 2018 new book: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” – Morano: “The UN claims they were struggling with how bad to convey the allegedly ‘grim’ news about climate change. But what the media is not telling the public is these UN climate reports are self-serving reports that have predetermined outcomes. The UN hypes the climate ‘problem’ then puts itself in charge of the ‘solution.’ And the mainstream media goes along with such unmitigated nonsense. The UN even leaks their true motivation with these reports, calling for “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.
My new book details the many UN scientists who have resigned and turned against the UN. The UN IPCC has admitted these “solutions’ they are advocating for have nothing to do with science. Scientists are not impressed with this latest UN attempt this week to re-engineer every aspect of human life.
The Associated Press’ Seth Borenstein has attempted to bolster the scientific credentials of the UN IPCC, Borenstein wrote on October 7: “The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its gloomy report at a meeting in Incheon, South Korea.” But what Borenstein leaves out is that the UN IPCC won the Nobel PEACE Prize for political activism, not a Nobel scientific award. And there is a good reason why the UN IPCC won’t be winning any Nobel prizes for science. See below.
The UN IPCC is at it again and the media is drooling over the alarm. See:
The new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, reveals, climate tipping points have a long history of repetition, moved deadlines and utter failure. The book documents that the earliest climate “tipping point” was issued in 1864 by MIT professor who warned of “climatic excess” unless humans changed their ways.
Alex Epstein is the founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP). He’s joined Ben Shields today to discuss the climate, the science, the tech, and the physics behind the energy industries. Alex’s book, ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’: http://industrialprogress.com/store/ If you feel compelled to donate, superchat should be available, but paypal cuts out the middleman (YT) and assures more of your money goes to the destination you so choose.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/alex-epstein-interview-e1539200639509.jpg280478Alex Epsteinhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlex Epstein2018-10-10 15:44:062018-10-10 15:46:43Alex Epstein on Big Concepts, Solar Impact, Human Innovation, and more!
Three initiatives are on the ballot this November in Colorado, Arizona, and Washington State, all aimed at severely restricting fossil fuel use and development within these states’ borders.
With the Trump administration putting a stop to aggressive action on climate change at the federal level, environmentalist groups across the nation are trying to achieve their goals through action on the state level.
In Colorado, Proposition 112 seeks to increase the “setback” requirement for new oil and gas activity on non-federal land – increasing it from 500-ft to 2,500-ft from designated structures and vulnerable areas. In laymen’s terms, this means that there can be no new drilling within 2,500 feet of essentially any structure – whether it is a house, fire station, garage, or whatever — on non-federal land.
Colorado Rising, the group pushing for the enactment of Proposition 112, says that the 2,500 feet setback is necessary “…based on peer-reviewed health studies indicating that health impacts are greatest within a half mile of a ‘fracking’ site.” In fact, the group even hints that this distance is not far enough. “Some studies indicate that a more appropriate minimum setback should be 1 mile, and the average evacuation distance for a well blowout is 0.8 miles.”
But such statements are rebutted by numerous other studies, including a four-year long one carried out by President Obama’s EPA which found that fracking created no adverse impact on water quality.
The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Coalition (COGCC), a Colorado State government agency, also provided a report showing that at least three of the top five oil and gas producing counties in Colorado would be significantly impacted by the measure. The initiative would make it almost impossible to develop oil and gas east of the Rockies.
Also, according to an analysis performed by a coalition of the Colorado Association of Realtors, the Colorado Bankers Association, Colorado Concern, Common Sense Policy Roundtable and Denver South Economic Development Partnership, the definitions of what the language in the measure refer to is very unclear. Proposition 112 says that there will be no new drilling within 2,500 feet of an “occupied structure and any area designated for additional protection.”
The analysis states that “it is likely that ‘Occupied Structure’ would encompass far more buildings than ‘High Occupancy’ thus increasing not only the distance of new oil and gas activity from structures but also increasing the number of structures subject to setback.”
Bob Schaffer, a former congressman from the state, wrote an op-ed in the Coloradan against Proposition 112, formerly known as Initiative 97. He said, “85 percent of Colorado’s non-federal land would be off-limits to new natural-gas harvesting. A restriction of Initiative 97’s magnitude, according to a June analysis released by the Colorado Alliance of Mineral and Royalty Owners, could cost our state an unfathomable $26 billion in lost revenues, and legal takings claims.”
In Arizona, Proposition 127 would amend the Arizona State Constitution to mandate that 50% of power derived from public utilities must come from renewable resources by 2030. Nuclear power is not counted as a “renewable” option under the measure.
Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Committee claims passage of this initiative will create “thousands of good jobs.” They claim that the number of jobs in Arizona’s solar industry is diminishing when compared to the national average, and Proposition 127 is needed to reverse that trend. Few specific data are referenced.
In contrast, analysis performed by the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University paints a starkly different picture. Their research found that Proposition 127 would hardly be an economic boon to the Grand Canyon State – in fact it would cause disposable personal income to plummet by a hefty $23.0 billion in the coming decades (2018-2060). In addition, the study also found that Prop 127 would cause some 305,000 “job years of employment” to be lost, and the Arizona economy as a whole would lose a whopping $36.8 billion in Gross State Product.
Added to this are other concerns. According to group “NO on 127,” the ballot measure would also cause the Palo Verde nuclear power plant to close by 2025, costing the State $55 million in property tax revenue annually.
In Washington State, Initiative 1631 proposes to enact a “fee” on carbon emissions of $15 per ton, starting in 2020, which then goes up $2 per ton every single year. The Atlantic reports that in 2035, the fee is projected to reach $55 per ton. At that point state lawmakers will have the option to either freeze the cost in place or continue to let it increase by $2 per year.
The reason proponents are calling this a “fee” and not a “tax” is because the revenues generated by this Initiative can only be spent on projects relating to climate change, carbon emissions, and transitioning from fossil fuels. Lawmakers would thus be unable to use the money generated for other purposes. A 15-member board would be in charge of deciding how to spend the funds. It remains unclear, however, exactly how this roughly $1 billion in new revenue every year would be spent by the board.
Dana Bieber, spokeswoman for the “No on 1631 Coalition” said, “This very powerful 15-member panel will be responsible for doling out billions upon billions of dollars … I think when we are talking about the greatest challenge of our time — and that’s climate change — I don’t think we should leave it in the hands of 15 unelected people.”
The Atlantic further explains that supporters of Initiative 1631 claim the measure will only cost residents $10 a month in a “worst-case scenario.” But opponents say this is unrealistic.
The Seattle Timesreports that Puget Sound Energy, which relies on coal and gas for 60% of its power generation, would be hit much harder by this policy than Seattle City Light, which is supported by hydroelectricity in the region. When utilities pass the cost of the fee onto consumers, some ratepayers will be hit much harder than others.
Monty Anderson, the Executive Secretary of the Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council, which represents some 20,000 workers, is opposed to Initiative 1631. “It’s just a large gas tax. That’s the way we see it, and that’s the problem,” Anderson said. “And I don’t think they are going to stop investing in alternative energy just because we don’t have a special gas tax here.”
The voters of Colorado, Arizona, and Washington State will be making important choices this November. Their decisions will either inspire, or deflate, future efforts by environmentalist groups to continue pushing radical green policies at the state level.
Adam Houser coordinates student leaders for CFACT’s collegians program and writes on issues of climate and energy.
EDITORS NOTE: This column and image originally appeared on CFACT. Republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Denver-Colorado-night-628x353.jpg353628Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2018-10-05 15:35:492018-10-05 15:40:31Three 'Green' ballot initiatives to shut down fossil fuels this November
Floridians will vote on Ballot initiative NO. 9 – TITLED: Prohibits Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling; Prohibits Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces on November 6, 2016. If this ballot initiative passes it will have a profound impact on Florida’s economic future.
BALLOT INITIATIVE NO. 9:
Prohibits drilling for the exploration or extraction of oil and natural gas beneath all state-owned waters between the mean high water line and the state’s outermost territorial boundaries. Adds use of vapor-generating electronic devices to current prohibition of tobacco smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces with exceptions; permits more restrictive local vapor ordinances.
Floridians and businesses in the Sunshine state depend on cheap, reliable and plentiful energy to survive and prosper. The tourism, agricultural and construction industries are especially vulnerable to increased cost for energy and fossil fuels.
While environmental activists continue to push the same weak claims for opposing offshore energy exploration and production despite successful operations elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, there are 56,000 reasons why Florida should open its waters to exploration.
That’s the number of high-paying Florida jobs Florida could see by 2035 if it embraces its offshore opportunities. And the benefits don’t stop there.
Mica points out additional offshore oil and gas production could positively impact:
National security: Why depend on foreign, often hostile, sources of energy when we have the potential to secure our own resources here at home?
Exports: With abundant domestic energy resources, the U.S. can be the world’s energy leader, creating jobs at home and enhancing security for our allies abroad. Win-win.
Increased Safety: Offshore operations today are safer than ever before. Since 2010, more than 100 standards have been created or strengthened, including for improved safety and environmental management, well design, blowout prevention, and spill response.
Price at the pump: Every barrel of oil we produce domestically adds stability to the global oil supply, putting downward pressure on prices. As the third largest consumer of motor fuels in the U.S., Florida benefits from greater domestic energy production and has the potential to significantly contribute to it as well.
Environmental Protection: Florida has received more than $908 million in federal funding over the past five decades to conserve our precious natural and historic treasures. That funding comes from oil and natural gas revenues. We can safely produce energy and use the revenues for important environmental conservation throughout the state. Another win-win.
Hurricane disruptions: Everyone in Florida knows the potential damage hurricanes can have on daily life and livelihoods. Further diversification of the nationwide energy infrastructure network would help prevent disruptions to gasoline supply after storms.
Energy conservation: Greater use of natural gas for electricity generation has helped drive U.S. carbon emissions to 25-year lows. Florida is on the front lines of this exciting trend, generating more than 60 percent of its electricity from clean, affordable natural gas and demonstrating that energy production and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive.
Florida’s Tourism Economy: Decades of experience in the Gulf of Mexico confirm that energy development can safely coexist with fishing and tourism, as state officials with firsthand experience enthusiastically attest.
The national “Explore Offshore” campaign, which was launched in June, is led by former U.S. Veterans Affairs Sec. Jim Nicholson, who led the Republican National Committee (RNC), and former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2016 election cycle.
[ … ]
Nicholson was in Tallahassee on Wednesday [August 15, 2018] and made the case for expanding energy exploration in the Sunshine State.
“Our American way of life and the freedoms we enjoy are undoubtedly linked to access to affordable, reliable energy,” Nicholson said. “At the same time, 94 percent of America’s offshore energy resources are completely off-limits to natural gas and oil development, disallowing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and abundant domestic energy supply, and keeping us reliant on foreign sources.
“As we plan ahead as a country, access to our offshore energy resources is a key part of the nation’s economic future and national security, and that is why I am pleased to chair the national Explore Offshore USA coalition,” Nicholson added. “Uniting supporters from Virginia to Florida, we will continue to work to ensure access to our offshore energy resources to support reliable, affordable energy, boost national security, and assure a strong United States economy.”
Cheap, reliable and plentiful energy is the life blood of any economy. Those who would deprive Floridians of these natural resources, like the Obama administration, do not have our best interests in mind.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jason-leung-684196-unsplash-e1538165904721.jpg408640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-09-28 16:18:372018-10-04 06:37:13It's time for Floridians to demand exploring for oil and natural gas off our shorelines