Posts

The Pope’s Misplaced Focus

Pope John Francis’ upcoming visit to the U.S. is generating quite a bit of excitement here, especially among his Catholic faithful.  But for me and many others, his visit is generating consternation, not excitement.

Usually, most people tend to have great respect and affection for the Pope.  He is usually viewed by the public as a beacon of moral guidance, even for those who are non-Catholics.  This is definitely a view I once had of previous Popes.

But I must admit that my respect for this current Pope, John Francis is somewhat diminished.

I am totally confused by his constant advocating for policies that goes against the Catholic Church’s own teachings.  On the issue of homosexuality his position is, “Who are we to judge?”  Though church doctrine is very clear on this issue.

He is a fanatical supporter of open borders; in his view people have an inherent right to enter illegally into any country they choose as long as the ends justify the means.

He rabidly promotes theories in support of global warming, despite the fact that he is one of the biggest contributors to it.  When the Pope travels, he normally charters an Alitalia A320 jet.  It is estimated that the pope travels about 100,000 miles per year.  So this means based on the type of plane the Pope flies, he emits 20 pounds of CO2 for every mile of flight which is 2,000,000 pounds a year.

Every denomination has their own precepts that their members must abide by.  Likewise, nations have laws that their citizens or visitors must abide by.

Poverty or wanting a better life is not sufficient reason for people to break our laws to enter into our country.  The Pope expects Catholics to abide by the rules of Catholicism; so why should America expect anything less from those who seek entry into our country?

So, by the Pope’s standard I, as a Baptist, should still be able to participate in all things Catholic; even though I don’t adhere to Catholicism.

The Pope, in many ways, is operating just like Obama is in the U.S.  They both are picking and choosing which rules and laws they want to abide by.

Forgive me for not being able to get beyond the fact that the Pope has spent very little time dealing with the child abuse that has taken place in his church; but yet he seems to have plenty of time to meet with illegals, homosexuals and promote global warming

Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope will be meeting with some of those in the U.S. illegally, but will not be meeting with families that have had family members killed, raped, or maimed by illegals?

Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope will not be meeting with any of the victims of sexual abuse from within the Catholic Church?

Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope constantly talks about income inequality and the need for employers to pay their employees more money; but he has never discussed what is the obligation of employees to their employers (more productivity and more efficiency, etc.)?

The Pope should not be aligned to a political agenda, but rather what is right or wrong.

America has no moral obligation to allow those who enter our country illegally to stay in our country no more so than the Pope allowing someone who refuses to abide by the rules of Catholicism should be allowed to say they are a member of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, the Bible is very clear, a man’s first responsibility is for the well being of his family, not his neighbor’s family.

The Pope seems to be on a global tour to promote an entitlement agenda as opposed to being a beacon for right and wrong.  Even if you are poor and downtrodden, you still are responsible for being responsible.

Many of the illegals coming to the U.S. are having children that they can’t afford to provide for.  How many speeches has the Pope given on individual responsibility?

How many speeches has the Pope given on the need to fire and prosecute every priest that has molested or covered up sexual abuse of kids in the Catholic Church?

How many speeches has the Pope given about what are an employee’s obligations to his employer?

I really believe the Pope’s heart is in the right place, but the issues he is focusing on should be subservient to the more critical issues listed above.

I definitely think the church can and should play a constructive role in our society, especially to those who are in need.  In many respects, I think the faith community is better equipped to deal with a lot of the social ills of our society than our government is.

But the Pope cannot shine the light on my darkness until he is first willing to shine the light on his on darkness.  Until then, the Pope’s moral compass is pointing in the wrong direction.

The War on Air Conditioning Heats Up: Is Climate Control Immoral? by Sarah Skwire

It started with the pope. In his recent encyclical, Laudato Si’, he singled out air conditioning as a particularly good example of wasteful habits and excessive consumption that overcome our better natures:

People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning.

Now, it seems to be open season on air conditioning. From a raging Facebook debate over an article that claims that air conditioning is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy to an article in the Washington Post that calls the American use of air conditioning an “addiction” and compares it unfavorably to the European willingness to sweat through the heat of summer, air conditioning is under attack. So I want to defend it.

Understand that when I defend air conditioning, I do so as something of a reluctant proponent. I grew up in the Midwest, and I have always loved sitting on the screened-in porch, rocking on the porch swing, drinking a glass of something cold. I worked in Key West during the summer after my sophomore year of college, lived in an apartment with no air conditioning, and discovered the enormous value of ceiling fans. A lazy, hot summer day can be a real pleasure.

However, let’s not kid ourselves. There were frequent nights in my childhood when it was just too hot to sleep, and the entire family would hunker down in the one air-conditioned room of the house — my father’s attic study — to cool off at night. When we moved from that house to a place that had central air, none of us complained.

And after my recent article on home canning, my friend Kathryn wrote to say,

When I was growing up in the Deep South, everybody I knew had a garden, shelled beans and peas, and canned. It could have been an Olympic event. What I remember most — besides how good the food was — is how hot it was, all those hours spent over huge pots of boiling something or other on the stove in a house with no air conditioning.

There’s a lot to be said for being able to cook in comfort and to enjoy the screened-in porch by choice rather than necessity. Making your family more comfortable is one of the great advantages of an increasingly wealthy society, after all.

So when I read that the US Department of Energy says that you can save about 11 percent on your electric bill by raising the thermostat from 72 to 77 degrees, mostly I want to invite the Department of Energy to come over to my 1929 bungalow and see if they can get any sleep in my refinished attic bedroom when the thermostat is set to 77 degrees, but the room temperature is a cozy 80-something.

And when I read Petula Dvorak arguing that air conditioning is a tool of sexism because “all these women [are freezing] who actually dress for the season — linens, sundresses, flowy silk shirts, short-sleeve tops — changing their wardrobes to fit the sweltering temperatures around them. … And then there are the men, stalwart in their business armor, manipulating their environment for their own comfort, heaven forbid they make any adjustments in what they wear,” mostly I want to ask her if she’s read the dress codes for most professional offices. In my office, women can wear sleeveless tops and open-toed shoes in the summer. Men have to wear a jacket and tie. Air conditioning isn’t sexist. Modern dress codes very well might be.

But arguments based on nostalgia or gender are mostly easily dismissed. Moral arguments, like those made by Pope Francis or by those who are concerned about the environmental and energy impact of air conditioning, are more serious and require real attention.

Is it immoral to use air conditioning?

Pope Francis certainly suggests it is. And the article in the Washington Post that compares US and European air conditioning use agrees, suggesting that the United States prefers the short-term benefits of air conditioning over the long-term dangers of potential global warming — and that our air conditioning use “will make it harder for the US to ask other countries to continue to abstain from using it to save energy.” We are meant to be deeply concerned about the global environmental impact as countries like India, Indonesia, and Brazil become wealthy enough to afford widespread air conditioning. We are meant to set a good example.

But two months before the Washington Post worried that the United States has made it difficult to persuade India not to use air conditioning, 2,500 Indians died in one of the worst heat waves in the country’s history. This June, 780 people died in a four-day heat wave in Karachi, Pakistan. And in 2003, a heat wave that spanned Europe killed 70,000. Meanwhile, in the United States, heat causes an average of only 618 deaths per year, and the more than 5,000 North American deaths in the un-air-conditioned days of 1936 remain a grim outlier.

Air conditioning is not immoral. Possessing a technology that can prevent mortality numbers like these and not using it? That’s immoral.

Air conditioning is, for most of us, a small summertime luxury. For others, it is a life-saving necessity. I am sure that it has environmental effects. Benefits always have costs, and there’s no such thing as a free climate-controlled lunch. But rather than addressing those costs by trying to limit the use of air conditioning and by insisting that developing nations not use the technologies that rocketed the developed world to success, perhaps we should be focusing on innovating new kinds of air conditioning that can keep us cool at a lesser cost.

I bet the kids who will invent that technology have already been born. I pray that they do not die in a heat wave before they can share it with us.


Sarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago has $100 Million Worth of Fossil Fuel Investments

The “Green” Pope Francis seems to be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to the Catholic Church’s investment in fossil fuels. His push to impact climate change appears to apply to everyone but the Catholic Church.

Richard Valdmanis from Reuters reports:

[S]ome of the largest American Catholic organizations have millions of dollars invested in energy companies, from hydraulic fracturing firms to oil sands producers, according to their own disclosures, through many portfolios intended to fund church operations and pay clergy salaries.

This discrepancy between the church’s leadership and its financial activities in the United States has prompted at least one significant review of investments. The Archdiocese of Chicago, America’s third largest by Catholic population, told Reuters it will reexamine its more than $100 million worth of fossil fuel investments.

“We are beginning to evaluate the implications of the encyclical across multiple areas, including investments and also including areas such as energy usage and building materials,” Betsy Bohlen, chief operating officer for the Archdiocese, said in an email.

[ … ]

Dioceses covering Boston, Rockville Centre on Long Island, Baltimore, Toledo, and much of Minnesota have all reported millions of dollars in holdings in oil and gas stocks in recent years, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.

The holdings tend to make up between 5 and 10 percent of the dioceses’ overall equities investments, similar to the 7.1 percent weighting of energy companies on the S&P 500 index, according to the documents.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ guidelines on ethical investing warn Catholics and Catholic institutions against investing in companies related to abortion, contraception, pornography, tobacco, and war, but do not suggest avoiding energy stocks.

Read more.

Will all Catholic churches, schools, hospitals and related organizations stop using fossil fuels to save the planet?

It would seem that Pope Francis has yet to walk the walk but he is good at talking the talk. To meet Pope Francis’ encyclical it would be necessary to, as Jesus did, shed all the trapping of fossil fuels.

I wonder if fossil fuels were used to cook the last supper?

Alaskan Island Residents Looking to Become First American ‘Climate Refugees’

The people who chose to build their town on an island are now whining that the bad old USA needs to save them as the island is supposedly sinking.

News flash! Islands submerge and often reappear again over centuries the world over as part of the dynamism that is our planet.

Back in the ’70’s I wrote a report about islands off the coast of Virginia that had whole towns on them (hotels, schools, cemeteries) that began to be uninhabitable by the early 1900’s as they were buffeted by major east coast storms (before cars were widely used! before global warming!).  The people simply recognized that it would be foolish to stay, and moved inland.   They didn’t cry out to the federal government to save them from their original choice.

Now we have these whiny Alaskan islanders who wonder if the federal government will leave them there to die!

kivalina

Alaska’s Kivalina Island.

Here is the news at HNGN:

Kivalina is located on a very thin barrier reef island between the Chukchi Sea and the Kivalina Lagoon, in the northwest of Alaska, above the Arctic Circle. And it may not be there in a decade, thanks to climate change.

In approximately 10 years, the village of Kivalina in northwestern Alaska could be submerged, giving its approximately 400 residents the ubiquitous honor of becoming the first climate change refugees of America, so much so that the U.S. government says it may be too dangerous to live there.

Waahhhh! Is the U.S. government going to leave us here to die?

“If we’re still here in 10 years time we either wait for the flood and die, or just walk away and go someplace else. The U.S. government imposed this Western lifestyle on us, gave us their burdens and now they expect us to pick everything up and move it ourselves. What kind of government does that?” Swan (a local elected official) asked while speaking to the BBC.

You pick it up and move it yourself!  And, maybe whaling is going the way of the buggy whip anyway!

One more case in the PR campaign that is building for governments (the US taxpayer mostly!) to take care of ‘helpless’ people worldwide while they bash America!

See our category—Climate refugees for more on this newest excuse for the redistribution of wealth and people.

RELATED ARTICLE: Idaho legislator calls for more transparency by resettlement agency in Twin Falls

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of two teenagers in Kivalina, Alaska, playing near a skinned polar bear.

As EPA Tries to Control Climate, Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to Record Length – 18 years 7 months!

A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 7 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

For 223 months, since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1 below). This month’s RSS temperature shows the Pause setting a new record at 18 years 7 months.

It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption and perhaps even a lengthening of the Pause.

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997.

The hiatus period of 18 years 7 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

The Pause has now drawn blood. In the run-up to the world-government “climate” conference in Paris this December, the failure of the world to warm at all for well over half the satellite record has provoked the climate extremists to resort to desperate measures to try to do away with the Pause.

To Read Complete article by Lord Christopher Monckton on the new record length ‘Pause’ in global warming see here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/

Other Climate Depot news items of this week:

Fmr. NASA Scientist James Hansen: Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless’ – ‘You’ve got to be kidding’ – Hansen on Obama EPA climate regs: ‘The actions are practically worthless. They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.’ “You’ve got to be kidding,” Hansen wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama’s plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, “is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.”

Watch: Morano on Fox on EPA ‘Climate’ Plan: ‘This is a nonsensical plan when it comes to climate with a lot of economic pain’ – Fox Business Host Stuart Varney – ‘Varney & Company’ – August 5, 2015

Morano on Obama’s EPA ‘Climate’ Plan: ‘They are selling us a bill of goods. Even if you believed it, this is a nonsensical plan when it comes to climate with a lot of economic pain.’ – ‘NASA’s former lead global warming scientist James Hansen came and said this plan is ‘practically worthless’ and he said ‘you’ve got to be kidding me’. Obama’s own EPA chief admitted it would have no impact on global temperature let alone impacts on global CO2 levels. It’s pure symbolism.’

Watch: Morano on Fox debates warmist over EPA regs: ‘The government is now further centrally planning our energy economy’ –

MORANO: “The EIA (U.S. Energy Information Agency – 2013) estimates that wind is about 4% of our energy and solar is about .25 of one percent! So you are asking for less than 5% of energy to somehow cover all of these carbon based regulations. We have Obama administration officials like White House Science Czar John Holdren who openly talk about cheap energy being a threat or a hazard to a free society.”

MORANO: “We do know one thing that there will be no climate impact form these bills.”

GOULD: “That is completely false. That is completely false.”

MORANO: “The EPA administrator admitted that.” See: EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact

Watch Now: Morano on BBC TV on Obama EPA climate regs: ‘Even if we faced a climate crisis, these regs would have no impact. It’s pure symbolism’ – BBC World News – August 3, 2015 – Climate Depot Publisher Marc Morano – Selected Highlights of Morano’s comments: “Even if we faced a climate crisis, these regulations would have no impact. It’s pure symbolism. Its going to have a huge economic impact, jobs impact and no climate impact. Even warmists’ are saying this is not going to have any impact, that Obama way off base (and not being ambitious enough.)

Fmr. NASA Scientist James Hansen: Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless’ – ‘You’ve got to be kidding’

EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact

‘The number is so small as to be undetectable’ – Pure Symbolism – EPA Climate Regs Avert 0.018°C Temperature Rise – That’s ‘less than two one-hundredths of a degree C’ – We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable.’

Chip Knappenberger on CNN: Obama plan’s ‘impact on climate turns out to be largely undetectable and the public health benefits tenuous, at best’ – ‘The human health benefits of the President’s plan do not largely stem from the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. After all, carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is not dangerous to breathe. Instead, they are to come from the “co-benefits” of reducing some forms of air pollution that are emitted when fossil fuels are burned. But these by-product emissions are already subject to existing regulations and are being double-counted by the President. Further, direct health impacts from climate change are difficult to pin down — and ethereal — as adaptive measures can more than erase them.’

Obama spurns natural gas in climate rule

Analysis: EPA ‘climate’ plan will take ‘33% of productive electrical capacity off the grid by 2020′

Key Points: ‘Report shows that the plan would close 48% of all coal-fired plants in the country.’

This plan is “regulation without representation.”

‘The president’s rules would usurp the traditional role of states in managing their own electrical generation and saddle the economy with enormous costs while empowering the EPA to control vast swaths of the American economy.’

‘Coal-fired power will be the first to be shot, but the EPA is targeting all sources of carbon energy.’

Climate Scientists Rip Apart EPA’s Global Warming Rule – “Well the one thing you don’t hear President [Barack] Obama mention is how much his proposed emissions reductions will reduce global warming,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech. “It has been estimated that the U.S. [climate plan] of 28% emissions reduction by 2025 will prevent 0.03 [degrees Celsius] in warming by 2100.” “And these estimates assume that climate model projections are correct,” Curry wrote, “if the climate models are over-sensitive to CO2, the amount of warming prevented will be even smaller.”

Environmentalists, EPA Force The 200th US Coal Plant To Retire

Obama unleashes energy crippling climate plan to cut greenhouse gases by 32% in 2030

‘Obama To Announce Job Killing, Inflation Producing, Economy Slowing, Clean Energy, Plan’

Coal Left Fighting Over America’s Last Plants as Rules Mount

Factbox: Obama’s Clean Power Plan faces tough legal scrutiny

It’s Here! Obama’s EPA Sets Forth ‘global warming’ regulations on America! ‘Mandate even steeper emissions cuts from US power plants’

Obama Sends ‘Memo To America’ On Climate Change

Pay climate protection money or else! ‘Inaction on climate change would cost billions’, major EPA study finds

EPA Claims That ‘Global Action’ On Global Warming Will Stop ‘Extreme Weather’

Asthma prevalence has increased in the U.S. while major air pollutants like ozone, particulate matter and carbon monoxide have fallen dramatically, according to government data.

A study by John’s Hopkins Children’s Center published in January found there is no link between air pollution and childhood asthma.

Global warming threat? Now it’s asthma: Morano: ‘This is pure propaganda’ – ‘Obama has shifted the debate to children and asthma because he knows the public is not buying global warming’

Watch Now: Prof. Ross McKitrick on Obama EPA regs: The health claims ‘are groundless’ – ‘Carbon dioxide is not a factor in smog or lung issues’ – Rips Obama for deceptive language: ‘Instead of calling it carbon dioxide, we are just going to call it ‘carbon pollution’

McKitrick on Sun News on June 2, 2014 – McKitrick on Air Pollution: The models get ‘more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes’- ‘Particulates and soot are at such low levels in the U.S. — levels well below what they were in the 1970s. The health claims at this point are groundless coming from this administration. I noticed these numbers coming up for Ontario for how many deaths were caused by air pollution. What struck me — was knowing that air pollution levels were very low in Ontario — but they were extremely high in 1960s. So I took the same model and fed in the 1960s air pollution levels into it: How many deaths would you get? I did the calculations and you quickly get more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes. In other words, the streets would have been littered with bodies from air pollution if it was actually that lethal. The problem with all of these models is they are not based on an actual examination of death certificates or looking at what people actually died of — these are just statistical models where people have a spreadsheet and they take in an air pollution level and it pops out a number of deaths. But there are no actual bodies there, it is all just extrapolation.’

Obama Moves To Regulate CO2 From Airplanes – First tailpipes, then power plants and now airplanes. The Obama administration announced another major effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes after the Environmental Protection Agency linked airliners to global warming. The EPA issued a proposal Wednesday declaring that CO2 from airliners threatens public health because it contributes to global warming. The agency says it’s doing this in conjunction with an international effort to bring the airline industry under global carbon dioxide standards for commercial jets.

Obama Harvard Law School Prof Lawrence Tribe on EPA Climate Regs: ‘BURNING THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE PART OF OUR NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY’ – Laurence Tribe, a liberal constitutional scholar at Harvard University: “EPA possesses only the authority granted to it by Congress,” Tribe told lawmakers in a hearing Tuesday. “Its gambit here raises serious questions under the separation of powers… because EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that belongs to Congress and judicial power that belongs to the federal courts.”

The term ‘carbon pollution’ is unscientific and misleading: ‘Phrase conflates carbon dioxide with noxious chemicals like carbon monoxide and black carbon’ – ‘The phrase ‘carbon pollution’ is scientifically inaccurate because there are more than ten million different carbon compounds, and the word ‘carbon’ could refer to any of them. Some of the more notorious of these compounds are highly poisonous, such as carbon monoxide (a deadly gas) and black carbon (the primary ingredient of cancerous and mutagenic soot). Using a phrase that does not distinguish between such drastically different substances is a sure way to misinform people.’

EPA regulations on CO2 will accomplish nothing for climate or public health: Obama using ‘diversionary tactic to conflate CO2 with the actual ‘carbon pollution’ of atmospheric particulate matter, to deflect criticism from Obama’s draconian CO2 proposals’

Warmists: ‘Obama Wants You to Think His Climate Plan Is Bold. It’s Not.’ – By Eric Holthaus – Vox’s Brad Plumer has calculated that the president’s rule would shave just 6 percent from U.S. carbon emissions by 2030. Climate science and international equitydemand the U.S. cut emissions 80 percent by then. We’re nowhere near that pace. Still, this plan is not nothing. In its coverage, the Times includes this hopeful gem: But experts say that if the rules are combined with similar action from the world’s other major economies, as well as additional action by the next American president, emissions could level off enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change. That’s a lot of hedging on which to base a climate legacy.  In fact, when compared with the climate plans of his would-be successors on the left—Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley—Obama ranks last in terms of ambition. Clinton, who has frequently aligned herself with the president on climate, announced a preview of her own climate plan last week. It’s fractionally more ambitious than Obama’s, but it essentially just kicks the can forward another few years.

Watch: Morano on Fox on new Fed fracking regs: ‘They are going after the foundation of fracking’s success’ – Watch Video here: Fox Business ‘Varney & Co.’ w/ Stuart Varney – March 20, 2015 – ‘Will new fracking regulations kill the industry?’ (See: Obama Admin Imposes New Regulations On Fracking) – Morano selected excerpts: It’s the first step to the death of a thousand cuts, and this is probably the first 200 or 300 blades being introduced by the federal government — but it’s not going to kill fracking now. This will impose a one size fits all federal government solution.

They are going after the foundation of fracking’s success. Obama is already taking out coal, they’ve stopped keystone pipeline, they are preventing oil drilling in places like Alaska. What’s left? Fracking. Solar is .23% of our electricity (EIA 2013), wind power is barely over 4% and their implication is they will replace carbon based fuels with solar and wind.

Morano: ‘It’s the agenda here: John Holdren said in 1970s that energy that is too cheap is one of the greatest hazards to society and the more we get away from energy, the more jobs we will have. (See: Flashback 1975: Obama Science Czar John Holdren warned U.S. ‘threatened’ by ‘the hazards of too much energy’ – Holdren: ‘Less energy can mean more employment.’)

The Energy Sec. Moniz has said he wants to make ‘dirty fuels’ three times more expensive. This is the first step towards that. (See: Obama Energy Dept. nominee favors TRIPLING the cost of fossil fuels – Energy Nominee Moniz: We Need Carbon Price To Double Or Triple Cost Of Dirty Energy)

Look to Europe to see America’s Energy Future:

Flashback 2011: ‘Era of Constant Electricity at Home is Ending, says UK power chief’ — ‘Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available’

Flashback 2011: ‘Era of Constant Electricity at Home is Ending, says UK power chief’ — ‘Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available’

Watch: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer on Gore’s ‘extreme weather’ claims: ‘Bullsh*t!’ – John Stossel’s “Science Wars”

Why Is the Vatican Pushing Communist Goals? by Michael Hichborn

This coming November, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Science is holding a workshop intended to figure out how to indoctrinate your children in the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs]. This comes on the heels of the Vatican nuncio to the United Nations announcing “verbatim” support for the SDGs, and after Catholic Relief Services president Dr. Carolyn Woo echoed Pope Francis’ call for support for the SDGs as well.

So, what are the Sustainable Development Goals?

They’re a United Nations plan for the creation of a global socialist utopia thinly disguised as a poverty reduction program. In short, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are the first step in achieving several of the goals laid out in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. In truth, these goals are Communist goals, through and through. Here’s a snapshot of how specific portions of the SDGs line up with identified Communist goals:

Sustainable Development Goals:

  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
    • Communists have always used the plight of the poor as justification for the implementation of their nefarious schemes
  • Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
    • Plank 7 of the Communist Manifesto calls for a top-down approach to industry and agriculture
  • Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
    • A 1938 issue of a Communist publication concluded that “only through the final victory of world socialism can the vast stores of available scientific knowledge really be put to work for the full benefit of humanity. ‘Socialized medicine’ is a meaningless phrase except in a socialized society.”
  • Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
    • Plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto is “free education for all children in public schools.”
  • Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
    • Communism has pushed for working women since the beginning of the Revolution in Russia.
  • Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
    • Plank 8 of the Communist Manifesto: Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
    • Plank 9 of the Communist Manifesto: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
    • This is an echo of Karl Marx’s mandate, “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
  • Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
    • This is pure global governance orchestrated by an entity with authority above national sovereignty.

This summary is not intended to be exhaustive, but should provide enough information to alarm even the most lukewarm of patriots and faithful Christians. But the Catholic Church, which has issued full and unqualified condemnations of Communism and Socialism should have nothing to do with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals … and yet, “Catholic” social justice organizations and its leaders have hijacked key positions in the Vatican and are using their influence and authority to fast-track programs to get the faithful to fully support and work for the implementation of the SDGs. This is extremely dangerous and must be forcefully resisted by all faithful Catholics. What follows is a general overview of some of the more egregious of the SDGs in their audacious push for global Communist governance.

Read the rest at http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/.

Hichborn_headshot300ABOUT MICHAEL HICHBORN

Michael Hichborn is the president of the Lepanto Insitute. Formerly, Michael spent nearly eight years as American Life League’s Director of the Defend the Faith project. He has researched and produced countless articles and reports on the funding of abortion, birth control, homosexuality and Marxism by Catholic Relief Servies and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Michael holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Christendom College in Political Science and Economics and a Master’s degree in Education from American Intercontinental University. Michael lives in Virginia with his wife, Alyssa, and their five children.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope’s climate push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments

Vatican Representative Endorses UN Sustainable Development Goals, “Verbatim”

405,000 people, 104 bishops sign petition to Pope Francis asking for ‘clarification’ on marriage

NASA’s James Hansen Gets Dissed by Global Warming Establishment!

Former Top NASA Scientist James Hansen Predicts Catastrophic Rise In Sea Levels – ‘Projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years.’ The paper has already ruffled some, including Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein, who said on Twitter that he would not cover it — primarily because it had not yet been peer-reviewed, a process that allows other scientists to critique the work. The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney asked other climate experts to weigh in on the paper. While many said it raised key discussion points, Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research called it “provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.”

“James Hansen’s new paper ratcheting up future sea level rise numbers is consistent with the new strategy of the global warming activists. Given that current sea level rise rates are not alarming, the only way climate activists can claim anything is ‘worse than we thought’ is to make more dire predictions of the future.

Simply making scarier predictions of the future in order to alarm policymakers is not ‘good science.’ Claiming that climate change impacts are ‘worse than we thought’ because predictions are now more frightening is a well worn playbook of the climate movement.

Simply put, when current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the distant future.

It is not surprising that James Hansen — a man who has been arrested nearly half a dozen times protesting ‘global warming’ and who has endorsed a book calling for ridding the world of industrial civilization — would continue to make scary predictions. The world needs to take a collective yawn at Hansen’s latest claims and ask how in the world was this man ever allowed to be in charge of the NASA temperature datasets!” – End Morano statement.

Global Warming Establishment severs ties with Hansen on sea level rise scare study: 

Warmist publication Mashable on James Hansen’s new sea level scare paper: “..red flag..study’s conclusions so contradict [UN IPCC] consensus views expressed last year.”

Mashable’s Andrew Freedman: ‘The godfather of global warming’s scary sea level rise prediction is getting the cold shoulder.”

NYT’s Andrew Revkin on Hansen’s sea level scare paper: “Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian..among those who steered clear of [Hansen] study”

NYT: UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth on Hansen sea level rise paper: “Rife with speculation..many conjectures & huge extrapolation based on quite flimsy evidence.”

Michael Mann admits Hansen’s SLR estimates “prone to a very large “extrapolation error”

Embedded image permalink

Science by press release: Journalists received “summary” of Hansen’s paper via PR firm

Scientists: Hansen’s wild sea level rise claims are hardly new. We’ve debunked them before here: Current Wisdom: Hansen’s Extreme Sea Level Rise Projections Drowning…

New scientific findings undermine James Hansen’s extreme sea level rise projections from human-caused climate change.

Hansen’s “scientific” paper prescribes global political policy of “near-global” “carbon fee or tax”:

Embedded image permalink

Ironic: New James Hansen study contradicts climate ‘consensus’ so warmists shun itEmbedded image permalink

Warming leads to Cooling: Sea level rise could lead to a cooler, stormier world — Says unpublished work from NASA’s Jim Hansen – ‘A catastrophic rise in sea level before the end of the century could have a hitherto-unforeseen side effect. Melting icebergs might cool the seas around Greenland and Antarctica so much that the average surface temperature of the entire planet falls by a few degrees’.

RELATED LINKS:

NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ – Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine’

Hansen Arrested (Again) — ‘For over a month now, much of the GISS website has been down due to technical problems. But apparently James Hansen has time to get himself arrested

NASA’s resident ex-con: Top NASA global warming scientist James Hansen arrested (again) in White House protest over pipeline — $180,000 taxpayer-paid salary – ‘Arrested alongside actress Daryl Hannah; Adam Werbach, founder of Sierra Club; Bill McKibben’ — ‘Hansen has been arrested at least 3 times before in protests over climate issues, in 2009, 2010, & 2011′

Flashback 2010: David Roberts of Grist: ‘I know I’m not supposed to say this, but Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist *terribly*. All influence lost’

Hansen Back in Jail! NASA’s James Hansen Arrested (Again) Outside White House at Pipeline Protest — Implores Obama to act for ‘sake of your children and grandchildren’

Off the Deep End? NASA’s Rev. James Hansen arrested (again) in coal protest at the White House 

NASA’s Hansen’s Arrested Development: Hansen claims ‘instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models’

NASA scientist Hansen wants Obama arrested: ‘No news on whether Secret Service will be raiding NASA…Why bother going to moon when the moonbats already work for you?’

NASA scientist Hansen wants Obama arrested: ‘No news on whether Secret Service will be raiding NASA…Why bother going to moon when the moonbats already work for you?’

NASA Warming Activist/Scientist James Hansen and Actress Daryl Hannah Arrested in Green Protest

Warmist New claim: ‘Recent sea level rise is highest in 6,000 years’ — DEBUNKED

Latest warmist claim on sea level here.

Debunking here  – Also see: Claim: ‘No change in sea level until modern times – but that change is dwarfed by sea levels of the past

Rebuttal: Examination of the data from the paper, however, shows the range of proxy sea levels is approximately 10 meters, far too large to discern the tiny ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150 years. The authors instead assume from other published studies of tide gauge measurements that the ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150+ years began at that point in time. Other papers find sea levels rising only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 203 years, and without acceleration. 

Regardless, even the IPCC concedes that there was no significant anthropogenic influence on climate prior to 1950, thus man is not be responsible for sea level rise beginning 150-200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age.

The sea level rise over the past ~200 years shows no evidence of acceleration, which is necessary to assume a man-made influence. Sea level rise instead decelerated over the 20th centurydecelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels. Therefore, areas with groundwater depletion and land subsidence have much higher rates of relative sea level rise, but this has absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2.

– [Climate Depot Note: According to tide gauges, Sea Level is rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year. According to satellite info it is rising slightly more than two pennies a year (3.04 mm)]

More Background on James Hansen:

NASA’s James Hansen to Retire – Marc Morano Statement: ‘Celebrate! It’s A Happy Day for Science! Hansen’s sad legacy will serve as a cautionary tale for future scientists. Hansen chose ideology, activism, stagecraft and handcuffs over science. He will be sorely missed by global warming skeptics, as he made our life so much easier by just being himself. NASA & Science deserved much better than James Hansen.’

Background on Hansen: 1) NASA’s James Hansen, a muse to Eco-Terrorists?! Watch Now:Morano on Fox News: ‘NASA’s resident ex-con James Hansen is inspiring these people to potential acts of eco terrorism’ — Morano: ‘He was arrested for the 3rd or 4th time this past week protesting the pipeline. Hansen has endorsed a book calling for ridding the world of industrial civilization, for blowing up dams and razing cities to the ground and turning off our greenhouse gas machine’  —

2) Flashback: NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ — Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine   —    

3) Flashback: Greenie David Roberts of Grist turns on NASA’s Hansen: ‘I know I’m not supposed to say this, but Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist *terribly*. All influence lost’ —

4) Flashback 2009: One of James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic — Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’   —

5) Alert: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Has One Week Left To Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ — Only 7 Days left!  —   

6)  Watch Now: Morano rips NASA’s James Hansen: ‘Hansen said we only have 4 years left to save the planet in Jan.2009, We passed another Mayan calendar deadline’  —

7) Flashback 2008: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom -Get the Facts on James Hansen— ‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ Trial for Climate Skeptics?

Former NASA scientist James Hansen in 1986 Warned of Up to Five degrees F warming by 2010

New York Times – June 11, 1986: “Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen’s findings. Dr. Hansen said the global temperature would rise another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.”

Embedded image permalink

 Reality Check on Hansen in 2013:  ‘No global warming for 17 years 3 months’

In 1986, The World’s Greatest Climatologist James Hansen Predicted Nine Degrees US Warming By The 2020′s

ScreenHunter_406 Dec. 07 05.21Former NASA global warming scientist James Hansen finally admits part of green movement operates like a ‘a religion of sorts’

Hansen to CNN: Selling nuclear energy to environmentalists is a tough pitch. Hansen acknowledged that many of them won’t easily buy into it. Parts of the community operate like ‘a religion of sorts, which makes it very difficult,’ Hansen said. ‘They’re not all objectively looking at the pros and cons.’

‘Only NUCLEAR power can SAVE HUMANITY’, say Global Warming high priests – Schism within the environmental ‘religion’

Former NASA Scientist James Hansen urges young people to threaten fossil fuel CEOs with criminal prosecution for supporting skeptics – Hansen: ‘Young people can sue governments, industry or individuals for violating their rights’ — ‘Human-made climate change…has become a clear case of intergenerational injustice; these fundamental rights could be the basis for forcing government actions’

James Hansen ADMITS: Notion that 2°C global temp target is scientifically established is ‘UNADULTERATED HOGWASH’

James Hansen denounces ‘big green’: ‘Large environmental orgs have become one of the biggest obstacles to solving the climate problem’ – Hansen: ‘After I joined other scientists in requesting the leaders of Big Green to reconsider their adamant opposition to nuclear power, and was rebuffed, I learned from discussions with them the major reason: They feared losing donor support. Money, it seems, is the language they understand. Thus my suggestion: The next time you receive a donation request, doubtless accompanied with a photo of a cuddly bear or the like, toss it in the waste bin and return a note saying that you will consider a donation in the future, if they objectively evaluate the best interests of young people and nature.’

EDITORS NOTE: Marc Morano is no only the publisher of Climate Depot but also the producer of the upcoming film ‘Climate Hustle’ (www.ClimateHustle.com).

Do you hear that giant sucking sound? Oh, no! Its another Green Project!

Popular Mechanics has an article about a company named Carbon Engineering that is sucking CO2 out of the air. By doing so Carbon Engineering is contributing to the death of plant life globally. Strong statement? Well read on.

Tim Radford, from the Climate News Network, in 2013 reported:

Australian scientists have solved one piece of the climate puzzle. They have confirmed the long-debated fertilization effect.

Plants build their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air around them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth – though until now this has been very difficult to prove.

Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues developed a mathematical model to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide fertilization effect. Between 1982 and 2010, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased by 14 percent. So, their model suggested, foliage worldwide should have increased by between 5 and 10 percent.

[ … ]

The team averaged the greenness of each location over three year periods, and then grouped the greenness data from different locations according to known records of rainfall. They also looked at variations in foliage over a 20 year period. In the end, they teased out the carbon dioxide fertilization effect from all other influences and calculated that this could account for an 11 percent increase in global foliage since 1982.

So if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere you will reduce foliage and plant growth. Well that doesn’t seem to bother John Wenz from Popular Mechanics.

Popular Mechanics’ John Wenz writes:

Carbon Engineering has an ambitious plan to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into fuel. The company is aiming the facility at areas where reforestation isn’t an option, such as deserts.

Air flows in through the series of fans you see in the picture, which feed into a carbon dioxide rich solution, helping pluck carbon compounds from the air. That solution is then purified, at which point Carbon Engineering extracts  the carbon dioxide for reuse or disposal in underground facilities. The solution is re-purified in the process, enabling it to be reused.

The technology is based on the same way that trees capture CO2 and release oxygen. It’s another take on the idea of an artificial tree, one of the potential geoengineering solutions that has been around for years, proposing to fight climate change by hacking the planet.

Words that Wenz uses are problematic at best. Wenz’s “ambitious plan” is really a waste of money that will harm foliage. The company Carbon Engineering is funded in part by the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation (CCEMC). Geoengineering is a Bill Gates initiative to cool the planet, the problem is the planet is already cooling.

So to save the planet it is necessary to defoliate it. Too bad for the environmentalists, who won’t have any more trees to hug as the CO2 gets sucked out of the atmosphere by Carbon Engineering.

Killing plants to produce fuel is as immoral as using food (corn Ethanol) to produce fuel. Both harm mankind.

Climate Refugee News: New Zealand’s Highest Court Rejects First ‘Climate Refugee’ Asylum Appeal

For our many new readers, you may not know that international Leftists and NO borders advocates are pushing the meme that there are millions of so-called ‘climate refugees’ that must be taken into first world countries as refugees because the climate is changing where they now live.

You are probably laughing at how ridiculous this sounds, but believe me the issue is getting legs especially now that the Vatican is weighing in.

Sensibly, New Zealand’s Supreme Court has ruled that, in an important test case, the man claiming that he would suffer harm if returned to the island nation of Kiribati must be deported.  He is not a refugee.

Remember the other day, I mentioned that in order for someone to be a legitimate refugee they must prove they would be PERSECUTED if returned to their country of origin and that Obama and his minions in the US State Department are working day and night to eviscerate refugee protection programs by deeming the ‘children’ from Central America as refugees when they are no such thing.

Economic migrants, people trying to escape crime or changes in the weather are NOT refugees.

Thankfully, in this case, the New Zealand court is demanding adherence to the long-standing definition of the word “refugee.”

From Sky News:

A Pacific Islander who applied to the New Zealand government to give him status as the world’s first climate refugee has had his appeal turned down.

Ioane Teitiota, 38, argued he should not be sent back to the island nation of Kiribati because it was under threat due to rising seas.

That, he argued, made it unsafe for him and his family.

However, while NZ’s Supreme Court agreed that the tiny nation of about 100,000 people was suffering environmental degradation, it said Mr Teitiota’s application did not meet the legal definition of a refugee because he was not facing persecution.

“While Kiribati undoubtedly faces challenges, Mr Teitiota does not, if returned, face ‘serious harm’,” the Supreme Court said in a ruling released on Monday.

Unfortunately, the court left the door open for a better test case.

In other ‘climate refugee’ news….

  • Ireland’s President says we need to save climate refugeeshere.  This made me laugh because I envisioned some Irishman claiming he was a climate refugee in someplace like Tahiti because it was just too darned cold and rainy in Ireland!
  • In a new report, the Leftists in Norway say there were 20 million climate refugees around the world in 2014, here.
  • And, finally, a good piece at the Washington Post of all places debunking this as another Leftist scare tactic, here.  Love it!

For more of this ridiculousness, see our ‘Climate refugees’ category going back several years, here.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped Because of Too Much Ice

The Conservative Post reports:

A research expedition to study the effects of global warming aboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen is on hold as the icebreaker is needed to do it’s primary job — break up ice.

According to a Coast Guard officer, the icy conditions are the “worst he’s seen in 20 years“:

A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”

Read more.

Antarctic Ice Melting Due to ‘Geothermal heating’ from Earth’s core not Global Warming

Geothermal heating from within the Earth’s core – as opposed to the possibly warming air or sea – has been measured beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet for the first time ever. And, we are told, it is “surprisingly high.”

Exactly what the new geothermal heating figures mean for the forecasts remains to be seen, but it is clear that the amount of geothermal heating is a good bit more than scientists had thought. Some of them are still hoping that it’s a fluke result.

It’s all a very confusing picture, then, and to make it worse nobody until now has had any idea how much heat might be reaching the possibly-troubled West Antarctic sheet not from the somewhat warmer seas and atmosphere, but from the rock beneath it. — Lewis Page, The Register, 13 July 2015

antarctic-volcano[1]

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Scientific Adviser to Pope Francis is Atheist, GAIA Believer, Wants One World Government [+video]

Scientists Discover ‘Surprisingly High’ Geothermal Heating Beneath West Antarctic Ice Sheet – The Register, 13 July 2015

Antarctic Ice Threatened By Undersea Volcano – The Sunday Times, 11 May 2014

Fossil Fuels and Mankind by Euan Mearns

It has become popular to demonise fossil fuels (FF). Pop stars, press, politicians and now Pontiffs speak with a single voice:

We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the lesser of two evils or to find short-term solutions. But the international community has still not reached adequate agreements about the responsibility for paying the costs of this energy transition.

Page 122 paragraph 165 of ENCYCLICAL LETTER LAUDATO SI’ OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME

In this post I want to take a brief look at what FF have done for humanity and the environment. I will argue that in the 19th Century, FF first of all saved the whales from extinction and then through averting whole sale deforestation of the planet’s surface FF saved multiple ecosystems from destruction and as a consequence averted the extinction of thousands of species.

Figure 1.

Figure 1 Population growth (blue line), right hand scale. Fossil fuel consumption (million tonnes oil equivalent) left hand scale. The exponential growth in population would not have been possible without FF. We all therefore owe the fabric of our society and our very existence to the use of FF over the past century or more. 

Energy and Man

Every human being on Earth requires energy to survive (see list on Figure 1). Be it a handful of rice for the poorest Bangladeshi or the excesses of suburban life in the West, everything we do requires energy and in 2014 86% of that energy came from FF and 11% from legacy hydro and nuclear plant. Only 3% came from alternative sources. Worryingly, in a step back towards 19th century squalor, much of that 3% came from felling and burning forests.

Figure 2.

Figure 2 This chart shows per capita productivity (a proxy for income) on the Y-axis and per capita energy consumption on the X-axis. The data for each country represent a time series starting in 1970 and normally progressing with time towards greater income and energy consumption. It is plain to see that there is great disparity in the per capita income and per capita energy consumption between countries. As a general rule, developing countries are striving to become wealthy like the OECD and hence show year on year growth in income AND energy consumption. See for example China, Turkey, Brazil and Belarus. To become more wealthy and more prosperous, in the common sense, requires us to use more energy.

It is simple and simplistic to make the argument that there should be a more equitable distribution of wealth and energy consumption. It is certainly rational to propose the reduction of waste and improved energy efficiency in the west. But competition and survival of the fittest is in our genes and makes us who we are. And there are certain benefits that flow from the wealthy to the poor, inoculation against deadly infectious diseases to name but one.

I am not arguing here in favour of greater polarisation of wealth but merely making the observation that it is a natural consequence of the socio economic models that appear to have served us well. I would warn against the growing politics of envy.

To become wealthy, the poor need access to clean drinking water, sanitation, food, and housing. All this requires energy and natural resources.  The simplest and most economic way to provide this is through coal or gas fired power stations and the construction of electricity grids. To deny the poor access to FF is to condemn them to poverty for ever. It is fantasy to believe that the poor can be made wealthy (in the sense that the OECD is wealthy) by deployment of expensive and intermittent renewable energy. Like us, they may become wealthy only from using cheap, reliable and predictable energy supplies. This is not to say that there is no place for niche deployment of renewable energy in some developing countries.

Saving the Whales

During the 19th Century, global population doubled from approximately 0.8 to 1.6 billion (Figure 1). Throughout Europe and N America this coincided with a process of industrialisation, urbanisation and war. Resource consumption was on the rise and as we shall see in the following section forest timber was a key source of building material and fuel. But neither timber nor coal (at that time) could provide the light required in the cities that were being built and it is this niche that was filled by whale oil.

The production of whale oil grew exponentially from 1815 to 1845 and thereafter declined  following a classic “Hubbert curve” (Figure 3). At the same time we know that whales were almost hunted to extinction and this is often held up as an example of over exploitation of a finite resource. Post-peak whale oil production saw prices rise and become volatile suggesting a continued demand for whale oil that could not be met by supply. But the market situation is made more complex by the fact that just in the nick of time for whales, rock oil was discovered in Pennsylvania in the 1850s. It was found that rock oil could be distilled into a number of fractions and that one of those, kerosene, was ideal as lamp oil.

Figure 3.

Figure 3 The production of whale oil in the 19th Century follows a classic Hubbert curve with production dwindling as the stock of whales in the oceans was depleted. Chart source Ugo Bardi.

This represents one of the great energy substitutions of human society. It was to be short-lived since electric lighting would soon take over from kerosene where the electricity was provided by combusting coal. Note that I use the term substitution and not transition since there was a direct substitution of one energy source for the other and whales ceased to be a part of Man’s energy supply mix. Without the discovery and use of rock oil it seems likely that whales would have become extinct in the 19th Century.

Saving The Forests

Prior to the mid nineteenth Century the main fuel source used by Man was forest wood (Figure 4). Wood (biomass) continues to be an important fuel today throughout the developing world.

Figure 4.

Figure 4 The development of Man’s energy supplies has seen the sequential addition of coal, oil, gas, hydro and nuclear to the energy mix. In discussing energy transition, it is wrong to assume that a new energy source replaces what went before. The main pattern is one of addition, not substitution or replacement. Data from Vaclav Smil and BP as compiled by Rembrandt Koppelaar.

Population growth and progressive industrialisation throughout Europe led to wholesale deforestation of the Continent (Figure 5). And then in the mid-nineteenth Century we learned how to burn and mine coal on a grand scale powering the industrial revolution. We can but speculate what might have occurred had this not happened. It seems likely that Europeans would have spread themselves around the globe plundering resources on an even grander scale than took place at that time.

Figure 5.

Figure 5 Data on deforestation is hard to find. This slide from a surprisingly interesting presentation by Sir Mark Walport shows the impact of 2500 years of felling trees in Europe. It was to a large extent the quest for natural resources that sent Europeans around the World in the centuries that followed and that sent Adolf Hitler East in 1941. Our current system of international trade and financial deficits may be imperfect but it seems preferable to the system of plunder that it replaced.

What did happen is that we learned to use coal, then oil and natural gas and ultimately nuclear power. Harnessing the power of fossil fuels provided Man with energy slaves to do work on our behalf. It led directly to the progressive development of the highly sophisticated society we live in today where, life expectancy, health and comfort far exceed levels of 100 years ago for billions of souls. It allowed us to achieve this whilst largely abolishing slavery and ending our dependency on forest wood as a fuel.

When FF runs scarce in a country this can cause great harm to the environment as we saw in Indonesia in 2003. Indonesia was once a member of OPEC and exported oil. But owing to population growth, increased prosperity and then a down turn in oil production, Indonesia found itself facing oil imports. Donning a Green cloak, Indonesia turned to biofuels in the form of palm nut oil, and set about burning virgin rain forest and orang-utans to make way for the plantations.

Those who fail to see the staggering benefits brought to Man through using FF are blinded by dogma. Those who argue that FF should be phased out are making an argument to end prosperity for all.

The Population Paradox

Whilst I argue here, and many others have argued before me, that FF has enabled the human race to flourish, we have been so successful in doing so that over 7 billion souls on planet Earth is now viewed by many as the greatest threat to our continued existence. It is certainly true that there are a multitude of problems that are not evenly distributed about the Earth. These include water shortages, food shortages and malnutrition, air and water pollution, deforestation, social and civil unrest, spreading conflict, displaced persons, infectious diseases and their spread. These are all problems caused by too many people combined with inadequate social, political and economic structures to deal with a rapidly changing world. While certain aspects of air pollution in China and plastics pollution of ocean gyres may be attributed directly to FF, by and large FF are the solution to these problems, not their cause, for example creating clean water supplies and sanitation requires energy as does food production. It is a lack of energy and other resources that lies at the heart of many of the major issues that cause real hardship around the world. It is therefore a mark of extraordinary ignorance and stupidity to believe that withholding these resources may lead to solutions.

The problem of course is that we have become too successful at resolving these issues for many and that inevitably leads to more, not less people and a compounding of the very problems that we are attempting to resolve. Population controls are a subject ducked by virtually all OECD political leaders and organisations. Over population and poverty lies at the heart of many of the major issues confronting humanity and yet no one is prepared to confront this issue. It is certainly an extremely difficult issue to confront and not easily solved.

My own view is that natural evolutionary forces will see global population peak this century followed by decline. That is what the UN central forecast shows. This may happen via the spread of prosperity in some parts and by the spread of deprivation, disease, hunger and war in others. But what is widely viewed as a population problem, will resolve itself in response to various pressures.  A falling global population will present a whole new set of problems for humanity that we will address when the time comes. There will be a growing acceptance that economic growth, welfare, free healthcare and pensions were all temporary aberrations made possible by abundant and cheap FF. As those resources run scarce this century humanity will struggle to maintain the living standards of the past. There is no need to artificially create a major trauma for humanity today by forced withdrawal from the FF era upon which virtually all of our prosperity is based.

An argument can be made for leaving some FF for future generations but that is not the argument being made by Green anti-capitalists.

Past Energy Transitions

Finally, a quick note about past energy transitions as illustrated in Figure 4. Let me repeat what Pope Francis had to say:

We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas needs to beprogressively replaced without delay.

The first key observation from Figure 4 is that energy transition is via addition not substitution. In 150 years we have not replaced any of our major sources of energy with another at the system level. At the smaller scale oil fired power generation may have been replaced by coal and then by natural gas, but that merely freed up some oil or coal for use elsewhere. The second key observation is that “energy transition” has normally followed thermodynamic and economic laws where the new offered advantages over the old. It is therefore in my opinion sheer folly to believe and to propose that FF based technolgies can be replaced en-mass by much inferior, environment wrecking, more expensive renewable energy flows.

Figure 6 Millions visit the gold-plated Vatican every year, arriving in jet aircraft from all over the world, consuming vast amounts of oil and according to Pope Francis creating risks to the stability of Earth’s atmosphere.

Disclaimer

Certain readers may read my bio and then seek to make scurrilous claims that I am somehow wedded to and supported by the FF industries. This is not true. I do however have holdings in certain oil companies and I do object to Green pressure groups trying to talk down the price of energy companies in general. My analysis and opinions are based upon my understanding of thermodynamics, economics and human society. Comments will be heavily moderated. I cannot lay claim to the truth. And so if anyone can demonstrate in a quantitative way how we can migrate away from FF to alternatives with anet benefit to society then please make your case.

I made my alternative energy plan some time ago:

Energy Matters’ 2050 pathway for the UK

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Energy Matters. The featured image is of Prometheus best known as the deity in Greek mythology who was the creator of mankind and its greatest benefactor, who gifted mankind with fire stolen from Mount Olympus.

The Climate Not Following Obama’s Global Warming Propaganda [+Videos]

“The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned. A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles – and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out. This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ – which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over”, writes the Daily Mail.

THE MAUNDER MINIMUM

The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It caused London’s River Thames to freeze over, and ‘frost fairs’ became popular.

This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes.

There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past, Nasa says. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research. Some scientists hypothesize that the dense wood used in Stradivarius instruments was caused by slow tree growth during the cooler period.

Instrument maker Antonio Stradivari was born a year before the start of the Maunder Minimum.

Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time

Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations.

Read more.

RELATED VIDEO: Global Warming Revisited

EDITORS NOTE: The video above is copy-written property of Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings. Lindau does not endorse this publication or the use of this video. According to their terms (See end of video) they allow non-commercial sharing and embedding of this video.

VIDEO: It’s Easy Being Green When You Have No Choice

It's Easy Being Green When You Have No ChoiceThis feature film is narrated by Brian Sussman, San Francisco radio host (KSFO) and best-selling author of Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam and Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s green Agenda Will Dismantle America.

Some may say there is only circumstantial evidence and others may say it is just a coincidence, however, the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that presented Agenda 21 and introduced sustainable development to the world as the solution to save the planet from man made global warming likely would not have happened if the Soviet Union continued to be the main rival to America and Western Civilization.

To learn more visit: www.GreenFlick.com. Watch the trailer:

To purchase a copy of the full length film click here.

Collier County, FL: Climate Propaganda Video Shown to Students – Demands Action

The Collier County School Board has drawn fire for showing the controversial film Disruption: A Call To Act On Climate Change.

Doug Lewis, a parent with a child in the Collier County public schools, wrote the School Board in an email dated May 27th, 2015:

I trust that you can appreciate my concerns as a father pertaining to the use of this [Disruption: A Call To Act On Climate Change] video that (in my opinion and by any fair measure) clearly tends to indoctrinate him and the viewers to a particular point of view.  It even goes beyond this by calling my son and other viewers to do three (3) specific things to act on the controversial issues presented in the video.

As you know, Policy 2240 provides that, “a controversial issue is a topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.”

The video Disruption: A Call to Act on Climate Change (click on the following link to see the ENTIRE video for your-self (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQsIErJ7-yk), contains many controversial issues and was shown to my son (and I presume other Collier County public school students) without any prior parent notice or parent consent.

Collier County School Board Policy 2240 states:

“The School Board will permit the introduction and proper educational use of controversial issues provided that their use in the instructional program:  A.  is related to the instructional goals of the course of study and level of maturity of the students; B. does not tend to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view; C. encourages open-mindedness and is conducted in a spirit of scholarly inquiry. [Emphasis added]

After reviewing the controversial video Lewis noted:

For example, the issue of whether or not the Keystone XL pipeline should be supported is clearly a controversial issue under [School Board] Policy 2240.  Also, the issue of whether or not we should demand that our nation gets off fossil fuels now is clearly a controversial issue under [School Board] Policy 2240. However, the video attacks the Keystone XL pipeline and encourages its viewers (in this instance, Collier County public school children) to get to work and to get in the street and stand up and say “no more.”  Further, the video promotes the anti-fossil fuel social movement and calls for the globe to “get off fossil fuels now.” By any fair measure, this video tends to indoctrinate and persuade students to a particular point of view.

A significant contributor in the video is a man with known communist ties named Anthony Kapel “Van” Jones.  He is perhaps the last person that Collier County parents would want teaching their school children at taxpayer expense.  Mr. Van Jones is himself a controversial figure.

The video concludes with a demand for action from Collier County students.  Its viewers (in this instance, Collier County public school children) were asked to do three things:

  1. Here is what you can do right now…. “join the march www.peoplesclimate.org (by the way this organization is organizing for future marches and events of civil disobedience),
  2. Send a message to Text DISRUPT to 97779,
  3. and Share this video.

Lewis asks, “On what legal basis, can this School Board permit, at taxpayer expense, my son and Collier County children to be invited in the classroom and during the video to join this radical organization and participate in and facilitate civil disobedience/public protests on these controversial issues? In view of the foregoing and Policy 2240, on what basis did the School Board permit the introduction of this video containing many controversial issues?”

The Collier County School board was already in hot water for placing on their summer reading list pornographic reading materials. Now they are in hot water on global warming (no pun intended).

EDITORS NOTE: To date Mr. Lewis has not received a reply from the Collier County School Board on the showing of Disruption: A Call To Act On Climate Change. We will update this column as new information becomes available.