"Today, we live some 100 times better than did our ancestors at the end of the 18th century. The luxuries that we take for granted — abundant food on demand, clean running water, electricity, electronic communications and media, advanced medical care, inexpensive clothing, home and office heating, rapid transportation, universal basic education, free libraries, and dozens of other important advances — are linked to warming temperatures that have afforded enough surplus food to support educators, scientists, inventors, technicians, physicians, and the suppliers of so many of our modern conveniences." ...
"Global food production has exploded since 1970, due in part to a favorable climate. For the first time in human history, we live in an age during which it is not necessary for large numbers of human beings to go hungry."
JunkScience.com's Steve Milloy responds: "'Warmest year' claim is silly.
1. The 'record' only starts ~1880. 2. Recent warming began ~1650. 3. Was as warm 1,000 yrs ago. 4. 'Record' biased by urban heat islands. 5. 'Record' manipulated by activists. 6. Global temp not known to 0.01C precision."
Paul Homewood rebuts: "Since 2000, the trend in the number of disasters has actually been downwards, clearly debunking any pretence that weather is getting worse because of global warming. The report even specifically accepts this:
...Put simply, many more disasters are recorded nowadays because of better reporting systems. But this does not mean more are actually occurring."
The row was triggered by the new report on “Human Cost of Disasters”. The report announced a “staggering rise in climate-related disasters over the last twenty years”. However, the same report contains a graph showing that the number of climate-related disasters has actually decreased by 15 percent since 2000. ...
“This is a huge, embarrassing blunder,” said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a British think tank. “The United Nations must immediately withdraw this report and apologise for misleading the public.” Roger Pielke Jr, a renowned American scientist in the field of natural disasters – and anything but climate denier – also regrets the sharp position by the UNDRR. In an e-mail to De Telegraaf he says that the authors have drawn “flawed conclusions”
“Science is about learning from new data and vigorous debate,” Altmaier said. “Instead, for the first time, we have had people claiming to be ‘following the science and the data’ who are in fact merely imposing their opinions on us by fiat, with catastrophic consequences for children’s education and people’s livelihoods.”
David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19: “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Nabarro told The Spectator in an interview aired on Oct. 8. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
Via Epoch Times: Nabarro pointed to the collateral damage that lockdowns are having worldwide, especially among poorer populations. “Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry, for example in the Caribbean or in the Pacific, because people aren’t taking their holidays. Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world because their markets have got dented. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. Seems that we may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents, in poor families, are not able to afford it,” Nabarro said.
“This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe, actually,” he said. “And so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method, develop better systems for doing it, work together and learn from each other, but remember—lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."
(Dr. David Nabarro, former Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Climate Change...David is currently Co-Director (since mid-2019) and Chair of Global Health at the Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, London...From March 2020, David is appointed Special Envoy of WHO Director General on COVID-19.)
CNN: "Sharks have killed 7 people in Australia this year, the most since 1934. Climate change could be a factor."
"But there’s another possible culprit: the climate crisis. As oceans heat up, entire ecosystems are being destroyed and forced to adapt. Fish are migrating where they’ve never gone before. Species’ behaviors are changing. And, as the marine world transforms, sharks are following their prey and moving closer to shores popular with humans."
'Climate change has been blamed before for shark attacks:
Marc Morano comment: "Dr. Morner is a huge loss to sea level expertise in the science world. He will be missed greatly by all who knew him. Dogged determination, vitality, and relentless pursuit of the scientific truth were his hallmarks. I was fortunate to spend a lot of time with Dr. Morner at many international conferences. Most recently in Morocco in 2016 and Germany in 2017. My prayers and condolences go out to his family and friends."
Dr. Morner featured in the 2016 film Climate Hustle
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: "Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who died on Friday October 16 aged 83 after a short illness, knew more about sea level than did Poseidon himself. He wrote more than 650 papers on the subject in his long and distinguished career. He became even more well-known after his retirement than before it, because he decided to take the risk of publicly opposing the false notion, profitably peddled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change et hoc genus omne, that global warming would cause many meters of sea-level rise."
UN Paris pact could be used to levy carbon taxes, block infrastructure projects.
Chris Horner: Rejoining the UN Paris climate treaty will immediately subject U.S. energy policy — and thereby economic and to some extent trade policy — to a UN “climate conciliation commission”... Already, as the United Kingdom has shown, developed nations’ courts can be expected to cite the Paris climate treaty in blocking infrastructure development. The UK’s Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that Heathrow Airport cannot be expanded because that would violate the UK’s ‘net zero’ commitment under Paris.
Then, Canada offered a reminder how progressive politicians will raise taxes in the name of complying with Paris: In Ottawa, “The parliamentary budget officer says the federal carbon tax would have to rise over the coming years if the country is to meet emission-reduction targets under the Paris climate accord.” Now we are reminded that the U.S. can also expect a forum for antagonistic nations to bring their complaints about U.S. policy and claims of non-compliance with Paris’s required “Net Zero” agenda for resolution. ...
Paris requires, and mandates the U.S. revisit and tighten “Green New Deal”-style policies every five years. This is among the many reasons why the Paris climate agreement is a treaty, and also why it never would have been ratified. However, very soon, Americans may nonetheless be subject to its long-envisioned climate court."
Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, said the coronavirus pandemic demonstrates that "simply shutting down" the U.S. economy won't bring about net zero carbon emissions to fight climate change. ...
Gates: "Simply shutting down is not going to get to our goal, so just as we need breakthrough innovation for COVID-19, we also need that to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors and bring down climate change," Gates said during the annual meeting for the National Academy of Medicine. "This crosses many areas — how we make electricity, how we make industrial products, grow food, cool our buildings and all of transportation." ...
"The change in behavior, like driving less or flying less is helpful but nowhere near sufficient — 2020 is a great example of this," he said. "We've cut down carbon emissions ... but the reduction in emissions is actually quite modest. When COVID-19 hit, air travel effectively stopped. Car travel last April was half what it was the year before, and even so the international energy agency estimates that the global emissions only dropped about 8% this year." Characterizing climate change as "even scarier" than the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates predicted that climate change could result in 3 times more deaths than coronavirus.
Critics say the rollbacks on environmental regulations are part of an agenda to remove any reference to climate change across the federal government. "The Trump administration has done everything they can to deny the science and denigrate scientists," says Gina McCarthy, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and now the president of the National Resources Defence Council.
McCarthy: "They have really done everything humanly possible to try to convince people that what they see and feel and taste just isn't happening in front of them."
Climate Depot Response: "See and feel and taste" CO2 or "climate change"?! It should be clear to everyone by now that it is the Trump administration that is "pro-science."
Climate activist Emily Atkin: In her 2018 paper on the subject, Daggett argues that traditional masculine identity is inherently tied to the fossil fuel economy. “The narrative of righteous fossil democracy is crucial not only to American identity writ large, but to its hegemonic white masculinities,” she writes. When the narrative of righteous fossil fuel democracy is challenged, it thus becomes interpreted as a challenge to those masculinities. “Through the rosy nostalgia afforded by petro-masculine identity,” Daggett writes, “the affront of global warming or environmental regulations appear as insurgents on par with the dangers posed by feminists and queer movements seeking to leach energy and power from the state/traditional family.”
"Under the 2015 agreement, the U.S. committed to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (about 81% of which is carbon dioxide (CO2)) by between 26% and 28% below its 2005 levels by 2025. China committed to stop increasing CO2 emissions by 2030. This asymmetry makes no sense, of course. Allowing China, which now emits about twice as much as America, to increase emissions over this period, while restricting the U.S., would result in even more industries moving to China. Total global CO2 emissions would then likely rise even faster." ...
"So, Biden has to decide—will he really work to prevent China from gaming the system or will he cave in to a treaty that institutionalizes it? He can’t have it both ways."
Bruce M. Everett: "The last hundred years have seen increasing emissions of carbon dioxide – a benign gas. In reality, this slight increase in atmospheric CO2concentrations (from 0.03% in the nineteenth century to 0.04% today) has brought nothing but beneficial effects, including increased crop yields and greater drought resistance." ...
"In 2019, despite forty years and trillions of dollars of subsidies, wind energy contributes about 2% of total global energy use and solar just over 1%. Fossil fuels accounted for 84%, down just two percentage points over the last 20 years." ...
"The US private vehicle fleet is currently on the order of 250 million vehicles, of which approximately 1 million or 0.4% are battery electric vehicles. Electric cars are at present about twice as expensive to produce as comparable gasoline models, and, like renewable power generation, depend on massive subsidies for their viability." ...
"The world may someday transition away from fossil fuels, but it’s not happening yet. All we have so far are predictions, wishful thinking and the waste of large amounts of money for a small impact on a non-problem."
Steve Milloy: "The only hope the oil-and-gas industry would have in a Biden administration is that there is no substitute for fracking. Power plants could switch out of coal and into natural gas during the 2010s, but they won’t be able to switch out of natural gas and back into coal during the 2020s. On the other hand, American politics are more irrational now than they were during the Obama years. And it isn’t clear that Biden administration regulators would care about relevant realities. A fracking ban? No. Death by a thousand cuts? Bank on it."
Former NYT Reporter Alex Berenson: "A lead investigator on the Danish mask study - the ONLY (as far as I know) randomized trial to see if masks protect from #COVID - was asked when it would be published.
His answer: 'as soon as a journal is brave enough.'
If you think that means the study shows masks work..."
"During a town hall meeting Thursday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden again assured shale producers that he wouldn’t ban fracking if elected. Then, in virtually the same breath, he touted his $2 trillion clean-energy plan, which aims to edge natural gas out of the power mix within 15 years...Biden has been careful not to make an enemy of the industry, especially in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, home to the largest U.S. shale-gas field. His policies may even, in the short-term, support the gas market."
"Biden's goal of a carbon-neutral grid would severely curb, if not destroy, gas’s share of the pie in favor of cheaper, cleaner renewables."
Cobalt is an expensive metal used in electric car batteries, costing about $35,000 per ton. 59% of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Cobalt mining in the Congo is often done by children — as many as 40,000 — working in brutal and unsafe conditions. A euphemism for these children is ‘informal’ workers.
CDC October 14, 2020: "At No Time Has CDC Guidance Suggested that Masks Were Intended to Protect the Wearers."
Huh? CDC Director Robert Redfield MD - September 14, 2020: "I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me," Redfield said. "This face mask will."
Marc Morano, producer of the documentary film “Climate Hustle 2” www.ClimateHustle2.com, calls the governor’s actions nothing more than a public display of environmental faith: “Gov. Newsom is once again punishing Californians to fight ‘climate change.’ Newsom is going the route of executive order because the legislature would not support a ban on gas-powered cars. All of Newsom’s virtue signaling will do nothing for the climate but will further hammer Californians already suffering from the state’s draconian COVID lockdowns. Electric cars are in many ways more harmful to the environment than conventional cars,” Morano told InsideSources in an exclusive interview.
Morano says that at some point California citizens will decide that environmentalism has gone too far: “The San Francisco Chronicle reports that fewer than 6% of cars sold in California in 2019 fall under the governor’s zero-emission standard. So how does he plan to ban 94% of the cars? Will Californians allow this? At what point will residents of California tell politicians to take their climate agenda and shove it?” Morano asks.