Close this search box.

Search Results for: harder pollution solved

Lomborg: ‘For the most important environmental issues, economic growth has solved problems, not created them’ The “No-Growth” Prescription for Misery By BJØRN LOMBORG A growing number of academics are claiming that economic growth must stop because the planet is crossing environmental boundaries, and inequality between humans is increasing. They are wrong on both counts, and their agenda is a recipe for keeping poor people poor. LONDON – From their ivory towers, nearly 240 academics have declared that economic growth is bad for Europe and the planet. In two months, they and global supporters of the “no-growth economy” have held conferences in Mexico City, Malmö, and Brussels. Their efforts herald a return to an earlier, thoroughly debunked form of alarmist environmentalism that is detached from reality and disdainful of billions of the world’s people. The campaigners claim we must stop economic growth because the planet is crossing environmental boundaries, and inequality between humans is increasing. But for the most important environmental issues, economic growth has solved problems, not created them. The cleanest places are not the poorest countries, but the richer economies that have cleaned up their act. As societies become richer, individuals can afford to stop worrying about food and sanitation, and to start worrying about the environment. Indoor air pollution is the world’s biggest environmental killer, claiming lives because poor people burn dung and wood for cooking and heating. As societies get richer, people can afford cleaner technology. In 1990, indoor air pollution caused more than 8% of deaths; in 2016 it was 4.7%. Each year 1.2 million fewer people die from indoor air pollution, despite an increase in population. Outdoor air pollution worsens as societies first leave extreme poverty. But then it declines markedly as growth, technological change, and public attitudes affect policies and regulations. In China, for example, sulphur dioxide emissions peaked in 2006 and have been declining since. The world’s forests tell a similar story. For most of human history, trees were decimated wherever humans settled. Higher agricultural yields and changing attitudes have meant rich countries are increasingly preserving forests and reforesting. Moreover, economic growth delivers improved access to all the vital things that most people on the planet demand or want: health, education, security, and mobility.  Both within and between countries, life satisfaction increases with higher incomes. A study in Europe asking whether prosperity enhanced quality of life found that, “Europeans’ life-quality is better in wealthier societies.” The no-growth campaigners claim that inequality is at the heart of their concern, but they studiously ignore the vast majority of the planet. The US has experienced a clear increase in inequality: the top 1% earned 18% of income in 1913; this fell to 10.4% in 1976, and returned to 20% in 2014. But the experience is markedly different in most of the world, including continental Europe and Japan, where the top 1% earn about half what they did 100 years ago. Globally, inequality has been declining, because many more people in the developing world have emerged from poverty. Income is not the only indicator of inequality that is dropping. Half of all welfare gains from 1960 to 2000 come from us living longer, healthier lives. In the past half-century, the gap in life expectancy between the world’s wealthiest and poorest countries has narrowed from 28 to 19 years. As a result, lifespan inequalityis lower than it has been for two centuries. Global trade and economic growth have transformed lives on a scale that was once unimaginable. Two centuries ago, around 94% of the planet was impoverished. In 2015, the World Bank found that for the first time ever, less than 10% of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. Between 1990 and today, the number of people living in extreme poverty fell by more than one billion. The latter-day Malthusians are opposed to extending these tremendous benefits to more of the world because they believe that global warming will be so bad that it justifies stopping growth. This contradicts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says, “for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers” like changes in population, age, income, and technology. According to the IPCC, the total impact of climate change amounts to about 0% of GDP now, and in 2100 will cost 2-4% of GDP. That’s a problem, but not one that remotely justifies blocking people’s opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. The solution to climate change – like so many other challenges – will come from technology. We need to work far harder to make green energy cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, so we can continue to lift millions from poverty without emitting carbon dioxide. With blinkered analysis and misplaced concern, the academics essentially say that to reduce global warming slightly, we should end growth that can lift hundreds of millions out of poverty, avoid millions of air pollution deaths, and give billions the opportunity of a better life through improved health care, shelter, education, and income. There is something deeply disturbing about academics’ telling others to forgo the benefits they have enjoyed. What the world really needs is far more growth and far less hypocrisy. BJØRN LOMBORG

Flashback: Analysis of EPA: Climate change ‘politicized the EPA’ – ‘EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S’

Via: By Amy Harder – Axios – July 31, 2017 Pruitt stands out as an outlier in EPA’s history for three reasons. Most past Republican presidents nominated EPA administrators who were more to the left on environmental issues than the Republican Party writ large. That’s not the case this time with Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma with very little expertise in environmental issues. Like most Republicans in public office at the federal level, Pruitt opposes most regulations, questions climate change science and emphasizes economic growth. This dynamic empowers Pruitt because there’s no tension between the EPA and White House like there has been in prior Republican administrations, such as between then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and the George W. Bush White House. There’s also little tension with the GOP-controlled Congress. The EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S. back around the ’60’s. Climate change is now the top environmental issue in the country. That politicizes the EPA, makes it less of a big deal to average Americans and fuels antipathy from elected Republicans, most of whom don’t acknowledge it’s a real issue. The Obama administration issued a steady stream of major regulations on climate change and other more traditional pollution, which were partly prompted by inaction or lawsuits from the Bush administration. It was one of the most aggressive EPA’s ever, and the first one to address climate change. Those two things swung Washington’s political pendulum to the left, and then stirred political momentum to swing it to the right. “Getting compared to who came before and who came after is inevitable,” said Carol Browner, the longest-serving EPA administrator in history who ran the agency under Democrat President Bill Clinton. “If you follow an inactive administration it looks like you’re active and you are because that’s your job.” Pruitt’s leadership so far most closely resembles that of the late Anne Gorsuch Burford, the first EPA administrator under Reagan who resigned two years into her tenure. She faced backlash for cutting the agency’s budget and repealing a host of Carter-era policies. Pruitt is the first EPA boss since her to prioritize repealing regulations. “A few prior EPA Administrators have given lip service to regulatory reform, but they have always focused on leaving an environmental legacy,” said Jeff Holmstead, a top EPA official in the Bush administration and a former frontrunner to be the No. 2. official in Trump’s EPA. “Administrator Pruitt has shown that he is much more interested in reducing regulatory burdens than in getting positive reviews from the environmental community.” There are some important differences between now and then. “Pruitt and the people who are helping him are more sophisticated,” said Bill Ruckelshaus, EPA’s first administrator when Republican President Richard Nixon created the agency in 1970. “Therefore, he can do more damage at least in my eyes, and have a bigger impact than was true of Anne Gorsuch Burford or anybody else.” The 85-year-old Ruckelshaus, speaking by phone from Seattle last week, would know because Reagan asked him to come back to restore the public’s trust in the agency in 1983 after Burford resigned. Ruckelshaus says there’s another big difference from the ’80’s: the rise of influential conservative groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation since then that are backing Pruitt’s agenda. All of the former EPA administrators I interviewed don’t support how Pruitt is handling things. They say he’s shirking the agency’s mission of protecting the environment by repealing so many regulations. That said, I didn’t get to question two of the most recent administrators whose agendas were more aligned with that of Pruitt. Stephen Johnson, who ran EPA for the last four years of the Bush administration, faced criticism for slow-walking action on climate change. Reached by phone last week, Johnson said he wasn’t taking interviews. He did answer one question though: He has talked with Pruitt since he took over EPA. No other former agency chief going back to the George H. W. Bush administration I talked to has talked to Pruitt since he took over the agency. Ruckelshaus said every other incoming EPA chief has reached out to him other than Pruitt. Mike Leavitt, who briefly ran EPA under Bush before Johnson, declined to be interviewed, saying through a spokesperson that he hasn’t been following EPA issues for 12 years and wasn’t prepared to discuss Pruitt.

Trust us, Kids, We’re Climate ‘Educators’

Trust us, Kids, We’re Climate ‘Educators’ By Tony Thomas There’s nothing new about academics stoking schoolkids’ climate fears and depression. But nothing I’ve previously seen can match the onslaught on those from seven upwards by the University of Tasmania (UTas), which helped it gain World No 1 ranking for climate activism. [1] ABC Radio has assisted by publicising and recruiting kids for the program.[2] The university’s Curious Climate Schools unit has arranged for teachers of more than 2000 Tassie kids in scores of schools to run class “brainstorms” about the alleged global warming peril. Each class forwards its ten best questions to a pool of 80 activist “experts” mobilised within the university and externally. Strangely they include the Chinese Academy of Sciences — China pumps out 35 per cent of the world’s human-caused CO2 emissions. More than 600 questions have come in. The “experts” get themselves filmed answering the questions and the entire compendium of climate alarmism is offered to all kids on-line. The scheme ran from 2020-23 and is underway again in 2024. The executives want it to go national and international. The brainwashing is evident in Tassie kids’ questions like “How long do we have until the earth becomes uninhabitable?” and “How long before climate change will destroy the earth?” Its agenda, as I see it, is to turn nervous kids into activists, climate-strikers and future Teal and Greens voters. About 40 per cent of classes’ top ten questions have assumed the need for greater climate “action” for “climate social justice”. Teachers are told to encourage kids to join “different groups working to make the climate safer”. I assume they include the likes of Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Find your tribe and use your voices! Get together with friends and other students who care about climate action. You could join a group like the Australian Youth Climate Coalition [which ran the past years’ school strikes]. Collective events such as the school strikes for climate raise awareness – and they also give climate scientists all around the world hope that the next generation will make changes and vote for the climate policies we urgently need! Awareness projects in schools – could you and your schoolmates become Climate Warriors together? Could you encourage your school to install solar panels, introduce meat-free Monday, ask for more vego options in the canteen, or go single-use plastic free? About 16 per cent of questions sought scapegoats for the alleged peril, and the largest single batch of kids’ questions (6 per cent) wanted politicians and governments to crank up climate policies. Less than one per cent of questions recognised the nub of the problem — that without China’s cooperation, Australia’s efforts and the West’s efforts are pointless. Last year China’s CO2 emissions rose by 5.2 per cent, and by 12 per cent between 2020 and 2023. That lifted China’s share of global emissions to 35 per cent, more than the emissions of the entire developed world combined. Despite trillions wasted annually on renewables, fossil fuels continue to supply 83 per cent of global energy. Instead, and thanks to greenist “educators”, kids were fixated (27 per cent) on imaginary “existential” climate threats. Study author Dr Chloe Lucas wrote, “Some 5 per cent of questions implied a doomed planet or doomed humanity—e.g., ‘How long will we be able to survive on our planet if we do nothing to try to slow down/reverse climate change’?’’ In a previous study, ‘Listen to me!’: Young people’s experiences of talking about emotional impacts of climate change‘, Lucas as co-author noted that kids’ climate fears had worsened since 2007, when one in four kids nationally “were so troubled by the state of the world they believed it would come to an end during their lifetime.” For kids who succumb to climate terrors, the authors want “to build pathways for young people to access health professional support where needed” like medicos, psychologists and counsellors. They also link to the loopiest climate cultists in Australia, “Psychologists for a Safe Climate”. Curious Climate offers placebos for panic-stricken kids: Use your talents! Are you a great artist? Draw or paint about climate action! Are you good with social media? Use your influence to get climate action happening! Do you like to cook? Offer to make a delicious vegetarian meal for your family! Ask questions, and seek answers to those questions from reputable sources – like us! Or from other recognised [politicised] scientific organisations – like NASA, BOM and CSIRO… The Climate Curious academics argue that what they imagine to be “the current silence on climate in schools” (as if!) is itself bad for children’s mental health, and that kids need to ease their “burden” by yakking on about “the need to face the climate crisis.” Should kids’ get upset as they “listen to experts on climate change”, they should find space to recognise and explore your feelings. This could be through things like journaling, drawing, singing, writing, climbing a tree, going for a walk or talking through your feelings with trusted adults or peers.  If you are feeling really overwhelmed, find an adult you trust to talk to. This could be a parent or guardian, a teacher, social worker, a relative or your doctor. If you need someone to talk to straight away you can go to Kids Helpline. In “A Note for Educators”, Curious Climate continues, These questions and answers are likely to raise a number of feelings for your students and maybe for you as well … If your school has access to a counsellor or social worker, it would be helpful to liaise with them to offer students a person to talk to if they feel overwhelmed. Support them. This could be by doing an activity as a class, going for a walk together, or having some time to journal or draw in response to listening to the climate change experts. Take time with your class to recognise feelings that you share. Mercifully for education, and despite the plaudits for the scheme, its online follow-through is a flop. The Curious Climate channel with its 197 videos has attracted a mere 25 subscribers (including staffers), and some “answer videos” I checked had fewer than five views. The average is 24 views. One enrolled expert is University of Adelaide climate law specialist Phillipa McCormack. She replied to kids who asked how to make politicians honour their international climate pledges (which are not legally binding anyway). Her video so far has generated two views, both mine. Dr McCormack tells kids “to be really noisy” with politicians who literally depend on keeping voters happy. We saw that in the recent (2022) election where a bunch of candidates called the Teal candidates have been voted into Parliament to do something different about climate change. If other parties want to win those votes back they’re going to need to show that they can do something about climate change too.” (0.47-1.01mins). She urges kids too young to vote to pester local candidates with letters saying “I will be voting soon”, and incite others (adults?) to also pester politicians. (1.10-30mins). This is not a case of an “expert” going rogue. McCormack is on the eight-person executive of Curious Climate, which also brags that every answer is rigorously curated by communication and education specialists. Here’s another such answer. A kid asks the “experts”, “How do we stop pollution of [by] factories?” UTas professor (environmental law) Jan McDonald gets to do the answer. The discussion is not about factories’ heavy metals or acid waste; by “pollution” the kid and the professor both refer to carbon dioxide emissions, the plant food that enables life on earth and has greened the planet to the area of two and a half Australias. As per the YouTube link above, McDonald replies that, assuming there’s no techno-solution for the factories[3], the only way we could stop their pollution is to actually shut them down. Society would have to make a decision that we are willing to live without the goods. We may decide these things are so important to us we accept a little bit of pollution, and the factories might have to offset it. Or we decide, ‘Sorry you can no longer operate. That is a very difficult decision to make. We should encourage or require industry to shift towards clean energies — subsidies, new equipment, tax breaks, labelling. If we really want to require immediate transition, there is some fairness questions but it can be done and has been done in the past. It is usually done over time, like by 2027… …Earlier this year (2023) a NSW community group took the Environmental Protection Agency to court [to force them to be tougher] on setting standards for climate change, for carbon pollution, as CO2 is actually a polluting problem in NSW. There needs to be some enforcement mechanism [of factories], such as regulators inspecting them. They might issue on the spot fines, prosecute them as liable for a criminal offence. In the most serious situations with repeated failure by a factory or industry to meet new [CO2] compliance standards, they may have their licence to operate suspended or cancelled. Some people refer to that as ‘a factory death sentence.’” As background, Tasmania is said to be the most over-governed democracy on earth (close to one federal, state and local politician per 1500 people) and lacking industry, it relies to an extreme extent on largesse from mainland taxpayers. What industries the island still has, like forestry, minerals and fish-farming, are under blistering attack from green lawfare experts. As the Curious Climate study put it, This [blaming by kids] extended to the responsibility of workers—’If factory workers and other people who work in industries are aware that they pollute the air and water, then why do they keep producing the products?’ The authors complained that kids almost never (0.2%) blamed high-emitting corporations — these being the greenies’ prime targets. Kids asked Curious Climate’s leader Dr Lucas, “Do you believe that we as future leaders are being heard enough?” She replied that for researchers like her it could be controversial teaching children about climate change. I get quite a lot of comments online from people who actually think we are doing more harm than good. Some people think children don’t have the capacity to understand problems as complex as climate change, or that teaching them about climate change really just makes them worry. These people certainly don’t think that children should use their voices politically as activists. During the school strikes for climate, Prime Minister Morrison said, ‘We do not support our schools being turned into parliaments. What we want is more learning in schools and less activism in schools.” She flashes pictures of kids satirising ex-PM Morrison and holding placards reading, ‘Wind + Storage = Cheap Power’, and ‘Renewables + Storage = 24/7 Power’, and continues: Personally I feel many young people are very legitimately concerned about what climate change will mean for their own lives and for the world they live in. Learning about it is one way students like you can voice your concern and find out why they are living in a climate-changed world and what it means for their future. And how to be part of the solution — children definitely need to be seen and heard more on climate change. Children under 18 don’t have a vote but have the right to demand politicians take action on climate change. School strikes are one very effective way to express this. Among other ways are emailing or calling MPs, using social media or writing letters to newspapers…Young people are a really important part of the groundswell of Australians demanding climate action now. Please keep asking questions and using your voices not only as future leaders but leaders right now representing your generation. Some teachers “have dedicated whole lessons in class” to the program. They clamour for more — “It’s so amazing to see all those levels of university thinking, science thinking…” — and, indeed, some are themselves succumbing to eco-anxieties, freaking out over their postulated climate doom. They are told to reach out to “specific professional learning” for “grappling with the emotions that can surface when learning about climate change.” Dr Lucas took on another question, “Why don’t people believe in climate change?” An honest answer would go something like this: Because the orthodox science has been politicised and corrupted and all its predictions of doom to date have flopped. The scare is based on climate modelling that doesn’t capture vital factors like clouds and solar variability, and exaggerates CO2 impacts and likely future warming. More CO2 is beneficial to the crop yields needed to feed the globe’s population. Check out the sceptic material here, here and here and the new sceptic movie, and then see which side of the debate you find more convincing. Instead Lucas gives kids these three ad hominems ♦ Sceptics find the climate change idea “just too scary to think about so they tell themselves it is not really happening”. ♦ They are more worried about necessary societal changes to deal with warming. They deny climate change to protect things they care about. ♦ They have friends who are climate deniers: “Sometimes this kind of [sceptic] story can be catchy within the group”. Being social creatures, they agree with these others in their tribe. Ms Lucas (left) is a UTas geography research fellow. Last year the university gave her “huge congratulations on receiving the ‘Tasmanian Young Tall Poppy of the Year’ — notwithstanding that with her greying hair and UK work on BBC science documentaries in the 1990s, I’d put her at 40-plus.[4] [5] (I should apply for one of those Young Tall Poppy awards myself.) Incidentally, it’s odd about her dread that Tasmania might warm. When she first came in 2006 to what some people today call lutruwita, the sleet almost sent her fleeing back to Townsville, as she admitted later. One Tassie kid asked Curious Climate’s  PhD candidate Charlotte Jones, “How will our generation live a full life as it is supposed to get unbearably hot by something like 2033?” Her expert reply included, “While by 2033 it will not be unbearably hot in Tasmania very often, there will still places in the world where this temperature change has a really big impact”. The Curious Climate schools’ study includes socio-babble for the in-crowd about how the kids’ questions can “disrupt dominant social hierarchies of adult power and legitimize the active and collective role of children in seeking transformative socioecological change.” The professed need is to “empower young voices in public climate discourse.” The authors quote approvingly  the overseas kids “demanding policy solutions including a shift away from capitalist norms.”[6] Curious Climate instructs teachers to tell kids warming is making extreme weather more common and worse – fires, heatwaves, storms, floods, droughts, that sort of thing — and advises “You can find lots of information on these inquiry topics in our Experts’ answers.” Kids would do better to look up the IPCC Reports’ contrary findings, set out here. When Curious Climate “experts” hype that the Barrier Reef is in peril, kids should look up the data showing record coral extent for the past two years. The kids are washed with lavish misinformation about warming disrupting Australian farms and food production[7], and causing an upsurge in heat deaths. Oh, really? The federal Agriculture Department had this to say in its Snapshot of Australian Agriculture 2024: The breaking of a 3-year east-coast drought in 2020 has been followed by successive years of record-breaking production. Many agricultural regions transitioned from very poor to very good conditions within the span of a single season … The gross value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production has increased by 51% in the past 20 years in real terms (adjusted for consumer price inflation), from approximately $62.2 billion in 2003–04 to $94.3 billion in 2022–23. When including fisheries and forestry, the total value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production has increased by 46% in real terms in the [past] 20 year period from approximately $68.5 billion in 2003–04 to $100.1 billion in 2022–23. As for Curious Climate’s “heat death” canard, Australian heat deaths have been vastly outnumbered by the reduction of deaths from cold weather, similarly to Europe where the winter deaths are ten-fold the heat deaths. Another of Dr Lucas’s co-leaders is Dr Gabi Mocatta, who also wants any science take on climate for kids to be downplayed in favour of “thoughtful and credible” non-sciency answers, like “social or political aspects… about how this problem can be solved for the future of the whole planet.” Mocatta is convinced we have “less than a decade” to save the planet from CO2. “The decades-long science on climate is richly detailed and increasingly certain, so it is now our social responses to climate change that have become crucial.” She says she brought to this work “a background as a journalist and travel book author.” Despite her aversion to CO2, her emissions footprint has been huge, judging by her books authored or assisted, including Epic Runs of the World, South America, Russia Belarus & Ukraine, Peru, Ecuador, Food Lovers’ Guide to the World, Great Adventures, Best Travel 2009, World Guide and Room for Romance (Australia). The “interdisciplinary” tag for the Centre for Marine Socioecology that hosts Climate Curious is an understatement: Psychologist Clare Pitt there is doing a PhD thesis ” exploring interventions to support the mental health and wellbeing of individuals with climate change anxiety“. Her supervisors include Professor of Journalism Elizabeth Lester, whose own co-published research includes “Envisioning a green modernity? The future of cricket in an age of climate crisis.” Drawing on the concept of social futures, we argue that cricket is a significant site for the staging and perception of climate risks for worldwide audiences, and that a constellation of sporting, political, media and environmental actors are working to establish and communicate a new normative consensus about the game’s role in averting the worst impacts of climate change. The world has 2.5 billion cricket fans. Of these 2.5 billion, seven (including one scientist or academic) shared her insights. Of the seven, three were Britons, one curiously was Japanese and three were resident in regions unknown. I intend to read before bedtime another of her papers, “Make love, not war?” about “Radical environmental activism’s reconfigurative potential and pitfalls” and “the planet experiencing an unprecedented anthropogenic moment of reckoning.” Don’t imagine that Tasmania University’s activism is just some outlier for fanaticism. The developed world’s OECD runs the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests for international benchmarking of kids’ schooling. It’s been pushing climate onto schools since 2006 under its plan, “Green at 15”. PISA’s German boss Andreas Schleicher says in Teacher Magazine, Australia, that in 2018 more than half of its schools in 66 countries had global warming on the curriculum. Kids were becoming activists for the environment (39 per cent), boycotting products and companies for political, ethical or environmental reasons (27 per cent), and signing petitions (25 per cent). (The smartest kids by PISA results were from Singapore and South Korea, and they showed the greatest awareness that nothing they could do would make any impact on warming). In Australia, about 80 per cent of PISA kids wanted to help the global environment but only 60 per cent thought they could make any difference. Schleicher said, Climate change is likely the biggest test facing humanity… I know, some will say the climate challenge is far too urgent to place all our hopes in the next generation. And yes, that is true. But the sluggish progress we are seeing with changes in public awareness and behaviour show how much harder it is to unlearn comfortable beliefs and habits than to get it right from the start. That’s why it is important to be green at 15… The coming PISA science assessment in 2025 will take these issues up again. Researching Curious Climate Schools is much like lifting a damp rock and finding many-legged insects everywhere snapping their nippers. Tony Thomas’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95 from Connor Court here [1] The program is “a key contributor” to UTas position as No.1 for Climate Action globally, in the Times Higher Education rankings. [2] Curious Climate Schools is funded by the Tasmanian Climate Change Office, the Centre for Marine Socioecology and the University of Tasmania’s College of Science and Engineering. Others involved are the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture (TIA), the loopy Doctors for the Environment and the CSIRO. The Tasmanian Education Department is on board, and Curious Climate is trying to get it to integrate the so-called “climate resources” into the Tasmanian curricula [3] My transcribing condenses a few lines [4] At the BBC she worked on documentaries ranging from space tourism to artificial hearts and re-designing the bra. It’s not gallant to query a lady’s age but Dr Lucas’s university and the Australian Institute of Policy & Science have both celebrated her youthfulness. They do seem confused whether she is their 2023 “Young Tall Poppy” or just their 2023 “Tall Poppy.” William Schwenck Gilbert in Trial by Jury wrote of a judge’s daughter, “She may very well pass for forty-three, in the dusk with the light behind her!” [5] In 2022 Lucas also won from the US an Eric & Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communication, for her Curious Climate activity. The program was nominated for an Australasian Green Gown Award, and won the International Association of Media and Communication Research Climate Communication Award in 2022. [6] From the same study, other kids went in for ‘‘’a discourse of doom’ reflecting a loss of hope and anxiety about the impacts of climate change.” [7] “Disruption of farms and food production and increased stress in rural communities in southern and eastern Australia due to hotter and drier conditions.”

Watch: MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen suggests ‘sadism’ driving climate policies: Alleged solutions ‘have had no impact on CO2…but they make people poorer, make society less stable’ – Full Transcript

“The minute you hear ‘the science is settled,’ you know something is wrong. Science is never settled,” says Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT. Lindzen added, “And you see these policies have had no impact on CO2. So they have done nothing to prevent this alleged existential threat, except make people poorer, make society less stable, less resilient. And you can only account for that with either ignorance or sadism.” 

Lindzen: “Science is a mode of inquiry. “The science,” is science as authority. Political figures, people not in science, have often noticed that science has a certain authority with the public and they want to co-opt it, so they bring in the term, ‘the science’, which is how they view science. But that isn’t what science is. Science is always open to questioning. Science depends on questions, and depends on being wrong. When you say science cannot be wrong, you’ve choked off science.”

Green Fascists Are Destroying the World: ‘Fascistic climate change movement will destroy freedom & prosperity’ By Edward Ring Earlier this summer, the CO2 Coalition was banished from LinkedIn. The CO2 Coalition, with only three full-time employees and an annual budget of under $1 million, had committed the unpardonable sin of sharing contrarian perspectives on climate science. Its work, produced by a network of volunteers that includes dozens of distinguished scientists, offers indispensable balance on a topic that requires honest debate now more than ever. Among the many comments that followed LinkedIn’s decision, the mentality of the climate crisis mob came through loud and clear. If “the science is settled,” then any contrary perspective is dangerous and must be silenced. A typical comment: “Why does LinkedIn allow so much Climate Disinformation to persist throughout its platform?” Brigades of these content wardens continuously log complaints with LinkedIn against climate skeptics. The impeccable work of Bjorn Lomborg is one of their next targets. This is not the environmentalism of previous generations, and this new zealotry does not negate or diminish the common sense concern for the environment that most reasonable people share. But this new breed of intolerant, fanatical environmentalism, manifested in the movement to avert a “climate crisis,” is perhaps the most virulent and dangerous expression of fascism in America today. If left unchecked, this fascistic climate change movement will destroy freedom and prosperity while it destroys the planet it purportedly wants to save. Ideological and Economic Fascism Combined This is not a frivolous accusation because, in this case, the shoe fits. There are two types of fascism. One is based on ideology and manipulates popular emotions, and the other is based on economics and appeals to elitist greed. The climate crisis movement has found a way to combine both. Ideological fascism requires a tribal, us versus them mentality, and the climate crisis movement provides this. The climate warriors are the good guys, and the “deniers” are dangerous heretics who must be crushed. They portray the “climate emergency” as a crisis of existential dimensions, which must be resolved by any means necessary. As with any fascistic movement, green propaganda is hyperbolic, primal, and terrifying: rising seas, flooding, super fires, extreme weather, burning heat—and anyone who says otherwise is the enemy. The time for discussion has passed. And with every big storm or super fire, the potential for more militancy grows. Economic fascism is variously defined, but the climate movement in the United States fits every credible definition, as it affects big business and big government. Some call it socialism with a capitalist veneer. That would certainly apply, as the industrialized Western nations are suddenly required to atone for causing the climate crisis by transferring wealth to the developing world, and the privileged American middle class must similarly atone by giving up their homes for apartments, their automobiles for buses and trains, their meat for insects, and submit to rationing of energy and water. Economic fascism is also defined as “planned capitalism,” or corporatism. America has been drifting in this direction for at least the last few decades, greatly accelerated by the climate crisis. Small businesses and small farms expire under green regulations they can’t afford, as oligarchs and multinational corporations gobble up the broken pieces. Environmentalist-enabled corporatism is the reason the American middle class is dying. Environmentalist-inspired regulations have imposed curbs on home building, resource extraction, and infrastructure investment. These artificial limits create scarcity and exploding prices for every essential good, which diminishes the prospects of all but the very wealthy. Government and big business, working together, are using the climate crisis to destroy the economic independence of American households to empower and enrich themselves. This economic model is explicitly fascist. But as the United States transitions from a constitutional republic populated mostly by a prosperous middle class to a fascist police state populated by a destitute and broken people ruled by an oligarchy professing fealty to an environmentalist ideology, are the policies they’ve implemented in the name of saving the planet even working? That is, even if they’re right about the dangers, and there really is a climate crisis, is all of this upheaval they advocate doing any good? No. A disinterested examination of the schemes that constitute clean technology and renewable energy reveals a landscape of fads and scams that have cost trillions of dollars and accomplished absolutely nothing. Worse still, if these schemes are allowed to continue, the consequences for both humanity and the earth’s ecosystems will be more catastrophic than all but the most apocalyptic climate crisis scenarios. Biofuel Ecocide Biofuel is an obvious example. Contributing barely one-half of one percent of all global energy, there are now an estimated 300,000 square miles of biofuel plantations on earth. From the jungles of Borneo and throughout the Pacific Islands, palm oil is extracted to produce biodiesel, while from the rainforests of the Amazon to the American Midwest, sugar cane and corn is grown to produce bioethanol. Every year, more jungle is burned and wildlife incinerated to create new biofuel monocultures, with a pall of smoke that drifts thousands of miles. The environmental catastrophe that large-scale biofuel production represents is easily demonstrated. If you replaced 100 percent of the oil consumed worldwide with biofuel, it would require 25 million square miles. To put this in perspective, the total farmland worldwide is only 12 million square miles. Yet, in a barefaced and epic charade, every time these jungles burn, another European commodities broker gets to collect a commission on a “carbon credit.” Imagine if not just oil, but all energy produced on earth today came from biofuel. To accomplish that would require 43 million square miles, which is 70 percent of the entire land surface on Earth including Antarctica. Proponents of biofuel claim it will be possible eventually to extract ethanol cost-effectively from cellulose—the fiber that constitutes most of the mass of any plant. But notwithstanding the need either to leave harvest slash in the ground to maintain soil health, or inject massive quantities of petroleum-derived fertilizer, cellulosic ethanol extraction remains an extremely costly endeavor. Extracting biofuel from algae in a factory environment has promise in theory but remains far from a commercial reality. Meanwhile, rainforests burn, supposedly so we can use less fossil fuel. Land-Hogging Species Exterminators Wind energy is equally disastrous to the environment. In 2021, wind turbines only contributed 1.1 percent of total global energy production, delivering electricity at a rate of only 26 percent of their installed capacity. Wind energy is an unreliable intermittent form of energy that ultimately will require additional trillions of dollars to be spent on new high voltage lines and battery farms to balance the power grid. But these “wind farms” already consume hundreds of thousands of square miles, with their land footprint set to increase as purveyors are discovering they cannot operate at maximum efficiency unless the turbines are spaced further apart. An analysis published last year in the trade publication Energy Follower challenged the conventional spacing guidelines, which call for wind turbines to be spaced apart by a distance equal to seven times the rotor diameter. That alone calls for a stupendous amount of land, since that spacing would permit a maximum of four wind turbines per square mile. Citing work by Charles Meneveau, a mechanical engineering professor at Johns Hopkins University, however, the analysis went on to report that based on Meneveau’s analysis of the performance of utility-scale wind farms, for maximum efficiency, “the suggested recommended separation of each turbine being 15 times the rotor diameter away from its nearest neighbors.” That equates to one wind turbine consuming 1.2 square miles. Based on this data, using wind turbines to generate the 28,466 terawatt-hours of electricity produced in 2021 from all sources worldwide would require 3 million square miles of wind farms. That’s more area than the combined footprint of every urban region on Earth. And this land would be uninhabitable—anyone who disagrees is invited to live on a wind farm. There will not be many takers. Wind turbines not only consume unimaginable quantities of resources and land area. They already kill tens of thousands of raptors and bats every year. Potentially worse still, the blades are killing billions of insects at a time when total global insect mass—an essential part of nature’s food chain—is in alarming decline. Wind turbines are also ugly as hell, despite all the slick marketing photography showing them presiding beneficently over green hills and clear skies. Intermittent, Toxic, Nonrenewable Solar Power Solar power is perhaps the least problematic of the so-called renewables, but it’s still intermittent power. This intermittency is not only a daily challenge, which can only be addressed with massive investments in batteries. It’s also a seasonal problem. In temperate latitudes, the hours of daylight during summer are twice that of winter, and the further north you go the greater this seasonal challenge becomes. Solar power simply doesn’t work during northern winters, or if it does, it has to be grossly overbuilt to compensate for fewer hours of daylight. Solar power is also not terribly renewable. The basic material for photovoltaic panels is “solar-grade” polysilicon, which is most efficiently refined using sand. But the world is running out of sand. Extracting silicon from other sources such as obsidian, granite, quartzite, mica, talc, and sandstone is possible, but it is much more expensive and comes with a greater environmental impact. All of the raw materials necessary to manufacture photovoltaic panels are nonrenewable, including aluminum, steel, glass, copper, and silver. If mining these raw materials is so sustainable, why have environmentalists declared war on America’s domestic mining industry? And then there’s the challenge of what to do with photovoltaic panels once they’re spent. With a useful life of only around 25 years, and even at today’s relatively minute scale, an unrelenting deluge of toxic solar panel “e-waste” is about to descend on humanity. A 2016 report from the International Renewable Energy Agency predicted that by 2050 the world will be generating about 6 million metric tons of new solar e-waste annually. To date, recycling solar panels is an expensive, energy-intensive business. If panels were manufactured in America, using raw materials mined in America, and could be produced cost-effectively and mounted on roofs, solar might make sense as just one part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. But intermittent power is not practical without massive concurrent investments in grid upgrades and large-scale energy storage systems. These costs, and the environmental impact of these additional infrastructure investments, mean as the percentage of power derived from intermittent sources increases, the economic and environmental case for them decreases. Blood Batteries If everyone were to go electric, minus nuclear power, hydroelectric power, or fossil fuels, that would require roughly 500 exajoules of power (nearly 140,000 terawatt-hours of electricity) to come primarily from the intermittent sources of wind and solar. To balance this on-again-off-again power, has anyone thought through how much raw materials will be required to build a global fleet of batteries, all of which must be decommissioned and recycled roughly every 10 years, to perpetually collect, store and discharge tens of thousands of gigawatt-hours, day after day, through all seasons, decade after decade? Turns out, someone has. The redoubtable Alex Epstein has performed the algebra that environmentalists either ignore or lack the basic math skills to comprehend. He concluded that 1,330 terawatt-hours, at $300 per kilowatt-hour of battery storage, would cost $400 trillion—or nearly five times the GDP of the entire global economy. These 1,330 terawatt-hours only represent one percent of 2020’s global energy consumption of 140,000 terawatt-hours, which therefore represents only three days of storage capacity. And even at that price tag, it is probably not enough storage to compensate for seasonal doldrums that periodically cripple solar and wind generation. As it is, the raw materials for these batteries are sourced from overseas mines, devastating the local environment. West African cobalt miners, many of them children, endure appalling conditions. Naturally, environmentalists would never permit cobalt or lithium mining in the United States. Have you ever heard of blood diamonds? Call these blood batteries. For everyone on earth to have access to half as much per capita energy as Americans use, global energy production has to double. That’s 1,000 exajoules, twice what we produce today, and to do this, we need to develop all sources of energy. It is the minimum goal we must set in order to achieve universal global prosperity. To try to accomplish this with “renewables,” via the supposedly benign footprint of biofuel, wind turbines, solar power, and batteries, would devastate the planet, consume all available raw materials, and fail to do the job. Meanwhile, what is green fascism doing to ordinary people? The Green Fascist Crimes Against Humanity The green fascists have declared war on energy, water, and housing. They claim that conventional energy creates deadly CO2 emissions and attempt to forbid all debate about the validity of that theory. They claim water supply infrastructure destroys ecosystems and consumes unsustainable quantities of energy. They claim suburbs with single-family homes cause unacceptable increases in automotive pollution. Now they’ve also declared war on livestock, which they claim produce the allegedly deadly gas methane, and on farming itself, which relies on petroleum-based fertilizer. This is no joke. Look no further than the ongoing protests in the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, and across the globe. They’re coming for our farms. Where does this end? Without energy, water, housing, meat, and farm produce, civilization dies. Before that happens, though, billions of people who had either achieved a middle-class lifestyle, or were about to, will be wiped out. And as this reset runs its course, the green fascists will acquire more political power, and their corporatist allies will acquire more economic power. If you have a problem with this, and speak up, you will be marginalized and smeared if not silenced. Just ask the CO2 Coalition. The rather staid mission statement of this network of expert volunteers, motivated by sincere concern for the future of humanity and the health of the planet, includes this excerpt: “The Coalition seeks to engage in an informed and dispassionate discussion of climate change, humans’ role in the climate system, the limitations of climate models, and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions.” LinkedIn needs to reinstate the CO2 Coalition immediately. And the green fascists’ agenda needs to become the topic of open, honest, balanced, and very public debate.   TwitterFacebookParler Share onTwitterFacebookParler About Edward Ring Edward Ring is a senior fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is also is a contributing editor and senior fellow with the California Policy Center, which he co-founded in 2013 and served as its first president. Ring is the author of Fixing California: Abundance, Pragmatism, Optimism (2021) and The Abundance Choice: Our Fight for More Water in California (2022).

Earth Day’s failed predictions of 52 years ago & the amazing environmental improvements that have occurred since

Broadcast premiere of Climate Hustle 2 set for 8pm ET May 8, 2022 on Newsmax TV! Earth day is coming up. It is a good time to remind the public what the (failed) predictions were 52 years ago – Here are some of the dire predictions from the first Earth Day, compiled by Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute: 1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” 4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Earth Day, Then and Now,” by Ronald Bailey, May 1, 2000 Earth Day At 52: None of the eco-doomsday predictions have come true Flashback: Prof. Ross McKitrick: ‘I abhor Earth Hour…It celebrates ignorance, poverty & backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism’ Earth ‘serially doomed’: The official history of climate ‘Tipping Points’ began in 1864 – A new ‘global warming’ 12-year deadline from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez – Climate Tipping Points date back to at least 1864 – “As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the depravation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’” —MIT professor Leo Marx Earth “Serially Doomed” – Perhaps the best summary of the tipping-point phenomenon comes from UK scientist Philip Stott. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed,” Stott explained. “Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter.” Dartmouth Review profile: Debunking the Climate Myth: An Interview with Marc Morano: Morano: “We should actually promote prosperity, technology, and wealth. We should do what we’ve been doing since the first Earth Day in 1970, when we had filthy rivers, dirty air, and massive pollution. We raised awareness and ended up with, in the 50 years since 1970, radical increases in population, radical increases in economic growth, and incredible improvements in just about everything, to the point where even mainstream media and climate activists now admit that the pollution problem has largely been solved. Where we were and where we are now is a light-and-day difference. I would argue that we do the best environmental policy, that we invest in technology, and that we keep doing what we’ve been doing.” Bjorn Lomborg: 50 years after the first Earth Day, the planet’s doing pretty well: Lomborg: In America, for instance, a recent comprehensive study showed that “water pollution concentrations have fallen substantially” over the past 50 years. And a stunning 3.8 billion people in the world have gained access to clean drinking water since the 1970s. Air pollution, the world’s biggest environmental killer, has seen even greater improvements. Outdoor air pollution has declined dramatically in rich countries, in no small measure due to attention from the 1970 Earth Day and the legislation it inspired, such as the landmark US Clean Air Act enacted later that year. For the world’s poor, the deadliest air pollution is ­indoors. Almost 3 billion of the world’s poorest still cook and keep warm with dirty fuels like dung, cardboard and wood, and the World Health Organization estimates the effects are equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes daily. Since 1970, the death risk across the world from indoor air pollution has been cut by more than half. WHO reports: US ranked among countries with the cleanest air in the world – Significantly cleaner air than in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK, Japan, Austria, & France – President Trump was right – being in the Paris Climate Accord was not in America’s best interests. Especially since the US is listed among countries with the cleanest air in the world, according to the W.H.O… That’s after all the G7 countries whined about Trump removing us from the accords in 2017 In its 2018 report (& 2019 report) on air pollution, the W.H.O. ranked the United States among the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria, and France. WHO 2019 report: “Northern America remains one of the regions with the lowest overall PM2.5 levels worldwide.”   Eco-Reality Strikes Back: Earth Day at 50 Air quality. U.S. air is as clean as it has ever been. From 1980 to 2018, except where noted [Source: U.S. EPA]: Carbon monoxide, down 83% Lead, down 99% Nitrous oxides, down 61% Ozone, down 31% Particulate matter (10 micrograms & below), down 26% Particulate matter (2.5 micrograms & below), down 39% (2000-2018) Sulfur dioxide, down 91% ‘The healthiest Earth Day yet’ – DAILY ENERGY NEWS – Inside the Pipeline – April 22, 2022: “It’s Earth Day and it’s a good time to remember that air quality in the United States is pretty much as good as it has been in since before EPA started keeping track (and air quality improved pre-dated EPA).” Flashback: Analysis of EPA: Climate change ‘politicized the EPA’ – ‘EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S’ – Amy Harder of Axios: ‘The EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S. back around the ’60’s. Climate change is now the top environmental issue in the country. That politicizes the EPA, makes it less of a big deal to average Americans and fuels antipathy from elected Republicans, most of whom don’t acknowledge it’s a real issue.’ ‘The Obama administration issued a steady stream of major regulations on climate change…It was one of the most aggressive EPA’s ever’ ‘Most past Republican presidents nominated EPA administrators who were more to the left on environmental issues than the Republican Party writ large.’ 50 years of climate predictions gone bust – The comic cries of climate apocalypse Climate Depot’s Earth Day Round Up: Reuters: ‘If the environmental movement has a high holiday, Earth Day is it’ Wash. Post hosts ‘Earth Day theology’: ‘God is judging our sin against the planet, and She is very, very angry about it’ Earth Day Dissent: ‘Environmentalism is devoted to the collapse of every scientific and technological advance of past century, along with the capitalist system that made them possible’ 1970 Earth Day Quotes: ‘Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind’ — George Wald, Harvard Biologist # Flashback: Former GOP Congressman from Texas Steve Stockman: ‘The Best Thing About The Earth Is If You Poke Holes In It Oil And Gas Come Out’ Here's some things that would actually help our #environment this #EarthDay! #EarthDay2022 #energyindependence — CFACT Campus (@CFACTCampus) April 22, 2022 Alex Epstein’s Earth Day truth: Fossil fuels make Earth BETTER – ‘World has never been a better place for human beings to live’ Epstein: “Fossil fuels are making Earth a better and better place by providing uniquely low-cost, reliable energy to billions of people–and are needed by billions more.” Fossil fuels have actually made us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased *98%* over the last century. Solar and wind only provide electricity (20% of energy use)—and they don’t even do that well. Because solar and wind are unreliable, they don’t replace reliable power plants—they add to the cost of reliable power plants. 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood and dung for heating and cooking. The world needs to continue and expand its massive use of fossil fuels, while ensuring we have the freedom necessary for truly cost-effective alternatives to emerge. E.g., we need to decriminalize reliable, non-carbon nuclear energy.” Earth Day 2022: Investing in Poverty, Suffering, & Human Degradation Benjamin Zycher: “As with every previous Earth Day, we will be bombarded with innumerable web sites both infantile and mendacious, crude propaganda exercises, myriad pleas for networking, virtue signaling as a central dynamic, mindless recommendations for localism and other useless, wasteful, and environmentally destructive silliness. And — of course — there will be the usual shameless groveling by a long queue of spineless corporate officials and public relations gasbags desperate to advertise their environmental bona fides so that the green alligators might eat them last.” Listen: Morano on DC WMAL radio on Earth Day talks Matt Damon, Schwarzenegger & Hollywood hypocrisy – & More wealth = a cleaner environment MILLOY: Earth Day — Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off – ‘Environmentalism has become totally unhinged as it is all in for climate hysteria’ Steve Milloy: Looking past the left-wing politics of the Earth Day’s organizers, 1970 was the right time to make a concerted effort to clean things up. And we did. Many at the time were genuinely concerned about the potential effect of chemicals and emissions on human health. … When the Cold War ended around 1990, many left-wing radicals found themselves with nothing to agitate. So they joined the environmental movement. About this same time, global warming fears started to gain traction. It didn’t take long for the radicals to figure out that global warming was a horse they could ride since the implication of government regulation of fossil fuel emissions was total economic and societal control. … Now in 2022, environmentalism has become totally unhinged as it is all in for climate hysteria. .. it’s way past time to stop and get a grip on reality. Earth Day? No thank you. Let’s instead return to an age of reason. AP: Climate progress remains elusive for Biden on Earth Day CEI: Earth Day Should Be Retired – After more than five decades, it is time to let go of Earth Day. Geologist: Cancel Earth Day, celebrate Earth Happy Earth Day – Real Air Pollution issues solved, CO2 a benefit not a danger Earth Day: FIFTY YEARS OF ENVIRONMENTALIST LIES Earth Day 2022: Stop Media Climate Disinformation – We need to ‘build herd immunity against the nonsense’ Earth Day 2022: Gladness Expels Gloom – ‘Our planet gets greener as we get wealthier’ Our World in Data drew two very important observations out of these numbers; both point to the importance of economic growth as a weapon against pollution. Death rates tend to be lowest in the poorest and wealthiest countries. Nations with higher death rates, India, for instance, are often emerging economies that haven’t yet turned their attention to pollution reduction.  …  Our planet gets “greener” as we get wealthier. The warnings that we’re running out of time “to restore nature and build a healthy planet” will grow more shrill as Earth Day approaches. Just remember to take the doomsday predictions with a grain of salt and reflect on the tremendous progress we’ve made in living sustainably. Watch: Morano on Jesse Watters Primetime on Fox News talks about failed climate tipping points going back to 1864 Jesse Watters Primetime – Fox News Channel – Broadcast April 22, 2022 Judge Jeanine Pirro: Marc, you have a lot of information on this. The thing that struck me that I remembered from three years ago was apartment AOC saying 12 years now we have nine years. What is going to happen? Will you tell me what it is? Morano: The end of civilization. Prince Charles had a 100-month climate tipping point. He counted down the 100 months and when he got to zero he issued a new tipping point to something like 2048. They extend the tipping point when it expires. I was able to trace the first climate tipping point, Judge, back to 1864 when Abraham Lincoln was president. An academic named Leo Marx warned of ‘climatic excess’ unless men changed their ways.  ‘Trash, Human Waste & Needles’: Biden Ignores The REAL Environmental Crisis Facing Seattle During Earth Day Visit Listen: Morano talks on The Joe Piscopo Show on Earth Day on how electric cars help the USA to rely more on China

Biden Admin keeps sanctions on America! EPA Proposes Stronger Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles to ‘Support Transition to Zero-Emissions Future’ March 7, 2022 Contact Information EPA Press Office ([email protected]) WASHINGTON (March 7, 2022) –Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing new, stronger standards to promote clean air and reduce pollution from heavy-duty vehicles and engines starting in model year (MY) 2027. The proposed standards would reduce emissions of smog- and soot-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) from heavy-duty gasoline and diesel engines and set updated greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for certain commercial vehicle categories.  This proposed rule would ensure the heavy-duty vehicles and engines that drive American commerce and connect people across the country are as clean as possible while charting a path to advance zero-emission vehicles in the heavy-duty fleet. “Seventy-two million people are estimated to live near truck freight routes in America, and they are more likely to be people of color and those with lower incomes. These overburdened communities are directly exposed to pollution that causes respiratory and cardiovascular problems, among other serious and costly health effects,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “These new standards will drastically cut dangerous pollution by harnessing recent advancements in vehicle technologies from across the trucking industry as it advances toward a zero-emissions transportation future.” Consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order, “Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,” the proposed action would reduce NOx emissions from trucks by as much as 60 percent in 2045.  It would result in widespread air quality improvements across the United States, especially in areas already overburdened by air pollution and diesel emissions. … Today’s action is the first step in EPA’s “Clean Trucks Plan” – a series of clean air and climate regulations that the agency will develop over the next three years to reduce pollution from trucks and buses and to advance the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future. … The proposed revisions to existing GHG standards for MY2027 and beyond would set updated GHG emissions standards for subsectors where electrification is advancing at a more rapid pace.  These sectors include school buses, transit buses, commercial delivery trucks, and short-haul tractors. In a separate action, EPA will be setting new GHG emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles as soon as model year 2030. This action will more comprehensively address the long–term trend towards zero emissions vehicles across the heavy-duty sector. … For more information on the rule on the public comment process, please visit: # Background on air pollution: WHO reports: US ranked among countries with the cleanest air in the world – Significantly cleaner air than in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK, Japan, Austria, & France President Trump was right – being in the Paris Climate Accord was not in America’s best interests. Especially since the US is listed among countries with the cleanest air in the world, according to the W.H.O… That’s after all the G7 countries whined about Trump removing us from the accords in 2017 In its 2018 report (& 2019 report) on air pollution, the W.H.O. ranked the United States among the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria, and France. WHO 2019 report: “Northern America remains one of the regions with the lowest overall PM2.5 levels worldwide.”   Flashback: Analysis of EPA: Climate change ‘politicized the EPA’ – ‘EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S – Amy Harder of Axios: ‘The EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S. back around the ’60’s. Climate change is now the top environmental issue in the country. That politicizes the EPA, makes it less of a big deal to average Americans and fuels antipathy from elected Republicans, most of whom don’t acknowledge it’s a real issue.’ ‘The Obama administration issued a steady stream of major regulations on climate change…It was one of the most aggressive EPA’s ever’ ‘Most past Republican presidents nominated EPA administrators who were more to the left on environmental issues than the Republican Party writ large.’ 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.’

Dartmouth Review profile: Debunking the Climate Myth: An Interview with Marc Morano – Biden Admin is implementing Green New Deal ‘without a vote of Congress’ Debunking the Climate Myth: An Interview with Marc Morano By Lintaro Donovan The following is an interview between Digital Editor of the Review Lintaro Donovan (LD) and Marc Morano (MM), former Republican Congressional staffer and founder and executive director of climate change news aggregator He is the author of Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse than You Think (published in 2021) and The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown (published in 2022). LD: Do you believe that the climate is changing? If yes, what do you believe are the causes of such change? Marc Morano: When you say climate is changing, it’s a meaningless statement because that’s not what’s being debated. That’s not what the premise of the United Nations is. That’s not what the premise of the Green New Deal is. All of the claims are based on whether man is driving a climate crisis, a climate emergency. So when you say climate is always changing, well, what’s your metric for that? If you go back to the Roman warming period at about 0 A.D., we probably have cooled. That was at or warmer than current temperatures. If you go to the medieval warm period, about 900 to 1300 A.D., we probably have the same temperature or cooler. If you go to 1850, when the end of the Little Ice Age happened, we’ve definitely warmed. If you go to the time since the 1930s in the United States, heat waves were much, much worse in the continental U.S. during the 1930s. One of the things that climate activists do is they start at 1970. And they say since 1970, we’ve increased our warming this much. And they’ll say, if this continues… Well, 1970 is one of the coldest periods of the 20th century. They [climate activists] pick data points like that. To answer your question, yes, mankind does influence the climate. We influence it through carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gasses, but we can also cool it through aerosols. The way to look at it is there’s hundreds of factors that influence the climate. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been one of mankind’s contributions, but the climate is a very complex system. We’ve had many times higher CO2 levels in the past. We’re actually within the coldest 10% of geologic periods right now. In that context, where there is no climate crisis and it’s this fiction created out of studies or timelines that have been manipulated or are incomplete, should politicians be doing anything at all to address the climate? It’s kind of a difficult question. I worked in the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I worked when the Republicans both had their majority and then minority. When it comes to environmental policy, what you need to do is what we would do regardless of whether there’s a climate crisis. The Green New Deal wouldn’t affect global emissions. The UN Paris agreement would not even affect emissions. Assuming all the countries adopted it, there would be an imperceptible temperature difference. It’s all virtue signaling and essentially restructuring the economy, causing a lot of pain and giving progressives that ideological vision that would do nothing for the climate. To answer your question, we should actually promote prosperity, technology, and wealth. We should do what we’ve been doing since the first Earth Day in 1970, when we had filthy rivers, dirty air, and massive pollution. We raised awareness and ended up with, in the 50 years since 1970, radical increases in population, radical increases in economic growth, and incredible improvements in just about everything, to the point where even mainstream media and climate activists now admit that the pollution problem has largely been solved. Where we were and where we are now is a light-and-day difference. I would argue that we do the best environmental policy, that we invest in technology, and that we keep doing what we’ve been doing. You mentioned that the Green New Deal wouldn’t really do anything to lower carbon emissions or help the environment. What are the Left’s true intentions with the Green New Deal? The major architects of the Green New Deal, such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her former chief of staff, all admit that it was never a climate thing to begin with. It was a “how do you change the whole economy?” thing. And they were borrowing from the 1960s and 1970s with Paul Ehrlich, the overpopulation scare, and the global cooling scare. They [people like Ehrlich] literally seized on any real or perceived crisis, and they said, “This is what we need to do,” empowering the government and taking away freedom, liberty, and free choice among people. John Holdren in the 1970s lamented that America’s problem was too much energy, too fast. He lamented that, in America, people can hop in their car and go to the grocery store to get a six-pack of beer and drive home. People like Holdren were offended by that. His ideology became sort of this anti-modernism ideology. This is, I think, what ultimately motivates the Left. And this is where I bring in COVID. In 2000 and the beginning of the late 2000s, you had major climate activists from Tom Friedman to the U.N. climate chief to Obama’s Secretary of Energy all praising China’s one-party rule in how to deal with climate change. China didn’t have the messiness of democracy. China was just the model in their minds of efficiency of government. So COVID comes along in March of 2020. And many aspects of the Green New Deal got enacted overnight. Behind the Green New Deal is the plan of the degrowth movement. I’ve been to almost every single U.N. summit in the last 20 years. And people actually show up. Intellectuals. One of them was Kevin Anderson, who talked about planned recessions to fight global warming, that this is the way to solve climate change. What happened was COVID came along, and, at first, the climate activists were jealous. John Kerry said the parallels between COVID and climate were screaming at us. Other activists basically said that “if we can do this for a virus, we can do it for climate.” And what is the “this”? Shutting down the economy, stopping travel, turning off the greenhouse- gas machine of modern civilization. This was their dream. The reason I brought up China is it’s the Left’s progressive vision of the world (a one-party state). And the crisis helps them achieve it. One of the things I focused on in my book is how regardless of the environmental scare, the solution is always the same. Whether it’s 1960s overpopulation, resource scarcity, the Amazon disappearing, global cooling, it’s always the same solution: “We need more government. We need to crush free markets. We need to crush free choice. We need to crush economic growth.” Do Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and these public leftists in Congress truly believe that the climate crisis is some apocalypse to be addressed? Or are they just using it as a way to accomplish big government?   I do think that these are true believers. Politically left people are drawn to climate. They’re drawn to COVID. It’s kind of like the Tom Cruise movie “Jerry Maguire” when they said ‘You Had Me at Hello.’ These people were “had” by the idea that the solutions to climate change and COVID require massive intrusion of government and crushing your freedom. They’re not going to question the scientific claims too much. AOC is a believer. She acts like a believer. She gave a 12-year deadline to solve climate change. Then she got such ridicule that she later came out and claimed that it was just hyperbole and that she was joking. But if you go back, she was never joking about it. On the subject of children in politics, how do you think conservatives should respond when the Left trots out children like Greta Thunberg or David Hogg? Kids need to be told what’s going on, and they need to be told what are sensible environmental policies. They need to be told that you want to have policies that essentially provide energy and are clean-emitting. And if you want to do solar and wind, you can do them where they make sense, but you can’t mandate them or ban other energy. There’s no reason why you can’t have a broad energy mix. You just can’t have an irrational fear and seek net-zero [carbon emissions], which, 10, 20, 25 years from now, is going to be just sucking the life out of our energy and our economy. And it’s also a national security threat. If you personally were in charge of an organization like a College Republicans or a Review-style conservative student newspaper, what actions would you take to stop this climate hysteria? Science is hard. Start debating science with people, they’re not going to know what to believe. People don’t understand epidemiology, right? So what were you told to do [during COVID]? To shut up and listen to the experts. You don’t want to mask your kid? You think there’s something wrong with two years of masking and Anthony Fauci as head of the world? Who are you? You’re just a parent in rural Kansas. How the hell do you know what’s best for your kid? Shut up, peasant. The same thing happened with climate. If I were on a college campus, the first thing I would do is to pick apart whatever someone proposed to do. Let’s talk about the Green New Deal’s impact on climate. Let’s see the numbers. You can see this for the cap-and-trade bill. You can see it for the UN Paris Agreement. Even if you enact all of this stuff, John Kerry’s admitted it, emissions would continue to rise because of China, the developing world, and India. Unless you’re going to somehow wave a magic wand and/or crush the billion people who don’t have running water and electricity still left in the world, you’re not going to get anywhere. Climate activism is all virtue signaling by people who are being conned into supporting an agenda of progressivism, which is too afraid to stand on its own merits and is using this sort of patina of climate change. Either from the climate or from a virus, it’s the same thing. I would go after these “solutions” and then I would just keep an open debate. What is the future of the Green New Deal?  This is what’s so shocking. It’s now 2022. The Green New Deal was introduced in Congress. What happened? It fizzled. There was no debate. There were no hearings. There was no scheduled vote. There were no town halls. There were no AOC infomercials. What happened? Very simple. They made a decision. And when I say they, I mean the climate activists, the Sunshine Movement, the people that helped Biden get elected. They were going to essentially try to implement the Green New Deal without a vote of Congress. And that’s what’s occurring right now. The Biden Administration in early 2021 announced that they are going to implement the climate agenda through every cabinet agency. It’s become an administrative state thing. They’re implementing it behind the scenes, through ESG (environmental and social governance) policies, through the Treasury Department. They’re taking away loans for energy companies. They’re taking away land leases, creating executive orders. They’re achieving a lot of the Green New Deal’s goals through the unelected bureaucracy, quietly and without loud noise. They don’t want to hear from Congress. They don’t want cable news and talk radio and town halls and people flooding their offices. They don’t need these things. They’re achieving the Green New Deal the same way they did COVID. They’re not dumb. They saw how they could spend decades pounding their head, getting nothing passed in the climate movement. No carbon tax, no cap–and-trade, no Green New Deal, no U.N. Paris Agreement. None of it. But suddenly, COVID showed them the way: unelected bureaucracy. That’s what they’re doing. And it’s going brilliantly right now for the Biden Administration. On almost every level, every department, even in spending bills. That’s why the Green New Deal is not going to come up for a vote. The Left is essentially implementing it all, throughout the Biden Administration, at the moment. # End of Morano interview. Lintaro P. Donovan # Background:  Watch: Morano speech at Dartmouth College following his interview with Dartmouth Review: ‘The Green New Deal: Not Green, Not New, Not a Deal’ – Discusses Climate/Energy/Covid lockdowns in 45 min. in person talk Dartmouth Libertarians hosted Morano. The Dartmouth Libertarians are excited to welcome Marc Morano of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) for a discussion about whether the proposed Green New Deal is a reasonable response to climate change. Marc Morano is the Director of Communications for CFACT and the producer, writer and host of Climate Hustle (2016). Mr. Morano currently serves as executive editor and chief correspondent for CFACT’s award-winning, a news and information service he founded in 2009. During his tenure as senior advisor, speechwriter, and climate researcher for U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), he managed the communication operations of the GOP side of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Mr. Morano received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at George Mason University. # Morano goes Ivy League! Will speak at Dartmouth on Feb 10 on Folly of Climate Agenda: Libertarians host Marc Morano and Paul Driessen of CFACT next Thursday, February 10 for a discussion on the pitfalls of green energy proposals and modern energy needs.

PRINCETON PHYSICIST WILLIAM HAPPER: ‘THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY’ – ‘DOUBLING CO2 MAKES NO DIFFERENCE By CAP ALLON William Happer is an American physicist with over 200 published peer-reviews scientific papers. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and has also worked for the U.S. government on two separate occasions: the first was between 1991-1993, where he served as Director of Energy Research, and the second between 2018-2019 under the Trump administration, where he was Depute Assistant to the President for Emerging Technologies at the National Security Council. Dr. William Happer spoke at the National Leadership Seminar, sponsored by Hillsdale College, on February 19, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona. Below is a breakdown of his talk, including the slides he shared: The best way to think about the frenzy over climate is to consider it a modern version of the medieval Crusades. You may remember that the motto of the crusaders was “Deus vult!”, “God wills it!” It is hard to pick a better virtue-signaling slogan than that. Most climate enthusiasts have not gone so far, but some actually claim that they are doing God’s work. After decades of propaganda, many Americans, perhaps including some of you here today, think there really is a climate emergency. Those who think that way, in many cases, mean very well. But they have been misled. As a scientist who actually knows a lot about climate (and I set up many of our climate research centers when I was at the Department of Energy in the early 1990s) I can assure you that there is no climate emergency. There will not be a climate emergency. Crusades have always ended badly. They have brought discredit to the supposed righteous cause. They have brought hardship and death to multitudes. Policies to address this phony climate emergency will cause great damage to American citizens and to their environment. Climate frenzy is really heating up recently. On February 4th Senator Bernie Sanders, Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, and Congressman Earl Blumenauer introduced “legislation mandating the declaration of a national climate emergency. The National Climate Emergency Act directs the President of the United States to declare a national climate emergency and mobilize every resource at the country’s disposal to halt, reverse, mitigate and prepare for the consequences of this climate crisis.” (This is from Mr. Blumenauer’s website.) But this is utter nonsense. There is no climate crisis, and there will not be a climate crisis It gets worse when you get to the state levels where there are fewer checks and balances. These are the remarks made last week by Charles Ismay, the Undersecretary for Climate Change in Massachusetts to the Vermont Climate Council: “So let me say that again, 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person across the street, the senior on fixed income, right . . . there’s no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their wills, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will. Right, I can’t even say that publicly.” A few days later Mr. Ismay resigned and had he not, his governor would have fired him. But, that’s the way crusades are. This is really not a question of science. This is a question of a secular religion for some. It is a question of money for others. It is a question of power for others. But whatever it is, it is not science. Part of the medieval crusades was against the supposed threat to the holy sites in Jerusalem. But a lot of it was against local enemies. The medieval Inquisition really did a job on the poor Cathars, on the Waldensians of southern France, and on the Bogomils in the Balkans. Climate fanatics don’t know or care any more about the science of climate than those medieval Inquisitors knew or cared about the teachings of Christ. Just about everyone wants to live in a clean environment. I do, and I am sure everyone here does. This is a photograph of Shanghai, and that’s real air pollution. You can just barely see the Bottle Opener Building in the back through all the haze. Some of this is due to burning coal. But a bigger fraction is due to dust from the Gobi Desert. They have had this type of pollution in Shanghai since the days of Marco Polo and long before. Part of it is burning stubble of the rice fields, which is traditionally done before planting next year’s crop. This is real pollution. I would not want to live in a city like that. If there is anything to do that would make it better, I would certainly support that. But, none of this has anything to do with CO2. CO2 is a gas you cannot see, smell or taste. So, hare-brained schemes to limit emissions of CO2, which is actually beneficial, as I will explain a little bit later, will only make it harder to get rid of real pollutants like what I just showed you in Shanghai. So, let’s talk about CO2. Number one, it is not a pollutant at all. We breathe out lots of CO2. Many people are surprised to learn that they exhale a little more than two pounds of CO2 a day. You people in this room are putting out a lot of CO2. I actually brought a CO2 meter here which I am going to turn on. But our breath is not that different from the output of a power plant. Power plants take in normal air, and they consume most of the oxygen by burning coal, or natural gas, or oil. The exhaust that comes out of the stack is mostly the nitrogen that was already there—a little bit of oxygen that was not used up, along with water vapor and CO2. Our breath is similar, except it has a lot more oxygen. So, you can give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but you couldn’t if your breath was like the power plant exhaust. Your breath contains about four percent CO2, six percent water. The power plant has a bit more CO2 and correspondingly less oxygen. But our breath is definitely not a pollutant. In fact, our breathing reflex is determined by CO2. It is not determined by oxygen. It is not a lack of oxygen; it is too much CO2 that makes you take another breath of air. This is a picture of my wife Barbara in New Jersey near a new solar farm: We have just seen how well solar farms and windmills work in Texas in last week’s (historic) cold spell. They never did work terribly well. We have to be grateful to Nature. She seems to have a sense of humor, and she has taught us a good lesson—I hope; but people seem to be slow learners. A major problem with renewable energy sources (solar, wind) is that they take up a lot of space. (Also,) you need something else to provide electrical power at night. Solar panels do not work if it is a cloudy day. They do not work terribly well in the winter when the Sun is low. Solar power makes no economic sense unless you are massively subsidized by the state and federal governments. So, it is pure virtue signaling. Here is an early wind farm in California. It is beginning to fall to pieces, but all wind farms fall to pieces. Nobody quite knows how we are going to dispose of all of this junk when it no longer works. Wind has much the same problems as solar. When I was a kid, people did not sit in front of computer screens all day and look at simulations of the world. You could go outside and look up at the clouds and see what the weather was like. And in those days, people knew that “the wind bloweth where it listeth.” Sometimes it blows, sometimes it doesn’t. Last week in Texas, the wind didn’t blow very much. And, when it was trying to blow the wind turbine blades were iced over and did not turn. Renewable energy is what I would call the inverse Robin Hood strategy—you rob from the poor to give to the rich. Utilities are permitted to raise rates because of their capital investments in inefficient, unreliable renewables. They junk fully depreciated coal, gas and nuclear plants, all of which are working beautifully, and producing inexpensive, reliable energy. But regulated profits are much less. Taxpayers subsidize the rich, who can afford to lease land for wind and solar farms. Tax incentives pander to the upper class who live in gated communities and can afford to buy Tesla electric cars. They get subsidies from the state and federal government. They even get subsidized electrical power to charge up their toys. The common people have little spare income for virtue signaling. They pay more and more for the necessities of life in order to subsidize their betters. You cannot spend a lifetime as a professor and not relapse from time to time into giving a classroom lecture. So, you will have to expect to be lectured for a few minutes. The good news is that there will be no quiz. But for those of you who share my view that this climate hysteria is serious nonsense, it helps to know what the facts are. I hope I can arm some of you with the real scientific facts. This is a picture of the overall circulation of the atmosphere around the Earth. What keeps us warm on Earth is the Sun. The Earth is most intensely heated in the tropics. That is the reddish area on this chart, where the Sun is most nearly overhead at noon. There is more solar energy coming in at the tropics than goes out as cooling radiation to space. The excess heat must be convected to polar regions by warm air and ocean water. Like the Sun, the Earth also radiates. If you have had dinner here at the Marriott, maybe you sat under some of the infrared radiators on the outside patios. You cannot see it, but you can feel the warm, the thermal radiation from the patio heaters. Earth maintains its temperature by balancing the solar heating during the day with thermal radiation cooling to cold space, both during the day and night. Climate involves a complicated interplay of the sunlight that warms us, and thermal infra-radiation that escapes to space. Heat is transported from the tropics to the poles by the motion of warm air and ocean water. We all know about the Gulf Stream that carries huge amounts of heat to northern Europe, even to Russia. Movements of air in the atmosphere also carry a lot of heat, as we know from regular cold spells and hot spells. If you look at the viewgraph, you can estimate where Phoenix is, just over the Mexican border. That is where the color changes from yellow to green. This area is often under the descending branch of the Hadley Cell, air that rises up near the Equator, hot air, moist air, full of water vapor. There is tremendous rainfall down there. As the air rises to really high altitudes, 10 to 15 kilometers, most of the water is wrung out. Some of this freeze-dried air heads north and some heads south. The air that heads north eventually falls back down to the Earth, often onto Phoenix. On average, this dry air pours down at latitudes around 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south of the Equator. That is where we find the great desert belts of the Earth. That is where the Sahara Desert is, the Chihuahuan Desert, and to the south, the Kalahari Desert. The Hadley circulation is like the gas flow loop of a giant, Brayton-cycle heat engine. Over most of its path, the circulating air does not turn any wind-turbine blades. Here is a picture of Earth’s energy budget: I mentioned we are warmed by the Sun. About half of the sunlight eventually gets to the surface. What prevents it all from reaching the surface are clouds and a small amount of scattering and absorption by the atmosphere. Other parts of America, like New Jersey, now are covered with clouds. Those areas do not get any sunlight directly. But the half of sunlight that does reach the ground heats it. You can notice that in the afternoon, if you go outside. If you are a gardener like me, you can put your hands in the soil and it is nice and warm. It makes the corn grow. But that heat has to be released. If you keep adding heat to the ground, it gets hotter and hotter. So, the heat is eventually released by radiation into space which is that red arrow going up on the viewgraph. But for the first few kilometres of altitude, a good fraction of that heat is not carried by radiation, but by convection of warm, moist air. CO2 has no direct effect on convection near the surface. But once you get up to 10 kilometres or so, most of the heat is transported by radiation. By the way, I have the (CO2) meter running now. Remember that the outside air is 400 parts per million CO2. It is 580 in here, (and) it was at 1,000 parts per million where we were having lunch. CO2 levels are never stable near Earth’s surface. People are panicking about one or two parts per million of CO2. Now, the meter reads 608 parts per million—that is probably because I breathed on it. Hot air sets it off. I sometimes take the meter out onto my back porch. At the end of a summer day, the CO2 levels on my back porch drop to maybe 300 parts per million, way below the average for outside air. That is because the trees and grass in my backyard have sucked most of the CO2 out of the local air during the day. If I get up early the next morning and I look at the meter, it is up to 600 parts per million. So just from morning to night CO2 doubles in the air of my back yard. Doubles and halves, doubles and halves. At least during the growing season that is quite common. And we have these hysterics about CO2 increasing by 30 or 40 percent. It is amazing. So, why the frenzy over CO2? It is because it is a greenhouse gas? That is true. This is a somewhat deceptive picture. What it shows in red (in the above image) is sunlight, and the horizontal scale on the top panel is the wavelength of the sunlight. Radiation wavelengths for sunlight are typically about a half a micron (half a millionth of a meter). That is green light, the color of green leaves. The thermal radiation that cools the Earth is that blue curve to the right of the upper panel, and that is a much longer wavelength, typically around 10 microns. So, the wavelength of thermal radiation is 10 to 20 times longer than the wavelengths of sunlight. It turns out that the sun’s energy can get through the Earth’s atmosphere very easily. So essentially all sunlight or at least 90 percent, if there are no clouds, gets to the surface and warms it. But radiation cooling of the surface is less efficient because various greenhouse gases (most importantly water vapor, which is shown as the third panel down, and CO2, which is the fourth panel down) intercept a lot of that radiation and keep it from freely escaping to space. This keeps Earth’s surface temperature warmer than it would be (by about 20 or 30 degrees). The Earth would be an ice cube if it were not for water vapor and CO2. Greenhouse gases were discovered in the 1850s by John Tyndall, who was an Anglo-Irish physicist working in London. He was the first one to discover that water vapor, or carbon dioxide, or ether vapor, or alcohol vapor, intercept thermal radiation. Appropriately for an Anglo-Irishman, he used a hot tea kettle as his source of heat. He measured the thermal radiation from the tea kettle that passed through a pipe containing various gases, and he noticed that certain gases like CO2, or especially water vapor, would block much of that heat radiation whereas the normal atmospheric gases nitrogen and oxygen would not. All atmospheric gases are transparent to sunlight, but greenhouse gases are partly opaque to thermal radiation. We now call the gases that block heat-radiation “greenhouse gases.” CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it is not a very good greenhouse gas at today’s concentration. Let me show you something that I want you to remember: This is an important slide. There is a lot of history here and so there are two historical pictures. The top picture is Max Planck, the great German physicist who discovered quantum mechanics. Amazingly, quantum mechanics got its start from greenhouse gas-physics and thermal radiation, just what we are talking about today. Most climate fanatics do not understand the basic physics. But Planck understood it very well, and he was the first to show why the spectrum of radiation from warm bodies has the shape shown on this picture, to the left of Planck. The horizontal scale, left to right is the “spatial frequency” (wave peaks per cm) of thermal radiation. The vertical scale is the thermal power that is going out to space. If there were no greenhouse gases, the radiation going to space would be the area under the blue Planck curve. This would be the thermal radiation that balances the heating of Earth by sunlight. In fact, you never observe the Planck curve if you look down from a satellite. We have lots of satellite measurements now. What you see is something that looks a lot like the black curve, with lots of jags and wiggles in it. That curve was first calculated by Karl Schwarzschild, whose picture is below Planck’s picture. Schwarzschild was an officer in the German army in World War I, and he did some of his most creative work in the trenches on the eastern front facing Russia. He found one of the first analytic solutions to Einstein’s general theory of relativity while he was there on the front lines. Alas, he died before he got home. The cause of death was not Russian bullets but an autoimmune disease. This was a real tragedy for science. Schwarzschild was the theorist who first figured out how the real Earth, including the greenhouse gases in its atmosphere, radiates to space. That is described by the jagged black line. The important point here is the red line. This is what Earth would radiate to space if you were to double the CO2 concentration from today’s value. Right in the middle of these curves, you can see a gap in spectrum. The gap is caused by CO2 absorbing radiation that would otherwise cool the Earth. If you double the amount of CO2, you don’t double the size of that gap. You just go from the black curve to the red curve, and you can barely see the difference. The gap hardly changes. The message I want you to understand, which practically no one really understands, is that doubling CO2 makes almost no difference. Doubling would replace the black curve by the red curve. On the basis of this, we are supposed to give up our liberties. We are supposed to give up the gasoline engines of our automobiles. We are supposed to accept dictatorial power by Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, because of the difference between the red and the black curve. Do not let anyone convince you that that is a good bargain. It is a terrible bargain. The doubling actually does make a little difference. It decreases the radiation to space by about three watts per square meters. In comparison, the total radiation to space is about 300 watts per square meter. So, it is a one percent effect—it is actually a little less than that, because that is with no clouds. Clouds make everything even less threatening. Finally, let me point out that there is a green curve. That is what happens if you take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. No one knows how to do that, thank goodness, because plants would all die if you took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. But what this curve is telling you is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is already saturated. Saturation is a jargon term that means CO2 has done all the greenhouse warming it can easily do. Doubling CO2 does not make much difference. You could triple or quadruple CO2 concentrations, and it also would make little difference. The CO2 effects are strongly saturated. You can take that tiny difference between those curves that I showed you, the red and the black curves, and calculate the warming that should happen. I was one of the first to do this: in 1982 I was a co-author of one of the first books on radiative effects of CO2. (Above) is my calculation and lots of other people’s calculations since. It is a bar graph of the warming per decade that people have calculated. The red bar is what has actually been observed. On the right is warming per decade over 10 years, and on the left, over 20 years. In both cases the takeaway message is that predicted warmings, which so many people are frantic about, are all grossly larger than the observed warming, which is shown by the red bars. So, the observed warmings have been extremely small compared to computer calculations over any interval that you consider. Our policies are based on the models that you see here, models that do not work. I believe we know why they do not work, but no one is willing to admit it. Here is another comparison of models and observations. The red curve here on the bottom is the year. It starts in 1975. It goes through 2025 because model predictions are included. The top curve is predictions by the international climate-alarm establishment, and the bottom blue and green curves are observations. The blue circles summarize temperatures measured with balloons. You probably know that every day thousands of balloons are launched around the world in North America, Europe, Asia, and the southern hemisphere. They measure the temperature as they rise up to the stratosphere. So, we know what the temperature of the atmosphere has been from these really good balloon records. The warming observed from balloons is about a third of the warming that has been predicted by models. Nobody knows how much of the warming observed over the past 50 years is due to CO2. There is good reason to that think much of it, perhaps most of it, would be there even without an increase in CO2 because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age. We have been coming out of that since the early 1800s, before which the weather was much colder than now. The green curve (in the chart above) is measurements from satellites, very much like the measurements of a temporal scanning thermometer. You can look down from a satellite and measure the temperature of the atmosphere. The satellites and balloons agree with each other, and they do not agree with the computer models. This is very nice work by John Christie at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. The alleged harm from CO2 is from warming, and the warming observed is much, much less than predictions. In fact, warming is almost certainly beneficial — it gives slightly longer growing seasons. You can ripen crops a little bit further north than you could before. But there is even better news (to increasing atmospheric CO2): by standards of geological history, plants have been living in a CO2 famine during our current geological period. This is a picture of our best estimate of past levels of CO2: The vertical scale, RCO2, is the amount of CO2 in the past that was greater than it is today. You can see on that scale that over most of the past, CO2 levels have been five times, ten times. even twenty times greater than today. This period, approximately the past 540 million year since the Cambrian Period, is the Phanerozoic Eon, when we have good fossil records of life on Earth. So, we know pretty well what life was doing during that time from the sediments. During all of this period, with much higher CO2 levels, life flourished on Earth. In general, it flourished better when there was more CO2. Plants really would prefer to have two, three, four times more CO2 than we have today, and you can see plants already responding to our currently increasing CO2 levels. Let me show you an example: This is the greening of the Earth measured from satellites. This picture shows areas of the Earth that are getting greener over the 20-year period. What you notice is that everywhere, especially in arid areas of Sahel (you can see that just south of the Sahara) it is greening dramatically. The western United States is greening, western Australia is greening, western India is greening. This is almost certainly due to CO2, and the reason this happens is that CO2 allows plants to grow where 50 years ago it was too dry. Plants are now needing less water to grow than they did 50 or 100 years before. Let me show you another example of what more CO2 does in terms of making plants grow better: This is a picture of Dr. Sherwood Idso, and it was actually an experiment done here in Phoenix back in the 1980s. This pine tree, I believe, is a Mediterranean variety, the Eldarica pine. On the left is a pine tree growing in the current CO2 level at that time, which was about 380 parts per million, and on the right are pine trees growing in higher and higher CO2 concentrations. You can see that the more CO2 the pine trees have available, the faster they grow. You can do this with almost any plant: corn, wheat, cotton—they all grow better with more CO2. This is the so-called pollutant that you hear about in connection with “the climate “emergency.” So, let me explain the basics of why that works: Take a low-power magnifying glass and you will see the leaf is full of little holes or “stomata.” The little holes are to let carbon dioxide diffuse from the air into the moist interior of the leaf, where the leaf, using the special enzyme called rubisco, (one of the most ancient enzymes in the world and the most abundant protein), combines CO2 with a water molecule, H2O, to make sugar. The energy to run this little chemical factory within the leaf is provided by sunlight. The problem with this is the need for holes in the leaf. Not only do CO2 molecules diffuse in from the air, but H2O molecules diffuse out through the same hole and dry out the leaf. For every CO2 molecule that diffuses into the leaf there can be a hundred water molecules that diffuse out. So, the plant has an engineering dilemma: it has to have holes in its leaf to get the CO2 that it needs to live. But those same holes desiccate it; they dry it out, and the plant needs water to live. But plants are not stupid. All over the world, they are growing leaves with fewer or smaller holes in them in response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2. If there is more CO2 in the air outside, leaves do not need as many holes, and they do not leak as much water either. That is why you are seeing the greening of the earth. It is from the plants themselves taking advantage of CO2 coming back to more historically normal levels. There is a second important issue. The enzyme I mentioned, rubisco, is very ancient. It was probably invented, on the evolutionary scale, three and a half billion years ago. At that time, there was little oxygen in the air. So, rubisco was designed in a way that lets it be poisoned by oxygen. Plants today have a hard time when there is not enough CO2 in the air. When rubisco is charged with chemical energy to make sugar, but it cannot find a CO2 molecule, it grabs an oxygen molecule, O2, instead. It uses the oxygen to create hydrogen peroxide and other nasty oxidizing molecules. One reason for the antioxidants in your tea is to mitigate this problem. This mistaken use of an O2 molecule rather than a CO2 molecule is called photorespiration. Suppression of photorespiration is one reason plants grow better with more CO2. There is a special type of plant called C4 plant, which includes American corn and sugar cane, that has partially solved this problem. But as the CO2 levels increase, the old-fashioned C3 plants, without all the biochemical machinery to cope with photorespiration, out-compete C4 plants. When you raise all these hard, scientific issues with the climate alarmists, the response is “how can you say that? 97 percent of scientists agree that there’s a terrible emergency here that we have to cope with.” Here there are several things you should say: First of all, in science truth is not voted on. It is not like voting on a law. It is determined by how well your theory agrees with the observations and experiments. I just showed you that the theories of warming are grossly wrong. They are not even close and yet we are making our policy decisions based on computer models that do not work. It does not matter how many people say there is an emergency. If it does not agree with experiments and observations, the supposed scientific basis for the emergency is wrong. The claim of a climate emergency is definitely wrong. Secondly, even when scientists agree, what they agree on can be wrong. People think of scientists as incorruptible, priestly people. They are not that at all. They have the same faults as everybody else, and they are frequently wrong. A good example of that was the theory of “continental drift.” When I was a student in the 1950s, nobody with any self-respect in geology admitted to believing in continental drift, although it had been proposed by Alfred Wegner, a German scientist in the 1920s and 1930s, and it was based on very good, hard evidence. An example shown above is the fact that Africa, South America, India and Antarctica all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. It is as though the jigsaw has been taken apart so that is pretty suggestive. Secondly, if you look at the fossils in these continents from 300 million years ago, 400 million years ago, they go smoothly from South America to Africa or from Africa to India or even into Antarctica. You find fossils of the same organisms even though there are thousands of kilometres of sea separating them today. That again suggests that these land masses were connected. Nevertheless, in spite of this quite persuasive evidence, Wegner was scorned and mocked all his life. He died falling into a crevasse in Greenland, exploring and looking for fossils. A sad ending. The clincher actually came when the USA finally declassified the World War II North Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly data which we had been sitting on for 10 years. The data showed mirror-image conveyor belts of newly-formed oceanic crust, starting at the mid-Atlantic ridge and going out left and right toward America, and toward Europe. So, there was absolutely no question that the seafloor was spreading. That is the one bit of evidence that Wegner did not have, but he had lots of other evidence that should have persuaded people. This is just one example. I could tell you about many other scientific consensuses that made no sense. This one is interesting because it had no political background. It was pure science, but it does illustrate the fallibility of scientists, and the group-think that goes on in science. If you wanted to advance as a young geologist you could write a paper scorning Wegner in 1950 and get promoted right away, even though your paper was completely wrong. And, once you get tenure, you are there for good. So, the takeaway message is that policies that slow CO2 emissions are based on flawed computer models which exaggerate warming by factors of two or three, probably more. That is message number one. So, why do we give up our freedoms, why do we give up our automobiles, why do we give up a beefsteak because of this model that does not work? Takeaway message number two is that if you really look into it, more CO2 actually benefits the world. So, why are we demonizing this beneficial molecule that is making plants grow better, that is giving us slightly less harsh winters, a slightly longer growing season? Why is that a pollutant? It is not a pollutant at all, and we should have the courage to do nothing about CO2 emissions. Nothing needs to be done. Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have slapped-on crippling page restrictions. EV has also been blacklisted by ad networks, meaning the site is no longer allowed to run advertising. So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile). And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: The site receives ZERO funding, and never has. So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times. Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

The climate cartel 💰 foists ‘National Climate Bank’ on America – An ‘environmentally pointless slush fund for green energy projects’

The climate cartel 💰 Jason Isaac: “Restricting financing to American energy producers based on political whims kills good-paying jobs, increases our cost of living, and reduces the capital available to invest in the energy technologies of the future—while giving a leg up to less responsible energy producers. The less energy the United States is free to produce, the more we and our allies are forced to rely on hostile, unstable nations with lax environmental and labor standards. This is harmful not just for energy businesses but also for energy consumers—that means each and every American.”  “Contrary to the narrative that our environment is bad and getting worse—and that it is all our fault—America is a world leader in environmental protection. We are the only highly populated nation to meet the World Health Organization’s standards for safe air, and we have cut emissions of criteria air pollutants by 77% in the last 50 years…In fact, our air is now so clean it is almost indistinguishable from natural background levels. During the COVID-19 shutdowns, when 40% or more of vehicle traffic was taken off the roads and significant industrial activity slowed, the Texas Public Policy Foundation’sresearch shows there were no meaningful improvements in air quality. Anecdotal stories about the sky supposedly looking bluer do not stand up to the facts—at least in the United States. In fact, in some U.S. cities, the air actually got worse during the early months of the shutdowns.” Climate Collusion The Green New Deal is back, but that’s not the only reason we need to hold on to our hats (and our tax dollars). A new bill in the U.S. Senate proposes a “National Climate Bank” — a politically appetizing but environmentally pointless slush fund for green energy projects. Life:Powered’s Jason Isaac delivered invited testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee explaining why a national climate bank would impose a massive cost to taxpayers — but provide no environmental benefits whatsoever. Click here to watch the 5-minute testimony.   Jason Isaac, director of the Life:Powered project, delivered invited testimony about S. 283, the National Climate Bank act, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety. The National Climate Bank Act would impose a massive cost to taxpayers and create an uneven regulatory playing field but provide no environmental benefits whatsoever. Download written testimony # Related:   Jason Isaac: “Though you wouldn’t know it from most of the media’s apocalyptic headlines, America is a world leader in environmental quality, number one in the world in clean water and far outranking other developed nations in clean air. We are the only highly populated nation to meet the World Health Organization’s safe air standards for particulate matter and have reduced the six main air pollutants by 77% in the last 50 years — all while significantly growing our economy, population, and energy consumption.” The ‘National Climate Bank’ Con – The ‘climate’ projects envisioned would yield ‘impacts either trivial or undetectable’ ‘Beyond the scope of its mission’: GOP senators warn Federal Reserve about ‘subjecting banks to climate scenario analysis’ The Fed ‘lacks jurisdiction over and expertise in environmental matters’ … Fed Governor Lael Brainard said last month the central bank may consider subjecting banks to climate scenario analysis. The Carbon Commissars are watching you! Companies face compulsory green auditors The new proposal for a separate energy and carbon audit — distinct from the financial audit and conducted by a different professional body — not only imposes further costs on businesses, but also creates a green profession focused on monitoring the requirements of the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting Regulations. Since these are supported by criminal sanctions this is sinister and unwelcome development. Central Banks Can’t Print Energy: ‘It’s not just the availability of energy that matters, it’s the affordability of that energy’   Watch: Glenn Beck on new climate financial rules: ‘This is the end of capitalism’ – Rips ESG or Environmental, Social, & Governance Beck: “I want to invest in this company, it’s a gun company oh they’ve got an ESG score of two. Well I don’t care because I believe that’s going to go up. But it doesn’t matter. You’re not doing it for that anymore you’re not doing it to make money, you’re doing it for the overall good of society this is the end of capitalism.” … “It doesn’t matter that these companies might be worth more we think the investment should go to these companies because they’re socially woke. When that happens, the stock market means nothing,  nothing because it is basically at the barrel of a gun the government and the big businesses have decided who’s going to get the money.” # Benjamin Zycher on ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance Responsibility): ‘A blatant effort to use private-sector resources for ideological purposes’ Read the fabulous Ben Zycher‘s even more fabulous House testimony on the ongoing climate communist bid to convert corporate America into useful idiots via ESG (Environmental Social and Governance), which used to be called CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). Zycher to Congress: “The campaign for ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance Responsibility) investment and disclosure is a blatant effort to use private-sector resources for ideological purposes, in the context of the unwillingness of the Congress to enact such policies as an outcome of the legislative bargaining process.”  … “Sustainability” is poorly defined, so that its objectives are limitless, and the Memorandum fails to tell us how to evaluate the inexorable tradeoffs among them and with the traditional business objective of value maximization.”  … “One could easily imagine that such self-protective “disclosures” might run thousands of pages, with references to thousands more, and the idea that this “disclosure” requirement would facilitate improved decision making by investors is difficult to take seriously.” WHO reports: US ranked among countries with the cleanest air in the world – Significantly cleaner air than in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK, Japan, Austria, & France President Trump was right – being in the Paris Climate Accord was not in America’s best interests. Especially since the US is listed among countries with the cleanest air in the world, according to the W.H.O… That’s after all the G7 countries whined about Trump removing us from the accords in 2017 In its 2018 report (& 2019 report) on air pollution, the W.H.O. ranked the United States among the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria, and France. WHO 2019 report: “Northern America remains one of the regions with the lowest overall PM2.5 levels worldwide.”   Report: COVID-19 lockdowns significantly impacting global air quality Which is it? No, The Coronavirus Lockdown Hasn’t Made The Air Cleaner: According to EPA’s air-quality monitors EPA touts achievements: ‘The U.S. became the number one energy producer in the world’ under Trump admin EPA October 2020: From 2005 to 2018, total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 12 percent. And while the U.S. became the number one energy producer in the world. In contrast, global energy-related CO2 emissions increased over 23.8 percent. And since 1990, U.S. natural gas production has increased by 71 percent. Over that period, methane emissions across the natural gas industry have fallen by 24 percent. The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis. In fact, U.S. emissions are now down almost 1 gigaton from our peak in 2000, marking the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions by any other country over that period (International Energy Agency). Overall, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions declined by 2.8% in 2019 (EIA). Analysis: US Air Quality Isn’t Slipping: Taking a Closer Look at the Data The truth is that the changes in air quality cited are statistically insignificant, largely driven by wildfires, and do nothing to contradict claims that America’s air is as clean as it has ever been. EPA Data Shows Air Quality Continues To Improve In Spite Of Eco-Left Fearmongering Trump praised by Politico: ‘People who live near most toxic sites in America say they saw a level of attention they hadn’t seen in decades under Trump’ – ‘Some [will be] voting GOP for the 1st time in their lives’ “The crazy thing that still baffles me is how far above and beyond the minimum requirement this administration has gone,” says Ed Smith, who lobbied for the cleanup of the West Lake site during his time with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, of the aggressive settlements. “You’d think this was a business-friendly administration,” he said, but the EPA under Trump struck a far more aggressive cleanup agreement with the polluting parties at the West Lake Landfill than Obama’s had—to the tune of an extra $150 million in remediation costs for the polluter, Smith figured. “I honestly wake up every day pinching myself. Is this real?” Flashback: Analysis of EPA: Climate change ‘politicized the EPA’ – ‘EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S’ Amy Harder of Axios: ‘The EPA has (mostly) solved the most basic and widespread public health and environmental problems that plagued the U.S. back around the ’60’s. Climate change is now the top environmental issue in the country. That politicizes the EPA, makes it less of a big deal to average Americans and fuels antipathy from elected Republicans, most of whom don’t acknowledge it’s a real issue.’ ‘The Obama administration issued a steady stream of major regulations on climate change…It was one of the most aggressive EPA’s ever’ ‘Most past Republican presidents nominated EPA administrators who were more to the left on environmental issues than the Republican Party writ large.’

For more results click below