UK Spectator's Toby Young: So how exactly did the IPBES arrive at the magic one million number? It seems we’re just supposed to take it on faith, which the BBC duly did. What about the IPBES’s claim that ‘around 25% of species… are threatened’? That seems a little pessimistic, given that the number of mammals to have become extinct in the past 500 years or so is around 1.4% and only one bird has met the same fate in Europe since 1852. Not bad when you consider how much economic growth there’s been in the past 167 years.
...All I could find online was a press release put out by the IPBES and a ‘summary’ of the report ‘for policymakers’. The press release states: ‘The report finds that around one million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades.’ It gives no source for this beyond the as-yet-unpublished report, but the summary makes it clear that it’s partly based on data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.
UK Guardian: "The final wording of the summary for policymakers is being finalized in Paris by a gathering of experts and government representatives before the launch on Monday, but the overall message is already clear…: '
Donna LaFramboise: "In other words, as happens at the UN IPCC, scientists are recruited to write a report. Afterward, they draft a summary known as the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Then politicians and bureaucrats representing national governments attend a plenary meeting where the summary gets examined line-by-line and rewritten. Fairy tales tell of turning straw into gold. The UN takes scientific summaries and transforms them into politically acceptable straw. The resulting document, which will be solemnly released today, is what a roomful of political operatives have all agreed to say out loud. But it gets worse. Over the next few weeks, the text being summarized – the underlying, ostensibly scientific document – will also get changed. That’s not how things normally work, of course. Summaries are supposed to be accurate reflections of longer documents. At the UN, they represent an opportunity to alter those documents, to make them fall into line...This is no sober scientific body, which examines multiple perspectives, and considers alternative hypotheses. The job of the IPBES is to muster only one kind of evidence, the kind that promotes UN environmental treaties.
That’s how the United Nations works, folks. Machinations in the shadows. Camouflaging its political aspirations by dressing them up in 1,800 pages of scientific clothing."
In fact, the big oil companies are putting at least a billion dollars into alarmist projects and lobbying. Of course, they have good commercial reasons, which are killing coal and making natural gas more “climate friendly.” After all, Big Oil is also Big Gas. The central vehicle for moving these green billion dollars goes by a perfectly descriptive name — the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative or OGCI.
AOC "seemed to recognize that Rossiter’s presence, and incendiary claims, had become central to a hearing that was not supposed to be about coal."
Climate Statistician Dr. Caleb Rossiter to AOC Committee: "We are trying to save the people of the planet from the people 'saving the planet.'"
Rossiter to Congress: "Extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, droughts and tornadoes are not increasing in incidence or lives lost. Indeed, the global mortality from all weather-related natural disasters declined by 99 percent while the population trebled after 1920, thanks to improved economies and technologies. Food production and calorie consumption per capita continue to increase, thanks to the green revolution, increased CO2 fertilization and longer growing seasons. Fossil fuels contribute enormously to the production, safe storage and transport of food and thus to human nutrition."
Update! AOC insults Rossiter!Slams as "a guy w/ a polka dot bowtie backed by oil lobbyists arguing that fossil fuels are' healthy.' HEALTHY. It’s embarrassing." - AOC: " One of the things that genuinely surprised me in Congress is the sheer mediocrity of witnesses called forth by the GOP in hearings. Yesterday they brought in a guy w/ a polka dot bowtie backed by oil lobbyists arguing that fossil fuels are “healthy.” HEALTHY. It’s embarrassing."
James Hansen: "The green new deal as they've defined that is nonsense. We need a real deal which understands how economics works and what we need to do in order to move off of fossil fuels. And that requires in addition to this rising carbon fee, with the distribution to the public. We also have to have the technologies we have to help the developing countries, the Western world burned the carbon budget for the whole world. Now we've got a problem. And we're going to have to help those countries they want to raise their standards of living to match ours. And so there, it's a big problem but it's a solvable problem."
Host to Sunrise Movement's co-founder Varshini Prakash: "You and James Hansen both agree on the scale of the challenge but he thinks your solution is nonsense."
Varshini Prakash: "Well I would say that I don't think that simply putting a price on carbon is going to be enough in this moment I think if it were 30 years ago that might have been enough and and even after the most recent IPCC report the UN Climate report that came out last fall's said that we need to make unprecedented changes to every part of our economy and our society to stop this crisis. So I don't think that that's going to be enough I think we need to be we need..."
Hansen: "Yeah, it's not enough, but it's the underlying policy that's required to make the price of fossil fuels honest, otherwise people will keep burning them the same way that we did in the West, because people want energy, they're going to raise their standard of living. They need energy, and we need to make the price of fossil fuels include their cost to society that's the underlying requirement. But there is technology development also, I just quickly touch on, because, because James talked about matching."
UK columnist Katie Hopkins confronted by 'Extinction Rebellion' protesters and turns the tables on them: 'Can you explain to me why it seems to be almost a luxury of the privileged that live in London to dictate to the rest of us what we should and shouldn’t be allowed to do?'
Hopkins called 'Extinction Rebellion' protester "posh” several times, arguing that, in her experience, protesters appear to be affluent, and they prompt policies that would have a much more profound impact on those who were not as wealthy. “Can I ask you a question just to interrupt the constant monologue of you talking?” she asked. “There’s this perception I have where I live, and it’s called ‘the rest of the U.K.,’ that climate protesters are massively over-privileged and kind of ‘posh’ kids — and you seem to be falling straight into that for me. So can you explain to me why it seems to be almost a luxury of the privileged that live in London to dictate to the rest of us what we should and shouldn’t be allowed to do?”
Hopkins added: "Your hero and pinup [kids school striking climate activist] Greta (Thunberg) is actually a very privileged individual with privileged parents."
Hopkins went on to ask the protester where he had gone to school, needling him about whether it might have been a prestigious boarding school. He pointedly refused to answer, arguing that it didn’t matter.
The “David vs. Goliath” narrative surrounding environmental activism is false. Environmental organizations outpace conservative and free-market groups in terms of funding and organizational capacity.•
As evidenced by the emergence of the “Keep it in the Ground” Movement, this money plays a major role in shaping public opinion, which translates to economically destructive policy initiatives that emanate from all levels of government.•
A key strategy of the environmental movement is to target key institutions that drive the ideas that animate our society.•
Environmental funding has been tied to foreign actors, which raises concerns over the role geopolitics plays in environmental advocacy.
A recent headline from Inside Climate News blares, “China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short.” That is, China and India are reaching the “goal” of proceeding along their unaltered course, while the U.S. is “falling short” of a very high bar...The giveaway for the Paris charade is the refusal to set baselines. If nations are to hold one another accountable for progress on greenhouse-gas emissions, surely they must agree on a starting point from which to progress. Yet the framework for Paris pointedly omitted this requirement. Countries could calculate their own baselines however they chose, or provide none at all.