90 Miles From Tyranny : Search results for warming

Showing posts sorted by date for query warming. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, September 7, 2023

Joe Biden’s Knockout Punch for American Energy Independence

Since Day One in office, Joe Biden has made developing gas and oil resources difficult to impossible, and less oil means higher prices. No one should be fooled when he lashes out about high gas prices. The blame lies squarely with him.

Just last month, President Joe Biden took a major swipe at America’s energy independence when he declared nearly a million acres of uranium-rich land outside of Grand Canyon National Park off limits to energy development.

Turns out that was just the setup jab.

The knockout punch is on its way.

According to reports, Biden wants to cancel drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, which would deny Americans access to around a total of 11 billion barrels of oil (though it could be much more).

That is a lot of oil.

Canceling drilling when Saudi Arabia continues to cut production makes even less sense. That’s because this decision will continue to chill gas and oil development in the United States, meaning that Americans will not only lose this oil but the oil production that is forgone because of the political environment Biden has created.

No company, after all, will risk the massive amounts of capital necessary to develop new energy resources when the government can swoop in and shut you down.

Like with the uranium decision, this announcement will most assuredly be cast as necessary to protect the environment. This is diversion politics at its worst. The truth is that while ANWR is about the size of South Carolina, the actual land open for development would be much, much less. According to one industry analysis, surface operations would take up only around 2,000 acres.

More importantly, however, is that developing gas and oil is nothing new in the region. In fact, the American gas and oil industry has a strong record working along Alaska’s coastal plain, having safely produced around 18 billion barrels of oil since production began at Prudhoe Bay in 1977.

Then there will be claims about how stopping this oil development is necessary to fight global warming. The truth is that even if one were to take the climate alarmist claims as fact, the amount of carbon dioxide saved by not using this oil would be almost zero.

First, just because Americans don’t have access to this domestic source of oil doesn’t mean that they will not still demand oil. It will just likely have to come from somewhere else and be more expensive. The CO2 is still going to be released.

Even if not producing the oil in ANWR somehow led to oil not being used in the aggregate, the amount of CO2 saved would be meaningless in global warming terms. The Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician, Kevin Dayaratna, has investigated exactly this point using the same models...

Will New EPA Regulations Starve Millions Of People?

Two distinguished climate scientists have filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a 45-page comment on the proposed regulation the EPA announced on May 11, 2023, setting emission standards that would require nearly all of coal- and gas-powered plants in the U.S.to capture almost all—90 percent—of their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2038 or shut down.

In their comment, William Happer, professor of physics, emeritus, Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor of Earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences, emeritus, make both a legal and a scientific case that the EPA’s proposed new rule is based on ideologically driven polices with no basis in legitimate climate science. In a document that appears to be the prelude to filing a lawsuit to block the EPA from implementing the proposed regulation, Happer and Lindzen lay out a science-based case arguing that the new EPA rules designed to limit the use of hydrocarbon fuels in the nation’s power plants could end up reducing the world’s food supply so dramatically that billions of people worldwide would be at risk of death by starvation.

Happer and Lindzen begin their comment by citing Supreme Court precedent that suggests their comment could easily be the basis for a legal challenge in federal court to block the EPA from implementing the proposed new rule. Happer and Lindzen organized their comments around two specific cases.

First, in Daubert v. Merrell Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that “‘scientific knowledge’…must be derived by the scientific method.” Second, in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), the Court held that an agency rule is “arbitrary and capricious if the agency…entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” and “the relevant data.”

In their comment, Happer and Lindzen demonstrated that the EPA (1) failed to consider critically important aspects and data concerning CO2 fossil fuels and climate change, and (2) relied on numerous studies that violate the scientific method. They concluded: “As a result, the Proposed Rule, which would eliminate fossil fuel electric plants that provide 61 percent of electricity in the United States, will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

To support their claim, Happer and Lindzen argued that the EPA had failed to consider the following “important aspects of climate change and relevant data.”Carbon dioxide is essential to life, creating via the process of photosynthesis the food we eat and the oxygen we breathe. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no human life or other life on earth.

Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas. To illustrate, increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20% increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.
Fossil fuels are indispensable in creating nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides that feed nearly half the world; their combustion releases carbon dioxide and thus increases plant growth via increased CO2 fertilization effect, creating more food worldwide; and they provide the most reliable, efficient and low-cost energy for many uses, including the production of 61% of the nation’s electricity.
The number of people worldwide who are moderately or severely food insecure is 2.3 billion, including over 900 million who face severe food insecurity. Each ton of carbon dioxide emissions eliminated reduces the amount of food available worldwide. “Net zero” would reduce carbon emissions by over 40 gigatons (Gt) every year, and consequently would proportionally reduce the amount of food produced. Without the “use of inorganic [nitrogen] fertilizers” derived from fossil fuels, the world simply “will not achieve the food supply needed to support 8.5 to 10 billion people,” resulting in widespread starvation.

Happer and Lindzen that demonstrated the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has ignored scientific data that proves there “is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data.
600 million years of data prove that today’s CO2 level of 420 parts per million (ppm) is very low, not high.
600 million years of data show that higher levels of CO2 do not cause or even correlate with higher temperatures.

Even at today’s relatively low levels, atmospheric CO2 is now “heavily saturated,” in physics terms, meaning that additional increases in atmospheric CO2 can have little warming effect.

Another defect Happer and Lindzen noted was that the EPA, in promulgating the new rule, relied heavily on IPCC data. Yet, unknown to most, IPCC rules require that IPCC governments control what IPCC reports as “scientific” findings on CO2, fossil fuels, and anthropogenic climate change, not scientists. IPCC governments meet behind closed doors and control what is published in...

John Kerry: Farmers Must Stop Growing Food to Meet ‘Net Zero’ Goals for ‘Emissions’

Democrat President Joe Biden’s “climate czar” John Kerry is calling for farmers to stop growing food in order to meet the administration’s radical “net zero” goals for lowering “emissions.”

Kerry, Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, issued the warning during a green agenda conference in Washington D.C.

During the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) AIM for Climate Summit, Kerry told the audience that “we can’t get to net zero, we won’t get this job done, unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution.”

Kerry warned attendees that his and other world leaders’ “lives depend” on farmers ceasing their operations.

Stopping farmers from growing food will lower agriculture “emissions,” Kerry insists.

He continued by noting that he does not even call it climate change anymore.

“It’s not change; it’s a crisis,” he declared.

“Mitigating methane is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term,” Kerry claimed as he took aim at livestock farmers.

“Food and agriculture can contribute to a low-methane future by improving farmer productivity and resilience,” he further stated.

We welcome agriculture ministers participating in the implementation of the Global Methane Pledge.”

Kerry, a multibillionaire, argued that the world’s population must slash meat consumption.

However, the overall message delivered by Kerry appeared to be that eating meat should be a luxury that is limited to wealthy elitists like himself.

Essentially, the masses must stop eating meat to meet the goals of the elite.

“Food systems themselves contribute a significant amount of emissions just in the way in which we do the things we’ve been doing,” Kerry asserted.

“With a growing population on the planet – we just crossed the threshold of eight billion fellow citizens around the world – emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid-century.”

Kerry called on world leaders from all around the world to massively scale back their citizens’ farming operations.

He argued that doing so is vital in order to keep the planet cooler as we move into the future.

“This sector needs innovation now more than ever,” Kerry said.

“We’re facing record malnutrition at a time when agriculture, more than any other sector, is suffering from the impacts of the climate crisis.”

“We need economic, social, and policy innovation in order to scale adaptation of these technical solutions and get them into the hands of folks in the fields of small farmers on a worldwide basis.

“This is the promise of AIM for Climate Summit.”

Biden, meanwhile, recently vowed that the U.S. will reach “net zero emissions” by the year 2050.

How this happens depends entirely upon how many farms the globalist overlords can force out of business, resulting in much less food and far fewer mouths to feed.

Co-led by both the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), AIM for Climate is devoted to slashing farming emissions through...

Oops. That climate science isn't quite as settled...

Remember all that talk about methane being the scariest greenhouse gas? The claims are behind the war on meat, rice, farts, gas stoves, fracking, and just about everything else in the known universe that improves human life.

Well, except farts. They really don’t improve human life that much, unless you have gas pains. Man, it sucks when you have gas pains.

The science behind the claims that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas is pretty straightforward, if you look at only part of the science. Methane indeed traps more heat inside the atmosphere than CO2, by a wide margin. It disperses much more quickly, with a short life in the atmosphere, but if you only consider the warming impact it indeed is quite powerful.

That’s the reasoning behind the war on gas. But…

When Climate Science Unsettles – Abe Greenwald, Commentary Magazine

Yeah, well, there is a huge problem with that claim. While technically true in some abstract sense, it is much less true when you look at all the effects methane in the atmosphere has on global temperatures. In other words, it is the sort of claim that relies upon your ignorance of the multiple effects of methane gas in the atmosphere–some of which are known widely, and many of which even climate “scientists” didn’t know when they made their wild claims about doom from leaking natural gas.

New research shows that methane is still a powerful greenhouse gas, but nothing like what is claimed regularly.

This is the sort of thing that happens all the time in climate research, where variables are viewed and modeled in isolation based upon a limited set of data, and then the “scientists” extrapolate the heck out of the limited data and come up with models that are, frankly, ridiculous.

Then they pick the most extreme outcomes from models with the worst outcomes, and call it “settled science.” It is exactly the sort of thing you see in nutrition research, for example. Creating simplistic models from limited data interpreting complex and highly interdependent systems as if they mirror the falling of a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum.

And the results, as you can see in the real world, are quite different. Bowling balls and feathers fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but once you introduce the atmosphere a feather can “fall upwards” on a breeze while the bowling ball crashes down as predicted.

The research in question here reveals the complexity of reality: methane may trap heat, but it also prevents energy from...

Another year, another round of global warming doomsday predictions that never came to pass

No matter how far the predictions are off, the sycophants in the media will continue predicting the talking points that the science is settled and continue their support for the destruction of industries that produce reasonably priced and reliable energy.

From the following article at Roseville Earlier This Week:

Heavy rains, big snow along with power outages, overflowing rivers and high winds rocked Northern California to end 2022 in dramatic fashion. A healthy dose of hydrologic optimism has eased concerns for the moment of dire predictions for a dry winter. The season is off to a strong start with more rain and snow on the way for early 2023. Hope remains strong for replenishing California’s 10 largest reservoirs this spring.

So the dire predictions were for a dry winter and the storms seem to be never ending. Thank goodness the climate is and has always been cyclical and natural.The reason the Earth has so many deserts and so much water is because we have always had floods and long droughts. It has nothing to do with our driving gas-powered vehicles. Mother Nature is much more powerful than humans. (Is it acceptable to use the term 'mother' or is that offensive?)

How many dire predictions have to be 100% wrong before the media starts doing their job to ask questions and do research instead of just repeating what they are told? There certainly have been a lot of them...

There is no answer for this question because most journalists seem intent on infecting the U.S. with radical leftist policies to destroy our way of life.

The CBS news show, 60 Minutes, had Paul Ehrlich on recently to again warn that we would all die soon.

Why does anyone think Ehrlich is a valuable expert? Anyone who thinks 60 Minutes is a purveyor of the truth is confused.

Here are some of the previous dire predictions of Ehrlich and others that were 100% wrong, according to the AEI's Mark Perry.

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 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.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.
Erlich is an idiot. And anyone who keeps citing him as an 'expert' is a...

Not a Joke: Ford Says Don't Use Heater in Electric Truck in Winter to Save Battery - But That's Not All

Winter is coming.

OK, technically meteorological winter arrived last week, beginning as it does every year on Dec. 1. Astronomical winter, which is the one that shows up on your calendar as “First Day of Winter,” doesn’t kick off until Dec. 21.

But if you drive a Ford F-150 Lighting electric pickup truck, it may have felt like winter to you for quite a while already, especially if you live in a colder climate and follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for extending the vehicle’s range during the snowy season.

Because I don’t want to be accused of taking anything out of context, I’m going to just list those recommendations in their entirety, commenting as I go. (I’ll put Ford’s wording in italics for clarity, and I won’t cut anything they wrote — you can double-check me here if you’re the less trusting sort.)

1. Park your F-150 Lightning in a garage whenever possible.

Stop the censors, sign up to get today's top stories delivered right to your inbox

I’d say that’s generally good advice for all vehicles. Keeping your car in a garage preserves its paint and wax jobs, as well as keeping it safer from vandalism and theft.

2. Keep your F-150 Lightning plugged in when parked.

Do the kids still say “duh” anymore? Because I feel like that’s the proper response here. “Want better battery life from your EV?” Ford seems to be asking. “Try plugging it in when you can.” Gee, thanks for the tip, Ford.

3. If planning a longer commute, precondition your vehicle using departure times to warm the battery while plugged-in by using the FordPass app or your trucks center screen.

This one raises several questions. Why is “plugged-in” hyphenated? Why does Ford allow people who don’t know how possessives work in English to publish on its website? Why would pre-warming your battery be more useful before “long commutes” than it would before short drives? A little explanation would be nice.

4. If equipped, use the heated seats and steering wheel as primary heat to reduce energy consumed by HVAC.

This is probably acceptable advice — if the temperature were, say, above 40 degrees. In the 40s and 50s, the heated seats would likely be sufficient to keep me comfortable. But there are parts of the country that don’t see 40 degrees for days, weeks, even months at a time. You’re going to tell people in Boston, Fargo or Nome to rely on heated seats? Do you even watch “Life Below Zero,” bro?

5. When charging, turn off the heater if possible, or lower the temperature enough to remain comfortable. (Especially when using DCFC)

DCFC, by the way, stands for “Direct Current Fast Charging,” which I hope electric vehicle owners know, because Ford made no effort to explain it on the page. Anyone trying to charge their vehicle using the Detroit City Football Club or a Death Cab for Cutie CD is going to be disappointed.

Again, this advice probably works adequately in...

United Nations considers trying to OUTLAW all fossil fuels on the planet, which would lead to the starvation and death of billions of people

The COP27 globalist gathering that recently took place in Egypt came with open calls for a global phase-out of, and eventual ban on, all fossil fuels. Were this to actually happen, billions of people would die.

A tiny, failing island in the South Pacific called Tuvalu (ever heard of it?) made the proposition using the following quoted statement:

“We, therefore, unite with 100 Nobel Peace Prize laureates and 1000s of scientists worldwide to urge world leaders to join the fossil fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, to manage a just transition away from fossil fuels.”

One wonders: what does Tuvalu mean by the term “just transition?” Is ending most human life on earth considered by the globalists to be the “just” thing to do? Because that it what eliminating all fossil fuel usage would do. (Related: Without fossil fuels, there will be no more fertilizer to grow food.)

Fossil fuels are essential to not only the economy but also the continuity of civilization itself. The current global population is far too high to be sustained with Stone Age-era techniques of living, growing and catching food, and propagating.

“A tiny population, no greater than a couple of million people maximum, would know how to go back to living in caves and the Stone Age,” reports Zero Hedge.

“They’d have to scrape by and find food for themselves where they could. These people would survive. Everyone else. You’re pretty much gone. And that’s not exaggerating.”
Tuvalu is actually GROWING, not shrinking

Tuvalu happens to have an axe to grind as the island is slowly disappearing. It is unknown precisely why it is disappearing, but as is usually the case “global warming” is taking the blame.

Globalist politicians insist that human activity like growing food, driving a car, and raising livestock are causing planetary temperatures to rise, which in turn is causing ocean levels to rise and flood countries like Tuvalu.

The United Nations (UN), one of the hosts of COP27, seems to be in agreement that fossil fuels should be eliminated, even though it has never conducted a cost-benefit analysis on the prospect.

Let us assume, without any evidence, that Tuvalu could be saved by erasing fossil fuel use from the global economy. Would it really be worth it if, say, two billion people elsewhere have to die in order to make it happen?

“I understand that the members of Gilligan’s Island have formed a strong attachment to their home, but if I had to choose between sacrificing a strip of land or saving 2 billion people, I would go with the latter,” Zero Hedge says.

The reality is that Tuvalu’s fate is just the cover story for a global depopulation plan that is being disguised as well-meaning efforts to fight “climate change.” This is the simplest and most straight-to-the-point explanation as to what is going on.

“They don’t like that the plebs are using their air, their fuel, their farmland, their food, their water or and if you look at the dollar, it’s theirs too,” wrote a commenter.

“Half of the planet will die in six months if fossil fuels are banned,” added another. “Maybe that’s their goal.”

Someone else shared a “fact check” article published in 2018 confirming that Tuvalu is...

With ESG, Everyone's a Climate Activist

In 2019, 266 members of the influential Business Roundtable, including the world’s largest fund managers, bankers, communications carriers, even fossil-fuel companies at the risk of their own survival, signed off on a one-page statement reimagining the American corporation. It described a new paradigm of corporate social responsibility to its stakeholders, a perspective that elevates employees, contractors, and suppliers over the interests of profit-seeking shareholders whose investments underwrite a company’s financial health. It presented a woke capitalist view of the new-age company as beholden to environmental and social whims of the political elite.

The concept of stakeholder capitalism is a half-century old, dating back to the Davos manifesto in 1971. To CEOs of a progressive bent, this better kind of capitalism changes the calculus for business leaders by embracing a corporate conscience that devalues short-term shareholder profits in favor of investments aimed at resolving environmental and social issues.

Under the thumb of the United Nations and World Economic Forum, the Biden administration and corporate boardrooms across America have thrown their lot behind the practice of stakeholder capitalism. In so doing, they have put American economic and energy power in the hands of potentates and dictators and brought a sense of reality to decades-old fears of a New World Order, Bilderberg conspiracies, and global kingmakers steering nation-state economies.

Highlighting the European origins of this crusade is a manipulated Swedish teenager named Greta Thunberg, whose well-coached militancy inclines her to apocalyptic outbursts characteristic of an anxiety disorder. Trafficked as a doomsday climate purveyor to world leaders, Thunberg recently showboated her net-zero emission convictions by boarding a sailboat from France to the United States. Pulling off this transatlantic stunt forced several crewmembers to take mega-carbon airline flights to various ports of call.

The movement to align worldwide production and labor is woven into a vision to eliminate carbon emissions from the planet. It is a Trojan Horse for an economic fascism that benefits few but the international corporate and political elites who toast their influence and fortune at Davos cocktail parties.

There’s a lot of backslapping going on in the corporate world over Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) business strategies. ESG provides the leverage used by governments to force-feed a progressive value system on corporations. It is shareholder extortion, a corporate money pit pushed by the climate commissars at the UN and WEF that assures the erosion of shareholder investments.

Climate activism is a billy club swung wildly by the Biden administration and Beltway Democrats to rule over the domestic means of production by threatening a dystopian view of the future. It pervades every department of the administration, including the military. Social media and the academies have fallen in lockstep, censoring or shouting down any denial of climate change narratives. In Alinsky style, last week Biden preached to a distressed audience in Fort Myers that Hurricane Ian ended the debate about the effects of global warming, sinking to a new low in the presence of human misery and destruction with a callous claim discredited days before by...

Spoiler Alert: It’s All a Scam

This is war. We need to go on the offensive. It starts by describing the four corners of deceit, exposing them, and actually taking them back. It is late, but never too late.

Here is the hard-discovered truth.

The Left, which now controls all the centers of power and the commanding heights of the world economy, seeks to codify their ideology as science, and thereby make it irrefutable. You can’t disagree with it or you are a kook or insurrectionist. You are outside what Thomas Kuhn, called the “paradigm of normal science.”

Think about it. Everything these authorities tell you is true is, in fact, precisely the opposite of the truth.

Global warming is a hoax.

Universities are about indoctrination, not education.

Government is a form of manipulation with a two-tiered justice system.

The media is fake and journalism died long ago.

The financial system is a Ponzi scheme.

Trump did not collude with Russia.

The border is wide open.

Inflation is not transitory.

Defunding the police increases crime.

The pandemic did not originate in a wet market from pangolins.

Joe Biden is illegitimate.

Crackhead Hunter is not innocent.

Epstein didn’t kill himself.

Black Lives Matter and critical race theory are not about racial justice.

Women are not men and vice versa.

Virtue signaling isn’t about virtue.

Religion is not malevolent.

The late, great Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to visualize and expose the “four corners of deceit” in our culture that altogether combined, suffice to lie to students, citizens, and the American people.

The four corners of deceit are: government, academia, science, and the media. I had a hard time coming to this radical conclusion myself, as I wanted to believe otherwise, was not a conspiracist, and have attained all the laurels on offer from our current system. Just read my memoir, Davos, Aspen & Yale. I have been behind the elite curtain.

Like an Orwell novel, the clock is striking 13 in America. The farm animals on top know it and are so cynical they are laughing all the way to the bank and the voting booth. The populace, like lemmings, just goes along. What else can they do? As in the Thomas Hardy tale, Far From the Madding Crowd, the sheep, listless and unknowing, just fling themselves off the cliff, one after the other.

Hardy’s title comes from Thomas Gray’s famous 18th-century poem “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard”:

Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife
Their sober wishes never learned to stray;
Along the cool sequestered vale of life,
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.

Yes, it would be nice to retreat into some Benedict Option or, like the infamous and unpretentious Amish, to a more bucolic and sequestered way of life, unpolluted by modern life, off the grid, without technologies, free from the IRS and G-men.

Play some Wagner. Romanticism has a strong streak in our civilization but it is, in fact, delusional. Try as you might, you cannot opt out of reality. We are part of the whole and it is everywhere, dictating everything. They will get you, regardless what you do or where you go.

There is no turning back.

We live in an era of frauds, con-men, and liars. Truth, beauty, and the good have been corrupted or forgotten and lost. There may exist “a remnant,” for whom another future beckons but it won’t be found in...

Top Climate Scientists Slam Global Warming “So-Called Evidence” as “Misrepresentation, Exaggeration and Outright Lying”

Two top-level American atmospheric scientists have dismissed the peer review system of current climate science literature as “a joke”. According to Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, “it is pal review, not peer review”. The two men have had long distinguished careers in physics and atmospheric science. “Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence,” they state.

No reliable scientific evidence can be provided either by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they say, which is “government-controlled and only issues government dictated findings”. The two academics draw attention to an IPCC rule that states all summaries for policymakers are approved by governments. In their opinion, these summaries are “merely government opinions”. They refer to the recent comments on climate models by the atmospheric science professor John Christy from the University of Alabama, who says that, in his view, recent climate model predictions “fail miserably to predict reality”, making them “inappropriate” to use in predicting future climate changes.

The ’miserable failure’ is graphically displayed below. Since the observations cut-off, global temperatures have again paused.

Particular scorn is poured on global surface temperature datasets. Happer and Lindzen draw attention to a 2017 paper by Dr. James Wallace and others that elaborated on how over the last several decades, “NASA and NOAA have been fabricating temperature data to argue that rising CO2 levels have led to the hottest year on record”. The false and manipulated data are said to be an “egregious violation of scientific method”. The Wallace authors also looked at the Met Office HadCRUT database and found all three surface datasets made large historical adjustments and removed cyclical temperature patterns. This was “totally inconsistent” with other temperature data, including satellites and meteorological balloons, they said. Readers will recall that the Daily Sceptic has reported extensively on these issues of late and has attracted a number of somewhat footling ‘fact checks’.

Happer and Lindzen summarise: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence marshalled in support of the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.”

Professors Happer and Lindzen’s comments are included in a submission to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is seeking to impose massive and onerous ‘climate change’ reporting requirements on public companies. But they form part of a wider scientific revolt by many scientists alarmed at the corruption of science to promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Needless to say, these debates are largely ignored by mainstream media. Opponents of Net Zero politicised science are denounced as ‘cranks’ and ‘deniers’, labels at odds with their distinguished scientific achievements. Between them, Happer from Princeton and Lindzen from MIT have around 100 years of involvement in atmospheric science. Richard Lindzen was an early lead author for the IPCC, while William Happer was responsible for a groundbreaking invention that corrected the degrading effects of atmospheric turbulence on imaging resolution.

In their submission, Happer and Lindzen supply a basic lesson in science: “Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, peer review, government opinions or manipulated data”.

In the U.K., it will be interesting to see if Net Zero will feature as a major issue in the battle to find a new Prime Minister. At the moment, candidates seem to be steering a widish berth – something that can happen with virtuous green policies when actual votes are at stake. Happer and Lindzen state firmly that “science demonstrates there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2, and therefore no reliable scientific evidence supporting the proposed rule”. The rule in this case refers to the SEC climate requirement, but it could equally apply to Net Zero. Many people now accept that a rigid Net Zero policy will lead to massive falls in living standards that will disproportionately affect the poorer in society, both in the U.K. and particularly in the developing world. Contrary to the incessant attack on fossil fuels, write Happer and Lindzen, “affordable, abundant fossil fuels have given ordinary people the sort of freedom, prosperity and health that were reserved for kings in ages past”.

Such prosperity, of course, has left the building in the case of Sri Lanka, where the prospect of famine and civil breakdown face 22 million people following (among other things) the decision of the Government to ban fertiliser in the interests of climate change and saving the planet. Such a collapse, with the President hastily fleeing the country, is likely to face any modern Net Zero society that seeks to tamper with reliable and affordable energy supply, restrict diet and try to grow enough food using ‘organic’ methods. Happer and Lindzen state that reducing CO2 and the use of fossil fuels would have “disastrous consequences” for the poor, people worldwide and future generations.

Both Happer and Lindzen have long held out against the current demonisation of atmospheric CO2, pointing out that the current 415 parts per million (ppm) is near a record low and not dangerously high. They note that 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data “contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming”. Omitting unfavourable data is an egregious violation of scientific method. Facts omitted by those who argue there is a climate emergency include that...

Politically Correct Directions

What's Going On With Google Maps?

Driving across the country, we sometimes used Google Maps to navigate. When you are in unfamiliar towns, it’s handy. I also find that the navigation built into my cars has been subpar compared to my phone.

I noticed that something might be up with Google Maps when we dropped off a car at the airport in Minneapolis. Instead of using interstate to get us to the airport, it took us through a very sketchy neighborhood. It would have been far more accessible, and safer to use the interstate. Plus I would have had a smoother road.

I have also noticed that Google will direct you on the best route for “global warming”. Personally, I just want to get to where I am going in the speediest and safest way possible. I don’t really care about global warming and I don’t want to be made to care.

Are they doing this to direct people into minority-owned businesses and travel to minority neighborhoods on purpose? I have nothing against it, but I do know that I wouldn’t intentionally navigate to a place like Englewood in the city of Chicago just to save a few minutes driving.

It’s not an isolated incident. It’s happened a lot to us in our travels. During my weekend at the Kentucky Derby, I had to drive from Cincinnati to Louisville. I saw some rough neighborhoods in Louisville following the Google navigation.

I wonder if “my betters” at Google have re-engineered their algorithm? If they have, maybe...

The Crow, The Paper Plate And The Fantastic Deed.... -Or- Amazing Stories Collection #4

I Miss You Daddy - About A Little Girl Who Lost Her Father On 911..

How Lulu The Pig Saved Her Owner...

The Dream...

The Story Of Bubba...

And Now For Something Completely Different...

Bad Robot...

Late Night Funnies...

THE 5 MINUTE MANAGEMENT COURSE

Old Ironsides In War, Rum, Whiskey, Wine, Water, Cannon Shot And Priorities Therein....

Cheers - Buffalo Theory

Lunch with the Pope

Weather Report...

Story: How Americans Feel About Establishment Politicians...

Don't Miss This Heart Warming Story...

More Interesting Stories, Amazing or Funny Things CLICK HERE

Interesting, Thoughtful And Funny Stories Collection #2

Interesting, Thoughtful And Funny Stories Collection #3

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

A snake in President Trump's cabinet: Mark Esper tells all to 60 Minutes

When you think of everything that's gone wrong with the U.S. military -- from its wokester agenda, to its failure to contain Russia, to its breakdown in discipline, to the presence of Gen. Mark Milley on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pretty much all of it has the name of Mark Esper, President Trump's former defense secretary, all over it.

Rather than slink off into obscurity after such a performance, if not back to the big-bucks war-machine defense-contractor lobby whence he sprang, he's out shilling a tell-all book and promoting it on 60 Minutes in a bid to discredit the man he purportedly "served," President Trump.

According to 60 Minutes interviewer Norah O'Donnell, he now calls Trump "a threat to American democracy."

But his interview with 60 Minutes didn't come out the heroic way he probably thought it would.

Unbeknownst to him, he demonstrated what a coward's coward and slithering snake he was while in office. Everything he did involved some new means of undercutting President Trump, or, as O'Donnell summed up, "subverted many of the president's wishes."

The interview can also be viewed on CBS's site here.

There were multiple bad things he described doing in that interview, but the summary line that stands out comes near the end, when he tells O'Donnell why he stayed in office instead of resign on principle, which is what decent people do:

O'Donnell: "Critics will say, 'Why now in a book? Why didn't you speak out during the Trump administration?'"

Esper: "It's very simple. If I spoke out at the time, I would be fired, number one. And secondly, I had no confidence that anybody that came in behind me would not be a real Trump loyalist. And Lord knows what would have happened then."

Why shouldn't someone who's busy disagreeing with and working to undercut the president not get fired? Did he tolerate that kind of behavior when he was in the Army himself, or as a top lobbyist for Raytheon? What a hypocrite right there.

Worse still was his reason for not resigning after he decided he disagreed with President Trump on everything -- his fear that Trump might get someone loyal to his aims as his replacement, "a real Trump loyalist" as he put it. So the only reason he sat there warming his seat at the Pentagon was to prevent Trump from hiring someone else who was interested in advancing President Trump's policy aims. What a guy.

The arrogance of his logic comes in the part of his statement that came just before it in the video:

What if we stop producing fossil fuels?

So many people have been wrapped around the axle about "climate change," AKA "global warming." Our kids have been brainwashed in school about the perils of greenhouse gas (G.G.) adverse effects on the environment. The target G.G. of their ire is carbon dioxide.

As the "war in Ukraine" has evolved, there is a new clamor from the leaders in Washington, D.C. to accelerate the implementation of AOC's Green New Deal. But what happens if we cease using fossil fuels in the United States? I will focus on oil and gas production in this article.

When oil is produced from wells, the fluid that arrives to the surface is usually a mixture of petroleum, gas, water, and sediments. After initial treatment to remove water and sediments, petroleum is shipped to refineries to make various products such as gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel. The gas, which is predominantly methane, also has gas liquids such as ethylene, propylene, and butylene. The gas is often sour and contains hydrogen sulfide and maybe some nitrogen components that have to be "sweetened" prior to shipping the methane to market.

Gas liquids mentioned above are but a tiny fraction of the hydrocarbons from oil and gas production. However, they are the building blocks for plastics, synthetic fibers for clothing, synthetic rubber, paint, resins, glues, containers, insulation, packaging, home cleaning products, and a myriad of other products.

What does it mean if we do not have these hydrocarbon building blocks? We return to natural fibers for clothing. Containers will be made from paper products or glass. As a kid, I enjoyed searching for tossed soda bottles to get the deposit money from the local supermarket. Some states who charge an exorbitant fee for plastic bottle disposal might not appreciate the lost revenue. Maybe we will increase aluminum production for containers. Aluminum requires a sizeable amount of power per pound of production. I guess we will return to waxed paper wrapping for children's sandwiches for school lunches. Forget about all those plastic containers. How about tires for cars? Someone had better get those natural rubber tree plantations going again. What about diesel engine driven trains? What about airplane travel?

One of the "bottom of the barrel" products from oil is asphalt. According to the National Asphalt Pavement Association, about 350 million metric tons of asphalt is produced annually from 3,500 plants. About 94% of all roads in the U.S. are asphalt-based. This industry will be terminated and probably replaced with concrete. Have you ever watched how long it takes to construct a concrete paved road versus asphalt? What about the cost differences, let alone plant replacements?

The cost of building products will soar, or we will revert to...

Nets Panic Over Climate Change: 'World Needs to Act Fast'!

If They Really Believed This They'd Talk About How China Is Building A New Coal Plant Every Single Day.

On Monday night, all three evening newscasts hyperventilated over a report from the United Nations (U.N.) that allegedly claims the world will suffer grave environmental consequences if nothing is done about "climate change".

Instead of reporting on the breaking news that Hunter Biden's former business partner was just convicted of defrauding an impoverished Native American tribe, the networks decided to needlessly frighten their viewers about the climate.

On ABC's World News Tonight, anchor David Muir -- while sitting in front of a screen that says "alarming climate change report" -- glumly reported the window to solve climate change is "rapidly closing to avoid its deadly consequences." Muir panicked that according to the U.N., "half the world's population [is] living in the so-called danger zone now." He then ended the brief segment with this fearmongering:

The report finding that even if warming is limited to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, which has been a global goal, still, up to fourteen percent of species will face a very high risk of extinction. And in some regions of the world, food and water will become increasingly scarce.

During a segment on CBS's Evening News, anchor Norah O'Donnell led off by telling the audience about the "important but grim U.N. report" that says "nearly half of the Earth's population live in areas highly vulnerable to climate change. With coastlines, farms, and cities especially at risk." O'Donnell urged that "scientists say there’s still hope that some of the worst can be prevented but the world needs to act fast."

Over on NBC Nightly News Lester Holt announced that the U.N. report says "time is running out to avoid the worst-case scenarios", but then outsourced the climate fearmongering to correspondent Tom Costello:

The U.N.'s latest, most in-depth scientific report on climate change warns the dangers are immediate and growing more acute with millions of people worldwide potentially losing access to clean water, facing starvation and disease. So far, humanity has taken incremental, often superficial steps to mitigate climate change.

Continuing to needlessly frighten viewers Costello said that "global temperatures have already risen two degrees Fahrenheit in just over one hundred years. The U.N. report warns if temps rise by another 2.7 degrees, vast stretches of coral reef will die off. More species will go extinct. Rising sea levels will threaten cities. And fish, livestock, and crop yields will drop, threatening millions in vulnerable countries and sending food prices...

The Witch in the Closet

How leftist educators and the media are scaring - and scarring - our children.

I was afraid of witches as a child. Indeed, I was convinced that there was an old crone hanging out in my bedroom closet just waiting to pounce. Not sure where or how it began, but it ended when I decided to take every bit of clothing and assorted junk out of my closet to convince myself that there was no witch stirring her cauldron there. Tragically, kids today have so much more than one imaginary hag scaring the living daylights out of them. In fact, there are enough witches these days to make a sizable coven.

Robert Pondiscio, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, gets to the meat of the matter in “The Unbearable Bleakness of American Schooling.” He writes that “this pedagogy of the depressed—America the Problematic—is thought to be a virtue among professional educators who view it as a mark of seriousness and sophistication.” He goes on to point out that “contemporary education fetishizes the bad and the broken in American life.” Clearly this has become all the rage. At the heart of the problem is that it really isn’t education, it’s indoctrination. The doomsters see only problems to be solved. Teaching about the existing good – and even celebrating it – is nowhere to be found in the indoctrinator’s playbook.

A major source of fear in children is climate change, which used to be known as global warming, and before that, global cooling. According to a British poll, one in five children have nightmares about climate change. Another survey reveals that 59% of people aged 16-25 are very or extremely worried and 84% are at least moderately worried about atmospheric change. “More than 45% of respondents said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning, and many reported a high number of negative thoughts about climate change.” A full 75% said that they think “the future is frightening.” The reality is, yes, the climate is changing, but then again, it always has. And, while it is possible that we may need to do some very minor adjusting, the academic alarmists and their hysterical media toadies are doing damage far greater than anything climate change will ever do.

The “America is racist” mantra has been exploited maximally by all the usual suspects. School children are placed in groups, labeled oppressors and victims, and taught that America’s system is rigged against persons of color. For example, an elementary school in Cupertino, California – a Silicon Valley community with a median home price of $2.3 million – recently forced a class of third-graders to “deconstruct their racial identities, then rank themselves according to their ‘power and privilege.’” This type of scaremongering has worked, according to the “Coming Together: Family Reflections on Racism” study conducted by Sesame Workshop, which reports that 86% of children believe that people of different races are not treated fairly in this country.

Additionally, we have just suffered through the “Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action,” where untold numbers of kids across the country were exposed to 13 radical “demands” including “Trans affirming,” which stipulates, ”We are committed to embracing and making space for trans siblings to participate and lead. We are committed to being self-reflexive and doing the work required to dismantle cis-gender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

Clearly the transgender fad has hit big time for all races, no more so than in California where...