Climate Change

[Frankfooter]

I'm infinitely smarter than you are that I definitely do know. You completely choose to ignore climate history and are duped by twitter alarmists and the IPCC, which is a corrupt organization with an agenda that was set out even before CO2 became the bogeyman.

Ok, prove how smart you are and take a look at the satellite temps you say are more trustworthy and tell me if they are surface or troposphere temps.
Then feel free to explain why warming of 0.15ºC a decade, which is what you claim we are experiencing, isn't anything to worry about.
Go ahead, I'll just go put on the popcorn.

 

[Frankfooter]

they do it because they know (right now) they can get away with it without repercussion's

you are really messed up if you think you can justify theft by claiming poverty

how many iphones does a poor person require?

View attachment 254745

Nothing like a little overt racism in a post about climate change where you go instantly into claiming climate change refugees are going to instead mob apple stores for iPhones.

 

[JohnLarue]

They don’t use 12 iphones.. They sell them to pay rent and bring food to their kids.

oh i see, they sell them
just like the retailer / shop owner does

only now the retailer / shop owner is poor and can no longer pay rent and bring food to their kids.
So you do not mind if the retailer / shop owner breaks the law to retain his property now do you?

i don’t justify theft. I’m saying some will fight harder not to end up in the street. If society can’t provide a decent roof with a low wage salary they make adjustments to make ends meet. You would do the same.

ha ha. oh no you do not justify theft, you instead 'rebrand it' as ''make adjustments to make ends meet.''

who do you think you are trying to fool?

If society can’t provide a decent roof with a low wage salary

society never promised you nothing
if you feel the compensation your skill set can demand in the marketplace is insufficient, then upgrade your skill set in order to demand more compensation
there is not justification for theft

Societies have existed since man first learned how to communicate.
theft was not tolerated then, never has been ... never will be

 

[20reasonswhy]

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts

 

[Frankfooter]

oh i see, they sell them
just like the retailer / shop owner does

only now the retailer / shop owner is poor and can no longer pay rent and bring food to their kids.
So you do not mind if the retailer / shop owner breaks the law to retain his property now do you?




ha ha. oh no you do not justify theft, you instead 'rebrand it' as ''make adjustments to make ends meet.''

who do you think you are trying to fool?


society never promised you nothing
if you feel the compensation your skill set can demand in the marketplace is insufficient, then upgrade your skill set in order to demand more compensation
there is not justification for theft

Societies have existed since man first learned how to communicate.
theft was not tolerated then, never has been ... never will be

What has this rant to do with climate change?

You should read this instead of yelling about minorities again.
CANADA
IN THE YEAR
2060
Summers lost to fire and smoke. Biblical floods. Dying forests. Retreating coasts. Economic turmoil and political unrest. It’s going to be a weird century. Here’s what it will look like—and how Canada can get through it.

 

[canada-man]

On The Payroll
Posted on August 24, 2023 by Tony Heller
Journalists are being paid millions of dollars by left wing advocacy groups to accuse honest scientists of being corrupted by big oil money.

Climate grant illustrates growth in philanthropy-funded news

 

[Frankfooter]

On The Payroll
Posted on August 24, 2023 by Tony Heller
Journalists are being paid millions of dollars by left wing advocacy groups to accuse honest scientists of being corrupted by big oil money.

Climate grant illustrates growth in philanthropy-funded news

$8 million over three years?

The oil&gas industry gets $1 trillion a year in subsidies from the G20.

 

[canada-man]

How ‘Arbitrary And Capricious’ EPA Regs Could 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 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. [emphasis, links added]



In their comment, William Happer, professor of physics, emeritus, Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, make both a legal and a scientific case that the EPA’s proposed new rule is based on ideologically driven policies 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 statement 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 [member] 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 its Summaries for Policymakers (“SPMs”) detailed below, which then control what is published in full reports.

By citing Supreme Court precedents, Happer and Lindzen have put the EPA on notice that legitimate, credentialed, university-based climate scientists are amply prepared to contest how the EPA relied on IPCC pseudoscience to establish the basis for its ideologically driven hysteric climate policymaking.

By putting their scientific climate credentials on the line, Happer and Lindzen have signaled a willingness to take to court a growing international greenlash against neo-Marxist climate hysterics whose true goal is to end the use of the hydrocarbon fuels upon which the modern industrial state depends.

By emphasizing the benefits of increased CO2 to the production of food, Happer and Lindzen also expose the depopulation ambitions of the IPCC elite pushing an energy transition to wind, solar, and batteries.

Read more at American Thinker

Will New EPA Regulations Starve Millions Of People? - American Thinker

 

[marketwatchtoronto]

How ‘Arbitrary And Capricious’ EPA Regs Could 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 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. [emphasis, links added]



In their comment, William Happer, professor of physics, emeritus, Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, make both a legal and a scientific case that the EPA’s proposed new rule is based on ideologically driven policies 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 statement 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 [member] 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 its Summaries for Policymakers (“SPMs”) detailed below, which then control what is published in full reports.

By citing Supreme Court precedents, Happer and Lindzen have put the EPA on notice that legitimate, credentialed, university-based climate scientists are amply prepared to contest how the EPA relied on IPCC pseudoscience to establish the basis for its ideologically driven hysteric climate policymaking.

By putting their scientific climate credentials on the line, Happer and Lindzen have signaled a willingness to take to court a growing international greenlash against neo-Marxist climate hysterics whose true goal is to end the use of the hydrocarbon fuels upon which the modern industrial state depends.

By emphasizing the benefits of increased CO2 to the production of food, Happer and Lindzen also expose the depopulation ambitions of the IPCC elite pushing an energy transition to wind, solar, and batteries.

Read more at American Thinker

Will New EPA Regulations Starve Millions Of People? - American Thinker

Thanks peeps.

 

[Frankfooter]

How ‘Arbitrary And Capricious’ EPA Regs Could 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 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. [emphasis, links added]



In their comment, William Happer, professor of physics, emeritus, Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, make both a legal and a scientific case that the EPA’s proposed new rule is based on ideologically driven policies 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 statement 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 [member] 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 its Summaries for Policymakers (“SPMs”) detailed below, which then control what is published in full reports.

By citing Supreme Court precedents, Happer and Lindzen have put the EPA on notice that legitimate, credentialed, university-based climate scientists are amply prepared to contest how the EPA relied on IPCC pseudoscience to establish the basis for its ideologically driven hysteric climate policymaking.

By putting their scientific climate credentials on the line, Happer and Lindzen have signaled a willingness to take to court a growing international greenlash against neo-Marxist climate hysterics whose true goal is to end the use of the hydrocarbon fuels upon which the modern industrial state depends.

By emphasizing the benefits of increased CO2 to the production of food, Happer and Lindzen also expose the depopulation ambitions of the IPCC elite pushing an energy transition to wind, solar, and batteries.

Read more at American Thinker

Will New EPA Regulations Starve Millions Of People? - American Thinker

Happer and Lindzen, paid by the oil&gas industry, arguing that the US needs to keep burning coal?
Idiotic.

Like this line:

Another defect Happer and Lindzen noted was that the EPA, in promulgating the new rule, relied heavily on IPCC data.

Its a 'defect' to rely on the science to them?
Idiotic.

 

[Frankfooter]

Global Subsidies for Fossil Fuels Skyrocket to $7 trillion per Year, as 2023 Promises to be Hottest on Record

Says the IMF.

Amazing how much we are giving the oil&gas industry to screw up the world.

 

[canada-man]

Let’s Do Follow the Climate Money!


y Paul Driessen
Published January 4, 2019

The climate crisis industry incessantly claims that fossil fuel emissions are causing unprecedented temperature, climate and weather changes that pose existential threats to human civilization and our planet. The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that provide 80% of the energy that makes US and global economies, health and living standards possible.
Failing that, CCI demands steadily increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.
However, as France’s Yellow Vest protests and the latest climate confab in Poland demonstrated, the world is not prepared to go down that dark path. Countries worldwide are expanding their reliable fossil fuel use, and families do not want to reduce their living standards or their aspirations for better lives.
Moreover, climate computer model forecasts are completely out of touch with real-world observations. There is no evidence to support claims that the slight temperature, climate and weather changes we’ve experienced are dangerous, unprecedented or caused by humans, instead of by the powerful solar, oceanic and other natural forces that have driven similar or far more serious changes throughout history.
More importantly, the CCI “solutions” would cause unprecedented disruption of modern industrialized societies; permanent poverty and disease in poor countries; and serious ecological damage worldwide.
Nothing that is required to harness breezes and sunshine to power civilization is clean, green, renewable, climate-friendly or sustainable. Tens of billions of tons of rock would have to be removed, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and install them on millions of acres of wildlife habitats – to generate expensive, intermittent energy that would be grossly insufficient for humanity’s needs. Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.
How do CCI alarmists respond to these points? They don’t. They refuse to engage in or even permit civil discussion. They rant that anyone “who denies climate change science” is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, thus has a blatant conflict of interest and no credibility, and therefore should be ignored.
“Rebuttals” to my recent “We are still IN” article cited Greenpeace and DeSmogBlog as their “reliable sources” and claimed: I’m “associated with” several “right-wing think tanks that are skeptical of man-made climate change.” One of them “received $582,000 from ExxonMobil” over a 14-year period, another got “$5,716,325 from Koch foundations” over 18 years, and the Koch Brothers gave “at least $100,343,292 to 84 groups denying climate change science” in 20 years, my detractors claimed.
These multi-year contributions work out to $41,571 annually; $317,574 per year; and $59,728 per organization per year, respectively – to pay salaries and overhead at think tanks that are engaged in multiple social, tax, education, medical and other issues … not just energy and climate change.
But let’s assume for a moment that money – especially funding from any organization that has any kind of financial, regulatory or other “special interest” in the outcome of this ongoing energy and economic battle – renders a researcher incapable of analyzing facts fairly and honestly.
Then apply those zero-tolerance, zero-credibility Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-CCI standards to those very same climate alarmists and their allies – who are determined to shut down debate and impose their wind, solar and biofuel policies on the world. Where do they get their money, and how much do they get?
Billionaire and potential presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg gave the Sierra Club $110 million in a six-year period to fund its campaign against coal-generated electricity. Chesapeake Energy gave the Club $26 million in three years to promote natural gas and attack coal. Ten wealthy liberal foundations gave another $51 million over eight years to the Club and other environmentalist groups to battle coal.
Over a 12-year period, the Environmental Protection Agency gave its 15 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members $181 million in grants – and in exchange received quick rubberstamp approvals of various air quality rules. It paid the American Lung Association $20 million to support its regulations.
During the Obama years, the EPA, Interior Department and other federal agencies paid environmental pressure groups tens of millions in collusive, secretive sue-and-settle lawsuit payoffs on dozens of issues.
Then we get to the really big money: taxpayer funds that government agencies hand out to scientists, computer modelers and pressure groups – to promote global warming and climate change alarmism.
As Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore noted recently, citing government and other reports:
* Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
* The Feds spent an estimated $150 billion on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
* That didn’t include the 30% tax credits/subsidies for wind and solar power: $8 billion to $10 billion a year – plus billions more from state programs that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
* Worldwide, according to the “progressive” Climate Policy Initiative, climate change “investment” in 2013 totaled $359 billion – but this “falls far short” of the $5 trillion per year that’s actually needed.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change echoes those greedy demands. It says the world must spend $2.4 trillion per year for the next 17 years to subsidize the transition to renewable energy.
Bear in mind that $1.5 trillion per year was already being spent in 2014 on Climate Crisis, Inc. research, consulting, carbon trading and renewable projects, according to the Climate Change Business Journal. With 6-8% annual growth, we’re easily looking at a $2-trillion-per-year climate industry by now.
The US Government Accountability Office puts United States taxpayer funding alone at $2.1 billion per year for climate change “science” … $9.0 billion a year for technology R&D … and $1.8 billion a year for international assistance. Total US Government spending on climate change totaled $179 billion (!) from 1993 through 2017, according to the GAO. That’s $20 million per day!
At the September 2018Global Climate Action Summit, 29 leftist foundations pledged to give $4 billion over five years to their new Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming campaign. Sea Change Foundation co-founder Nat Simons made it clear that this “is only a down payment“!
And I get pilloried for working with organizations that received $41,571 to $59,728 per year from fossil fuel interests … questioning claims that fossil fuels are causing climate chaos … and raising inconvenient facts and questions about wind, solar and biofuel replacements for coal, oil and natural gas.
Just as outrageous, tens of millions of dollars are squandered every year to finance “studies” that supposedly show “surging greenhouse gases” and “manmade climate change” are creating dangerous hybrid puffer fish, causing salmon to lose their ability to detect danger, making sharks right-handed and unable to hunt, increasing the number of animal bites, and causing US cities to be overrun by rats.
Let’s apply the Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-Climate Crisis, Inc. standard all these organizations and researchers. Their massive multi-billion-dollar conflicts of interest clearly make them incapable of analyzing climate and energy matters fairly and honestly – and disqualify them from participating in any further discussions about America’s and the world’s energy and economic future.
At the very least, they and the institutions that have been getting rich and powerful off the catastrophic manmade global warming and climate hustle should be cut off from any future federal funding.

Paul Driessen


Let’s Do Follow the Climate Money! – The Heartland Institute

 

[canada-man]

Paper straws are more likely to contain harmful forever chemicals than plastic straws, new research finds

Companies have been switching from plastic straws to paper ones on the grounds of being more environmentally friendly. However, new research suggests the good-intentioned trend might not be the best alternative after all.


The study, published today in the Food Additives and Contaminants journal, found the vast majority of paper straws tested contained synthetical chemicals, known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS. Commonly referred to as “forever chemicals,” PFAS don’t break down in the body or in the environment.


“Straws made from plant-based materials, such as paper and bamboo, are often advertised as being more sustainable and eco-friendly than those made from plastic,” Thimo Groffen, PhD, author of the study and an environmental scientist at the University of Antwerp, said in a press release. “However, the presence of PFAS in these straws means that’s not necessarily true.”


Researchers on the study examined 39 brands of straws in Belgium from supermarkets, toy stores, fast-food chains, drug stores, and e-commerce stores. The straws were either made of paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel, or plastic, and the researchers tested each brand for concentrations of PFAS. Sixty-nine percent of the brands contained PFAS, with paper straws more likely to contain the chemicals. The researchers found 90% of paper straws had PFAS, compared to 80% of bamboo straws, 75% of plastic straws, and 40% of glass straws. Further, a paper straw brand was the brand with the highest PFAS concentration.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was the most common PFAS found in the straws. Though it is no longer made in the U.S. it is made in some other countries and could potentially be in products bought by American consumers, according to The American Cancer Society.

The risks of forever chemicals
PFAS were first introduced in the 1940s to help products resist oil, water, and grease. The “forever chemicals” are found in countless products, from cookware to carpets and fabrics, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While PFAS can enter food through plants, animals, and contaminated processing centers, “it is also possible for very small amounts of PFAS to enter foods through food packaging, processing, and cookware,” according to the U.S Food and Drug Administration.

Small amounts of PFAS do not pose a risk. However, a build-up of the chemicals in the body may cause dangerous health effects from changes in liver enzymes, increased blood pressure, and certain cancers, according to the CDC (although long-term human effects are still not fully understood because only animal studies have been conducted with larger concentrations of PFAS). Animal studies suggest more significant amounts of PFAS in the body may affect growth and development as well as damage the liver and immune system, according to the CDC.

Paper straws are more likely to contain forever chemicals | Fortune Well

 

[canada-man]

House passes bill to block federal gas stove ban
Republicans have touted the legislation as pushback against overreach by the Biden administration.



After a weeklong blockade of floor action by conservatives, the House passed bipartisan legislation Tuesday to prevent the federal government from banning gas stoves — the latest Republican bid to stop what they say is the Biden administration’s anti-fossil fuel agenda.

The bill and a related measure expected to pass this week on efficiency measures for the appliances are unlikely to get votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But Republicans have touted their legislation as pushback against overreach by the Biden administration, even though there are no federal proposals to outright prohibit the sale of gas stoves under consideration.

House passes bill to block federal gas stove ban - POLITICO

 

[Frankfooter]

Let’s Do Follow the Climate Money!

Heartland is funded entirely by the oil industry, which also gets $70 trillion a year in subsidies according to the IMF.
That's where the money is, not in science research.

 

[canada-man]

While Maui Fires Burn, Sierra Club Battles to Stop Water From Being Used for Firefighting



Last week, I wrote that ‘Climate Change Didn’t Cause the Maui Fires, Environmentalists Did’. And the environmentalists keep proving me right.

The fires are still going on. And so are the legal battles over obtaining enough water to fight them.

A brush fire burned 10 acres on Saturday and prompted Maui authorities to evacuate residents from a neighborhood of Lahaina, just a few miles from the site recently ravaged by blazes, before firefighters brought it under control.
Firefighters doused flames from above using a helicopter and with hoses on the ground, said John Heggie, a spokesperson for Maui County’s Joint Information Center.

But the state is still fighting legal battles against Polynesian rights activities and environmentalists over the water. And, is losing them because the latter have all the leftist and ‘native’ leverage.

The day after the wildfires started on Maui, the State of Hawaii, Board of Land and Natural Resources, and Alexander and Baldwin filed a petition in the Hawaii Supreme Court, saying there was “not enough permitted water to battle the wildfires” in Upcountry Maui. The petition asked to overturn a June court decision that limited Alexander and Baldwin’s stream diversion in East Maui from 40 million gallons to 31.5 million gallons.
Over the last two decades, Hawaiian and environmental groups have fought to restore the water in East Maui’s streams. The Sierra Club has argued that permits granted by the Board of Land and Natural Resources to East Maui Irrigation and Alexander and Baldwin daily fail to protect the water for customary Hawaiian practices and ecological balance.

By that they mean growing Taro, an Asian vegetable that the Polynesian settlers considered ‘sacred’, the “traditional” way which is inefficient and requires lots of water and doesn’t work.

But given a choice between fighting wildfires or growing a ‘sacred’ vegetable, the Sierra Club and the Hawaii Supreme Court choose the vegetable.

The Hawaii Supreme Court denied a petition filed by the State of Hawaii, Board of Land and Natural Resources, and Alexander and Baldwin, which claimed there was not enough permitted water to fight the wildfires in Upcountry Maui.
The following day, the high court denied the petition, stating the petitioner had failed to establish a “clear and indisputable right to the relief requested.”

Why choose human lives over vegetables… when the head of their party is a vegetable?

This is not a climate change crisis, this is an environmentalist crisis. And environmentalists at best don’t care if people die and at worst support it as a way of reducing carbon polluting.

To them we’re all carbon pollution.

While Maui Fires Burn, Sierra Club Battles to Stop Water From Being Used for Firefighting | Frontpage Mag

 

[basketcase]

Seems the people who pretended that more CO2 is good for plant production may have some problems to consider.
Tropical forests are approaching critical temperature thresholds

Tropical forests are approaching critical temperature thresholds - Nature

Ground truthed thermal data from a new NASA satellite combined with experimental warming data from three continents in an empirical model suggests that tropical forests are closer to a high temperature threshold than previously thought.

www.nature.com

Tropical Forests May Be Getting Too Hot for Photosynthesis

When trees get too hot, energy production in their leaves breaks down

www.scientificamerican.com

Seems tropical temperatures are approaching a point that photosynthesis fails.

 

[bver_hunter]

Conspiracy theories swirl around wildfires amid record season in Canada

Canada’s current wildfire season is devastating evidence of the effects of climate change, scientists say, but for some conspiracy theorists, the thousands of square kilometres of burnt ground isn’t enough to convince them.

Instead, space lasers, arsonists and government plots to restrict people’s movement are some of the causes of the fires, according to fringe online circles. But despite being fringe, these theories are widely circulated and boosted by social media algorithms.

People turn to conspiracy theories to help them make sense of disasters like the recent wildfires on the Hawaiian island of Maui, in British Columbia or the Northwest Territories, said Eric Kennedy, associate professor at York University’s school of administrative studies.

“Some of the conspiracy theories about wildfires create simple villains, or simple evil characters – ‘this is Bill Gates, this is the World Economic Forum, this is a particular evil actor,”’ said Kennedy, who studies decision-making in emergency contexts, particularly wildfires.

“Sometimes the simple stories are very appealing. Sometimes it’s about fitting into an existing world view and making things make sense within that paradigm.”

Kawser Ahmed, political science adjunct professor at University of Winnipeg, said almost all conspiracy theories have a spark of truth but are distorted to attract attention or fuel outrage.

Forest fires, he said, are spectacular events – like terrorist attacks – that draw attention before the full facts come to light, and in the ensuing uncertainty, conspiracy theories fill in the gaps in information. But such theories harm those who are fleeing the fires and those who are fighting the blazes, he noted.

Cliff Chapman, BC Wildfire Service director of operations, said conspiracy theories “really hit me and, I think, our organization in a really big way.”

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

He told reporters that firefighters, who return home after a 14-hour gruelling shift, turn on their phones and see negative social media posts about the fires and their work.

“We are doing everything that we can to try to protect those homes,” Chapman said. “We’re doing everything that we can to try to make sure that people can get home as fast as they can. And so it has a big impact on our staff.”

Conspiracy theories also risk affecting people who are victims of forest fires, like those forced from their homes, Ahmed said.

They are vulnerable, stressed out and sometimes suffer from a lack of confidence in authorities, so it is easy to fall into the trap of a conspiracy theory, which offers a more clearly defined villain, he said.

“This is what I’m really worried about,” he said. “Once they even go back home, they could become more antagonistic against institutions, governments, police.”

Scientists are blaming climate change for the severity of Canada’s wildfire season. A study by the U.K.-based World Weather Attribution group released this week says greenhouse gas emissions made Quebec’s fire weather about 50 per cent more conducive to fire between May and June.

But conspiracy theorists play down or deny the link between climate change and wildfires, and invoke ideas of eco-terrorism, arsonists and environmental extremists to explain what’s happening, Ahmed said. “It’s easier to sell.”

Ahmed said conspiracy theories have been around as long as time but were easier to contain to certain areas or communities before the era of mass communication.

“But now, the ability of a single human being to spread something which has no basis in science or in rationality, and is illogical, is enormous.”

Social media algorithms accelerate the spread of conspiracy theories because once someone clicks on one link, other links on similar topics pop up, creating a feedback loop that reinforces false beliefs, he said.

“It will take you to a very defined trajectory.”

Studies have shown that the misinformation that gets the most attention is scary, emotional, moral or ideological, and easy to process, said Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta. “The wildfire misinformation checks all those boxes. Add fear and uncertainty and you have a perfect mix.”

Chris Russill, associate professor at Carleton University’s school of journalism and communication, said journalism is one way to correct such misinformation. The “poverty of local news,” he said, compounded by Meta’s decision to block news content in Canada, is aiding in the spread of bizarre wildfire conspiracy theories.

“It’s created a condition in which this unreliable information can circulate in a more unchecked way.”

Kennedy said conspiracy theories can cause diminishing trust among people, which could reduce compliance with evacuation orders.

Solutions at “lots of different levels” are required to snuff out conspiracy theories, he said. The most important thing that people can do is to be “very careful” when they find information that confirms their belief, he said. At an institutional level, Kennedy said, emergency management agencies need to earn public trust and not take it for granted.

People who are forced out of their homes during wildfires sometimes feel their needs aren’t being understood by government agencies that may not fully appreciate how disruptive an evacuation is, he said.

“Agencies can perhaps continue to invest in and do an even better job at listening to those concerns and responding to them in a way that builds trust,” he said.

“It’s not something that happens overnight, or just with an ad on Facebook. We need to see this not as a problem of fact-checking alone, but really about building trusted relationships in our institutions and our organizations.”

Conspiracy theories swirl around wildfires amid record season in Canada | Globalnews.ca

Canada's current wildfire season is devastating evidence of the effects of climate change, scientists say, but some conspiracy theorists are not convinced.

globalnews.ca

 

[canada-man]

Poland is filing a lawsuit against “authoritarian” EU climate policy



The EU Commission is increasingly trying to transform the EU into a centralized federal state and to establish itself as an authoritarian central government. In doing so, they are apparently hanging on the leading strings of the powerful industrial lobbyists active in Brussels and on Washington, as the attempt to appoint a US citizen and big-tech lobbyist as chief economist shows. However, countries from Eastern Europe are fighting back, above all Poland and Hungary.

Attempts by Brussels to dictate legislation will split the European Union because this process will result in member states not complying with EU decisions, Bence Tuzson, state secretary in the office of Prime Minister Viktor Orban and future justice minister, said recently. On Thursday at a panel discussion as part of the Bálványos Free Summer University and Student Camp (Tusványos) – Mandiner reports .

He pointed out that the EU wants to impose its will on the nation states through stealthy legislation, by relaxing legal concepts and by invoking the vague principles of the rule of law and by judicially enforcing European law against national law. However, EU law can only be enforced if it does not conflict with national constitutions, so it is the Constitutional Court that can stop this damaging trend, the Secretary of State stressed.

Poland sues EU climate policy
The Polish government has filed four lawsuits against the EU’s climate policy, which it describes as “authoritarian” and assures that it “will not allow Brussels’ diktat”.

The three new lawsuits, brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), relate to a ban on registering new internal combustion engine vehicles after 2035, an increase in the EU’s greenhouse gas reduction target and a reduction in free emission allowances under the framework of the EU emissions trading system (ETS).


They follow another complaint filed last week against EU rules on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), which Poland says violates member states’ competences.

” Does the [European] Union want to decide in an authoritarian way what kind of vehicles Poles will drive and whether energy prices in Poland will rise,” Climate Minister Anna Moskwa tweeted on Monday. ” The Polish government will not accept Brussels’ diktat.”

Poland’s current national-conservative government has regularly criticized the EU’s climate and environmental policies. The leader of the ruling party, Jarosław Kaczyński, has described them as “madness and theories without evidence”.

” At every EU Council, we have been against every single document of the Fit for 55 package and have voted against it as a government,” Moskva said, referring to the EU’s program to cut emissions by at least 55% by 2030 .

” It’s no secret that we were against the whole package, we are against raising climate targets and the way [these efforts] are being carried out and imposed [on member countries],” the minister said .

In March, Poland was the only Member State to oppose introducing a sales ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2035. In the interview, Moskva argued that unanimity should have been required for this decision, as its impact depends heavily on member states’ energy mix.

” In our case, banning internal combustion engines is absolutely contrary to climate policy because in the short term, if we want to increase electricity production [to power electric vehicles], it will lead to an increase in coal consumption,” she said .

When asked about the other complaints, Moskwa said Poland is challenging most of them for the same reasons as the ban on sales of internal combustion vehicles.

One of the EU policies rejected by Poland is the amendment to the Emissions Trading Scheme , which would require sectors already covered by the scheme to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 62% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The reform also provides for a gradual phase-out of free emission allowances between 2026 and 2034.

Another regulation concerns the provisions of the new EU Carbon Limit Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which will apply to commodities such as iron, steel, cement, aluminium, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen.

Importers of these goods have to pay the difference between the emission fee in the country of production and the price of the emission allowances in the EU emissions trading system. The CBAM is to be phased in between 2026 and 2034 when the free emission allowances in the ETS expire.

In any case, the fact is that none of the measures decreed by the EU under the title “Green Deal” change anything about the climate, since they cannot influence solar activity or its orbit around the center of mass of the solar system . And these are the drivers of climate change, as Isaac Newton predicted in 1687 and as confirmed by the latest research. CO2 has only a minor influence, if at all. Old encyclopedias such as Meyer’s Konversationslexikon report on CO2 measurements in the 1820s that resulted in a concentration like today – read here .

Poland is filing a lawsuit against “authoritarian” EU climate policy | Children's Health Defense Europe (childrenshealthdefense.eu)

 

[canada-man]

Greece wildfires: 79 people arrested for arson



Greece has called out "arsonist scum" after police made 79 arson arrests over wildfires ravaging the country.
Civil Protection Minister Vassilis Kikilias said there had been several attempts by arsonists to start new fires on Mount Parnitha, north-west of Athens.
The blaze is one of hundreds in the nation where wildfires have already killed at least 20 people this week.
"You are committing a crime against the country," Mr Kikilias said.
"Arsonist scum are setting fires that threaten forests, property and, most of all, human lives," Mr Kikilias told Greeks during a televised emergency briefing on Thursday.
"You will not get away with it, we will find you, you will be held accountable."

Summer wildfires are common in Greece and scientists have linked the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including heatwaves, to climate change.
Stefan Doerr, who directs the Centre for Wildfire Research at Swansea University, says that more flammable landscapes - due to hot weather or poor vegetation management - mean that arson and other incidents can more easily turn into fast-moving wildfires.

Greece wildfires: 79 people arrested for arson - BBC News