Climate Crazies Save The Planet—By Forcing D.C. Autos To Idle

John Nolte

A couple of dozen left-wing environmental groups in Washington, DC, claim they are saving the planet by lighting garbage on fire and forcing automobiles to sit idle.

According to the event’s own Facebook page, the goal is to “block key infrastructure to stop business-as-usual, bringing the whole city to a gridlocked standstill.”

But who are these people, really? Degenerate litterbugs determined to create even more pollution.

Thanks to these brave warriors fighting for their precious Mother Earth, thousands of cars are spewing tons of exhaust into the air that wouldn’t have if these enviro-crybabies had real jobs. Here’s an official rundown of all the traffic that’s been blocked.

And if that’s not bad enough, they’re lighting garbage on fire…

In the middle of a city street, those who claim to care about the environment have grabbed a garbage dumpster — filled with heaven only knows what — and indiscriminately lit it on fire.

So what we have here is yet another example of so-called environmentalists behaving in a way that proves that they themselves do not believe what they claim to believe.

Just as we saw Climate Change-alarmist Barack Obama spend $15 million to live a stone’s throw from the very same ocean he tells us will soon rise and wipe out his $15 million investment, we have these spoiled crybabies deliberately creating more pollution.

Listen, if you are sincerely worried about Climate Change, you do not spend weeks organizing a protest that will contribute to Climate Change, that worsens the problem.

And that’s the thing… If you watch what environmentalists actually do, you are watching people and organizations (including the media) that live in a way that proves they know it is all a hoax… these are people who live in the very coastal regions that are supposed to be underwater, young people who live their lives on energy-sucking iPhones (instead of reading a book), who clog our streets with automobiles, who fly on private jets, who consume more consumables than any generation in history, and who are willing to create tons of unnecessary pollution as a means to feel morally superior about, of all things, their stand on the environment.

Never forget the following… when it comes to predictions from climate alarmists, from the so-called “experts,” these frauds are 0-41.

Over the course of my lifetime, these lying grifters in the environmental and scientific community have not gotten one — not one! — alarmist prediction correct.

It is all a hoax. It is all the sheep’s clothing of socialism, and do you really want people who block traffic and light dumpsters on fire and terrorize young minds in charge of your life?

Greece, Slovenia among five EU countries to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies – report

Balkan Green Energy News

Five EU countries including the UK, Germany, Greece, Poland, and Slovenia are looking to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies by 2030, an analysis of the 28 Member States’ draft energy and climate plans (NECPs) has revealed.

In a new report, “Fossil fuel subsidies in draft EU National Energy and Climate Plans: Shortcomings and final call for action,” experts from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Friends of the Earth (FoE) Netherlands, and Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe have analyzed the EU Member States’ draft NECPs, which require governments to report on their fossil fuel subsidies and plans to phase them out, the CAN has said in a press release.

None of the EU Member States comprehensively report on their fossil fuel subsidies nor provide plans to phase them out

Despite long-standing commitments to ending fossil fuel subsidies, none of the EU Member States comprehensively report on their fossil fuel subsidies nor provide plans to phase them out.

The UK, Germany, Greece, Poland, and Slovenia even plan to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies, at a time of heightened awareness of the climate crisis and despite committing ten years ago to end such support, the CAN said.

Greece mentions that it will introduce a subsidy aimed at replacing diesel boilers with fossil gas-fired ones

For instance, Greece mentions that it will introduce a subsidy aimed at replacing diesel boilers with fossil gas-fired ones, and Poland intends to provide subsidies for underground gas storage and the use of liquified natural gas (LNG) for transport.

The authors of the report found that several of the NECPs made no mention of fossil fuel subsidies at all, despite previous research showing all EU governments are continuing to provide support to oil, gas or coal.

UK provides EUR 12 billion each year through tax breaks and budgetary transfers alone, more than any other EU state

The report finds that six Member States – Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and the UK – claim no such subsidies exist in the country.

This is despite the European Commission previously finding all EU countries continue to provide some support to fossil fuels, with the UK providing EUR 12 billion each year through tax breaks and budgetary transfers alone, more than any other EU state, the CAN said.

“As part of the G20, EU governments committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies back in 2009. Ten years later, as the world is in the midst of a climate crisis, EU governments continue to provide huge sums of taxpayers’ money to fossil fuels, the single biggest cause of climate change,” lead author Laurie van der Burg, climate and energy researcher at FoE Netherlands, said.

The Competition Over How To Impoverish The American People Continues Among Democratic Candidates

It was back on June 4 that I posed the eternal question, “Will The Democratic Candidates Ever Notice That The Climate Change Thing Is Over?” That post noted that the Democratic candidates for President had begun a kind of bidding war over who could put forth the most extreme proposal to shackle the American economy in the name of climate salvatio n, while at the same time “out in the rest of the world” they were “laugh[ing] at this spectacle.” Among the data points cited in that post were that China was seeking reductions in the price of coal in order to spur consumption of electricity, and that in Australia a national election had just been lost by the party that made a principal issue out of its opposition to a huge new coal mine in Queensland.

In the three months since early June, things have only gotten sillier.

  • The Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 from the BP oil company came out. A summary of it in Forbes on June 28 noted: “Coal consumption in most of the developing world continues to grow. Asia Pacific increased consumption [in 2018] by the most overall, but its 2.5% growth rate lagged Africa’s (+3.9%) and Central and South America (+3.7%).”
  • The annual Google billionaires’ climate summit was held in Sicily at the beginning of August. From euronews: “114 private jets flew into the Italian Verdura Resort, according to the Italian press, and many of the elite guest list arrived in multi-million pound yachts. With stars like Leonardo DiCaprio, Barack Obama and Prince Harry in attendance, reports Jim Dobson at Forbes, they were hardly going to be hitch-hiking. . . .”
  • With the Australian election won by pro-development forces, the giant ($16.5 billion) Carmichael/Adani coal mine project in Queensland resumed its march toward final regulatory approval.
  • In late August former President Barack Obama plunked down just under $15 million for a beachfront mansion in Martha’s Vineyard, maybe 10 feet above mean high tide, revealing just what the ex-Pres really thinks of his own rhetoric about impending climate-induced sea-level rise.

So then, by now, at least some of the Democratic candidates must have noticed that the climate change thing is over, right? Don’t be ridiculous. In fact, back in June the bidding war of insane “climate” proposals was only getting started. Now, the run-up to last night’s CNN climate “town hall” provided the impetus for a round of new and ever-more-extreme bids, each one promising some new impoverishment of the American people in the name of appeasing the climate gods:

  • Cory Booker put out a plan on which he placed a $3 trillion price tag over 10 years. From a summary at Politico: “Booker’s campaign says his plan would ‘directly invest over $3 trillion dollars by 2030.’ That price tag includes $1.5 trillion for clean energy, energy storage, and electric vehicle technologies; $100 billion toward boosting existing sustainable agriculture practices; $400 billion to fund Moonshot Hubs in each state for research and development of new technologies; and $300 billion in climate resiliency and disaster relief.” In other words, $3 trillion taken away from American taxpayers, leaving them $3 trillion poorer, and then completely wasted on providing energy that could and would have been provided without any need for government spending at all.
  • Not to be out-”planned,” Elizabeth Warren also put out a pre-town-hall climate plan, also with a supposed $3 trillion price tag. And where is the money to go? “My Green Apollo plan to invest $400 billion over ten years in clean energy R&D will spur innovation . . . . My Green Manufacturing plan to invest $1.5 trillion over ten years in federal procurement of American-made clean energy products will fund the transition for federal, state, and local governments. . . . And my Green Marshall Plan will commit $100 billion to support the export of American-made clean energy products so that we can help other countries cut their emissions too. [And] I’ll commit an additional $1 trillion over 10 years . . . to subsidize the economic transition to clean and renewable electricity, zero emission vehicles, and green products for commercial and residential buildings.” Again, a program to accomplish nothing more than impoverishing Americans to the tune of $3 trillion.
  • But nobody out-bids Bernie Sanders. $3 trillion? That’s peanuts! Bernie put out a pre-town-hall plan with a price tag of over $16 trillion. It goes on interminably — 35 pages — with endless faux precision as to amounts of spending to accomplish meaningless or fantasy tasks. In this short blog post, I can only give some examples: $30 billion “to decrease the cost of solutions like batteries” . . . ; $500 billion “to research technologies to fully decarbonize industry” . . .; $150 billion “to fully decarbonize aviation and maritime shipping and transportation” (fossil fuel-free airplanes? nothing to it!) . . .; $200 billion to the “Green Climate Fund for the equitable transfer of renewable technologies, climate adaptation, and assistance in adopting sustainable energies” . . .; $40 billion for the “Climate Justice Resiliency Fund” . . .; $150 billion to build “resilient, affordable, publicly owned broadband infrastructure” . . . . That’s just scratching the surface, but you get the idea. It is not an exaggeration to say that every one of Bernie’s spending proposals is a total boondoggle or fairy tale that will accomplish nothing more than replacing more reliable and cheaper energy with more unreliable and expensive energy. The American people end up poorer by about one full year’s GDP, and that’s before you consider dealing with periodic blackouts and trying to fly in windmill-powered airplanes.

And then, the town hall. Of course, it was clear even before it started that every one of the ten participating candidates endorsed the idea that there is a “climate crisis” which however can be promptly solved by imposing sufficient punishment and impoverishment upon American citizens for their sin of prosperity. Reverend Pete Buttigieg may have expressed it best (from the summary of the town hall in the New York Times): “This is less and less about the planet as an abstract thing and more about specific people suffering specific harm because of what we’re doing right now. At least one way of talking about this is that it’s a kind of sin.” What is the atonement that must be imposed? All the candidates were on board with some form of higher prices for carbon-based fuels and/or carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade scheme. In other words, increase your price of electricity and gasoline by double, triple, quintuple, or whatever it takes until you can’t afford it any more and you stay home and freeze in the dark.

Or, end fracking. That has the explicit endorsement of at least Sanders, Warren, and (at the town hall) Harris, who said “There is no question that I am in favor of banning fracking.” The fracking revolution has brought the price of crude oil down from well over $100 per barrel in 2014 to about $55 today. That’s a saving of over $50 per barrel, or close to $400 billion per year for the 7.5 billion barrels of oil that we consume. Add in comparable savings for decline in the price of natural gas, and you could be approaching $1 trillion per year of enrichment of the American people from fracking. And that’s before you count the accompanying decline in influence of all the most malign actors on the world stage, from Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia.

I’m old enough that I can remember when political candidates thought that it was their job to propose policies that would enhance the prosperity of the people, let alone to make the world a safer place. Actually, Donald Trump still does think that. When did all the Democratic candidates go so completely insane?

The Next Great Extinction Event Will Not Be Global Warming – It Will Be Global Cooling

By Allan M. R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., August 2019

CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING IS A FALSE CRISIS – THE NEXT GREAT EXTINCTION WILL BE GLOBAL COOLING

Forget all those falsehoods about scary global warming, deceptions contrived by wolves to stampede the sheep. The next great extinction event will not be global warming, it will be global cooling. Future extinction events are preponderantly cold: a glacial period, medium-size asteroid strike or supervolcano. Humanity barely survived the last glacial period that ended only 11,500 years ago, the blink-of–an-eye in geologic time.

Cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates. Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity, and currently-observed moderate global warming increases life spans.

“Cold Weather Kills 20 Times As Many People As Hot Weather”
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

Click to access cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf

However, Excess Winter Deaths are not the worst threats to humanity. The glacial cycle averages about 100,000 years, consisting of about 90,000 years of the glacial period, when mile-thick continental glaciers blanketed much of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres including Canada, Russia, Northern Europe and Northern USA, and about 10,000 years of interglacial, the warm period of the present. Earth is now 11,500 years into the current warm interglacial, and our planet may re-enter the glacial period at any time.
“Glacial-Interglacial Cycles”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/716px_width/public/glacial-interglacial.jpg?itok=19bwFcU9

COS vs solar vs temps.png
The re-entry into the glacial period will be a major extinction event for humanity, possibly the end of modern civilization. Not only will our land surface be devastated by glaciers, but CO2 concentrations will drop so low that C3 crop photosynthesis, the source of almost all our foods, will be barely sustainable.

GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS HAVE NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY – NOBODY SHOULD BELIEVE THEIR FALSEHOODS

One’s predictive track record is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence. The IPCC and its acolytes have been consistently wrong in their predictions of catastrophic global warming. Their climate computer models run too hot, and observed global warming has actually been moderate and beneficial. Global warming alarmists have proven negative scientific credibility – nobody should believe their wild exaggerations.

In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 causes significantly improved crop yields due to enhanced photosynthesis, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

In 2002 we confidently published the following statements, which are still demonstrably correct:

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

“Debate on the Kyoto Accord”
Published by APEGA in the PEGG, and in The Globe and Mail, La Presse, and professional journals. By Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002

Click to access KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

Increased atmospheric CO2, driven by fossil fuel combustion and/or other causes, will have little impact on the onset of future glaciation. Climate is not highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Paradoxically, CO2 concentrations are not alarmingly high; in fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are alarmingly low – too low for the long-term survival of terrestrial life. Photosynthesis of C3 food crops ceases at 150ppm – CO2 starvation.
“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY

“(Plant) Food for Thought”
By Allan MacRae, December 18, 2014 and January 31, 2009
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/plant_food_for_thought2/

CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages

In the near term, there is a significant probability of moderate global cooling. Similar global cooling happened from about 1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel consumption accelerated rapidly at the onset of WW2. Global warming did not occur as CO2 increased. In fact, Earth cooled significantly for over 30 years – strong evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 does not cause catastrophic global warming.

Even moderate global cooling is harmful to humanity and the environment. We predicted the return of moderate global cooling in an article published September 1, 2002 in the Calgary Herald, as follows:

“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

Our 2002 global cooling prediction is still probable. In the past five years, I’ve stated that moderate cooling will probably start closer to 2020, driven by the low activity of Solar Cycle 24. Humanity suffered during past cold periods that coincided with solar lows, such as the Maunder and Dalton Minimums circa 1700 and 1800.

Last year there was a very late, cold spring and crops were planted one-month late in the American Midwest, but warm summer weather resulted in a good grain crop. This year, cold wet weather in the Midwest reportedly prevented about 30% of the USA corn crop from being planted – the ground was too wet for farm equipment. Were the last two years of late planting in the North American grain belt early signs of global cooling? Hope not.

I predicted in 2013 that winter deaths would increase in the UK, where energy costs are much higher than in North America. Sadly, this has proved correct. Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales in the winter of 2017-2018 totaled over 50,000 souls, the highest since 1976, as compared to an annual average of about 100,000 in the USA. The population of England and Wales is about one-sixth that of the USA, so the United Kingdom had an Excess Winter Death Rate three times the USA average – a terrible, preventable tragedy.

Blind faith in climate models

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/30/excess-winter-deaths-in-england-and-wales-highest-since-1976

If the Sun does primarily drive temperature, as I believe, then foolish politicians have brewed the perfect storm. They have adopted dysfunctional climate-and-energy policies to “fight global warming” and have crippled energy systems with intermittent, expensive “green energy” schemes that destabilize the electric grid, at a time when catastrophic global warming is not happening and moderate global cooling may be imminent.

GREEN ENERGY IS NOT GREEN; IT IS DESTRUCTIVE AND PRODUCES LITTLE USEFUL (DISPATCHABLE) ENERGY

Despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, “green energy” has increased from 1% in 2008 to only 4% of global primary energy in 2018. Fossil fuels provide fully 85% of global primary energy, essentially unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in decades to come. The remaining 11% is hydro and nuclear.
“Statistical Review of World Energy”
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow as radical green activists insist, and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in a few months from starvation and exposure.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, because they require almost 100% conventional backup from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro when the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine. Intermittent energy from wind and/or solar generation cannot supply the electric grid with reliable, uninterrupted power. There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the fatal flaw of intermittency in grid-scale wind and solar power generation.
“Wind Report 2005” – note Figures 6 & 7 on intermittency.

Click to access eonwindreport2005.pdf

Vital electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared, and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to grid-connected green energy schemes.

CONCLUSION

This paper discusses real threats, specifically global cooling, including imminent moderate global cooling and later re-entry into another glacial period, in order to shift the climate discussion from popular scary-fantasies of runaway global warming, to cold events that actually do threaten the future of humanity and the environment.