Climate science violates the basic precepts of science

There are two key pillars of science. First, it doesn’t matter how many “scientists” believe something. All of them could be proven wrong by a single new scientific theory or experiment. Science is always tentatively proven, and it is incumbent on everyone who calls himself a scientist to ask questions even about things that are “settled”. The great physicist Richard Feynman rightly said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. Scientists must continually question everything and everybody.

Second, science must necessarily make accurate predictions. The global positioning system (GPS) in our mobile phones works only because Einstein’s theories of relativity are accurate to the last possible decimal. Science must not just predict the future: it must predict backwards. Our scientific understanding of cosmic microwave background radiation allows us to literally see the universe as it existed a few thousand years after the Big Bang.

With climate change, things are dramatically unclear and unsettled. Even converting the basic logic of the greenhouse effect into actual estimates for planet Earth is not settled. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report notes that "If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously … the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2 degrees, in the absence of other changes”. However, some scientists calculate that its impact would be much lower.

Even if we accept this figure of 1.2 degrees, the key question is about these “other changes”, or the feedbacks. IPCCs tells us that positive feedback loops (e.g. from water vapour) from doubling of CO2 will overwhelm negative feedback loops (e.g. from clouds) to lead to a much higher overall temperature in a hundred years. But the IPCC’s approved models have too much variance and the actual, measured temperatures over the past forty years have been much lower than the predicted average of the IPCC-approved climate models. In fact, the list of failed predictions by climate “scientists” over the past 100 years could form a large book in itself.

Climate science is more like “diet science”, in which every second doctor has his own ideas about a good diet. It is a very immature science at best, and most of its current conclusions will be totally rejected with time.

What is global temperature anyway? How is it measured? Why are we looking at the last fifty years and not the last fifty million years? Even simple things like the measurements of temperature are subject to huge disagreements because of complexities like the urban heat island effect. And the fact is that the world has seen much higher levels of CO2 in the past even during ice ages. Until climate science can make accurate predictions of past ice ages and temperatures, will not be ready to be called a science.

Among the books that supported me in answering some of my questions on this topic were Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth and Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. Ian Plimer is professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne. Scientists like Judith Curry (the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) have raised major concerns about climate science including concerns about fraudulent temperature data manipulation. Ivar Giaever, the Nobel prize winner in physics has studied the methods of climate science and considers it to be pseudo-science. Vernon Smith, an electrical engineer who later moved to economics and won a Nobel prize, has very strong concerns about the methodology of climate science.

The fact that there is an attempt by some people to bulldoze others into “believing” their views itself confirms that this is not a science. Moreover, there are strong reasons to believe that this field has been fully captured by commercial interests. The great economist George Stigler raised the issue of regulatory capture in the 1970s to describe the situation when a regulator is no longer independent and unbiased because of commercial conflicts of interest. As Mark Lynas has pointed out, “The renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions”. I believe that an even greater conflict of interest comes from politically inspired group think in government which means that those “scientists” who can successfully create more panic receive more money to help them expand their empire. Real scientists, who want to explore questions that might disprove the “findings” of climate science, are being refused research funding and even being ousted from universities.

Alleged scientists like Tim Flannery who have repeatedly made false predictions enjoy cult status in the media which loves their bold (and panicky) predictions. Good, cautious scientists are not loved since they are boring. And this “science” is extremely corrupt. The Climategate emails were just the tip of the iceberg. Fraudulent studies have formed part of IPCC reports (such as the one about the melting by 2035 of all Himalayan glaciers). And unproven reports by wildlife advocacy groups have been extensively used as “evidence” by IPCC. Calling this commercially and politically driven project
a science hugely stretches the meaning of the word.

We know that plants evolved to flourish when the earth had much higher levels of CO2. Advanced farmers even today pump CO2 for plants under controlled conditions to achieve higher yields. CO2 is immensely beneficial for life and a slight increase in its levels over the past fifty years has made our planet more green.

If CO2 were a pollutant, then carbon emissions trading would be a useful solution. But my personal conclusion is that climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy. Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science. In the meanwhile we know for sure that the modest increase in CO2 over the past fifty years has been enormously beneficial. India should not spend even a minute thinking about this issue and focus instead on abolishing socialism.

 

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year

Mark J. Perry

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year Carpe Diem Font SizeAA Tomorrow (Monday, April 22) is Earth Day 2019 and time for my annual Earth Day post on spectacularly wrong predictions around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article.

Well, it’s now the 49th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 19 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

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.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 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. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded in the next few days with media hype, and claims like this from the Earth Day website: Global sea levels are rising at an alarmingly fast rate — 6.7 inches in the last century alone and going higher. Surface temperatures are setting new heat records about each year. The ice sheets continue to decline, glaciers are in retreat globally, and our oceans are more acidic than ever.

We could go on…which is a whole other problem. The majority of scientists are in agreement that human contributions to the greenhouse effect are the root cause. Essentially, gases in the atmosphere – such as methane and CO2 – trap heat and block it from escaping our planet. So what happens next? More droughts and heat waves, which can have devastating effects on the poorest countries and communities. Hurricanes will intensify and occur more frequently. Sea levels could rise up to four feet by 2100 – and that’s a conservative estimate among experts. Climate preacher/scientist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez predicted recently that “We’re like… the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” You can add that to the spectacularly wrong predictions made this year around the time of Earth Day 2019.

Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the virtue signalling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC

Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over?

Dr John Constable, GWPF Energy Editor

In a fundamentally viable energy generation sector such stories could be regarded as minor perturbations, but in one that has been for decades all but completely insulated from risk by subsidy and other non-market support, it suggests deep-seated structuro-physical weakness.

The German wind turbine manufacturer Senvion S.A., formerly trading under the name of RePower, is currently in financial difficulties. This Hamburg-based firm, which has installed over 1,000 wind turbines in the UK alone, applied to commence self-administered insolvency proceedings in mid-April this year, and is at present sustained by a EUR 100m loan agreement with its lenders and main bond holders. Senvion has delayed both its AGM, which was due to take place on the 23 May, and also the publication of its recent financial results. At the time of writing the company had not yet announced a new timetable.

For nearly eight years, from 2007 to 2015, Senvion was owned by the Indian wind turbine manufacturer, Suzlon, and is now the property of the private equity firm, Centerbridge Partners. It is currently rumoured in the industry press that Centerbridge may now be compelled to cut its losses by making a distressed sale to Asian, probably Chinese, companies seeking a cheap way of acquiring a wind power market toehold in Europe. Western companies are thought to be unlikely to have the appetite for such a purchase, and their reluctance is entirely understandable: as Ed Hoskyns shows in a recent note for GWPF using EurObservER data, the annual installation rates for wind and solar have halved in the EU28 since 2010. Senvion may be the first major company to feel the effects of this downturn, and is certainly large enough for its difficulties to have wide ramifications, with two of its suppliers, FrancEole, which makes towers, and the US company TPI Composites, which makes blades, both being hurt by reduced revenues. Indeed, FrancEole was already in a poor way, and is now reported as being on the verge of liquidation.

Projects that were being supplied by Senvion are also affected, with the building of one, Borkum West 2.2, a 200 MW offshore wind farm, being suspended mid-construction since components due from Senvion have not been delivered on schedule. This delay, which has been front-page news in some circles, must be causing considerable headaches for Borkum West’s developer, Trianel GmbH, which is apparently now seeking to establish direct links with Senvion’s suppliers so that they can complete the project.

Elsewhere in the offshore wind universe, two large and relatively new projects are in the midst of what must be costly repairs involving significant downtime. Having received regulatory approval, the Danish mega-developer Orsted is about to start removing and renovating all 324 blades on the 108-turbine, 389 MW, Duddon Sands wind farm in the UK part of the Irish Sea, a year after problems first became apparent. The machines used, the Siemens 3.6–120, have suffered leading edge erosion, a problem that affects perhaps some 500 turbines in Europe (See “Type Failure or Wear and Tear in European Offshore Wind?”), and requiring the application of a remedial covering to each blade.

Less can be read in the public domain about the repairs about to restart at the gigantic, EU-funded Bard Offshore 1, which is owned by Ocean Breeze Energy GmbH & Co. KG. The project, which commissioned in 2013, has eighty 5 MW turbines, with a total capacity of 400 MW. Bard had already suffered a well-known series of cable failures, and it now transpires that both nacelles and rotors have been undergoing replacement for about two years, though Ocean Breeze is, according to industry press reports, apparently declining to confirm how many turbines are affected. The company’s website gives no information in either German or English that I could find.

There would, then, appear to be a great deal of work in servicing offshore wind installations, but this has not been enough to prevent Offshore Marine Management Ltd (OMM), a UK-based offshore wind contractor, entering into voluntary liquidation after several years of losses. Interestingly, OMM, a relatively small company though prominent in the UK, cited the increasingly “competitive nature” of the sector as a factor underlying its failure, and it seems likely that it was unable to survive the efforts of developers determined to reduce both capital and operational and maintenance costs to the bone (and judging from the failures reported, perhaps into the bone itself). With margins pared thin, costly local suppliers may quite simply be forced out of the market, and regardless of their other merits. Related evidence of this phenomenon, which is clearly global, can be found in the fact that the Danish mega-developer Orsted is now grumbling that the Taiwanese government’s insistence of a high level of local content for its projected 900 MW Changua 1 & 2a offshore wind farms will double the capital cost from approximately £1.6m/MW to about £3m/MW.

One wonders whether this underlying reality was discussed at the recent and apparently robust meeting between the Scottish Government and the offshore wind industry, convened because the Scottish metal manufacturing firm BiFab had not been commissioned to make equipment for the 950 MW Moray East wind farm, a wind farm that has one of the much over-hyped Contracts for Difference at £57.50/MWh. The supply deals had instead been awarded to Lamprell, which is based in the UAE. The Scottish Energy Minister, Paul Wheelhouse, MSP, used the meeting to express “significant frustration” that local firms had been involved to such a small degree hitherto, in spite of repeated promises. Did Benji Sykes of the Offshore Wind Industry Council, present at the meeting, cite the Taiwanese case and explain to Mr Wheelhouse that something very similar would apply in Scotland, and that if local content was insisted upon, then construction costs would increase substantially and subsidies would also have to be increased to pay for it? Did he explain that there is genuine doubt whether Moray East can be viable at £57.50/MWh, even with low-cost international suppliers, and that local content would certainly not improve that situation? It would seem not. However, he did promise to “work closely” with the Scottish government to “ensure that communities up and down the country reap the economic benefits offshore wind offers”. Mr Wheelhouse has probably heard that before. How much longer will he go on believing it?

So much for the action in the foreground. The backdrop is also sombre. The Crown Estate, which in effect controls offshore wind development in UK territorial waters, has delayed pre-qualification for Round 4 projects until after the summer of 2019, and the German maritime agency, the BSH, has disappointed developers by not assigning new development zones as had been requested. In delay is danger, and the offshore wind industry in general will be deeply concerned at the loss of momentum that may result from these decisions.

Onshore wind is doing no better. The most recent auction for wind contracts in Germany took place in February and was radically undersubscribed, with only 476 MW of a possible 700 MW being awarded, the underlying causes being, it is reported, less favourable planning consent regulations and less generous price support. Senvion itself is described in some reports as being one of the supply chain casualties, alongside the German tower and foundation maker, Ambau GmbH, which has already filed for bankruptcy.

One wonders why these companies were not better prepared. Reductions in subsidy in Germany were inevitable, and the tightening of planning regulations is long overdue and unsurprising. Indeed, it is remarkable that the German public has tolerated for so long such intense development in close proximity to domestic housing. However, some German states are now considering an exclusion zone of 1 km from the nearest turbine, which is still extremely close for structures in excess of 100m, and now heading, believe it or not, to over 200m in overall height. The German people have been patient, but the mood is clearly changing; indeed, the premier manufacturer and developer Enercon has recently been compelled by court order to suspend construction of its 30 MW Wulfershausen wind farm because it had, apparently, breached the local authorities’ requirement that no dwelling should be within a distance ten times tip height.

This less favourable atmosphere is contributing to a general sense that existing onshore wind farms in Germany will not be repowered in great numbers at the end of their lives. About 15 GW of Germany’s onshore wind is now over fifteen years old and the end of the economic lifetime is in sight. But industry sources quoted in the subscription only press suggest that less than a third of this will actually be repowered, much less than had been expected only a few years back. The reasons given for this sudden change in prospects include declining public acceptance, reflected in tougher planning conditions, and falling subsidies.

Meanwhile, in Norway and in its home territory Sweden, Statkraft, Europe’s largest generator of renewable energy, has suspended further onshore wind construction because it would be “very challenging” to develop profitable projects in these areas. They are concentrating on other less resistant markets, such as the United Kingdom, where it has acquired a 250 MW portfolio of projects from Element Power.

But as it happens, things in the UK may prove to be no more promising. It has just dawned on the wind industry that government is actually acting on Amber Rudd’s landmark energy reset speech when Secretary of State for the Department of Energy & Climate Change in November 2015. In that speech Rudd remarked that “we also want intermittent generators to be responsible for the pressures they add to the system”. That of course was only right, but perhaps the industry hoped the intention would never materialise. If that was their expectation they were gravely mistaken. Aurora Energy Research has now released analysis of the regulator, Ofgem’s proposal to reform network charges, the “Targeted Charging Review”, and believes that the proposed changes “could set back subsidy-free renewables by up to five years”. When “unspun” this actually means is that if the regulator removes the hidden subsidy of avoided system costs, imposed by renewables but socialised over all generators, then more of the true cost of renewables will be revealed to the market, making it much less likely that even the most greenwash-thirsty corporate, NGO, or governmental body will sign an extravagant long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a wind or solar farm. In other words, far from hindering the emergence of subsidy-free renewables, Ofgem’s reforms threaten to give the lie to the subsidy-free claim and show that it was never anything more than an empty PR gambit.

In spite of all this, it is doubtless too soon to say that the game is up for renewables. The industries concerned will fight back, and beg further direct and indirect public assistance while threatening politicians and civil servants with missed climate targets if that support is not forthcoming. In all likelihood they will be to some degree successful. But this will only delay the inevitable. As the depressing news stories summarised above suggest, after decades of public support and de-risking there are still fundamental weaknesses in the renewables industry that go well beyond teething troubles and localised management failure. One explanation, the sole necessary one in my view, is that the physics is against this industry, and that the physics is beginning to tell. It remains only to say that this blog is not licensed to give investment or financial advice.

Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan – Crippling costs for no benefit

Cornwall Alliance

On April 29, 2019, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf released the latest version of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Climate Action Plan, announcing that Pennsylvania would join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 states committed to implementing policies that support the Paris Agreement — an international collaboration from which the U.S. has withdrawn.

According to the governor, “states like Pennsylvania must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect our communities, economies, infrastructures, and environments from the risks of a warming climate.”

The plan’s primary objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 80% by 2050 in the Keystone State to reduce the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and keep future increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Described in the 231-page plan are more than 100 actions intended to reduce GHG emissions, 15 of which are analyzed in detail. Each action involves increased taxation, increased regulation, increased spending or restrictions on citizens’ freedoms.

Some very relevant questions should be answered by the governor and the PA DEP concerning this far-reaching plan that will necessarily have significant negative impacts on the Commonwealth’s citizens and businesses:

  1. Once implemented, what effect would this have on global temperature?
  2. Are the justifications listed in the proposal supported by the science, facts and data?
  3. What costs and negative effects are associated with this plan and are they offset by the alleged benefits?

Amount of temperature reduction achieved by the Plan

The overarching goal of the proposal is to lower the Earth’s temperature by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Pennsylvania. However, nowhere does this hefty documentestimate a reduction of temperature.

To obtain an estimate, we used the MAGICC simulator (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The model estimates how much temperature rise would be averted globally by various reductions of CO2 for the United States.

Calculations using this (Figure 1) assume an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions, a climate sensitivity of 2.0 and the latest estimate of Pennsylvania’s share of U.S. emissions (4.2%) to reveal the following theoretical reductions:

  • 0.0023 degrees F by 2050
  • 0.0061 degrees F by 2100

This extremely small effect should be a very important component in the discussions on whether to impose the significant burdens of the Climate Action Plan on the state and its citizens.

Justification for the Plan 

Listed on page 14 of the plan is a section titled “Why Does Pennsylvania Need a Climate Action Plan?” It lays out justifications for why the plan is needed, listing 10 climate impacts that were “already occurring and put Pennsylvanians and local industries at risk.” Many of the impacts it described as occurring are, in fact, not happening and in some cases are improving the state’s ecosystems.

We will look at only a few of the most egregious examples of misinformation due to space restrictions, but these should serve to illustrate that this document is more of a political tool than science-based justification for action.

Claim: More frequent extreme weather events including drought

  • Hao et (2014 figure 2) reviewed nearly 30 years of global drought and showed a slight decline since 1982 (Figure 2).
  • Narisma (2007) reviewed the most severe and persistent droughts of the 20th century and found a significant decline in the latter half of the century.

Claim: Increased risks of injury and death from extreme weather events.

Claim: Increased human health risks from air pollution

Claim: Increased demand for energy, particularly during warmer summer months

  • There is no mention of the reduced energy demand during the winter months.

Most of what was listed as justification for implementation of this far-reaching plan were projections of what may or may not occur many decades in the future. These projections are based on climate models that over-predict warming by 2.5 to 3 times too much. It is important to separate speculation of what may occur in the future based on failed climate models from the actual events that can be empirically observed.

Recommended Strategies

The Plan identified 15 actions that were most impactful for reducing GHG emissions and would require increased taxation, spending and government control, some of which are listed below.

In the Energy sector, the Plan would:

  • Invest in building-scale solar
  • Incentivize renewable energy
  • Maintain current nuclear generation levels (bailouts for Exelon)
  • Tighten regulations on methane emissions
  • Create a Cap & Trade program for electricity sector carbon emissions

Transportation

  • Reduce personal vehicle mileage (no more trips to Home Depot)
  • Incentivize increased electric vehicle use
  • Increase use of public transportation

Please note the repeated use of the terms “invest” and “incentivize” as code for spending more taxpayer dollars. Additionally, the Cap & Trade program that is proposed will be a huge revenue generation scheme that would draw large sums of money into Harrisburg for redistribution to favored programs.

Pennsylvania’s citizens would not only be burdened by new direct taxation, but additional costs of regulation and higher energy costs would be passed on to customers. While the plan offers no estimates of costs, they surely would run into the millions if not billions of dollars.

According to the Plan itself, the 15 action items would only reduce the state’s GHG emissions by 21%, far less than the 80% targeted. In order to reach the higher targeted goals, ever more onerous and economically crippling actions would be required.

Conclusion

Pennsylvania’s Climate Action Plan will impose huge costs on the Commonwealth’s citizens and businesses while burdening them with additional levels of restrictions and regulations.

Companies will pass these higher costs on to consumers or absorb the costs, which will deter hiring and new investment. A rise in prices means that consumers will buy less, and companies will drop employees, close entirely, or move to other states where the cost of doing business is lower. The consequence means fewer opportunities for Pennsylvania’s workers, less economic growth, lower incomes, and higher unemployment.

The justifications for imposing this plan are flawed, the costs and regulations are economically crippling, and the result is a temperature reduction so low that it is indistinguishable from zero.

In short, the plan would infringe on the freedoms of people and make them significantly poorer. This plan should be opposed vehemently by the GOP-led House and Senate.

Article originally published on InconvenientFacts.xyz.

Climate Alarmists Fear Debating Flimsy Science Claims

By Larry Bell
Monday, 06 May 2019 10:13 AMCurrent | Bio | Archive

Honest, competent scientists should have no reason to close out opportunities for open discussion regarding claims that appear to be disproven by readily verifiable observations.

Let’s also add to this that responsible researchers and their professional organizations should not quietly stand by when they witness recognized misrepresentations of factual data and conclusions, whether these are directly attributed to them or not.

I will briefly highlight three representative examples:

Revisiting Exaggerated Climate Model Predictions:

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finally got at least one thing right on page 774 of their 2001 “Third Assessment Report”: “In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”

IPCC confirmed the inaccuracy of climate models in their 2014 “Fifth Synthesis Report” which admits that: ” . . . 111 out of 114 realisations [sic] show a GMST [global mean surface temperature] trend over 1998-2012 that is higher than the [trend in observed temperatures even after accounting for statistical uncertainty in the observed trend].”

So in other words, IPCC tells us that while 97 percent of their computermodels exaggerate warming, we should nevertheless trust them as a basis for influencing trillions of dollars of energy policy decisions.

Game Over for the Broken Hockey Stick Debacle:

One of the loudest, shrillest voices of protest against science scrutiny is emanating from Climategate scandal star Dr. Michael Mann, the author of a cobbled-together and thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” graph first used by the IPCC and Al Gore to gin up climate Armageddon alarm.

Mann’s alarmist chart projections have since disappeared into the murky pseudoscientific mists along with last sightings of Sasquatch. Yet before we all forget, let’s retrace those Big Foot tracks to investigate why competent scientists who knew better — including informed members of his own hockey team — remained silent.

A March 20 article co-authored by Mann and Bob Ward in The Guardian equated a planned White House panel to investigate any such matter as Stalinist repression.

Nevertheless, even Mann’s hockey stick paper co-author Raymond Bradley observed in an email that he could no longer defend such incompetence.

Regarding another paper jointly published by Mann and colleague Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, Bradley wrote, “I’m sure you will agree — the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2,000 year construction.”

Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”

Phil Jones had also written an e-mail stating, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.  . . . what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

Or as Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested, The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Busting Bogus Scary Settled Science Consensus Claims:

All purportedly competent “climate scientists” and/or their professional organizations purporting to endorse the existence of any legitimate survey of their peers indicating dire climate crisis consensus views should be made responsible to elaborate any such evidence.

Let’s begin, for example, with the origins and merit of a grossly-misleading, endlessly-reported, and politically-weaponized claim that “98 percent of all scientists believe in global warming.” The misleading ruse was based entirely upon responses of 77 cherry-picked people out of about 3,000 who responded to an anything-but-scientific two-question American Geophysical Union online survey.

The first question asked, “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Few would be expected to dispute this . . . the planet began thawing out of the “little ice age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 12,000 years ago.)

The second question asked, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Eighty-two percent of all respondents answered “Yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. It’s impossible to imagine that human activities — including land use and global greening attributed to CO2 emissions — don’t have at least some potential warming (and also cooling) influences.

Conscientious professionals and public representatives have nothing to fear regarding full disclosure of facts and conditions underlying enormously costly and socially consequential climate and energy policy decisions.

Any consensus among true scientists should openly welcome White House plans to convene a NSC review panel headed by Princeton emeritus professor Dr. Will Happer to do exactly that.

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of several books, including “Reinventing Ourselves: How Technology is Rapidly and Radically Transforming Humanity” (2019), “Thinking Whole: Rejecting Half-Witted Left & Right Brain Limitations” (2018), “Reflections on Oceans and Puddles: One Hundred Reasons to be Enthusiastic, Grateful and Hopeful” (2017), “Cosmic Musings: Contemplating Life Beyond Self” (2016), and “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom” (2015). He is currently working on a new book with Buzz Aldrin, “Beyond Footprints and Flagpoles.”

 

Trump Climate Panel Could Expose Huge Fraud, Hence the Hysteria

Written by Alex Newman

The collective freak out over President Donald Trump’s proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) highlights the fact that the hysteria surrounding the man-made global-warming hypothesis is unscientific — and that it must be re-examined by competent, credible experts. According to scientists and experts, if the science on “climate change” were truly settled, Democrats, tax-funded climate alarmists, and the establishment media would all be celebrating another committee to confirm that “conclusion.” Instead, the unhinged shrieking over Trump’s plan to investigate the matter strongly suggests something very fishy is going on, critics argued. Indeed, there is a good chance that even more fraud could be revealed.

The hysteria first broke out last month. In late February, documents emerged showing that the White House was planning to create a committee of federal scientists. Their job: re-examine widely disputed conclusions on climate change by previous government bodies. Especially problematic to the man-made global-warming theorists was the prestigious scientist selected to lead the commission, Princeton University physicist and national security advisor Dr. William Happer (shown). Of course, Happer is a widely respected scientist who happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man’s emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate.

“CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. “If you look at geological history, CO2 levels are unusually low right now, it’s very seldom that they’ve been this low. Many plants are not growing as good as they could if they had more CO2, so CO2 by itself will be very good for the Earth, more will be a good thing.” He also said it was “pretty clear that we’re not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.

After the news of Happer’s appointment and the commission was reported by the anti-Trump Washington Post, a bastion of pseudo-scientific climate hysteria, other anti-Trump climate alarmists in the media took their cue. Indeed, the out-of-control outrage and vitriol pumped out by the establishment over the proposed commission reached outlandish proportions. CNN, for example, which the president has described as “very fake news,” could barely contain its disgust, running a column blasting the climate panel as “a waste of time and money.” The fringe left-wing Vox, meanwhile, warned that Happer has “bizarre, backward views about climate science.” Some especially ludicrous screeds warned of an alleged “threat to national security.”

Democrats in the House of Representatives sent a furious letter to the president making all sorts of wild demands and claims. A group of a dozen or so Democrat senators even called the commission “dangerous.” “Climate change is widely acknowledged to be a global threat, and enabling climate skeptics to undermine the views of our nation’s scientific leaders on this critical issue is dangerously misguided for both our national and economic security,” they wrote, claiming that Happer’s comments show he “denies” the “overwhelming body of scientific evidence on the topic.”

And now, it is all coming to a head. Independent physicist John Droz, who is working with a network of concerned scientists against the corruption of science, argued that the 30-year battle over global-warming is set to reach a pivotal juncture within the next few days. In short, under tremendous pressure from the establishment media, the Democrat Party, Deep State swamp creatures, and even a handful of fringe “Republicans in Name Only” (RINOs), sources say the administration is re-considering the commission and its mission. Droz urged citizens to contact the White House right away and show their support for the plan by calling 202-456-1111 or sending an e-mail at whitehouse.gov/contact.

In commentary about the ongoing uproar, Droz noted the absurdity of claiming a new commission would be a waste of money when the price tag for “climate” schemes is in the tens of trillions of dollars. “If the U.S. was about to spend an enormous amount of money, would you say that an investigation costing one-billionth(!) of the expenditure, would be a waste of money?” Droz asked, calling it the “$64 trillion question.” “That’s what we are talking about here.” He also refuted the “waste of time” objection, noting that Trump has already made clear that without new facts, he does not intend to do anything consequential on the “climate” front.

As for the objection that the “science is settled,” Droz again highlighted the absurdity and unscientific nature of the claim. The issue of whether man’s CO2 emissions are driving dangerous warming or climate changes has not been resolved, he said. A genuine scientific assessment would require four components: It should be comprehensive, objective, transparent, and empirical. “There has never been a scientific assessment of the Global Warming issue, anywhere on the planet,” Droz observed, adding that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessment reports failed on at least three of the four criteria.

Indeed, many of the voices seeking to shut down the presidential committee point to the UN IPCC’s findings as proof that the science is settled. And yet, The New American magazine just interviewed former UN IPCC sea-level reviewer Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, who became a whistleblower after the UN body refused to correct easily discredited misinformation on sea levels and other matters despite his bringing it to their attention. “There is no rapid sea-level rise going on today, and there will not be,” he explained, citing observable data and his more than 50 years of research in the field. “On the contrary, if anything happens, the sea will go down a little.” He also warned of a looming global cooling period caused by the Sun.

Droz, the U.S. physicist, then proceeded to debunk the false claim that 97 percent of the world’s scientists agree with the man-made warming hypothesis. “Fact one: there never has been a survey of the world’s 2+ million scientists on anything,” he wrote. “Fact two: There may indeed be a majority of certain subsets of scientists that hold an opinion about Global Warming. However, none of them has done a genuine scientific analysis of the Global Warming matter. Fact three: Science is never determined by a vote. Do you think that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was accepted due to a poll — or because of scientific proof?”

Other prominent scientists agreed that the commission was sorely needed. Writing in the Daily Caller, for example, climatologist Patrick Michaels said it was “about time” that a commission to examine climate science was established. “And it’s about time that the truly sloppy, shoddy science that the previous administration used be shown in the light of truth,” said Michaels, who wrote seven books on climate, served as the Virginia State Climatologist and as president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and was a research professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia. “Let’s shine the light of truth on the notion that a temperature change equivalent to driving from Washington to Richmond is throwing the world into geopolitical chaos.”

Similarly, climate skeptic Paul Driessen, who has degrees in geology and field ecology, slammed the opposition to Trump’s commission in a column for Townhall.com. “For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence man-made climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate,” he said, noting that the Climate Industrial Complex was now a $2-trillion-per year global behemoth. “All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this.”

Driessen explained that the climate alarmists hope to wrap up their “kangaroo court proceedings” without the other side being heard or being allowed to present evidence and cross-examine alarmist so-called experts. “If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours — extensively and mercilessly,” he argued, calling the alarmists’ agenda un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and more. “After all, the future of our planet is at stake — or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is.”

The ecologist turned attorney, author of the book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death, offered some blunt advice to the president on this issue. “Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions from the Climate Industrial Complex,” Driessen suggested. “Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science right now. And may the best science win.”

James Taylor, senior fellow for environment and energy policy at the non-profit Heartland Institute, said an inclusive climate change panel is “exactly what we need to get as close to the truth as we can” on the question of global warming. “Up to now, the panels put together by the federal government have been nothing more than a gathering of prominent alarmists rattling off activist talking points,” he told The New American. As an example, he noted that one of the lead authors of the widely ridiculed National Climate Assessment, released just before the latest UN global-warming summit, represented the alarmist Union of Concerned Scientists. “Clearly, a climate assessment written by the Union of Concerned Scientists is not credible,” Taylor said.

An objective review of the science would reveal many such flaws, conflicts of interest, and more. “Alarmists fear and are vigorously objecting to President Trump appointing a science panel because they know an objective review of the science will poke gaping holes in the alarmist storyline,” he said. “But the proposed science panel is not about one side or another winning the debate, it is about discovering scientific truth by critical inquiry rather than political bullying.”

At American Thinker, David Archibald, who has lectured on climate science in Senate and House hearing rooms, argued that Dr. Happer’s commission could set the world free from the one-world-order plotting totalitarians behind the warming hypothesis. “At the moment, the Marxist plotters bang on about the 97 percent scientific consensus on global warming,” he wrote. “They have created a sealed edifice of lies and have maintained it assiduously. After Dr. Happer’s report is released, the mantra of ‘Are you denying the science?’ will be turned on its head. Global warming has been a state-sponsored religion, with its priesthood funded from the public purse to the tune of $2.5 billion a year in the U.S. alone. The priests of that cult will be plucked off the public teat, and the memory of what they preached will fade.”

Writing for the environmentalist Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Dr. David Wojick ridiculed one of the pseudo-scientific screeds seeking to undo the commission. In his insightful piece, Dr. Wojick pointed out that much of the hysteria over the examination of the climate hysteria is based on a critical fallacy: the notion that climate alarmism is the same thing as climate science. “This is wildly stupid,” he said. “It just shows that science news outlets like the Science Mag and E&E News have no real concept of what is actually going on, namely a serious scientific debate. It is no wonder then, that their readers also do not know what is going on. Even worse, this alarmist fallacy occurs in many other news outlet articles as well.”

The difference really is crucial. “Both alarmism and skepticism are based on climate science, but neither is the whole of climate change science, much less climate science, not even close,” noted Wojick, who has worked for Carnegie Mellon University, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the Naval Research Lab, and the U.S. Department of Energy. “A quick search reveals that the scientific literature contains over 2 million articles that refer to ‘climate change.’ Alarmism and skepticism are differing claims about what this vast body of research adds up to. They are not that body itself, so it is wildly wrong to equate either view with climate science. The assessment of science is different from the science being assessed.”

It seems increasingly like Trump was right when he ridiculed the man-made warming hypothesis as a “hoax.” In the end, there is a reason that the shrieking is getting so loud from the man-made warming theorists — a tax-funded “cult” movement, according to leading scientists such as Happer and MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. The reason is simple: The claim that man’s insignificant CO2 emissions drive “climate change” underpins their business models, their globalist ideology, their tax-funded pay checks, and their demands for ever greater and more intrusive government. If the science were truly settled, the warming cult would have nothing to fear from yet another government investigation of the science. As Queen Gertrude says in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Continue reading

30 Population Control Quotes That Show That The Elite Truly Believe That Humans Are A Plague Upon The Earth

The Georgia Guidestones Which Advocate A Maximum Human Population Of 500 Million

 

 

There is a clear consensus among the global elite that overpopulation is the primary cause of the most important problems that the world is facing and that something desperately needs to be done about it.  They truly believe that humans are a plague upon the earth and that we will literally destroy the planet if we are left to our own devices.  To the elite, everything from global warming to our growing economic problems can be directly traced back to the lack of population control.  They warn that if nothing is done about the exploding population, we will be facing a future full of poverty, war and suffering on a filthy, desolate planet.  They complain that it “costs too much” to keep elderly patients that are terminally ill alive, and they eagerly promote abortion for babies that are “not wanted” because they would be “too much of a burden” on society.  Anything that reduces the human population in any way is a good thing for those that believe in this philosophy.

This twisted philosophy is being promoted in our movies, in our television shows, in our music, in countless books, on many of the most prominent websites in the world, and it is being taught at nearly all of the most important colleges and universities on the planet.  The people promoting this philosophy have very, very deep pockets, and they are actually convinced that they are helping to “save the world” by trying to reduce the size of the human population.  In fact, many of them are entirely convinced that we are in a “life or death” struggle for the fate of the planet, and that if humanity does not willingly choose to embrace population control soon, then a solution will have to be “forced” upon them.

Yes, I know that all of this may sound like something out of a science fiction novel.  But there are a whole lot of people out there that are absolutely obsessed with this stuff, and many of them are in very prominent positions around the globe.

The following are 30 population control quotes which show that the elite truly believe that humans are a plague upon the earth and that a great culling is necessary…

1. UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”

2. Paul Ehrlich, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb”: “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied”

3. Paul Ehrlich again, this time on the size of families: “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”

4. Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

5. CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

6. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”

7. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

8. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

9. HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

10. MIT professor Penny Chisholm: “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”

11. Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.”

12. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.

13. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”

14. Detroit News Columnist Nolan Finley: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.

We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.”

15. John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

16. Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

17. Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.”

18. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”

19. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

20. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

21. Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”

22. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.  Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

23. Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

24. Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

25. David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

26. Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”

27. Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

28. Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

29. Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”

30. Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

There is so much more that could be said about all of this.

If you would like to learn more, the following are 10 of my previous articles about the population control agenda of the global elite…

#1 “The Population Control Agenda Of The Radical Humanists Who Would Love For You And I To Die

#2 “They Love Death

#3 “From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

#4 “Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control

#5 “The Green Agenda Is About Getting Rid Of As Many Humans As Possible

#6 “Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations

#7 “One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth

#8 “Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

#9 “New U.N. Report: We Must Reduce The Population To Fight Climate Change

#10 “To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control

So what do you think about all of this?

Do you agree or disagree with the sick population control agenda of the global elite?

Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below…

Michael Snyder is the author of The Beginning Of The End and Get Prepared Now.  You can get his new DVDs entitled “Economic Collapse, World War III & The Death Of America” and “The Regathering Of The Ten Lost Tribes Of Israel” from the Prophecy Club.

 

When Rice is Worth Gold: Legalization of Golden Rice in the Fight against Poverty

By 

Golden Rice was declared safe for consumption by Canada recently. This has huge implications for the rest of the world, where Golden Rice can be vital resource in tackling vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are engineered to display traits that are otherwise absent or subdued in natural crops. For example, gene modification results in crops that are highly resistant to diseases and more accustomed to extreme weather conditions. Sometimes, these crops also contain increased nutritional value.

Golden Rice, also known as Provitamin A Biofortified Rice Event GR2E, has strikingly higher levels of Provitamin A than other commercially available rice varieties. The name may have been derived from its golden yellow color, but it is certainly more valuable to our food security than gold.

Being a powerful antioxidant, Vitamin A plays a key role in growth, reproduction, eyesight and immune system health. Vitamin A deficiency is more prevalent in developing countries, where it causes preventable childhood blindness and amplifies the risk of death from other common childhood illnesses such as diarrhea.

Golden Rice can certainly reduce the magnitude and frequency of Vitamin A deficiency as it acts as a Vitamin A supplement. The rice can thus act as a preventive element against the death and disease due to vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.

However, GM crops such as Golden Rice face constant opposition from anti-GM crusaders who accuse these crops of being dangerous to human health.

The claims of anti-GM groups are false and baseless. Particularly, their accusations on Golden Rice lack scientific credibility, besides acting as a major hurdle in the fight against malnutrition and global food insecurity.

On March 16, Health Canada—the department of the government of Canada with responsibility for national public health—approved the genetically engineered Golden Rice as safe for human consumption.

It was a pleasant coincidence that Golden Rice was approved just a week before the birthday of Norman Borlaug—the man who revolutionized the use of GM crops, eventually helping billions of people afford a daily meal and sustaining billions of lives to this day.

This approval comes after a robust scientific assessment done by scientists with expertise in molecular biology, microbiology, toxicology, chemistry, and nutrition.

The assessment complied with scientific principles approved internationally by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the regulatory bodies in the United States, the European Union, Australia, and Japan.

The assessment results showed that Golden Rice had the same nutritional property as other commercially available rice varieties, except for the increased provitamin A levels. Further, it displayed no new risk to human health and has no potential to create or amplify allergies.

Unlike Health Canada’s robust scientific assessment, the claims of anti-GM advocacy groups fall short of credibility, as they have been in the past.

The approval of Golden Rice by Health Canada is a lethal blow to one of the many myths that are propagated by anti-GM activists. Developing countries should seize the momentum by declaring Golden Rice safe for consumption in their respective countries.

This article was originally published on Townhall.com.

 

Gallup: Left Became More Militant About Global Warming Under Trump

From Gallup News: Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts
by Megan Brenan and Lydia Saad

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Partisan gaps across global-warming measures slightly wider than in 2017
Democrats view global warming seriously; Republicans view it skeptically
69% of Republicans, 4% Democrats say global warming is exaggerated
This story is part of a special series on Americans’ views of the environment, global warming and energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ concerns about global warming are not much different from the record-high levels they were at a year ago. However, the views of some partisans have shifted, creating larger gaps than what Gallup saw last year across all questions about global warming.

Gallup’s annual survey about the environment, conducted March 1-8, found that Americans’ opinions about global warming, like many other issues, have increasingly become politically polarized.

In general, Democrats view global warming seriously, while Republicans view it skeptically:

Ninety-one percent of Democrats and 33% of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, but 67% of Republicans worry only a little or not at all.

While 82% of Democrats think global warming has already begun to happen, only 34% of Republicans agree. Rather, 57% of Republicans think it will not happen in their lifetime (25%) or will “never happen” (32%).

About seven in 10 Republicans (69%) think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated in the news, 15% think it is generally correct and 15% say it is generally underestimated. Democrats, however, are much more likely to think the seriousness of global warming is underestimated (64%) or correct (32%), and just 4% say it is exaggerated.

Eighty-six percent of Democrats versus 42% of Republicans think most scientists believe global warming is occurring. The percentage of Republicans who say most scientists believe this is down 11 percentage points since last year.

Almost nine in 10 Democrats say increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century are due to human activities more than natural changes in the environment. Just 35% of Republicans agree, while 63% attribute the temperature increases to natural environmental causes.

Four in five Republicans do not think global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetime; two-thirds of Democrats think it will.

Full report here

Mike Bastasch at The Daily Caller observes:

“With Trump reversing many of his predecessors’ policies aimed at curbing global warming, Democrats are feeling a greater sense of urgency about the issue, while Republicans have either remained as skeptical as they had been in the past or have become more so,” reads Gallup’s poll analysis.

For example, the percentage of Republicans and Independents who believe global warming is caused by human activities fell 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively, from 2017 to 2018. Democrats, on the other hand, increasingly saw global warming as man-made.gallup-globalwarming-2018-2

Tomorrow’s Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship

Tomorrow’s Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship The Carbon Sense Newsletter, April 2018.  To view or print the whole newsletter plus images click here.

Produced with the assistance of our volunteer editors. Please help to spread some climate sense.

Greens hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN. No longer is real pollution of our environment the main Green concern. The key slogan of the Green religion is “sustainable development”, with them defining what is sustainable.

Greens hate miners. They use nationalized parks, heritage areas, flora/fauna reserves, green bans, locked gates and land rights (for some) to close as much land as possible to explorers and miners – apparently resources should be locked away for some lucky distant future generation. And if some persistent explorer manages to prove a mineral deposit, greens will then strangle it in the approvals process using “death by delay”.

Greens hate farmers with their ploughs, fertilizers, crops and grazing animals. They want Aussie grazing land turned back to kangaroos and woody weeds. They plan to expel farmers and graziers from most land areas, with food produced in concentrated feedlots, factory farms, communal gardens and hydroponics.

Greens hate professional fishermen with their nets, lines and harpoons. Using the Great Barrier Reef as their poster-child, they plan to control the Coral Sea using marine parks, fishing quotas, bans and licenses, leaving us to get seafood from foreign seas and factory fish farms.

Greens hate foresters and grass-farmers. They want every tree protected, even woody weeds taking over ancient treeless grasslands. Red meat and forest timber are “unsustainable”. Apparently they want us to live in houses made of recycled cardboard and plastic and eating fake steak and protein powder made from methane generated from decomposing rubbish dumps.

Greens despise the suburbs with their SUV’s, lawns, pools, rose gardens, manicured parks, ponies and golf courses. They prefer concentrated accommodation with people stacked-and-packed in high-rise cubic apartments, with state-controlled kindies in the basement, and with ring-roads of electric trams and driverless cars connecting apartments, schools, offices and shops.

Greens hate reliable grid power from coal, nuclear, oil, gas or hydro generators. Their “sustainable” option is part-time power from wind and solar with the inevitable blackouts and shortages needing more rules and rationing.

Greens lead the war on fracking and pipelines. The victims are energy consumers. The beneficiaries are Russian gas and Middle-east oil.

Greens think it is “sustainable” to uglify scenic hills with whining wind towers, power poles, transmission lines and access roads, and to clutter pleasant estuaries and shallow seas with more bird-slicing turbines. They think it is “sustainable” to keep smothering sunny flatlands under solar panels and filling the suburbs with extra power lines and batteries of toxic metals. Greens think it is “sustainable” to clear forests for bio-mass to feed large wood-fired power stations, or for establishing biofuel plantations. They think it is “sustainable” to keep converting croplands from producing food for humans to producing ethanol for cars.

Greens hate free markets where prices are used to signal changing supply and demand. There is no room for fun, frills or luxuries in their “sustainable” world. They want to limit demand by imposing rationing on us wastrels – carbon ration cards, electricity rationing meters, water rationing, meat free days, diet cops and bans on fast foods and fizzy-drinks.

They also favor compulsory recycling of everything, no matter what that process costs in energy or resources. Surveillance cameras will keep watch on our “wasteful” habits. None of this vast green religious agenda is compatible with individual freedom, constitutional rights or private property – and none of it makes any economic or climate sense. To view or print the whole newsletter plus images click: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/green-dictatorship.pdf

The Despotic Green New World is coming. Climate alarm is the stalking horse, “sustainable development” is the war cry, and global government is the goal.

Further Reading: “Sustainable Development” is the UN code for total reorganization of human society:  https://newswithviews.com/the-code-for-reorganizing-human-society-is-sustainable-development/

Climate policies governed by groupthink: https://mailchi.mp/1a014f9b3e23/press-release-climate-groupthink-leads-to-a-dead-end-171361?e=e1638e04a2

The UN Plan Itself: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf