Tag Archive for: ClimateFear

Don’t Think There Is a Meteo Misinformation Media? Consider 1936.

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Here is the headline from the Daily Mail: REVEALED: The satellite images that show how triple-digit temperatures blanketed the US in July, putting 150 MILLION Americans under extreme heat warnings and killing dozens.

I wonder what would have happened if there was no air conditioning.

Here is July:

image.gif

Pretty warm.

But look at 1980:

image.gif

And 2012:

image.gif

And 2011:

image.gif

Heck, let us look at 1933,’34,’35, ’36, and ’54:

image.gif

Now look at this little ditty:

“An EPA analysis compiled from 1895 through 2015 ranks 1936 as the worst on record, with an index value of 1.255. The hottest year in recent decades, 2011, has an index of 0.285. In 1936, some areas experienced 22 heatwave days and maximum temperature anomalies that exceeded 6 degrees Celsius.”

This July was nowhere close to 2011.

Don’t think there is a meteo misinformation media? Think again.

*****

This article was published by CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

Climate Realism On The Rise?

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

As a climate and energy realist, in my heart of hearts, I dream of the day when the public recognizes climate change will not bring on an end to the world as we know it, or even a long-term net decline for human civilization. That’s what the data and the best science show, despite the claims of corporate media, alarmist activists, heads of corporations, and politicians who profit in terms of money and power by spinning the climate change end-of-the-world fairy tale. Sadly, the public rarely gets to hear this truth.

A few notable instances of the very unalarming facts about climate change getting through on a large scale in the past few years are the release of several bestselling books by prominent liberals advocating what they consider to be reasonable climate policies: Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never, Steven Koonin’s Unsettled, and Bjorn Lomborg’s False Alarm. Sticking strictly to climate science, not policy, Heartland’s own Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students has also sold well on Amazon. However, despite the success of these publications among the literati and the reading public, I’d be surprised if these books combined sold more than a million copies in the United States, which has a population of more than 330 million people, or a few million copies among the eight billion people worldwide. Sadly, I suspect more people are exposed to false climate alarm stories in the mainstream media every day in the United States than have been reached by all these books in the past two years since the first one’s release.

Still, hope springs eternal and climate realists keep on plugging away, trying to breach the nearly impregnable wall of climate change disinformation erected by powerful corporate, media, and political elites. Every so often, the realists score a direct hit, making the climate/energy realist case so powerfully that even the mainstream media and elite journals take notice. This occurred recently when The New York Times Magazine (NYTM) published an interview with eminent scientist Vaclav Smil, Ph.D., discussing his book How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We’re Going.” (You can’t get more mainstream and yet elitist than the NYTM.) Another direct-realist hit on the edifice of climate alarm came with the publication of the article “Russia’s War Is the End of Climate Policy as We Know It,” in the journal Foreign Affairs, by Ted Nordhaus.

Both Smil and Nordhaus have far more confidence than I that human activities are causing potentially dangerous climate change. Although I disagree to some extent with their assessment of the dangers of climate change, their “realpolitik” analyses of the infeasibility of the net-zero energy transition in the 2030-2050 timeline are powerful and accurate.

Despite continual cajoling by the NYTM interviewer, who basically framed the same question again and again and again, pleading for Smil to concede climate change is such an imminent disaster world leaders must forcibly decarbonize our energy systems nearly immediately, Smil refused to rise to the bait. His consistent answer, based on his assessment of the world’s energy needs and the material requirements necessary to meet net-zero in the short term, was that this goal is physically and politically impossible. Smil also made clear that the threat posed by climate change does not justify such a dramatic forced transition.

For Smil, the four pillars of modern civilization are cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia, each of which requires huge amounts of fossil fuels to produce. Therefore, he concludes, those calling for rapid decarbonization to combat global warming are dangerously foolish. “I’m looking at the world as it is,” Smil, told the NTYM interviewer, continuing,

The most important thing to understand is the scale. … [A]ccording to COP26, we should reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent by 2030 as compared with 2010 levels. This is undoable because there are just eight years left, and emissions are still rising. People don’t appreciate the magnitude of the task and are setting up artificial deadlines which are unrealistic. …

What’s the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? People call it aspirational. I call it delusional.

I’m all for goals but for strict realism in setting them.

For Smil, radical actions to cut carbon dioxide emissions steeply and immediately are neither justified by the problem—because other problems are at least as dire as climate change, and they require fossil fuels to solve—nor are they possible, even if they were justified. It’s a matter of both physics and realpolitik, the latter meaning an honest assessment of the fact that people around the world do and will continue to want to better their lives by their own understanding of what constitutes a better life.

Smil’s assessment coincides with that of Ted Nordhaus, the cofounder (with the above-mentioned Michael Shellenberger) and executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, and a co-author of An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Nordhaus’s article in Foreign Policy is a realist shot across the bow explaining how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is opening eyes to the basic energy truth that fossil fuels are still vital to the world:

[T]he headlong rush across Western Europe to replace Russian oil, gas, and coal with alternative sources of these fuels has made a mockery of the net-zero emissions pledges made by the major European economies just three months before the invasion at the U.N. climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Instead, questions of energy security have returned with a vengeance as countries already struggling with energy shortages and price spikes now face a fossil fuel superpower gone rogue in Eastern Europe.

In the decades following the end of the Cold War, global stability and easy access to energy led many of us to forget the degree to which abundant energy is existential for modern societies. Growing concern about climate change and the push for renewable fuels also led many to underestimate just how dependent societies still are on fossil fuels. But access to oil, gas, and coal still determines the fate of nations. Two decades of worrying about carbon-fueled catastrophes—and trillions of dollars spent globally on transitioning to renewable power—haven’t changed that basic existential fact. …

Given the scant effect international climate efforts have had on emissions over the past three decades, a turn back toward energy realpolitik—and away from the utopian schemes that have come to define climate advocacy and policymaking worldwide—could actually accelerate the shift to a lower-carbon global economy in the coming decades. …

The capacity to adapt to rising temperatures and extreme weather events rose significantly … as evidenced by the continued decline in weather-related deaths. But this was not due to any U.N.-led efforts to fund climate adaptation, which never materialized. What made people all over the world more resilient to climate extremes was better infrastructure and safer housing—the product of economic growth powered by cheap fossil fuels.

The geopolitical, technological, and economic competition that characterized the Cold War had more success in reducing the carbon intensity of the global economy than climate policy efforts have had since.

Nordhaus goes on to explain:

The world’s renewable energy economy is deeply entangled with geopolitically problematic supply chains. Huge parts of the world’s supplies of silicon, lithium, and rare-earth minerals rely on China, where solar panels are produced by Uyghur slave labor in concentration camps. The idea that the crisis might be resolved by choosing Western dependence on Chinese solar panels and batteries over Western dependence on Russian oil and gas reveals just how unserious the environmental movement’s pretensions to justice, human rights, and democracy really are.

For Nordhaus and Smil alike, the appropriate response to climate change is to acknowledge the reality of the importance of fossil fuels to continued economic prosperity for the present, while delivering better options through the market—which responds to price signals through efficiency gains and technological innovation—far faster and more effectively than government-mandated energy shifts. Smil states,

at the same time we are constantly transitioning and innovating. We went from coal to oil to natural gas, and then as we were moving into natural gas we moved into nuclear electricity, and we started building lots of large hydro, and they do not emit any carbon dioxide directly. So we’ve been transitioning to lower-carbon sources or noncarbon sources for decades. Moreover, we’ve been making our burning of carbon much more efficient. We are constantly transitioning to more efficient, more effective and less environmentally harmful things.

Nordhaus notes the Russian war is increasingly making it clear to countries that climate change is not “the main event,” energy security is, and the latter can be achieved while improving economic conditions in the poorest countries and respecting human rights:

But climate and energy policies, especially in the West, may shift significantly from subsidizing demand (for things like solar panels and electric vehicles) to deregulating supply (of things like nuclear power plants and high-voltage transmission lines). A shift of this sort—away from subsidizing specific green technologies favored by activists and lobbyists and toward enabling the broader technological, regulatory, and infrastructural basis for the energy transition—would put clean energy policies on much firmer economic footing. And it would better align climate objectives with energy security imperatives.

People around the world face many problems. Climate change is only one among many, and as Nordhaus and Smil point out, it is probably not the most pressing.

Nordhaus and Smil provide clear-eyed assessments of the physical, economic, and political limits of the energy transition demanded by climate alarmists on the timetable they have laid out. These analysts’ acknowledgments of the benefits fossil fuels have delivered, and the inequities and harms that would result from an attempt to go net-zero by 2030 or even 2050, are a refreshing appraisal from scholars whom alarmists cannot in any way smear as “climate deniers.”

In my heart of hearts (foolish though it may be), I still hold out hope this truth can get through the daily background noise of climate alarm.

*****

This article was published by the Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.

The Impact of CO2 Is Overstated So Why Dismantle Society? Part 1

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

That is a great question, and yes, there is a chance that it could happen. But it would not be meaningfully caused by humans burning fossil fuels and producing more carbon dioxide (CO2).

Additional CO2 in our atmosphere stopped having a meaningful role in the earth’s temperature when it reached 300 parts per million (PPM), and that portion of our atmosphere that absorbs CO2 was all used up. Seriously, that is a fact. So today, adding any amount of more CO2 has no impact on climate whatever. If CO2 doubled from the present 420 PPM to 840 PPM, the earth would just get greener, and crops would increase their yields on every farm and every forest. There would be no negative impacts at all. Atomic submarines travel the world underwater with an average CO2 content of over 5,000 PPM. Yes, that is a 5, followed by 3 zeros, and no sailor has ever gotten ill. If you doubt us, it is because you have been conned by the left and its control of the media to scare you needlessly.

Carbon Dioxide has less to do with global warming, global cooling, or global temperature remaining constant than we have been told. But attempts to reduce or eliminate fossil fuels will bring untold misery and deaths to a considerable portion of humanity. And the saddest part is that it will have been done for no scientific climate change reason. Instead, it would be a repeat of the insanity of the Salem Witch Trials of four hundred years ago, during the last Grand Solar Minimum.

Many well-intentioned “scientists” have become dependent on the US Government’s political grants for their lifestyles, tenures, and fortunes. So maybe they console their guilt by telling themselves that nobody would be foolish enough to actually try to decarburize the planet. And in fact, that may be true as it is impossible.

But clearly, governments are trying to do it. Unfortunately, the decarbonizing effort is inflicting damage in the two years it has been tried. Fuel shortages are occurring, energy costs are rising, and inflation can be seen everywhere. All the while, CO2 continues to increase anyway.

We will make a strong effort in this two-part series to convince you why we must stop this nonsense that CO2 and the greenhouse effect cause global warming and the end of life as we know it. Instead, we should resume and accelerate our discovery and recovery of more fossil fuels such as oil and gas, and yes, even coal.

For ease of understanding, we will forgo the complex scientific explanations and present an easy-to-understand record of temperatures and related climate and weather events as evidence. But if you wish to get more into the mathematical, scientific arguments, check out the endnotes and start with the first one. [a][A].

From Figure-1, taken from endnote [b][B], we see the UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) global satellite temperature since 1979, when we launched our first weather satellites. We use this data set because it contains the temperatures recorded by very accurate satellite instruments. NASA/NOAA prefers to use their surface temperatures because they are easy to manipulate, which is done to support the government’s CO2 global warming position. NOAA is constantly doing it. [c][C].

To the primary UAH temperature record, we have added additional information that makes significant contributions to the causes and extent of the global temperature record. There is a great deal of information presented here, but you will find it easy to understand. We will explain Figure-1 step by step. Give us a few minutes, and you will see it is not complicated once you get a feel for the various activities at work in our solar system. Believe us; they dwarf the insignificant role of our CO2 emissions in our earth’s temperature.

The light blue vertical lines with the small circles on their ends are the temperatures recorded each month. The dark red line is a running 13-month average of these temperatures, and there is a horizontal line which is the average of all the recorded temperatures. Each temperature is recorded as a deviation from this zero baseline.

For example, the blue line temperature for 1979 was about -0.4°C colder than the average zero baselines. For 1998, the little blue line/circle shows a temperature of about +0.6°C above the baseline temperature. Thus by 1998, the temperature increase was about 1.0°C warmer than in 1979. For 1979, the red running temperature average was about -0.35°C, and for 2000 about -0.20°C, giving us a temperature increase of about 0.15°C, which means that the temperature for 2000 was essentially the same as it was in 1979. Therefore, there was no global warming during that period.

Now let us look at the big picture. The first thing to note is the red arrow trend that we added shows a global temperature increase from 1979 until 1998 of about 0.6°C. (0.3 + 0.3). [d][D] Now solar scientists know why this increase happened as it corresponds to a period of powerful solar magnetic activities, and the scientific explanation is two-fold. First, during periods of high solar activities, as we had from 1979 to 1998, the earth received a tiny bit more solar energy called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). But during this same period, the sun also sent toward the earth, and all the planets in our solar system, with powerful solar winds and additional magnetic fields.

In Figure-2, we see a conceptual image of these powerful solar winds’ effects and how they shield the earth from much of the Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) approaching the earth. This is important because it is known that an increase in GCR entering the earth results in increased cloud formation. [e][E] So, during periods of high solar activities, fewer GCR enter the earth, and cloud cover decreases, allowing the earth to receive more TSI and thus warming the earth. But the exact opposite happens during periods of reduced solar activities, as shown by the green arrow trend line in Figure-1 from 1999 to March 2022. More GCR entered the earth, forming more cloud cover, and the earth cooled a bit.

We have only added a couple of terms to consider TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) and GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays). So next time you go out with friends, you can dazzle them with your knowledge of the solar system and concurrently attempt to eradicate in their minds the arrogant idea that we humans have control of the earth’s thermostat.

In Part 2 of this series of articles, we will write about the sunspots you have heard of but do not really understand, along with the role of El Niño and La Niña, which have long confused you. If you don’t know that volcanoes at the ocean bottom are way more important than us, we will let you know that as well.

 

__________________________________

Sources and references: (we have cited all references here for both Parts 1 and 2, so not all references will be cited in part 2)

A[a] Read why CO2 and greenhouse effect do not cause global warming.” https://www.academia.edu/76652255/Revised_Why_cant_CO2_and_greenhouse_effect_cause_global_warming

B [b] UAH Satellite global temperature see details at https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

C [c] NASA/NOAA adjusting/fudging global climate record. This article provides evidence of the fudging and adjustments made by NOAA to the surface temperatures. The paper argues that absent these adjustments. We may already be a climate pause or possibly even a decline since the 1930s. https://electroverse.net/u-s-has-been-cooling-since-the-1930s/

D[d] TSI record last 50 years https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/9ft7s2/do_you_know_why_solar_irradiance_has_diverged/

E[e] Read the article Geomagnetic Reversal: The Svensmark Effect Revealing the Impact of Cosmic Rays on the Earth,” Friday, July 5, 2019. https://www.ineffableisland.com/2019/07/geomagnetic-reversal-svensmark-effect.html#:~:text=Geomagnetic%20Reversal%3A%20The%20Svensmark%20Effect%20Revealing%20the%20Impact,by%20increasing%20cloud%20cover%2C%20causing%20an%20%E2%80%9Cumbrella%20effect%E2%80%9D.

F[f] “Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling,” by Valentina Zharkova https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

G[g] El Niño/La Niña years 1990 -Jan 2022, source https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

H[h] El Niño-La Niña are caused by the earth’s geologic activities and not changes in heat circulation patterns. See http://www.plateclimatology.com/why-el-nio-and-la-nia-are-one-continuous-geological-event/. Also, see this article describing their cyclic nature. See paper titled Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate,” February 5, 2015, https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3231

[I] [i] https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/deepoceanvolcanoes/

J [j] Read paper titled “Underwater thermal activities –an overlooked factor in climate change” https://www.academia.edu/45639543/Underwater_thermal_activities_an_overlooked_factor_in_climate_change.

And article “Tracking down hydrothermal vents,” https://schmidtocean.org/cruise-log-post/tracking-down-hydrothermal-vents/. Also, read the report on volcanic activities under the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, https://naturalworldisasters.com/antarctica-volcanoes/ and https://phys.org/news/2020-12-newly-greenland-plume-thermal-arctic.html. Read the article Scientists Discover 91 Volcanoes in Antarctica,” https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2017/08/scientists-discover-91-volcanoes-in-antarctica/

K [k] See the article Greenland‘s ice is melting from the bottom up – and far faster than previously thought, study shows” by Isabelle Jani-Friend, CNN, February 22, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/world/greenland-ice-melting-sea-level-rise-climate-intl-scli-scn/index.html

L [l] See articles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Seamount and https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling

MN[m, n] Figure-5 chart from the Smithsonian Institute, https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=historicalactivity.

[O][o] See the book by Peter Langdon Ward, What Really Causes Global Warming?” And his detailed video presentation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPH7HPaNHTg&t=1922s

[P][p] See the paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures,” by Douglas Cotton, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/douglas-cotton-b794a871_planetary-core-and-surface-temperatures-activity-6607066373015379968-WcRW/

[Q][q] See the paper New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model,” https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

*****

This article was published by CFACT, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

 

Climate Change Poses No Existential Threat. Nada. Not Any.

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

A refreshing article in the Washington Examiner demonstrates what I have repeatedly said for more than a decade: climate change does not pose an “existential threat.” In fact, that’s the title of the article: “Climate change is not an ‘existential threat.’” In discussing the energy crisis that has arisen during Joe Biden’s brief tenure as president of the United States—primarily because of Biden’s climate policies—David Simon writes,

The Biden administration’s climate change policies have sharply increased oil prices, damaging the domestic economy and increasing the cost of nearly everything consumers buy. By increasing revenues for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime, they also made Russia stronger and more dangerous at a critical time, thus damaging national security. …

But worst of all, the Biden administration’s basis for these policies, the claim that global warming presents an “existential threat,” is fraudulent. It is not based on any scientific consensus, and in fact, it ignores evidence of environmental benefits of global warming that offset its harm. 

In this article, chock full of data, Simon schools so-called journalists in the corporate media on how to examine claims that humans are causing a climate catastrophe. Simon presents data and research that conclusively demonstrate temperature and climate-related deaths have significantly declined during the period of modern warming. Climate Realism has also pointed this out on numerous occasions, refuting alarmists’ claims to the contrary.

For example, arguably the largest study ever to examine excess mortality associated with temperature was published in the July 1 edition of The Lancet, one of the world’s most prominent health journals. The study’s authors, 68 scientists representing universities and research institutes in 33 countries spanning all regions of the world, came to two clear conclusions: cold temperatures contribute to far more deaths each year than warmer temperatures, and deaths associated with extreme temperatures, hot or cold, are declining. The researchers found nearly 10 times more people die due to cold temperatures than hot temperatures. Moreover, as global temperatures modestly increase, the number of people dying because of suboptimal temperatures is decreasing.

“Importantly, cold-related death decreased 0.51 per cent from 2000 to 2019, while heat-related death increased 0.21 per cent, leading to a reduction in net mortality due to cold and hot temperatures,” the study reports.

Considering that 10 times more people were dying from cold than from heat, the study indicates the warming between 2000 and 2019 saved 3.1 million lives from cold-related deaths, at the expense of just 130,000 extra deaths caused by heat. As a result, global warming saved a net of nearly three million lives during the past 20 years.

This study confirms what previous research has consistently shown. In 2015, for example, The Lancet published the results of another large-scale temperature/mortality study, in which the researchers found cold weather directly or indirectly killed 1,700 percent more people than warm or hot weather. The scientists examined health data from 384 locations in 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths. The authors of this study wrote,

[N]on-optimum ambient temperature is responsible for substantial excess in mortality, with important differences between countries. Although most previous research has focused on heat-related effects, most of the attributable deaths were caused by cold temperatures. Despite the attention given to extreme weather events, most of the effect happened on moderately hot and moderately cold days, especially moderately cold days.

Even The New York Times acknowledged the importance of that study, with Jane Brody writing, “Over time, as global temperatures rise, milder winter temperatures are likely to result in fewer cold-related deaths, a benefit that could outweigh a smaller rise in heat-caused mortality.”

In addition to correcting the record on heat-related deaths, Simon dismantles various climate fictions about worsening natural disasters, using readily available data:

The facts regarding natural disasters also do not support the “existential threat” claim. The number of hurricanes per year, a 2021 EPA report shows, has not increased since the late 19th century. Moreover, although you wouldn’t know it from the panicky, sensationalized news coverage, the total acreage burnt by forest fires annually has decreased, and most rivers flood less today than they used to.

Since 1920, Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.12 degrees and the world population has quadrupled from less than two billion to almost eight billion. Even so, the number of people killed each year by natural disasters has declined by about 90 percent. That statistic, more than any other, puts the lie to claims of an existential crisis due to climate.

There is also the global air pollution death rate, which has declined by about 45 percent over the last three decades. Again, no “existential threat” here.

Simon is correct. Research published at Climate Realism has refuted assertions about worsening wildfires and hurricanes on multiple occasions.

Simon also discusses research showing the positive side of climate change: “global warming has increased both agricultural yields and growth of forests, grasslands, and tree leaves.”

Climate Change Weekly and Climate Realism have refuted claims climate change is a threat to crop production more than 100 times. We have cited research and hard data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization showing regional and global crop production and crop yields have regularly, almost yearly, set new records during the recent period of modern warming.

Basic agronomy explains why crop production is booming under current climate conditions. As detailed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change in Climate Change Reconsidered: Biological Impacts and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, the carbon dioxide humans have been pumping into the air since the middle of the twentieth century has enriched plant growth and improved plants’ water-use efficiency, thereby contributing to record crop yields.

Laboratory experiments and real-world field research show as carbon dioxide increases, plant fitness, and flower pollination improve, plants develop more-extensive root systems to extract greater amounts of nutrients from even poor-quality soil, plants use water more efficiently by reducing the number and openness of stomata through which they lose moisture during transpiration, and plants produce greater amounts of natural substances that repel insects and fight off competing weeds.

All of this has helped bring about the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history.

Simon’s conclusion is spot-on and speaks for itself:

Biden administration climate change policies are sensationalizing the threats while ignoring all the benefits. They rely on speculative “models” that supposedly project global temperatures and predict disasters. But these models are highly unreliable, … unable even to reproduce the temperature changes of the 20th century.

The Biden administration’s campaign against U.S. oil production and pipelines is not just harmful—it is an environmental fraud.

To quote longtime radio host Paul Harvey, that’s “the rest of the story”: the very good news the mainstream media and various scientific and political shills aren’t telling you about climate change.

*****

This article was published by The Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Ford Foundation’s Big Left Influence: The Climate Hypocrites

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The Climate Hypocrites

In January 2019, more than 600 left-leaning policy and climate organizations co-signed a letter to members of Congress under the headline “Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change.” Outlining their proposals demanding “renewable energy” and “100 percent decarbonization,” the letter pointedly singled out nuclear power as being “dirty energy” and said that “any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies.”

As of 2020, according to the Department of Energy, “large scale hydro” and nuclear power together provided 27.3 percent of U.S. electricity, all of it carbon-free power. Nuclear alone provided 20 percent. Wind, solar and geothermal put together, the only sources of (intermittently) available electricity acceptable to these extremists, provided just 11.1 percent.

And these numbers do not factor in the transportation sector, which is 26 percent of all U.S. energy use and dominated by fossil fuels. Shifting all the cars over to electric vehicles would mean even more demand for the zero-carbon sources doing most of the work to keep the lights on. Right now, the electric cars are running mostly on coal and natural gas.

So, that January 2019 letter to Congress was effectively asking for a U.S. energy policy of achieving 100 percent decarbonization by wiping out 75 percent of our carbon-free alternatives, including the only alternative (nuclear) that can be scaled up with few theoretical limits.

The Ford Foundation has spent millions of dollars this year subsidizing this dangerous and delusional recommendation. Four of its grant recipients are signatories on that letter:

Two other 2021 Ford Foundation grant recipients were not signatories on the letter but have also adopted positions in opposition to nuclear energy:

  • The Environmental Defense Fund ($130,000). EDF has recently supported the premature closure of nuclear power plants in New York and California. The pro-nuclear environmentalist group Environmental Progresshas identified EDF as “one of the most influential anti-nuclear organizations in the United States.” Environmental Progress has also accused EDF of “hypocrisy” because EDF supports wind and solar energy subsidies but opposes far smaller price supports for nuclear power.
  • The Movement Strategy Center ($300,000). A 2015 policy document co-produced by the Movement Strategy Center praised a community in India for opposing the construction of both nuclear power and hydroelectric plants. The document also defined nuclear energy as an example of “false solutions” to carbon reduction.

Together, these seven so-called “environmentalist” anti-nuclear groups received $3.53 million from the Ford Foundation in 2021.

Clearly Partisan Democrats

In addition to the $2 million grant to Blueprint NC, eight additional 2021 Ford Foundation grant recipients have a clear agenda favoring the success of Democratic politicians. In total, the nine organizations received $19.7 million from Ford in 2021.

  • Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation ($10 million). The Babcock Foundation funds numerous state-level partisan advocacy organizations. For example, during the 2020 election cycle it gave more than $2 million to Blueprint NC. In its 2019 tax filing Babcock reported total grants of $15.5 million.
  • New Florida Majority Education Fund ($2 million). The New Florida Majority Education Fund website describes the group as “the non-partisan, nonprofit, educational 501c(3) arm of the New Florida Majority.” New Florida Majority is a partisan 501(c)(4) advocacy group that endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020. The Ford Foundation website also describes the New Florida Majority Education Fund grant as “d/b/a Florida Rising Together.” The main page of the Florida Rising Together website boasts: “We organize multi-racial movements to win elections.”
  • State Voices ($2 million). The State Voices website shows that it is the national network for partisan state-based groups such as Blueprint NC.
  • Repairers of the Breach ($2 million). Repairers is a partisan religious group based in North Carolina led by left-wing pastor William J. Barber II. The Repairers’ blog stridently supports the agenda of President Biden and his Democratic allies. The blog harshly criticizes U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) for failing to sufficiently support Biden, often calling Manchin’s faith and morality into question. A September post stated: “Senator Manchin claims to be a person of faith. But what he’s doing is sinful, immoral.” An October statement declared: “Sen. Manchin continues to not only ignore the teachings of his own faith tradition, he also ignores the voices of the people he was elected to serve.”
  • Workers Defense Project ($675,000). The Workers Defense Project is a Texas-based organization that promotes the agenda of left-leaning labor unions. The group’s leadership council includes representatives from the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Jobs With Justice. The Workers Defense Project shares its senior leader and its leadership council with the Workers Defense Action Fund, a partisan 501(c)(4) advocacy group that boasted of its work electing Democrats during the 2020 election cycle.
  • Take Action Minnesota Education Fund ($400,000). IRS reports filed for 2019 show that the TakeAction Minnesota Education Fund shares a website and executive leadership with TakeAction Minnesota, a partisan 501(c)(4) advocacy group. A “2020 Impact Report” on the common website of the two groups boasts of electing 12 politicians, including supporting left-wing Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and “winning seats historically held by Republicans.”
  • $400,000 grant was given to a recipient labeled in the Ford Foundation grant database as “Progress Michigan/Education.” This likely refers to a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable group that operates publicly as Engage Michigan, but files with the IRS as the Progress Michigan Education Fund. As of the IRS filings for 2019, both this group and Progress Michigan, a partisan 501(c)(4) advocacy group, share the same principal officer and office address. During the 2018 gubernatorial election Progress Michigan ran independent advertisements attacking the Republican general election candidate.
  • $325,000 grant was given to a recipient labeled in the Ford Foundation grant database as the “Virginia New Majority Education Fund.” This was likely a typo intended as the New Virginia Majority Education Fund. The New Virginia Majority Education Fund shares senior leadership with its partner, New Virginia Majority, a partisan 501(c)4 advocacy group. New Virginia Majority endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

Biden Administration Adds Climate Roadblocks to Future Pipelines, Energy Projects

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Biden administration altered the official federal policy on approving new interstate natural gas facilities and pipelines, requiring a climate consideration.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced that it will begin to “undertake a robust consideration” of the environmental justice impacts of such fossil fuel projects before granting approval, according to a fact sheet published Thursday.

The agency, which is the top regulator of domestic natural gas infrastructure, said its new policy will presume projects that cause 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year will have a significant impact on the environment.

In a major departure from its past policy, the FERC may also consider the eventual emissions caused by both upstream production and eventual burning of gas transported in a pipeline requiring approval.

“I believe today’s long overdue policy statements are essential to ensuring the Commission’s natural gas siting decisions are reflective of all stakeholder concerns and interests,” FERC Chairman Rich Glick said in a statement. “We have witnessed the impact on pipeline projects when federal agencies, including the Commission, fail to fulfill their statutory responsibilities assessing the potential effects of a project on the environment, landowners, and communities.”

The announcement Thursday marked the first time the commission updated its natural gas policy since 1999. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, applauded the policy change, saying it was “necessary and long overdue.”

“For far too long, FERC has allowed private pipeline developers to call the shots, while cutting those affected by the projects out of the process,” Gillian Giannetti, Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney, said in a statement. “Communities and landowners will now have a say before new pipelines cut across their land or new compressor stations are built near their homes.”

“FERC will now need to follow through and permanently establish a meaningful climate test for pipelines,” she added.

But the new policy also attracted criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

“Today’s reckless decision by FERC’s Democratic Commissioners puts the security of our nation at risk,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. “The Commission went too far by prioritizing a political agenda over their main mission—ensuring our nation’s energy reliability and security.”

“The only thing they accomplished today was constructing additional road blocks that further delay building out the energy infrastructure our country desperately needs,” he added.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., the committee’s ranking member, added that the FERC decision proved the administration was “determined to make it nearly impossible” for Americans to access affordable natural gas.

In January 2021, President Joe Biden appointed Glick to chair FERC. In September, the president selected former Washington, D.C., Public Service Commission Chairman Willie Phillips to join FERC, giving Democrats majority control of the five-person commission.

*****

This article was published in The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

Wrong again Biden: Tornadoes Are Weather, Not Climate

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Devastating tornadoes struck America’s heartland Friday night leaving death, destruction, and heartache in their trail.

When asked whether the tornadoes were due to climate change President Biden replied, “Everything is more intense when the climate is warming and obviously it has some impact here.”

CFACT’s Marc Morano reports at Climate Depot that weather and climate experts were shocked by the President’s misstatement. These tornadoes were tragic, but were natural weather, not climate. Marc is currently scheduled to appear tonight on Fox News Primetime at 7:00 PM EST.

  • Weather expert Chris Matz said, “this is utter bullsh*t… Here are the facts: No overall trend in U.S. tornado activity since 1954, but EF-3+ down 50.
  • Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer said, “To claim ‘global warming’ as cause for tornadoes ‘is directly opposite to the clear observational evidence.’”
  • Extreme weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. noted that the UN IPCC report states, “Trends in tornadoes… associated w/ severe convective storms are not robustly detected … attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (e.g. tornadoes) is beyond current modeling and theoretical capabilities.”
  • Tony Heller who runs the Real Science blog said in a video: “History and science aren’t among Joe Biden’s strong points.”
  • Legendary forecaster Joe Bastardi posted at CFACT.org that if “that’s all Biden knows, the chart from  NOAA shows he knows next to nothing.”

When a natural disaster strikes it calls upon the best in all of us to help those in need.

Exploiting natural tragedy to push a political agenda is wrong.

*****

This article was published on December 13, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from CFACT, The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Hypocrisy, Not Climate Concern, Dominated COP-26

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Global elites regularly decry the supposedly “existential” threat purported human-caused climate change poses to the environment, civilization, and even human survival.

These elites propose policies intended to avert global climate disaster, almost all of them involving ending the use of fossil fuels and fundamentally changing how people live, forcing us to live in high-density urban settings along mass transportation nodes and eat locally supplied vegetarian diets. But the elites don’t act as if they believe their rhetoric.

The alarmed climate elites’ hypocritical “do as I say, not as I do; hair shirts and gruel for thee, but not for me” attitudes were on full display at the U.N. climate conference, COP-26 for short, held in Glasgow, Scotland from October 31 through November 13.

If world leaders and the mandarin bureaucrats who supposedly serve them and the wider public were really concerned human greenhouse gas emissions endanger the Earth, they could have hosted the entire conference, backroom negotiations and all, via Zoom, Skype, Streamyard, or any of the numerous other conferencing services. After all, the world just spent a year on lockdown with media interviews, international negotiations, and legislation still getting done.

Barring virtual communication, COP-26’s participants could have arrived via commercial or shared transport and eaten only locally sourced vegetarian or vegan meals, as they propose for the unwashed masses. They didn’t do that. Instead, according to the Scotsman, carbon dioxide emissions from COP-26 were more than double those of COP-25 and more than any previous international summit in history. Sixty percent of the conference’s more than 100,000 tons of emissions was from transportation alone, with the remainder coming from water use, heating and cooling of five-star accommodations, and meat-heavy gourmet meals made with food flown or shipped in from around the world.

The world’s leading climate scolds, those wealthy, self-appointed saviors of the Earth who would have common people give up air travel and private cars, arrived in a stream of more than 400 private jets, spewing more emissions in two weeks than is emitted by more than 1,600 average people in the United Kingdom in a year. If their own pronouncements of planetary doom are to be believed, it seems Bank of America, Jeff Bezos, and other multibillion-dollar businesses and individuals feel you must first kill the Earth before you can save it.

Conference host Boris Johnson, prime minister of the United Kingdom, jetted in from a meeting of the G-20 in Rome (where climate was also discussed), only to berate the world for its profligate use of fossil fuels.

Johnson harangued the assembled attendees for their nations’ alleged climate crimes, saying, “When it comes to tackling climate change, words without action, without deeds are absolutely pointless.” Yet, after being on the ground in Glasgow for about a day, he took a private jet back to London instead of taking the train, which emits far less carbon dioxide. Later, near the conference’s end, Johnson jetted back to Glasgow to express his belief that hard commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly were vital to saving the world. His actions spoke loudly, and they belied his words.

To be fair, COP-26 is hardly the first time those in power—who are constantly telling the poor of the world they must live with less to save the planet—have declined to live up to the ideal they set for others. President Joe Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, is famous for using his family’s private jet to attend climate negotiations and award dinners. His excuse: he’s important! Evidently, this somehow means he is to be held to a lower standard than others. BTW, John, usually if you want to set an example you hold yourself to a higher standard than others. Just a thought.

Then there is actor/activist Leonardo DiCaprio, who once again made an appearance at a climate summit. We all know actors set the lifestyle example to which an environmentally conscious person should aspire. To his credit, for once DiCaprio flew commercial. Perhaps his image needed burnishing. After all, he is widely known for travelling repeatedly for pleasure every year via private planes and private yachts. DiCaprio has real chutzpah. As detailed in Luxury Launches,

Despite coaching viewers to “work together” to fight climate change while accepting his first Oscar in March, DiCaprio chose to fly private to pick up an award from a clean-water advocacy group at the Riverkeeper Fishermen’s Ball and back to Cannes to attend an AIDS benefit gala 24 hours later.

DiCaprio excuses his personal carbon profligacy by saying he pays someone to plant trees on his behalf. That reminds me of the medieval Catholic Church selling indulgences to wealthy sinners who could afford it.

Then there is our climate Cassandra-in-chief, former vice-president Al Gore, who profited handsomely off fossil fuels, raking in $70 to $100 million for the sale of his cable news network, Current TV, to Al Jazeera.  After years of claiming we must abandon oil and gas production and promoting legislation and lawsuits to force people to do so, Gore sold his station to a company primarily owned by the government of Qatar. That government makes most of its annual revenue from oil production and is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It’s akin to Baptists taking donations from bootleggers.

Not to be outdone, former president Barack Obama appeared at COP-26 to complain about climate hypocrisy. “For most of your lives you’ve been bombarded with warnings about what the future will look like if you don’t address climate change, but you see adults who act like the problem doesn’t exist,” Obama opined. “You are right to be frustrated.”

With whom should they be frustrated? Obama spent eight years as president warning climate change was causing the seas to rise rapidly and they would soon swamp much of the U.S. Eastern seaboard. Upon retiring, however, he bought an $11.75 million beachfront home in Martha’s Vineyard, just inches-to-feet above sea level. As far as I can tell, he isn’t investing in sea walls to keep out the supposedly rising tides.

None of the famous people who claim we are causing planet-killing climate change through human energy use, housing infrastructure, and agricultural systems live as if they believe this is true.

That’s something to think about the next time such a person gives a speech or appears on television saying you should give up your car, air travel, hamburgers and barbeque, and standalone single-family home in order to save the planet. They aren’t including themselves among those who should be forced to give up things.

The policies elitists are proposing will impose higher energy costs, which many people—the working poor, those on fixed incomes, and those on lower-middle incomes—will struggle to pay for. Yet the elites make no sacrifices themselves. Even if they did, the cost of their policies to them would be beneath their margins of error at the bank.

Wealthy climate alarmists apparently have a two-year-old’s self-awareness and ability to delay gratification. They remind me of Democrat apologists who claim inflation is a good thing or at least not so bad, admonishing the poor to “suck it up” and pay the higher costs without complaint. It’s not a good look, and it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence that they really believe the Earth hangs in the balance.

*****

This article was published on December 2, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Heartland Institute.

Biden’s Climate Power Grab Via Trillions of Dollars in Annual Federal Procurement

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Spending by federal agencies is governed by the extensive Federal Acquisition Regulations or FAR for short. In response to a Biden executive order, the FAR Council is conducting a silly public inquiry as to how climate change should be factored into federal spending. The Federal Government spends over $6 trillion a year so this is a very big deal.

The concept is ridiculous and some of the ideas are illegal but this foolish agency action deserves serious attention. The FAR Council has issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) titled “Federal Acquisition Regulation: Minimizing the Risk of Climate Change in Federal Acquisitions“. Comments are due by December 15. I urge people to comment.

See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAR-2021-0016-0001

Advanced Notices like this are asking for ideas prior to proposing regulations, including that the whole idea is nuts. One of the worst things mentioned is that in competitive procurements agencies should give preference to bidders who are cutting their emissions. I cannot believe this is legal but there it is.

The ANPRM includes this list of leading questions:

(a)How can greenhouse gas emissions, including the social cost of greenhouse gases, best be qualitatively and quantitatively considered in Federal procurement decisions, both domestic and overseas? How might this vary across different sectors?

(b) What are usable and respected methodologies for measuring the greenhouse gases emissions over the lifecycle of the products procured or leased, or of the services performed?

(c) How can procurement and program officials of major Federal agency procurements better incorporate and mitigate climate-related financial risk? How else might the Federal Government consider and minimize climate-related financial risks through procurement decisions, both domestic and overseas?

(d) How would (or how does) your organization provide greenhouse gas emission data for proposals and/or contract performance?

(e) How might the Federal Government best standardize greenhouse gas emission reporting methods? How might the Government verify greenhouse gas emissions reporting?

(f) How might the Federal Government give preference to bids and proposals from suppliers, both domestic and overseas, to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or reduce the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions most effectively?

(g) How might the Government consider commitments by suppliers to reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions?

(h) What impact would consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gases in procurement decisions have on small businesses, including small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small businesses? How should the FAR Council best align this objective with efforts to ensure opportunity for small businesses?

The questions imply proposals that clearly make federal spending an instrument of alarmist policy. Suppliers are required to report their greenhouse emissions and to take steps to reduce them. The result can only be to drive up the cost of goods and services, which taxpayers pay for.

I see no statutory authority for this nonsense. Surely only Congress can make rules like this. Agencies cannot just decide what to buy based on Biden’s climate power agenda.

Some of this is truly far out, like asking procurement officials to measure the life cycle emissions of products and services. Complex products up to and including warships can have components, sub-components, etc., from all over the world, and lead long complex lives. In fact, the Defense Department is a lead agency in this ANPRM, as is NASA.

Imagine trying to measure the life cycle emissions for $6 trillion a year’s worth of products and services, and then basing procurement decisions on these measures. This is truly absurd.

There is also this vaguest of concepts: the “climate-related financial risks” to the Federal Government, which are supposed to be both mitigated and minimized. The real risk here is doing silly stuff in the name of climate alarmism.

And of course, there is the nutty “social cost of greenhouse gases”. This goofy number is claimed to measure to the dollar the damage done over the next 300 years by a ton of today’s emissions. I am not making this up!

The Biden Administration is trying to grab power it does not have, using regulations that have no statutory authority. I urge people to comment, especially saying how stupid and dangerous this proposed rule-making really is.

*****

This article was published on November 26, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from CFACT, The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

15 States Threaten To Pull $600 Billion From Banks That Won’t Give Equal Service To Energy Industry

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Fifteen state financial officers sent a letter to U.S. banks last week noting $600 billion in assets they pledge to take elsewhere if the financial institutions embrace corporate wokeism and prohibit financing to the fossil fuel industry.

Led by West Virginia Republican Treasurer Riley Moore, the group promised “collective action” in the form of an “economic boycott.”

“Just as each state represented in this letter is unique in its governing laws and economy, our actions will take different forms,” they wrote in the letter obtained by The Federalist. “However, the overarching objective of our actions will be the same – to protect our states’ economies, jobs, and energy independence from these unwarranted attacks on our critical industries.”

Signatories to the letter putting banks on notice include chief financial officers from Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, Texas, and Kentucky, in addition to West Virginia.

“How can we as states get dollars from severance taxes and then park it in banks that are at the same time trying to diminish those dollars by trying to boycott our industries?” Moore said in an interview with The Federalist. “This is just more of the same from these woke capitalists, globalist interests out there when it’s them trying to dictate to us the way we need to live our lives.”

Asked why more states haven’t joined the letter, considering at least 22 state financial offices are run by Republicans, Moore said it was a consequence of standard hesitancy.

“I do believe there are going to be more states that are going to join this coalition effort. I think they want to see a little bit of how this plays out,” Moore said. “How long are we just going to take it in the face and not do anything?”

President Joe Biden has been aggressive in quickly curtailing oil and gas development as promised on the campaign trail. Beyond the illegal suspension of new leases on federal land, the prohibition of new drilling sites on major untapped reserves, and higher fees in the pipeline for new energy exploration permits, however, it’s the administration’s pressure on Wall Street to refuse investment in the capital-intense industry that’s dealt the biggest blow to producers, spiking prices at the pump in the process.

“We can’t get capital because they’re putting so much pressure on banks not to lend to us in the name of climate change,” explained Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based industry trade group Western Energy Alliance.

Biden’s nominee for an important regulatory role at the Treasury Department however, shows no sign of an administration easing up on Wall Street. Cornell Law Professor Saule Omarova, who was tapped to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, has said she wants fossil fuel industries to “go bankrupt.”

If confirmed, Omarova would lead an agency tasked with “ensur[ing] banks and federal savings associations operate in a safe and sound manner, provide fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply with applicable laws and regulations.”

Considering the administration’s crusade against fossil fuels, it’s conceivable Omarova would weaponize the department to deter investment in an industry vilified by Democrats as single-handedly destructive to the planet.

In 2017, Omarova already urged Congress to delegate a “golden share” responsibility to federal agencies, which she defined as “a wide range of legal arrangements giving the government special, exclusive, and nontransferable corporate-governance rights in privately owned enterprises.”

State financial officers who are engaged in the tug-of-war with the Biden administration wrote in their letter last week their taxpayers would not tolerate public funds being managed by institutions that destroy economies and Americans’ health in the name of climate change.

“We have a compelling government interest when acting as participants in the financial services market on behalf of our respective states, to select financial institutions that are not engaged in tactics to harm the very people whose money they are handling,” they wrote. “Any financial institution that has adopted policies aimed at diminishing a large portion of our states’ revenue has a major conflict of interest against holding, maintaining, or managing those funds.”

*****

This article was published on November 30, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.