RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/uprooting_the_epas_climate_fraud.html

During the Barack Obama presidency, a poisonous seed was planted by bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency to enable radical regulation of CO2 emissions, eventually strangling the economy. That seed was an official “endangerment finding” (E.F.) that declared CO2 a “dangerous pollutant” — absurd on its face, since CO2 is necessary for life.

Writing at Townhall, Paul Driessen explains how the roots that have sprouted from the poisonous seed can and must be pulled up by action from President Trump:

[T]here has never been any formal, public review of the EF conclusion or of the secretive process EPA employed to ensure the result of its “analysis” could only be “endangerment” — and no awkward questions or public hearings would get in the way.

Review, transparency and accountability may finally be on the way, however, in the form of potential Executive Branch actions. If they occur — and they certainly should — both are likely to find that there is no valid scientific basis for the EF, and EPA violated important federal procedural rules in rendering its predetermined EF outcome. (One could even say the EF was obtained primarily because of prosecutorial misconduct, a kangaroo court proceeding, and scientific fraud.) Failure to examine and reverse the EF would mean it hangs like Damocles’ sword over the USA, To the consternation and outrage of climate alarmists, keep-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground radicals, and predictable politicians and pundits, President Trump may soon appoint a Presidential Committee on Climate Change, to review “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies awaiting the next climate-focused president.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-green-energy-isnt-the-future-11558294830

What’s Warren Buffett doing with a $10 billion bet on the future of oil and gas, helping old-school Occidental Petroleum buy Anadarko, a U.S. shale leader? For pundits promoting the all-green future, this looks like betting on horse farms circa 1919.

Meanwhile, broad market sentiment is decidedly bearish on hydrocarbons. The oil and gas share of the S&P 500 is at a 40-year low, and the first quarter of 2019 saw the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index and “clean tech” exchange-traded funds outperform the S&P.

A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor or policy maker joining the headlong rush to pledge or demand a green energy future. Some 100 U.S. cities have made such promises. Hydrocarbons may be the source of 80% of America’s and the world’s energy, but to say they are currently out of favor is a dramatic understatement.

Yet it’s both reasonable and, for contrarian investors, potentially lucrative to ask: What happens if renewables fail to deliver?

The prevailing wisdom has wind and solar, paired with batteries, adding 250% more energy to the world over the next two decades than American shale has added over the past 15 years. Is that realistic? The shale revolution has been the single biggest addition to the world energy supply in the past century. And even bullish green scenarios still see global demand for oil and gas rising, if more slowly.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-5-17-new-york-gets

We last examined the total insanity of New York City progressivism back on April 23, with a post titled “Mayor de Blasio Sets Out To Accelerate New York City’s Decline.” The particular focus of that post was a proposal from our Mayor to impose onerous efficiency standards on office buildings as the latest progressive idea to “save the planet” from the scourge of climate change. If you thought that that proposal just had to represent the ultimate low point of progressive craziness, and that it couldn’t possibly go any lower, then you just haven’t been paying attention. In the last few weeks, the new emergency rules and bans that must be imposed immediately by government to save the world have been coming ever faster and faster. You almost can’t learn about one before the next one is upon you, each one somehow more urgent in the case made for it, more burdensome in its application to the citizenry, and yet even more trivial in potential effect (if any at all) on the planet or the environment or whatever it is we are trying to “save.”

First up, the package of six bills covered in that April post, going by the collective name of the “Climate Mobilization Act,” promptly passed the City Council and became law. The CurbedNY website provided a summary of the bills on April 22, including this gem:Come 2024, the legislation mandates landlords move toward cutting their building emissions 40 percent by 2030, and would put the city on a path toward reducing its carbon emissions by a whopping 80 percent by 2050.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/hey_greenies_check_out_the_global_revolt_against_your_green_agenda.htmlFor all the good press the green agenda gets in the mainstream media, voters in free countries across the globe are getting wise to just what this feelgood earth religion really about.

Not green jobs, as President Obama liked to promise. Not lower emissions – just ask Germany about that one. Not saving the planet.

Nope, just less money in one’s pocket and more power in the government’s hand reaching for it.

The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, writing for the Washington Examiner, has a good one on just what’s going on globally, calling it ‘backlash’:

From Alberta to Australia, from Finland to France, and beyond, voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to purportedly fight human-caused climate change.
Skepticism over whether humans are causing dangerous climate change has always been higher in America than in most industrialized countries. As a result, governments in Europe, Canada, and other developed areas are much farther along the energy rationing path, cutting carbon dioxide emissions as required. However, residents in these countries have begun to revolt against the higher energy costs they suffer under due to high taxes on fossil fuels and mandates to use expensive renewable energy.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cuomo-vs-new-york-11558134235

Governor Andrew Cuomo proved again this week that the biggest threat to New York isn’t Donald Trump, but progressive anti-growth policies. Witness his administration’s permit rejection for a 23-mile natural gas pipeline connecting New York City and Long Island with Pennsylvania shale gas fields.

Beyond creating hundreds of construction jobs, the pipeline would boost development. Low-income housing developers urged the Governor to approve the permit, noting “the uncertainty related to state approvals” is “particularly concerning, since alternative energy options are unavailable or would include costs and design changes that have not been factored into these developing projects.” Don’t they understand that political uncertainty is a cost of doing business in New York?

The pipeline would also lower carbon emissions since oil is often burned for heating and electricity when demand for gas exceeds supply. No matter. Environmentalists detached from economic and energy reality claimed the pipeline would hinder development of wind and solar, which make up a mere 5% of state electricity though Mr. Cuomo has set the fantasy renewable target of 50% by 2030.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/conservatives-must-stand-up-to-climate-change-bullying/

Canada and the United States have many things in common – we love our hockey players, our astronauts and our veterans. We value freedom and prosperity and, when push comes to shove, will fight tooth and nail against those who would take either from us. We also have our shares of misguided conservative politicians who think they can win over left-leaning voters by promoting the climate scare.

In Canada we had Stephen Harper who was elected prime minister as a conservative and a committed climate sceptic but changed sides after being elected in an apparent attempt to curry favor with the left. It did him no good whatsoever and he was crucified by mainstream media, which swept the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into power. Today’s federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is no better, promoting the climate scare and promising to present his party’s climate change plan by the beginning of summer with a focus on so-called clean energy.

In the U.S., we have seen many prominent Republicans actively supporting, or at least acquiescing to, climate alarmism. After all, it was the late President George H. W. Bush who signed U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The UNFCCC dictated the climate alarmist stance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that set the stage for the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Bush also started the National Climate Assessment through legislation he signed in 1990. The NCA has been a thorn in the side of Republican presidents ever since.

More recently, we have Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Neil Chatterjee, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and even former Texas governor and current U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, embracing what are essentially climate alarmist views.

“I believe climate change is real. I believe man has an impact,” Chatterjee said at the 6th annual Columbia Global Energy Summit in New York City on April 10, 2019. “And I believe that we need to take steps to mitigate emissions urgently.”

After dismissing Republicans who do not support global warming alarmism, Graham’s comments at the April 24 EarthX2019 conference in Dallas on climate change were truly absurd. “The first thing you gotta do is say greenhouse gas emissions are real and they are caused by C02 emissions. They trap heat,” said the senator, concluding, “Climate change is real, the science is sound and the solutions are available.”

Perry was less ridiculous in his remarks at the EarthX2019 event, instead supporting the climate scare indirectly. In a bombastic, rambling presentation, the energy secretary boasted that the United States “continue[s] to lead in reducing energy-related carbon emissions. That’s something to be proud of… We are determined to lead the drive for cleaner energy in this world… Back in Washington, people argue endlessly on what “clean” or “cleaner” means. Does it mean carbon-neutral or carbon-free?”

All of these statements are stupid. They are either wrong or irrelevant, both scientifically and politically.

Perry’s “carbon” is actually carbon dioxide (CO2). In contrast to carbon, which is a solid, CO2 is an odorless, colorless gas. It is crucial for plant photosynthesis and so required for life. That’s why the CO2 concentrations inside commercial greenhouses are often kept up to 1,500 parts per million (ppm), a level at which plants grow far more efficiently than at the 410 ppm in the outside atmosphere. We should not spend a single cent trying to reduce the air’s CO2 content.

And of course, climate change is real. So is continental drift. But no sensible person would conclude that humans are the master controller of either. And despite the demands of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project that media “Call it a Climate Crisis” in their May 7 “day of action” Twitter storm, recent climate change has been well within expected natural variability.

Concerns about dangerous human-caused global warming are based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of the future. But these models simply do not work, having predicted three times the warming that has actually occurred between 1979 and 2017. Contrary to Graham’s assertion that “the science is sound,” our understanding of the science is so poor that we do not even know what mathematical equations to program into the models.

That abandoning their base and supporting the climate scare is terrible political strategy for Republicans was well demonstrated in the 2018 midterm elections. Only 53 percent of the 43 House Republican seats that were occupied by members of the bipartisan congressional Climate Solutions Caucus remained in Republican hands. In contrast, almost 90 percent of the seats held by House Republicans who did not belong to the caucus remained Republican after the election.

In support of his position, Graham argued that Republicans need to appeal to young people who support the climate scare. Marc Morano, publisher of the influential Washington DC-based Climatedepot.com, responded, “I can’t imagine that any millennial who cares about this is going to be voting Republican because they are activists at their core. If you’re a millennial and you’re skipping school and all excited about the Green New Deal (GND), there is no way Republicans can appeal to them with some sort of lite version of the GND.”

“You don’t capitulate to young voters because they have been brainwashed into believing that mankind is driving a climate ‘crisis,’” said Morano. “You lead and reveal to them that what they think they know just ain’t so.”

Morano explains why so many Republican support climate alarmism: “They just don’t want to be seen as ‘evil deniers’ and they are prepared to give in wherever they can. They want to have less toxicity in the media, in town halls, in social circles around the Washington establishment. By supporting the climate scare, they’re going to be better liked, less embarrassed by their positions and can say, ‘you can’t call us deniers anymore!’ That gives them a level of comfort at parties, campaign events, speeches and town halls.”

Clearly, what is now urgently needed is for the Trump administration to go ahead with the President’s Commission on Climate Security. Then there would be an alternative federal climate change report with the seal of the U.S. government on it. Morano summed up, “We’ve never had a challenge to the UN from an official source. A Presidential Commission report would be the first one ever. Let’s just hope that it goes through.”

Indeed. For the sake of the country and all other nations which depend on a free and prosperous America for their survival, let’s hope it does.

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst with ICSC and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank headquartered in Illinois.

facebook
Share
twitter
Tweet
email
Email
FLIPBOARD
Editor’s Choice
Why Is Shabbat So Important?
5 comments
Socialism Should ‘Control Every Facet of Our Life’
90 comments
West Virginia Becoming California?
29 comments
Who knew your inbox could be this informative?
Your friends will think you read the whole newspaper

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/09/a-scientists-week-at-the-vatican/

Ten years ago this month, I had the experience of a lifetime. I was one of a small group of scholars from around the world who were convened by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences for a “study week.” Our subject was “Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development.” As directed by Pope Benedict XVI, its purpose was “to evaluate benefits and risks of genetic engineering [GE] and of other agricultural practices on the basis of present scientific knowledge and of its potential for applications to improve food security and human welfare worldwide in the context of a sustainable development.”

The week was beyond fascinating. At the initial session, we participants were greeted by a cardinal who had spent decades in Rome, most recently as the Vatican’s official theologian. He was exceedingly warm and charming, and stressed the importance of technological advances to the poorest and most vulnerable populations. When I googled him, I had a shock: His most recent academic paper had been the introductory chapter in a book on exorcism. Clearly, I was outside my customary science-suffused bubble!

One evening toward to the end of the week, my girlfriend and I ventured outside the Vatican walls for dinner (we were housed—in separate single rooms—in the dormitory-like residence where cardinals and other visiting dignitaries stay). When we returned, we found that the gate through which we had exited was locked. We walked for a long way around the perimeter of the Vatican’s walls, looking for an open gate, and finally encountered a priest who offered to take us to the appropriate entrance. (It turned out that he was a bishop and the head of Catholic Charities worldwide.) When we arrived at our destination, I thanked him and apologized for the detour. He smiled and said, “You’re most welcome, my son; it’s a privilege to assist a pilgrim who has lost his way.” I felt like a bit-player in one of those old films in which Spencer Tracy and Bing Crosby played priests.

The result of the conference was, especially for the time, a rare, constructive melding of science, technology, religion, and humanistic principles. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences’ summary document included these salient conclusions (quoted verbatim):

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/hydrocarbons_beat_biofuels_on_all_counts.html

“Coal and oil are thus more enviro-friendly than biofuels.  Locking the gate on coal, oil, and gas while supporting policies that waste land, food crops, and water for motor fuels is environmental desecration.”

Coal and oil are made from plants and animals that died millions of years ago, when the atmosphere contained abundant carbon dioxide plant food.  They are now concentrated forms of energy that can be extracted from small areas of land.  Burning these natural hydro-carbons returns CO2 and fresh water to the atmosphere, thus greatly assisting global plant growth.  If we are lucky, these extra gases in the atmosphere may also slightly delay the start of Earth’s next cooling cycle, but this looks unlikely.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273676/scare-mongering-world-eco-warriors-jules-gomes

Yearning to play heroes in humanity’s oldest story.

What does the United Nations have in common with the Jehovah’s Witnesses? The Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted the world would end in 1975. The United Nations foretold how “entire nations would be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Both forecasts failed the test of prophetic fulfillment.

A religious person who says the world is coming to an end is a crank. A secular person who says the world is coming to an end is an eco-warrior. A religious organization that says the end times are nigh is an apocalyptic cult for suicidal weirdos like the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas. A secular body counting down to the apocalypse is an environmental organization worthy of millions of dollars of government funding.

Welcome to the brave new cult of climate change alarmism where secular eco-warriors unabashedly embrace religious apocalypticism! I was poised to pen an essay on this new religious sect when I stumbled across Greta Thunberg—the Joan of Arc of environmentalism—and realized that apocalyptic hysteria was only part of the canonical narrative of climate change.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_solar_energy_racket.html

If solar energy were not propped up by various government policies and subsidies, no utility would buy it. Not only does solar not work at night, but it does not work if it is cloudy or if a cloud passes in front of the sun.

Utility-scale solar requires a large solar farm consisting of photovoltaic panels. For $100 million, one can buy a solar farm capable of generating about 80 megawatts of electric power when the sun is squarely shining on the panels. Depending on the geographical location and the climate, the average power generated will be about 18 megawatts, more during the day and nothing at night. More in summer and less in winter. If the power can be sold for $50 a megawatt-hour, about the cost of wholesale electricity generated by natural gas, the annual revenue earned by the plant would be $7.8 million. But why would anyone want to pay $50 per megawatt-hour for electricity that does not work at night or when the weather is bad? Better to buy it from a natural gas plant that one can count on.

How much would a utility really be willing to pay for erratic electricity from a solar farm? The answer is $20 per megawatt-hour or less. The reason is as follows. No utility would ever incorporate a solar plant to reliably provide electricity. Solar electricity is unreliable. But solar electricity, if it is cheap enough, could be used as a supplement to save fuel in a utility’s main natural gas plants. When the solar was working, some of the utility’s gas plants could be throttled back to save fuel. The fuel to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity in a modern natural gas plant costs about $20.