RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/08/means-ends-climate-debate/

Groupthink among climate scientists — ‘the science is settled’ brigade — has constrained public debate, which was entirely to be expected. You see, believers are predominantly devoted to promoting ‘solutions’ and that, rather than open-minded inquiry, is the warmists’ objective.

Someone among my group of “climate change is real” mates sent me and others a series of those heat-stripe charts from dark blue (cold) to dark red (hot) for various places and showing that it had grown hotter over the past 100 to 200 years or so. The earliest was from central England and dated from 1772. Climate Lab Book is the source for these charts if you want to look them up. One wag responded that these charts made it easier for people who couldn’t read graphs. Uneducated Deplorables presumably.

I can read graphs despite my membership of the Deplorables. As can most, if not all, of those sceptical of the alarmist hypothesis. I responded in a reasoned and diplomatic way that those who thought the charts showed anything of interest or significance were halfwits. Or, I may have said that they had only half a brain. I’d had a glass or two of wine at the time. But leaving this particular way of expressing myself aside, what is my point?

My point is that we are in an interglacial period (thankfully) and, to boot, we are coming off a Maunder Minimum (low Sunspot activity) dated around 1645 to 1715. This is otherwise referred to as the Little Ice Age. Thus, there is no dispute that the earth has gradually — though not evenly — warmed since then. To point this out as though it were profound is profoundly irritating to those with a full quota of wits.

I thought it might be instructive to employ what in the business world is called facilitation. You break an issue down; and then, by approaching it from the least- to the most-contentious parts, you try to forge a consensus among people in a room. A consensus is infeasible when comes to climate. But a process of breaking down the climate change hypothesis into parts might put the debate on a more intelligent footing and, perhaps, deter people from broadcasting banal heat charts. It’s a simplified breakdown. I want a degree of licence on that matter. Only the first three of the six parts listed below would find unanimity among true believers and sceptics.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/global-warming-alarmists-pressure-media-to-end-debate/

A bit ago, I wrote here that it is a huge advocacy mistake for global-warming alarmists to refuse debating their opponents. After all, if global catastrophe is really coming, one should accept any and every opportunity to persuade doubters.

Now, global-warming public intellectuals have warned the media that if they allow skeptics to have a voice in stories, they will boycott giving comment. From the open letter appearing in the Guardian:

Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge — but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change — because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/the_supreme_court_clean_energy_and_the_clean_air_act.html

When we hear about “clean” energy these days, it generally refers only to solar and wind, which do not emit CO2. CO2 is never mentioned as a “criteria pollutant” in the Clean Air Act or any amendment. Yet in 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, declared CO2 a Clean Air Act pollutant. I wonder how many have noticed the possibility of a constitutional conflict here.

I note that the designation of “clean energy” evidently does not cover nuclear (or hydro), although these also do not emit CO2 in generating electricity. The reason seems to be mainly ideological. Climate alarmists illogically prefer solar and wind, in spite of their well recognized erratic nature and intermittency – requiring (fossil-fueled, CO2-emitting) standby power plants on the electric grid. These must always be ready to fill any unacceptable supply gaps “when the Sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.” A federal investment tax credit and other subsidies also favor S&W in spite of their many shortcomings.

But CO2 is not a pollutant by any stretch of the imagination. CO2 is a natural constituent of Earth’s atmosphere and a vital fertilizer for all growing plants. Without atmospheric CO2, there would be no agriculture and indeed no life on Earth. Its putative impact on the climate is minor. For example, I have shown that CO2 has no definitive influence on sea level rise – even though plaintiff Massachusetts claimed fear of massive inundation to establish “legal standing” in its lawsuit against the EPA.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/clean-power-plan-repeal/

The Clean Power Plan is headed for the crematorium. Good riddance.

CPP was the textbook example of the Obama administration’s attempt to supplant Congress by interpreting the administrative state’s regulatory scope as effectively unlimited. Prior to CPP, the Environmental Protection Agency had regulated the emissions of electricity-generating plants individually to ensure that they did not exceed pollution limits. The Obama administration ran wild with its regulatory ambitions, using CPP to impose renewable-energy quotas on the states and adopting through administrative fiat limits on carbon dioxide emissions that Congress has repeatedly declined to impose. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as traditionally understood — it is what human beings exhale — but it is a greenhouse gas, and global warming is an obsession of contemporary progressives.

The Supreme Court, understanding the radical expansion of executive power embodied in CPP, took the unusual step of delaying its implementation so legal issues could be worked out (a process that Trump’s intervention of course will end). Donald Trump ran for president promising to lighten the regulatory load on the coal industry, and once he was elected, his administration set about doing so. President Barack Obama was fond of justifying his expansive interpretation of presidential powers with two words: “I won.” Well, guess who else won.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/not-the-climate-apocalypse-1534894336

Of the Obama Administration’s many power grabs, none was more audacious than its bid to regulate coal-fired electric power out of business. The Trump Administration is now proposing to rewrite the rule in a way that honors the law and still reduces carbon emissions, yet it is being portrayed as radical.

The disparate treatment reflects the double standard toward climate-change policy in the media. Anything that enhances government control of the energy economy and punishes fossil fuels is seen as virtuous, while solutions that defer to the states and don’t punish carbon fuels are a sellout to business. How about looking at the legal and energy merits?

The most notable fact about the draft Environmental Protection Agency rule introduced on Tuesday is its modesty. Rather than dictating from Washington, the rule restores the cooperative federalism of the Clean Air Act by giving states much-needed flexibility to balance their energy needs while cutting CO2 emissions.

The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to implement the “best system of emission reduction” for pollutants, which the agency has long applied to individual power plants. The Obama anti-carbon crusaders soared over that language to compel states to reorganize their electric grids to favor renewable fuels.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/eco-groups-push-for-vegan-electricity-free-from-animal-byproducts/

No, you did not accidentally click on The Onion or the Babylon Bee. Yes, vegan electricity is now a thing. Ain’t capitalism grand? I mean, capitalism has solved so many real problems and now it’s solving made-up problems.

Prior to reading the HuffPost article titled “The Dirty Secret in Your Electricity: Animals” I had no idea that animal byproducts are used in the production of electricity. And I had no idea because I had literally never thought about it. Or cared. Still don’t. But some people care. Deeply, in fact.

Before delving into the “solution,” you should probably be made aware of the “problem” So, to that end, you should know:

Most of the electricity in countries like the U.S. and the U.K comes from burning fossil fuels. Renewables such as wind power, as well as nuclear energy, likewise feature in the mix. But energy can also be derived from breaking down animal byproducts, like poultry poop, and even whole animals, into gas that can be burned.

In fact, it gets “worse,” because, “In December, the U.K newspaper The Times reported that British energy firm SSE had sold energy generated at Scotland’s Barkip power station using dead farmed salmon unfit for human consumption.”

To be fair, “A spokesperson for SSE told HuffPost the company was unable to confirm whether diseased salmon had definitely been used to generate electricity because the Barkip station ‘just takes waste to save it going to landfill,’ but said it would be ‘fair to assume it took fish carcasses at one point.'”

Now that you’ve been acquainted with the dastardly “problem” of non-vegan electricity, I’m sure that you’ll be relieved to learn about the “solution.” Thankfully, concerned people are finally taking a stand in the defense of diseased salmon that may or may not be used to power things like the lights in children’s hospitals or homeless shelters or, *gasp* the kennels in humane societies. As animal rights activist Lex Rigby told HuffPost, “Those who chose not to eat fish, whether for ethical or welfare reasons, would be ‘disgusted’ to discover that energy providers had used sick fish to produce energy.”

That concern for sick fish has created the market for vegan electricity.