Icing The Hype
Apr 22, 2022
Climate alarmism posing as science education for children

By David Wojick

The beginning: “The new and so-called Next Generation Science Standards are now law for about a third of American children. They say what will be taught in each grade from first grade through high school. At least 20 states have adopted them. See

Traditional standards still govern in the other States. These generally mandate that climate science will be taught in high school Earth Science courses. Earth Science is an optional course, not a requirement, and even then climate is a minor topic.

In stark contrast the Next Gen standards are alarmist to the core. They mandate that climate be taught in middle school science, which everyone takes. The topic is emphasized, with alarmism a central feature. This means lots of climate modeling, even though these students have had relatively little prior science. They cannot possibly evaluate the models they are forced to use.

Implementing Next Gen requires developing lesson plans that say what will be taught in each one hour class, often including how it will be taught. Writing these lesson plans for every topic, in every grade, is a huge ongoing effort.

Next Gen has just approved a big climate science unit and it is very bad. It starts with newspaper accounts of floods and droughts, blames them on our CO2 and methane emissions, then ends with community action. And this is for 7th graders, who are typically around 13 years old and know very little hard science. This is pure alarmism presented to children as science. It is purely shameful.

The developer is OpenSciEd, where open means their products are free for schools to use. Who pays is an interesting question. The title is “OpenSciEd Unit 7.6: How Do Changes in Earth’s System Impact Our Communities and What Can We Do About It?” Get it? Changes cause impact requiring community action. The standard alarmist formula, action not science.

You can find the junk here.

They even have a neat trick in their advertising. They claim the students “figure out” all this alarmism, saying this: “This unit on Earth’s resources and human impact begins with students observing news stories and headlines of drought and flood events across the United States. Students figure out that these drought and flood events are not normal and that both kinds of events seem to be related to rising temperatures.”

Also:

“Students figure out that the rising temperatures are caused by an imbalance in Earth’s carbon system, resulting in a variety of problems in different communities. The unit ends with students evaluating different kinds of solutions to these problems and how they are implemented in communities.”

A lot of student figuring, right? They must think a lot. Wrong! This is pure indoctrination!

There is more in the article including a revealing lesson list. Please share it.

We need a campaign to block the adoption of these horrific lessons

Note that I have a Climate Change Debate Education site with lots of skeptical materials, including links to about 350 videos by leading skeptics.

I also have a fundraiser for this education effort here.

We have been relatively inactive but are now gearing up to fight this indoctrination. Donations are most welcome. You can donate anonymously.

David


Apr 08, 2022
The dread 1.5 degree target is dead

By David Wojick |April 8th, 2022

A foolish end to a foolish target - limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C. That is the warming from 150 years ago, just 0.5 degrees or less from today forward. Of course this is all according to the worthless computer models, but let’s go with the flow.

The massive new IPCC report makes it clear. You can’t get there from here (not that we wanted to). Not by any even reasonably possible means, so the target will be missed (according to the models). What will the alarmists do without their beloved target?

It is all about something called the “carbon budget”. Unlike the climate, and the climate models for that matter, the carbon budget is very simple. It is how much CO2 the human race is allowed to emit in order to stay below the target warming.

Not how much this year, or this decade, or even this century. This is the limit forever. So enjoy it while you can because time is very short, or so says the IPCC report. In fact time is up, over and past.

First, here is the budget: The IPCC says “...the current central estimate of the remaining carbon budget from 2020 onwards for limiting warming to 1.5C with a probability of 50% has been assessed as 500 Gt CO2...”

500 Gigatons is a suspiciously round number but never mind. Just how big is it? The IPCC explains it nicely: “....cumulative net CO2 emissions between 2010-2019 compare to about four fifths of the size of the remaining carbon budget from 2020 onwards for a 50% probability of limiting global warming to 1.5C...”

So our forever budget, starting in 2020, is just a bit bigger than our emissions in the last decade! That is it, for all eternity. Note that even then we are just buying a 50% chance of staying under the dread 1.5 degree target. Not a good way to bet the global economy.

But our emissions are not going down, in fact they are still going up. Nor can they possibly come down enough to make any difference. We do not have time to open all the mines and build all the factories (after getting all the permits!) then make, install and operate all the stuff we would need to meet that budget (after getting all the permits). In fact building all this stuff might well double our emissions for the next ten years. Oh wait, we have less than 8 years.

The conclusion is obvious. We are going to burn the carbon budget and keep on emitting many hundreds of gigatons of CO2 after that. There is no feasible way not to.

So how are the alarmists going to handle this failure? They have foolishly hyped their way into a corner.

The standard way the 1.5 degree target is explained in the green media is “to avoid the worst effects of climate change” but that has always been nonsense. The worst effects would occur at 6 degrees or more, not as we pass 1.5 degrees.

There is nothing in the science about a 1.5 degree threshold. No tipping point, no catastrophe, no emergency. Nothing at all, so it is a made up number. The models get a little bit worse with every temperature increase, but just a tiny bit and passing 1.5 degrees is no different than passing any other level. When it comes to being the threshold to catastrophe, there is no there there.

In this very real sense the reported 1.5 degree threshold to catastrophe is a hoax. Except the people pushing it do not know that, so it is more of a colossal blunder. Except the IPCC does know it and has never corrected the activists and governments that are calling the meeting of this harmless target an emergency. This makes it a hoax by omission.

I have no idea what the alarmists will do as they finally admit that the 1.5 degree target cannot be met. But it should be fun to watch.

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see here For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see here Available for confidential research and consulting.


Sep 26, 2021
Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth

Claim: 23 Million Year Old Fossilized Leaves Offer Proof of CO2 to Greening the Planet link
Anthony Watts

From the we told you so department.

image
Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and terrestrial vegetation. Dark red and blue-green indicate regions of high photosynthetic activity in the ocean and on land, respectively. Image: NASA SEAWIFS

The links between rising carbon dioxide levels, and greening trends have been supposedly confirmed by fossilized leaves from a 23 million-year-old forest.

Researchers previously postulated that ancient increases in atmospheric CO2 during the early Miocene allowed plants to perform photosynthesis more efficiently. But the latest research, published last Thursday in the journal Climate of the Past, is said to confirm the link between CO2 and greening in the fossil record.

This is something NASA satellites have already observed in the modern-day era. Recent satellite surveys suggest rising CO2 levels are responsible for greening patterns across the planet, including Arctic and drylands ecosystems.

The latest research suggests that greening trends are likely to continue as CO2 levels approach those recorded during ancient period of warming.

According to the new study, increases in photosynthesis rates won’t be able to keep up with current rates of human-caused carbon emissions. In addition, previous studies suggest increases in rates of photosynthesis can prevent staple crops from absorbing calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals important for human health.

By comparing the fossilized leaf structures, including microscopic veins, stomata and pores, to those of modern leaves, researchers designed a model to more accurately predict CO2 levels.

“It all fits together, it all makes sense,” said study co-author William D’Andrea, a paleoclimate scientist at Lamont-Doherty. “This should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels.”

Well, it may :"all fit together’ but the plants sure seem happy as of late.

------------
NASA: Higher CO2 levels responsible for ‘greening’ Earth
By Brooks Hays

image
A map of the world visualizes the change in leaf area, or greening, over the past 30 years. Photo by Boston University/R. Myneni
Enlarge Photo

WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI)—New research confirms rising CO2 levels are driving the “greening” Earth effect observed by satellites.

Greening is evidence of accelerated plant growth and heightened rates of photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is a main source of fuel for plants—and thus, all life on Earth—and previous studies show a rise in CO2 results in plant growth.

But other sources of nutrients and external factors can accelerate photosynthesis and greening, including changes in nitrogen levels, land usage, temperature and weather.

An international team of researchers isolated each of these factors and ran them through a series of computer models. The results suggest rising CO2 levels best explain the increase in leaf cover, or greening, measured by NASA and NOAA satellites.


Mar 31, 2021
It takes big energy to back up little wind and solar

Depending on weather-dependent energy for jobs and living standards takes money, resources

David Wojick

Power system design can be extremely complex, but one simple number is painfully obvious. At least it’s painful (and terribly inconvenient) to advocates of wind and solar power - which may be why we never hear about it, why it too often gets deliberately hidden from view. It is a big, bad number.

To my knowledge, this big number has no name, but it should. Let’s call it the “minimum backup requirement” for wind and solar, or MBR. The minimum backup requirement is how much generating capacity a system must have if it is to reliably produce the electricity we need when wind and solar don’t.

For most places, the magnitude of MBR is very simple. It is all the juice needed on the hottest or coldest low wind nights. It is night, so there is no solar. Sustained wind is less than eight miles per hour, so there is no wind power. It is very hot or very cold, so the need for power is very high.

In many places, MBR will be close to the maximum power the system ever needs, because heat waves and cold spells are often low wind events, as well. Both heat and cold are often caused by large high pressure systems that have very little wind in them.

During heat waves, it may be a bit hotter during the day but not that much. During cold spells, it is often coldest at night, when people need power the most, so they don’t freeze to death in the dark. Think Texas.

Thus what is called “peak demand” is a good approximation for the maximum backup requirement. In other words, there has to be enough reliable generating capacity to provide all the maximum power the system will ever need. For any public power system, that is a very big number; as big as it gets, in fact.

Actually, it’s even a bit bigger, because there also has to be margin of safety, or what is called “reserve capacity.” This is to account for something not working as and when it should. Fifteen percent is a typical reserve in American systems. This makes MBR something like 115% of peak demand.

We’re often told wind and solar are cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear power. But that does not include the MBR for wind and solar. What is relatively cheap for wind and solar is the cost to produce a unit of electricity under optimal conditions. This is often called LCOE or the “levelized cost of energy.”

What we really need to be talking about has to reflect the need to add reliable backup energy to give people the power they need, when they need it. This total cost makes wind and solar very expensive.

In short, the true cost of wind and solar is LCOE + MBR. This is the huge cost you never hear about. But if every state goes to wind and solar, then each one will need to have MBR for roughly its entire peak demand. That is an enormous amount of generating capacity.

It means more than doubling the normally needed generating capacity… the raw materials to build that dual capacity ...and the real costs of having insufficient, widely dispersed, land-intensive, weather dependent, unreliable wind and solar, plus that minimum backup requirement. Simply put, it takes big energy to back up what is often too little wind and solar power.

Of course, the cost of MBR depends on the generating technology. Battery storage is out, because the cost is astronomical for the billions of half-ton battery modules that would be needed to store enough power for a city, state, region or country during multiple days of low wind and low sun.

Gas fired generation might be best, but it is fossil fueled, as is coal. If one insists on zero fossil fuel, then nuclear is probably the only option. Operating nuclear plants as intermittent backup is stupid and expensive, but so is no fossil fuel generation - or no electricity generation. And getting new nuclear plants built almost anywhere on Planet Earth is all but impossible in today’s political climate.

What is clearly ruled out is 100% renewables, because there would frequently be no electricity at all. That is unless geothermal could be made to work on an enormous scale, which would take many decades to develop. (And many of the best traditional geothermal sites are in or near national parks, and other scenic or natural areas, like Yellowstone, making environmentalist opposition a foregone conclusion.)

It is clear that the Biden Administration’s goal of zero fossil fuel electricity by 2035 (without nuclear) is economically impossible because of the minimum backup requirements for wind and solar. You can’t get there from here.

We shouldn’t have to wonder why we almost never hear about this obviously enormous cost for wind and solar. Bringing it into the open would seriously undermine the case for “affordable, clean, green, renewable, sustainable” energy. So the utility companies I’ve looked at avoid it with a clever trick.

Dominion Energy, which supplies most of Virginia’s juice, is a good example. The Virginia Legislature passed a law (the 2020 Virginia Clean Energy Act) saying Dominion’s power generation had to be zero fossil-fueled by 2045. Dominion developed a Plan explaining how they would supposedly do this.

Tucked away in passing on page 119, the company says it will expand its capacity for importing power purchased from other utilities. This increase happens to be to an amount equal to their peak demand.

The plan is to buy all the MBR juice from the neighbors! But if everyone is going wind and solar, no one will have juice to sell. In fact they will all be trying to buy power - which cannot possibly work.

Don’t forget, the high pressure systems that cause low wind can be huge, covering a dozen or more states. They can last for days. For that matter, no one has that kind of excess generating capacity today, when we still have abundant coal, gas and nuclear power for primary electricity generation and backup.

Most utilities are barely covering their own needs as it is. Once every utility, in every state, is required to go 100% zero fossil fuel, it will be a guaranteed debacle, over and over.

Big cities like New York won’t be able to buy their way out of repeated blackouts.

To summarize, for every utility there will be times when there is zero wind and solar power, combined with near peak demand. Meeting this huge need is the minimum backup requirement. The huge cost of meeting this requirement is part of the cost of wind and solar power - the part nobody wants to talk about, especially politicians, environmentalists and utilities. MBR makes wind and solar extremely expensive.

The simple question to ask the Biden Administration, the states and their power utilities is this: How will you provide power on hot or cold low-wind nights?

When you ask that question, stay by the microphone, so that you can demand more than the doubletalk, phony assurances and outright lies you will assuredly get when they first respond to this vitally important, inconvenient, anti-woke question.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.


Mar 15, 2021
The social costs of carbon fiasco

Paul Driessen

Prelude: see this video from Princeton’s William Happer

The social costs of carbon cancelation

Banning carbon-based fuels will impose enormous costs that Team Biden deliberately ignores

Paul Driessen

Fearing that incessant warnings about man-made climate cataclysms would not be enough to end US fossil fuel use, the Obama-Biden Administration instructed a special Interagency Working Group to concoct a “social cost of carbon” concept. The SCC would “scientifically” calibrate the dollar value of damages that a ton of carbon dioxide emitted today in America would inflict on the USA and world in the future.

The price tag was set at $22/ton in 2010, raised to $36/ton in 2013, and just as arbitrarily increased to $40, before finishing the Obama era at $51/ton. President Trump disbanded the IWG and had the SCC slashed to less than $10/ton. Within hours of taking office, President Biden resurrected the working group, reinstituted $51/ton as a starting point, and directed federal agencies to devise a definitive SCC by 2022.

This “updated” version will reflect “recent developments in the science and economics” of climate change, including the costs of other greenhouse gases, the White House said. It will also factor in US commitments under the Paris climate treaty, and especially “considerations of environmental justice and intergenerational equity.” Climate “scientists,” economists, “ethics experts” and “diverse stakeholders” will all participate in the process, which many expect will devise a final SCC of $100 or even $200/ton.

The IWG methodology for developing SCC estimates is so infinitely flexible, so devoid of any rigorous standards, that it could produce almost any estimates that Biden and his climate czars feel is needed. Adding “justice” and “equity” to the mix makes it doubly malleable, doubly prone to abuse by an administration and Democrat Party that are obsessed with “manmade climate change” (even Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Defense appointees must be committed to ending the “climate crisis") and are determined to make America “carbon neutral” by 2050.

Social cost of carbon is intended to advance that agenda and a 981-page “CLEAN Future” bill requiring that electricity generators provide 80% carbon-free energy by 2030 and 100% “clean” power by 2035.

Right now, over 80% of all US and global energy come from fossil fuels - and China, India and other countries are building thousands of new coal-fired power plants, on top of the thousands they already have. So even total cancelation of fossil fuel use and CO2/greenhouse gas emissions by the United States would be imperceptible and irrelevant amid the world’s enormous and increasing levels of both.

Social cost of carbon is a key tactic in a war on reliable, affordable American energy; on jobs, human welfare and human rights; and on US and global lands, wildlife and environmental quality. It will be used to justify raising carbon taxes and prices to at least $160 per ton of CO2 and imposing Covid-on-steroids lockdowns every two years, supposedly to keep average global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees C from pre-industrial/post Little Ice Age levels, which alarmists claim would be catastrophic.

The SCC enables agencies and their allies to attach any price they wish to every conceivable cost of using fossil fuels: hotter and colder, wetter and drier climate and weather; more frequent and intense hurricanes; reduced agricultural output; forest health and wildfires; floods, droughts and water resources; “forced migration” of people and wildlife; worsening health and disease; flooded coastal cities; even “reduced student learning and worker productivity,” due to warmer planetary temperatures.

The SCC also lets practitioners completely ignore the obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels, and emitting carbon dioxide - such as enhanced productivity via affordable air conditioning in summer and heating in winter; improved forest, grassland and crop growth (and greening deserts) due to more CO2 in the air; greater home and human survival rates amid extreme weather events; and having the jobs, mobility, living standards, healthcare and longevity of modern industrialized life.

In fact, hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh costs by 50:1, 400:1 or even 500:1! Will Team Biden and others in the anti-hydrocarbon movement acknowledge any of this?

Unless compelled to do so by our courts, the odds are probably 500:1 against it. They won’t even admit that the sun and other natural forces still play dominant roles in climate and weather, as they have throughout history. In their minds, every SCC cost is directly and solely due to fossil fuels. (For a reality check, read Indur Goklany, Patrick Moore, Gregory Wrightstone, Marc Morano and Jennifer Marohasy.)

In fact, eliminating carbon-based energy and carbon dioxide emissions will impose far greater human and ecological costs. It is fossil fuel replacements that will inflict incalculable damage to people and planet.

Replacing coal, oil, natural gas and internal combustion vehicles would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules, millions of acres of biofuel plantations, a complete overhaul of electrical grids and infrastructures, on millions of acres. That will require billions of tons of steel, aluminum, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, concrete, plastics and other materials - which will require digging up and processing hundreds of billions of tons of ores and minerals.

Under Team Biden, Democrats and Big Green, little of this will take place in the US, under our rigorous laws and regulations. It will be done overseas, in China, Mongolia, Africa, Bolivia - often with slave and child labor, and with few or no workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic substances, endangered species or other rules. Don’t their health, human rights and environmental quality mean anything?

The technologies may be clean and emission-free in the USA - but won’t be in any of these countries.

Even manufacturing the turbines, panels, batteries and other technologies will be done overseas - again with few or no pollution, health, safety or fair wage rules - because expensive, unreliable, weather-dependent, blackout-prone electricity will send America’s manufacturing and other basic industries into oblivion, along with millions of good jobs. Minority and blue-collar families will be hammered hardest.

The proliferation of “clean, climate-friendly” wind and solar energy will pummel wildlife and habitats. Wind turbines already slaughter a million birds and bats annually in the USA - far in excess of what Big Wind admits to - and that’s from a “measly” 60,000 turbines. The same thing is happening in Europe.

With the best wind sites being along migratory bird flyways, raptor hunting grounds, bat habitats, and Great Lake and sea coasts, the slaughter will get worse with every passing year. I just put new bluebird, hummingbird and wood duck nest houses around my home and neighborhood. It is terribly depressing that such efforts in suburban areas will be overwhelmed by a tsunami of death in our wildlife kingdoms. As forests, grasslands and deserts get torn up for turbines and blanketed by solar panels and biofuel crops, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and wild plants will also disappear.

Team Biden, Democrats, Big Green and Big Media will loudly deny these realities. They will insist that any wildlife losses are “inadvertent.” As though the wildlife are less dead because it was inadvertent; as though negligible inadvertent deaths from fossil fuel extraction and pipelines were bad, but these are OK.

Wind turbines, solar panels and batteries have short life spans - and are difficult or impossible to recycle. Where will we bury millions of 300-foot-long fiberglass-composite turbine blades? billions of solar panels? Will we just keep sending solar panels overseas, where parents and children burn them in open fires to recover the metals- breathing toxic fumes all day long?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of adverse impacts from SCC/Green New Deal policies. Any honest, accurate, complete social cost of carbon analysis would require that every one of them be fully accounted for, before we make any decisions on fossil fuels. Will oddsmakers even take bets on that happening? 

Will courts step up to the plate? Will state attorneys general? Will Republicans become better informed about our energy lifeblood, better organized, less focused on less critical issues - and more willing to mount passionate, principled opposition to this irresponsible insanity?

Or will Democrats just ram this through, because they can, because they control the House, Senate, White House and Deep State Executive Branch - perhaps with bare 1-10 majorities, but arrogant totalitarian control nonetheless?

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)


Aug 27, 2020
Back to school, back to academic brainwashing

Author : Walter E. Williams

Note: Walter Williams passed on December 1, 2020 (see).

Parents, legislators, taxpayers, and others footing the bill for college education might be interested in just what is in store for the upcoming academic year.

Since many college classes will be online, there is a chance to witness professors indoctrinating their students in real time. So, there’s a chance that some college faculty might change their behavior. To see recent examples of campus nonsense and indoctrination, visit the Campus Reform and College Fix websites.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, warned congressional lawmakers “that Antifa is ‘winning’ and that much of academia, whether wittingly or unwittingly, is complicit in its success,” reported Campus Reform.

In his testimony before Congress Turley said:

To Antifa, people like me are the personification of the classical liberal view of free speech that perpetuates a system of oppression and abuse. I wish I could say that my view remains strongly implanted in our higher educational institutions. However, you are more likely to find public supporters for restricting free speech than you are to find defenders of free speech principles on many campuses.

The leftist bias at our colleges and universities has many harmful effects. A mathematics professor at University of California, Davis, faced considerable backlash over her opposition to the requirement for “diversity statements” from potential faculty.

Those seeking employment at the University of California, San Diego, are required to admit that “barriers” prevent women and minorities from full participation in campus life.

At American University, a history professor wrote a book calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. A Rutgers University professor said: “Watching the Iowa Caucus is a sickening display of the overrepresentation of whiteness.”

A Williams College professor has advocated the inclusion of social justice in math textbooks. Students at Wayne State University are no longer required to take a single math course to graduate; however, they may soon be required to take a diversity course.

Maybe some students will be forced into sharing the vision of Laurie Rubel, a math education professor at Brooklyn College. She says

the idea of cultural neutrality in math is a “myth,” and that asking whether 2 plus 2 equals 4 “reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.”

Rubel tweeted: “Y’all must know that the idea that math is objective or neutral IS A MYTH.”

Math professors and academics at other universities, including Harvard and the University of Illinois, discussed the “Eurocentric” roots of American mathematics. As for me, I would like to see the proof, in any culture, that 2 plus 2 is something other than 4.

Rutgers University’s English department chairwoman, Rebecca Walkowitz, announced changes to the department’s graduate writing program emphasizing “social justice” and “critical grammar.”

Leonydus Johnson, a speech-language pathologist and libertarian activist, says Walkowitz’s changes make the assumption that minorities cannot understand traditional and grammatically correct English speech and writing, which is “insulting, patronizing, and in itself, extremely racist.”

Then there is the nonsense taught on college campuses about white privilege. The idea of white privilege doesn’t explain why several historically marginalized groups outperform whites today.

For example, Japanese Americans suffered under the Alien Land Law of 1913 and other racist, exclusionary laws legally preventing them from owning land and property in more than a dozen American states until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

During World War II, more than 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned. However, by 1959, the income disparity between Japanese Americans and white Americans had almost disappeared.

Today, Japanese Americans outperform white Americans by large margins in income statistics, education outcomes, and test scores, and have much lower incarceration rates.

According to Rav Arora, writing for the New York Post, several black immigrant groups such as Nigerians, Trinidadians, Tobagonians, Barbadians, and Ghanaians all “have a median household income well above the American average.”

We are left with the question whether the people handing out “white privilege” made a mistake. The other alternative is that Japanese Americans, Nigerians, Barbadians, Ghanaians, Trinidadians, and Tobagonians are really white Americans.

The bottom line is that more Americans need to pay attention to the miseducation of our youth and that miseducation is not limited to higher education.


Nov 10, 2019
Are they willing to go to these lengths?

James Visentine

"After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN recently, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years”. So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems”.  We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.

From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but only as long as it is a diesel bus.  Somehow, that does not seem to be conducive to ‘helping the Climate’.

Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking. Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too.

Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room. The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket.

For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothesline to dry.

Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop.

We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen, wool and jute.  It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate.  Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.

We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention.

From now on, at 7 p.m. we will turn off the Wi-Fi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world. This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.

She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on any more vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.

Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle.

We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet.  Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmers fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.

Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food.

Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew.

No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well; this will help her achieve that goal too.

We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? Uber bad for the climate!

We will replace her 9600 coil, memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horsehair pillow.

And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Her sanitary napkins will be replaced with pads made of linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.

In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.  If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her “new way of life.

May your troubles be less, may your blessings be more, and may nothing but happiness come through your door! When we choose not to focus on what is missing from our lives but are grateful for the abundance that is present we experience heaven on earth.


Apr 29, 2019
Fake climate science and scientists

Paul Driessen

For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists.

They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies - for no climate benefit… with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels ...and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.

My article this week tackles this problem head-on. Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul

Fake climate science and scientists

Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

Paul Driessen

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” - and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief - or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited - it’s pseudo-science, at best.

Real science - and real scientists - seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature - at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” - or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system - all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes - and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate - and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” - and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” - while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand… The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal - and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use ...and upend modern economies.

The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists - a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation ... and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity - especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century - and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years - and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs - in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” - let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.


Page 1 of 158 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »