Divide and conquer. It’s one of the oldest military strategies in the books, and it’s proven to be the police state’s most effective weapon for maintaining the status quo.
The U.S. and China will formally join the United Nations global warming agreement while President Barack Obama makes his final trip to Asia for the G20 meeting in September, sources tell the South China Morning Post. U.S. and Chinese officials said an announcement will likely be made September 2nd, about two days before Obama meets with…
CALGARY – As Alberta’s NDP government rushes ahead with implementation of its climate change plan, a new study provides another measure of its exorbitant cost – a proposed cap on oilsands emissions would leave oil worth hundreds of billions in the ground, while doing little to reduce global greenhouse gases. According to the Fraser Institute study…
TND Guest Contributor: Lauren McCauley
Despite the abundance of scientific studies documenting the rapid and dangerous decline of pollinator populations, state and federal lawmakers have yet to pass any meaningful protections for bees.
The reason, according to the findings of a new investigation, is that pesticide giants such as Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta have deployed an aggressive lobbying campaign to dilute and suppress attempts to regulate their multi-billion dollar industry—with great success.
Published by environmental watchdog Friends of the Earth, the report (pdf) exposes “how the pesticide industry has weakened and delayed pesticide reforms and is shaping new pollinator ‘protection’ plans nationwide that do little to protect bees, but a lot to protect industry profits.”
The agrochemical industry has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on state and federal lobbying efforts, which the report says have effectively pushed lawmakers to pass so-called “pollinator protection plans” that “lack metrics to measure effectiveness, improvement, or failure” and often “provide more protections for pesticides and pesticide users than for bee keepers and bee colonies.”
What’s more, the ever-present “revolving door” between the public and private sector has allowed the pesticide industry to “infiltrate” regulatory agencies. “In hundreds of documented cases, employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have shuffled between regulatory agencies and companies including Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto,” the study notes.
The pesticide industry has peddled influence in other ways, as well. By cultivating strategic partnerships with public agencies and academic groups, and by funding science and education initiatives, Big Biotech supports research efforts that sow doubt about the extent of their products’ toxic impact.
“Pesticide companies are successfully pulling the wool over the eyes of our policy makers, which has resulted in a patchwork of initiatives by our state and federal government to that do little to curb or restrict pesticides,” said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, food futures campaigner with Friends of the Earth.
“Our government is giving more weight to the pesticide industry than to protecting bees, beekeepers, our food supply and environment,” Finck-Haynes added. “It is critical for policymakers to stand up for the long-term health of our food system, not the short-term profits of companies that manufacture a leading cause of bee declines.”
To spread public awareness about how bee colony collapse is threatening the nation’s food supply—and the role that chemicals play in their demise—a truck driven by Minnesota beekeeper James Cook is currently hauling 2.5 million dead bees across the country.
The Keep Hives Alive tour, organized by Friends of the Earth and other advocacy groups, will make stops in South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina before reaching its final destination in Washington D.C., for a rally outside the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on June 22-23.
“It’s far past time for the EPA to take urgent action to halt the use of bee-killing pesticides,” said Jeff Anderson, owner of Minnesota Honey Farms. “We hope that this dramatic presentation will raise awareness of this urgent problem.”
TND Guest Contributor: David Kreutzer
Last summer, the editor of Science wrote a commentary on climate change where she said “The time for debate has ended.”
After appealing to policies based on economic knowledge she doesn’t have, she finished with speculation as to which ring of Dante’s Inferno would God designate for climate skeptics.
All in all, it was an awesomely unscientific tour de farce and totally depressing in that it came from one of the world’s two most prestigious science journals.
Of course the time for debate hasn’t ended—especially for the meaningful debate concerning how much impact carbon dioxide has on global warming.
The relationship under debate is how much warming will the world see from a doubling of carbon dioxide—which is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Members of the climate-science community have placed markers on this debate that range from negligible to catastrophic. Given the editor’s bias, it is not surprising that Science does not publish many articles arguing for “negligible.”
So, it was a bit of a shock to find a story in the most recent issue that at least argued for “a lot less.”
The direct temperature effect of doubling carbon dioxide is generally estimated to be about one degree Celsius. However, that estimate assumes all other climate-impacting factors are held constant (which is unlikely to be the case).
There are a variety of feedback loops in the climate system that may amplify or moderate this increase.
One of the most critical feedback loops involves cloud formation. That is, what will the warming from additional carbon dioxide do to cloud formation?
Some types of clouds moderate warming, while other types amplify it. In addition, cloud formation may be impacted by other human activities.
This “other” category was the topic of the article in Science. Under study was the question of how much might human-caused air pollution stimulate temperature-moderating cloud formation?
One of the many puzzles that come from comparing climate model predictions to actual data is the decades of flat or declining world temperatures from about 1950 to the 1970s.
The lack of warming during the period contrasted significantly with rapidly increasing emissions of carbon dioxide.
High carbon dioxide emissions and little temperature increase argued for a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity than the modelers used.
However, the increased carbon dioxide emissions also came with increased particulate emissions. If these particulate emissions led to Earth-cooling clouds, then the equilibrium climate sensitivity might still be high.
So, instead of lowering the equilibrium climate sensitivity, the modelers input arbitrary amounts of sulfate-induced cloud formation to “fix” the models. In essence, the modelers argued that much of the warming was temporarily delayed by the increased cloudiness.
Since this delay couldn’t last indefinitely, the warming would come back with a vengeance and the higher estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity would be vindicated.
Now, the new Science article is saying “not so fast.” It seems the pre-industrial skies were probably not so cloud-free as had been assumed. That means man hasn’t clouded up the sky as much as thought and, therefore, modelers can’t explain away the lack of warming so easily.
As a consequence, the older estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity are biased to the high side.
One of the authors said, “the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but ‘the highest values become improbable.’” Though some have already tried to downplay the significance of the research—it is a big deal.
Eliminating those highest values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity dramatically reduces the expected damage from future warming.
All of the hype surrounding global warming masks the story that those advocating costly climate policies were actually telling—a story of a small chance of huge climate costs. If future warming is limited to the “most likely” values, it might get a little warmer, but there would be no catastrophic scenarios to lay out and, thus, no case to be made for blank-check climate policies.
There would be no imminent existential crisis, no hysteria, and no reason to demonize those who argue against incurring huge expenses for no benefit.
It would be okay to drive your car. It would be okay to burn coal in modern coal plants that already cut SOx, NOx, mercury, and particulate emissions by 86 percent to 99.8 percent. There would be no imperative for carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, or the Clean Power Plan and the trillions of dollars of lost income they would cause.
You could use whatever lightbulb you wanted. Your dishwasher wouldn’t have to run interminably. Creative minds could be devoted to making life better, not making it harder.
Ruling out the highest values for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is a big deal, and this is not the only study to do so. Many other recent studies lead to lower estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity and also find the highest numbers improbable.
So, despite the command from Science’s editor, debate continues and things are looking better.
# # # #
David Kreutzer is the senior research fellow in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. In this position, Kreutzer researches how energy and climate change legislation will affect economic activity at the national, local, and industry levels. Read his research.
On Thursday, five U.S. senators sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch demanding that she stop using Justice Department “law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time—climate change.”
Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., David Perdue, R-Ga., and David Vitter, R-La., expressed their concern over the response that Lynch gave at an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., was pressing Lynch to criminally investigate anyone who refuses to accept man-induced climate change as an unassailable fact.
The response of the chief law enforcement official of the United States should have been that it is the duty of the Justice Department to fairly enforce the law in a dispassionate, non-ideological manner based on facts, not to investigate those who hold disfavored views regarding scientific controversies and an unproven scientific theory.
Instead, to the senators’ “astonishment,” Lynch said that the “matter has been discussed” and she had “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for what we could take action on.”
The senators also refer to a “coalition of environmentalists and lawmakers” who asked the Justice Department in 2015 to investigate a “private sector company” over its views on climate change for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
This is the 1970s-era law that was passed by Congress to target mob organizations. And they express their concern over the actions by certain state attorneys general to go after other private parties, including subpoenaing universities, scientists, and nonprofit organizations for all of their research and communications on climate change.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one of the think tanks that was subpoenaed by the Virgin Islands attorney general, Claude Walker, for all of its research.
Walker apparently delegated his prosecutorial authority to a well-known plaintiffs’ firm, Cohen Milstein, which he hired to handle his investigation. Just recently, Walker decided to withdraw the subpoena after the Competitive Enterprise Institute put up fierce opposition to complying with it and Walker received widespread criticism for his behavior, including questions raised by the attorneys general of Texas and Alabama about the contingency fee arrangement Walker has with the law firm.
Such an arrangement raises grave due process and conflict of interest concerns because it gives private attorneys that represent the government “a financial stake in the outcome.”
As the senators note, all of these actions “provide disturbing confirmation that government officials at all levels are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change.” The senators say that is “a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.” The Justice Department should not be issuing “intrusive demands targeting individuals who represent the parts of civil society that are most dependent on free inquiry and debate.”
The senators then request that Lynch confirm within 14 days that the Justice Department:
- Has terminated all investigations or inquiries arising from any private individual or entity’s views on climate change, and
- Will not initiate in the future any such investigations or inquiries.
Additionally, the senators ask Lynch to “explain what steps you are taking as the federal official charged with protecting the civil rights of American citizens to prevent state law enforcement officers from unconstitutionally harassing private entities or individuals simply for disagreeing with the prevailing climate change orthodoxy.”
This is a final shot across Lynch’s bow. Not only are these senators demanding that she refrain from having the U.S. Justice Department apply the RICO law to First Amendment-protected speech, they want to know what she is going to do to stop state attorneys general from similarly exercising their governmental authority to interfere with Americans’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.
If Lynch fails to respond to this letter or fails to act, it will be another sign of how this administration—and this Justice Department—are willing to interject ideology and politics into their prosecutorial decisions.
# # # #
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.
Like a “tell” in poker, the Environmental Protection Agency offered clues to its long game in recently issued rules for methane emissions.
As the Obama administration and the EPA press harder in the president’s last year in office, the methane rules show a commitment to fighting hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on every front.
The aggressive push also demonstrates a hostility toward, rather than a belief in, new sources of oil and gas as an alternative to coal, according to Steve Everley, senior adviser for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Everley, a managing director for FTI Consulting in Dallas and spokesman for North Texans for Natural Gas, told Watchdog that EPA officials gave industry leaders every indication of cooperation before announcing the new rules May 12.
Buried in the mainstream and environmental media stories about mandates on new wells to reduce methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent 2025 was an order for oil and gas companies to begin providing methane data on all existing wells.
At the same time, the EPA issued new methane performance standards across the entire oil and gas industry. (You can read a detailed summary of the EPA methane rules here.)
“Somewhere along the line before the final draft, methane was politicized,” Everley said. “Some politically oriented people influenced the EPA with research funded by the Environmental Defense Fund that concluded methane is out of control.”
As has often been the case during the Obama administration, there is broad and bitter disagreement as to how out of control the fossil fuel industry is. Activists pressing for the new rules present methane as a scourge, many times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Industry experts have repeatedly pointed out that methane comprises 3 percent of overall greenhouse gas production, remains in the atmosphere for 12 years then is gone, and its level in the atmosphere has been dropping.
“Methane is such a sideshow,” Everley said, an unavoidable byproduct of oil and gas mining, some of it captured and used, but known mostly to the public by flaring, the burning off of the gas done at well sites.
But that flaring has been an effective image for keeping attention focused on fracking, the preoccupation of activists for the past several years since the boom began, Everley said.
Seen by some environmental moderates as a cleaner, inexpensive energy bridge from coal to renewable energy, new gas sources have become unacceptable to the hard-line environmental left.
“Leaving it in the ground is not a viable energy policy, it’s [BS],” Everley said.
Not surprisingly, the two sides have very different estimates for how much it will cost to comply with the new methane regulations. The EPA somehow conjured a formula by which the capture of methane with an investment in new technology will actually save the industry as much as $150 million by 2025. The agency factored in its own cost estimates for climate change.
The American Petroleum Institute said by 2025, the industry will have paid $1 billion to comply, costs that are always passed along to consumers.
As much as the cost, the new methane rules capture the adversarial climate as the Obama administration wedges the EPA into a regulatory area occupied for decades by state agencies like the Texas Railroad Commission.
At the Global Methane Forum in late March in Washington, D.C., Mark Boling, executive vice president of Southwestern Energy Co. in Houston, acknowledged a lack of cooperation and compromise.
“When any industry has the kind of attacks this industry had, a lot of things they feel are attacking their right to exist,” Boling told a forum audience. “That defensive posture modifies itself into a hesitancy to acknowledge legitimate risk.”
The Natural Gas STAR Program, once a symbol of cooperation, has taken a drubbing over methane regulation. Devon Energy Corp., a founding member of the EPA’s voluntary emissions reduction program, made a pointed departure from the program.
“Devon Energy left,” Everley said, “saying they were tired of the EPA manipulating the data they were providing to the EPA voluntarily.”
When the EPA issued its final methane rules, they again blamed the industry for failing to provide data the EPA used anyway against the industry, Everley said.
The state of Texas is in all likelihood going to follow a well furrowed path with these latest rules: dragging the EPA into court.
“This latest rule,” John Wittman, spokesman for Gov. Greg Abbott, told Watchdog and other reporters after the rules were announced, “is just more hot air from the Obama administration in an attempt to line the pockets of their buddies in green energy, while ignoring the interests of hardworking Americans.”
Attorney General Ken Paxton has until mid-July to file a lawsuit. Officials in his office did not respond to a request by Watchdog about what Paxton’s intentions are.
Texas and other states have had some success beating back the overreach of the EPA with the Supreme Court stay of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
Everley predicts the next target of environmental activists will be regulations to crimp the transport of new sources of oil and gas through pipelines.
Over the past several weeks protesters have set up camp outside the homes of members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency empowered to approve new pipelines.
No matter the target, activists will prefer the battlefield remain at the federal level, Everley said.
“The keep-it-in-the-ground crowd wants the EPA in control. State regulators are made up of scientists and engineers. The feds are political,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter to them. If they win, they have momentum. If they lose, they are aggrieved. In either case, they’ll fight on.”
# # # #
Mark Lisheron is the deputy editor. He first served as a national Watchdog reporter and then became the bureau chief for Texas Watchdog. He spent almost 30 years in newspapers, 14 of those years for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and a decade with the Austin American-Statesman. Mark can be reached on Twitter at @marktxwatchdog.
Watchdog.org is an online news organization that publishes articles by independent journalists covering state-specific and local government activity. The program began in September 2009, a project of Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to promoting new media journalism. This article is reprinted with permission.
The company hopes to locate and start removing the missing fuel from 2021, the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) chief of decommissioning at Fukushima, Naohiro Masuda, revealed.
The fuel extraction technology is yet to be elaborated upon, he added.
Following the tsunami-caused 2011 meltdown at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant uranium fuel of three power generating reactors gained critical temperature and burnt through the respective reactor pressure vessels, concentrating somewhere on the lower levels of the station currently filled with water.
The melted nuclear fuel from Reactor 1 poured out completely, estimated 30 to 50 percent of fuel from Reactor 2 and 3 remained in the active zone, Masuda said.
The official estimates that approximately “200 tons of [nuclear fuel] debris lies within each unit,” which makes in total about 600 tons of melted fuel mixed up with metal construction elements, concrete and whatever else was down there.
Five years after the Fukushima tragedy, the exact location of the highly radioactive “runaway” fuel remains mystery for TEPCO. The absolutely uncontrollable fission of the melted nuclear fuel assemblies continue somewhere under the remains of the station.
“It’s important to find it as soon as possible,” acknowledged Masuda, admitting that Japan does not yet possess the technology to extract the melted uranium fuel.
“Once we can find out the condition of the melted fuel and identify its location, I believe we can develop the necessary tools to retrieve it,” Masuda said.
TEPCO’s inability to locate the melted fuel could be explained by huge levels of radiation near the melted reactor shells. It is so high that even custom-built robots sent there to get information about the current state of affairs there get disabled by the tremendous radioactivity flux. Human presence in the area is understandably out of the question.
The company’s decommission plan for Fukushima nuclear power plant implies a 30-40 year period before the consequences of the meltdown are fully eliminated. Yet experts doubt the present state of technology is sufficient to deal with the unprecedented technical task.
“Nobody really knows where the fuel is at this point and this fuel is still very radioactive and will be for a long time,” the former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Gregory Jaczko, told Foreign Correspondent.
“It may be possible that we’re never able to remove the fuel. You may just have to wind up leaving it there and somehow entomb it as it is,” said Jaczko, who headed the USNRC at the time of the Fukushima disaster.
Melted uranium fuel and tons and tons of highly radioactive water aren’t the only issues troubling TEPCO’s clean-up team at Fukushima. There are also some 10 million plastic bags full of contaminated soil concentrated in gigantic waste dumps scattered around the devastated nuclear facility.
The Japanese prime minister at the time of the Fukushima disaster, Naoto Kan, told the ABC that Japan’s government is already paying TEPCO US$70 billion to enable the company to do the decommission works at Fukushima.
“But that is not enough. It will probably cost more than $240 billion. I think 40 years [to decommission the plant] is an optimistic view,” Kan said.
Estimated 100,000 Japanese citizens evacuated from the Fukushima exclusion zone will be unable to return to their homes until TEPCO can show that the Fukushima plant is in a stable condition, Masuda said.
Employing his college degree in fiction writing, White House communications strategist Ben Rhodes wrote deceitful talking points on the Benghazi attack and one-sided Iran nuclear deal – and later bragged about manipulating “clueless reporters.” Perhaps he’s also orchestrating administration climate spin.
Rising ocean tides will bring “waves of climate refugees” to America and Europe, President Obama has declared. “Environmental migrants” are already fleeing shrinking islands in the Pacific, and it is a “dereliction of duty” for military officers to “deny the reality” of dangerous manmade climate change.
Even if we act in accord with the Paris climate “accords” (none dare call it a treaty) and “can stem the increase” in global temperatures, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell insists, “very rapid” climate changes “are expected to force the relocation of hundreds of Alaskans from their homes.”
Manmade climate change is a “threat multiplier,” a Pentagon report asserts. It will “exacerbate” many of the challenges the United States faces today, including infectious diseases and terrorism, destructive extreme weather events, disputes over who has rights to dwindling land areas and basic resources like water and food, and intense disagreements over how to absorb millions of climate refugees.
Echo-chamber journalists disagree only over the identity of America’s first climate refugees: Alaskan Natives in Newtok being inundated by rising seas and melting ice and tundra – or 25 Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw families whose little island in the Mississippi Delta has been eroding away since 1950?
Not to be outdone, ultra-liberal radio talk show host Thom Hartmann told me, “You’ve got 5 million climate change refugees fleeing into Europe right now because of droughts in Syria.” When I called this nonsense and said they are trying to escape war and ISIS butchers who are beheading little children, for the tenth time in a 10-minute interview, he railed that I “should be in jail” as a “climate denier.”
Unfortunately for Rhodes & Company, inconvenient truths eviscerate manmade climate chaos claims.
Throughout Earth and human history, climate change has ranged from regional to hemispheric, from beneficial to harmful to destructive. It has included Roman and medieval warm periods, little ice ages, and five “mammoth” glacial epochs that buried continents under mile-high walls of ice. Natural climate change inflicted a Dust Bowl that sent millions of Americans scurrying in search of better lives, and decades- or centuries-long droughts that brought entire civilizations to their knees.
Roman, Mayan, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Chinese, and other cities and cultures prospered in warm periods and collapsed in cold and drought eras, climate historian Dennis Avery observes. This happened “over and over, in a centuries-long rhythm of affluence followed by long success, followed by long and utter failure.” Entire cities in the eastern Mediterranean were abandoned for centuries.
Storm activity rose by 85% in the second half of the 16th century, during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum, while the incidence of severe storms increased four-fold, writes historian Brian Fagan. British Navy logbooks show more than twice as many major land-falling Caribbean hurricanes during the cold decades of the 1700s as during the warm years of 1950–2000.
Little ice ages and extended droughts brought crop failures and mass starvation, Avery notes. Rome shrank from 1 million inhabitants in its heyday to barely 30,000 a century later. The Mayan civilization plunged from perhaps 15 million to 1 million, as its cities were abandoned in a century-long drought.
Climate mood swings in the past 50 years have been far less dramatic than in previous millennia. Few people will have to flee the tiny portion of future climate change that might be attributable to humans.
The Climate Crisis Consortium ignores these eons, millennia, and centuries of natural climate change. It wants us to believe Earth’s climate was stable and benign until the Industrial Age – and humans can now control climate and weather merely by controlling carbon dioxide levels. It’s all Hollywood nonsense.
Oceans have risen 400 feet since the last ice age glaciers melted. Pacific islands rose with them, as corals expanded their habitats with every new inch of sea water. Seas are now rising at 7 inches per century – and EPA’s anti-coal Clean Power Plan would prevent barely 0.01 inch of rise over the next 100 years.
Greenland’s icecap is shrinking because of subterranean magmatic activity – not global warming. Arctic regions have long experienced warming and cooling cycles, as recorded by Francis McClintock and other whalers and explorers, dating back some 300 years. Polar bear populations are at an all-time high: 25,000.
Antarctic ice masses continue to grow, and the continent’s average annual temperature of minus 55º F means it would have to warm by 88º F year-round for that ice to melt. Even Al Gore in his wildest rants doesn’t say that is likely. So his beachfront home is safe from the 20-foot sea rise he has predicted.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts concludes that the only reliable long-term surface record comes from 400 official U.S. rural thermometer stations that were never corrupted by location changes, airport heat, or urban growth. Those stations show no significant warming for the past 80 years. The “record warming” we keep hearing about comes from data that have been “adjusted” or “homogenized” (i.e., manipulated) upward to conform to computer model projections, IPCC proclamations, and White House press releases.
Other studies have concluded there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, or winter blizzards for decades. Indeed, no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States since October 2005 – a record lull that exceeds any hurricane hiatus since at least 1900.
Malaria was common in the U.S., Europe, and even Siberia until the 1950s, when window screens, DDT, and better medical practices wiped it out. It has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. Its continued prevalence is due to incompetent health ministries that refuse to learn from past successes.
The notion that a warmer world with more atmospheric CO2 will bring crop failures and famines is sheer delusion. Higher carbon dioxide levels are actually “greening” the planet and making crops, forests, and grasslands grow faster and better. New hybrid and biotech seeds, combined with modern fertilizers and farming practices, are yielding bigger harvests, even during droughts, as India is proving right now.
There is no manmade climate crisis. Solar, galactic, and oceanic cycles rule – not carbon dioxide. The biggest threat to agriculture and humans would come from another little ice age, not moderate warming.
In reality, the enormous amounts of energy packed into coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear fuels create the wealth, and power the wondrous technologies, that give us the greatest advantages mankind has ever enjoyed – to survive, adapt to and deal with climate changes and weather events.
The worst thing we could do is lock up that reliable, affordable, compact energy – and switch to expensive, heavily subsidized, wildly unpredictable wind and solar energy … and to biofuels that require millions of acres of land and billions of gallons of precious water.
Those who control energy control lives, livelihoods, and living standards. Allowing climate alarmists and anti-energy zealots to dictate what energy sources we can use, and how much each of us is “permitted” to have, would put all of us at the mercy of their unaccountable whims, ideologies, and fraudulent science.
Their callous policies are already killing millions of people every year in impoverished nations, by depriving them of the energy and technologies that we take for granted. Do we really want to be next? Shouldn’t we be helping the world’s poor take their rightful places among the healthy and prosperous?
The only “evidence” the alarmists have for a looming climate cataclysm are Al Gore movies, Mike Mann hockey sticks, computer “scenarios” that bear no resemblance to Real World events, and more spin and scare stories from White House novelist Ben Rhodes.
We need a President who will send the Paris climate treaty to the U.S. Senate, where it can be properly vetted and rejected … overturn EPA and other regulations that are based on manipulated data and falsified pseudo-science … and lead the world back from the precipice of climate lunacy.
# # # #
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death