by Brian Kubicki
WASN'T SNOW SUPPOSED TO BE A THING OF THE PAST?
•Did Gladys Knight rock that Super Bowl National Anthem or what?
•So, we're in the process of moving our domicile after 11 years, and while going through all the stuff one acquires over a life of 50+ years and 30+ years of wedded bliss, I came across something particularly interesting. My mother compiled all of her 6 kids' school work spanning the 60's and 70's and gave them all to us after one of their moves.
Among these fine documents was a science test I took in elementary school which posed me the following question:
“The climate of a particular area is largely determined by its: A. Altitude and Latitude, B. Altitude and Longitude, C. Latitude and Temperature, or D. Latitude and Longitude.
I answered, “A” and got an A on the paper!
I am consistent if nothing else!
•A liberal activist who worked on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and helped draft an outline for a “Green New Deal” characterized the global warming plan as a “proposal to redistribute wealth.”
“America's ruling class is freaking out about [Ocasio-Cortez's] proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom,” Waleed Shahid tweeted Tuesday, referring to a Fox News segment on the “Green New Deal.”
Shahid, the communication director for Justice Democrats and former policy director for Cynthia Nixon's gubernatorial campaign, is among a handful of activists and staffers who wrote the initial draft of the “Green New Deal.”
The plan “was written over a single December weekend by the staff of Ocasio-Cortez and three like-minded progressive groups.”
That group included Shahid, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti and the leaders of the Sunrise Movement, an environmental group, who were in their 20s, according to the report.
What resulted from the collaboration was “Green New Deal” legislative text that called for eliminating fossil fuels within 10 years and putting a slew of social welfare programs in place, including universal health care.
Ocasio-Cortez envisions the “Green New Deal” as a way to “establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,” according to remarks she made at an event in 2018. The New York Democrat made those remarks on a panel with Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, a “Green New Deal” supporter and potential 2020 candidate.
Interestingly, Ocasio-Cortez' House resolution has nine co-sponsors which says the bill will also “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”
Ocasio-Cortez wrote that “Green New Deal” legislation included net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers” and creating “good, high-wage jobs.”
The plan would also pour money into infrastructure and “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.”
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey will release a companion bill in the Senate. Neither version of the “Green New Deal,” however, is expected to pass Congress.
They just don'tget it.
•Wonder why this winter is so cold?
The theory has it that the decline of
Arctic sea ice, which has dropped by about 15 percent over the last 40 years, has disrupted the polar vortex, causing it to move southward, but the data assembled by climate guru, Dr. Roy Spencer and UAH professor of atmospheric science John Christy showed otherwise.
“…there is no evidence in the data supporting the claim that decreasing Arctic sea ice in recent decades is causing more frequent displacement of cold winter air masses into the eastern U.S., at least through the winter of 2017-18,” Mr. Spencer said Thursday on his Global Warming blog.”
The analysis focused on cold waves in 27 Midwestern and Eastern states lasting more than two days and featuring temperatures below the 5th percentile of daily January maximums.
News outlets were filled with stories timed to last week's deep freeze in the Midwest and Northeast about how global warming may paradoxically result in unusual cold.
Mr. Spencer chalked up the hype to those seeking to find an explanation for cold-weather events despite gradually increasing temperatures.
“When these cold air outbreaks continued to menace the United States even as global warming has caused global average temperatures to creep upward, an explanation had to be found,” he said in his post. “After all, snow was supposed to be a thing of the past now.”
He concluded that the “connection between Eastern U.S. cold waves and Arctic sea ice is speculative, at best. Just like most theories of climate change.”
End of the day, we all have to understand that speculation is the fire that fuels the entire so-called science of global warming.
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
REPUBLICANS LET BOOKER OFF THE HOOK
•Remember, when New Jersey U.S. Senator Cory Booker had his “I am Spartacus” “hey everybody, look at me” moment during the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings? Well, the Republican-controlled Senate Ethics Committee just let him off the hook.
See why many hate the Establishment Republicans controlling the party?
Booker admitted to willfully violating Senate rules by releasing confidential records regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's time as a White House counsel. The documents were marked “Committee confidential,” meaning they were not for public distribution.
Not only did he willfully admit to violating the rules, he wagged his finger at Republicans.
“…and the classification of many documents as 'Committee confidential' is a sham… I willfully violate these sham rules. I fully accept any consequences that might arise from my actions including expulsion.”
Judicial Watch noted that by violating the rules in releasing Committee confidential records, Sen. Booker appeared to have violated provisions 5 and/or 6 of Rule 29 of the Standing Rules of the Senate (Rev. Jan. 24, 2013), which stipulate that he should be subject to expulsion from the Senate:
“Any Senator, officer or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees and offices of the Senate shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.
Whenever, by the request of the Senate or any committee thereof, any documents or papers shall be
communicated to the Senate by the President or the head of any department relating to any matter pending in the Senate, the proceedings in regard to which are secret or confidential under the rules, said documents and papers shall be considered as confidential, and shall not be disclosed without leave of the Senate.”
(See pp. 48-49: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-113sdoc18/pdf/CDOC-113sdoc18.pdf )
The Senate Ethics Committee is evenly split, with three Republicans and three Democrats. The Committee members are Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Christopher A. Coons (D-DE), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Brian Schatz (D-HI), James Risch (R-ID), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).
Booker announced last week that he was running for President.
•A woman Vancouver, British Columbia was picking up her son in front of their hotel after having lunch in her SUV. After idling at the curb for several minutes, the carbon-neutral cult descended on her like locusts. She had her window tapped upon by passersby and was informed that idling is illegal in Vancouver and comes with a hefty fine.
As a matter of fact, the Canadian government will give you grants to start “Idle Free” in your community. The Canadian Natural Resources branch of the federal government has several new programs in effect where your future could be green. Many companies are getting huge cash infusions for projects like a Quebec Pulp Mill that snagged a whopping $2 million for their Clean Energy Innovation Program.
Just when we thought we were rid of Al Gore, the United Nations doubles down on a New DEAL by teaming up with the global warming High Priest himself to promote a sweeping environmental agenda that seems all
too familiar. It's being dubbed as the “New Deal for Nature.”
The so-called new deal eerily mirrors the 2009 Kyoto protocol which got axed after the leaked email debacle (dubbed Climate-Gate). It reemerged the next year as the 'Green Climate Fund.' The deal is a call back to warnings that underpinned “population bomb” fears that humanity was sucking up Earth's natural resources faster than they could be replenished. Those warnings fell flat, but the UN thinks it's high time to resuscitate the ruse to halt the coming catastrophe.
•Speaking of schemes, the “Green New Deal” being pushed by New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AKA Nutbag) and US-based environmental activists joined with Voice for the Planet launched at this year's World Economic Forum to push the “New Deal For Nature,” which is a partnership of environmentalists including Gore's Climate Reality Project.
Even Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) spoke at a townhall meeting endorsing the “Green New Deal.” “I support a Green New Deal,” she said during a CNN town hall in Iowa. “Climate change is an existential threat to us, and we have got to deal with the reality of it,” she added.
Al Gore said at the dinner: “I refuse to believe that we are the generation who willingly and passively allowed the destruction of the world on our watch! Who is with me?”
The truth is, this new deal is just the same OLD deal spun under new rhetoric of “saving the planet.” The seemingly benevolent guise of this 'Green Gospel' calls for the destruction of capitalist, free enterprise economies and elimination of privately owned land where people acquiesce to a Socialist Marxist regime of Totalitarianism.
Just like I have been saying for years!
(Email Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
OCASIO CLAIMS CLIMATE CHANGE WILL END THE WORLD IN 12 YEARS
•Rep. Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez last Tuesday claimed that she did not make a verbal gaffe Monday when she said the world will end in 12 years if climate change isn't stopped. As evidence, she cited a story and study that actually do not say the world will end in 12 years.
Monday, in an interview, Ocasio-Cortez said:
“And I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we're like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.
“And, your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are you going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II. And I think for younger people, we're looking at this and we're like, how are we saying let's take it easy when 3,000 Americans died last year, how are we saying, let's take it easy when the Nth person died from our cruel and unjust criminal justice system?”
Talk about rambling!!! If I were a member of “millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us…” I'd be enraged that nitwit was speaking for me!
•Tuesday, in response to a video tweet of her comment, Ocasio-Cortez expressed bewilderment that people would think she didn't mean it, linking to an article in The Guardian citing a U.N. study:
"For some reason GOP seems to think this is a gaffe, but it's actually a generational difference. Young people understand that climate change is an existential threat: 3,000 Americans died in Hurricane María. The UN says we've got 12 years left to fix it:
Here's a link to that article…
But, while The Guardian article says weather events will be more severe and nature will suffer if global temperatures rise 2C degrees, instead of 1.5C degrees, it does not say the world will end:
“The world's leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people…
…At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires…”
But…but…Andrea Ocasio-Cortez is SO inspirational!
•Haven't we heard these nonsensical dire warnings before?
On Jan. 17, 2009, NASA's James Hansen declared that President Obama had only one week left to “save the planet!”
In June of 2010, scientists warned of a climate “tipping point” by 2200: “13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 percent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 percent or more.”
Back in December 2008, and again in 2009, former Vice President Al Gore said that in the next 5-7 years the Arctic Ice cap will be gone entirely during some parts of the summer. Last time I checked, the Arctic ice cap is still there and still cold.
•China is leading the world as a coal-burning superpower.
China's December coal output climbed 2.1 percent from the year before, government data showed, hitting the highest level in over three years as major Chinese mining
companies ramped-up production amid robust winter demand. Miners produced 320.38 million tons of coal in December. That is the largest volume since June, 2015.
While the environuts in America and Europe nervously chewed their fingernails to painful nubs fretting about their greenhouse gas emissions, China is forging ahead with new projects and investments in coal and gas.
According to a new paper from the Global Warming Foundation (GWPF), the Communist Party's survival depends on delivering economic growth and cleaner air. As the report's author Patricia Adams explains: “The Chinese have spent a lot of money on renewables without results on anything like the scale required. So despite their continuing outward support for the green agenda, China is actually going all out for fossil fuels. The Communist Party's grip on power depends on it.”–Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12 December 2018.
Two takeaways from this:
First, wind and solar cannot meet basic power demand for any growing country and economy, and second, even communists realize that economic growth depends on investment in the cheapest fuel source and that consists of fossil fuels.
China is not alone.
Germany is expected to import 45 million tons of coal this year, up roughly 1.4 percent from 2018 despite mounting competition from renewable energy, as the closure of domestic mines reduces supply. The total would bring an estimated 30 million tons for power generation and 15 million tons of coking coal and coke, products used in steelmaking.
(Reach The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki via email to firstname.lastname@example.org)
NEW YORK TIMES TRIES TO BLAME POLAR VORTEX ON GLOBAL WARMING
•Does anyone else watch the tennis Australian Open every January for no other reason than to remind yourself that it doesn’t have to be so freaking cold all the time?
•The polar vortex has become a phrase synonymous with frigid temperatures that make snowstorms more likely.
The New York Times tried to blame it on global warming, believe it or not!
“They are definitely becoming more common,” said Jennifer Francis, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center told the NY Times. “There have been a couple of studies that have documented that.”
Colder temperatures have been arriving later in winter over the past few years, according to Judah Cohen, a climatologist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a weather risk assessment firm. But because of changes to the polar vortex, when wintry weather does arrive, it’s often more intense.
A major snowstorm has already pummeled parts of California and is heading east, blanketing the Plains with blizzard-like conditions. Snow has hit the Midwest, the East Coast and as far south as Arkansas. But once the storm clears out, the effects of a dipping polar vortex will arrive.
Monday’s high temperature in New York City is predicted to reach just 16 degrees, 20 degrees below average.
Scientists are still trying to figure out why these intense arctic chills are flooding southward more frequently. To understand their thinking, it helps to understand the nature of the polar vortex.
The term refers to circular bands of winds near the poles that are strongest in wintertime and well above the jet stream in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is an atmospheric layer that extends roughly 7-31 miles above the earth.
Usually, those circular bands act as
walls that keep the teeth-chattering cold air locked at the poles. But, every so often, the winds break down and allow the cold air to escape. That’s what happened at the beginning of this month, when the polar vortex split into three separate bands.
It’s this escaping polar air that is dropping temperatures in the Midwest and the East — there’s a lag time between the atmospheric event and when we experience the effects. The broken vortex is also sending icy temperatures to much of Europe.
And for the magical thesis…
“Some researchers, including Dr. Francis and Dr. Cohen, say they suspect that the more frequent polar vortex breakdowns can be tied to climate change.
While climate change is warming the earth, not all parts of the earth are warming at the same rate; the Arctic is warming at a rate twice as fast as the world average. That warming has led to historically low levels of sea ice in the region. The melting sea ice, particularly in an area near the Barents and Kara Seas off Siberia, may be linked to the changes in the polar vortex.”
In October, NOAA predicted a milder than average winter, but that is not necessarily at odds with the coming chill.
“There’s a difference between some seasonal outlooks such as NOAA’s that look at the whole three-month period and others that may be breaking it down month by month,” Mr. Henson said.
“It’s quite possible the winter will average warm for December through February. But that may well manifest as the extreme warmth we’ve seen over the last month followed by some much colder and colder than average conditions into February.”
•Reuters reports that the days of unlimited speeding on Germany’s famously fast Autobahns could be over
if the government adopts a series of draft proposals on climate “protection.”
The committee also proposed fuel tax hikes and electric vehicle quotas to help Germany finally meet European Union emissions targets.
That should bring out the protesters!
The proposals, outlined in a draft paper seen by Reuters, could prove controversial in car-mad Germany, whose decades-old motorway network is famous for “no limits” sections where drivers can put even the fastest cars through their paces.
Germany could be hit with heavy EU fines if it fails to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and nitrogen oxides. Transport emissions are a particular target for Euro-environuts.
The government is torn between the need to protect Germany’s crucial car industry, buffeted by a series of costly emissions cheating scandals in recent years, and the desire to act to appease climate crazies.
A motorway speed limit of 130 km/h (80 mph) and fuel tax hikes along with elimination of tax breaks for diesel cars and quotas for electric and hybrid car sales could be on the way next.
The National Platform on the Future of Mobility has yet to finalize the recommendations. It is due to report its findings at the end of March, which will then be incorporated into a climate change law the government wants to enact this year.
But the committee is well aware that many of its suggestions could be controversial.
“Not every instrument and every measure will be accepted,” reads the draft. “It will take political deftness, diplomatic skill and a willingness to compromise to achieve the climate change goals.”
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
DO YOU HAVE LOCKS ON YOUR DOORS?
•For those who believe like Nancy Pelosi, that a wall on the Southern border with Mexico is unnecessary and “immoral” I would ask, “Do you have locks on your doors?” and presuming the answer to that question is “Yes.” I would demand an answer to the follow-up query, “Why?”
Pay particular note to how they answer.
•This winter has completely sucked! It's too cold, there's too much snow, it feels awful to go outside, and I want it to end. If mankind had the ability to warm the entire planet, I would strive to my part in doing so and make winters more comfortable in large parts of the world, but particularly here.
Summary: man does not cause global warming.
•Has anyone noticed that the government is partially shut down over the border wall impasse? I certainly haven't.
The longer that the government remains “partially” shut down, the more Americans will begin to realize that they do not need to be paying for “non-essential” government jobs. Eventually, those people in those jobs are going to begin seeking employment in the private sector. The private sector never shuts down.
•Now they're coming for the meat – from Climate Depot…
In the United Kingdom, some claim an overhaul of Britain's agricultural food system is needed because it is in “crisis” and favoring consolidation at the expense of human health, ecology and the livelihoods of farmers.
The British meat radicals recently set out their vision for farming which included greater attention to animal welfare (welfare of something we eat?!?), fewer pesticides, a reduction in food waste (never mind the fact that
less pesticides produces MORE food waste!), and adopting a diet with less meat and dairy products (not going to happen as long as we humans have canine incisors).
One particularly liberal twit..err…Brit even suggested that they adopt a “meat tax” to combat global warming.
Remember when I told you this was all about redistribution of wealth?
•Need more evidence that the global warming movement is just plain nuts?
A pet food manufacturer now claims that 40% of its new product is made from soldier flies.
It's one of many firms hoping to cash in on the backlash against beef by people concerned that the cattle are fed on soya. Soya plantations are allegedly responsible for the release of greenhouse gases in significant quantities.
But are insects good for the dog?
The key question is whether a diet of 40% soldier flies meets the nutritional needs of your beloved dog.
According to a pet diet expert at the Royal Veterinary College, "Yes," was the cautious reply.
"Insects can be a very useful source of protein…More studies are needed to show how much of these nutrients can actually be absorbed by a dog's body - but some studies suggest that insects can provide nutrients for dogs."
Does it help the climate if dogs eat flies?
At first sight it seems obvious that feeding your dog meaty food is bad for the environment. The link between humans eating meat and the allied emissions of CO2 and methane is readily claimed by the climate nutbags but never proven - and pets are estimated to eat 20% of global meat.
It's also true that flies produce
protein much more efficiently than cows - using a small percentage of the water and land.
Flies are brought to maturity in about 14 days. It takes much longer to raise cattle.
Could cat food be made out of insects, too?
Dogs are omnivores - they eat more or less anything. Cats are much more choosy, because they can't make an essential amino acid, taurine. They find it instead in meat and fish.
But the vets say that insects do contain taurine, so it's possible that insects could also form a useful part of the cat diet.
There are several competitors which also produce pet food incorporating fly protein. They include Insectdog, Entomapetfood, Chippin and Wilderharrier.
These people are absolutely off-their-rockers!
•Well, the Chiefs have finally broken the Colts Curse of four straight losses and no playoff wins for 25 years!
Chiefs-Patriots Sunday evening – game time is 5:40pm. It's apparently going to be very cold – 20 degrees F. However, Arrowhead Stadium is going to be absolutely crazy!
This game cannot be more of a figurative passing-of-the-baton from Tom Brady to Patrick Mahomes as the NFL's quarterback of the future. It's amazing how it has all come down to this!
How appropriate that the Lamar Hunt Trophy may be awarded to Hunt's team in Hunt's home stadium!
Hang onto your hats, Chiefs fans – it's going to be quite a ride!
(Email Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
WHAT REALLY ARE TOP PRIORITIES FOR HOUSE DEMS?
•From The Daily Caller, Liberal House Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for a massive tax hike on Americans earning the highest incomes in order to fund a massive “Green New Deal” plan that would phase out fossil fuels by 2030.
“It's ambitious,” she told 60 Minutes in an interview which aired Sunday. “It's going to require a lot of rapid change that we don't even conceive as possible right now.”
Her interviewer, Anderson Cooper, who makes more than $10 million per year, asked how high taxes should be set. Ocasio-Cortez didn't specify a figure but offered praise for policies in the past that set top marginal rates as high as 70 percent. The current top income tax rate is 37 percent.
“Once you get to, like, the tippy tops -- on your 10 millionth dollar (as Cooper looked at her incredulously) -- sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent,” she said. “That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more.”
Cooper neglected to question her on the morality of taking a higher percentage of money from one person over another.
Newly sworn in last Thursday, the 29-year-old Democrat socialist is part of a new and diverse generation of progressives advocating for far-reaching proposals to mitigate climate change and income inequality. She has quickly become a favorite target of Republicans for her combative and unapologetic advocacy for liberal causes on social media.
“This all begs the question: What really are the top priorities for House Democrats -- and does their caucus support a 70 percent income tax?” Chris Martin, a spokesman for the House Republican conference, said in an email to reporters.
Income tax hikes are not going to pass as long as Republicans control the Senate and White House. Such a steep increase also isn't likely to find much support among many congressional Democrats.
“Call me a radical,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the 60 Minutes interview, arguing that Abraham Lincoln's push to end slavery and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's creation of Social Security were also radical ideas at the time.
She is a nutbag, but let her keep talking. It will help ensure Republicans maintain control of the key parts of government.
•That Trump administration battle against a global warming lawsuit brought by 21 children will continue into 2019 after a federal court handed the government a big win over the holiday season.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, surprisingly, sided with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a Dec. 26 ruling largely ignored by major media outlets. The court granted DOJ's petition for interlocutory appeal that decreases the chances of the climate lawsuit going to trial anytime soon.
The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel is the very same one that in March 2018 ruled against Trump administration petitions for a writ of mandamus, which allows a higher court to overrule a lower court before a case is decided.
Environmentalists handling the case on behalf of youth activists immediately filed a petition asking the District Court of Oregon to restart trial proceedings in light of the appeals court ruling.
“The bottom line is, this case is ready for trial, and should not be held up by further appeals,” said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and executive director of Our Children's Trust, the activist group handling the
“The government has used the power of their office and the depth of taxpayer coffers to waste precious time and resources to avoid trial in this case, and now the court has capitulated with little scrutiny,” Olson said in a statement. She's probably afraid that over time, the government will be able to prove the dire climate predictions are just plain wrong and get the suit ultimately dismissed.
Our Children's Trust filed suit against the federal government in 2015 on behalf of 21 youths, aged 11 to 22, arguing their right to a “stable climate system” was being violated. The suit asks the court to order the government to issue laws and regulations to fight global warming.
The lawsuit is just one of a handful of global warming lawsuits being brought before state and federal courts in recent years as Democrats turn to the courts to advance their nutty climate agenda.
Legal experts are doubtful activists will succeed in getting the courts to force other branches of government to push climate policies.
•Anyone else concerned about the Chiefs' chances against the Colts (again!) in Saturday's playoff game? If you were looking for reinforcement that this is the Chiefs' year finally, you came to the wrong place. When the Chiefs lost to the Colts in 2004 in the infamous “No-Punt” game at Arrowhead, both offenses were off-the-charts good. The defenses in that season were middle-of-the-pack with the Chiefs' defense ranked 19th and the Colts defense 20th. This season, the Colts defense ranks 10th and the Chiefs defense 24th. (GULP!)
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
SHENANIGANS WITH THE EPA'S MERCURY RULE
•Most Canadians will likely agree that more needs to be done to “fight” global warming, but they're not convinced that government's carbon tax, which is designed to get them to give up on gas vehicles, is going to accomplish the (unreachable) goal.
That's one of the key findings of a recent Ipsos poll of 2,001 Canadians that suggested a disconnect between Canadians' acceptance of global warming as a problem and their willingness to pay more to tackle it.
Fewer than one in five Canadians said gas prices between $1.00 and $1.25 a liter would prompt them to switch to a more fuel-efficient car or find alternate modes of transportation.
That range represents where gas prices would rise to if the federal government's suggested 2019 carbon tax of 4.42 cents per liter were applied to today's gas prices.
The average gas prices in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta — the provinces with the most motor vehicle registrations — stood at 98.1 cents, $1.08 and 92.2 cents per liter respectively as of Thursday, Dec. 27, according to the Canadian Automobile Authority. If the 4.42 cents/liter carbon tax was to be added today, it would only push gas prices high enough for 18 per cent of respondents to switch to more fuel-efficient cars or alternate modes of transportation.
Didn't we figure out that taxes are a lousy way to control human behavior?
The gas price range that most Canadians said would cause them to rethink their vehicular choices was $2.00-$2.25 per liter, but that would require a near doubling of prices in addition to the carbon tax add-on.
“Given where the price of gas per liter is today, we've got an awful long way to go before people actually reach that price point that requires them to seriously consider another option,” said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Affairs.
“The truth is they're not even close to considering it right now.”
Bricker added that electric car sales in Canada are also an instructive barometer for this, observing that sales have gone up “but not anywhere near the level they would have to be at in order to adjust anything in terms of Canada's carbon footprint.”
Gee, where did we also see that occur; electric vehicles not meeting sales goals?
The dilemma facing the Trudeau government is that gas prices in that $2.00-$2.25 cents per liter range wouldn't merely convince 30 percent of Canadians to switch to fuel-efficient transportation, they might also convince many Canadians to vote the liberals out, which would not be a bad thing in my view.
•Would you like to know what kind of shenanigans the Obama Administration pulled on the EPA Mercury Rule?
Trump's EPA is proposing to repair some of the junk science used to justify the Obama EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), a 2012 rule that imposed stringent mercury emissions standards on coal-fired power plants and that led to the shutdowns of many US coal plants.
The Obama EPA estimated the (power plant compliance) costs of the rule to be about $10 BILLION per year. But the Obama EPA could only estimate a maximum of $6 MILLION in direct benefits from the rules mandated reduction in smokestack mercury emissions.
Since $6 MILLION vs. $10 BILLION is obviously a laughable cost-benefit ratio, the Obama EPA decided to fudge the cost-benefit analysis by adding in so-called “co-benefits” of reduced mercury emissions. What were these co-benefits?
The Obama EPA figured that since reducing mercury emissions would also reduce particulate (PM2.5) emissions from coal plants (either by improved scrubbing of emissions and/or plant shutdowns), the rule
would also be reducing deaths caused by PM2.5. As the Obama EPA valued each of the tens of thousands of lives to be saved by the rule at as much as $9 MILLION, this co-benefit calculation added about $90 BILLION to the benefit side of the Obama EPA's equation — and $90 BILLION vs. $10 BILLION is clearly a lot more rule friendly than $6 MILLION vs. $10 BILLION.
JunkScience.com wisely notes often that PM2.5 particle emissions doesn't kill anyone, anywhere. You can read that story in Steve Milloy's Amazon.com best seller “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fox the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016).
The Trump EPA has now proposed to eliminate the co-benefits from the MATS cost-benefits analysis. So we are back to the $6 MILLION vs. $10 BILLION comparison. As laughable as that is, there is more.
As the MATS Regulatory Impact Analysis document reveals, the $6 MILLION in benefits arises from the consumption of freshwater fish containing less mercury. The $6 MILLION in benefits comes from higher IQs among people eating freshwater fish containing less mercury.
That's right. The Obama EPA estimated that the average avoided IQ loss provided by its $10 BILLION-per-year-rule is 0.00209 IQ points! The margin of error on an IQ test is about five points — i.e.: 2,392 times greater than the Obama EPA's estimated avoided IQ loss benefit.
The Obama EPA's 0.00209-IQ-point-loss-avoidance is so ridiculous on its face that it's not necessary to even try to explain how EPA calculated it. Who cares?
The “supporting” epidemiology is likely confounded by socio-economic factors. Unless someone has consumed a toxic amount of mercury, eating mercury-containing freshwater fish has no detectable health effects.
0.00209 IQ points - liberal government at work!
CLIMATE CHANGE NEVER POLLS AS A BIG CONCERN
•A new Census report shows that on 2018, the warmest states in America had the biggest gains in population. How can that be? Haven't climate scientists been endlessly warning that a slightly warmer planet will unleash all sorts of calamity, from more heat-related deaths, more hurricanes and storms, more diseases, more droughts?
Despite these cautions, climate change never polls as a big concern among the public.
Perhaps one reason is Americans are just generally sick of cold weather?
According to Census data, the five states with the biggest gains in population this year are, in order: Texas (Hmmmm….), Florida, California, Arizona and North Carolina. What else do these states have in common? They are among the states with the highest average temperatures in the country. And the two biggest gainers — Texas (Hmmmmmm…….) and Florida — are the first and fourth hottest states, respectively, in the nation.
Meanwhile, of the nine states that lost population this year, six are in states with below-average temperatures. The biggest loser in the country is New York, which dropped by 48,000 this year. Its climate is 7 degrees colder than the national average.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has even blamed climate for the exodus. When asked why so many people have left New York, his response was that it is “climate based.” Of course he would say that to avoid the criticism that his state's people are too highly taxed!
•From 2010 to 2017, a net of 2.2 million people moved to the five hottest states in the country.
Almost a third of the people who moved out of California over the past two years went to states with even
higher average temperatures, census migration data show.
Last year, for example, a third of the weather-related deaths occurred in just the five hottest states in the nation, according to the National Weather Service. Its data also show that states gaining in population are more prone to heat, hurricanes and floods.
More than 2.5 million people moved into hurricane-prone states like Florida, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Texas from 2010 to 2017. Florida alone had a net in-migration of more than 1 million. (Only Louisiana lost population over those years.) That's despite constant alarms about how climate change will make hurricanes more frequent and intense.
States gaining population also are far more likely to suffer heat-related deaths and workplace injuries. And they're more likely to suffer things like mosquito-borne diseases.
Bottom line is: Millions of Americans have made it clear that when push comes to shove, they rank opportunity far higher than any of the supposed risks posed by climate change.
Is it any wonder that Americans are so indifferent to the constant demands by environmentalists that we must all sacrifice to prevent the planet from warning by a few degrees?
•On a related note, public interest in “climate change” peaked in March 2007 as Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda piece basked in the glow of an Academy Award win.
As the climate conference ended up last week in Poland without any major developments, downward-trending levels of interest in the subject have raised the question of whether the public and media have become weary of discussing it.
The immense media coverage of the 2009 Copenhagen conference is
starkly clear, as is the steady increase in coverage over President Obama's fourth through seventh years in office, ending in the 2015 Paris accord. President Trump's withdrawal from the agreement last year brought the fourth highest television coverage of the past decade. In contrast, the lack of major developments this year led to 2018 having the second lowest coverage.
The earth's changing climatic environment is typically referred to as either “global warming” or “climate change.” The former emphasizes a warming planet, while the latter focuses on warming, cooling and climate-enhanced extreme weather events.
The largest amount of coverage in the last two years came in June 2017 when Trump withdrew from the Paris accord and again the following month when other nations reiterated their support for it at the G-20 summit.
In all, roughly 20 percent of climate-related coverage has mentioned President Trump, suggesting that perhaps one of the reasons for the relative silence in 2018 is the lack of major pronouncements from the White House.
All of this prompts the question: Does the general public care about climate change anymore? Did they ever REALLY care?
•Putting this all together, while Trump's anti-climate change rhetoric has offered a mild reprise of public interest and media coverage, both are in decline, and that's reflects the reality of the issue.
And please don't recycle. Life is too short to waste any of it sorting through your trash. Throw it away and enjoy your life. We only get one.
Merry Christmas, dear readers!
(Email Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
FOSSIL FUELS ARE STILL NOT MANKIND'S ENEMY
•Marc Morano at Climate Depot is doing great work keeping us informed about the latest nonsense gathering of leaders of socialist states around the world trying to use the nonsense of global warming to wrench money out of our hard-working mitts.
Fortunately, most people didn't even know that there was another climate conference, this one in Poland.
Thousands of delegates from socialist countries worked well past the official deadline for reaching a deal with key sticking points remaining. Disputes continue over the issue of paying poorer countries for so-called “damage” caused by global warming and the use of carbon markets to reduce emissions.
The outline decision contains plans for a common rulebook for all countries, with flexibility for poorer nations.
But many issues are not yet settled, as developing countries seek recognition and compensation for the impact of rising temperatures.
The idea of being legally liable for causing climate change has long been rejected by richer nations, who fear huge bills well into the future.
This report is driving everything at the conference and the words “transformational change” are used in every conversation and event. The good news is they were unable to include the IPCC report into conference official texts because four countries refused to recognize it – the U. S, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia; the four largest oil producing countries.
The good news is fossil fuels are still not mankind's enemy. This abundant, easily accessed energy lifts societies out of poverty. The bad news there are still many people in government believing it important to reach a carbon free atmosphere, so poverty will only increase.
More good news is the U.S. has President Trump fighting this nonsense at every turn.
•Democrats are going to try and impeach Trump in the coming year. The best news is that when they do, the outcome will only help Trump get re-elected.
•President Donald Trump came out swinging against global warming advocates Thursday in an interview.
“The Paris Accord is not working out too well for Paris. Take a look at what's happening over there because of the Paris Accord. That whole country is burning down,” Trump said.
Indeed, the yellow-vest protests are unbelievable vast and a clear illustration of what happens when government tries to take your money in an effort to curb your behavior. Behavior in this case involves using gasoline and diesel to power your cars and generators. The U.S. is enjoying the cheapest gas process in a generation, and France's government wants to take advantage of that by increasing fuel taxes. By the looks of the streets of Paris, the high taxes are not very popular.
•Can somebody explain to me what paying off a person as a result of a Non-Disclosure Agreement has to do with Russian Collusion? Also, tell me again how this Mueller investigation isn't a witch hunt?
•Mainstream media coverage of the recently released National Climate Assessment (NCA) suggests that unless policymakers intervene to restrict the use of fossil fuels, catastrophic global warming could extract a hefty cost from the economy. However, the report rests on several faulty assumptions that fail to account for technological innovations, the impact of robust natural gas development, and the costs associated with climate change policies.
The United States Global Research Project is responsible for producing the reports. The release of
this latest assessment coincides with the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change now underway in Katowice, Poland. The U.N. meeting, widely known as COP24, accepts the premise of theories that link human activity with dangerous levels of global warming as does the USGRP. But updated scientific research demonstrates there is no firm consensus on the role human activity plays in climate change and that natural influences are largely responsible for warming and cooling trends.
The NCA relies on theoretical climate trajectories known as “representative concentration pathways” that are developed by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There are four different pathways – or climate models – being used to predict things climate-wise. The NCA settled on the pathway that projects the highest level of warming (of course). The NCA assumes that technology will remain static, while coal consumption increases and the world's population doubles.
What's wrong with this picture?
The NCA completely overlooks the natural gas revolution in the U.S., which has already had a transformative impact on the economy. After examining emerging trends in the energy sector, the International Energy Agency has determined that natural gas will continue to replace coal as a major energy source over the next several years.
While the NCA focuses on the potential cost of climate change, it sidesteps any look discussing the severe costs of climate change polices. However, that topic may be unavoidable now that the French government has been forced to back down from its plans to impose a carbon tax in response to the protests.
YOUR HAMBURGER IS BEING BLAMED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
•While participating in a recent Bernie Sanders-hosted symposium on global warming (no doubt a bastion of intellectualism there!), newly-elected Democrat Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (perhaps the dumbest person heading to Congress) declared that a new form of global warming governance will usher in an era of “economic, social, and racial justice” in America.
This is her quote:
“As a matter of fact, it's not just possible that we will create jobs and economic activity by transitioning to renewable energy, but it's inevitable that we are going to create jobs,” she said. “It's inevitable that we're going to create industry, and it's inevitable that we can use the transition to a hundred percent renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America.”
One could reasonably paraphrase her by saying she believes stopping “climate change” will end racism, and that will only happen with a new set of draconian laws where the government simply takes over technology.
This is the Democrat Party folks. Think that's nuts? Read-on…
•By the way, isn't cheap gasoline really cool? Can you believe that we were paying over $4 per gallon under President Obama?
Okay, back to the nonsense.
•Bjørn Lomborg noted in a recent column that Christiana Figueres, the former United Nations official responsible for the 2015 Paris climate agreement, has a startling vision for restaurants of the future: anyone who wants a steak should be banished.
“How about restaurants in 10-15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated?” Figueres suggested during a recent conference. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”
In case you have missed this development: Eating meat is fast becoming as repellant as smoking to many green campaigners. It is behavior to be discouraged or even banned.
That's because your hamburger is being blamed for climate change. Meat production — especially raising cattle — emits methane and requires carbon dioxide-intensive inputs.
If you actually read the date, Lomborg notes that those arguing for banishing meat-eaters from restaurants and calling on everyone to change their diets are often cherry-picking the data while ignoring basic facts.
Reading the popular press on this topic, you find plenty of articles suggesting that eliminating meat consumption could cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 50 percent or more. That's massive. It's also massively misleading.
Importantly, the 50 percent reduction in emissions is achieved by going a lot further than vegetarianism. It requires going completely vegan, which means stopping eating and using any animal products: milk, eggs, honey, meat, poultry, seafood, fur, leather, wool, gelatin, and much else.
No more Jello?!?!
•The best of social media last week was a thought I saw expressed that the Earth actually created man so that we would live, get sick, and eventually die and decompose so that plants would have food.
If we turn to the academic literature on emission cuts from going vegetarian, a systematic survey of peer-reviewed studies shows that a non-meat diet will likely reduce an individual's emissions by the equivalent of 540 kilograms of CO2. For the average person in the industrialized world, that means cutting emissions by just 4.3 percent.
But even this overstates the effect
because it ignores an age-old and well-described economic phenomenon known as the “rebound effect.” Vegetarian diets are slightly cheaper, and saved money will be spent on other goods and services that cause additional greenhouse-gas emissions.
In a developed-country setting, the reality is that going entirely vegetarian for the rest of your life means reducing your emissions by about 2 percent.
Of course, fiddling with numbers to fit preconceptions doesn't fool the massive planet. The fact is, instead of going completely vegetarian for the rest of your life, you could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by the exact same amount by spending $6 a year using the European emissions trading system — while eating anything you want.
Like much campaigning, Figueres' plan for meat-eaters is disturbing, because it suggests that the former UN climate chief is focused on banning behavior she doesn't like, based on flimsy evidence and over-the-top newspaper reporting.
It also suggests a narrow focus on the world's rich. It is incredibly self-obsessed to talk about banishing steak eaters from restaurants when 1.45 billion people are vegetarian through poverty, wanting desperately to be able to afford meat.
Bjørn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
•Patrick Mahomes is simply amazing. But, Tyreek Hill is also extremely amazing. Neither player would be as spectacular without the other. They seem to have developed one of those special Jedi-mind link connections that you only see once in a generation in the NFL.
Thursday is gonna be LIT!
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
•I'm too sad about Bill Snyder's retirement to manage a fresh column this week, so please enjoy this “Best Of” piece specially selected for your reading enjoyment.
•Well, 2007 is creaking to an end and so have the Chiefs. Their 4-12 record ensures them a high draft pick and an easier schedule next year. Based on how the team closed out the 2007 season, with a record nine straight losses, I'm not sure that's going to matter much unless LOTS of changes are made. This team has WAY more needs and questions than a high draft pick and an easier schedule will be able to fix. There's still a question about the quarterback. They got to see lots of Brodie Croyle this season, but he seems fragile and throws more interceptions than touchdowns. Herm Edwards seems to like Croyle, though I'm not really sure why. I'm getting a distinct Steve Fuller-esque vibe from Croyle.
•It is going to be fun watching all the caterwauling in the media in the coming weeks when there is no word that Carl Peterson has been fired from his job by Chiefs' owner Clark Hunt. Why anybody thinks Clark is more of a Jerry Jones or Al Davis than a Lamar Hunt is a mystery.
Everything we've seen of Clark Hunt up to now has been about as bland as bland can be. In fact, Clark Hunt is so vanilla he makes his father look like a disco pimp.
•Why is the writers' strike so paralyzing the entertainment industry? Why is a non-union replacement writer so hard to find? It's not like an airline pilots' strike or a brain surgeon strike. Those I could see as hard to replace. But writers are
Have five straight weekends of snow and/or ice shoveling convinced you yet that global warming is not as big a deal as Al Gore wants you to believe?
•By the way, I heard Rush Limbaugh reading my “carbon dioxide represents only 38 thousandths of one percent of the total atmosphere” argument on his show last week. Well, I didn't INVENT the stat but I'm the first person around here to bring it up.
If Rush starts describing how ants have a larger impact on the global environment than mankind does, I'll be convinced he's reading The Landmark's website.
•This Bear Grylls guy who fronts the Man vs. Wild show on The Discovery Channel is absolutely nuts! I saw him on a show last week drink water from one of the stomachs of a dead camel and actually squeeze water from the partially digested vegetation in another one of the camel's stomachs into his mouth. Damn! I realize he was crossing the Sahara Desert, but squeezing water from a pre-turd??!!??
•The primaries are starting this week. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are busy kicking each other in the shins while the Republicans are engaged in a tag-team death match that won't let anyone take the lead.
As I predicted, Christmas has faded to memory and so has Mike Huckabee's insurmountable lead in the polls. It's hard to be religious when you have to pay so much money after Christmas.
•Wow! How things have changed since before Obama was elected!
•Back to 2018, and wow! Are you telling me that Obama actually defeated Hillary Clinton and became president? On that note, are you serious that Mike Huckabee really was leading the race at one point according to the polls?
•I am quite melancholy about Bill Snyder retiring. When I attended Kansas State long ago, nobody cared about football. It was so bad in 1984, I could get into the stadium for free after the first quarter. On one particularly frigid cold weekend, we happened upon a wheelchair from “somewhere” and just so happened to have a spare keg of beer left over from a weekend party somebody hosted. (We did such things in those days.)
So, we found a friend who happened to be in need of a lift, tucked the keg in the rear rack of the wheelchair, wrapped him in blankets on that cold day, sat him in the chair, and wheeled him into an empty stadium to watch some loser football and drink some beer.
That was Kansas State football in 1984.
You can't do that today because of Bill Snyder, and that is a good thing. This one man envisioned something better for people not sophisticated or knowledgeable enough to know what they were capable of. Thanks, Coach Snyder!
•Thanks for reminiscing with me tonight.
(Follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at firstname.lastname@example.org)
LATEST CLIMATE REPORT IS A SCIENTIFIC EMBARRASSMENT
•I'm sure you saw the reports last week of the “dire” warnings issued by “government scientists” from the Trump Administration about how climate change is all caused by mankind and going to doom us all unless we allow American wealth to be redistributed to the poorer countries around the world.
You couldn't miss it because it ran as the lead story on every major media network on every hour on the day after Thanksgiving.
Is that really the biggest news to run on Black Friday, that mankind is going to whither on the planet and die a horrible death in 100 years unless we agree to have our wealth taken from us? Well, it is if you are invested in trying to make the Trump Administration look bad, which those reporting this nonsense believe.
Other scientists say it's all hogwash.
“This latest climate report is just more of the same – except for even greater exaggeration, worse science, and added interference in the political process by unelected, self-serving bureaucrats,” Tim Huelskamp, president of the Heartland Institute said in statements released by the free-market think tank following the report's release.
“With a new volume out in December, The Heartland Institute has published 4,000 pages of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Huelskamp said. “Those reports cite many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers that show how every conclusion of this latest government report [is] false.”
“This report from the climate alarmist Deep State in our government is even more hysterical than some United Nations reports,” Huelskamp noted. “The idea that global temperatures could rise as much as 12 degrees in the next 80 years is absurd and not a shred of
actual data and observation supports that.”
“This report is a scientific embarrassment,” Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute, said. “Not only does it rely on computer models to predict the climate through the end of the century, it relies on computer models from five years ago that have been laughably wrong, failing to get even close to reality since 2013.”
Lehr said the report is filled with “blatantly absurd conclusions” designed to put more money and power into the hands of the United Nations.
President Trump said to the AP on Monday that he doesn't believe the dire predictions. Media reports frequently state that the report was produced by the Trump Administration, but that's not entirely accurate. The funding for the report came from the Obama Administration and this was the second part of a report that was already issued under Obama. Congress authorized the study and report.
“President Trump was required by law to release this report, but he is not required to take it seriously – and he surely will not,” Huelskamp said. “To do so would undermine his sensible, deregulatory agenda and restart the war on fossil fuels.”
“This is the Deep State run amok,” James Taylor, a senior fellow on environment and energy policy at Heartland, said. “The Trump administration needs to root out the embedded leftists who are responsible for this one-sided propaganda report that is even less credible than Al Gore.”
Lehr and 18 reputable scientists wrote a 54-page critique of the Global Change Research Program's 2017 report, which was similarly alarmist, according to Heartland.
•On a lighter note, how about this news?
All modern humans descended from a solitary pair who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Scientists surveyed the genetic codes of five million animals - including humans - from 100,000 different species and deduced that man sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race.
I wonder if the catastrophic event was a flood?
The research was led by Senior Research Associate Mark Stoeckle and Research Associate David Thaler of the University of Basel in Switzerland.
The scientists concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.
“This conclusion is very surprising,” Thaler admitted, “and I fought against it as hard as I could.”
I wonder why he “fought” the conclusion that evolution theory might be wrong. Perhaps he knew his conclusion would be opposed by certain “forces” in the scientific world and media?
Dr Stoeckle said: “At a time when humans place so much emphasis on individual and group differences, maybe we should spend more time on the ways in which we resemble one another and the rest of the animal kingdom.”
The conclusions throw up considerable mystery as to why the need for human life to start again was needed such a relatively short time ago, especially since the last known extinction we know of was during the time of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
This opens up the possibility of an inbuilt human evolutionary process wherein we break down and die out, leaving the need to start from scratch.
Food for thought indeed!
THE RABBIT HOLE OF GLOBAL WARMING
•Do you ever wonder how deep the rabbit hole of adherence to climate change mythology extends?
These are documented real studies that people are being paid to conduct associated with climate change.
"New findings reveal that heatwaves damage sperm in insects"
This is but one of the studies being funded by governments (mostly ours!) to “study” the nonsense of climate change…
2018: “Impact of climate change on the possible expansion of almond cultivation area pole-ward: a case study of Abruzzo, Italy.” Climate warming is causing an advance of the latest spring frosts and a consequent decrease of spring freeze risk during flowering. These results may suggest that the loss of suitable areas due to loss of chilling units in the warmest climate areas cannot be compensated for by a pole-ward shift of almond plantings.
2010: “The impact of climate change on mental health. Climate change may affect mental health directly by exposing people to trauma. It may also affect mental health indirectly, by affecting physical health.
2008: “Hope, despair and transformation: climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing.” The authors argue that: i) the direct impacts of climate change such as extreme weather events will have significant mental health implications; ii) climate change is already impacting on the social, economic and environmental determinants of mental health with the most severe consequences being felt by disadvantaged communities and populations; iii) understanding the full extent of the long term social and environmental challenges posed by climate change has the potential to create emotional distress and anxiety; and iv) understanding the psycho-social implications of climate change is also an important starting point for
informed action to prevent dangerous climate change at individual, community and societal levels.
2018: “Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change.” Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico.
2007: Hawkes, L. A., et al. “Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population.” We investigated a case study of the effects of potential climate change on a thermally sensitive species, the loggerhead sea turtle, at a breeding location at the northerly extent of the range of regular nesting in the United States. We recorded sand temperatures and used historical air temperatures at Bald Head Island, NC, to examine past and predict future sex ratios under scenarios of warming. There were no significant temporal trends in primary sex ratio evident in recent years and estimated mean annual sex ratio was 58% female. Similarly, there were no temporal trends in phenology but earlier nesting and longer nesting seasons were correlated with warmer sea surface temperature. We modelled the effects of incremental increases in mean AT of up to 7.5°C, the maximum predicted increase under modelled scenarios, which would lead to 100% female hatchling production and lethally high incubation temperatures, causing reduction in hatchling production. Populations of turtles in more southern parts of the United States are currently highly female biased and are likely to become ultra-biased with as little as 1°C of warming and experience extreme levels of mortality if warming exceeds 3°C. The lack of a demonstrable increase in AT in North Carolina in recent decades coupled with primary sex ratios that are not highly biased means that the male offspring from North Carolina could play an increasingly important role in the future viability of the loggerhead
turtle in the Western Atlantic.
2009: Hulin, Vincent, et al. “Temperature-dependent sex determination and global change: are some species at greater risk?”
2018: Michelle Tigchelaar etal: Future warming increases probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. Here, we use global datasets of maize production and climate variability combined with future temperature projections to quantify how yield variability will change in the world's major maize-producing-and-exporting countries under 2 °C and 4 °C of global warming.
FYI, maize is corn.
2006: Scott, Daniel, and Brenda Jones. “The impact of climate change on golf participation in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA): a case study.” Golf is identified as a large recreation industry that is particularly sensitive to weather and climate, yet research assessing the direct relationship between them is extremely limited. Consequently, the potential implications of climate change for the industry remain largely unexamined.
2007: Scott, Daniel, and Geoff McBoyle. “Climate change adaptation in the ski industry.” The characteristics of ski areas with higher adaptive capacity are identified. Considering the highly competitive nature of the ski industry and the generally low climate change risk appraisal within the industry, climate change adaptation is anticipated to remain individualistic and reactive for some time. With only a few exceptions, the existing climate change literature on winter tourism has not considered the wide range of adaptation options identified in this paper and has likely overestimated potential damages.
2004: Thomas, Chris D., et al. “Extinction risk from climate change.”
Do you wonder why scientists find a reason to conclude that man causes global warming?
GRIDLOCK HAS ITS ADVANTAGES
•Mid-terms are over. Get ready for gridlock. I like gridlock, because when neither side can agree on anything, they can't come together to screw anything up royally!
•Politics 101: there are only two sides in politics – liberal and conservative. Liberals want big government, high taxes, and minimal personal freedom and liberty. Conservatives want small government, low taxes, and maximum personal freedom and liberty.
It's really that simple.
Now, there are people in the middle. Some call them moderates. Others call them independents. I prefer to term them by what they want. These are people that don't like it when people argue. It upsets them and makes them uneasy. Those are generally the folks that want everyone to get part of what they want. They don't care whether the result is a workable system or a disaster – as long as nobody's arguing, they figure it's OK.
Dismiss them. Pick a side and fight for it, if you truly believe it is the right system.
Let the moderates float back-and-forth toward their preferred level of peaceful interaction.
•Thoughts and prayers going out to the people hit by the California wildfires. The death toll is devastating!
•From Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller, we read that California Gov. Jerry Brown said “those who deny” man-made global warming are “definitely contributing” to the deadly, devastating wildfires forcing thousands of residents out of their homes.
Brown made the comments during a Sunday press conference where he warned that global warming created a “new abnormal” for the state, including fueling deadly
wildfires. Brown said better forest management was only a partial solution to the problem.
“Managing the forests in every way we can does not stop climate change, and those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we're now witnessing, and will continue to witness in the coming years,” Brown said.
“The chickens are coming home to roost. This is real here,” Brown said before saying he wanted people to “pull together” to tackle the problem.
Three major fires scorched more than 200,000 acres, mostly in Northern California, since Thursday, according to Cal Fire. Firefighters only contained about one-quarter of raging infernos, which left at least 31 dead.
The 111,000-acre Camp Fire became the most destructive in state history, destroying more than 6,800 structures and displacing tens of thousands of people. The fire spread quickly due to bone-dry conditions and fast-moving Santa Ana winds.
Brown's comments come after President Donald Trump said he'd pull federal funding if California did not “remedy” its wildfire problems. Trump blamed “poor” forest management for increasingly large fires.
“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning.
“Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!” Trump tweeted.
Naturally, Trump's message sparked outrage among Democrats. It would have been best if he waited until the fires were under control before saying that, but he's essentially correct.
Wildfire experts have long maintained that decades of mismanagement on federal and state
lands increased fire risks in recent decades. Residential and commercial development extending into fire prone areas have also played a role in fires becoming larger and more destructive.
Virtually all California wildfires are man-made, according to an August study led by U.S. Geological Survey expert Jon Keeley. The explosion of development into wildfire-prone areas is increasing the risks of ignitions from engines, power lines and lawnmowers, Keeley said.
Utility PG&E may be to blame for the deadly blaze, CBS Sacramento reported Friday night. State officials blamed PG&E power lines, conductors and power poles earlier this year for 12 deadly Northern California fires that raged in 2017.
However, Brown vetoed bipartisan legislation requiring utilities to do more to mitigate wildfire risks near power lines and electricity infrastructure. Instead, Brown signed a bill in September that would allow PG&E, the state's largest utility, to bill ratepayers for legal liabilities for wildfires in 2017.
The following excerpt from Climate Depot's Marc Morano's new 2018 best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change explains:
"There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail."…
"In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees.”
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at email@example.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)
THE DRIVE FOR MORE 'GREEN ENERGY' WILL INCREASE ELECTRIC RATES
•Well…by the time you read this my dear friends, the mid-term elections will be over and the annoying ads and mailers will finally stop. Regardless of which party controls Congress, our work in standing firm against the nonsense of liberalism does not stop.
To quote a famous line from one of my favorite movies, Galaxy Quest:
“Never give-up. Never surrender.”
•As you already know, so-called “renewable” energy sources like wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable as our major sources of energy. Regardless, the states of California and Hawaii have pledged to get ALL their electricity from wind and solar, as have numerous cities and counties around these states.
Good luck with that, my misguided friends!
•We also know that can't be accomplished at any price. An article by Steve Goreham at www.WattsUpWithThat.com is a great short course in the futility of wind and solar. Some relevant parts of the piece follow.
“Wind and solar cannot replace output from traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants, despite claims to the contrary. Wind and solar are intermittent generators. Wind output varies dramatically from high output to zero, depending upon weather conditions. Solar output is available for only about six hours each day when the sun is overhead and disappears completely on cloudy days or after a snowfall…
Experience shows that utilities can only count on about 10 percent of the nameplate capacity of a wind or solar facility as an addition to power system capacity. For example, on Dec. 7, 2011, the day of peak winter electricity demand in the United Kingdom, the output of more than 3,000 wind turbines in the UK was
less than five percent of rated output. The UK House of Lords recognized the problem a decade ago, stating 'The intermittent nature of wind turbines…means they can replace only a little of the capacity of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants if security of supply is to be maintained.'
Advocates of 'green' energy are well aware of the problem of intermittency. They hope for fantastically improved, industrial-scale batteries to solve the problem. However, no such technology exists, nor is it on the horizon.
Green energy advocates recognize renewable intermittency and hope that advances in battery technology will save the day. Large-scale commercial batteries, they claim, will be able to store power during high levels of renewable output and then deliver power to the grid when wind and solar output is low.
But batteries are not the answer because of the large seasonal variation in renewable output. For example, wind and solar output in California in December and January is less than half of the output in summer months. Commercial large-scale batteries available today are rated to deliver stored electricity for only two hours or ten hours duration. No batteries exist that can store energy in the summer and then deliver it during the winter when renewable output is very low.
Meanwhile, federal subsidies and state mandates are combining to force huge increases in solar panels and wind turbine farms. These intermittent sources do not allow reliable power plants (coal, natural gas and nuclear) to be retired, so they are simply an expensive add-on that ratepayers and taxpayers combine to finance. The drive for more 'green' energy will push electric rates higher and higher, to no productive end, until ratepayers and taxpayers finally rebel and bring this foolish experiment to an
Listen to the common sense and do whatever you can to convince your family and friends to run from these nonsensical notions that we need to cover the landscape with windmills and solar panels!
•Can you believe that the Left has put up a group of children to sue the federal government to get them to act against global warming?
Last week, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's request to block a climate change lawsuit brought against the government by a group of 21 children.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a 3-page decision Friday night in Juliana v. United States allowing the case to move forward.
Roberts had earlier stopped the case from having its day in court on Oct. 29, while the high court reviewed the children's legal arguments.
The high court's order said the administration should now turn to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for relief from the litigation.
The children's lawsuit blames the federal government for causing the threat of global warming to grow, threatening the livelihoods of future generations.
Our Children's Trust, the liberal group representing the group of kids, is not seeking monetary damages for past inaction by the government on climate change. Rather, it aims to compel the federal government to take future policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
Of course, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is stacked with liberals and always sides against conservative causes.
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
AL GORE FINALLY ADMITTED GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX
•Al Gore finally did it! He admitted that global warming is a hoax.
He said in a recent interview:
"The language that the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately – how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?"
Gore's admission that the UN IPCC report was "torqued up" in order to "get the attention of policy-makers around the world" is the latest in a long line of evidence that the UN climate panel is nothing more than a partisan liberal political body pretending to function as a scientific organization.
The interview was conducted by PBS's Judy Woodruff, who (in true “unbiased” journalist fashion!) stated to Gore, “They (the UN) are painting a much more alarming picture of what we face than we had previously known…”
Gore responded, “The language that the [UN] IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up a little bit, appropriately – how [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?”
In Mark Morano's great book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, Prof. John Brignell of the University of Southampton stated, “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage, it rapidly attracted acolytes. 'Peer review' soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship.”
•Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan, is another UN IPCC scientist who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori declared that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists.”
Former IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted the IPCC is an arm of world governments and serves at their “beck and call.” “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” Pachauri said in 2013.
In 2012, a year before the report was issued, former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer announced that the next IPCC report “is going to scare the wits out of everyone.” He added, “I'm confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”
What better evidence is there that this global warming garbage is all nonsense than the words of Gore and IPCC scientists?
•So, if you don't follow me on Twitter, the following is pretty much how global warming “debates” usually go:
Me: “How does global wealth redistribution do anything to the climate?” Which was my Tweet in response to a Twitter user who was decrying what Brazil electing a conservative means to the Paris Climate Accord which will now lose another wealthy country's support.
Response: “@bkparallax you should rather tell us about what you know, what you think about climate change. Admitting one's error is the first step. Suggesting our current system is innocent is sort of complicity. One does not start a global mass extinction only with 'good will.'"
Me: “Man does not cause the planet to warm. Man is responsible for only 3% of the carbon dioxide emitted which is only 0.00114% of the atmosphere. The Sun controls the climate of the planet. The Paris Accord is only about global wealth redistribution.”
Response: “You mastering of % is not impressive. You want things to be true, that is the reason you don't understand when things are not the way you want. You are wasted by your
Ego that impeaches you to think rationally. Bye. Thanks not wasting my time. I no longer talk with neo-fascists.”
Me: "'mastering of %?' Those are called basic facts. Instead of resorting to name-calling, why not offer facts?”
Response: “You do not offer facts! You repeat false theories told by the only ones you want to believe. You don't want facts! You want to continue to believe that you have always been the good on the good side. And your mind is not up to accept the deceit. Your mind is currently spoiled.”
Me: “Carbon dioxide is only 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere. Man is 3% of that. (Wikipedia link provided on the composition of the Earth's atmosphere) If you believe those numbers are wrong, then please present a source that shows different information.”
Response: “You understand: I no longer talk to neo-fascists. Write to Climate scientists, ask them which scientific articles YOU should read.”
Me: “You've said that twice now, and keep coming back.”
Response: “Again, again: Write to Climate scientists, ask them which scientific articles YOU should read.”
Me: “You can't refute the 0.038% and 3% facts, can you?”
Response: “I won't refute those numbers: The only point I am stating is that you are a Climate Change denier: Period.”
Me: “The great Richard Feynman once said, 'I would rather have questions which can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.'”
Response: “You yourself see a question, I see a statement, a statement from neo-fascist propaganda. You wrote: 'Man does not cause the planet to warm'. About Feynman, consider also this sentence: 'Science is the culture of doubt'. That's why there is a scientific CONSENSUS, not a DOGMA.”
MAYBE WE SHOULD BE MORE WORRIED ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING
Here's a thought: Instead of worrying about global warming, perhaps we should concern ourselves with the exact opposite.
The last time we faced a global cooling type of disaster was over 300 years ago. A solar “Grand Minima” produces a time of significant natural global cooling, which in the 1600-1700's resulted in great famine and starvation and major disease epidemics.
The sun has great variability in the strength of each solar cycle. This variability ranges from extremely quiet “Grand Minima” such as the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 A.D.) to a very active “Grand Maxima” such as the enhanced activity observed during most of the 20th century (1940-2000 A.D.).
A solar Grand Minima is defined as a period when solar sunspots number less than 15 during two consecutive decades. The sun spends about 20 percent of the time in a Grand Minima state. In the past, these periods caused great hardship to humanity.
The Maunder Minimum (about 1645-1715 A.D.) and Spörer Minimum (about 1420 to 1570 A.D.) are two examples of “Grand Minima” events and each period has been referred to as a Little Ice Age.
Of the 27 “Grand Minima's” that have occurred over the past 12,000 years: 30% lasted less than 50 years, 52% lasted between 50 and 100 years, and 18% lasted over 100 years. Of these, the longest was Spörer Minimum which lasted approximately 150 years.
There are several lessons learned from studying very early global cooling events in Europe. These include: A decline in food production due to Dramatic increase in days with overcast skies; Decline in the intensity of sunlight; Decline by several degrees in global temperature; Shortened growing season; A string of major and minor famines; Malnutrition leading to weakened immune system;
Influenza epidemics; lack of feed for livestock.
Be ready folks, global cooling is going to be a lot worse than global warming.
•Is the global warming movement really about population control?
The EPA banned DDT in the malaria fight and declared carbon dioxide a pollutant. The decisions had nothing to do with science, in reality. From its inception in 1970, the EPA has targeted a maze of chemicals for regulatory control built on a foundation of junk science. The organization has systematically attacked and banned one unnatural man-made chemical after another.
Malaria strikes some 300 million people annually, and kills an African child every 30 seconds.
This is all the more tragic in that it is very preventable. DDT is a miracle insecticide that protects millions of people from this deadly scourge. The use of DDT was directly responsible for eradicating malaria from Western Europe and North America.
So why was DDT banned? The EPA declared DDT a lethal poison and spearheaded imposing a global ban on the chemical. It was based on the belief that the chemical was a carcinogen and it endangered the environment in particular for certain birds. Those fears turned out to be unfounded. But the ban was never lifted. For over 35 years, the EPA has known that DDT poses no health risk, but they've taken no steps to rescind the ban. As a consequence of this ban over 30 million innocent young children, mostly in Africa, needlessly died from malaria.
One must ask the question - was the decision to continue the ban due to governmental incompetence or was it due instead to an alignment with the goals of this eco-religion demanding global depopulation. Was the death of 30 million innocent young children just the first step along that path?
Anthropological (man-made) global warming theory was an eco-religious movement combined with one-sided reporting from a broad spectrum of mainstream media, and by self-serving politicians. The thrust of this hoax was to destroy our nation's electrical infrastructure, our oil/gas/coal production, our industry and our jobs, essentially the American lifestyle and our way-of-life.
One of the grand players in this scheme is the EPA. The EPA unscientifically declared carbon dioxide a pollutant, one that needed to be controlled. This gas is essential to life on Earth. It is definitely not a pollutant.
Dramatic global climate change has occurred for millions of years without any help from mankind. Our climate system is very robust, not fragile. Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming; water vapor does. Without this moisture, our planet would be as cold as a dead tomb.
The sun's magnetic field wrapped in the solar winds shields Earth from Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs). These GCRs cause cloud formation. When the sun is weak, Earth experiences more cosmic rays, greater cloud cover and falling temperatures. But when the sun is strong, the Earth experiences fewer cosmic rays, less cloud cover and warmer temperatures. The minor changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide have minimal effect on climate change. Rather temperature has an effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by releasing the dissolved gas from the vast reservoir called the ocean.
The EPA classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant to grab bureaucratic control over this gas. The net effect is that when the world should be preparing for the next solar “Grand Minima” the EPA has kept its focus on global warming hysteria.
That, my friends, must be stopped.
(Email Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS WANT TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH
•I’m getting polled almost daily on the upcoming midterm races. I NEVER answer the questions accurately. I’m not sure if my prevarication is helping or hurting my preferred candidates, but it does support my sincere belief that the only poll that matters is the one taken on Election Day! (…or in the 20 days prior if you advance vote by mail like I always do.)
•As Ronald Reagan once said to Jimmy Carter, “Well, there you go again!” The liberal media’s barfing-out more warnings about the threat of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming, and they have the familiar telltale doomsday ring to them.
The U.N. report warned there are only 10-12 years to stop irreversible and catastrophic global warming. Remember though that no more than 10 years ago the U.N., the media and Al Gore were saying about the same thing — there was only a decade to take action.
Some examples from last week:
NBC Nightly News: “Our planet is running out of time to prevent a climate catastrophe. That’s according to some of the world’s top scientists. A new U.N. report warns world leaders they only have 12 years left to take action ...”
ABC World News Tonight: “... time is running out, they say, before climate change effects are, quote, ‘irreversible,’ by 2030, in just 12 years. The Earth’s temperature, they say, could be one degree warmer than today at which point the negative impacts could be unstoppable.”
CBS Evening News: “The world has little more than a decade to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere or it may be too late to reverse the worst effects of climate change.” On screen it proclaimed “Climate Catastrophe” in quotation marks.
Washington Post: “The world has barely 10 years to get climate change
under control, U.N. scientists say.”
Vox: “UN climate change report: only 12 years left to cut fossil fuels and aver wide-ranging damage.”
CNN.com: “Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn.”
Please consider the source of all this nonsense. The IPCC is designed to try and force America to give more money up to smaller developing countries. They don’t give a hoot whether their chicken-little-esque global warming predictions are accurate. Their main reason for being, and belching-out fake news reports, is to try to redistribute the wealth of the world, and America has always been their principal target.
Nobody in the American public cares about global warming, but they better be prepared to stop the U.N. from stealing from us.
•From Breitbart.com, I’m sure you heard that Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren declared on Monday that she had proof that she is of Native American ancestry.
America laughed heartily at her “claims.”
Well, it turns out that the Stanford University researcher who studied her DNA sample did not actually use samples of Native American DNA.
The Boston Globe broke the story Monday of Warren’s DNA test, which she and the newspaper claimed as proof of her Native American ancestry, after results suggested she may have had a Native American ancestor six to ten generations ago. That means her genome may be between 1/64 to 1/1024 percent Native American.
Buried deep within the Globe story, however, is the admission that the Stanford University researcher who studied her DNA sample did not actually use samples of Native American DNA to determine whether Warren’s dubious claims of Cherokee ancestry were true.
The Globe reported (original links):
The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis.
Warren provided a sample of her DNA to a private lab in Georgia in August, according to one of the senator’s aides. The data from that test was sent to Bustamante and his team for analysis. Warren received the report last week.
To make up for hard-to-find Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south.
The analysis depends, therefore, on faith in Bustamante’s methods of extrapolation, and on the other methods he used to determine that Warren’s supposedly Native American DNA segments were not mere statistical noise.
It is also unclear how his methods would corroborate her specific claims of Cherokee ancestry.
23andMe, a prominent DNA testing company, reported in 2014 that ”European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African, and 0.18 Native American,” according to the New York Times.
Warren’s DNA test, even if accurate, would put her genome at somewhere between 0.1 percent and 1.56 percent Native American, meaning she could be no more Native American than the average “European-American,” or even less so.
(Email The Landmark's Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
CANADA HAS BECOME CRAZY TOWN
•Saw this reported in the Toronto Sun…
Toronto's homeless shelters are hardly full, with only 39% of the spaces occupied by refugees from other countries, but according to city spokespeople, some 18-20 additional refugees are arriving in the city per day, mostly from Nigeria.
The Canadian government procured two hotels in Peel and York to house the refugees who were placed in college dorms earlier in the summer.
Now, the government has extended their hotel stay four weeks beyond the original deadline of Sept. 30 because they have yet to come up with a more long-term approach that would send the refugees to communities beyond Toronto.
There are also 1,719 irregular (A.K.A. illegal) migrants/refugees/asylum seekers in Toronto hotels; including 577 housed at the Radisson Toronto East hotel in 146 rooms (the hotel has 240 rooms in total).
The reputable Tripadvisor website has been inundated in the past few weeks with scathing reviews of the hotel, calling it a “zoo, filthy, noisy and dangerous” with the lobby full of loitering refugees and halls containing graffiti and garbage.
Every paying visitor on Trip Advisor has claimed they did not know and were not told that 61% of the hotel is being occupied by refugees.
On Tuesday, one visitor from Virginia - calling the three-star hotel a “disgrace” - claimed that animal services needed to be called on the second night he was there because “some goats were being slaughtered” in the public bathrooms.
Asked what the city has spent to date housing irregular migrants/refugees/asylum seekers, government spokespeople said the costs from November 2017 to the end of this year will likely be “in excess” of $64.5 million.
Slaughtering goats in public bathrooms? Canada has become crazy-town!
•The UN's 195-nation climate science body released a new report outlining austere and draconian measures they claim are needed to avoid “climate chaos.”
Can humanity cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)? What will it take and how much will it cost? Would climate impacts be significantly less severe than in a 2 degree Celsius world?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked to tackle these questions by the framers of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which calls for halting the rise in temperatures to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and 1.5 degrees if possible.
Based on more than 6,000 peer-reviewed studies, the 20-page bombshell made for grim reading when it was released Monday.
At current rates of greenhouse gas emissions, the report estimates Earth will zoom past the 1.5C figure around 2040, and as early as 2030.
Without a radical course change, they claim we are headed for a 3 degree Celsius or 4 degree hike.
And yet, humanity has avoided action for so long that any pathway to a climate-safe world involves wrenching economic and social change “unprecedented in terms of scale,” the report said.
“Some people say the 1.5C target is impossible,” said Stephen Cornelius, WWF-UK's chief adviser for climate change, and a former IPCC negotiator.
“But the difference between possible and impossible is political leadership.”
The report is set to lay out four scenarios that could result in Earth's average surface temperature stabilizing at 1.5 degree Celsius.
The most ambitious—dubbed the “low energy scenario”—would see a radical drawdown in energy consumption coupled with a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and a swift decline in CO2 emissions starting in 2020.
A second pathway emphasizes the need for changing our consumption patterns, including: eating less meat, traveling less, giving up cars, etc. along with an overhaul of agricultural and land-use practices, including the protection of forests.
The final scenario compensates for a “business-as-usual” economy and lifestyle by allowing a large overshoot of the 1.5C target.
It also calls for burning a lot of biofuels and capturing the emitted CO2, a system known by its acronym, BECCS. Indeed, an area twice the size of India would have to be planted in biofuel crops.
This “P4” plan also assumes that some 1200 billion tons of CO2—30 years' worth of emissions at current rate—will be socked away underground.
Significantly, and for the first time, the UN panel quantified changes in the use of coal, oil and gas.
For the low-energy demand pathway, for example, coal consumption would drop 78 percent by 2030, and 97 percent by mid-century. Oil would decline by 37 and 74 percent, respectively, and gas by 25 and 74 percent.
The pathway of least resistance, by contrast, would still see nearly a doubling of oil use by 2030, and a 37 jump in gas.
Coal is a big loser in all the scenarios. Unfortunately, the report fails to mention that the poor are going to take the brunt of the hit because poor people depend most on cheap energy, and all these measures will drive energy costs up, up, and up!
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
WHY WE NEED TO STOP WORRYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
•I’m going to use a “fan letter” email I received recently as the template for this week’s column because it gives a great opportunity for us to review some basics about why we need to stop worrying about global warming/climate change or whatever calamity they want to start calling it next month.
Many will try to support raising taxes on all of us by taxing the use of carbon because they claim there have been over 300 peer-reviewed studies on the effects of climate change and 97% of those studies agree that global warming is caused by man and is a threat to society.
Beyond the obvious nonsense that science is not a consensus (for example, more than 97% of scientists in Galileo’s time of the 17th century believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, despite his writings that the Earth actually rotated around the Sun), the 97% claim has been debunked more times than the actual number of “peer-reviewed” papers even submitted.
My favorite debunking comes from Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph, where he states in the Fraser Institute blog:
“The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 percent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 percent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.”
•Am I really witnessing the media trying to take a Supreme Court nominee down with reports that he drank beer in high school and once threw ice at another guy in a bar in
•Others want to use government to eliminate our choices of fuel to run our cars by claiming that unchecked global warming causes “…alarming increase(s) in severe hurricanes, escalating forest fire disasters, diminishing glaciers or even severe blizzards due to impact from added storm energy (??)…”
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. a professor at the University of Colorado has studied this subject in great detail.
"Neither tropical cyclones globally, Atlantic hurricanes overall, US landfalls nor US normalized damage has gotten worse (that is more frequent or intense) over climate time scales. (Don’t take it from me, this is straight out of the IPCC and US government’s National Climate Assessment.)"
The IPCC actually said it is likely the number of tropical cyclones will “either decrease or remain essentially unchanged...” over the next 50-100 years or so.
•How does Christine Blasey Ford justify not being “brave enough” to step forward and go to police to report that she had been sexually assaulted 35 years ago, much less at some point over the subsequent 35 years – including during Kavanaugh’s various previous judicial appointments – but she’s suddenly “brave enough” to come forward now to stop a Supreme Court nomination? This is just about politics.
•As for global warming “…escalating forest fire disasters…” we need only look at a study in the journal Science which determined that the global burnt area from fires had declined by roughly 25% from 1999 to 2017.
Another paper, this one appearing in 2016 in the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, concluded: "Many consider wildfire an accelerating problem, with widely
held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived trends."
What about California? There is no doubt that the state has gone through a hot spell with big wildfires. But a study released last year showed that, since 1970, the number of big fires — those of 300 acres or more — have steadily declined. The past year has seen some unusually hot months, no question, drying things out. But that's weather — not climate change.
The problem in California is the two major reasons for destructive fires. First, in recent decades we've built homes and expanded towns in remote areas where previously there were few people or none. Second is the federal government's foolish policies related to fire control.
"One of the biggest problems is the overcrowding of Western forests with dead trees, and the areas between stand with dry, flammable grasses," noted a recent analysis in the Washington Examiner. "Part of the problem is that logging and grazing have been discontinued or discouraged in too many places."
Worse, the federal government's policy of wildfire suppression has, perhaps paradoxically, contributed to the problem. Before humans lived here in enormous numbers, the landscape had many small fires that suddenly erupted from lightning strikes and other causes, and then burnt themselves out. But in recent decades, the policy has been to stop fires immediately. This leaves huge areas of accumulating dry brush that catches fire fast and burns hot, with the fire traveling quickly once lit. That's where we are today, and until we change that policy, California wildfires are going to continue to get worse.
DEMOCRATS JUMP THE SHARK IN KAVANAUGH DEAL
•Brett Kavanaugh wasn't my first choice as Supreme Court Justice to replace the always disappointing Anthony Kennedy, but seriously?!?
•With Sen. Dianne Feinstein's predominant role playing arbiter of accusations against Kavanaugh based on allegations from 30+ years ago, I thought it would be interesting to retell a 30+ year old story from her past.
Remember Richard Ramirez? He was called the Night Stalker due to his terrorizing the populations of Los Angeles and San Francisco from June of 1984 to August of 1985, claiming 14 victims of rape and murder.
By July of 1985, Ramirez had already committed 13 murders, five rapes including sodomy, and three attempted murders, yet it appeared police were stumped. They had a couple of critical pieces of evidence: they knew the killer's preferred weapon was a .25-caliber semi-automatic handgun, and they discovered footprints at multiple crime scenes from a particular Avia aerobic sneaker with a unique tread pattern. Police kept the information quiet so that if Ramirez acted again, they would have evidence to tie him to the crime.
After the murder of Peter and Barbara Pan on Aug. 18, then-San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein blabbed that critical and confidential information in a televised press conference.
Her leak infuriated police. They knew the killer would be following media coverage and destroy the evidence. Ramirez, soon after Feinstein's press conference, dropped his size 11½ Avia sneakers over the side of the Golden Gate Bridge.
After disposing of the evidence, Ramirez drove 76 miles south of Los Angeles, to Mission Viejo, where he claimed more victims. That night, he
shot Bill Erickson in the head twice and raped his wife Inez. Inez ran to the neighbors' house for help, discovering that their 13-year old son had written down part of the assailant's license plate number. Fingerprint evidence from the stolen car, as well as evidence from a simple burglary of the home of prominent dentist Jack Saroyan, gave police what they needed. Police then released a mugshot of Ramirez at a televised press conference, announcing, “We know who you are now, and soon everyone else will. There will be no place you can hide.”
On Aug. 31, 1985, Ramirez was captured in East Los Angeles after being beaten and subdued by area residents.
On Nov. 7, 1989, Ramirez was sentenced to die in California's electric chair. He died five years ago of cancer still waiting to be executed.
Feinstein has had to know the incredible irresponsibility she showed by letting a serial killer know what police have on him. She seems to show the same level of carelessness in manipulating 35 year old foggy-memory accounts of drunken teenagers in an effort to gain political advantage by crushing the career of a distinguished judge.
Democrats are pure scum!
•I saw this post at The Deplorable Climate Science Blog and it's pretty good!
“Planetary Healing Powers Of Presidents Posted on September 15, 2018 by tonyheller”
Remember this nonsensical statement by Obama in 2008?
“'I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…'
Several days ago, President Trump was blamed by The Washington Post for category 4
Florence, so apparently he downgraded Florence to a category 0 at landfall. Not only that, but using Washington Post logic, the president has also cooled the planet at a rate of almost ten degrees per century since he was elected.
A few more Trump terms and Earth will be in an ice age.
•Obama bragged about healing the planet, but his record wasn't so good. Earth warmed at a rate of more than three degrees per century during his presidency.”
Obama was apparently the Global Warming President!
•Democrats have jumped the shark in their efforts to bring-down the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh by dragging a dollar bill through trailer parks in search of women that Kavanaugh has apparently sexually assaulted decades ago.
They don't seem to have a problem with former U.S. House Rep. Keith Ellison from Minnesota physically abusing two former girlfriends and are in complete “lalalalalalala” denial about Juanita Broaddrick's rape accusation against Bill Clinton. “Believe the women” they say, but it SHOULD say, “Believe the women accusing Republicans ONLY!”
•I am (so far anyway) really glad that I appear to be wrong about the Chiefs and their phenomenal (so far anyway) QB Patrick Mahomes. He has been spectacular and the offense has been equally stellar. The defense has been pretty sketchy though.
Does any of this remind anyone else of the 13-3 Chiefs under Dick Vermeil, with Trent Green, Priest Holmes, Willie Roaf and a defense that couldn't force Indianapolis and Peyton Manning to have to punt once the entire game?
I sure hope this team is a little different!
CONTRARY TO PERCEPTION, NUMBER OF HURRICANES IS DOWN
•As floodwaters from Hurricane Florence along the Carolina coast gradually recede, we are once again battered by the Democrats claiming that mankind is causing the number and intensity of tropical storms to increase due to the use of fossil fuels' causing the planet's temperature to increase (global warming).
The esteemed climate scientist, Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (He was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming) recently addressed the subject of Hurricane Florence on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show, and addressed whether it could be blamed on humanity. Here’s what he has to say about it:
“You really can't say much in only a couple of minutes, and it's difficult when you don't know what the questions will be. I got a plug in for Anthony Watts' (www.wuwt.com) revealing the deception Bill Nye's (The Science Guy) faked global-warming-in-a-jar experiment.
“How did I get on Tucker's show? It started when the folks at the Texas Public Policy Foundation asked me to write an op-ed to counter the global warming hype around Hurricane Florence. That was published in USA Today yesterday morning. They also set up several radio talk show interviews during the day, and scored the Tucker Carlson spot several hours before showtime…
“The more I think about Bill Nye's experiment, the more irritated I get with the consensus scientific establishment for not telling Bill Nye that such an experiment cannot work; you cannot demonstrate the
greenhouse effect on temperature with CO2 in a glass jar. Scientists who understand atmospheric radiative transfer know that.
“The fact that the 'Climate 101' video is still out there means the scientific establishment (plus Al Gore, who used it in his 'Climate Reality Project'), are complicit in scientific fraud in order to advance the alarmist global warming narrative.
“If their evidence for human-caused climate change is so good, they shouldn't have to fake evidence to support their claims. I realize Bill Nye isn't part of the climate research establishment, but he has a huge influence on public perception and scientific understanding. James Hansen also has had a huge influence on the public debate, and yet broke NASA rules by speaking to the press and Congress without management approval (and also likely violated the Hatch Act by campaigning politically..yes, he did, ThinkProgress, because he was a member of the Senior Executive Service, which has special Hatch Act rules.. I know because I was one of them, and I resigned NASA rather than have my hands tied).
“This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign), and even violate the law.
“As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.”
•Back to the subject at hand, Dr. Spencer pointed-out on a Facebook post that hurricane damages (in $)
have increased dramatically in recent decades, but the intensity of those most-damaging storms has not. It's all due to increasing population and infrastructure vulnerability.
Actually, while the wind, storm surge, and freshwater flooding from Category 1 Hurricane Florence is causing massive damage, historically, major landfalling hurricanes were more frequent in past decades.
Contrary to popular perception, the number of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. has dropped by an average of more than 50% since the 1930s.
While the current decade isn't over yet, if we assume the long-term average of 6 storms per decade continues for the remaining 2.5 hurricane seasons, the downward trend since the 1930s will still be a 50% reduction.
Why pick the 1930s as the starting point?
Because yesterday Dr. Spencer presented U.S. Government data on the 36 most costly hurricanes in U.S. history, which have all occurred since the 1930s. Since the 1930s, hurricane damages have increased dramatically. But, as Roger Pielke, Jr. has documented, that's due to a huge increase in vulnerable infrastructure in a more populous and more prosperous nation. In other words, we are more affluent, so we move closer to the ocean where the domiciles we build are more expensive and they get destroyed in tropical storms.
It's not due to stronger hurricanes hitting the U.S. or to global warming.
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)
CLIMATE CHANGE DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
•From The Daily Caller, Hillary Clinton wants supporters to tell their senators to vote against Judge Brett Kavanaugh becoming a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Clinton's expressed reason for opposing President Donald Trump's second Supreme Court nominee is that he will impede the lefties' efforts to grow government by fighting the imaginary demon of man-made (anthropogenic) global warming.
“Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh would swing the Court to a new, hard-right majority that would rule against curbing greenhouse gases for years—maybe decades—that we can't afford to waste on inaction,” Clinton wrote in a series of tweets published Friday.
Kavanaugh defended his record on environmental cases.
“In environmental cases, some cases I've ruled against environmentalist interests, and in many cases I've ruled for environmentalist interests,” he told senators, pointing to three major cases in the last decade.
Clinton and others also worry Kavanaugh's lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court could frustrate a future Democratic administration's climate policy goals.
“We're not fighting for the planet in some abstract sense here. We're fighting for our continued ability to live on it,” Clinton tweeted.
Gawd she is an idiot!
•A guest essay recently appeared in the fantastic website, www.wuwt.com written by Vijay Jayaraj, M.Sc. Environmental Science from University of East Anglia, England. The best parts follow:
“Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is fairly popular. Even people in far eastern countries like India and Australia know about it.
But little do we hear about
Climate-Change Derangement Syndrome (CCDS) and another new syndrome emerging from it.
CCDS is a behavioral pattern in which a section of our society responds irrationally to any trend in global temperatures that contradicts its narrative of a dangerous rise in global temperatures, without regard to the actual data.
For example, recently a group of 60 scientists, journalists, politicians, activists, and others signed an open letter saying they won't debate anyone who denies either that climate change is human induced or that it is dangerous and needs to be prevented…”
Isn't that collegial!
Rather than accurately representing what skeptics think and presenting evidence to the contrary, sufferers of CCDS caricature skeptics as denying any human contribution to warming or even as denying any warming at all.
Those who are new to the climate controversy might be surprised to learn that almost 100% of climate skeptics within academia acknowledge the current warming trend in our world.
The earth experienced a very cold period during the 16th and 17th centuries. Dubbed the Little Ice Age, this period was brutal for the Northern Hemisphere. It was followed by a natural rise in global temperatures, long before the Industrial Revolution grew enough to add enough to the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content to make any significant contribution to temperature.
The warming that began during this phase continues to date, and scientists call the current phase the Modern Warm Period. So, all the academicians agree on the current warming phase.
However, by repeated attacks on skeptics through a complicit mainstream media, those with CCDS
have led much of the public to believe skeptics deny all warming—or at least all human contribution to it.”
“…most skeptics…remembering the undeniable evidence about the existence of similar warm periods in recent climate history, question not whether the world is warming, or even whether human activity contributes to the warming, but how much, and in what relation to natural causes, and whether the proposed changes in global energy policies are worth the effort.”
That's the money quote!
“One variation of CCDS we might call the Global Temperature Plateau Syndrome (GTPS). It afflicts those who are in constant denial of the approximately 19-year trend of reduced, possibly even completely absent, warming.
This trend is fascinating because it coincides with an unrelenting increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that should, according to alarmist theory, have driven warming much faster than actually observed. Frustrated by academic scientists' failure to toe the line, GTPS sufferers increasingly turn to politics (and the entertainment industry) rather than science to enforce their views…”
This is where we get nincompoops like Leo DiCaprio barging-into port in his multi-million dollar smoke-belching yacht telling us all to shut-down our power plants.
“The real intensity of GTPS, however, will be revealed if global temperature prolongs the downward spiral of February 2016–February 2018, during which global average surface temperature dropped 0.56°C—the biggest two-year drop on record.
Translation: if it's cold, mankind generally struggles. When it is warm, mankind generally flourishes.
(Email Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
MEDIA-DRIVEN FUNERALS SPARK SOME QUESTIONS
•After this past week of public media-driven funerals, and considering purportedly important funerals of past years, I am left with these questions:
Why Michael Eric Dyson and Louis Farrakhan were not present at Mother Theresa's funeral?
What in the name of the Me Too movement was Bill Clinton doing being on stage at Aretha Franklin's funeral?
Why do Democrats always associate black-skinned people with members of the simian species?
Not holding my breath for answers.
•From a quarter to one-half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet's vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Gee, who'd have predicted that? More carbon dioxide means more plant life!
•The sun has been void of sunspots for more than half of the year. Scientists believe the Earth could be in for a huge cold snap.
The sun has been free of sunspots (causes of planetary heat) for a total of 133 days this year.
With only 241 days of 2018
passing, that means the sun has been blank for the majority of the year.
Experts warn this is a sign that the solar minimum is on its way.
“To find a year with fewer sunspots, you have to go back to 2009 when the sun was experiencing the deepest solar minimum in a century. Solar minimum has returned, bringing extra cosmic rays, long-lasting holes in the sun's atmosphere, and strangely pink auroras.”
The sun follows cycles of roughly 11 years where it reaches a solar maximum and then a solar minimum.
During a solar maximum, the sun gives off more heat and is littered with sunspots. Less heat in a solar minimum is due to a decrease in magnetic waves.
The sun was not expected to head into a solar minimum until around 2020, but it appears to be heading in early which could prove to be bad news for those hoping to redistribute global wealth using the climate as the main justification.
The last time there was a prolonged solar minimum, it led to a “mini ice-age,” scientifically known as the Maunder minimum - which lasted for 70 years.
The Maunder minimum, which saw seven decades of freezing weather, began in 1645 and lasted through to 1715, and happened when sunspots were exceedingly rare.
During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees Celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages.
Vencore Weather, a meteorological website, said: “Low solar activity is known to have consequences on Earth's weather and climate and it also is well correlated with an increase in cosmic rays that reach the upper part of the atmosphere. The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.”
•Former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday reiterated his call that President Trump should resign.
“My only message would be resign,” Gore, an environmental activist, told Fox 11 Los Angeles during an interview about climate change. Gore's remarks came in response to a question about what he would say to the president.
“I think everyone knows to discount what this current administration is doing and saying. They've made the EPA the CPA — the Coal Production Agency — instead of protecting the environment," he said, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The comments come a little more than a year after Gore told LADbible that, if he could give Trump one piece of advice, he would tell him to resign.
Gore also said last year that Trump's attitude toward climate change had sparked an unprecedented wave of pro-climate activism.
"What we are seeing in the United States of America today is the biggest upsurge of activism in favor of the climate that we have ever experienced. And it's in reaction to what President Trump has said," he said during a taping of a SiriusXM town hall interview. "And we are seeing the same thing around the world — the other countries have doubled down on their commitment.”
Trump has sparked fierce criticism from Gore and other environmental activists, including actor and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), over a raft of Obama-era environmental policy rollbacks. Trump also drew backlash last year for pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement.
In other words, if he is angering Al Gore and The Terminator, President Trump is on the right track – keep it up!
(Email Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
CARBON DIOXIDE IS PLANT FOOD AND A TRACE GAS
•Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the EPA, signed a plan last week to reduce regulation of coal-fired power plants.
The agency discussed the details of the proposal on Tuesday, calling the plan the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, intended to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was designed to try and put coal and oil companies out of business.
President Trump visited West Virginia coal country on Tuesday and used the rally to tell supporters he is following through on that promise.
Trump administration officials have long said that the Clean Power Plan exceeded the federal government's authority. They have said that the new plan operates within the bounds of the 1970 Clean Air Act, which obliges the government to design a way to cut carbon emissions.
Still, many coal and oil companies are gradually moving away from coal in response to economic reality – remember that necessity is the mother of invention - other fuels, like natural gas, have become more cost-effective.
The new rule is expected to have huge implications for aging coal-fired plants across the country, offering incentives to keep them running longer or enabling them to avoid installing over-burdensome pollution controls.
Of course, the environuts came out in screaming, pant-filling opposition: “This egregious climate-denial plan fails to protect the American people from the serious risks of climate change…” said Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The plan, he added, “goes even further and allows polluters to increase the amount of smog and soot they emit into the air our children breathe.”
NOW they care about children!
The EPA says the reductions
under its proposal would be comparable to the Obama Administration rule but will be achieved in a reasonable manner. While the Clean Power Plan aimed to cut carbon emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the Trump plan sets no national benchmark.
This is the part that makes me grind my teeth in frustration. There should be no benchmark for controlling carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere.
When we kowtow to the terminology of the other side, we give them support.
•Have you seen the ads for the “new” Papillion movie? Why re-create Papillion? Why not just re-release the original classic that featured Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen? Hollywood is bereft of morals and fresh ideas – not a good combination.
•Now the next step after snipping Obama's Clean Power Plan…strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
“The one Obama era rule that still needs to be revisited is the endangerment finding that labels life-giving carbon dioxide as a threat to public welfare,” former Trump transition official Steve Milloy told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Milloy is referring to an EPA regulatory document from 2009 that found greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, indirectly harm public health through global warming. That endangerment finding gave EPA the legal cover it needed to issue global warming regulations.
The endangerment finding authority underlies sweeping regulations on power plants, vehicles and oil and gas operations estimated to cost billions of dollars, including the Obama Clean Power Plan.
Milloy and others want the EPA to reopen the 2009 endangerment
finding, so that they can reveal the flaws in the evidence presented for the 2009 finding.
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican, gave conservative groups some hope on Tuesday when he said “the issue is still alive,” referring to considerations over reopen the endangerment finding.
Twenty-seven states challenged the 2015 Obama regulation, scoring a legal victory in early 2016 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay against implementation.
“The ACE proposal establishes breathing space for the endangerment finding rollback to occur in the future,” said Milloy, a lawyer and policy expert who runs the website JunkScience.com.
Environuts, of course and some of them still in the EPA, oppose revisiting the endangerment finding, going with the oft-used argument that the “science is settled” when it comes to global warming. Acting EPA chief Wheeler told The Washington Post in July he saw no “compelling reason” to review the endangerment finding.
“There would have to be a major, compelling reason to try to ever reopen that. I don't think that's an open question at this point,” Wheeler said.
However, Myron Ebell, the director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment, said leaving the endangerment finding in place left the door open for future administrations to impose sweeping regulations over the economy.
“The 'Clean Power' Plan was a key part of the Obama administration's war on affordable energy and based on the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare…However, the best and most recent science undermines that claim and therefore reconsideration is warranted,” Ebell said in a statement.
Our work is NEVER done!
YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET KILLED BY A BEAR THAN A SHARK
•Did you see that story about ICE agents in San Bernardino arresting a man who was taking his pregnant wife to the hospital to have their fifth child? It was plastered all over Twitter this weekend with people losing their minds that she was forced to drive herself to the hospital. Many portrayed the situation of one where she was in labor and an emergency. She was going to the hospital for a pre-scheduled C-section. ABC News was carrying the story along with surveillance video from the gas station they had stopped at to refuel their car.
ICE later claimed that the man was wanted for murder in Mexico. ABC News reported that the wife claimed he wasn't the guy. Now, I just heard a brief report from ABC News on the radio that an official from the Mexican state of Guanajuato confirmed Monday that a man arrested while driving his pregnant wife to a hospital for a C-section in San Bernardino is indeed wanted for homicide. I found this clarification on the ABC affiliate TV station's website posted a couple of hours previous.
So next I go to the ABC News website to see if this information is provided for their readers. Here are the “Top Stories” headlines:
Trump ready to ease rules on coal-fired plants
Baby boy dies after dad finds him in hot car
Melania Trump speaks out against cyberbullying
MeToo activist reportedly paid off her own accuser
'Unacceptable violent weekend': Chicago police
Employee opens fire at warehouse, killing manager
Goats roam onto subway tracks in Brooklyn, NY
Man had violent run-in with cop before viral video
Priest disappears amid molestation allegations
US firms warn Trump against China tariffs
Nothing appears on the ABC News splash page about correcting their original story, which is available on their (ABC's) San Bernardino affiliate's website. If you search the entire website for the story itself, you find several, but none of them mention that the guy actually WAS wanted for murder.
THAT is media bias.
•A federal judge in South Carolina issued an injunction against the Trump administration Thursday, lifting a stay on an Obama-era rule that expanded federal authority under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA finalized the “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule in 2015, giving the agency the authority to regulate seasonal and relatively insignificant bodies of water as “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February 2017 to review and rewrite the WOTUS rule to constrict its application “consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.”
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt followed up on Trump's executive order in January, beginning the review process and staying the WOTUS rule until 2020. Thursday's injunction lifts Pruitt's order to stay the rule in 26 states, or every state in which a district judge has not already ordered the rule stayed.
“Navigable waters” refers to “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water,” Scalia, who died in 2016, wrote in the majority opinion in Rapanos. The definition is narrower than what the Obama administration had regulated and considered protected under the Clean Water Act.
Republicans, industry and agriculture interest groups, farmers
and ranchers have all complained about the rule and application of the Clean Water Act in general.
The Army Corps of Engineers fined a California farmer $2.8 million in 2012 (under Obama) for plowing over vernal pools, which are seasonal lakes or puddles that house some marine life. The farmer eventually settled for $1 million after trying to fight the fine in court.
Eliminate the EPA!
•Southwest Airlines issued a statement last week notifying passengers that they are limiting them to one emotional support animal per person. The only emotional support animals that will be permitted on flights are dogs and cats. When it comes to trained service animals ? defined by the airline as an animal “individually trained to perform a task(s) or work for a person with a physical and/or mental disability” ? Southwest will allow service dogs, cats and miniature horses.
Miniature horses? Isn't that discriminatory toward non-miniature horses?
•I don't know if it's because of the recently-passed Shark Week on the Discovery channel, the movie, Sharknado, or a few recent reports of shark attacks, but sharks have been all over the news cycle.
Did you know that you are more than twice as likely to be killed by a bear than by a shark?
A comparison of shark attack fatalities with bear attack fatalities in the U.S. and Canada spanning 1900 to 2009 revealed the following.
In Canada and Alaska, 49 people were killed by bears, 0 were killed by sharks. In the lower 48 states during that same time period, 14 people were killed by bears and 30 by sharks, resulting in totals of 63 people killed by bears and 30 killed by sharks.
THE OBAMA-ERA BAN OF POPULAR LIGHT BULBS COULD BE ENDING
•This is one of our favorite topics here…
From Chris White at CFact.com, the Trump administration is preparing to repeal an Obama-era rule banning a wide swath of popular light bulbs.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is ready to scrap a rule broadening the number of light bulbs that must meet strict energy efficiency standards set to take effect in 2020, according to a document the agency published on its website.
Obama's DOE expanded the class of bulbs covered by a 2007 light bulb ban to include bug lights, three-way bulbs, rough service lamps (bulbs you use in the garage when you work on your car), and some decorative bulbs, such as globe-shaped bulbs. Obama's decision came in January 2017 and included bulbs that had previously been exempt from the ban.
Obama officials argued the expansion was needed because consumers might use the unregulated bulbs to replace regulated ones. “DOE expects these sales will likely increase since these lamps could be used as replacements for other regulated lamp types,” the law notes.
Eliminating the regulation is potentially as groundbreaking as President Donald Trump's move to roll back fuel emission rules, according to some experts.
Congress passed into law in 2007 new efficiency requirements for general light bulbs, with strict requirements set to take effect in 2020. LED bulbs and compact fluorescent lamps can easily meet the 2020 standard of 45 lumens per watt, but traditional incandescent bulbs cannot.
Obama also banned sales of the 100-watt incandescent lightbulb in 2012 as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (which was signed into law by George W. Bush! Arrrgggghhhh!!! I soooo hate the Bushes) was taking
hold. Many people complained at the time, calling the bans an infringement on consumers' rights to choose how they light their homes.
That is great news, especially since my stockpile of incandescent bulbs built after the ban went into effect is starting to dwindle.
•I was thinking the other day that based on my TV show watching from my youth, I would have guessed quicksand would be a much greater problem in this country now that I'm grown up.
•From Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller, Department of the Interior (DOI) head Ryan Zinke blamed “frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists” for keeping federal officials from managing forests. He laid out Trump administration efforts to clear more forests of debris that provide fuel for fires.
“I've visited too many fire camps and spoken with too many experts to know that those who perished fighting these fires could have been saved,” Zinke wrote in an op-ed for USA Today.
Zinke went after “radical environmentalists” who use litigation to stop the federal government from actively managing forests in a way to prevent massive wildfires.
“Every year we watch our forests burn, and every year there is a call for action,” Zinke wrote in an op-ed for USA Today, detailing the Trump administration's plans to reduce wildfires.
“Yet, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods,” Zinke wrote.
Zinke signed a secretarial order demanding “aggressive fuels management and protecting structures that lie within the wildland-urban interface” and the department began “using drones like never before to monitor and contain fires,” he wrote.
For years, wildfire experts and Republican lawmakers have been calling for more active management of forests — logging, thinning, prescribed burns and other activities meant to keep fuel loads down.
Hot and dry conditions, particularly on the West Coast, prime the region for wildfire activity every year. While some scientists have linked growing wildfires to global warming, most experts say land management is the driving factor.
More than five million acres across the country have burned in wildfires, including more than 700,000 acres in California and Oregon where the U.S. Forest Service controls most of the wooded areas.
Thousands of homes have been burned to the ground and lives have been lost to the flames and smoke. Thousands of firefighters are battling blazes, including 200 active duty military personnel.
Fires across the west are burning hotter and more intense. The overload of dead and diseased timber in the forests makes the fires worse and more deadly. We must be able to actively manage our forests and not face frivolous litigation when we try to remove these fuels.
•Am I alone in growing really tired of seeing Robert Mueller's “Herman-Munster-like” noggin on the news every night?
Wrap-up this sham investigation already!
(You can follow The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax and email email@example.com)
HOT, AIN'T IT?
•While you’re sweating your way through the summer, consider this – it could be worse.
Anthony Watts from www.wattsUpWithThat.com noted recently that the environment around the weather station used to measure the official temperature changed dramatically in the past few years.
A headline recently circulation by the Associated Press:
“Death Valley sets tentative world record for hottest month.”
The month's (June or July I believe) average temperature was 108.1 degrees according to the Las Vegas office of the National Weather Service. That eclipsed the previous record, set in July 2017 when the average was 107.4 degrees.
The temperatures are measured at Furnace Creek in Death Valley National Park, a huge, abandoned and unforgiving terrain in the desert of southeastern California that includes Badwater Basin, which at 282 feet below sea level is the lowest point in North America.
Note that in Death Valley National Park, the temperature monitoring site is operated by the National Park Service.
First, yes there was a weather pattern in July that made much of the southwest hotter than usual. Key word: weather pattern.
But, what really caused the increased average high temperature to be a record setter? Simple; the environment around the weather station used to measure the official temperature changed dramatically in the past few years.
Death Valley National Park has become a tourist attraction. People seem fascinated by the extreme temperatures there. The National Park Service indulges them, making
an outdoor photo-op sign that allows them to be photographed with near record-setting temperatures.
But, the sign and the site are operated by the National Park Service, so accuracy in temperature measurement isn't their goal. They want more visitors.
With more visitors, the National Parks Service collects more money from fees. Their mission is about visitors, even though the extreme temperature is a major attraction, they aren't tasked with measuring it. While the National Park Service uses NOAA equipment for that purpose, NOAA has no say about what happens around the thermometer, and that's the issue.
The environment where the temperature is measured has changed, dramatically. Not only that, the location of the equipment has changed, and the equipment itself has changed.
Watts visited the Furnace Creek Visitor Center back in 2007. The official NOAA thermometer was poorly-sited (in violation of NOAA's own rules) near the asphalt driveway.
There was also a National Park Service operated weather station attached to the roof, which is not recommended for accurately measuring temperature.
Death Valley National Park started the rehabilitation of Furnace Creek Campground in February 2012 and will near completion at the end of this summer.
So what does this mean for temperature? In addition to the ground change from gravel to asphalt paving, which will raise night-time temperatures because asphalt acts as a heat sink for daytime solar radiation, dumping it back into the atmosphere at night, RVs can now
park overnight, and run their air conditioners thanks to the electrical hookups. Even more heat is dumped into the environment.
Then, just 74 feet away to the South, is a large solar farm. These likely raise temperatures the most as studies have found.
Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas.
One particular study found the heat island effect caused ambient air temperatures around the solar power plant compared to that of the surrounding wild desert landscape to be 5.4 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer.
So, there it is - in the hottest place on Earth, the effect of recently installed solar panels designed to reduce greenhouse gas emission, is making it even hotter!
Could anything be more absurd?
Consider this - none of the following temperature-increasing items were in-place when the original weather station was placed at Furnace Creek in 1913.
In this time period, circa 1913-1922 there were:
No visitor center
No nearby solar panels
No parking lots
No paved RV parks
No AC heat exchanger units
No golf courses
These land-use changes all likely have had a cumulative effect on temperature measured in Death Valley. Because the environment has changed so much, it's ridiculous to believe man's burning of fossil fuels is responsible for any perceived climate change.
CLIMATE CHANGE ADVOCATES WENT TOO FAR WITH POLAR BEAR VIDEO
From www.WattsUpWithThat.com, we learned of a stunning admission from National Geographic.
Remember that video last December of an emaciated polar bear that enviro-wackos went viral over? Photographer Cristina Mittermeier admitted they didn't just come across the dying bear the day it was filmed: it was spotted at least two days earlier by Paul Nicklen. The only call he made was to his film crew — he made no attempt to find a local conservation officer to euthanize the bear, which would have been the humane thing to do.
The bear's emaciated, near-death stagger was simply too tantalizing to pass up. Mittermeier claims they knew when they filmed the bear that he was sick or injured, but Nicklon presented it as an effect of climate change regardless. Mittermeier now says National Geographic simply 'went too far' with their video caption ('This is what climate change looks like'), that she and Nicklan 'lost control of the narrative.'
Statement from the organization:
“National Geographic went too far in drawing a definitive connection between climate change and a particular starving polar bear in the opening caption of our video about the animal. We said, 'This is what climate change looks like.' While science has established that there is a strong connection between melting sea ice and polar bears dying off, there is no way to know for certain why this bear was on the verge of death…”
Here are some excerpts of comments from the photographers:
“Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn't been easy. With this image, we thought we had
found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral—and people took it literally.
Paul spotted the polar bear a year ago on a scouting trip to an isolated cove on Somerset Island in the Canadian Arctic [August 2017]. He immediately asked me to assemble our…team. ..The day after his call our team flew to an Inuit village on Resolute Bay. There was no certainty that we would find the bear again or that it would still be alive. …Only when it lifted its head were we able to spot it lying on the ground, like an abandoned rug, nearly lifeless. From the shape of its body, it seemed to be a large male.
We needed to get closer; we boarded a Zodiac boat and motored to land. Strong winds covered our noise and smell. From the shelter of one of the empty buildings, we watched the bear. He didn't move for almost an hour. When he finally stood up, I had to catch my breath. Paul had warned me about the polar bear's condition, but nothing could have prepared me for what I saw.
The bear's once white coat was molted and dirty. His once robust frame was skin and bones. Every step that he took was pained and slow. We could tell he was sick or injured and that he was starving. We could see that he was probably in his last days.
I took photographs, and Paul recorded video.
When Paul posted the video on Instagram, he wrote, 'This is what starvation looks like.' He pointed out that scientists suspect polar bears will be driven to extinction in the next century. He wondered whether the global population of 25,000 polar bears would die the way this bear was dying. …
National Geographic picked up
the video and added subtitles. It became the most viewed video on National Geographic's website—ever. … The mission was a success, but there was a problem: We had lost control of the narrative. The first line of the National Geographic video said, 'This is what climate change looks like'—with 'climate change' highlighted in the brand's distinctive yellow. In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption.
Perhaps we made a mistake not telling the full story—that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future.
We had sent a 'gut-wrenching' image out into the world. We probably shouldn't have been surprised that people didn't pick up on the nuances we tried to send with it. Yet we were shocked by the response.”
I thought National Geographic was supposed to be kind to nature and animals and humane in their treatment of them? What kind of “humane” organization and people lurk for days knowing an animal is suffering an agonizingly slow death and do nothing but plan how to use that suffering animal to make money and further their fallacious cause?
Not only did Nicklen and Mittermeier cold-bloodedly exploit a defenseless, suffering animal without a thought to ending its pain, they still think that what they did was noble and self-sacrificing (they were 'on a mission'). They apparently think that their advocacy for climate change relieved them of the responsibility of being humane.
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
OIL AND GAS CRITICAL TO THE TRUMP-PUTIN RELATIONSHIP
•This 2018 Royals season is kind of surreal.
They stink badly.
Nobody is watching. They don't watch on TV in bars or restaurants, listen on radio, or attend the games in great numbers.
But it seems like the fans want to watch, they want to follow a winner, hit the K in the middle of the week, but they're just waiting for wins to follow and build their interest level.
Weird! It seems like you need to win in order for the fans to come out and pay attention.
What a novel concept!
•According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what all the polling sock puppets tell us, nobody cares about whether global warming – or climate change – is a real problem to care about.
In the summer, it gets hot. In some years, it gets really hot, in other years, not so much.
Just ride it out. It is what we have done for generations.
That's what life is all about. It's a roller-coaster.
•What are the Chiefs going to be this year? Many in KC have asked that questio
I have the answer.
They are going to be terrible.
They are led by a rookie at the quarterback position (c'mon, Mahomes is essentially an NFL rookie!) , and he has to go through his rookie growing pains. That has to happen. It even happened to Joe Montana, Steve Young, Tom Brady…name another….
If Patrick Mahomes is all that he is forecasted to be, we will see and experience it - but not until 2019 at the
earliest. It may indeed be a few years later.
So relax. Let the kid develop.
•Okay, now to the important stuff…
Whether Russia meddled in the U.S. presidential election in 2016 is not up for serious debate — numerous intelligence agencies, both foreign and domestic, concluded it did.
This is what they are telling us:
During a joint press conference with President Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin went a long way toward answering why.
“I did [want Trump to win] because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said.
That statement was widely covered, but I'm convinced something else Putin said during the press conference is more important.
“I think that we as a major oil and gas power, and the United States as a major oil and gas power, as well, we could work together on regulation of international markets,” he said. “We do have space for cooperation here.”
Some close observers have drawn this connection before, but it's worth saying again explicitly: There's no way to understand Trump's relationship with Russia without putting oil and climate politics at its center.
Fossil fuels still power 80 percent of the world's economy. You can see why rapidly reinforcing efficient energy sources — exactly what science says we have to do — might be fiercely supported by politicians.
Russia is a petrostate, and the U.S. is now, too. In fact, the two countries are the world's largest non-OPEC oil producers, extracting nearly as much as all OPEC countries combined. They also own an even greater share of the global natural gas
market: Added together the two countries produce six times more natural gas than the rest of the world.
By working together, they can keep the global economy swimming in oil and gas.
And what's the primary force working against the fossil fuel industry these days? Climate activists.
Trump's promise to withdraw from the Paris climate accord was specifically designed to weaken that agreement — and the spirit of cooperation it helped embody.
Trump's moves to open up offshore drilling in the Arctic will help both the U.S. and Russia access the oil-rich and increasingly ice-free region.
It will also hugely improve the economies of both countries.
Trump's steel tariffs on Europe will help bolster Russia's pipeline-building oil and gas industry.
Trump's claims that by purchasing natural gas, Germany was being “controlled by” Russia is a window into his vision of fossil fuel-driven geopolitics.
This is a good thing for us.
Trump's buddying with North Korea might even be designed to clear the way for a Russian gas pipeline there.
From their comments leading up to Monday's meeting, it's clear that Trump and Putin see the oil and gas industry as a critical component to their working relationship.
Once again, this is good.
They are working right into our hands.
Where fossil fuels are on the ledger, the United States wins, and our worldwide enemies lose.
Let's make America great again!
(Reach Landmark columnist Brian Kubicki by email to email@example.com)
THE REASON TRUMP WASN'T OUTRAGED
•It is amusing listening to RINOs, NeverTrumpers, and Democrats venting over President Trump's comments about his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. They apparently expected Trump to horsewhip Putin on a national stage. Truth is Trump is fully aware that the previous administration and the Clinton Campaign conspired against his campaign by spying on him and his campaign staff during and after the election. Those are facts. How is he supposed to be outraged that John Podesta was too stupid to know that you shouldn't click on a phishing email?
•Read in WattsUpWithThat.com this week that there may be more than one quadrillion tons of diamond hidden in the Earth's interior, according to a new study from MIT and other universities.
Don't grab your shovels just yet though. Scientists estimate the precious minerals are buried more than 100 miles below the surface, far deeper than any drilling expedition has ever reached.
The ultradeep cache may be scattered within cratonic roots — the oldest and most immovable sections of rock that lie beneath the center of most continental tectonic plates. Shaped like inverted mountains, cratons can stretch as deep as 200 miles through the Earth's crust and into its mantle.
Scientists estimate that cratonic roots may contain 1 to 2 percent diamond.
Considering the total volume of cratonic roots in the Earth, the team figures that about a quadrillion tons of diamond are scattered within these ancient rocks, 90 to 150 miles below the surface.
“This shows that diamond is not perhaps this exotic mineral, but on the [geological] scale of things, it's relatively common,” says Ulrich Faul, a research scientist in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric,
and Planetary Sciences.
"We can't get at them, but still, there is much more diamond there than we have ever thought before.”
In a way, Faul says cratonic roots made partly of diamond makes sense. Diamonds are forged in the high-pressure, high-temperature environment of the deep Earth and only make it close to the surface through volcanic eruptions that occur every few tens of millions of years. These eruptions carve out geologic “pipes” made of a type of rock called kimberlite (named after the town of Kimberley, South Africa, where the first diamonds in this type of rock were found).
Diamond, along with magma from deep in the Earth, can spew out through kimberlite pipes, onto the surface of the Earth.
For the most part, kimberlite pipes have been found at the edges of cratonic roots, such as in certain parts of Canada, Siberia, Australia, and South Africa. It would make sense, then, that cratonic roots should contain some diamond in their makeup. When we one day figure out how to mine to that depth, diamonds are going to become worthless.
•President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy prompted rampant speculation about the future of Roe v. Wade. There was less talk, however, about Massachusetts v. EPA.
The latter ruling is the reason the EPA has the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires the government to regulate air pollution—in fact, the EPA was created to implement those requirements—but in 2003 the Bush administration insisted that the law didn't compel it to regulate greenhouses gases such as carbon dioxide. Massachusetts and other liberal-hive/states and cities disagreed, and sued.
When the case reached the high court, the justices narrowly ruled that greenhouse gases were indeed pollutants. Kennedy was the deciding vote, joining the court's four liberal justices. Now, with Kavanaugh set to replace Kennedy, conservatives may have the votes to overturn that precedent.
Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old judge for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is pretty consistently conservative on the environment. That includes the issue of greenhouse gases. Kavanaugh will not be intimidated to say that greenhouse gases don't fall into the category of pollutants the Clean Air Act was supposed to address. He has exhibited a level of discomfort for anything that appears to be an extension in authority for the EPA.
In a 2012 case, for instance, Kavanaugh rejected the EPA's authority to create a greenhouse gas permitting program. “The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important,” he wrote. But, he added, “As a court it is not our job to make policy choices.”
Overturning Massachusetts v. EPA is important because the decision was the impetus for the EPA's 2009 rule—known as “the endangerment finding”—stating that climate change is hazardous to human health and must be regulated. That rule is the main reason the Trump administration can't simply eliminate every climate regulation President Barack Obama put in place during his tenure. Overturning Massachusetts v. EPA would thus make it easier for Trump's EPA to do away with the endangerment finding, and create a path for gutting air pollution regulations.
So don't be disheartened if you hear Kavanaugh say during his confirmation hearing that he believes man causes global warming. He needs to feed that to the libs to get confirmed..
SOLAR COLLECTORS AND WIND TURBINES BRING RELIABILITY ISSUES
Did you hear that thousands of Southern Californians were left without power as a heat wave gripped the region? 15,000 Los Angeles residents were still without power Monday morning. The outages were a result of too much strain placed on the grid as people cranked up their air conditioning to escape the heat. (Who could have predicted THAT?!?)
The electric grid on Friday reached 6,256 megawatts, a record for a July day. Saturday exceeded 5,700 megawatts, the second-highest weekend day ever recorded in Los Angeles history. The extremely high use of the grid comes as Los Angeles is undergoing a scorching heat wave.
Utility crews have worked non-stop to bring relief to residents with no air conditioning. While 15,000 people still had no power on Monday morning, it was an improvement of the 30,000 who were powerless a day before.
The power outages come as no surprise to those who have long warned that California was at risk of rolling blackouts. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the grid reliability watchdog in the U.S., cautioned that California was at potential risk of power outages during summer heat waves, with NERC officials stating in May that California has “potential reliability concerns” stemming from “a resource shortfall or a diminishing resource surplus.”
The state’s grid reliability issues are largely due to closed-down power plants and a lack of energy storage. That’s what you get when you replace reliable fossil fuel power plants with solar collectors and wind turbines!
•Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller noted recently that United Kingdom meteorologists won’t be declaring a June 28 temperature reading as the hottest recorded in Scotland since the early 20th century
after discovering a car parked near the weather station may have contaminated the data.
That’s science for you!
•I love when Supreme Court nomination time rolls around under a Republican President and the Democrats kick their smear machine into gear insisting that any and all potential candidates be forced to publicly admit that they believe in Stare Decisis, which is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. They of course use it as a wedge against nominees that may be in favor of repealing Roe vs Wade.
I’d like to know if Democrats think that the Dred Scott Decision, an 1857 case wherein the Supreme Court held that black slaves were not considered people under the U.S. Constitution, should be restored using the principle of stare decisis?
What about Korematsu vs. United States, the 1944 Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling the exclusion order was constitutional. Six of the eight justices appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt sided with Roosevelt. The two others and the lone Herbert Hoover appointee, Owen Roberts, dissented.
Should that decision be restored using stare decisis?
And for the record, I am not going to fill my pants over the bona-fides of a Supreme Court nominee. The key is he or she staying true to the Constitution as they fit into liberal D.C.
•The city of Motherwell, southeast of Glasgow, Scotland recorded a record-high temperature of 91.8 degrees on June 28, according to Met
Office figures, breaking the previous record of 91.2 degrees set in Greycrook in August 2003.
The record temperature reading was noted in the Washington Post. The Post’s Capital Weather Gang included Motherwell’s heat in a round-up of record-high temperatures around the world.
“No single record, in isolation, can be attributed to global warming,” the Post reported, trying to link summer weather to global warming. “But collectively, these heat records are consistent with the kind of extremes we expect to see increase in a warming world.”
However, the Met Office posted a blog post on Thursday noting “subsequent information has cast some doubt on the Motherwell measurement for that day, meaning that we will not be able to accept it as an official new record for Scotland.”
So what happened? It turns out exhaust from a nearby vehicle may have heated up the weather station that reported the record-breaking heat.
“Unfortunately in this particular instance we have evidence that a stationary vehicle with its engine running was parked too close to the observing enclosure and the Stevenson screen housing the thermometers during the afternoon of 28th June,” the Met Office explained.
“Although the measurement appears plausible given the weather conditions that day we cannot rule-out the potential for contamination of the measurement by this non-weather-related factor,” officials wrote.
This is a common problem for weather stations. Many are located in urban areas, especially airports, where they’re susceptible to urban heat islands (UHI) — which results in erroneous measurement data falsely indicating warmth present in cities. They are contaminated by artificial heat sources.
GOODBYE SPORKS IN SEATTLE
•From Tony Heller at The Deplorable Climate Science Blog, a review of June temperature data from 1895 to 2018 from all U.S. historical climatological network stations revealed some interesting observations.
Maximum temperatures have been a little below average.
Mean temperatures have been a little above average.
The frequency of hot days has been about average.
Conclusion: June is typically hot.
•From the Seattle Times, climate nonsense lives and breathes.
All businesses that sell food or drinks must offer compostable or recyclable options — or ask patrons to forgo the tools altogether — come next July as part of a citywide ordinance to curb plastic waste across the city.
The ban is intended to prevent the plastic from polluting ocean waters and threatening marine life. It is among similar efforts by advocacy groups in largely Democrat-led cities spanning the country, from San Diego to Miami.
Supporters say the change will save one million plastic straws from circulating in Seattle this month alone. That many straws end to end could nearly cover the distance from Seattle to the Canadian border. Who would stack straws end-to-end? Isn't that a pipeline?
Many places across the city have made the switch from plastic to compostable straws, utensils and other items, including CenturyLink Field, Safeco Field and Columbia Tower's Juicy Café, for example. Other local restaurants, such as Kidd Valley, are in the process of phasing out plastics.
“When they go to a restaurant they may not get a straw — and that's OK,” Ives said, shortly after a Thursday-morning event at the Seattle Aquarium to raise awareness for the September campaign. “They're a part of this.”
Seattle's ban on plastic straws and utensils is part of a 2008 ordinance that phases out various plastic products from the city's food industry, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) spokeswoman Becca Fong said. Grocery and supply stores are not included.
SPU officials revisit the list each year, creating exemptions for certain plastic items — such as straws and other utensils. But come June 30 they will let that exemption expire, Fong said.
Restaurant leaders for years have supported a switch to remove the plastic tools from the ordinance's exemptions, she said. But they waited until the supply market advanced enough to provide good alternatives, like compostable spoons that will not melt in hot soup.
“Seattle is a super-progressive city, and we had a lot of support for phasing some of these things out,” Fong said. “But the market had not caught up.”
Via mailers and outreach events, SPU is reaching out to business owners to help them prepare for the switch from plastic straws and utensils, she said. The agency will also host a public-comment period.
At this point, it is unclear if the city will allow a grace period for places to swap out plastic supplies after the ban takes effect in July. Also unclear is whether the city will fine businesses for serving the plastic items.
As part of that push, SPU is working with leaders of the campaign to protect whales, turtles, seabirds and other marine life, led by the Lonely Whale Foundation.
The advocacy nonprofit launched “Strawless in Seattle” this month with support from big-name influencers, including the Seahawks, Mariners, Space Needle and Port of Seattle.
Participants will use straws by one manufacturer, specifically, called Aardvark Straws. The foundation applauds Aardvark for making “flexible, customizable, durable and marine degradable paper straws that decompose in just 45-90 days.”
More than 170 species of marine life are affected by ingesting debris, according to biologists. Researchers estimate that more than 70 percent of seabirds worldwide, for instance, have swallowed plastic at some point, according to a 2015 research paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Actor Adrian Grenier, who is known for playing Vincent Chase in HBO's “Entourage” series, is a co-founder of the Lonely Whale Foundation. “We are living during a critical turning point for our ocean, and that's why I'm excited to celebrate the city of Seattle as a true ocean health leader,” he said in a news release. The nonprofit is set to launch similar campaigns in cities elsewhere, too.
The movement nationwide to stop plastic straws from polluting seas took off after a video of a sea turtle with a straw stuck in its nose went viral online in 2015.
More than 12.8 million people have viewed the clip. Another popular video shows a sea turtle harmed by a plastic fork.
Manhattan Beach outside Los Angeles has banned all disposable plastics, including straws, The Washington Post reported.
Berkeley, Calif., is also considering a ban. And restaurants in San Diego; Huntington Beach, Calif.; Asbury Park, N.J.; New York; Miami; Bradenton, Fla.; London; and British Columbia have pledged to ban straws or withhold them until patrons ask for them, the newspaper reported.
This is just nuts! When I order fish, turtle soup, or whale, I am pleased to remove the straw from my meal before I eat it. Isn't that just common sense?
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org)
THE NETWORK OF NONSENSE IS BEING DISMANTLED
•The Trump administration seems to be getting ready to take the subject of climate change away from the responsibility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is part of the Department of Commerce, for some odd reason.
Past and present missions for the agency have been: “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” The present mission removes the word “climate” and the wording changed: “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”
Also, a new emphasis was added: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
Piece-by-piece the Obama Network of Nonsense is slowly and steadily being dismantled!
•Did you know that this is the 30th anniversary of climate alarmist James Hansen's testimony to Congress regarding “global warming?” It was his testimony that set off the disastrous 30 Year War on Carbon.
It has been a war with many victims; mostly the poor who can least afford it. It's a war that has increased energy prices across the board.
How did we get into this insane fight against a natural component of the atmosphere? Much of it traces back to a very successful scam pulled off by James Hansen surrounding his Congressional testimony during that summer 30 years ago.
Here's a description of the deception from an interview with Senator Tim Wirth, one of the con men who helped Hansen with his Congressional testimony. The interviewer is asking Senator Wirth about the events surrounding that Congressional Hearing. The interviewer asks:
“What else was happening that summer? What was the weather like that summer?”
Senator Wirth: “Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense…”
So these clowns set the stage for hyping “global warming” by deliberately choosing the hottest day of the year for Hansen's testimony. Then they morphed his oh-so-movingly hot testimony into a very successful partisan political issue for the Democrats.
But that's not all of it. Here's the next question to Senator Wirth:
“And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?”
Senator Wirth: “… What we did was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …
So Hansen's giving this testimony, you've got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn't appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …”
They picked the hottest day, opened the windows, and disabled the air conditioning to create a made-for-tv illusion of global warming, nobody could deny it seeing Hansen and the Senators sweat … and now Senator Wirth is boasting about how clever they were.
The Thirty Year War on carbon dioxide was born of lies, cheating, deliberate subterfuge, and intentional misrepresentations by James Hansen and Senator Tim Wirth … and it has continued down that same path since the beginning.
The most amazing part of this story is that even though these scientific malfeasants fooled Congress, lied, stacked peer review panels with climate alarmists, and though the governments and universities and scientific organizations and the mainstream media all bought into their deceit, even despite the fact that tragically they poured billions and billions of dollars into the effort, they still haven't convinced the core of the US population that CO2 is the control knob that can simply be turned up and down to regulate the global temperature to the nearest degree.
Thirty years, and all that time and effort and deception, but they still couldn't pull it off.
•The war on carbon and human progress is not over, but we're winning!
(Email Landmark columnist Brian Kubicki at email@example.com)
IG REPORT FINDS PRO-CLINTON BIAS IN FBI'S PROBE
••The liberal media's obsession with Border Patrol agents “tearing children away from their parents” who are storming the border supposedly fleeing oppression is nothing more than an attempt for Democrats to deflect from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General (IG) report on the Clinton Server and FBI controversy. Do not let them distract you from what is REALLY important.
•On Thursday, the Justice Department's IG released a long-anticipated report on the FBI's handling of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private server that handled classified information.
Mollie Hemingway wrote a fantastic summary of that report that appeared at TheFederalist.com. Highlights follow:
The 568-page report includes many examples of then-FBI Director James Comey being duplicitous and sneaky during his handling of the Clinton email probe. For instance, he asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch how to handle questions regarding the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information on a secret server. She told him to call it a “matter.” He didn't object and even complied.
Comey also claimed he didn't grasp the significance of the hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails being found on Weiner's computer because he didn't know that Weiner was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Some FBI sleuth he was!
The claim is hardly exonerating. It would mean he was not interested to learn that hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails relevant to a highly charged criminal investigation were found on the laptop of an unrelated man.
The report showed myriad FBI employees violating FBI policy and department ethics rules.
FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events.
In September 2016, when an investigator in the Southern District of New York found hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails and Blackberry messages on a laptop being searched in relation to an investigation of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, he immediately alerted his supervisors. They alerted the FBI, who sat on the information for weeks, only acting after the New York office complained repeatedly.
By Oct. 3, the case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation expressed concern that the FBI appeared to be sitting on what he'd told them.
The FBI claimed that they didn't take action on the laptop because “…key members of the FBI Midyear team had been reassigned to the investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election, which was a higher priority.”
So Hillary was ahead in the polls, would likely be president, so the FBI decided it was a higher priority to look into Trump-Russia so as to serve it up for President Hillary to take it on after the election!!!
The IG found breathtaking anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias from five of the key employees handling the Clinton email probe. No evidence was found of pro-Trump bias.
The texts range from vile insults of Trump and his supporters to fears about how awful a Trump presidency would be and the need to prevent it. One employee said Trump voters were “all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer discussed feeling “numb” by Trump's November 2016 election win, later proclaiming “Viva le Resistance” when asked about Trump.
Strzok wrote in July 2016, “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his Presidency would be.” After the election, Page wrote that she'd bought “All the President's Men,” adding, “Figure I needed to brush up on watergate.” The two openly fantasize about impeachment.
In the preparation to interview Clinton as part of the criminal probe, Page tells a handful of her colleagues to take it easy on Clinton. “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear.”
After each text exchange, the IG report includes defenses from the agents, some even harder to believe than the previous:
August 8, 2016: In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated, “[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, 'No. No he's not. We'll stop it.' When asked about this text message, Strzok stated that he did not specifically recall sending it, but that he believed that it was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact the investigation.
•Then there was this…
The IG found that Obama was “one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail[.]com account.”
In fact, Clinton used her private email for “an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary,” a move that led investigators to believe hostile actors had likely gained access to her server. But a paragraph in a draft of Comey's exoneration of Clinton was changed from Obama to “another senior government official,” and later deleted. Obama had falsely told reporters he didn't know of Clinton's private email system.
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)
THE G7 IS ONLY ABOUT GETTING MORE MONEY OUT OF THE U.S.
•For the record, President Trump meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is a mistake.
A leader of the free world should not meet with the leader of a brutal dictatorship because such an action elevates the status of the brutal dictator.
Trump should bring Un to his knees. They have nothing to bargain with. Are they really going to fire a nuclear weapon onto American soil? Give up your nuclear weapons and free your people or face the might of America.
It is that simple.
•President Trump departed from last weekend's G7 summit in Canada several hours early, punctuating an explosion of angst among his foreign liberal Leftie counterparts.
Trump departed mid-morning on Saturday, skipping sessions on climate change and the environment. An aide will take his place, the White House said.
I would have LOVED to be that aide!
The announcement came as Trump engaged in a bitter back-and-forth with French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over Twitter.
Trump expected, and got, a cool reception from Germany, France, and Canada over trade during his time at the conference, held in remote Quebec.
At the end of the day, the G7 is only about getting more money out of the US, whether it be in the form of tariffs, carbon taxes, or actual monetary aid. That's all the United States is to these leftie countries. Let them fund their own nonsense for a while.
•The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote last week that Obama's Environmental Protection Agency jammed through an average of 565 new rules each year during his eight years, imposing the highest regulatory costs of any agency. It pulled off this regulatory spree in part by gaming cost-benefit analysis to downplay the consequences of its major environmental rules. The Trump Administration has already rolled back some of this overregulation, and now Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to stop the EPA's numerical deceptions as well.
On Thursday the EPA will take the first step toward a comprehensive cost-benefit reform by issuing an advance notice of proposed rule-making. After weighing public input, EPA will propose a rule establishing an agency-wide standard for how regulations are assessed. The reform would make it easier for Americans and their elected representatives to see whether more regulation is truly justifiable.
The EPA has a statutory obligation to look at the costs and benefits of many proposed rules. That responsibility has been reinforced by executive orders and court rulings. But while all three branches of government have supported such assessments, they leave the EPA broad discretion. Enter the Obama Administration, which saw the chance to add additional considerations to the cost-benefit equation.
By introducing “social costs” and “social benefits,” the EPA began factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma. EPA optimists even included their guesses about how domestic regulations could have a global impact. Meanwhile, the agency ignored best practices from the Office of Management and Budget, juking the numbers to raise the cost of carbon emissions.
This proved as politically useful as it was scientifically imprecise. Months before introducing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA suddenly raised the social cost of a ton of carbon emissions to an average of $36 from $21. Before it embarked on new oil and gas regulations, the EPA put the social cost of methane at an average of $1,100 per ton.
At White House direction, the Trump EPA recalculated those figures last year to include only demonstrable domestic benefits. The social cost estimates dropped to an average of $5 per ton of carbon and $150 per ton of methane. That made a big difference in the cost-benefit analysis. While the Obama Administration claimed the Clean Power Plan would yield up to $43 billion in net benefits by 2030, the Trump EPA concluded it would carry a $13 billion net cost.
Another statistical sleight of hand involves the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The regulation's stated purpose was to reduce mercury pollution, but the EPA added the rule's potential to decrease dust. That was irrelevant to the central question of whether it was worthwhile to regulate mercury as proposed. But without the erroneous co-benefits, EPA would find such regulations tougher to justify.
The regulatory specifics will be hashed out in the coming months, but there's real potential here to curb the distortions that mask bad policy. If Mr. Pruitt succeeds, future cost-benefit analyses will be more consistent and transparent. The reform would help to ensure regulation is based on sound scientific analysis instead of wishful bureaucratic thinking.
I've said it before and it bears repeating – Scott Pruitt is the most important and effective cabinet member of the Trump Administration. The more the liberal media tries to make up controversies about Pruitt, the more effective he is being at dismantling the Obama liberal regulation machine.
Get behind Pruitt and be vocal about it!
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at email@example.com and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)
THE WEIGHT OF LIFE UNDERGROUND
•Remember when I once told you that the weight of all the life underground, like earthworms and whatnot, outweighs all the life on top of the ground? Well, here's some elucidation…
A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers some interesting information. Every living thing on Earth — from the tiniest bacteria to a mighty redwood tree — weighs a combined 550 gigatons when removing water from the equation.
One gigaton is one trillion metric tons. You're probably going to be surprised by how little humans contribute to that total. As it turns out, the combined weights of many different classes of animals outweigh humans by a huge margin. Fish, for example, weigh roughly 0.7 GT C (gigatons of carbon), while viruses weigh around 0.2 GT C. Humans weigh even less than that.
According to the research, the combined weight of humans comes in at approximately 0.06 GT C. We're outweighed by almost everything, including bacteria (70 GT C), fungi (12 GT C), arthropods (1 GT C), Mollusks (0.2 GT C) and even our own livestock (0.1 GT C). When combined, the mass of humans and their livestock outweigh wild mammals by a huge margin, with wild mammals only accounting for 0.007 GT C. In fact, all of the animal kingdom only accounts for a measly two gigatons overall.
The biggest heavyweight? Plants, of course! Plants account for an absolutely mind-boggling 450 GT C. That's every tree, blade of grass, vine, veggie and floating clump of algae, among many other things.
To arrive at these figures, scientists spent three years calculating the biomass of every living thing and feeding that data into their census. They initially intended to discover the amounts of different proteins present on the planet — the scientists will be working more on that soon — but in order to do so they had to also figure out how much all life on Earth weighs, which is probably a more interesting data point for most casual science fans.
So we humans really aren't that much of a “thing” and never have been.
•Netflix host “Science Guy” Bill Nye has a new solution for the world's environmental problems: tax cow farts.
“Well, this is what we can do and it's a win-win: to have a fee on carbon. So if you are raising livestock and producing a lot of carbon dioxide with your farm equipment and the exhaust from the animals, then you would pay a fee on that and it would be reflected in the price of meat, reflected in the price of fish, reflected in the price of peanuts,” Bill Nye said in a recent interview with the Daily Beast.
“This would be a free-market way to reckon the real cost of a meat diet to the world,” Nye continued. “But conservatives now are against such a thing because they're against any regulation, any tax or any government involvement in anything. But again, it won't last, and a carbon fee would be a fantastic thing for the world.
How exactly are taxes a part of the free market?
Environmentalists have been barfing up nonsense like this for years. In 2008, Rajendra Pachauri the then-head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was urging people to go meat-free at least once a week to save the planet.
In 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), also urged the world to go vegan, claiming in a report: “Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.”
In 2016, an Oxford University report made much the same claim: “The research, led by scientists at the Oxford Martin School, found that shifting to a mostly vegetarian diet, or even simply cutting down meat consumption to within accepted health guidelines, would make a large dent in greenhouse gases.”
But there is, in fact, little scientific evidence to support the contention that cow farts contribute in any serious way to global warming.
As climate scientist Tim Ball has argued, the myth arose because “special interest environmental groups used inadequate data and scientific knowledge to create a false narrative.”
In fact, Ball says:
Methane is 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases and only 0.36% of the total greenhouse gases. These fractions were so small that even people who didn't understand the science became skeptical of the claims that it was doing harm.
But Nye's cow farts theory is just another part of his nonsensical opinions on mankind and environmentalism, many of which regurgitate the green lobby's favorite scare stories.
Last year, for example, the Bill Nye Saves the World star charmingly hinted that the best thing older people can do to save the planet is die:
“Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It's generational. So we're just going to have to wait for those people to 'age out,' as they say.” “Age out” is a euphemism for “die.”
We can say the same thing for environuts like Nye.
(Email The Landmark’s Brian Kubicki at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)
Paralax Look archives