Eat Meat and You Will Kill the Planet thumbnail

Eat Meat and You Will Kill the Planet

By Karen Schoen

C40 Cities – A global network of mayors taking urgent climate action is group of mayors that are united in action to address the Climate Crisis. There is no climate crisis. It is a hoax devised to control all land and food.  Through years of clever marketing in schools the Globalists have indoctrinated the Affirmative Action graduates that if they give up their rights and ownership of private property they will save the planet. Using food as a weapon they have convinced the students to live in a world without CO2 and any other “greenhouse gas” in order to benefit the common good. A world without CO2 and greenhouse gases will have no life. Basically graduates now in government and bureaucratic positions are being coached to kill off the human race.  The Globalist goal is always depopulation.

Globalists have convinced the masses that living a sustainable lifestyle, a life under strict control of elites will save the planet from extreme weather (a lie).  What easier way to force farmers off their land than to condemn cows as the culprit claiming cows are destroying the planet by expelling greenhouse gases.  Of course they never mention that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. 5% of the rest of the gases left can not  affect anything but students without a math or science background will never understand that.

Picking on the very food, meat, that supplies much needed protein to the human race is the problem globalists claim. More than 1,600 scientists and other scholars sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ declaration | The College Fix.  Eliminating protein from the diet weakens the body.  You have less energy, ambition, confidence and patience.  You will comply which is the goal. The purpose of the Climate Hoax is nothing more than to convince you to do more for less, redistribute wealth out of the hands of the middle class into the hands of the elite and to make sure you will own nothing and they will be happy.

Because of the American focus on the god of money, mayors of 14 American cities have jumped on the bandwagon and will follow the restrictions of UN Agenda 2030 and ban meat.  Mayor of NYC, Eric Adams, has already started banning meat in public governed agencies like schools and prisons.

These 14 US Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat By 2030

Today foreign countries own and control much of the food source in America. Who knows what we are eating or how it is made?  China controls the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer, Smithfield Foods. After China knowingly gave us Covid, how do we know what is in our bacon?  However some states are waking up to the dangers of foreign countries with the destruction of Americans as their goal, owning American farmland. It is a bad idea all around.  George Bush 41, allowed foreign countries to “buy” America with Executive Order 12803. An Executive Order IS NOT a law. Time to repeal that one.

Governor Sanders is the first to sign such a bill. The bill tells China they have 2 years to divest of the farmland of Arkansas.

Arizona Governor Hobbs just blocked Saudi Arabia from pumping water for their farmland while Arizona suffered a 15 year drought. The problem I have is with the lies in the last paragraph of the article which guides the reader into thinking they can fix the drought by giving up fossil fuel and meat.

“Human-related air pollution is one of the key drivers of global heating, so moving away from dirty fuel, cutting meat consumption, and recycling are small but helpful ways to prevent the volumes of harmful, planet-warming gases we produce annually.”

Scientist need grants to survive so they publish articles that leave out facts in order to  tow the line of the Globalists narrative.   The media then carries the false narrative.  Lying about meat is one of those lies.  Once farmers are restricted enough their land becomes useless and the Globalists get to buy the land for pennies on the dollar.

Control the food, control the people. Hungry people are not interested and have no energy for fighting the very government who will feed them.

Learn the truth. Sustainability means control.

Will you comply?

©2023. Karen Schoen. All rights reserved.

AWED BALANCED NEWS: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections. thumbnail

AWED BALANCED NEWS: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

By John Droz, Jr.

Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

Here is the link for this issue, so please share it on social media.

Checkout the 2023, 2022, 2021 & 2020 archives, plus asterisked items below.

If you like the Newsletter, signup for my free Critical Thinking substack

— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —

If You Only Have Time to Read a Few Select Articles:

*** Pollster Rasmussen Says “Election Fraud Renders Scientific Election Forecasting Worthless” – Will Start Sharing Evidence

*** What If We Excused Other Crimes the Way We Do Election Fraud?

*** There Is No Election Integrity, It’s up to Us

*** Ken Paxton Delivers the Best Explanation of Mail-In Voter Fraud You’ll Ever Hear

*** Tucker Carlson’s Full Speech at ISI’s 70th Anniversary Gala

*** A request for help from John Eastman

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 1

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 2

*** Short video: Woke Curriculums Have Got to Go!

*** NC Sets Hearing Guidelines for Disgruntled K-12 Parents

*** Wind Blows

*** Windbaggery: The wind energy sector’s days are numbered

*** The Energy Transition is Social Vandalism

*** The electric grid needs good failure mode analysis

*** Report: Six Ways Renewables Increase Electricity Bills

*** The Speech that Everyone is Talking About

*** Rishi Sunak speaks sense on Net Zero

*** Climate scientist: I designed my research to sound catastrophic

*** On the Eve of the Catholic Synod, Five Cardinals Release Five Concerns to Pope Francis

*** America’s Armageddon

*** Israel’s military says force is ‘at war’ with Hamas as IDF hits back at terror targets

*** How Big Pharma Blocks Accountability

Secondary Education Related:

*** Report: The Key to Fixing the US Education System

*** Short video: Woke Curriculums Have Got to Go!

*** California’s Math Misadventure Is About to Go National

*** NC Sets Hearing Guidelines for Disgruntled K-12 Parents

*** Elections for NC Board of Education Could Be Coming

Students at 40% of Baltimore high schools failed math proficiency exam: ‘Educational homicide’

Video: “New” Science Is Marxist Indoctrination

Florida ranked number one for education freedom and leftists are losing their minds

Report: School Districts With DEI Officers Not Improving Education for Black and Hispanic Students

Higher Education Related:

*** Just Pass Everyone: Australian universities face a govt prohibition on failing grades

How to Control College Costs in 2023 and Beyond

The Utopianism of ‘Mental Health’

Why Are Universities so Left?

For Just $83,140, Princeton Will Train Your Son to Be a Drag Queen

Artificial Intelligence:

The AI Revolution Is Bad News for Net Zero

Microsoft CEO testifies against Google in antitrust trial

Sam Altman Wants To Replace Normal People With AI

The Great AI Invasion: Technocracy’s Final Solution

Greed Energy Economics:

*** Report: Six Ways Renewables Increase Electricity Bills

Solar Is Getting 302 Times More In Federal Subsidies Than Nuclear

Unreliables (General):

*** The Energy Transition is Social Vandalism

*** The electric grid needs good failure mode analysis

Kansas Republican Party Resolves to Protect Kansans from Unreliable and Foreign-Sourced ‘Renewable’ Wind and Solar Energy

Wind Energy — Offshore:

Environmentalists Seek to Save the Whales from Offshore Wind Energy

Desperate governors beg for offshore wind cost relief

Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise

Wind Energy — Other:

*** Taking the Wind Out of Climate Change (referencing 60± studies)

*** Wind Blows

*** Windbaggery: The wind energy sector’s days are numbered

Too cute by half

Turbine graveyards’ sprawled across Texas

Nuclear Energy:

Russia and China Dominating the Race for Nuclear Electricity Generation

Are Small Nuclear Reactors The Answer To Big-Tech’s Energy Crisis?

Rolls-Royce among six firms shortlisted for British small nuclear plants

After closing its nuclear plants, Germany turns to coal to survive the winter

Fossil Fuel Energy:

Unintended Consequences: The California Electric Truck Mandate

Biden’s war on energy continues with unprecedented restrictions on offshore oil and gas lease sales

How today’s global anti-fossil-fuel agenda is crippling American small businesses

Bryan Caplan teaches Fossil Future

Report: European Fossil Fuels: Resources and Proven Reserves

Electric Vehicles (EVs):

AAF Applauds Ford for Pausing EV Battery Production

Fossil Fuels are Needed to Create and Charge EV Batteries—Who Knew?

Switzerland to BAN Electric Cars to Reduce Energy Consumption

Government Admits: No Net Benefit To EV Mandates

Town Falls Back on Diesel Fleet After None of Its Electric Buses Work

10 Reasons Not To Own An EV

Misc Energy:

*** Soviet-era tech could change the geothermal industry

Public Need to be Able to Scrutinize the True Costs on Net-Zero Energy Policy

Could big U.S. subsidies for Hydrogen create perverse incentives, raise emissions?

The dangerous delusion of a global transition to “just electricity”

Manmade Global Warming — Some Deceptions:

*** Climate scientist: I designed my research to sound catastrophic

CO2 and Sea Level DO NOT Correlate

Climate extremists are afraid to debate. Maybe they should be

Scientific American Wants To “jeopardize rain and crops”

Macron rules out ban on gas boilers and attacks ‘climate alarmism’

Climate extremists are afraid to debate. Maybe they should be

Manmade Global Warming — Misc:

*** The Speech that Everyone is Talking About

*** Rishi Sunak speaks sense on Net Zero

*** Truth and Science: A Nobel Laureate’s Advice to Students

*** The FULL Judith Curry Interview: Climate Scientist Says World Won’t End

*** Dr William Happer’s excellent Australian talk

The Jupiter Effect: Climate Change Policy From On High

Turning Up The Heat Index

Canada will soon be Alone and Ignored in its Climate Obsession

Climate Change Lies

What Oregon Teaches Us About The “Climate Crisis”

Biden’s Net-Zero Policies Will Invite Actual Environmental Crises

US Election:

Election-Integrity.info (10 major election reports by our team of experts, plus much more!)

*** Pollster Rasmussen Says “Election Fraud Renders Scientific Election Forecasting Worthless” – Will Start Sharing Evidence

*** What If We Excused Other Crimes the Way We Do Election Fraud?

*** There is No Election Integrity — It’s Up to Us

*** Conservatives Should Look More Closely at Systemic Election Reforms

*** Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was election integrity

Stunning: “40 Million US Christians Do Not Vote”

Second Republican debate: Here’s the biggest winner and the biggest loser

Legislator election lawsuit: Not your run-of-the-mill federal case

RFK Jr. Could Make Dem ’24 Election Odds Worse

The Real Motive for Jan. 6

US Election — John Eastman:

*** A request for help from John Eastman

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 1

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 2

*** Physicist Testifying at Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Attorney Former John Eastman Discusses Report That Found 130,000 Instances of ‘Voter Fraud’ in Nevada

*** In Disbarment Trial Of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, Retired DoD Analyst Reveals Biden Got Fewer Votes Than Hillary In Philadelphia

Election Audits Across the United States

US Election — State Issues:

*** Ken Paxton Delivers the Best Explanation of Mail-In Voter Fraud You’ll Ever Hear

After acquittal, Texas Attorney General sits down with Tucker Carlson for interview

RITE Letter to Maryland’s Board of Elections

Dems flood Virginia with cash ahead of off-year elections

Fed lawsuit claims violations of Michigan legislators’ civil rights

Automatic voter registration will lead to foreign nationals getting on voter rolls

NY Citizens Audit Director’s Presentation

US Politics — House Speaker:

*** House votes to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker in a historic first

*** It’s time: Devin Nunes, 56th House Speaker

Fool’s Errand’: McCarthy Removed as Speaker

These are the Things the New Speaker of the House MUST Believe In, or they will Fail Miserably

Rep. Jordan to Newsmax: I Can Unify Republicans as Speaker

McCarthy is Done and Now, the Real Story Begins

Misc US Politics:

*** Donald Trump Followers Targeted by FBI as 2024 Election Nears

*** The 2024 Election: A Battle Between the 7 Deadly Sins and 7 Heavenly Virtues

*** Here’s How Biden Admin Destroyed Our Immigration Law

Hillary wants to send you to the nuthouse

Why I Had to Leave the Democratic Party

New Documents Link Biden Family Influence Peddling Scheme to 23 Countries, Four Continents

Here’s All The Evidence Connecting Joe Biden To Hunter Biden’s Foreign Business Dealings

Censorship US:

Censorship and the Costs & Casualties of our Government’s Information Total War

Third Party Validation — The PR Trick Fueling Censorship

Facebook Censors Our Accurate Story on Covid Vaccine mRNA in Breast Milk

Censorship and the Costs & Casualties of our Government’s Information Total War

Societally US:

Thunderstruck! (An important civil rights court case) Also see this.

*** Washington’s blunders create a ‘Duck Soup Windfall’ for savers

US Politics and Socialism:

*** Tucker Carlson’s Full Speech at ISI’s 70th Anniversary Gala

Timeline: What Did the Feds Not Do About Alleged Biden Family Corruption and When Did They Not Do It?

A Case of Tax Fraud—at the IRS

Globalism:

The Malignant Narcissism Of Justin Trudeau

Technocracy: Digital Public Infrastructure For “One Earth, One Family, One Future”

Religion Related:

*** On the Eve of the Catholic Synod, Five Cardinals Release Five Concerns to Pope Francis

*** America’s Armageddon

Biden admin fights tooth and nail to deport Christian refugees while millions cross the border

Either You’re Serious Or You’re Not

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Goddess

How the Gov’t Used Cell Phone Data to try to Drive Calvary Chapel Out of Business

The Pope has gone full Greta Thunberg

Science:

Modern Medicine’s Great Controversy | Dr. Peter McCullough

How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Corrupt Scientists

Health:

9 health benefits of dark chocolate

House Cuts WHO Funding Through 2024

Top med school promoting curriculum that Body Mass Index is steeped in racism, promotes puberty blockers

Israel:

*** Israel’s military says force is ‘at war’ with Hamas as IDF hits back at terror targets

Iran-funded terror proxies launch war against Israel

Did the Biden administration withhold intel from Israel?

Israel Hamas battle for second day after surprise Hamas attack

Ukraine:

Pray for the safety of the Ukrainian people

A well-rated source to make a Ukraine donation

Zelenskyy: Ukrainians ‘Sensitive’ to Attacks on Israel

COVID-19 — Injections:

*** Overall deaths in unvaccinated lower

*** CDC Data Reveals COVID Vaccine Could Shave Off 24 Years from Men’s Lives!

*** Dr. John Campbell: Vaccine manufacture full interview

CDC Confessions: the government tried to quash discussion about the ineffectiveness – and danger of vaccinesCOVID Vaccines Damage ALL Hearts, Study Finds

Video: Why the COVID “mRNA” vaccines are actually DNA gene therapies that must be removed from the market

Excess Cardiovascular Deaths Soar 44% in Teens & Young Adults, Official Data Shows

The Devolution of Zelensky

COVID-19 — Misc:

*** Mask or No Mask — a Clear Answer

*** Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Remdesivir Manufacturer Over Alleged Deceptive Practices

*** Overall deaths in unvaccinated lower

*** Dr. John Campbell: Vaccine manufacture full interview

Now Biden Admin Says “We Didn’t Force Anyone To Do Anything… Didn’t Demand Anyone Be Fired”

COVID-19 — Repeated Important Information:

My webpage (C19Science.info) with dozens of Science-based COVID-19 reports

*** Free, At-Home COVID Tests (from US Govt)

*** Study: Measuring the COVID Mandates

*** World Council of Health: Early COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

*** FLCCC Long COVID Treatment Protocol

*** COVID-19: What You Need To Know (Physicians for Informed Consent)

*** If you have received a COVID-19 injection, here’s how to Detox

*** Status of US At-Home COVID-19 Tests


Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.


Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from: 2020 & 2021 & 2022 & 2023. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all thirteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.

Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.

Copyright © 2023; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org).

NYC Climate Ignorati March Against ‘Fossil’ Fuels – Again thumbnail

NYC Climate Ignorati March Against ‘Fossil’ Fuels – Again

By The Geller Report

Another far left march against civilization. These evil clowns will be the death of us.

Climate Change is another Marxist hoax. AMERICA WAKE UP!

”The goal of scientific research should be to pursue the truth, not confirm a personal or institutional bias. But many analyses of the global warming hypothesis begin with the assumption that man has caused global warming and then proceed to try to prove the thesis, employing pseudoscience in the effort.”  [American Thinker- 1]

Agenda 2030 Is In Peril, Globalists Are Becoming Desperate. [The Great Climate Con – 2 ]

Even Bill Gates is backtracking — the air’s gone out of the climate-crisis balloon.[NY Post-3]

“It would be nice to see the New York City government emphasize crime control, subway maintenance and pothole-fixing instead of trendy (and grift-filled) social justice projects.”

Video Part 1 – Climate March NYC was huge with the usual hard -core leftards and do-gooders who still think dinosaurs are the source of oil. (so many FOSSIL FUEL signs.) Lots of Street Theatre when they get together that always entertains and of course, kids (and adults) with dino-hats as the Ignorati happily marched to First Avenue and speakers and music and FUN.

Video Part 2 – Lots of Street Theatre when they get together that always entertains and of course, kids (and adults) with dino-hats as the ignorati happily marched to First Avenue and speakers and music and FUN.

Video Part 3- Chose to avoid the end of the march….there’s only so much silliness to be endured …

Flickr Slideshow — Part 1. Always a lot of pictures to post of the climate warnings, the costumes and the banners.

Flickr Part 2 — Everyone was VERY happy, even though the end of the world is near.

Flickr Part 3 — Families. young and old. politicians. Communists and LOTS of Socialists.

Flickr Part 4 — And it seemed out of state as well, based on some of the t-shirts

Think Manhattan is a mess this Climate Week? Wait until the UN-led movement bans fossil fuels [NY Post-4]

[American Thinker-5]

In legitimate scientific research, the data obtained by experimentation or observation are never adjusted; adjustments corrupt the data and invalidate the results. If the methodology used in an experiment or observation is faulty, one adjusts the methodology, not the data obtained from the investigation.

In effect, adjustments to temperature readings have artificially “created” global warming.

…. the Earth has no average temperature to measure or calculate,

…. CO2 does not cause global warming.  I use publicly available data from the world’s temperature databases to prove that there has been no statistically significant global warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, or land mass as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increasedthereby falsifying the global warming hypothesis.

…. It is all about the money and political power. Science has been sacrificed on the altar of political opportunism for economic and political gain.

.. “why do the UN IPCC and certain US and world politicians continue to promote the man-made global warming hypothesis when the science and data prove it to be false?”

The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive….

Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a book titled Global Warming: The Great Deception — The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care

AND NOW LET’S DISCUSS:

Why do people always reference dead dinosaurs when discussing oil and other fossil fuels. How did dinosaurs turn into oil? [NY Post- 6]

Jacob Hall 3y  [QUORA-7] Unfortunately a large percentage of people in modern times are ignorant in the majority… and seemingly have absolutely no intention of ever changing that. Most people around 45 years old or younger were actually taught the truth back in school… but I guess most were not paying attention.

Originally the concept of “fossil fuels” was brought about by some misinformation from the 1700’s.

This term was apparently first used by German chemist Caspar Neumann in 1759. It was subsequently used in the early 1900s to give people the idea that petroleum, coal and natural gas come from “ancient living things”, as a way to promote them as a “natural substance” within the public’s consciousness of those times.

Even as recently as the 1970’s some oil companies still inaccurately referred to their products as “dead dinosaurs” (you really would think that these kinds of specialised companies would at least understand the product they are selling).

The term “fossil fuel” is just a misnomer that caught on and has continued to persist into modern times. But oil and natural gas do not actually come from “fossilized dinosaurs” (hence they are not actually “fossil fuels” at all).

Petroleum, natural gas and coal come from ancient pressurised and “cooked” BIOMASS, primarily from plankton and decaying marine organisms, and single-celled bacteria that evolved in the Earth’s oceans about three billion or so years ago.

Therefore, oil and gas are still “organic” BUT contain no actual “fossils”.

Coal on the other hand was mainly laid down during the Carboniferous period, about 300 million years ago (which was still a good 75 million or so years before the rise of the first dinosaurs). Coal was formed when the dense forests and jungles were buried beneath layers of sediment, and their unique fibrous chemical structure caused them to be ‘cooked’ intsolid coal rather than liquid oil.

I guess “Ancient Dead Biomass” Fuels just isn’t a “sexy” enough term to have ever caught on… and as a consequence inaccurate terms and concepts like “fossil fuels” continue to persist.

Is the oil we are burning today the corpses of dinosaurs?

No, virtually none of the oil we are burning today came from dead dinosaurs. This is a popular misconception, similar to the cartoons of cave men living among the dinosaurs. Neither is true, they are just memes that are propagated by people who are trying to be funny, or people who don’t know any better.

In reality, the vast majority of oil on earth today originated as marine plankton that lived in shallow seas. As the plankton died, it sank to the bottom and was buried in the mud under anaerobic conditions where it did not decay. Over time, the increasing sediment from above buried this organic mud deeper and deeper. [https://qr.ae/pKXolu….regardless of where it is found, virtually none of the oil comes from dinosaurs, nearly all of it comes from marine plankton.

IN CONCLUSION:

[Although it may seem contradictory, the cornerstone of the scientific method is the ability to falsify, not prove, a hypothesis.If there is no means to disprove a hypothesis, there is no means to verify its validity.

As Einstein famously stated, “no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.“] [American Thinker -9]

LINKS used:

  1. [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/global_warming_and_the_earths_land_mass.html]
  2. [https://thegreatclimatecon.com/agenda-2030-is-in-peril-globalists-are-becoming-desperate/]
  3. [https://nypost.com/2023/09/25/even-bill-gates-is-backtracking-the-airs-gone-out-of-the-climate-crisis-balloon/]
  4. [https://nypost.com/2023/09/21/think-manhattan-is-a-mess-this-climate-week-wait-until-the-un-led-movement-bans-fossil-fuels/]
  5. [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/global_warming_and_the_earths_land_mass.html]
  6. [https://nypost.com/2023/09/25/even-bill-gates-is-backtracking-the-airs-gone-out-of-the-climate-crisis-balloon/]
  7. [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-always-reference-dead-dinosaurs-when-discussing-oil-and-other-fossil-fuels-How-did-dinosaurs-turn-into-oil/answer/Jacob-Hall-9]
  8. [https://qr.ae/pKXolu]
  9. [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/global_warming_and_the_earths_land_mass.html]

FOR Reference:

Monarch EXTINCTION and other Climate Claims:

https://lamag.com/news/the-monarch-butterfly-beats-extinction-in-triumphant-california-comeback

Defend the Planet : [https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/festival/nyc/2023/]

The world’s poorest people contribute the least but suffer the most from the climate crisis. Climate change impacts people’s health, ability to access nutritious food, and livelihoods.

YET: the Hypocrisy of the Greenies jumps to the FRONT:
[https://nypost.com/2023/10/04/another-green-failure-global-citizens-ruin-our-local-park-to-save-the-planet/]

Sept 23 Global Citizen Festival destroys Great Lawn Central Park

[https://www.westsiderag.com/2023/10/03/large-section-of-great-lawn-closed-until-at-least-april-following-damage-from-global-citizen-festival]

Never Mind: The Carbon loons who justify their personal JETS with CARBON CREDITS ….A world controlled by the ELITES …. We are just along for the ride.

[Pictures and Videos where indicated property of Pamela Hall-VSB]

Switzerland to BAN Electric Cars to Reduce Energy Consumption thumbnail

Switzerland to BAN Electric Cars to Reduce Energy Consumption

By The Geller Report

It’s to laugh, it’s to cry. The real world consequences of leftists hoaxes and lies.

Switzerland plans to BAN electric cars from the roads and order games consoles turned off during power shortages in a bid to reduce energy consumption

  • Swiss have drawn up emergency plans to deal with energy shortages this winter
  • In emergency situation, electric vehicles will be banned for all-but essential trips
  • ‘Crisis’ restrictions could see all sports stadiums and leisure businesses closed

By Chris Pleasance for MailOnline, 2 December 2022

Switzerland will ban the use of electric cars for ‘non-essential’ journeys if the country runs out of energy this winter, the government has announced.

Emergency plans drawn up in the event the Swiss are hit by blackouts also call for shop opening hours to be reduced by up to two hours per day, heating systems in nightclubs to be turned off, and other buildings to be heated to no more than 20C.

Crisis measures could see streaming services and games consoles banned, Christmas lights turned off, and all sports stadiums and leisure facilities closed.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

FACT: All Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are Powered by Coal, Uranium, Natural Gas or Diesel-Powered Energy

Largest Electric Vehicle Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators

As Other Automakers Push EVs, This Luxury Brand Drove Laps Around Them In 2022

The Green Agenda’s Dark Side: Evicting You From Your Home?

RELATED VIDEO: Grant’s Story from EnergyCitizens

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘They Don’t Care About Our Rules’: Locals Reject Chinese-Tied Battery Factory’s Construction In Their Community thumbnail

‘They Don’t Care About Our Rules’: Locals Reject Chinese-Tied Battery Factory’s Construction In Their Community

By The Daily Caller

Residents of a small country town in Michigan have rejected the planned construction of a Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-tied “gigafactory” in their community, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Gotion Inc., a subsidiary of the Chinese parent company, Gotion High-Tech Power Energy Co., plans to build a $2.4 billion electric vehicle(EV) battery factory spanning hundreds of acres in Green Charter Township, Michigan, which is largely made up of rural farmland, according to the NYT. Residents have opposed elected local leader’s decision to allow Gotion into their community, as the parent company is led by a CCP member and employs hundreds more.

“It’s the Communist influences that I’m bothered by, because they have shown repeatedly that they don’t care about our rules, our laws or anything,” Lori Brock, a resident living near the planned site of the factory, told the NYT. “They shouldn’t be able to buy here.”

🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨 from @LenczyckiPhilip

Chinese Parent Behind Company Building Michigan Battery Plants Employs 923 CCP Membershttps://t.co/UhjQLNKTul

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 31, 2023

Gotion High-Tech plans to build multiple factories throughout the U.S. in addition to the factories they have already established in California and Ohio. Fears of CCP influence spreading through regions where Gotion High-Tech plans to build has been brushed off by the company, who denies its ties to the CCP, and democratically elected leaders who have green lit their construction.

Despite its denial, the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported that Gotion High-Energy’s CEO has worked directly with the CCP and employs 923 party members. Further questions were raised after it was reported that Gotion High-Tech’s “Articles of Association state that: “The Company shall set up a Party organization and carry out Party activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China. The Company shall ensure necessary conditions for carrying out Party activities.”

The DCNF previously reviewed footage of multiple Gotion High-Tech field trips to communist revolutionary memorials in China, in which employees can be seen wearing matching Red Army uniforms and pledging an oath to the CCP.

Republican lawmakers have criticized elected leaders like Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, for allowing Gotion to build in their states. Republican Presidential candidates like Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley have been equally critical; Haley called Whitmer “a comrade” for backing the factory, and Ramaswamy plans to hold a campaign rally at Brock’s Township horse farm in protest.

Hundreds of residents have cast blame on the Green Charter Township board of trustees, a group of local officials who voted to allow tax breaks for Gotion as it preps to build its factory.

“I will go to my grave and people will curse me for this project,” Jim Chapman, the Green Charter Township supervisor, said to the NYT. “What are they going to spy on us for in Big Rapids?”

Critics plan to oust Chapman in a November recall election, and residents have raised money to file lawsuits and stonewall permits Gotion will need for construction, according to the NYT. A “No Gotion” group has been started on Facebook with over 1,000 members.

“We haven’t even started,” Brock said. “We haven’t even hit them with one lawsuit yet, and it’s coming.”

Gotion did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JAKE SMITH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Not Good For Us’: Locals Furious Over Secretive Deal With CCP-Linked Battery Firm

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Largest Electric Vehicle Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators thumbnail

Largest Electric Vehicle Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators

By The Geller Report

The de-civilization and dismantling of the West is due in large part to an increasing lack of intellectual curiosity by the body politic, propaganda by an immense, unfathomable left wing machine, laziness and downright stupidity.

Largest EV Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world. But to provide that kind of power takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.

By: Kevin Killough, Cowboy State Daily, September 30, 2023:

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world.

In 2017, Tesla CEO said that all Superchargers in the automaker’s network were being converted to solar.

“Over time, almost all will disconnect from the electricity grid,” Musk posted on X, formally known as Twitter.

Superchargers charge vehicles up to the 80% sweet spot in as little as 20 minutes, but to provide that kind of power for nearly 100 bays takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.

Investigative journalist Edward Niedermeyer discovered that the station was powered by diesel generators hidden behind a Shell station. Reporters at SF Gate tried to find out how much of the station’s electricity was from the generators, but couldn’t get a response from Tesla.

The station isn’t connected to any dedicated solar farms, which means that absent the diesel generators, the station is powered by California’s grid.

According to the U.S. Energy and Information Administration, in June 2023, natural gas supplied nearly 5,000 megawatt hours of electricity in California, whereas non-hydroelectric renewables supplied about 7,250 megawatt hours.

Another Case

Energy analyst and writer David Blackmon, author of the “Energy Transition Absurdities,” told Cowboy State Daily that the use of diesel-powered generators is not limited to the Harris Ranch station.

He used to shop at a Whole Foods in Houston. The company had installed a charging station in front of the store for its customers.

“It was the best parking spot in the lot, and it crowded out a bunch of handicap spaces,” Blackmon said.

He said there were diesel generators behind the store and whenever someone was using the chargers, the generators would kick on.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Simple Econ 101’: Here’s How California’s E-Truck Push Could Hamstring The American Economy thumbnail

‘Simple Econ 101’: Here’s How California’s E-Truck Push Could Hamstring The American Economy

By The Daily Caller

  • California’s push to electrify the heavy-duty trucking fleet in the state is likely to hurt independent trucking operators and drive up costs for goods across the entire American economy, experts on California policy and the trucking industry told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • California will ban the sale of new diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks starting in 2036, and trucking companies that move products between state’s ports and distribution hubs will not be allowed to register new diesel trucks with the state starting in 2024, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
  • The state’s policies will require more trucks “to haul the same amount of freight” and “have a real impact on the supply chain and the cost and reliability of transportation for the goods that consumers depend on every day,” Jeremy Kirkpatrick, a spokesperson for the American Trucking Association, told the DCNF.

California’s push to transition diesel trucks to electric models in the coming years is likely to damage the state’s trucking industry as well as the larger American economy, experts on California policy and the trucking industry told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

California law will ban the sale of new diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks in the state starting in 2036, and trucking companies that move products between the state’s ports and distribution hubs will not be allowed to register new diesel trucks starting in 2024, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The policies could drive up costs for operators and consumers, an outcome that would hurt the overall U.S. economy, given that California’s 12 ports handle approximately 40% of all imported containers to the U.S. and 30% of all of its shipping container exports, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“There are serious issues with range and charge times, operability in cold weather environments and reduced payloads because of the battery weight,” Jeremy Kirkpatrick, a spokesperson for the American Trucking Association, told the DCNF. “That means more trucks will be needed to haul the same amount of freight. All of this will have a real impact on the supply chain and the cost and reliability of transportation for the goods that consumers depend on every day.”

The state’s policies effectively mandate that nearly all of the state’s freight hauling, package delivery and box trucks would be zero-emission vehicles by no later than 2045, according to the office of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Without incentives, electric trucks are nearly three times more expensive up front than a diesel powered rig, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.

VP HARRIS: “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water.” pic.twitter.com/yhZzDmkeAM

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 14, 2023

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill, provides incentives that can cover about $40,000 of the overall cost of electric trucks, which have an average cost of about $400,000, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation.

“Electric trucks in particular have limited range based on numerous factors (weight, outside air temperature, etc.), and many cannot operate much over 250 miles before needing to be recharged (diesels can operate well over 1,000 miles depending on fuel tank size),” Joe Rajkovacz, director of governmental affairs and communications for the Western States Trucking Association, told the DCNF. “The recharging times (supposing there are sufficient charging points), can take hours, not minutes as with diesel. This takes away significantly from the hours of service drivers are allowed daily under both state and federal regulations.”

“As trucks time out, many will not be replaced, reducing the required number of available trucks to California ports and rail yards,” Rajkovacz continued. “It is simple Econ 101; when a shortage hits, prices go up.”

California’s policies on truck emissions are the strictest in the nation and are oriented around the state’s goal to achieve an overall emissions reduction of 85% by 2045, according to Newsom’s office.

“These vehicles are far more expensive and cost-prohibitive for most truckers,” Kirkpatrick told the DCNF. He added that “96% of trucking companies in this country are small businesses operating ten trucks or fewer. The charging infrastructure is nowhere near in place, and even if it was, there’s not electricity on the grid to power the fleet.”

There were less than 700 electric truck chargers across the entire state as of July, and the state estimates that more than 150,000 new chargers will be required in order to power the fleet of the future, according to The Wall Street Journal. California’s grid already struggles to comfortably meet periods of peak demand, as the state’s grid operator issued “Flex Alerts” over a 10-day period in September 2022 urging residents to turn up their thermostats during the late afternoon and evening hours to conserve energy amid a heatwave.

The potential problems of an electrified trucking fleet will not be exclusive to California, as eight other states have opted into at least some of California’s rules for truck emissions. Those states are Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont, according to CARB.

“There are new technologies coming fast and mandating pure electric vehicles closes off innovation and creates obsolete trucks within a few years,” Edward Ring, senior fellow for the California Policy Center. told the DCNF. “Meanwhile, our entire fleet gets sidelined and countless independent truckers are wiped out.”

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Americans Had Better Wake Up’: Biden Admin Fires Next Regulatory Salvo In Its Push For EVs

Unintended Consequences: The California Electric Truck Mandate

The US Is Starting To Feel The Pain Of Years Of Massive Deficit Spending

RELATED TWEET:

You can’t make this up.🤡 pic.twitter.com/mzt1LfxETm

— Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis (@DrLoupis) October 1, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Even Bill Gates [!] is Backtracking on Climate Change thumbnail

Even Bill Gates [!] is Backtracking on Climate Change

By The Geller Report

For years no one with access to major media platforms would speak up and out against the greatest political fraud of the modern age.

The immense power and machinery of the left will destroy you. The idea that idiot savants like Bill Gates ((basically he had a genius for writing code) should dictate global policies based on his wacky notions speaks to the low state of the world.

Even Bill Gates is backtracking — the air’s gone out of the climate-crisis balloon

By Glenn H. Reynolds, NY Post, September 25, 2023:

Excerpt:

Speaking at a New York Times event, he observed that heavy-handed policies won’t work: “If you try to do climate brute force, you will get people who say, ‘I like climate but I don’t want to bear that cost and reduce my standard of living.’”

As Gates noted, many of these people are in middle-income countries, like China and India, that are the biggest contributors to carbon emissions today and whose emissions (unlike those of the United States) have been growing.

He also rained on the greens’ apocalyptic parade, saying “no temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”

And he cautioned against untested approaches like massive tree planting: “Are we the science people or are we the idiots? Which one do we want to be?”

Well, the climate policies the political system supports are mostly the ones likely to yield the most graft, and those the corporate world supports are mostly the ones involving massive government subsidies.

But it’s interesting to see Gates softening his tone; it feels as if climate outrage has passed its sell-by date.

Oh, sure, there are still kooks in Europe gluing themselves to roadways and the occasional nut throwing oil on famous works of art, but it’s all started to seem rather forced.

When you see a shift in a social trend like this, it’s almost always happening for the same reason: The people behind it have figured out it’s doing the left more harm than good.

It’s of a piece with the sudden de-emphasis of ESG (environmental, social, governance) as a tool of corporate management.

In both cases, the detached, well-off white people who mostly run the left dreamed up causes and slogans, which their follow-the-herd peers uncritically adopted until they ran into reality and the rest of the world noticed.

Keep reading

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nobel Prize Winner Canceled By IMF After Announcing There Is No Climate Crisis

The ‘Climate Emergency’ Is a Hoax

Over 1,600 Scientists Declare There is No Climate Emergency

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DOT Invests $100 Mil to Help Disadvantaged Communities by Fixing Broken EV Chargers thumbnail

DOT Invests $100 Mil to Help Disadvantaged Communities by Fixing Broken EV Chargers

By Judicial Watch

Besides subsidizing the electric vehicle (EV) industry with a staggering $15.5 billion, the Biden administration is investing an additional $100 million in federal funding to prioritize the repair and replacement of EV charging stations throughout the U.S. The venture will “ensure disadvantaged communities benefit from upgraded charging infrastructure,” according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), which is doling out the money. The costly EV charger project is part of the administration’s Justice40 Initiative which requires 40% of all federal government investments to flow to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened with pollution.” The president signed an executive order within days of taking office to allocate unprecedented public funds to poor minority communities in the name of environmental justice.

The multi-million-dollar EV charger restoration project will operate under a Justice40 initiative known as National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program that provides states with money to strategically deploy charging stations and establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access and reliability. “The Biden-Harris Administration has set a goal of building a convenient, affordable, reliable, equitable, and Made-in-America electric vehicle (EV) charging network along the Nation’s highways and within our communities,” according to the grant announcement issued this month by the DOT. Because it is a Justice40 program the feds will use a White House Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool to track how assisted chargers aid needy communities. “Recipients of awards under this program can also use the tool to ensure disadvantaged communities benefit from upgraded charging infrastructure,” the grant document states, adding that “the tool can be used to help prioritize and sequence projects to maximize benefits to disadvantaged communities.”

The White House launched the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool in response to the president’s January 2021 order to tackle the “climate crisis at home and abroad.” The directive includes an extensive section dedicated to securing environmental justice for disadvantaged, historically marginalized and overburdened communities, by among other things, creating a White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council consisting of top government leaders. The heads of key federal agencies—including the attorney general, secretaries of defense, labor, transportation and energy—were essentially ordered to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. “Agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts,” according to Biden’s order.

It is not clear what the EV ownership rate is in marginalized or overburdened communities or the demand for chargers because the government has failed to provide that information. However, the administration does reveal that as of this month, 6,261 public charging ports out of 151,506 nationwide were identified as being temporarily unavailable. California has the largest number (1,707) of broken chargers followed by New York (541), Texas (379), Florida (356) and Massachusetts (265). The objective of the administration’s $100 million investment is to enhance and maintain the reliability of the charging network by focusing on the repair or replacement of existing chargers that are currently non-operational, a goal it asserts “will be aligned with the Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40 Initiative.” The connection is not fully explained.

Just weeks before the charger allotment the administration announced that, as part of the president’s Investing in America agenda, the Department of Energy is disbursing $15.5 billion to “support a strong and just transition to electric vehicles.” The money will focus on “retooling existing factories for the transition to electric vehicles,” according to the agency. Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, claims the funding shows that the president “understands that building the cars of the future also necessitates helping the communities challenged by the transition away from the internal combustion engine.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Wipe Us Out’: Striking UAW Workers Rip Biden’s Push To Force Americans Into EVs

‘A Hit Job On Michigan And On Detroit’: Trump Calls Biden EV Push A ‘Government Assassination’ Of Auto Jobs

E-Buses Bought From Now-Bankrupt Manufacturer By Blue Enclave Are Now All Out Of Commission

Energy Firms Unload On Biden’s ‘Attack’ On Fossil Fuels In Anonymous Survey

‘Workers Of America Are Getting Screwed’: Here’s What To Expect From Trump’s Visit To Detroit On Debate Night

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Speaks Sense on Net Zero thumbnail

VIDEO: UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Speaks Sense on Net Zero

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Britain’s prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was denounced before he’d uttered a word on net zero ahead of his short remarks on Wednesday.

WATCH: Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Net Zero press conference

Lord Deben, the recently departed chair of the statutory Climate Change Committee, took to the airwaves to accuse the government of stupidity. Lord Zac Goldsmith, son of the billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, who resigned from the government earlier this summer, said the prime minister had no mandate to change any net zero commitments and should call an immediate election.

As it turned out, Sunak’s remarks did not substantively change very much. “I’m absolutely committed to reaching Net Zero by 2050,” the prime minister insisted. True, the prime minister pledged that the government wouldn’t force families to rip out their gas-fired boilers and replace them with expensive heat pumps. And, he announced that the ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars would be pushed back to 2035, which former prime minister Boris Johnson had brought forward to 2030 in one of his periodic fits of climate jingoism. What Sunak didn’t say was whether the rising quota of electric vehicle (EV) mandates squeezing out sales of conventional vehicles would remain in place.

This, though, would be to miss what the prime minister had done: politically, everything has changed. “No one in politics has had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what that involves,” Sunak said of net zero. “That’s wrong – and it changes now.” He promised that his approach to net zero would be pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic.

Of course, net zero by 2050 is none of those things. It is ideological, disproportionate, and unachievable. So why the vehemence of the climate lobby’s attacks on Sunak? In their eyes, Sunak has committed the worst crime of all: he has broken the net zero omertà, which enforces a pact of silence on discussing the policy’s true costs. In public, net zero should only be spoken of as the growth opportunity of the century, something that’s good for the economy as well as the planet. That it might inflict cost and hardship must never be said.

Sunak has destroyed this silent agreement. He has made it possible for mainstream political discourse to mention possible downsides to net zero. In this respect, he’s been assisted by his opponent’s reaction. Labor could have closed the issue down by saying it would be counter-productive to bring forward the ban. Instead, Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer immediately pledged to reverse Sunak’s reversal of the 2030 ban on selling new petrol and diesel cars. With EV sale mandates still in place, there is very little before and after difference – except Sir Keir now owns the downsides of the net zero anti-car policy.

Commentary on EVs focuses on the user experience – the vehicles’ cost premium, for example, or problems such as range anxiety and the inconvenience of re-charging them compared to filling up with a tank of fuel. These issues make EVs either a luxury purchase for individuals or a tax-efficient purchase made by businesses on behalf of their employees. There’s been much less focus on the implications for the electrical grid of mass EV adoption. As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills discusses in a recent paper, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream,” transitioning automotive energy derived from molecules to electrons has enormous implications for the grid and local distribution networks.

It’s not solely about the relative costs of electricity versus liquid hydrocarbons. (Electricity is much more expensive before taxes, a net zero fiscal hole Labor also needs to address.) According to Mills, transporting a unit of electrical energy using wires and transformers is about 20-fold more expensive than transporting the same quantity of energy as oil in pipelines and tankers. When you fill up your tank with gasoline, the same amount of energy per second is going into your car as being generated by four 5-megawatt wind turbines. The electrical grid and local distribution networks are simply not designed to accommodate the enormous increase in electrical power required for mass EV adoption – and the faster the EV charger, the more power it needs.

Upgrading Britain’s electrical network for EVs will cost many tens of billions of pounds. Who pays? That’s now a question for Sir Keir and Labor to answer. Will electrical utilities discriminate between electricity used to charge an EV and boil a kettle? Some 55% of British households don’t own a car. Does Labor expect the 55% of non-car owners to subsidize the cost of grid and local network upgrades for the benefit of the small proportion of the 45% of car owners who have EVs? Labor’s green socialism inverts traditional socialism. It envisions less well-off community members subsidizing better-off EV owners through their electricity bills.

The prime minister can have had few illusions about the consequences of breaking with the climate consensus to speak of costs and downsides. The climate lobby is well-funded and deeply networked throughout politics and the media. It required courage and conviction for Sunak to have taken this step. Thanks to him, Britain’s climate policy debate will never be the same.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Rupert Darwall

Rupert Darwall is a Senior Fellow at the RealClear Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Electric cars in Turin at the beginning of the 20th century thumbnail

Electric cars in Turin at the beginning of the 20th century

By Wallace Bruschweiler

They were abandoned when the petrol engine triumphed on the market, noisier and more polluting but allowed you to travel greater distances in less time.


At a certain point the blue thinned out, a clear, precise landscape emerged. Hector found himself on the street of a city, driven by electric cars, at least a hundred years old.” This is how Paolo Aresi , author of science fiction novels, imagines a dystopian future. Yet, this is not fantasy, it is history. Electric cars older than a century exist and drove along the streets of Turin at the beginning of the twentieth century, driven by elegant ladies.

At that time, various workshops were making hybrid and electric-powered cars , technologies that seemed to adapt very well to urban roads but which were soon abandoned when the petrol engine triumphed on the market , noisier and more polluting but which allowed you to travel greater distances in less time.

Since the beginning of the 1860s, there has been talk of applying the first electric motors to wheeled vehicles. The reason is simple, at the time steam vehicles were bulky, expensive and heavy and few could afford a vehicle that required the use of three or four people. Furthermore, they risked colliding with horse-drawn carriages. Compared to the steam engine and the internal combustion engine, the electric engine appeared the most promising, for several reasons. Firstly, because it was a simple technology to use: all you had to do was press a button or pull a lever to activate it.

The internal combustion engine was more complicated, as Davide Lorenzone, curator of the National Automobile Museum , explains : “The ignition was not yet constant, they were noisy and sometimes they exploded. Even finding petrol was almost impossible. The only place where you could buy them was the pharmacy where they provided ten liter cans. There were no filling stations.” Instead, with the electric motor and charged batteries, you could travel the entire city.

An advertisement for an electric car from Turin from the early twentieth century announced that it could travel from 80 to 100 km on a single charge. They were lead batteries and the manufacturing companies gave them the possibility of recharging them in the factory or special panels were sold , which could be installed near homes or companies. As did the textile industrialist Napoleon Leumann who used only hybrid vehicles for his transport.

A major problem of early urban mobility was the noise of steam and combustion engines which frightened carriage horses. Otherwise, electric cars were silent and for this reason they were used as public transport when the first taxi service was born under the masses. Those cars were simple to drive, elegant to admire and looked perfect for the ladies. From a 1906 catalog of «Dora», the Alpignano company that produces electric cars and accumulators, we read: “Electric cars are the best suited for the city, because they do not require too heavy a mechanism for their construction, they are more streamlined and therefore more elegant, they parade silently , and they do not pollute the air with emanations of burnt oil and petrol, therefore rightly preferred by our ladies who can appear splendidly on them during public walks.”

Electric mobility was not only widespread in Piedmont, from the documents in the archive of the Turin Automobile Museum (where some ancient electric cars are on display) it emerges that in Manhattan already in 1910 there were 44 charging stations and some shopping centers even had car charging areas on the ground floor. People thus had the opportunity to charge their cars while doing errands and shopping. The green future of mobility seemed to be sealed, non-polluting and silent cars would make expanding urban centers more livable. Yet, in Turin almost all electric car manufacturers closed their doors between 1915 and 1916. The car manufacturing companies decided to bet all their cards on the petrol engine which had been perfected in the meantime. Engines that respond to the needs of modernity: faster, more performing and which allow you to travel long distances even outside urban centres, where roads increasingly suitable for cars are starting to spread. The internal combustion engine thus takes over and electric car manufacturing companies see no outlets for a technology that was considered obsolete at the time and which appears to us today as innovative.

Davide Lorenzone concludes: “At the beginning of the twentieth century, several factories were founded in Turin that produced electric vehicles and in the first decade of the last century those cars were widely sold. There were also hybrids with a second motor that recharged the battery while the vehicle moved. Nothing was invented, everything was already invented more than 100 years ago.”

AUTHOR

Dario Basile

Electric cars in Turin (computer translation)

©2023. Wallace Bruschweiler. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Before Tesla: Why everyone wanted an electric car in 1905

Worth the Watt: A Brief History of the Electric Car, 1830 to Present

Unintended Consequences: The California Electric Truck Mandate thumbnail

Unintended Consequences: The California Electric Truck Mandate

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

If you own a trucking company that picks up shipments from California ports, you now have to deal with the consequences of a new law designed to reduce your carbon footprint.

Trucking is one of the vital ingredients in our infrastructure that virtually all parts of the economy rely on. About two-fifths of all containerized imports to the US come through one of California’s twelve commercial ports. According to a recent report in National Review, beginning January 1, any trucker doing “drayage” (the technical term for transporting stuff to or from a seaport) in California can only buy zero-emission vehicles, although they can hang on to their existing diesel fleet for a while.

Trucks don’t last forever, however, and evidently the court of wisdom otherwise known as the California legislature decided this was the best way to get truckers used to the additional coming mandate that in 2035, all trucks entering California seaports and intermodal rail yards (where the containers are loaded onto trains) must be zero-emission types.

The ostensible motivation for these laws is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, of course. And careful analyses do show that over the lifetime of an electric vehicle, even if you include the fossil fuels used in the different types of manufacturing (electric versus internal-combustion) and in producing the electricity for the vehicle, less carbon dioxide results from using electric vehicles. That’s the intended consequence, and unless the law is later modified, it will be achieved.

But the devil is in the details, and some truckers interviewed about the mandate pointed out several unintended consequences that may follow from these laws. For one thing, the number of electric trucks in California will have to go from about 300, where it is today, to around 500,000, and some way will have to be found to charge all those trucks, and to keep them running farther than the alleged 60 miles that the California regulators said was the typical drayage daily mileage. A lot of truckers drive a lot farther than that every day, and if you add several hours a day to charge the trucks, it turns a normal workday into a 20-hour day.

And then there’s the cost. Even if you can find a zero-emission truck that will do the job, it will cost three or four times what a diesel vehicle costs. And one trucker asked what bank will finance such a purchase if you can’t show where you’re going to charge it and how you will work out a schedule that will let you stay in business.

So, if California doubles down on enforcement, we can anticipate something like a gradual strangling of commerce flowing through its ports as the few truckers who manage to jump through the hoops of regulation are all that’s left. And maybe that was what the lawmakers really wanted anyway. If the idealist dream of a zero-emission society were to come to pass in the next couple of years, millions would die of starvation and cold, and those few who are left would be reduced to living a life that would be familiar to a denizen of 1880.

At the very least, essentially shutting down 40% of containerized imports to the US would cause massive supply-chain disruptions that would make what happened during COVID look like a hiccup. If you say no one would let things get that bad, well, we did let things get that bad during COVID, and it can happen again.

I recently came across a true story that should become the paradigm cautionary tale for those who close their eyes to the unintended consequences of legislation.

In England in the mid-1800s, dogs were quite commonly used for transportation. Poor people who couldn’t afford a horse and wagon to carry their goods to market could nevertheless use a dog and a “dog-cart” (not to be confused with the horse-drawn carriage referred to in Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes tales). But in 1841, the recently founded Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) successfully lobbied to pass a law prohibiting the use of dogs for transportation. In urging this measure, the SPCA cited a few highly publicized instances of cruelty to transport dogs, although it appears that many if not most of the dogs were well-treated. For good measure, a dog tax was also passed around the same time, further discouraging the use of dogs for business purposes.

I can’t be positive, but I suspect that the SPCA members were largely upper-class types who, if they thought ahead at all, imagined all the dogs formerly used for transport would revert to being beloved pets. Think again. According to Stanley Coren, a dog psychologist and historian, when the law took effect it led to something close to a dog holocaust:

“Dreadful massacres of dogs took place all over England when they could no longer legally be used for cartage but were now taxable. In Birmingham, more than a thousand were slaughtered, and similar carnage took place in Liverpool. In Cambridge, the streets were littered with dead dogs. Because these bodies were becoming a health hazard, the high constable of Cambridge arranged a mass burial of four hundred dogs.”

So much for good intentions. The SPCA survived this debacle somehow, and so did the use of dogs for transportation in other parts of the world, but no longer in England.

No one can be certain of exactly what will happen if California enforces their zero-emission truck mandate. But they are meddling with a piece of infrastructure that is crucial to the entire US economy, and if the law has the unintended consequence of disrupting commerce in ways that harm millions of US citizens, those harms should be weighed against whatever essentially unmeasurable good that may eventually come a century or so after California’s greenhouse-gas emissions go down by a few percent as a result of this law. In my view, the law will do a lot more harm than good, and most of the California truckers think so too.

AUTHOR

KARL D. STEPHAN

Karl D. Stephan is a professor of electrical engineering at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. This article has been republished, with permission, from his blog Engineering Ethics, which is a Mercator partner site. His ebook Ethical and Otherwise: Engineering In the Headlines is available in Kindle format and also in the iTunes store.

RELATED TWEET:

Like Gulliver, tied down by thousands of of little strings, we lose our freedom one regulation at a time

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 25, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCATOR column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Here’s the climate dissent you’re not hearing about because it’s muffled by society’s top institutions thumbnail

Here’s the climate dissent you’re not hearing about because it’s muffled by society’s top institutions

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

As the Biden administration and governments worldwide make massive commitments to rapidly decarbonise the global economy, the persistent effort to silence climate change sceptics is intensifying – and the critics keep pushing back.

This summer, the International Monetary Fund summarily cancelled a presentation by John Clauser, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who publicly disavows the existence of a climate “crisis.” The head of the nonprofit with which Clauser is affiliated, the CO2 Coalition, has said he and other members have been delisted from LinkedIn for their dissident views.

Meanwhile, a top academic journal retracted published research doubting a climate emergency after negative coverage in legacy media. The move was decried by another prominent climate dissenter, Roger Pielke Jr., as “one of the most egregious failures of scientific publishing that I have seen” – criticism muffled because the academic says he has been blocked on Twitter (now X) by reporters on the climate beat.

The climate dissenters are pressing their case as President Biden, United Nations officials, and climate action advocates in media and academia argue that the “settled science” demands a wholesale societal transformation. That means halving US carbon emissions by 2035 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050 to stave off the “existential threat” of human-induced climate change.

In response last month, more than 1,600 scientists, among them two Nobel physics laureates, Clauser and Ivar Giaever of Norway, signed a declaration stating that there is no climate emergency, and that climate advocacy has devolved into mass hysteria. The sceptics say the radical transformation of entire societies is marching forth without a full debate, based on dubious scientific claims amplified by knee-jerk journalism.

Many of these climate sceptics reject the optimistic scenarios of economic prosperity promised by advocates of a net-zero world order. They say the global emissions-reduction targets are not achievable on such an accelerated timetable without lowering living standards and unleashing worldwide political unrest.

“What advocates of climate action are trying to do is scare the bejesus out of the public so they’ll think we need to [act] fast,” said Steven Koonin, author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.

“You have to balance the certainties and uncertainties of the changing climate – the risks and hazards – against many other factors,” he adds.

These dissenters don’t all agree on all scientific questions and do not speak in a single voice. Clauser, for example, is a self-styled “climate denialist” who believes climate is regulated by clouds, while Pielke, a political scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Bjørn Lomborg, the former director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute, acknowledge humans are affecting the climate but say there is sufficient time to adapt. The dissenters do, however, agree that the public and government officials are getting a one-sided, apocalyptic account that stokes fear, politicises science, misuses climate modelling, and shuts down debate.

They also say it is a troubling sign for scientific integrity that they are systematically sidelined and diminished by government funding agencies, foundation grant-makers, academic journals, and much of the media. Delving into their claims, RealClearInvestigations reviewed a sampling of their books, articles, and podcast interviews. This loose coalition of writers and thinkers acknowledges that the climate is warming, but they typically ascribe as much, if not more, influence to natural cycles and climate variability than to human activities, such as burning fossil fuel.

Follow the science

Among their arguments:

• There is no climate crisis or existential threat as expressed in catastrophic predictions by activists in the media and academia. As global temperatures gradually increase, human societies will need to make adjustments in the coming century, just as societies have adapted to earlier climate changes. By and large, humans cannot control the climate, which Pielke describes as “the fanciful idea that emissions are a disaster control knob.”

• Global temperatures are increasing incrementally, and have been for centuries, but the degree of human influence is uncertain or negligible. Climate sceptics themselves don’t agree on how much humans are contributing to global warming by burning fossil fuels, and how much is caused by natural variability from El Niño and other cycles that can take centuries to play out. “The real question is not whether the globe has warmed recently,” writes Koonin, “but rather to what extent this warming is being caused by humans.”

• Rapidly replacing fossil fuels with renewables and electricity by mid-century would be economically risky and may have a negligible effect on global warming. Some say mitigation decrees – such as phasing out the combustion engine and banning gas stoves – are not likely to prevent climate change because humans play a minor role in global climate trends. Others say mitigation is necessary but won’t happen without capable replacement technologies. It’s unrealistic, they say, to force societies to rely on intermittent energy from wind and solar, or wager the future on technologies that are still in experimental stages.

• The global political push to kill the fossil fuel industry to get to “net zero” and “carbon neutrality” by 2050, as advocated by the United Nations and the Biden administration, will erase millions of jobs and raise energy costs, leading to a prolonged economic depression and political instability. The result would be that developing regions will pay the highest price, while the biggest polluters (China and India) and hostile nations (like Russia and Iran) will simply ignore the net-zero mandate. This could be a case where the cure could be worse than the disease.

• Despite the common refrain in the media, there is no evidence that a gradually warming planet is affecting the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, storms, droughts, rainfall, or other weather events. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has expressed low confidence such weather events can be linked to human activities. Still, “it is a fertile field for cherry pickers,” notes Pielke.

• Extreme weather events, such as wildfires and flooding, are not claiming more human lives than previously. The human death toll is largely caused by cold weather, which accounts for eight times as many deaths as hot weather, and overall weather-related mortality has fallen by about 99 percent in the past century. “People are safer from climate-related disasters than ever before,” statistician and author Bjørn Lomborg has said.

• Climate science has been hijacked and politicised by activists, creating a culture of self-censorship that’s enforced by a code of silence that Koonin likens to the Mafia’s omerta. In her 2023 book, “Climate Uncertainty and Risk,” climatologist Judith Curry asks: “How many skeptical papers were not published by activist editorial boards? How many published papers have buried results in order to avoid highlighting findings that conflict with preferred narratives? I am aware of anecdotal examples of each of these actions, but the total number is unknowable.”

• Slogans such as “follow the science” and “scientific consensus” are misleading and disingenuous. There is no consensus on many key questions, such as the urgency to cease and desist burning fossil fuels, or the accuracy of computer modelling predictions of future global temperatures. The apparent consensus of imminent disaster is manufactured through peer pressure, intimidation, and research funding priorities, based on the conviction that “noble lies,” “consensus entrepreneurship,” and “stealth advocacy” are necessary to save humanity from itself. “One day, PhD dissertations will be written about our current moment of apocalyptic panic,” Pielke predicts.

• The warming of the planet is a complicated phenomenon that will cause some disruptions but will also bring benefits, particularly in agricultural yields and increased vegetation. Some climate sceptics, including the CO2 Coalition, say CO2 is not a pollutant – it is “plant food.”

Curry, the former Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, expresses a common theme among the climate refuseniks: that they are the sane, rational voices in a maelstrom of quasi-religious mania.

“In the 1500s, they used to drown witches in Europe because they blamed them for bad weather. You had the pagan people trying to appease the gods with sacrifices,” Curry said. “What we’re doing now is like a pseudoscientific version of that, and it’s no more effective than those other strategies.’

The climate change establishment occasionally concedes some of these points. No less an authority than the newly appointed head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has urged the climate community to cool its jets: “If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyses people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change,” Jim Skea recently said to German media. “The world won’t end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees [centigrade]. It will, however, be a more dangerous world.”

In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee in June, Pielke said human-caused climate change is real and “poses significant risks to society and the environment.” But the science does not paint a dystopian, catastrophic scenario of imminent doom, he added.

“Today, there is general agreement that our current media environment and political discourse are rife with misinformation,” Pielke testified. “If there is just one sentence that you take from my testimony today, it is this: You are being misinformed.”

Doom and gloom

Still, the overwhelming impression conveyed is one of impending disaster, with the menace of global warming rhetorically upgraded in July by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to “global boiling.” Climate scientists announced in July that the planet is the hottest it’s been in 120,000 years, an old claim that gets recycled every few years. Meanwhile, three vice-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of mass starvation, extinction, and disasters, saying that if the temperature rises 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels, “children under 12 will experience a fourfold increase in natural disasters in their lifetime, and up to 14 percent of all species assessed will likely face a very high risk of extinction.”

Many of these predictions are based on computer models and computer simulations that Pielke, Koonin, Curry, and others have decried as totally implausible. Koonin’s book suggests that some computer models may be “cooking the books” to achieve desired outcomes, while Pielke has decried faulty scenarios as “one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the twenty-first  century thus far.” Curry writes in her book that the primary inadequacy of climate models is their limited ability to predict the kinds of natural climate fluctuations that cause ice ages and warming periods, and play out over decades, centuries, or even millennia.

Another critique is the use of computer models to correlate extreme weather events to multi-decade climate trends in an attempt to show that the weather was caused by climate, a branch of climate science called climate attribution studies. This type of research is used to bolster claims that the frequency and intensity of heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events could not have happened without climate change. An example is research recently cited by the BBC in an article warning that if the global temperature rises another 0.9 centigrade, crippling heat waves that were once exceedingly rare will bake the world every two-to-five years.

One question looms: Does a warming climate contribute to heat records and heatwaves, such as those that were widely reported in July as the hottest month on record and taken as overwhelming proof that humans are overheating the planet? The United States experienced extreme heat waves in the 1930s, and the recent spikes are not without precedent, climate dissenters say. Pielke, however,  concedes that IPCC data signal that increases in heat extremes and heat waves are virtually certain, but he argues that the societal impacts will be manageable.

Koonin and Curry say that the global heat spikes in July were likely caused by a multiplicity of factors, including an underwater Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic explosion last year that increased upper atmosphere water vapour by about 10 percent, a relevant fact because water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas. Another factor is the warming effect of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, which has shifted to an active phase recently.

Koonin says that greenhouse gas emissions are a gradual trend on which weather anomalies play out, and while it’s tempting to confuse weather with climate, it would be a mistake to blame July’s heat waves on human influence.

“The anomaly is about as large as we’ve ever seen, but not unprecedented,” Koonin explained on a podcast. “Now, what the real question is, why did it spike so much? Nothing to do with CO2 – CO2 is … the base on which this phenomenon occurs.”

Climate dissent comes with the occupational hazard of being tarred as a propagandist and stooge for “Big Oil.” Pielke was one of seven academics investigated by a US Congressman in 2015 for allegedly failing to report funding from fossil fuel interests (He was cleared). A New York Times review of Lomborg’s 2020 book, “False Alarm,” described it as “mind pollution.”

Climate advocates see climate scepticism as so dangerous that Ben Santer, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, publicly cut ties with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory two years ago after the federal research facility invited Koonin to discuss his sceptical book, Unsettled. Santer, a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient, said allowing Koonin’s views to go unchallenged undermined the credibility and integrity of climate science research. For similar reasons, the IMF postponed Clauser’s July presentation so that it could be rescheduled as a debate.

Another critique: scientists arbitrarily forcing the facts to fit a prescribed catastrophic narrative, often by ignoring plausible alternative explanations and relevant factors. That’s what climate scientist Patrick Brown said he had to do to get published in the prestigious journal Nature, by attributing wildfires to climate change and ignoring other factors, like poor forest management and the startling fact that over 80 percent of wildfires are ignited by humans. Brown publicly confessed to this sleight-of-hand in a recent article in The Free Press.

“This type of framing, with the influence of climate change unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers,” Brown wrote. “When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula, my papers were rejected out of hand by the editors of distinguished journals, and I had to settle for less prestigious outlets.”

These frustrations serve as a reminder that the world has entered what the United Nations and climate advocates call the make-or-break decade that will decide how much the Earth’s temperature will rise above pre-industrial levels. This decisive phase is “unfolding now and will intensify during the next several years,” according to Rice University researchers. “Accordingly, what happens between now and the late 2020s, in all likelihood, will fundamentally determine the failure or success of an accelerated energy transition.”

In response to this call for global action, political leaders in Europe and North America are vowing to reengineer their societies to run on wind, solar, and hydrogen. In this country, California is among a dozen states that have moved to ban the sale of new gasoline-engine cars in 2035, while states like Virginia and North Carolina have committed to carbon-free power girds by mid-century.

In the most detailed net-zero roadmap to date, the International Energy Agency in 2021 identified more than 400 milestones that would have to be met to achieve a net-zero planet by mid-century, including the immediate cessation of oil and gas exploration and drilling, and mandated austerity measures such as reducing highway speed limits, limiting temperature settings in private homes, and eating less meat.

In the IEA’s net zero scenario, global energy use will decline by 8 percent through energy efficiency even as the world’s population adds 2 billion people and the economy grows a whopping 40 percent. In this scenario, all the nations of the world – including China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia – would have to commit to a net-zero future, generating 14 million jobs to create a new energy infrastructure. Nearly half the slated emissions reductions will have to come from experimental technologies currently in demonstration or prototype stages, such as hydrogen, bioenergy, carbon capture, and modular nuclear reactors. Reading this bracing outlook, one could almost overlook the IEA’s caveat that relying on solar and wind for nearly 70 percent of electricity generation would cause retail electricity prices to increase by 50 percent on average and destroy 5 million jobs, of which “many are well paid, meaning structural changes can cause shocks for communities with impacts that persist over time.”

A critique of the IEA’s scenario issued this year by the Energy Policy Research Foundation, a think tank that specialises in oil, gas, and petroleum products, warned of “massive supply shocks” if oil supplies are artificially suppressed to meet arbitrary net zero targets. The report further stated that “if the world stays committed to net zero regardless of high costs – the recession will turn into an extended depression and ultimately impose radical negative changes upon modern civilization.” (Disclosure: The report was commissioned by the RealClearFoundation, the nonprofit parent of RealClearInvestigations.)

Already, societies have fallen behind their emissions reduction targets, and it’s widely understood that fast-tracking net zero is an unattainable goal. Transforming existing energy infrastructures within several decades would require installing the equivalent of the world’s largest solar farm every day, according to the International Energy Agency. Carbon-free energy accounts for only 18 percent of total global consumption, and fossil fuels are still increasing, according to a recent analysis.

The IEA reported this year that investments in oil exploration and drilling have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, while global coal demand reached an all-time high last year. Globally, nations are spending more on clean energy than on fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are still vital to economic growth; for instance, the IEA noted that 40 gigawatts of new coal plants were approved in 2022, the highest figure since 2016, almost all of them in China.

“We live in this world of exaggerated promises and delusional pop science,” Vaclav Smil, the University of Manitoba environmental scientist and policy analyst, told The New York Times last year. “People don’t appreciate the magnitude of the task and are setting up artificial deadlines which are unrealistic.”

A government push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by cutting back on livestock farming has led to public protests in the Netherlands, a conflict over resources that Time magazine predicts will spread elsewhere: “This may be just the beginning of much wider global unrest over agriculture. Scientists say dealing with climate change will require not just gradual reform, but a rapid, wholesale transformation of the global food system.”

Climate dissidents say what happened in the Netherlands is a foretaste of the political backlash that is inevitable when net-zero policies start becoming implemented and people have to travel across state lines to buy a gasoline-powered car.

“The urgency is the stupidest part of the whole thing – that we need to act now with all these made-up targets,” Curry said. “The transition risk is far greater than any conceivable climate or weather risk.”

To Koonin, these challenges indicate that the catastrophic climate narrative will collapse when put to the test of practicality and politics. The more sensible route, he said, is a slow-and-steady approach.

“There’s going to be a deep examination of science and the cost-benefit issues,” he said. “We will eventually do the right thing, but it’s going to take a decade or so.”

This article has been republished from RealClearInvestigations.

AUTHOR

JOHN MURAWSKI

Biden Regime Unleashes 50-Year Mining, Oil Drilling Ban Across Thousands of Acres in New Mexico thumbnail

Biden Regime Unleashes 50-Year Mining, Oil Drilling Ban Across Thousands of Acres in New Mexico

By The Geller Report

Trump 2024. The only choice to save America.

Biden admin unleashes 50-year mining, oil drilling ban across thousands of acres in New Mexico

Biden admin says actions intended to protect wildlife and cultural resources in region

By: Thomas Catenacci, Fox News ,September 18, 2023:

Texas Public Policy Foundation VP Chuck DeVore reacts to Biden talking about the ‘climate crisis’ while surveying Florida’s Hurricane Idalia damage on ‘Fox & Friends.’

The Biden administration proposed to block of thousands of acres from future oil drilling or mining in northern New Mexico in an effort to protect Native American lands.

According to the Department of the Interior (DOI), the proposal would ban new mining claims and oil and gas development across more than 4,200 acres in Sandoval County, New Mexico, located north of Albuquerque. If finalized and implemented, the action would remain in place for up to 50 years.

“Today we’re responding to call from Tribes, elected leaders, and community members who want to see these public lands protected,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. “We look forward to hearing more from the public to inform decisions about how activities, like gravel mining, may impact these lands, including the important cultural and natural resources.”

“We recognize the importance of the Placitas area, both for Tribal Nations and for the local community who visit and recreate in this area,” added Melanie Barnes, the state director of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) New Mexico office.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Here’s the climate dissent you’re not hearing about because it’s muffled by society’ top institutions

RELATED TWEET:

I WILL TOTALLY OBLITERATE THE DEEP STATE!!! pic.twitter.com/IOKpU6rxL9

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) September 21, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Fear-Mongering UN Chief Wants $100B to Combat ‘Climate Chaos’ thumbnail

Fear-Mongering UN Chief Wants $100B to Combat ‘Climate Chaos’

By Discover The Networks

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres opened the annual U.N. General Assembly debate on Tuesday – where over 100 heads of government are expected to speak – demanding $100 billion from “developed countries” to fight allegedly deadly “climate chaos.”

“No more dirty production. No more fake solutions. No more bankrolling climate denial,” he declared.

Guterres’ call for countries to invest $100 billion in “developing country climate action” and another unspecified amount in the U.N.’s “Green Climate Fund” follows the publication of a report last week revealing that his organization’s claims to carbon neutrality are largely fraudulent, based on a system known as “carbon credits” where the U.N. pays off allegedly “green” projects to offset its own emissions.

Many of those projects, non-profit news agencies Mongabay and the New Humanitarian found, are of dubious value to combating climate change and some actively hurt their local environments.

U.N. agencies emit pollution “roughly equal to the annual emissions of 1.5 million gasoline-powered cars,” the agencies found.

Guterres nonetheless portrayed the UN as a leader in the fight against “climate chaos,” a phrase he used repeatedly throughout his speech, and which the fear-mongering globalist called “the most immediate threat to our future.”


Global Warming / Climate Change

In May 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent,” he added. Three days earlier, President Obama tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” What is the basis of these claims?…

To learn more about Climate Change, click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pope to Bill Clinton: Let’s Work Together to Stop ‘Ecological Catastrophe’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Keep Virginia’s lights on! CFACT submission on natural gas generating plants thumbnail

Keep Virginia’s lights on! CFACT submission on natural gas generating plants

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Wind and solar are wholly inadequate for Virginia’s energy needs.  CFACT makes plain the hard math that explains Virginia’s need to generate abundant, efficient electricity.

To: Virginia State Corporation Commission
Re: PUR-2023-00066
From: Craig Rucker, President
CFACT
1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-559-9036
Via SCC comment portal

Comments of CFACT regarding Dominion Energy’s 2023 IRP and their need for additional gas fired generating capacity during the 15 year planning period

Introduction

In their latest IRP, Dominion Energy argues that they will need to add some gas-fired generating capacity during their 15-year planning period. We support this expansion. Several lengthy comments have been filed in opposition to their proposal. We believe they are misguided. In actuality, Dominion must not just add what they propose, but add considerably more gas-fired capacity to their operations. This is because the amount of battery storage the company will need to reliably make their proposed renewable energy expansion possible is far greater than they currently have planned.

The economics are clear. The required storage is prohibitively expensive. Thus, gas-fired backup is a better alternative as it is far less costly. Moreover, given the much higher capacity factor and low cost of gas-fired capacity, it would be more cost effective to use fewer renewables. This is especially true of the offshore wind capacity, which is a serious threat to whales and other marine life. Offshore wind should not be built.

These issues are discussed briefly below. Additional analysis by Dominion is called for to address them properly.

Grossly inadequate storage

Dominion’s preferred option, Option B, calls for 2,370 MW of battery storage in the planning period. MW are the battery discharge rate, not the storage capacity. Assuming these are standard 4-hour batteries, the storage capacity is 9,480 Mwh.

This is an extremely small amount of storage, nowhere near enough to back up the proposed increase in renewables. A simple analysis makes this clear. Figure 1.1.1 projects an increase in DOM Zone summer peak of over 10,000 MW.

Dominion will likely see load increases of 5,000 or more, possibly often. This load is supposed to be met using renewables and batteries. This isn’t likely to happen. Consider the simple case of a 12-hour night with low wind fulfilling that load. The storage requirement is 60,000 MWh, over six times the proposed storage capacity. Even if the batteries had a 10-hour capacity, they would not come close to meeting the need.

Even worse, this simple case is far from worst likely to occur. Multiple cloudy, hot and cold days with low wind are common in Virginia. Detailed historical analysis will be needed to correctly estimate the likely maximum required storage capacity, and it will certainly be in the hundreds of thousands of MWh.

Even assuming huge battery price reductions, this much storage would be prohibitively expensive. Gas-fired backup power is a better option.

Dominion has indicated it plans to meet some of this need with imported energy. But, all the neighboring utilities are pursuing a similar dependence on renewables. The spatial extent of protracted low wind cloudiness with high load is often very large, including all the states near Virginia. Therefore, it is very likely that energy will not be available to import during these episodes. In fact, Dominion made this very point in its 2022 IRP Update. A much better path than relying on out-of-state electricity will be for the company to expand its gas-fired generating capacity.


Low projections of load growth

Dominion says the large projected load growth in the IRP is mostly due to new data centers rather than the electrification of other energy uses. However, the load growth from electrification will also be very large under present policies. A great deal of gas-fired generation will be required to meet this additional load.

The reality is complex, but if we keep it simple enough, one can readily see the stark general picture.

To begin with, consider electrification of gasoline usage, most of which is for cars and light trucks. According to EIA, Virginia’s estimated 2021 gasoline consumption is around 440 trillion Btu. The conversion is 3,412,000 btu = 1 MWh. So that is about 130 million MWh in gasoline energy. Also, in 2021 Virginia’s electric power generation is 93.5 million MWh. Thus, the gasoline energy is 1.4 times the total power generation. If it takes this much energy to power cars and light trucks in the Old Dominion, then it becomes necessary to build a new generation capacity that is almost one and a half times the Commonwealth’s present generation to make the transition. We have seen no plan that even begins to address this issue seriously.

Of course, a real analysis, which Dominion should do, would get very technical. For example, car engines are only around 40% efficient. One might argue that only 40% of that 130 million MWh, or 52 million, is needed to run the electric version. That is still well over half of the present generation. But the electric power and electric car system is also far from 100% efficient. There are line losses, storage losses, motor losses, etc. But the bottom line holds true: if 52 million MWh has to be used, then a lot more has to be generated. And this is just with respect to gasoline. The present policy goal is to electrify as much fossil fuel use as possible. Natural gas use is huge. EIA says Virginia’s 2021 consumption was about 700 trillion Btu or almost twice as much as gasoline, and many gas uses are efficient. Distillate oil, including diesel and heating oil, is roughly another 200 trillion Btu. Even coal is around 70 trillion Btu.

Therefore, widespread electrification could easily double the load increase from that projected for the planning period in the IRP. Many new gas-fired generation will be needed to meet that load. Dominion needs to include this case in its IRP.

Offshore wind is expensive, redundant, and environmentally destructive

Instead of building new gas-fired generating capacity to backup renewables, it will be far more cost-effective to use gas as a primary energy source. Having gas capacity sit idle simply because the wind is blowing or the sun is shining for part of the day is redundant and expensive. Dominion should analyze this issue.

The case of offshore wind is particularly extreme. Dominion projects 3040 MW of new wind in all five options, mostly offshore, on top of the 2,600 or so MW already in process. The total cost is projected to exceed $8 billion per 1,000 MW or over $45 billion. This for a technology that seldom produces full power and sometimes produces none at all, including during periods of peak load.

Moreover, the projected cost of offshore wind projects has increased dramatically in recent months, on the order of 50% at this point. It is likely that the IRP needs to be redone to take such huge increases into account.

In addition to this exorbitant cost, offshore wind has been implicated in numerous whale deaths — including the extremely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. Strangely, the IRP does not include this issue.

IRP Appendix 5L is a five-page list of the many Environmental Regulations that Dominion is scrutinized under. On page 194, in a section called “Wildlife”, there are just three entries. These entries are all about the endangered Atlantic Sturgeon, threatened by hot water from nuclear power plants. There is no mention of the Marine Mammals Protection Act harassment authorizations, even though the present offshore wind construction and operation is waiting for one. They cannot start the offshore portion of the project without it. Also not mentioned are the crucial Environmental Impact Statement and BOEM approval of the project.

This is preposterous, as the threat to whales is clear. The project creates an intense noise wall that forces the whales to go around, either to the East or the West.

Immediately to the East lies the westernmost lane of the very busy coastal ship traffic. To the West lies the equally busy coastal barge traffic. Both are deadly to the species.

It seems the project was deliberately located where there is the least shipping traffic. This would make sense if it were not for the whales and other marine mammals. As it is the project closes  the low shipping corridor, which the whales undoubtedly use. Being hit by ships is the leading cause of death for whales, and the placement of wind turbines in these waters will facilitate more such collisions.

In summary

CFACT supports Dominion’s construction of new gas-fired power plants. The company will need a great deal of new gas-fired generating capacity to meet its vastly increased base load that is projected over the planning period. Many factors and drivers involved are not included in the present IRP, and Dominion needs to address them properly. In the meantime, however, given all these factors, it would seem building more gas-fired capacity is both a proper and responsible course to set.

AUTHOR

CFACT Ed

CFACT — We’re freedom people.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Lawsuit: ‘Green Greed’ Behind Lahaina Deaths thumbnail

Lawsuit: ‘Green Greed’ Behind Lahaina Deaths

By Hawaii Free Press

News Release from Bottini & Bottini Inc. (bottinilaw.com)

On September 11, 2023, BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. and TAMASHIRO SOGI & BONNER filed the first lawsuit seeking to hold the Board of Directors of Hawaiian Electric liable for the tragic loss of life and property due to the Maui Fire on August 8, 2023.

The case — Rice v. Celeste A. Connors et al., Case No. 1CCV-23-0001181, is pending in Honolulu, Hawaii in the First Circuit court.

The new complaint alleges that between 2019 and 2022, Hawaiian Electric invested less than $245,000 on wildfire-specific projects on the island. Instead of spending necessary funds to prevent fires caused by its equipment, Hawaiian Electric instead spent millions of dollars towards efforts to achieve a 100 percent renewable energy goal, which earned the Company bonuses that the Company’s executives used to increase their own compensation. Defendant Seu, CEO of the Company, was paid 32 times the median compensation of all employees in 2022.

The members of Hawaiian Electric’s Board of Directors were also well aware of the need to adopt and implement a power-shutoff system, as San Diego Gas & Electric and PG&E had done years before, but failed to do so. Darren Pai, a spokesperson for Hawaiian Electric, admitted that the Company did not have a formal power shutoff plan at the time of the Maui fire. The complaint also alleges that the Defendants new about the connection between passing hurricanes and wildfires. In 2020, researchers from the University of Hawaii and the East-West Center established a causal relationship between fires on Maui and O‘ahu to winds from Hurricane Lane.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Hawaiian Electric to haul away fallen poles, power lines, transformers, conductors and other equipment from near a Lahaina substation starting around Aug. 12, 2023, before investigators from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) arrived on scene. One of the attorneys for the shareholders, Addison Bonner of Tamashiro Sogi & Bonner, said: “The Defendants’ actions may have violated national guidelines on how utilities should handle and preserve evidence after a wildfire and deprived investigators the opportunity to view any poles or downed lines in an undisturbed condition before or after the fire started.”

Frank A. Bottini, of Bottini & Bottini, a co-counsel for the shareholders, said: “Rather than spend its customer’s money to improve infrastructure maintenance and safety, the Board of Directors of Hawaiian Electric funneled ratepayers’ money to boost their own profits and compensation. This pattern and practice of favoring profits over safety left Hawaiian Electric vulnerable to an increased risk of a catastrophic event such as the Maui fire, which was the worst natural disaster in Hawaii’s history and the deadliest U.S. fire in over a century.”

The complete complaint can be downloaded from the link below.

PDF: (2023-09-11) Conformed Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint.pdf

SA: HEI board accused of skimping on safety

NOTE: If PUC finds HECO management negligent, ratepayers cannot be made to foot bill for rebuild.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lahaina: “I will rebuild on my land”

‘Toxic Ash’ is excuse to keep residents away from burned homes

“How ’bout give the people their homes back.”

Rebuild? Give More Rights to Lahaina Property Owners

EDITORS NOTE: This Hawaii Free Press column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Plans To Target America’s Industrial Backbone With New Climate Crackdown: REPORT thumbnail

Biden Plans To Target America’s Industrial Backbone With New Climate Crackdown: REPORT

By The Daily Caller

If President Joe Biden wins a second term, his administration aims to undertake even more climate initiatives that would target key industries, according to The New York Times.

Biden, in a potential second term, would target industries he views as heavily polluting, including steel mills, cement plants, factories and oil refineries, according to the NYT. The new green initiatives could threaten his chances in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, though, as steel and cement manufacturers in swing states who are often unionized could turn on him after hearing about his climate plans for their industry.

“If you are seen as imposing debilitating regulations on heavy industry that employs large numbers of people, you’re not only going to get a backlash from manufacturing, but labor as well,” David Axelrod, chief strategist for Obama’s presidential campaigns, told the NYT. “How to do that without looking like you are stabbing these industries in the back, or in the front for that matter, is a real political challenge.”

Biden’s plan to go after industrial emissions involves subsidizing new technologies that he believes would cut down on factories’ carbon footprint, including wind and solar power to create green hydrogen to power steel mills and cement production methods that do not release carbon dioxide when heating limestone, according to the NYT. The second half of his plan involves imposing tariffs on steel, cement and aluminum based on their carbon emissions.

Since Day One, the Biden-Harris Administration has delivered on the most ambitious climate and conservation agenda in history.

This week, the Administration advanced that commitment with new actions to protect lands and wildlife in the Alaskan Arctic. pic.twitter.com/mMmarO2p8A

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 8, 2023

The Biden administration has already pledged $370 billion to climate initiatives through the $750 billion spending bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. The legislation includes a multitude of subsidies for domestic manufacturers of green energy technologies.

The move to place new restrictions on industry follows the president’s goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by the year 2050. Biden has pumped huge subsidies into the electric vehicle industry to meet this goal, aiming for half of all new cars to be electric by 2030.

In addition to electric vehicles, the president has also targeted power plants in an attempt to encourage greener energy sources like solar and wind power, creating new Environmental Protection Agency regulations that have yet to be finalized that would compel the phaseout of coal-fired power plants, according to the NYT. The Biden administration has also put restrictions on oil and gas production through tightening requirements related to methane emissions.

“Apparently skyrocketing gas and energy prices weren’t enough for Biden, he wants to raise the prices on building and infrastructure costs and put hard working Americans further into debt,” Emma Vaughn, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, told the NYT. “Biden will not be elected to a second term — American families can’t afford it.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE:

DAVID BOSSIE: It’s Not Really Joe Biden On The Ballot Next Year. It’s Someone Much Worse

Kamala Harris Thinks Government Must Enforce Equal Outcomes – Also Known as Communism

The greatest threat to America’s power grid is not what you think

Reaching Aggressive 2050 Climate Targets Could Cost Nearly $75 Trillion, Analysis Finds

Texas ‘Stop 30×30’ Summit Opposes Biden’s ‘Radical’ Environmental Plan – Texas Scorecard

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden Wants to Shrink Marine Sanctuary That Protects Endangered Whales to Accommodate Wind Energy Factory Owned By Dem Donor thumbnail

Biden Wants to Shrink Marine Sanctuary That Protects Endangered Whales to Accommodate Wind Energy Factory Owned By Dem Donor

By The Geller Report

In case you were still in the dark how evil and full of shit these Democrat environ-mentalists are……

The Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary is a biodiversity hotspot, with a range of habitat types from coastal estuaries to deep sea canyons, and migratory paths frequented by marine mammals such as dolphins and whales.

The Democrats would burn it all down.

Just like mining for EV batteries (lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite) destroys the environment. Solar panels and wind turbines never degrade – they are put in landfills where they will sit in eternity.

And inefficient offshore wind turbines are decimating the whale population and use tons of oil to operate and kill whales.

Biden Wants To Shrink Tribal Marine Sanctuary to Accommodate Wind Energy Factory Owned by Dem Donor

By: Susannah Luthi, Washington Free Beacon, September 12, 2023

President Joe Biden wants to shrink a Pacific Ocean marine sanctuary meant to protect endangered whales in order to accommodate offshore wind energy factories—one of them owned by a major Democratic donor.

The Biden administration late last month proposed cutting about 1,400 square miles of ocean and coastline from an Indian tribe’s proposed national marine sanctuary to make room for wind turbine infrastructure. One of these factories would belong to Invenergy, whose founder and CEO Michael Polsky has given more than $400,000 to Democrats since 2016. His company shelled out $2.4 million to lobby the White House, federal agencies, and Congress this year.

The proposal reflects a conflict between efforts to fight climate change and those to preserve natural habitats. The Biden administration’s proposal would benefit green energy companies and generate renewable energy, but environmental groups have sounded the alarm on such projects noting that they kill birds and whales—the very wildlife that the marine sanctuary seeks to preserve. The proposal also reflects the green energy industry’s status as a major player in the Democratic Party. Biden has invested billions of taxpayer dollars into renewable energy projects backed by liberal billionaires, enriching them in the process.

Polsky’s major contributions from the past several years include a total of $72,000 to the House Democrats’ campaign committee in 2020 and 2022, and $35,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2016—the same year he poured $75,000 into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Polsky has also donated to Republicans and Invenergy’s political campaign committee, but of the roughly $500,000 he has contributed to political causes since 2016, more than $400,000 has gone to Democrats according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

While Polsky did not contribute to Biden’s presidential bid in 2020, Invenergy employees gave more than $120,000 to his campaign, federal contribution records show.

This isn’t the first time Democrats have rewarded Polsky’s energy companies. In 2016, a Pennsylvania Democrat whose campaign Polsky funded helped secure him a $1.2 billion natural gas plant, the Free Beacon reported at the time. During Barack Obama’s presidency, Invenergy received more than $20 million in taxpayer-funded grants.

The Northern Chumash tribal council first petitioned for a 7,600 square mile marine sanctuary in the region in 2015, years before the Biden administration announced it wanted massive offshore wind turbine development in the same vicinity. The wind turbines will be built just outside the sanctuary’s northwestern boundary.

The feds’ latest proposal to cut into the marine sanctuary would slash about 29 miles of coastline and a total of about 1,400 square miles from the preserve as it was originally conceived, the tribal council said. Its final boundaries will be determined after a public comment period that ends Oct. 25. Meanwhile, the Biden administration already awarded ocean leases to Invenergy and two other energy corporations late last year, although they haven’t started construction.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—which is in charge of creating the Chumash marine preserve—noted in proposing its alternative boundary to allow for industrial development that “certain concentrations of this infrastructure may not be compatible with a national marine sanctuary.”

The administration’s proposed revision must undergo public comment before being finalized. Regardless, the wind turbines could sabotage the preserve’s goals by killing off the whales, birds, and other marine life that it is supposed to protect. Environmentalists have warned that offshore wind factories on the East Coast may be killing whales—concerns that the Biden administration has condemned as “misinformation” even though more than 70 whales have died since December.

A spokesperson for the Department of Interior division overseeing the offshore wind development did not respond to questions about the turbines’ potential harm to whales but deferred to NOAA for queries about the sanctuary.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEET:

Let’s talk about cobalt mining, Mehdi.

Children in the Congo earn less than $10 / USD a day mining cobalt for your precious EV batteries.

Windmills use tons of OIL to operate and kill whales.

Solar panels and wind turbines never degrade – they are put in landfills where… pic.twitter.com/7YZHESD7pv

— Sissy Cheek (@VikingQueen888) September 11, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Greatest Threat to Science is from Within thumbnail

The Greatest Threat to Science is from Within

By John Droz, Jr.

A Progressive tips his hand about how they are trying to undermine Science.


One of Lincoln’s most powerful speeches is the Lyceum Address. The key message is that we should not be so worried about overseas enemies, as corruption from within is our most serious threat…

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

I thought of this as I read the interview of one Stanford professor of another. The title is “How To Beat Bad Science.” If that wasn’t enticing enough for me, the person being interviewed (Dr. Jonathan Osborne) was identified as a “science education expert.”

I thought wow! Since I’m a K-12 science education expert, this should be right up my alley, in my lane, fit me like a glove, etc. However, it was a major disappointment.

Interesting note: At no time in the interview does Jonathan define “Bad Science!” Reading between the lines here, the implied definition is when scientists advocate anything that goes against government technical policies (like the net negative consequences for school children to wear masks for COVID-19 — e.g., here).

Ignoring the significant deficiency of the missing key definition, Jonathan says that for students to beat “bad science” they need to learn three skills: 1) be aware of conflicts of interest, 2) evaluate the source’s qualifications, and 3) more rigorously question those who go against consensus!

Point one would evidently be to look for one of the thousands of scientists who are funded by the fossil fuel industry — even though in 40+ years I have yet to find any.

Point two might be to ignore any evidence presented by a scientist, not a specialist — e.g., “only climatologists are qualified to evaluate the claims in climate science.” (This is to deceive the public, as real Scientists know that any Scientist can legitimately comment on the adherence to scientific principles by those in any field of Science.)

To reinforce the surprising third point he goes on to say that: The whole goal of science is consensus! OMG. Here I’ve been laboring for over four decades under the assumption that the goal of Science was: to give us a better understanding of our material existence. Now I find out that The whole goal of science is consensus!

I thought that politics was the field that focused on consensus, not Science. Maybe Jonathan wants us to equate real Science with political science. I’ve written about that problematic deception before (e.g., here), as it is a plague of our times.

It also occurs to me that if the objective of scientists is to agree with other scientists, how can we possibly make any societal progress? If scientists live and work in an echo chamber, nothing substantial will ever change. What sense does that make?

Further, I was always under the impression that the great scientists in history were outstanding because they looked at things differently — which almost always was against the current consensus. Apparently Jonathan does not understand that.

……….

As misguided as the above are due to what is said in that interview, arguably the worst parts are about what is not said. For example, there is not a word of advice for students to learn and apply the Scientific Method. It has been around in some form or other for some 4000 years — and used by people like Newton, Curie, Einstein, etc. Seems that if it was helpful for those giants of Science, it might be useful to K-12 students. But not a word in this interview is advocating the Scientific Method!

Why would Progressives hate the Scientific Method? Because almost every Progressive technical policy (e.g., industrial wind energy) that is subjected to the Scientific Method, fails. That left them two choices: a) advocate technical policies that are actually science-based, or b) get rid of the Scientific Method. They chose b.

Worse is the glaring omission of Critical Thinking. Why wouldn’t the top advice of an “expert science educator” start out with the importance of Critical Thinking? In fact, it could be argued that his first two points would be assumed subsets of a genuine Critical Thinker’s methodology.

But his third point is where the S hits the fan. Having a default position supporting consensus (i.e., conformity) is the exact opposite of Critical Thinking! In the subject area of Science, K-12 students are supposed to be taught to question everything — especially consensus!

Why are Progressives opposed to Critical Thinking? Because their worst fear is to have a citizenry of Critical Thinkers! They want compliant citizens who don’t ask questions, and who go along with whatever policies are proposed, regardless of their scientific sensibility. Think COVID-19 policies.

The more I thought about these two glaring omissions (the Scientific Method and Critical Thinking) the more it struck me that these exactly reflect the anti-Science mentality conveyed in the NGSS and its basis, the Framework, — now used by some 45 states in their K-12 education. (See my Education Report for more details.)

On a whim, I decided to check out a hunch I had, so I just looked up who were the Progressive authors of the Framework (which became the NGSS). Here they are.

Scroll down and — mirabile dictu —there is Jonathan Osborne! Who woulda thunk?

This should convey a VERY clear idea of the mentality of the select Progressive clique that wrote the K-12 Science Standards — again, now used in some 45 states!

Please read about my success in reversing some of that in North Carolina, plus a subsequent post about how committed citizens can do the same in their state…

PS — I emailed both of these co-conspirators and stated my primary objection. If I get anything of value back, I’ll post it here. So far zip, so don’t hold your breath!

©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.