Apollonian
Guest Columnist
Here it is, suckers, refutation of "climate-change" lies--conclusive and even SIMPLE to understand too--see what u think--even Jew tube couldn't censor, it was soooo perfect. Notice it was short and sweet vid, too
"Climate-change" lies & conspiracy (pretext for dictatorship, suckers) crushed & refuted conclusively, morons--even on Jew-tube which couldn't censor
- Thread starter Apollonian
- Start date
Apollonian
Guest Columnist
Bloomberg News Celebrates Deadly South Africa Blackouts Because They Slashed Carbon Emissions
by Jamie WhiteMay 15th 2023, 2:54 pm
Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/bloo...ckouts-because-they-slashed-carbon-emissions/
Thanks to widespread blackouts, "South Africa is ahead of its target for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases," the corporate news outlet states.
Bloomberg News praised South Africa for inadvertently meeting its “climate goals” thanks to regular coal plant breakdowns causing widespread blackouts.
In its bizarre Monday headline, “South Africa Beats Climate Goal as Blackouts Slash Emissions,” Bloomberg News lauded the energy cuts because now South Africa is “ahead of its target for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases.”
“Output of the climate-warming gases from the world’s 14th-biggest emitter is already falling even though its Nationally Determined Contribution, a target adopted by the cabinet in 2021, only forecast a decline from 2025.”
The outlet appeared delighted to describe how South Africa achieved these arbitrary climate goals thanks to the rolling blackouts, also called “loadshedding.”
“Regular breakdowns of the coal-fired power plants that supply more than 80% of South Africa’s electricity mean that less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere and daily rotational cuts of more than 10 hours a day are further limiting emissions from factories,” the outlet reported.
Crispian Olver, the executive director of South Africa’s Presidential Climate Commission, insisted the country met its climate goal by accident.
“It’s unintentional,” he said in an interview in Johannesburg on Monday.
“We reckon we are well within the range” of meeting the 2030 target, he added, referring to South Africa’s aim to reduce its emissions to between 350 and 420 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030.
The reality of the blackouts, contrary to Bloomberg’s rosy reporting, is much more dire.
“Car crashes, opportunistic criminals, rotting food, decomposing bodies, bankrupt businesses, and water shortages. Welcome to life under South Africa’s power blackouts,” CNN reported in January.
This is a glaring example of how the climate change zealots are willing to plunge civilization into the Dark Ages if it means reducing carbon emissions even slightly.
As Infowars has reported, the World Economic Forum and other globalist institutions are using “climate change” as the vehicle to impose top-down controls on industry as part of the Great Reset agenda, much like they did with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Apollonian
Guest Columnist
The Implausible Temperature Assumptions That Corrupt Climate Science and Journalism
BY CHRIS MORRISON16 MAY 2023 7:00 AM
Link: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/16...et-zero-promoting-climate-science-literature/
Much of the alarmist climate science literature promoting the collectivist Net Zero political project, along with many doomsday scenarios highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are corrupted with implausible data that almost nobody believes. This astonishing conclusion can reasonably be drawn from recent extensive research from the Clintel Foundation. This work identified the widespread use of data predicting unrealistic temperature rises of 4-5°C in less than 80 years.
Clintel found that the IPCC makes extensive use of two pathways (scenarios of projected socioeconomic global changes up to the year 2100) that are “completely out of touch with reality” and that the UN-funded body then sprays the results all over its reports. The pathways called SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 make improbable claims of massive temperature rises that even the IPCC says are of “low likelihood”. As we noted last Saturday, this caveat is buried deep in the recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), and is not even mentioned in the widely-distributed Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). In addition, Clintel notes that “week after week” new publications appear using these extreme scenarios to create screaming headlines.
Bloomberg recently looked at how frequently each scenario appears in publications discoverable on Google Scholar. As shown in the graph above, the most extreme pathway is the most popular in the literature. In this sense, says Clintel, one might have concluded that the IPCC is simply doing its job and assessing and reporting the literature. It can also be suggested that the IPCC picks its lead authors and ignores science that runs contrary to the ‘correct’ political narrative. That is, it marks its own homework.
One result is that much of the climate panic that appears in mainstream media is tainted by the inappropriate use of these pathways. For example, last March the BBC ran a story claiming that Antarctic Ocean currents were heading for collapse. To drive home the scare, there was even a reference to the 2004 climate disaster film The Day After Tomorrow. The article was based on the work of scientists who claimed rapidly melting ice was causing a dramatic slowdown in deep ocean currents. In reality, the overall Antarctica ice sheet has seen little change for at least 70 years. Unsurprisingly, the scientists’ claims were based on computer models fed with RCP8.5 data – a fact missing from the BBC’s ridiculous story.
This captures how the system perpetuates itself. “If prominent leaders keep using this scenario and funding agencies keep funding research based on it, the use of this exaggerated scenario will continue for many years to come,” says the Clintel report.
How was it possible for such an extreme scenario to become so dominant in the literature and the IPCC reports? Professors Justin Ritchie and Roger Pielke Jr. provide some insights in their piece in Issues in Science and Technology titled ‘How the Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality‘. They argue that a “failure of self-correction in science has compromised climate science’s ability to provide plausible views of our collective future”.
Their damning conclusion: “The continuing misuse of scenarios in climate research has become pervasive and consequential – so much so that we view it as one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the 21st Century thus far. We need a course correction.”
Apollonian
Guest Columnist
The Club Of Rome: How Climate Hysteria Is Being Used To Create Global Governance
May 19, 2023 9:05 am by IWBLink: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ia-is-being-used-to-create-global-governance/
[see vid at site link, above]
By Brandon Smith
In the early 1970s the US and much of the western world was shifting into a stagflationary economic crisis. Nixon removed the dollar completely from the gold standard in 1971 with the aid of the Federal Reserve (or perhaps under the direction of the Fed) which ultimately escalated inflation pressures. Europe’s post war boom came to an abrupt end, while prices on goods (and oil/gasoline) in the US skyrocketed up until 1981-1982, when the Federal Reserve jacked interest rates up to around 20% and created a deliberate recessionary crash.
Interestingly, the IMF had created the SDR system in 1969 just before the gold standard was cut (the same SDR which the IMF is poised to use as the foundation of a global digital currency mechanism). And, the World Economic Forum was founded in 1971.
The time period is often depicted in films as a happy-go-lucky era of disco, drugs, hippes and rock n’ roll, but the reality is that the early 1970s was the beginning of the end for the west – it was the moment that our economic foundations were sabotaged and the affluence of the middle class was slowly but surely stolen by inflation.
In the midst of this economic “malaise,” which Jimmy Carter later referred to as a “crisis of confidence,” the United Nations and associated globalist round table groups were hard at work developing a scheme to convince the population to embrace global centralization of power. Their goals were rather direct. They wanted:
A rationale for governmental control of human population numbers.
The power to limit industry.
The power to control energy production and dictate energy sources.
The power to control or limit food production and agriculture.
The ability to micromanage individuals lives in the name of some later defined “greater good.”
A socialized society in which the individual right to property is abandoned.
A one-world economic system which they would manage.
A one-world currency system.
A one-world government managing a handful of separate regions.
One of the most revealing quotes on the agenda comes from Clinton Administration Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, who stated in Time magazine that:
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority… National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
To understand how the agenda functions, I offer a quote from globalist Council on Foreign Relations member Richard Gardner in an article in Foreign Affairs Magazine in 1974 titled ‘The Hard Road To World Order’:
“In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
In other words, the globalists knew that incrementalism would be the only way to achieve a one-world power structure that OPENLY governs, rather than hiding the rule of elitists behind clandestine organizations and puppet politicians. They want a global empire in which they become the anointed “Philosopher Kings” described in Plato’s Republic. Their narcissistic egos cannot help but crave the adoration of the masses they secretly hate.
See also NETHERLANDS - Mark Rutte PM, makes it clear where food will come from. 4 global Food Hubs. Controlled by the largest farming corps...
But even with incrementalism, they know eventually the public will figure out the plan and seek to resist as our freedoms are eroded. Establishing an empire is one thing; keeping it is another. How could the globalists come out of their authoritarian closet, eliminate individual freedoms and rule the world without a rebellion that ultimately destroys them?
The only way such a plan would work is if the people, the peasants in this empire, EMBRACE their own slavery. The public would have to be made to view slavery as a matter of solemn duty and survival, not just for themselves but for the entire species. That way, if anyone rebels they would be seen as a monster by the hive. They would be placing the whole collective in danger by defying the power structure.
Thus, the globalists win. Not just for today, they win forever because there would no longer be anyone left to oppose them.
We got a big taste of this brand of psychological warfare during the pandemic scare, in which all of us were told that a virus with a tiny Infection Fatality Rate of 0.23% was enough to erase a majority of our human rights. Luckily, a large enough group of people stood up and fought back against the mandates and passports. That said, there is a much larger “greater good” agenda at play that the globalists plan to exploit, namely the so-called “climate crisis.”
To be clear, there is ZERO evidence of a climate crisis caused by man-made carbon emissions or “greenhouse” gas emissions. There are no weather events that are out of the ordinary in terms of Earth’s historic climate timeline. There is no evidence to support “tipping point” theories on temperatures. And, the Earth’s temps have risen less than 1°C in 100 years. The official temperature record only goes back to the 1880s, and this narrow timeline is what UN and government funded climate scientists use as a reference point for their claims.
I explain why this is fraudulent science in my article ‘The Gas Stove Scare Is A Fraud Created By Climate Change Authoritarians.’ The point is, the UN has been promoting hysteria over a fake doomsday climate scenario, just like the WEF and WHO promoted hysteria and fear over a non-threat like covid. And, it all began back in the early 1970s with a group tied to the UN called The Club of Rome.
The globalists have been scheming to use environmentalism as an excuse for centralization since at least 1972 when the Club Of Rome published a treatise titled ‘The Limits Of Growth’. Funding a limited study of industry and resources in a joint project with MIT, the findings appeared to be scripted well ahead of time – The end of the planet was nigh unless nations and individuals sacrificed their sovereignty. How convenient for the globalists bankrolling the study…
Twenty years later they would publish a book titled ‘The First Global Revolution.’ In that document they specifically discuss using global warming as a vehicle to form supranational governance:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
See also Young Australians Experiencing “High Psychological Distress” Because of Global Warming Hoax
By making humanity’s very existence the great threat, the globalists intended to unify the public around the idea of keeping themselves in check. That is to say, the public would have to sacrifice their freedoms and submit to control in the belief that the human species is too dangerous to be allowed liberty.
The following news special from the Australian Public Broadcasting Service was aired in 1973, not long after the Club Of Rome was founded. It is surprisingly blunt about the purposes of the organization:
What can we derive from this broadcast and its message? The globalists want two specific outcomes most of all – They want the end of national sovereignty and the end of private property through socially incentivised of minimalism. The exact same objectives the Club Of Rome outlined in the 1970s are the driving policies of the UN and the World Economic Forum today. The “sharing economy” concept that Klaus Schwab and the WEF often proudly promotes was not thought up by them, it was thought up by the Club Of Rome 50 years ago.
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy: They spend half a century inventing a crisis, drum up public terror, and then offer the very solutions they wanted to enforce decades ago.
In the end, the climate agenda has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with economics. The plan began in the midst of a very real stagflationary crisis, a moment when the middle class populace was most afraid for the future and prices were rising rapidly. This crisis was not caused by the scarcity of resources, it was caused by the mismanagement of the financial system. It’s not a coincidence that the culmination of the global warming scheme is taking place today just as another stagflation disaster is upon us.
The Club of Rome is now a shell of its former glory filled with silly hippies, most likely because the UN and other globalist think-tanks have taken on the role the group used to play. However, the shadow of the original Club is ever present and its strategy of climate fear-mongering is being wielded right now to justify increasing government suppression of energy and agriculture.
If they are not stopped by the public, totalitarian carbon mandates will become the norm. The next generation, living in engineered poverty, will be taught from early childhood that the globalists “saved the world” from a calamity that never really existed. They will be told that the enslavement of humanity is something to be proud of, a gift that keeps the species alive, and anyone who questions that slavery is a selfish villain that wants the destruction of the planet.
Apollonian
Guest Columnist
Jimmy Dore: Google Is RIGGING Search Results For “Climate Change”
May 22, 2023 10:40 am by IWBLink: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/jimmy-dore-google-is-rigging-search-results-for-climate-change/
[see vid at site link, above]
Melissa Fleming, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications revealed during a 2022 “Sustainable Development Impact” meeting that the U.N. and Google had teamed up to change what results appear when Google users search for “climate change.” The changes are intended to prevent users from being exposed to “bad science” and “misinformation,” she says.
See also NYC to unleash FOOD POLICE to limit residents’ consumption in the name of “climate justice”
See also US Covid-19 rule change for foreign nationals from 12 May 2023
Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss what Fleming meant when she said that “We own the science.”
Apollonian
Guest Columnist
The Corruption Of Climate Science
BY TYLER DURDENFRIDAY, MAY 26, 2023 - 06:40 PM
Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,
Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/corruption-climate-science
Instead of fighting anti-civilization lunacy, corporations are taking their money off the table, along with their life-affirming affordable fuel...
Epstein is right, and his advice has never been more urgent—or as difficult to make people understand. It is no exaggeration that every major institution in America has now committed itself to the elimination of affordable and abundant energy. If it isn’t stopped, this commitment, motivated by misguided concern for the planet but also by a lust for power and money and enabled by moral cowardice and intellectual negligence, will destroy Western civilization.
For over 50 years, with increasing frequency, corrupted, careerist scientists have produced biased studies that, amplified by agenda-driven corporate and political special interests, constitute a “consensus” that is supposedly “beyond debate.” We are in a “climate crisis.” To cope with this climate emergency, all measures are justifiable.
This is overblown, one-sided, distorted, and manipulative propaganda. It is the language of authoritarians and corporatists bent on achieving even more centralized political power and economic wealth. It is a scam, perhaps the most audacious, all-encompassing fraud in human history. It is a scam that explicitly targets and crushes the middle class in developed nations and the entire aspiring populations in developing nations, at the same time as its messaging is designed to secure their fervent acquiescence.\
What is actually beyond debate is not that we are in a climate crisis but that if we don’t stop destroying our conventional energy economy, we are going to be in a civilizational crisis.
Energy is the foundation of everything—prosperity, freedom, upward mobility, national wealth, individual economic independence, functional water and transportation infrastructure, commercial-scale agriculture, mining, and industry. Without energy, it all goes dark. And “renewables” are not even remotely capable of replacing oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power. It’s impossible.
The only people who think renewables are capable of replacing conventional energy are either uninformed, innumerate, or corrupt. Period.
But to cope with the apocalyptic messaging of climate catastrophists, it isn’t enough to debunk the potential of renewables. It is also necessary to challenge the underlying climate “science.” The biased, corrupt, unceasing avalanche of expert “studies” serving up paid-for ideas to special interests that use them as bludgeons to beat into the desired shape every relevant public policy and popular narrative. So here goes.
A new study, released May 16, deserves far more criticism than it’s going to get. Authored by seven ridiculously credentialed experts and primarily affiliated with the leftist Union of Concerned Scientists, this study has the rather innocuous title: “Quantifying the contribution of major carbon producers to increases in vapor pressure deficit and burned area in western US and southwestern Canadian forests.” Bursting with charts and equations, and too many links to corroborating sources to count, the study has all the accouterments of intimidating credibility. But serious questions may be raised as to its logic as well as its objectivity.
Biased, Flawed Studies
For starters, this study doesn’t restrict itself to “Quantifying the contribution of major carbon producers to increases in vapor pressure deficit.” The authors can’t resist attacking these “major carbon producers.” In this revealing paragraph, the study’s true intent becomes apparent: it is fodder for litigation.That paragraph has nothing to do with the stated goal of the study. It just shows the political and legal context in which this study is designed to play a useful part. But what about the logic?
Here is where this study falls apart. It’s always fascinating to wade through intellectual efforts that are the product of extraordinary diligence and rarified expertise, only to discover the absence of fundamental variables and realize that by leaving them out, the entire argument disintegrates.
To explain what the authors got wrong, it is first necessary to summarize what they did. In plain English, the authors claim that hotter summers in recent years have caused more severe forest fires in the western United States, and fossil fuel emissions are causing the hotter summers.
That’s it.
To make their case, the authors have relied on a scientific term that imparts gravitas to the discussion, “vapor pressure deficit.” This is a big phrase that simply means “dry air.” The point they’re making is that it isn’t merely heat itself, but the fact that moisture is absent from the air, which causes trees to dry out faster and therefore become easier to ignite and burn. So far, so good. But there are at least two gaping holes in this reasoning. Both should be obvious.
First, the heat waves afflicting western forests in recent years are not unique. Even in modern history, the hottest temperature ever recorded in California was in 2013, when it hit 134 degrees in Death Valley. As for whipsawing extremes, during the 1930s, a decade when hot temperatures rivaled if not exceeded those we experience today, the coldest temperature ever measured in California, negative 45 degrees, was recorded in Nevada County. But the last few centuries are a mere heartbeat in the meteorological history of California.
Last year the San Jose Mercury breathlessly reported that the drought—over now, by the way—was the “worst in 1,200 years.” This raises the obvious question, what about that even bigger drought that occurred 1,200 years ago? This same newspaper in 2014 reported that “past dry periods lasted more than 200 years.” And so what about these multi-century droughts? Do we have temperature data for them? Was it hot? What was the vapor pressure deficit during these prehistoric, 200-year droughts? Such questions are not asked, much less answered.
One can go on. Prehistoric Sequoias, the predecessors of redwood trees, first appeared in the fossil record 200 million years ago, when dinosaurs still walked the earth. In their current form, redwoods have thrived in California for over 20 million years. For most of that period, the average global temperatures were considerably higher than they are today.
But what if it isn’t just heat, but dry heat, that is unprecedented today? What if the “vapor pressure deficit” is worse today than it has been at any time in 20 million years? That is a huge assumption, probably impossible to verify. Even if it’s true, it doesn’t make up for the study’s other flaw, which is the density of forests in California today, which is truly unprecedented. The study’s authors acknowledge they don’t take this variable into account, writing:
The authors go on to contend this omission has “not modified the climate-BA [burned area] relationship at the scale of this study.”
They’re wrong.
In California, wildlife biologists and forest ecologists who spend their lives studying and managing these timberlands unanimously agree that tree density has increased, thanks to “non-climatic factors such as the prohibition of Indigenous burning, and legacies of fire suppression.” The increase is not subtle. Without small, naturally occurring fires that clear underbrush and smaller trees, forests become overgrown. Controlled burns and responsible logging are absolutely necessary to maintain forest health. According to a study conducted in 2020 by UC Davis and USDA, California’s mid-elevation Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests used to average 60 trees per acre, and now they average 170 trees per acre according to conservative estimates.
This is not an isolated finding. Observations of excessive tree density are corroborated by numerous studies, testimony, and journalistic investigations. Unlike the subjectively defined algorithms plugged into a climate model, excessive tree density is an objective fact, verified repeatedly by people on the ground. To imply by omission that more than tripling the density of trees across millions of acres of forest would not leave them stressed and starved for soil nutrients, sunlight, and water from rain and atmospheric moisture is scientific malpractice.
Without taking these additional factors into account, it is deceptive to indict fossil fuel emissions for causing wildfires. Perhaps some indirect connection can be established of debatable relevance, but for this study to assign specific percentages and acreages suggests a premeditated purpose: creating material for expert testimony for litigation against oil companies.
The Real Reason for Catastrophic Wildfires
California’s forests are tinderboxes because environmentalists made it nearly impossible to get permits to do controlled burns and because environmentalists decimated the timber industry. In the face of relentless regulatory and litigious harassment, California’s timber industry has shrunk from harvesting 6 billion board feet per year as recently as the 1990s to less than 2 billion board feet in recent years. Meanwhile, California’s fire suppression industrial complex has grown to gargantuan proportions, pouring billions of dollars into putting fires out before they can spread.The result is predictable and doesn’t require a climate scientist to explain it. We have mismanaged our forests for decades, mostly thanks to the misguided influence of environmentalist pressure groups on the state legislature. California’s forests are now overcrowded with trees that are stressed, dried out, and ready to burst into flames, with or without a “vapor pressure deficit.”
The solution, according to climate catastrophists, is to empty the dangerous, flammable “urban/wildland interface” of human habitation, mandate electric vehicles, and sue oil companies. This will accomplish nothing for the forests, even if every apocalyptic climate scenario were to come true. A rational solution would be to bring back the timber industry, deregulate controlled burns and mechanical thinning, revive responsible grazing of cattle, goats, and sheep to remove excessive foliage, and watch the forests again thrive.
If mismanagement is what’s really causing forest superfires, media misinformation is what’s preventing policy reform. A Sacramento Bee headline, for example, says, “Fossil fuel companies to blame for share of California wildfires . . . ” From The Hill: “Scientists blame fossil fuel production for more than a third of Western wildfires.” From “Pulitzer Prize-winning” Inside Climate News: “Fossil Fuel Companies and Cement Manufacturers Could Be to Blame for a More Than a Third of West’s Wildfires.” None of these media reports mention tree density.
The monolithic alignment of the scientific and journalistic community in support of an authoritarian, utterly impractical “climate” agenda reveals a misunderstanding if not outright betrayal of scientific and journalistic core values. Both disciplines are founded on the bedrock of skepticism and debate. Without nurturing those values, the integrity of these disciplines is undermined. When it comes to issues of climate and energy policy in America, science and journalism are compromised.
Fossil Fuel Industry Failures
Let’s suppose that back in the mid-1960s, oil companies were presented with a theory that fossil fuel emissions would cause the climate to warm. Wouldn’t their first rational response be to question this theory? Why would questioning a theory constitute “misleading the public”? Even if some of the executives in these companies believed these theories, it would be absurd to suggest all of them did. In any boardroom discussion, and this is amusingly ironic, the economic interests of an oil corporation would compel their directors to be intellectually honest and not simply accept the theory that their product was going to warm the planet. Good luck proving that oil companies intentionally misled the public.But so what? Were America’s oil and gas companies simply supposed to believe all these nascent theories and shut down? What exactly should they have done, back in the mid-1960s, to cope with this allegedly looming climate emergency? Were solar panels and wind turbines ready for rapid deployment back then? Of course not, especially since solar panels from China, and wind turbines from Germany, are still not capable of providing more than a small fraction of the energy we need.
The real crime, if you want to call it that, isn’t that oil and gas companies questioned climate change theories back in the 1960s or ’70s. It’s that they’re accepting them now.
Oil and gas companies today are not willing to challenge the climate crisis orthodoxy, or the myth of cost-effective renewables at scale. They aren’t willing to devote their substantial financial resources to debunking this agenda-driven madness that is on the verge of taking down our entire civilization. The fact that America’s oil and gas companies have adopted a strategy of appeasement is a crime against humanity. The fact that these companies are failing to make long-term investments to develop new oil and gas fields, and instead are reaping windfall profits as they sell existing production at politically inflated prices, that, too, is a crime against civilization.
Ultimately, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the major oil companies are complicit in the destruction of America’s energy economy. Because rather than declaring total war on these paid-for, flawed scientific studies and the special interests that fund them, oil companies will engage in theatrical litigation, knowing that the cost of settlements won’t even come close to the short-term profits to be had by slowly asset stripping their companies while selling diminishing quantities of fuel at punitive rates.
Epstein is right that we must criticize the “experts” that want to destroy human civilization with climate alarmism. But we must also recognize and criticize the institutions targeted for destruction. Instead of fighting this lunacy, they are taking their money off the table, along with their life-affirming affordable fuel, and heading for the hills.
Apollonian
Guest Columnist
Climate change warnings started in the late 1800s. Here's what humanity knew and when
17 HRS AGO7 MINUTE READ
Link: http://www.mr-mehra.com/2023/06/climate-change-warnings-started-in-late.html
Political misinformation continues to swirl around the climate change discussion like a thick fog rolling in off the rising ocean. But a host of government documents and reports by researchers and historians lay a clear trail of what scientists and government officials knew and when.
Scientists had already figured out by the late 1800s that a greenhouse effect works to keep the planet warm, and that the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal could enhance that effect. By the 1970s, researchers were measuring those emissions in the atmosphere and warning Earth’s temperature could warm between 0.5 and 5 degrees Celsius by the mid-21st century.
Fifty years later, the vast majority of scientists agreed the global average temperature was already one degree Celsius higher than it had been in the late 1800s and had been rising at a rate of .2 degrees Celsius every decade since the 1970s.
Some people continue to wrongly characterize climate change as a new fad
Despite the long history of scientific and military documents that chronicle warming temperatures, rising sea levels and more extreme weather around the world, people often repeat misconceptions and share inaccurate information.In one of the latest examples, presidential contender Ron DeSantis, governor of one of the states most vulnerable to climate change, brought up warming during a May 24 FOX News interview with Trey Gowdy.
When Gowdy asked about the U.S. military, DeSantis replied:
“You talk about things like global warming that they’re somehow concerned about, and that’s not the military I served in.”
But the military, including the Navy, has been worried about climate change for decades.
“DeSantis is wrong,” says Peter Gleick, a co-founder and senior fellow at the Pacific Institute, who has studied the U.S. military’s climate change research for more than 30 years.
Navy officials talked about the impacts of climate change more than 15 years before DeSantis joined the Navy in 2004.
- “We are all aware of possible threats posed by global climate change,” retired Navy Admiral James Watkins told members of Congress in February 1989, after being nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as Secretary of Energy.
- By 2001, Navy submarines had documented a “striking” thinning of new Arctic Ocean ice.
- The Navy conducted a two-day symposium in 2001 to evaluate potential operations needed in an ice-diminished Arctic.
- The Navy issued its “Climate Change Road Map” in 2010, the year DeSantis left active duty. It stated: “Climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy.”
What we knew and when about climate change
For more than 150 years, scientists have built on the work of others before them to identify the role of carbon dioxide emissions in warming the Earth.“Any politician today that denies the reality of climate change is either grossly ignorant of more than a century of science or is deliberately misleading the public for political reasons,” Gleick said.
Read on to explore more about the roots of climate change research and the information scientists have learned and when:
Concerns about coal burning crop up early
1300s – King Edward of England bans coal burning, blaming it for thick, black smoke choking the air in London.1700s – Coal-powered factories begin appearing in Great Britain as the first Industrial Revolution begins in Europe.
1861 – Irish physicist John Tyndall writes that water vapor and gasses such as carbon dioxide create the Earth’s greenhouse effect, trapping the Sun’s heat and keeping the planet warm.
1896 –Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius publishes a study that shows he “knows that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will raise temperatures, and acknowledges that burning fossil fuels are a source of carbon dioxide, but stops just short of explicitly predicting man-made global warming,” said Robert Rohde, lead scientist for Berkeley Earth. Arrhenius connected the dots in his later work.
U.S. geologist Thomas Chamberlin at the University of Chicago, who studied glaciers in the Arctic, also writes about carbon dioxide’s role in regulating the Earth’s temperature.
1912 – A New Zealand newspaper warns burning coal could eventually change the climate. The piece was based on a Popular Mechanics magazine article published earlier that year that mentioned the work of Arrhenius.
Climate change conversation continues as research advances
The era from the 1950s to the 1970s ushers in more scientific progress and data collection.1958 – Scientist C. David Keeling with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography begins direct measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. In the 65 years since then, carbon dioxide concentrations have climbed from 315.98 parts per million to 423.78, a 34% increase.
1970 – Meteorologist George S. Benton at Johns Hopkins University writes "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change" for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He says:
- A 10% increase in carbon dioxide should result in an average temperature increase of about .3 degrees Celsius.
- Some local temperatures have warmed as much as 3-4 degrees Celsius.
1975 – Geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory publishes a study titled: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
Research advances open information floodgates during Carter Administration
By the late 1970s, the phrase “climate change” began regularly appearing in academic research papers, government reports and even newspaper stories.After President Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976, several key developments occur, including a panel he commissioned to look at concentrations of carbon dioxide and a study for the Department of Energy.
1977 – In a July letter to Carter, his science adviser, geophysicist Frank Press, notes:
- Fossil fuel combustion has increased “at an exponential rate” over 100 years
- Carbon dioxide is 12% above the pre-industrial revolution level and could grow 1.5 to 2 times that level within 60 years, increasing warning anywhere from 0.5-5 degrees Celsius
- Rapid increase could be “catastrophic”
- The authors asked if the Earth is moving into a period of colder weather and climatologists said climate change isn’t temporary weather but what happens over decades.
- “A growing number of meteorologists think that, rather than cooling, the atmosphere is actually warming up,” the story stated. “And if the world is getting warmer, the main reason is a rise in the atmosphere’s level of carbon dioxide.”
- Even a 1 degree Celsius rise would make the earth’s climate warmer than in 1,000 years
- A carbon dioxide-induced temperature rise is expected to be 3 or 4 times greater at the poles than in the middle latitudes. (Today, federal officials say the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as anywhere else in the world and at an even greater pace in some locations and at some times of the year.)
1988 – James Hansen, with NASA’s Goddard Space Institute, and George Woodwell, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, tell members of the U.S. Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources committee that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising and responsible for increases in global average temperature and warming at higher latitudes.
1989 – The National Academy of Sciences — now led by Press, Carter's former science adviser — sends a letter to President-elect George H.W. Bush, urging him to place the threat of increasing global temperatures high on his agenda and to seek alternatives to coal, oil and other pollutants that fuel global warming.
Gleick publishes a study that notes widespread attention to concerns about how climate change and other environmental problems could affect international security and recommends responses to minimize adverse consequences.
1990 – The U.S. Navy War College presents a report to the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence, “Global Climate Change: Implications for the United States.” in what Gleick says is the first explicit acknowledgement of the potential threat of climate change to national security.
1991 – The Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of the United States mentions the climate peril twice, saying environmental concerns such as climate change and deforestation were “already contributing to political conflict.”
1997 – Members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopt the Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan in December. It receives 84 signatures over the next 15 months.
1998 – The federal government declassifies data gathered by Navy submarines on Arctic sea ice thickness, information deemed essential to examining how global climate change affects ice cover.
1999 – As the millennium closes, researchers Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes reconstruct historical temperatures and suggest warming in the latter half of the century is unlike anything in at least 1,000 years. It became widely known as the hockey stick theory, for the line that shows the abrupt increase in later years.
A new century
2002 – The National Academies of Science releases the report: “Abrupt Climate Change, Inevitable Surprises.”2003 – Abrupt climate change could pose “specific consequences to the US military,” writes retired Navy Rear Admiral Richard Pittenger and oceanographer Robert Gagosian in a piece for Defense Horizons. They say it “seems a useful exercise to contemplate the military ramifications of potential, abrupt climate changes."
2009 – U.S. Navy creates a Climate Change Task Force to recommend actions the Navy should take in response to sudden changes in the Arctic marine environment. Rear Admiral David Titley, who led the task force, later said counter arguments presented during the research “fell apart in the face of overwhelming evidence.”
By 2010, the task force releases an “Arctic Roadmap” and a Navy Climate Change roadmap. Among the statements:
- Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe.
- “The current scientific consensus indicates the Arctic may experience nearly ice free summers sometime in the 2030's.”
- Climate change is "affecting military installations and access to natural resources worldwide.”
2019 – A Department of Defense report during the administration of President Donald Trump says dozens of bases are experiencing climate change challenges, including rising sea levels, thawing permafrost, drought and wildfires.
2021 – Department of Defense risk analysis warns “to keep the nation secure, we must tackle the existential threat of climate change. The unprecedented scale of wildfires, floods, droughts, typhoons, and other extreme weather events of recent months and years have damaged our installations and bases, constrained force readiness and operations, and contributed to instability around the world.”
In June 2023, Titley, the retired rear admiral who led the Navy's 2009-10 task force, told USA TODAY the military is "always interested in changes (political, economic, demographic, agricultural, engineering, technology, etc) that will impact war fighting, readiness, and the capabilities of both ourselves and any potential adversaries."
When people asked him why the military would be interested in climate change, Titley said he responded with his own question. “Why wouldn’t we be if it impacting warfighting and readiness? It would be negligent and a disservice of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines not to think through the changes that will be caused by a changing climate."
Apollonian
Guest Columnist
FOX News/Ingraham: UN and globalist-satanists now increase screaming & hysteria for climate-change and dictatorship--just like covid mass-murder, suckers--they insist everyone is stupid (actually quite true to great extent)