Sunday, May 01, 2016
Bill Nye, UN Climate Scientist Warn Moviegoers to Shun Film’s 1-Day Theater Release: ‘Not in Our National Interest’
Reviews: ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’
Leading climate activists are warning moviegoers to shun the May 2nd nationwide one-day theater screening of “Climate Hustle,” a new film debunking climate alarmism and its big government solutions.
Bill Nye (not a real “science guy,” FYI), who entertains the idea of throwing climate skeptics in the slammer, warned the film’s producer, Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, that “Climate Hustle’s” content endangers not just the nation, but also the world:
“I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest."
U.N. Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer has, likewise, condemned the film – without even viewing it - for daring to dispute climate alarmism. "Marc is a propagandist,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientist cautions viewers.
“Climate Hustle: Are They Trying to Control the Climate…or You?” employs data, humor, and everyday language – and climate alarmists’ own past predictions – to document the holes in manmade climate doom theory and demonstrate how alarmism is being used as a pretext to increase government power and limit individual freedoms.
“Climate Hustle” will be in theaters for a one-night event on Monday, May 2nd, and will include an exclusive panel discussion following the film featuring Gov. Sarah Palin, climatologist Dr. David Legates, Media Research Center Pres. Brent Bozell, and film host Marc Morano.
Flint Residents Pin Blame of Lead-Laden Water on EPA
Despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s insistence to the contrary, more than 500 current and former residents of Flint, Michigan, joined in a class action lawsuit placing blame on the agency for its hand in the lead-tainted water in the city. The suit, filed Monday, seeks $220 million in potential damages from the agency for personal injury and property damage over the EPA’s inaction in Flint. “The EPA heard the alarm bell loud and clear but chose to ignore the profound environmental and public health issues brought to its attention in the early stages of this disaster,” said Michael Pitt, attorney for the plaintiffs. “This agency attitude of ‘public be damned’ amounts to a cruel and unspeakable act of environmental injustice for which damages will have to be paid to the thousands of injured water users.”
In March, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy complained that it was state officials who were giving the EPA the runaround, the ones who were hiding the condition of Flint’s water from the protectors of the environment. It was much more content to place blame on Michigan’s Republican governor. And while mistakes were made, at least one party holds blame for putting bureaucratic incompetence ahead of actually protecting people and the environment. The EPA regulates lead and copper piping. It oversees states' drinking water programs. The agency won’t get off the hook easily.
Get off my fracking land! Furious British farmer sprays MANURE at Greenies
An irate farmer sprayed raw sewage at Oscar winning star Emma Thompson and her sister Sophie after they flouted a court injunction protecting a fracking site.
The stars were filming a Great British Bake Off parody for Greenpeace when the owner of the field they trespassed on drove his muck spreader in circles around the demonstrators.
A group of protesters were hit by the manure but the actresses remained dry in their tent, complete with Bake Off-inspired bunting.
Police were also called and also spoke to the actresses, who climbed over a gate and set up camp on land earmarked for gas exploration in Fylde, Lancashire.
Emma and Sophie, who won Celebrity Masterchef, filmed a pastiche episode of the Great British Bake Off called Frack Free Bake Off to voice their opposition to the fracking plans.
But this afternoon the landowner, who leases the contested patch of land to fracking company Cuadrilla, drove his muck spreader in circles around the demonstrating group.
After a couple of circles around the group, who were shouting for him to stop it, the farmer drove off.
Protesters are banned from the site, near Preston, after company Cuadrilla applied for an injunction in 2014. It is not clear if the fracking company will now take civil action - but it appears unlikely.
The sisters, who are also Greenpeace supporters, baked a wind turbine cake and a solar lemon cake in a white marquee complete with vintage utensils and bunting.
Soon afterwards at least five police officers arrived - Lancashire Police said they were there for safety reasons and made no arrests.
Explaining the stunt Emma Thompson said: 'My sister has won Celebrity Masterchef and is viciously competitive. She might have planned to do away with me while we are doing this.
'I have a feeling she's been up all night practising and I haven't been because I'm lazy.'
She added she does not fancy her chances in the competition, saying: 'I'm not a good baker, I don't have a great deal of skill so I'm fairly sure it won't go in my favour but we are all winning because we are protesting these fracking plans.'
She continued: 'I've been aware of this issue for a while with my work with Greenpeace and it came to a head for me when David Cameron went to the Paris Climate Conference and signed on to the protocol and then on the sly at Christmas, when nobody was looking, gave the nod to 200 fracking sites in Britain.
'It proved to me our Government is saying one thing and doing the opposite.'
The sisters' efforts will be judged by cake shop owner Kate Styles, from near Blackpool.
The local community will be able to taste the cakes at a tea party after filming and people can cast their votes on Twitter to persuade the judge to pick their favourite.
Ms Styles said: 'We are angry that we won't get the final say over whether there is fracking in our community or not.
'Local residents and their councillors have played by the rules of our planning and democratic process in rejecting Cuadrilla's drilling plan.
'The Government didn't like the outcome and appointed itself as the ultimate judge.
'It doesn't seem right that the only decision we will get to make is which is the best cake made on the site where Cuadrilla want to frack.
'But we are thrilled that Emma and Sophie Thompson have come here to support us.'
Cuadrilla's application to drill on the site was rejected by Lancashire County Council last year amid strong public opposition and was appealed by the company.
Communities and Local Government Secretary Greg Clark has announced he will have the final say on the application, with his decision expected in coming months.
Sophie Thompson said: 'There's nothing like food to bring people together, and nothing like fracking to pull them apart.
'For years, to oppose fracking, this community has played by the rules of our democracy.
'Yet the Government has rigged the competition undemocratically to favour the fracking industry.
'If our Government energy policy were a cake, it would probably be a crossover between a crumble and an Eton mess.'
The government backs fracking and developing shale oil and gas in the UK, claiming it has the potential to: 'provide the UK with greater energy security, growth and jobs.'
In 2014, Prime Minister David Cameron described fracking - short for hydraulic fracturing' - as 'good for our country'.
In January, a leaked Governmental 10-page plan set out a timeline for the expansion of the shale gas industry in Britain.
It could see wells classified as 'nationally significant infrastructures' - meaning drilling permission is taken away from councils.
Friends of the Earth, which obtained the leaked letter, branded the proposed changes 'an attack on democracy'.
Greenpeace's Hannah Martin said: 'We don't need fracked gas to keep Britain baking.
'We need renewable energy, like wind and solar. We are fighting for this land to remain frack free.'
A police spokesman added: 'We were this morning made aware of a protest on land at Plumpton Hall Farm at Little Plumpton.
'A local neighbourhood patrol attended and spoke to a representative of the protestors to establish their intentions.
'It was not felt necessary or proportionate to maintain a police presence at the site but resources are available to attend again if necessary.'
But Ken Cronin, chief executive of UK Onshore Oil and Gas, said it was ‘ironic that Sophie Thompson, who uses gas stoves in videos to promote her own cook books, and her sister, who described Britain as “a cake-filled misery-laden grey old island”, should want to attempt to hijack the UK’s love of baking for an ill-conceived publicity stunt’.
Here’s How Fracking Bailed Out California’s Global Warming Goals
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas is responsible for California’s ability to keep electricity prices relatively low while meeting its global warming goals, according to statistical analysis published in Forbes Monday.
The analysis concludes that fracking “cushioned the blow of shifting to higher cost and more intermittent sources of renewable energy” and saved the state from an enormous increase in power prices. Forbes estimates that fracking caused electricity prices in California to fall by 70 percent since 2005. Without the fracking boom, Forbes estimates that the price of electricity would have increased by 26 percent in California since 2005.
Fracking has allowed California to keep prices relatively low while meeting global warming goals, but the state still has some of the most expensive electricity in the country. The state pays an annual averaged 14.3 cents per kilowatt house, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The national average is 10.1 cents.
Despite the bailout from fracking and massive amounts of taxpayer cash poured into wind and solar power, California has been much slower to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than other large states. Texas and Georgia, for example, turned to natural gas much quicker than the Golden State, and saw much larger declines in their CO2 emissions as a result.
Fracking helps California meet its commitments under the 2006 California Global Warming Solutions Act, which committed the state to sharp cuts in CO2 emissions. The same year, the state adopted another law that began effectively phasing out coal-fired power plants. These bills were supposed to reduce CO2 by the state’s utilities and supporters even claimed switching over to wind and solar power wouldn’t cost consumers a dime.
At the time, California was deeply dependent on natural gas and the government had predicted that the state would be forced to import enormous quantities of foreign natural gas just to keep the lights on.
Studies show that fracking for natural gas is responsible for almost 20 percent of falling CO2 emissions nationally, while the solar power California encouraged is responsible for a mere 1 percent of the decline. For every ton of CO2 cut by solar power, fracking cut 13 tons.
Natural gas-fired power plants emit far less CO2 than conventional coal power. The switch from coal to natural gas caused carbon dioxide emissions to drop sharply in 47 states and Washington, D.C. according to both Scientific American and the EIA.
Most of the progressive politicians who originally attempted to decrease the state’s CO2 emissions remain vehemently opposed to fracking. Forbes points out that the politicians have already requested another $104 billion to build solar arrays, wind turbines, energy storage and new power lines to support green energy, which translates to a bill of roughly $11,000 for the average California family.
Critics Say Obama’s Clean Power Plan Would Increase ‘Energy Poverty’ in US
Critics warn that implementing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP) to fulfill President Obama's pledge to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change would force many more American households into “energy poverty”.
Signatory nations to the non-binding international pact, which Secretary of State John Kerry signed at the United Nations’ headquarters in New York on Friday, have agreed to drastic reductions in their use of cheap, abundant fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The CPP is the centerpiece of President Obama’s pledge to reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. between 26 and 28 percent by 2025. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to delay implementation of the CPP while it is being challenged in court by 27 states.
But opponents warn that if CPP goes into effect, it will plunge many more Americans into “energy poverty” – defined as households that are forced to spend 10 percent or more of their annual income on energy, excluding transportation.
“It’s coming. We’re seeing rising electricity prices all across the U.S.,” Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the American Energy Alliance, told CNSNews.com. “This is consistent with President Obama’s promise in 2008 that under his plan, electricity rates ‘would necessarily skyrocket’.”
“The interesting thing is that electric rates are going up quite substantially across the board even though the price of our largest source of electricity – which in the U.S. is now natural gas – is at an historic low and demand is static,” he said.
Kish pointed out that the EPA’s “war on CO2” has already forced the closure of hundreds of power plants fueled by natural gas, coal and nuclear energy.
"Even though the cost of fuel, such as natural gas, is low right now, ratepayers will have to pay for years” to cover the billions of dollars in construction costs for the new replacement plants, he told CNSNews.
“The Obama administration has changed the entire electricity industry from one run by private markets to one run by government,” Kish said.
“Unfortunately, this means higher electric bills and forcing many more people into energy poverty.”
The CPP “would definitely raise the cost of energy,” Marita Noon, executive director of a non-profit group, Energy Makes America Great, told CNSNews.com, pointing to California as an example of what will happen nationwide if the CPP goes into effect.
“California has eliminated the least costly source of electricity, coal, and dramatically increased wind and solar, which are more expensive,” she explained.
Noon added that California’s higher electricity rates have a disproportionate impact on low-income residents, who are sometimes faced with the difficult decision to “heat or eat”.
According to a July 2015 Manhattan Institute study entitled Less Carbon, Higher Prices, nearly one million California households (7.4 percent) are already living in “energy poverty” due to a state requirement that a third of all electricity generated in the state come from renewable sources by 2020 – “the most stringent among states without significant in-state (or close proximity to) hydroelectric generating capacity”.
The study noted that due to the higher cost of generating electricity using wind and solar instead of fossil fuels, the average undiscounted residential electric rate in California (18 to 21 cents/kilowatt hour) in 2014 was nearly twice the U.S. average (12 cents/kWh).
“When retail consumers subsidize electricity supplies at above-market costs, retail prices inevitably rise, even if the fuel is ‘free’,” the study explained.
“As the Golden State continues its pursuit of a low-carbon economy, its green-energy policies are driving rising numbers of Californians into energy poverty.”
Australia: Bureau of Meteorology boss Rob Vertessy exits with climate warning
The report below is carefully worded but it still gives the absurd impression that global warming will increase drought. It won't. It would increase floods as warmer seas evaporate off more water. The drought in the Southern states is part of an iregular oscillation that sees rain move North and South in turns. It is the North that is getting the rain at the moment. Where I live in the North it is raining nearly every day lately, when the normal pattern is for rain mainly in January, February and March. See here
UPDATE: As I write this, it is raining like Billy-o outside. And we are now in May. Most unseasonable. We have definitely got the rain that the Southerners are missing. Don't ask me how or why that happens but it is a normal feature of the Australian climate
Australia faces a "perilous" water security future from climate change even as the Turnbull government eyes budget cuts to water programs and CSIRO halves climate investment, Rob Vertessy, the outgoing head of the Bureau of Meteorology, says.
Reservoirs in the Murray-Darling basin are now close to their lowest levels since the Millennium Drought and Tasmania is also facing "serious" issues", Dr Vertessy told Fairfax Media on Friday, his final day as the bureau's chief.
"Water shortage is a problem and climate change is going to be intensifying the drought and flood cycle," he said, noting that water demand is increasing. "Australia faces a really perilous water security challenge in the future."
The bureau now had "the world's best water information service", including precise stream-flow forecasting, that boasts a return on investments of between twofold and ninefold, despite the early stage of many projects, Dr Vertessy, a hydrologist by training, said. A drop in funding would result in a sharp reduction of services.
Facing criticism at home and abroad, CSIRO last week announced that it would instead form a special climate science centre of 40 staff under its Oceans and Atmosphere division. About 45 of the remaining 100 scientists in two key programs will lose their jobs and the future of those remaining is uncertain.
The need to boost global warming research was only going to increase. In Australia's case, the threats included lengthening and intensifying fire seasons, worse heatwaves and more intense storms.
"Unless we start slowing down our [greenhouse gas] emissions and really mitigating them completely in the next few decades, there's going to be a lot of environmental shocks to the planet," Dr Vertessy said. Human societies and ecosystems "are being pushed to the edge of sustainability".
The advance of technology promises ever more accurate weather prediction. The bureau will soon begin using a new supercomputer that promises 18 times faster data processing, and within three years, a 30-fold increase.
The resulting higher resolution capability would allow the bureau to scale forecasts down to 1.5 kilometres from 4 kilometres now, allowing an improvement in severe weather warnings.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here
Posted by JR at 12:38 AM