Leftists have always claimed to stand for "the people", when even the Bolsheviks were middle class






Another NYT fraud

They initially used the partial submerging of Kansai airport as a whipping boy for global warming. In the second last paragraph, however, we learn that the airport literally was built on sand and was always expected to sink!

As a powerful typhoon tore through Japan this week, travelers at Kansai International Airport looked out on a terrifying void: Where they should have seen the runway, they saw only the sea.

They also saw what could be a perilous future for low-lying airports around the world, increasingly vulnerable to the rising sea levels and more extreme storms brought about by climate change. A quarter of the world’s 100 busiest airports are less than 10 meters, or 32 feet, above sea level, according to an analysis of data from Airports Council International and OpenFlights.

Twelve of those airports — including hubs in Shanghai, Rome, San Francisco and New York — are less than 5 meters above sea level.

All told, extreme weather and rising sea levels today pose one of the most urgent threats to many of the world’s busiest airports, which often weren’t designed with global warming in mind.

“We know that there are going to be impacts. And we expect those impacts to become serious,” said Michael Rossell, deputy director-general at Airports Council International, a group representing airports from across the world. “Recognizing the problem is the first step, and recognizing the severity is the second. The third is: What can we do about it?”

Kansai airport, which serves the bustling cities of Osaka, Kyoto and Kobe and handled almost 28 million travelers last year, faces an additional predicament. A feat of modern engineering, Kansai sits on an island three miles offshore that was built over the course of a decade from two mountains’ worth of gravel and sand. The airport, which opened in 1994, was built in Osaka Bay partly to minimize noise problems but also to avoid the violent protests over land rights that are the legacy of older airports in Japan, like Narita, which serves Tokyo.

Signs of trouble came early. Engineers had expected the island to sink, on average, less than a foot a year over 50 years after the start of construction as the seabed settled under the airport’s weight. But the island sank more than 30 feet in its first seven years and has continued to descend, now losing 43 feet in elevation at the last measurement.

SOURCE





The coming decarbonization tsunami

San Francisco Climate Action Summit intends to set the stage for controlling our lives

Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

Batten down the hatches! A tsunami of global warming and “clean energy” propaganda is approaching! San Francisco is hosting the September 12-14 Global Climate Action Summit, a massive event at which “international and local leaders from states, regions, cities, businesses, investors and civil society … will be joined by national government leaders, scientists, students, nonprofits and others … [to share] what they have achieved to date and commit to doing more to usher in the era of decarbonization.”

Decarbonization means phasing out the fossil fuels that now provide over 80% of all the energy we use – in favor of wind, solar and other supposedly clean energy sources. In his video promoting the Summit, Governor Jerry Brown said, “It’s up to you and it’s up to me, and tens of millions of other people to get it together to roll back the forces of carbonization and join together to combat the existential threat of climate change.” The Summit home page even claims “decarbonization of the global economy is in sight.”

That is ridiculous. The world has been using more coal, oil and natural gas over the past decade, not less, because they are the best energy sources available. The supposedly clean, green renewable energy sources and their long transmission lines are far too expensive and unreliable for widespread use. They also have major pollution issues of their own, though the worst impacts occur in countries with weak environmental controls. They require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy and raw materials to manufacture. They impact millions of acres for mining, waste disposal, wind and solar facilities, and transmission lines.

At the recent America First Energy Conference, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry noted that just generating enough electricity to power the Houston metropolitan area would require over 21,000 square miles (13.4 million acres) of corn fields, if the fuel source was corn ethanol. “Think about that footprint!” Landry exclaimed. To produce the same amount of electricity from wind power would take almost 900 square miles of wind turbines or 150 square miles of solar panels, he added (and millions of batteries).

Wind turbines already kill millions of raptors, other birds and bats, many of them rare, threatened or endangered. Imagine the impacts from all the turbines needed to generate all the world’s electricity. And climate change is almost entirely a natural phenomenon, over which humans have essentially no control.

To support the decarbonization ruse, Summit speakers will employ simple but effective language tricks. We’re already getting a taste. For example, the Summit’s Press Room proclaimed on August 23, “19 Global Cities Commit to Make New Buildings ‘Net-Zero Carbon’ by 2030.”

The World Green Building Council says the objective of net-zero carbon building is to “achieve net zero carbon emissions annually in operation.” But of course, that just means that most of the emissions merely have to be created somewhere else, as discussed above.

The WGBC says this is being done to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, “the start of the most important race in our existence – the race to curb global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so that global temperature rise remains below 2 degrees Celsius and, ideally, below 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

But that rise began with the modern industrial revolution and end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 – which means we now have less than a degree to spare before climate chaos allegedly sets in. That too is ridiculous. Moreover, humans cannot control climate as if we had a global thermostat, and we are not really talking about controlling “carbon” anyway.

Al Gore started that deception with his 2006 pseudo-documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which claimed “carbon emissions” were going to destroy our planet. Gore helped popularize the term “carbon footprint,” while always hiding the enormity of his own footprint – and hiding the fact that the “dangerous pollutant” is actually carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas that people and animals exhale and plants use to grow. The more CO2 in the air, the better and faster plants grow.  It’s a natural, happy, mutually beneficial process.

So, in an unfortunately all too successful attempt to scare people, Gore and his cohorts began using “carbon” as a synonym for carbon dioxide, knowing it would conjure up visions of soot, lamp black and coal dust. Aside from the fact that CO2 contains a single molecule of carbon, it has about as much in common with elemental carbon as lightning does with lightning bugs.

Robert Gould, MD, president of the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, further illustrates how distorted the climate debate terminology has become. Gould says “the decarbonization of our planet is imperative for human survival.” In reality, a decarbonized Earth would be a dead world, a world devoid of all life, including ours.

Many people have unwittingly accepted the “carbon” sleight-of-hand, without realizing they are being manipulated toward negative thoughts about plant food. It is possibly the best example of subliminal brainwashing ever.

Fears that CO2 increases can deleteriously impact temperatures should also be scuttled. Carbon dioxide can absorb only a narrow wave length of the radiation (heat) returning to the atmosphere from Earth, which initially absorbs it from the Sun. That wavelength is 15 microns or millionths of a meter – and the atmosphere’s current 410 parts per million of CO2 has already absorbed essentially all of the heat’s wavelength the Earth has to give. That means any further additions of CO2 can have no measurable impact on the Earth’s greenhouse effect and temperature.

Journalist H. L. Mencken accurately summed up the real goal of these deceptions. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” he observed. Global warming is the best hobgoblin the radical environmentalists have concocted so far.

Misuse of the word carbon is no laughing matter, however. This unsubstantiated fear is depriving the less fortunate among us of sorely needed, inexpensive energy, by eliminating life-giving fossil fuels and the miracle molecule of life, CO2. In the process, society is subjected to further government control, reduced individual freedom, greater socialism, less free enterprise capitalism – and lower living standards for everyone except wealthy, privileged ruling elites.

If you don’t think such nefarious word games can have such an impact, just remember how the term “Y2K” struck fear in many hearts and minds, by conjuring up endless turmoil that awaited us on New Year’s Eve 1999. Most of us woke up laughing at how we had been conned into worrying for months and years – when in reality turning to the new millennium simply required changing two digits on each computer that controlled planes, trains and electric grids.

The havoc never happened, and billions of dollars were wasted – just as is happening with climate chaos.

Some might say we are merely arguing semantics. If by “semantics” they mean “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning,” they’d be right. In fact, linguistic and logic deception will be a major weapon wielded by Global Climate Action Summit speakers next week. Indeed, University of Florida linguist M. J. Hardman tells us, “language is inseparable from humanity and follows us in all our works. Language is the instrument with which we form thought and feeling, mood, aspiration, will and act[ion], the instrument by whose means we influence and are influenced.”

So as the Summit wears on, note how often you hear the word “carbon” – as in “carbon emissions,” “carbon footprint,” “carbon trading” and “decarbonization” – when the real topic is carbon dioxide, the plant-fertilizing “gas of life.” Reword the sentences using carbon dioxide, and ponder how they are trying to deceive you, scare you about manmade climate cataclysms, convince you to eliminate 80% of the energy you use, and let them control your life and living standards – while they get rich and powerful.

These word games are not like the difference between saying a flower is “pretty” or “beautiful.” They are intentional distortions used to drive their anti-fossil fuel agenda. We must call them on it every time.

Via email



                                           


As the world and climate change yet again – Who is helping to create a better world? Who is determined to hold everyone back?

John Shanahan

The world has changed tremendously since the early 1800s, as the growing use of fossil fuels made life on Earth increasingly better for most of us. People have far better, longer lives. Economies are better, stronger, more vibrant, more adaptable. Health care, education, transportation have improved greatly. Most governments are more stable and peaceful. There is less human pressure on the environment.

Achieving these milestones of course required governments, businesses, professionals, teachers and students working for these goals – not extreme environmentalists constantly protesting and trying to delay or block every technological advance.

Sadly, since the 1960s, many foundations and organizations, segments of the media and many individuals have worked to prevent progress. They want to keep energy and mineral treasures in the ground and insist that nothing mankind does is safe enough. They want an undisturbed, unpopulated world for themselves and their friends. Extreme environmentalists seem determined to control the world.

It seems to make no difference to them that billions of people would suffer and die without the benefits of fossil fuels and their tremendous array of life-enhancing and life-saving byproducts.

Four organizations are leading global campaigns to prevent the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy: the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Many others gladly and proudly join them.

In determined opposition to these inhumane efforts are four organizations that help lead efforts to make a better world through use of technology: the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, Cornwall Alliance, Nuclear Africa and Association des Ecologistes pour le Nucléaire. Many others have joined them in seeking improvements for people and planet.

Many individuals have contributed to making a better world through the use of fossil fuel and nuclear power. The world owes them a debt of gratitude. More than eight hundred of their articles, PowerPoint Presentations, books and videos are available here.

Sadly, after decades at the forefront of assisting humanity, the United States and Europe have largely abandoned their nuclear energy related help for the rest of the world. Along with the United Nations, World Bank and various multi-national development banks, they do not even support large-scale coal, natural gas or hydroelectric generation projects. For at least a decade, their financial and technological assistance has been centered around unreliable, weather-dependent wind, solar and biofuel projects.

Meanwhile, ironically, China and Russia are making tremendous progress in improving the lives of their own citizens and people in other countries – albeit amid extensive military buildups, aggressive territorial expansions, and onerous demands and restrictions on their client countries.

Russia’s Rosatom and Gazprom are providing extensive energy and support projects for other countries. China is using its new energy expertise and economic strength to gain influence and access resources around the world, to meets its own critical energy and raw material needs.

Yes, the world is changing rapidly. Populations are growing and becoming wealthier, healthier and more restive. Technologies are advancing at an unprecedented pace. Earth’s climate is changing, mostly due to complex natural causes.

Government and economic leadership must change with them. The best future for most people includes stable governments, strong economies, freedom, equality, respect for people and the environment, and better planning for mega urban centers. It can be done and will make the world a much better place.

However, if extremist environmental organizations and hostile outside forces continue to gain a death grip on free economies, countries will fade away. New powers will replace those that have existed in different forms for hundreds or thousands of years. Conquests have driven continental and global change before and will be attempted again. Overpowering from beyond their borders will bring some countries down, while collapse from within will doom others.

The Eco Experts promote solar panels and write grand reports (see their blog) on how mankind is supposedly causing large scale toxic pollution that will lead to catastrophic manmade climate change and end human and wildlife habitability in many parts of the world. Too many in the media – even Forbes magazine – promote their messages and give them far more recognition than they deserve or could ever get on their own.

The result is that more and more people will be starved of the reliable, affordable energy they need to improve and sustain their lives and living standards. It is but one example of many extreme environmentalist efforts to weaken the USA and Europe. It will deprive the world of help from outstanding pillars of democracy, freedom and economic prosperity.

A recent Eco Experts report identifies what they say are the ten most polluted cities in the world. The list includes Paris, Istanbul, Moscow, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Los Angeles. While very few cities are as clean as Zurich, these six cities have prospering economies, great tourism, impressive architecture and cultural attractions – and generally very clean air and water.

The Eco Experts report is highly misleading and largely ignores real urban problems. In the 1950s, London and Pittsburgh had dirtier air than Paris or Istanbul ever had. As Cornwall Alliance spokesman Calvin Beisner notes in a devastating critique, the “Eco Experts” report displays an almost sophomoric grasp of real-world urban problems in developed and developing countries.

What are real leading factors for human suffering and shortening of life expectancy in urban areas? Evil dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong), corrupt politicians, thoughtless businesses (Ken Saro-Wiwa) – and eco-imperialists (as Paul Driessen has documented). They are main reasons billions of people still do not have reliable energy supplies, decent economies, increased prosperity and opportunity, or better education, healthcare systems, drinking water, wastewater systems and solid waste management.

Extreme environmental groups focus on very small amounts of extremely small airborne particles and carbon dioxide, the non-toxic trace gas that is essential for nearly all plant and animal life. This is totally wrong. Imposing wind and solar energy to replace fossil fuels and nuclear makes countries energy weak – and causes suffering, chaos and premature deaths by the millions. By contrast, countries that stick with fossil fuels and nuclear power become and remain energy strong.

A second Eco Experts report is equally outlandish. This one maps out their forecast of countries that will supposedly not survive man-made climate change. Going around the globe at the same latitude one might expect similar results. But there is no consistency of their color coding for risk level. Greenland shows no data, while equally empty Northern Canada next to it has the lowest risk level.

Similarly, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Madagascar and Australia are at about the same latitude south. Australia, already a very dry climate that until recently was switching to unreliable wind and solar power is classified as having the least risk, while lush but energy-poor Bolivia, Zimbabwe and Madagascar are predicted to be at much higher risk of failure to survive supposed man-made climate change.

Who buys solar panels from Eco Experts, much less accepts their unsound reports on toxic pollution and country collapse from man-made climate change? Driessen presents a far better analysis of what went right and what is going wrong in his recent talk, “How Prosperity Can Save the Planet.” It’s a fascinating tour through the modern history of energy, health and prosperity. I recommend it highly.

Via email




Paris climate deal doesn't stop us building new coal plants, Australian minister says

Australia does not need to quit the Paris climate agreement because our commitments are non-binding, and new coal plants can continue to be constructed, according to the resources minister, Matt Canavan.

Canavan told Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones on Friday he had never been to Paris, and was “happy to leave the Champs-Élysées for others”, but people needed to be clear the treaty Tony Abbott committed Australia to in 2015 “doesn’t actually bind us to anything in particular”.

Abbott said in 2015, when he announced Australia would be signing up, that the government was making a “definite commitment” to a 26% reduction in emissions by 2030 and “with the circumstances that we think will apply ... we can go up to 28%”.

But Canavan said on Friday the Paris commitment was a three-page document that allowed Australia flexibility to build new coal plants. The resources minister said rather than focusing on the situation in 2030, “what I want to focus on is solving the crisis we have in energy today”.

“We have to build power stations. There’s nothing in the [Paris] agreement that would stop us building power stations, including coal-fired power stations,” Canavan said.

“We need new ones”.

Canavan said Queensland was “propping up” New South Wales with the newest coal fleet in the country.

Jones prefaced his interview with Canavan with a long condemnation of the new foreign minister, Marise Payne, and the decision to sign on to a communique at the Pacific Islands Forum this week nominating climate change as the single greatest security threat to the Pacific.

The communique said all countries must meet their commitments under the Paris climate agreement.

Jones declared the prime minister, Scott Morrison, needed to “recall Marise Payne and replace her”. He said the Morrison government would have no hope of winning the next federal election if it wanted to “persist with the global warming rubbish and the Paris agreement”.

“Do you want to win an election or don’t you?” Jones said to Canavan on Friday morning.

Canavan dead-batted. “Of course I want to win the election, Alan. But, more importantly, what I want to do is have good policies for Australia and make our country strong”.

The Queensland Nationals have been campaigning for months for government backing for new coal plants.

In his first major speech in the energy portfolio, the new minister, Angus Taylor, signalled he wanted to encourage new investment extending the life of existing coal and gas plants, and upgrading ageing facilities.

Taylor said the government was intent on boosting supply, and that meant expanding existing plants, upgrading ageing “legacy” generators, as well as pursuing new “greenfield” projects.

Taylor is currently working up options for cabinet.

A recent forecast by the Australian Energy Market Operator predicted 30% of Australia’s coal generators will approach the end of their technical life over the next two decades, and it said it was important to avoid premature departures if the looming transition in the national energy market is to be orderly.

But it was also clear that the most economical replacement for the ageing coal fleet was not new coal, but “a portfolio of utility-scale renewable generation, storage, distributed energy resources, flexible thermal capacity, and transmission”.

Aemo concluded that mix of generation could produce 90 terawatt hours of energy per annum, “more than offsetting the energy lost from retiring coal-fired generation”.

SOURCE

***************************************

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.  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

*****************************************