Climate crap in a medical journal

No sign of critical thought.  They just assume the truth of global warming holus bolus.  Given what we know of the replication crisis, low-grade reasoning is to be expected in even prestigious medical journals.

And these authors below are real dumb bunnies, real patsies.  I wonder how they explain the fact that there was an 11 year hiatus in landfalling hurricanes in the USA before the present bout of hurricanes?  It does not remotely fit the global warming theory.

And why in any case are they confident of the cause of the recent hurricanes?  There is no way they can prove that attribution.  It's just faith supported by models with no known predictive skill

They probably feel warm assurance that they are going along with the consensus about climate.  Given how often the medical consensus has reversed (on dietary fat and much else) one would have thought that medical writers would be more careful about accepting a consensus.  But perhaps they know no history either


The Need to Integrate Climate Science Into Public Health Preparedness for Hurricanes and Tropical Cyclones

James M. Shultz, et al.

Hurricane Florence made landfall as a Category 1 storm near Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, on Friday, September 14, 2018, with 90-mph winds. At the same time, 3 other named storms—Helene, Isaac, and Joyce—roamed the Atlantic; Tropical Storm Olivia had just passed over Hawaii; and “Super Typhoon” Mangkhut, the strongest tropical cyclone of 2018, was hours away from sweeping over the Philippines with 165-mph (Category 5) winds.

September is often a busy month for global tropical activity, but there has been a changing scenario in recent years. The warming planet is likely to be influencing the characteristics and behavior of extreme storms.1 At the same time, public health preparedness is not keeping pace with advancing climate science knowledge about how tropical storm systems are changing and potentially becoming more dangerous.1 A closer integration of climate science with public health planning and response will be essential to mitigate the worsening health consequences of future extreme storms.

New Developments in Climate Science

Several developments in the understanding of climate-driven changes in the behavior of tropical cyclones have implications for public health preparedness.

* First, the forward speed of storms over land has been slowing.2 Some storms deviate from their predicted course and stall. This pattern was evident for Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and again for Hurricane Florence as each storm generated record-setting precipitation rates and rainfall totals.3

Water hazards, rather than winds, are posing the major risks to coastal populations. Evacuations are geared toward areas of expected storm surge. Changes in storm behavior are complicating emergency response because of the unpredictability of freshwater flash flooding. Both Harvey and Florence produced relentless precipitation and widespread inundation extending far inland.3 Unable to pinpoint which areas would be submerged, many residents could not escape the flood threats. Improvised citizen-initiated water rescues likely saved many lives during both storms.

* Second, some tropical storms undergo extremely rapid intensification.4 This was seen with the strongest storms of 2017—Harvey, Irma, and Maria—and during the initial development of Florence. Storms are reaching and maintaining very high peak intensities, as happened with Irma in 2017.5 Major hurricanes (Category 3 and higher) may also be increasing in frequency.1

* Third, storms such as Mangkhut are reaching peak intensity farther away from the equator.6 Such “poleward migration”6 means that, in the western North Pacific hurricane basin, strong storms can now cause severe damage on coastal populations living farther to the north. Populations that were previously rarely affected by hurricanes and, thus, whose built environments are structurally vulnerable to tropical cyclone winds and surge, are now within the reach of these powerful forces.

* Fourth, recent experience has highlighted the disproportionate risks for climate-induced public health consequences encountered by residents of small island developing states. Island-based populations dwelling in the ocean corridors above and below the equator, where tropical systems develop, contribute negligibly to climate change but are vulnerable to the effects of extreme storms.7,8

Lessons From Hurricane Maria

If the nature of storms is changing, the public health consequences of these storms will also likely change, as exemplified by Hurricane Maria. Maria became a Category 5 storm in the eastern Atlantic, decimated the island nation of Dominica and St Croix, and bisected Puerto Rico. Maria exemplified rapid intensification over anomalously warm waters, which are becoming more common, and produced high-end wind, surge, and rainfall hazards.

Puerto Rico was paralyzed as Maria destroyed the electrical grid and disrupted vital infrastructure. Loss of power led to protracted disruption of hospital operations and access to life-sustaining treatments. Without power or available health care, the people of Puerto Rico sweltered for months in high heat and humidity and were involuntarily exposed to contaminated water supplies and vector-borne disease risks.8

The debate swirling around a small vs large death toll in Puerto Rico attributable to Maria distills to one core distinction. A limited number of deaths occurred because of direct exposures to the storm’s hazards as Maria moved across Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017. Advanced storm detection and warning systems alerted residents to take shelter (island populations cannot evacuate) and minimized fatalities from hurricane-force winds, storm surge, and mudslides. However, in the months following Maria, the inability to restore power and health care services in a timely manner contributed to thousands of storm-related excess deaths.9

Improving Public Health Response to Match the Changing Dynamics of Tropical Systems

The global public health challenge related to storms is bound to become more complicated in the coming years. Therefore, it seems important to integrate climate science into population health science and to ensure that the public health response evolves to reflect changing climate realities. There are at least 4 important considerations to meet this challenge.

The first is to establish public health surveillance of storm-affected populations. Hurricane Maria highlights the need to extend the monitoring of storm-related medical conditions and mortality to include the recovery and reconstruction phases. Surveillance needs to include the physical and mental health conditions that emerge months after the storm strikes the area and represent some of the most consequential public health outcomes. Public health and response capabilities need to maintain a better watch over storm survivors whose communities often require years to recover.

Second, tropical cyclone water hazards will become increasingly important determinants of health. It is evident that more people will be exposed to surge, rain, and flood hazards as coastal and island populations increase. This will require innovating water management and flood mitigation, extending flood insurance coverage to more citizens, and improving water rescue capabilities.

Third, public health preparedness for tropical storm hazards must expand its purview. In 2017, across all storms and affected populations, the single deadliest hazard was storm-damaged infrastructure throughout the Caribbean. Anticipating this challenge requires state-of-the-art reformulation of electrical power, water, and health care systems and training cadres of specialized response professionals.

Cuba serves as an example of the life-sustaining potential of this approach. Cuba redesigned its ailing, blackout-prone power system around a decentralized, microgrid architecture. Cuba trained teams of electrical power specialists to respond during power outages. Hurricane Irma put Cuba’s energy self-sufficiency to the test, battering the Cuban Keys and northern coast with Category 4/5 winds for 3 days. Power was initially disrupted for most of Cuba’s 11 million citizens. Specialist brigades deployed and rapidly repaired damaged segments of the grid, restoring power to 70% of citizens within 10 days and nationwide within 3 weeks. Indeed, in the United States, regional responses often do occur, with large numbers of power specialists traveling from unaffected states to affected states as happened when 15 million Floridians lost power during Irma. In addition, before Irma made landfall in Cuba, 1.4 million residents were relocated to shelters. Thousands of physicians and health care professionals were embedded in these shelters, prepositioned in remote areas, or on duty throughout the nation’s network of neighborhood polyclinics, all equipped with generators. Although hundreds of clinics sustained damage, these distributed services ensured that there was no discontinuity in health care access, even as Irma was striking.

A fourth enhancement to public health response will be to advocate for upgrading building codes and retrofitting coastal and island built environments to withstand stronger storms. Extending community storm resilience is essential as more citizens populate coastal areas and stronger storms extend their reach into latitudes farther from the equator.6

Conclusions

As climate scientists expand knowledge about climate-induced effects on storm behavior, health professionals must transform these findings into innovations in public health preparedness. The challenges posed by climate change will only intensify in coming years; population health will be served by adapting to these evolving realities.

SOURCE





Blood on the Blades: Is Bird Life Facing Global Catastrophe from Wind Turbines?

Bird life across the globe could be facing its worst nightmare in the 21st century because of mankind’s ardent love for wind turbines. Despite the outright denial of renewable enthusiasts, data from across the globe suggests that bird life is in great peril due to wind factories. (They’re not farms, by the way.)

“Cats and high-rise buildings are worse than wind turbines.” “Pollution causes more bird deaths.”

These are some of the excuses usually offered when wind factories come under scrutiny for their undeniable role in the decline of bird populations.

The fact that birds are killed by other sources does not mean that the wind turbines somehow earn the unalienable right to slaughter millions of birds every year. Data from across the world indicate that the situation is much worse than previously thought.

While there have been many reports on bird mortality from studies on wind factories in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, data from developing countries and other less-reported developed countries further expose the heinous role played by what some people call “Cuisinarts of the sky.”

In South Africa, the most developed nation on the continent, wind factories were reported to have caused a considerable amount of damage to the bird population. In Kenya, the wind factories are believed to be a major hurdle in efforts towards the conservation of vultures. Other countries like Israel have reported the same.

The same was true over the entire Southern Hemisphere.

The situation is even worse in larger countries like India, which faces the continuous pressure of generating electricity for nearly 1.3 billion people. India’s wind energy sector is well established and continues to be popular among renewable enthusiasts despite wind turbines’ dismal track record in generating electricity. In addition to being a burden on the energy sector, the wind factories in India have blood on their blades.

A 2013 report by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS)—a top wildlife research organization—revealed that birds in India faced regular risk of mortality from the giant, swiftly turning blades, as many of them are in the habitat and migratory paths of local and migratory birds.

The situation has become so bad that the government is looking into introducing guidelines for saving birds from wind turbines similar to those already in practice in developed countries like the U.S.

Bird mortality by wind turbines is such a well-established fact in wind energy circles that in 2013 a wind energy company agreed to pay $1 million in fines after the Justice Department proved it guilty in a first criminal case against a wind power company for the deaths of protected birds.

The Great Indian Bustard is a critically endangered species and is one of the victims of wind turbines in India. Sadly, the Bustards don’t face blade-slicing just in India!

My master’s thesis was on the mortality of birds due to powerlines and wind turbines in the special protected area of Alentejo grasslands in Portugal. The region is populated with turbines, and the great Bustards face considerable mortality from them.

Wind turbines have a special liking for raptors and can be blamed without doubt for their rapid decline in regions that host wind factories.

A 2018 specialized study on the impact of wind turbines on raptors concluded that “Collision mortality, displacement, and habitat loss have the potential to cause population-level effects, especially for species that are rare or endangered.”

In addition to murdering the birds with their blades, wind factories also result in the loss of habitat, which in the long run can prove to be a bigger source for decline in avian populations.

The damage caused by wind factories is not limited to just the land area. Offshore wind factories in Europe and elsewhere are known to be well accomplished slayers of bird life.

Six new scientific papers in 2018 affirmed all these case studies from the previous two decades and clearly showed that wind factories continue to be great destroyers of bird and bat habitats, besides killing individual birds by the millions.

The claim that wind energy is clean and green is a myth to environmentalists like me who have witnessed its devastating effects firsthand. Even casual birdwatchers witness it all the time.

This brutal slaughter of birds, especially those that are critically endangered and vulnerable, should be treated on the same standards that are applied to other practices that kill birds.

SOURCE






An ode to nuclear waste

Nuclear power is so amazing even its waste is enormously beneficial.

If only we were as scared of all our waste as we are of nuclear waste. Chemical waste, for example, always remains toxic, and yet the rules and regulations surrounding it are not as strict as they are for nuclear. If chemical waste was treated as scrupulously and carefully as nuclear waste is, a lot of environmental damage could have been avoided – our soil, our water and our air could today be much cleaner.

If we were so afraid of all the waste that threatens our beautiful planet, then we would have thought of similar detection systems to those surrounding nuclear waste. Even the smallest leakage of nuclear waste into the air or the ocean is noticed in no time at all by highly sensitive equipment that registers radioactive material anywhere in the world. I wish we had such delicate systems to trace particulate matter, sulphur, dioxin, mercury, cadmium, barium, thallium, all those heavy metals that are proven to damage our health and even kill us.

So if you are afraid of nuclear waste, I understand that. But I also want you to cherish nuclear waste. I want you to develop a respect for it, and even to feel awe for it. I want you to learn to love nuclear waste.

So what is nuclear waste, really? It is the so-called waste product of nuclear energy: an energy source which, all experts agree, does not contribute to climate change and which produces a huge amount of energy, 24/7, rain or shine, on small pieces of land, meaning there is a lot of space left over for nature.

Compare that to other forms of energy. Burning coal pollutes the air, because sulphur dioxide arises as a byproduct, and that is very damaging to our airways. Also, coal-fired plants produce fly ash that is more radioactive than what is produced by a nuclear power plant.

Solar panels, you say? Solar panels are nothing more than future electronic waste, spread over our rooftops and soon in our beautiful green fields. Within 30 years, these solar panels will have to be dismantled at garbage heaps in poor countries. There, the solar panels are burnt to get the copper wire out, and all the toxic fumes from all that molten plastic and all those heavy metals like lead, chromium and cadmium will cause problems to people’s airways, increased risk of cancer, birth defects… Solar waste: who ever makes a fuss about that?

It is very different when it comes to nuclear waste. In the past 60 years, nuclear waste has never killed or injured anyone; it has not made a single person sick. And that is because nuclear waste is stored safely. Nuclear waste is extremely compact. In volume it is staggeringly little. How little? Currently, there’s 120,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste in the world. How much is 120,000 cubic metres? If you start pouring this greyish drab on to a football pitch, and keep pouring and pouring, you won’t even fill up a regular Premier League stadium. And this is all the highly radioactive waste from each and every one of today’s 450 nuclear power plants in the entire world, since we started with nuclear energy in the 1950s. One football stadium!

I do not want us to throw away our precious nuclear waste. Whatever we do, let’s not do that. Because nuclear waste isn’t really waste. Waste is something which leaks into water, or the soil, or the air. Waste is something that has no economic value and which the owner wants to discard. This is not the case with nuclear ‘waste’. Virtually every component of ‘nuclear waste’ has a useful application in industry, agriculture, science or medicine. We use radio cobalt for the irradiation of potatoes, so that they last longer. We use strontium or plutonium for generators in space travel. We use americium in smoke detectors, tritium in emergency-exit signalling. We use a variety of radioactive isotopes to diagnose and treat diseases.

Nuclear waste isn’t waste because it is still incredibly valuable. It is full of energy. Recent developments show that soon, not only will we be able to split the beautiful but rare U-235 (the radioactive isotope of uranium), but also all the heavy metals in the uranium family. That means we can reuse everything we today regard as ‘nuclear waste’. ‘Nuclear waste’ is a raw material, and could even be the ultimate building block in a circular economy: we could use this ‘waste’ for an overwhelming amount of energy, and for centuries no raw material will be needed.

Nuclear waste is a treasury. Let’s be very careful with it, yes. But we will only be able to open the nuclear-waste treasury when we overcome our fear of this waste, and maybe even learn to love it.

SOURCE





America has grown. Its highways should, too

by Jeff Jacoby

"NOBODY GOES THERE to eat anymore," the legendary baseball star and malaproprist Yogi Berra once said about a St. Louis restaurant. "It's too crowded."

We laugh at the ingenuous irony in Berra's words: His remark simultaneously contradicts itself, yet makes intuitive sense. Obviously the restaurant is crowded because customers are going there. On the other hand, who wants to go to a restaurant that's always crowded?

Transportation planners talk about busy highways in much the way Berra quipped about packed restaurants. Highways are too congested, they say, so why build more of them? Add new traffic lanes and they'll just fill up too. This is the doctrine of "induced demand" — the belief that traffic, like gas, expands to fill any available space, and that it is therefore futile to imagine that highway overcrowding can be relieved by building more highways.

In many circles, this has become unassailable dogma. In a 2014 article in Wired ("Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse"), Adam Mann put it concisely: "New roads will create new drivers, resulting in the intensity of traffic staying the same." At Streeetsblog, a leading anti-automobile, pro-transit website, Tanya Snyder was even more concise: "Roads cause cars."

To induced-demand true believers, enlarging a highway is as primitive and ineffective a cure for congested traffic as bloodletting was for cholera. Adding highway capacity may briefly speed up traffic flows, they argue, but new drivers quickly slow it back down. Before long, the new lanes are just as congested during rush hour as the old ones were. "Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider," says urbanist Charles Marohn, "is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."

But the simile is wrong. Our snarled roadways are less like obesity, an unhealthy condition to be treated and overcome, than like a teen's growth, a natural development to be welcomed and accommodated. In most of the country, automobile driving is the most economical way of getting workers to and from jobs, patients to and from doctors, shoppers to and from stores, sports and music fans to and from games and concerts. And nowhere is it done more efficiently than on interstate highways, which account for just 2.5 percent of all roadway lane-miles in the United States, yet handle 25 percent of all vehicle travel. And that's despite chronic congestion that keeps getting worse.

America badly needs more highway capacity. Our interstate system was built in the 1960s and 1970s for a nation of 200 million with a $1 trillion economy. Today the United States has a population of 325 million and a $19 trillion economy. We are a much bigger nation with a much bigger economy. Our transportation infrastructure hasn't kept up.

This isn't a problem that can be solved with more bike lanes, carpooling, or public transit, even with ample funding and goodwill. Over the last quarter-century, federal and state governments have invested heavily in adding carpool lanes, and about 20 percent of federal Highway Trust Fund money is diverted to public transit. Yet single-driver highway travel remains dominant and indispensable. As Robert Poole Jr., a transportation scholar at the Reason Foundation, points out, outside of six "legacy-transit" cities (Boston, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, and San Francisco), only about 5 percent of daily commuting in America is by transit.

"People continue to travel on urban freeways because using them is less bad than the alternatives," Poole writes in his new book, Rethinking America's Highways. There is no prospect of that changing. For entirely respectable reasons, Americans prefer to drive on highways. Public policy should be aimed at facilitating that preference, not thwarting it.

That said, calling for more highway capacity doesn't mean calling for more 1970s-style monster interchanges, especially in urban areas. Construction engineers in the 21st century have an array of options for expanding or building highways with greater sophistication and sensitivity than they could two generations ago. Among them: decking over highways that were constructed in below-grade trenches, and designing cars-only highways with narrower lanes and reduced speeds. In Tampa, engineers conceived an elegant way to extend the Selmon Expressway without having to condemn any land or displace any residents: The new lanes were built above the median strip of the existing roadway, supported by pillars that required only six feet of width and left ground-level sightlines largely unobstructed.

Adding new highway lanes isn't enough, though. It is also crucial to price them sensibly. That means no more freeways. Those who drive on highways should pay for the privilege, via tolls that change as traffic flow changes, the goal at all times being to keep vehicles moving at a steady speed.

Habituated by a lifetime of "free" highway driving, some motorists (but only some) bristle at the thought of having to pay to use an expressway. But congestion is payment, too — payment with time instead of with dollars. As a means of paying to drive, variable tolling is obviously far more efficient than jammed-up traffic. It's also the only means that advances the purpose for which highways exist: quickly getting people where they need to go.

"Induced demand" is no impediment if highway driving is properly priced. This year Virginia implemented variable tolling on Interstate 66 outside Washington, DC; drivers and advocates howled when tolls during peak travel times sometimes surged above $40. Yet as one Northern Virginia newspaper recently concluded, "the experiment in dynamic tolling is working. Average speeds at rush hour are close to or above the posted speed limit. . . . The result has been more choice for drivers, better use of available resources, and a flow of cash to support [transportation] improvements elsewhere."

The laws of supply and demand operate for highway driving, just as they operate for restaurants, airlines, football tickets, and mobile phones. As demand grows, supply should be increased — and as supply increases, it should be priced to prevent bottlenecks and keep customers coming back.

Even Yogi Berra didn't say that nobody drives on highways that are crammed with drivers. Alas, millions of Americans are forced to do so every day. But they shouldn't have to. If we build more highways and charge more tolls, they won't.

SOURCE





Can poor families sue John Kerry for climate policy deaths?

Conjectural future tolls from climate change pale compared to real energy poverty deaths now

Paul Driessen

It’s not enough that the Climate Crisis-Renewable Energy Cabal (CC-REC) now rails that an average global temperature increase of just 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels would bring “catastrophic risks” of “climate mayhem” to people and planet.

When the Paris climate deal was adopted in December 2015, the “chaos tipping point” – the “guardrail for a climate-safe world” – was 2.0 deg C (3.6 deg F). But since then, alarmists have started to claim, “a crescendo of deadly heat waves, floods, wildfires, and superstorms engorged by rising seas” has “convinced scientists” that the bar, the tipping point, the “danger cursor” needs to be set lower.

Allow me to translate that into simple English, and add a few facts that they “inadvertently” left out.

“Above pre-industrial levels” means since 1850: the end of the 500-year Little Ice Age. Since then, average planetary temperatures have already climbed nearly 1 deg C (1.8 F), which is still below levels enjoyed during the Roman and Medieval warm periods. According to CC-REC logic, that means humans can “allow” temperatures to rise only another 0.5 deg C (0.9 F) – or the planet is doomed.

To prevent that alleged calamity, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities “need to peak in 2020 and curve sharply downward from there” – and the entire global economy must become “carbon neutral” by 2050. Control and elimination of carbon-based energy is essential, CC-REC and IPCC alarmists say.

That is simply not going to happen. Thankfully, it is completely absurd to say more plant-fertilizing CO2 and a barely noticeable increase above current temperatures will doom Planet Earth. On the other hand, a colder planet with less CO2 would mean less arable land, shorter growing seasons and less food.

The “unprecedented climate disasters” are not happening. As Climate Depot, WattsUpWithThat, Dr. Roy Spencer, GlobalWarmingPolicyFdn and my own analyses make clear, seas are rising at just 7 inches a century, and temperatures have barely budged since 1998, except during recent El Niños (for example).

It’s likewise not enough that alarmist scientists (who’ve collectively raked in billions of dollars in government/taxpayer grant money over the past decade) have been able to play “nature tricks,” create “hockey stick” and other “manmade” temperature spikes, and “homogenize” and manipulate data. That they treat their taxpayer-funded data, algorithms and methodologies as their private property, inaccessible to scientists who might find fault with them. Or that they refuse to discuss or debate their findings – and instead assert a phony, fabricated “97% consensus” on “dangerous manmade climate change.”

It’s not enough that 100 or more countries signed the Paris accords primarily because they expected to share in hundreds of billions of dollars in “climate mitigation and adaptation” money – and are now increasingly angry that few industrialized nations will contribute to the Green Climate Fund.

It’s not enough that the CC-REC has become a $2-trillion-per-year global industry that has been built, sustained and justified by unproven, even fraudulent claims that humanity faces climate cataclysm.

NOW former US Secretary of State John Kerry wants to sue President Trump for exiting the Paris not-a-treaty, thereby allegedly causing future climate chaos. “I wish I could find legal standing to bring a case against Donald Trump for the lives that will be lost and the property that will be damaged and the billions of dollars because of his decision on climate change,” Kerry said.

Billionaire Kerry (via his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry) owns four mansions and jets around in private aircraft. His “climate warrior” sidekick Al Gore (net worth $300 million, from climate and renewable energy activism) likewise has multiple homes and prefers private jets and SUVs for his global jaunts.

These critics of modern energy use and living standards would do well to curtail their own profligate lifestyles, before telling others how they need to live without fossil fuels. But more to the point:

The people Kerry and comrades profess to care so deeply about are not at risk because of climate change. They are at risk because of anti-energy, anti-technology, anti-people policies imposed in the name of climate change prevention, sustainable development and the “precautionary principle.”

So perhaps Mr. Kerry should sue himself for climate deaths. Or the world’s poor should find legal standing to file lawsuits against Kerry; the clique of climate fraudsters who crank out bogus climate models and phony claims linking every weather event and curious phenomenon to fossil fuel emissions; and the self-serving bureaucrats who run the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Bank, multi-lateral (anti) development banks and thousands of environmentalist pressure groups.

As my book Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and numerous articles make clear, these callous agitators are telling Earth’s poorest families they must stop using the fossil fuels that still provide four-fifths of the world’s energy … stop trying to bring their health and living standards anywhere close to what Americans and Europeans enjoy … be content with whatever marginal improvements they can achieve using only wind, solar and biofuel energy – and never use insecticides for disease control.

They don’t even want developing country families to use modern agricultural technologies and certainly not genetically engineered crops – not even Golden Rice to reduce Vitamin A Deficiency, malnutrition and childhood blindness. They want Earth’s most destitute families to practice “Agro-Ecology” – employing only primitive, “culturally appropriate” farming methods … and rejecting hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, tractors and virtually everything else that enables small numbers of modern farmers to feed billions of people with less land, less water and less risk of crop failures.

By opposing insecticides and the powerful, long-lasting mosquito repellant DDT, Kerry and his fellow eco-imperialists perpetuate malaria and yellow fever, brain and liver damage, poverty and death in countries where these diseases are still endemic. Then they blame the diseases on global warming!

Far too many countries have never shared in the amazing developments that sent health, prosperity, opportunity and longevity skyrocketing in modern industrialized, free-market capitalist societies over the past 200 years. Today, Kerry, Gore and the radical groups they ally with conspire to keep poor countries impoverished, malnourished, jobless, disease-ridden, burdened with nineteenth century hospitals and infrastructure – and dying needlessly by the millions, year after year.

It’s sick and immoral. It violates basic principles of human rights and self-determination.

The obsession with pseudo-renewable, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-climate friendly wind and solar power is also deadly, and not only in Third World countries. We couldn’t even operate earthquake and tsunami detection, warning and evacuation systems with intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar systems that conk out for hours or days on end. (Indonesia, Japan and California should keep that in mind.)

Even in England, soaring electricity prices caused by wind energy mandates continue to cause thousands of needless wintertime deaths, because elderly pensioners cannot afford adequate heat. Meanwhile, over the past five years alone, Germany (pop. 82 million) has spent more than 160 billion euros (US$185 billion) converting from fossil fuels to renewable energy, according to a Federal Audit Office report.

In return, about all it’s gotten is soaring energy prices that have killed jobs, made electricity and heating unaffordable for many families, and a reduced ability for German companies to compete internationally –while China, India and other countries rapidly and massively expand their own fossil fuel use.

The bottom line: John Kerry wants to sue President Trump over hypothetical deaths, years or decades from now, from climate changes that no one can demonstrate with real-world evidence are due to human emissions, much less the US exit from Paris. In the meantime, millions continue to die every year due to anti-fossil fuel policies demanded by Kerry, Gore, and other energy hypocrites and climate fraudsters.

It’s time to end the callous insanity – and base energy and climate policies on reality and humanity.

Via email

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

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

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