Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Buying the farm vote with carbon credits

Man caused climate change is probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on society. While much of the public with little science education has been conned by the media and well financed model builders into believing the arrogant idea that man controls the thermostat of planet Earth, it is in fact a political not a scientific issue. It is not about saving the planet.

The Climate change movement is political ideology. The socialist leaders of the movement believe that the world and all people in it should be controlled by a massive government. To these people capitalism and free markets are the enemy. Personal freedom and democracy are evil.

Essentially the entire Democratic Party has tied itself to this movement and will stop at nothing to bring the country to the sadistic utopia they see in socialism. Sadly they are joined by many in the Republican Party as well.

America’s agriculture community has largely resisted this damaging ideology.

Now they are going after America’s farmers and ranchers by proposing to give them money for what they naturally do, draw upon photosynthesis to utilize carbon dioxide to grow their crops and forests, and ask those who raise our meat to capture their flatulence. They are trying to push them into the global warming hysteria camp and buy their votes in the next election along the way.

A legislative bill has been introduced this month directing the US Department of Agriculture to help farmers, ranchers and landowners use carbon dioxide absorbing practices to generate carbon credits gaining access to revenue from the greenhouse gas offset credit market.

It is really a cruel joke when one realizes the last established values for decreasing carbon dioxide was $3 a ton. Time and effort to make such a calculation would cost folks more than that.

Hopefully the legislation will not pass, but if it does the USDA, once the greatest supporter of agriculture but now too often controlled by deep staters, will reject creating required protocols to qualify for this pitiful vote bribery.

Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition said “That Congress wants to help farmers and ranchers during this difficult time is great, but just help them directly. Don’t create a program that gives them financial support for doing something to promote the nonsensical effort to stop climate change.

Terigi Ciccione, author of the new book, The Hitchhiker’s Journey Through Climate Change, said “the Dems have laid a trap, put a little cheese on the mousetrap, and when the two faced Republicans embrace it with bipartisan love for the farmers, the Dems will spring their Trojan Horse trap much like Lucy telling Charlie Brown this time she will really hold the football steady “.

It is crazy to think we are even debating the idea of limiting CO2 at a huge cost to society, when we should actually be promoting more CO2. This shows how persuasive the pro global warming movement has been with their sales pitch, organization and propaganda. We should actually be doing the opposite of what they are hyping. The global warming argument fails for lack of any real scientific observable evidence. We should not regulate, nor tax CO2, but rather put more of it into the atmosphere.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, who now spends his time battling the lies put forth by the organization he founded to save whales and harp seals, predicts the day will come when we will be crushing limestone to put its carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

There is only 1/10,000 of a percent more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 260 years ago. The socialist alarmists are desperately telling us this threatens to plunge the earth into catastrophe.

In total, CO2 comprises only .04 percent of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas with no impact on the Earth’s temperature as compared to the real players, the sun, the oceans, clouds, vegetation and such. Yet when it comes to biological processes, like plant photosynthesis, small amounts of CO2 do make a wonderful difference.


Ireland's Green Manifesto

Only 8% of the Irish public believe that tackling climate change should be the next government’s top priority, according to the results of an MRBI opinion poll published last week.

This low percentage didn’t stop Fine Gael and Fianna Fail caving into the Green Party’s very far-reaching demand that we cut our carbon emissions in half over the next 10 years.

The capitulation raises questions about the nature of Irish democracy. So does the largely uncritical coverage that the Green Party agenda receives.

Even during the general election, it was obvious that climate change was not a big issue for voters. Commentators and politicians noted it was rarely raised on the doorsteps.

This was despite enormous media coverage of the issue, with RTE basically campaigning about it for months.

Thousands of schoolchildren had been taking part in climate strikes and we even had a children’s parliament, which took over the Dail chamber for a day to discuss the matter. The environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg seemed to be never off our screens.

Last summer, the Fine Gael government published a climate action plan, promising to reduce carbon emissions by an average of 3% a year by 2030.

Every other day we seemed to have a new UN report issuing dire warnings of impending environmental doom.

Here in Ireland an environmental expert, Professor Peter Thorne of NUI Maynooth, warned that, at some stage in the coming decades, a catastrophic storm during high tide would leave thousands of properties and landmark buildings in Dublin underwater, with significant flooding in the city center.

Despite all these warnings, voters still couldn’t be persuaded to put climate change at the top of their concerns. Yet this didn’t stop politicians going right ahead and making it the top priority of the next government.

Of all the commitments in the new program for government, none is as radical as the promise to cut carbon emissions by 7% a year for the next 10 years, and not 3% as first promised — a target that was already considered very ambitious and expensive.

What has been notable since the program was published last week is how little discussion there has been of how much the 7% commitment is going to cost us, and whether it has a proper democratic mandate.

The only real debate seems to be among the 3,000-plus membership of Green Party itself, with its Extinction Rebellion wing opposing the deal on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough.

Unless more than two-thirds of these members approve the program, it’s back to the drawing board for the political parties, and maybe another election.

Perhaps we should have another election anyway because if you are going to do something so huge and radical, it should have broad support and be properly debated.

If you told people upfront that the commitment on climate would cost tens of billions of euros, inhibit economic growth, and that households would be asked to pay tens of thousands on electric cars and retrofitting their houses, we would have Instant Rebellion.

But we have been told none of this. A radical commitment has been slipped in as though it is the most reasonable proposal in the world.

It’s time for a proper debate, one in which we hear from a broad range of climate experts, engineers, and economists, who represent a range of views, and not simply those who meet with RTE approval, such as Professor John Sweeney of NUI Maynooth’s geography department.

He seems to be the go-to guy for RTE on all things climate, yet I cannot remember hearing a journalist ask him a single hard question.

We are invited to believe that when Sweeney speaks, it is not simply the voice of one expert, but that of science itself, and that everything he says is indisputable.

In fact, climate models seem to be a lot like those epidemiological ones we’ve been hearing so much about. They involve lots of different assumptions and their predictions range over a wide spectrum.

Although we know more about climate than we did about Covid-19 a few months ago, even the UN itself, and its Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, makes a range of predictions about temperature increases and sea-level rises over the coming decades.

At a minimum, when Sweeney is on a TV or radio show, he needs to be asked which projection he himself believes in and if he is focusing on the worst ones.

Occasionally, he should have to debate with another expert who does not believe in the upper-end predictions.

But is that even permitted any more? Are you now banned from the Irish airwaves if you believe in the lower-end predictions for temperature rises and sea-level increases?

Quite aside from that, we need to hear far more from engineers, because they are the ones who will have to deliver the conversion from fossil-fuel energy to green energy over the next decade.

Do they think the wholesale switch promised by the program for government is feasible? What about the promised reductions in carbon emitted by transport, never mind agriculture?

And we can’t hear only from engineers approved by the Green Party. We must have a range of opinions.

Then there is the cost. A report from the Irish Academy of Engineering in November 2016 estimated that a 30% cut in emissions by 2030 — just about feasible, in their view — would cost €35bn at an absolute minimum.

Yet cutting it by 50%, the new commitment, would presumably cost far more and be even less feasible from a practical point of view.

Economists need to tell us what the 7% a year cut will cost households. How much will we need to pay in higher carbon taxes, and in other charges, to fund all this?

Retrofitting our homes to make them more energy-efficient would cost the average household between €30,000 and €80,000, according to one estimate.

The program for government envisages 600,000 homes doing this over the next decade. Then we also have to consider how the Green Party’s agenda might harm economic growth.

Why aren’t politicians, experts, and commentators all over the airwaves asking these questions? Why do we get to hear only a narrow range of voices? That isn’t healthy. A radical green agenda is being imposed on us without our true consent.

A properly democratic country would allow debate so that voters could then make informed choices. What we are being served up instead amounts to little more than Green Party propaganda.


Netflix’s ‘The Politician’ Turns Climate Change Into A Hot Mess

Even though this is 2020, we apparently need to talk more about elections. At least, that’s what The Politician would have us believe.

We’re still more than four months away from November, but the Netflix series is determined to remind us of everything we hate about election season. Namely, it’s once again filled with lies, smug liberals, and countless scandals.

The new season, which premiered June 19, follows Payton Hobart (Ben Platt) still on his quest to one day become President of the United States.

This time, he plans to run for State Senator of New York’s 27th District against longtime incumbent Dede Standish (Judith Light). As the election continues, scandals start flying as both sides are determined to win at seemingly any cost.

Considering this is New York, it is shoved with progressive politics to the point where the term “right-wing” is used as a pejorative.

Both candidates are overtly liberal, but Payton goes above and beyond by running on a single issue: climate change.

He pushes it as a spearheading platform to reel in young voters, but it really becomes an excuse for the show to remind us we’re all going to die in ten years.

Within seven episodes, climate change is referred to as a “climate catastrophe that threatens all of civilization as we know it” as well as the “greatest long-term threat to human existence.”

Payton lays it all down in the season premiere “New York State of Mind” as he gives a speech at a climate rally.

Payton: Now, listen. Every one of us here today knows that we are in a generational fight that will determine our species’ future on this planet. But politicians like Dede Standish…they cannot accept our urgency to clean up this mess, because if they did, they would have to admit that they are the ones who made it! Well, Senator Standish, if you are listening today, I do not want my children and grandchildren living in a New York City with 20-foot sea walls holding back a dying ocean on a scorched Earth with tens of millions of climate refugees…

Infinity: No. No.

Payton: And fascist governments around the globe are committing wholesale genocide while we fight for dwindling supplies of food and water! That is where this world is heading if we continue to do nothing, Dede Standish. And when you say that we can’t afford to take action, I say this: It’s because of your generation’s policies that my generation has no other choice!

…Netflix’s The Politician continues to display the rapid decline of standards and politics on television. But what else is new?

After watching this episode, I came away with one thought: the entire season is completely fact-free and based solely on hyped-up emotion, worst-case scenarios (that only dim-witted 20-something liberals believe), and some of the worst propaganda talking points outside a climate rally.


Alarmists Falsely Blame Climate Change for Localized Warming in Detroit

At the top of Google News search results today for “climate change,” a climate-activist meteorologist wrote an article attributing 3.3 degrees Fahrenheit of warming in Detroit over the past 50 years to global warming. A quick look at relevant evidence shows the claim is more alarmist hype than scientific fact.

Meteorologist Paul Gross, citing a graph produced by the climate activist group Climate Central, reports a summer warming trend in Detroit since 1970 of approximately 3.3 degrees, with most of the summer warming occurring at night.

While this data may or may not be accurate, attributing it to “climate warming” is likely wrong.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records show Michigan as a whole has warmed an average approximately 2 degrees – not 3.3 degrees – since the beginning of the 20th century.

Also, the largest spike in warming occurred from the 1930’s through the 1950’s, with the vast majority of warming occurring during the spring and winter, when such warming is welcomed, as opposed to the summer.

Indeed, NOAA reports a declining trend “of hot days (maximum temperature above 90°F) and no overall trend in warm nights (minimum temperature above 70°F)” for Michigan.

As Climate at a Glance: U.S. Temperatures reports, NOAA’s 30-year U.S. temperature trend for the upper Mid-West – including Michigan – is undergoing a modest cooling trend. Also, NOAA’s Climate Reference Network, its high-quality network of temperature stations throughout the United States, shows no warming trend across the United States since the network became operational in 2005.

Assuming Gross is correct that Detroit has experienced more warming than other places—indeed a non-typical temperature trend since 1970—one should look at factors other than anthropogenic global warming as the cause of the anomalous temperature trend. The most likely cause is the urban heat island effect, caused by Detroit’s substantial industrialization and development, rather than global warming.

The urban heat island effect would explain why Detroit’s temperature increase is almost entirely due to an increase in summertime nighttime warming. As explained in Climate at a Glance: Urban Heat Islands, heat absorbed by concrete and other impervious surfaces during the day in urban areas is slowly released into the atmosphere at night, resulting in disproportionate increases in nighttime low temperatures.

Before Gross pointed his finger at climate change as an explanation for Detroit’s idiosyncratic temperature trend, he should have considered countervailing national and state temperature trends, as well as other localized factors that would better explain the anomalous temperature increase in Detroit.



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


No comments: