Liberal Media Made Slew Of Dubious Claims About Our Climate last year
The Associated Press took $8 million in donations to fund coverage of ‘climate coverage’ in 2022, with the news cooperative and several other major media publications engaged in dubious claims about climate change, according to a new, exclusive year-end report.
The “Climate Fact Check 2022” report, presented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Heartland Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), stated that “climate alarmists” and members of the media engaged in claims about the relationship between manmade emissions and natural disasters, claims that clashed with “reality and science.”
In February, the Associated Press admitted that they would assign more than 24 journalists across the globe to cover “climate issues” after receiving more than $8 million over three years from various organizations.
The organizations contributing to the “philanthropy-funded news” via a “climate grant” are the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.
AP News Vice President Brian Carovillano only accepts money “without strings attached” and asserted that funders have no influence on the stories conducted.
Similarly, in March 2021, high-ranking State Department officials discussed a proposal to sponsor foreign journalists to “have experiences that educate them on reporting on climate change,” according to emails obtained by Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) and shared with Fox News Digital.
Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told Fox News Digital that the Associate Press has essentially become a “propaganda outfit” for liberal organizations with climate agendas.
“It’s hard to claim it’s news when you’re being paid to report only one side of the climate discourse,” he said.
The report pointed to a recent article from the Associated Press, by reporter Seth Borenstein, called “New abnormal: Climate disaster damage ‘down’ to $268 billion,” as proof of bias.
The article attributed flooding in Pakistan, Hurricane Ian, droughts in Europe, China and Africa, as well as deadly heat waves across the world to ‘climate change’.
“Weather disasters, many but not all of them turbocharged by human-caused climate change, are happening so frequently that this year’s onslaught, which 20 years ago would have smashed records by far, now in some financial measures seems a bit of a break from recent years,” Borenstein wrote.
The Climate Fact Check report questioned whether climate activists and “media mouthpieces” could legitimately attribute disaster damages to ‘climate change’ or if they were merely trying to “surf human tragedy” to advance a political agenda.
The report also highlighted several other climate claims from major media corporations, providing fact-checks for articles written by the Washington Post, New York Times and more.
In August, Times reporter Derrick Bryson Taylor claimed that Britain’s brief heatwaves this summer were worsened by ‘climate change’. A fact-check from the report noted that heatwaves have dramatically declined in duration and frequency in the U.S. over the past 90 years, according to the National Climate Assessment.
Furthermore, the report claimed it was “unlikely” that emissions are increasing heat waves in Britain because hotter temperatures in the U.K. were offset by cooling elsewhere. Additionally, meteorologist Cliff Mass said that while heatwaves may bring temperatures 30 to 40 degrees above the norm, global warming is only in the noise level of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Washington Post in November published a piece by Barry Svrluga with the headline “In this World Cup ski season, climate change is winning.”
The piece claimed that ‘climate change’ had led to shorter winters and made it so warm that only one of eight races was able to be held as of mid-November. A fact-check of the claim found that when the World Cup skiing started in the 1960s, the season began in January. However, now it begins in October.
If the competition began in the winter everything would likely be okay because wintertime snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has been increasing since the 1960s, the report claimed.
Milloy said that such claims have long been a part of the 30 years of “climate hysteria” cultivated by liberal media networks and have little to show for their dire predictions.
“Instead of moving on to something else, they’re doubling down on this, and they’re making themselves look worse at the same time,” he added.
https://principia-scientific.com/liberal-media-made-slew-of-dubious-claims-about-our-climate/
*******************************************British Nuclear plants face shutdown over tax on windfalls
Two nuclear power stations crucial to keeping Britain's lights on risk being closed next year as a result of Jeremy Hunt's windfall tax, their French owner warns today.
EDF, which operates all five of the country’s serving nuclear plants, said the Chancellor's raid on power producers will make it harder to keep the ageing Heysham 1 and Hartlepool stations open as long as hoped.
It would mean the sites close in March 2024, potentially removing the "cushion" of spare capacity used by the National Grid to avoid blackouts and reducing nuclear power generation in Britain to its lowest level since the 1960s.
Mr Hunt’s windfall tax levy on electricity generators, which was announced in the Autumn Statement in November, comes into force today. Conservative MPs have warned that the raid will reduce investment in the UK’s energy market at a time when the country needs dependable energy sources to balance more intermittent wind and solar power.
The two nuclear stations supply more than two gigawatts of electricity to the grid, typically providing enough power for four million homes per year and around four per cent of the power the UK uses on a cold day.
Rachael Glaving, commercial director of generation at EDF UK, which is owned by the French state, said the windfall tax will damage the business case for the facilities at a time when inflation is already pushing up other costs.
She told The Telegraph: “We accept there's definitely a need for a levy of some kind - you've got to break the link between really high gas prices and the impact they have on power prices.
“But of course that's going to factor into the business case of life extension and we'll have to take that [the windfall tax] into consideration. It's not going to make it easier.
“We will review the technical aspects but we also need a business case to support any life extension, so that has to be factored in as well, and we will have to work out what the right balance is between those two things.”
Experts last night warned that closing the two nuclear power stations would mostly wipe out the four-gigawatt spare capacity the National Grid maintains to avoid blackouts on still, overcast days when wind and solar generation is limited.
Kathryn Porter, an energy analyst at consultancy Watt Logic, said: "Going into winter 2024, we will lose all the coal power stations and could also lose two nuclear plants, so we will be losing roughly the same amount of power as we currently have in spare capacity now.
"We will pretty much be replacing it with wind - and that is replacing readily dispatchable generation with intermittent generation.
"So if you have periods of still winter weather where wind output drops, then you could be in a situation where you really struggle to keep the lights on."
The warning comes after ExxonMobil, a US fossil fuels giant, announced it was suing the EU over its decision to impose a windfall tax.
The firm said the tax would impede “multi-billion Euro” investments in European energy supply, as the continent attempts to wean itself off Russian gas.
The levy on electricity generators is expected to raise £14bn by 2028, while the extra raid on oil and gas companies will raise £40bn.
It forces generators to pay 70 per cent tax on electricity sold for more than £75 per megawatt hour, amid claims generation firms were reaping huge profits from high wholesale prices of electricity.
The windfall tax on oil and gas generators will increase from 25 per cent to 35 per cent, imposing an overall tax rate of 75 per cent on profits from UK operations.
EDF's UK business reported a loss of £21m in 2021 as the company's retail energy business faced high gas costs but was unable to recoup them due to Ofgem's cap on household bills.
Tory MPs last night warned that EDF could be the first of many firms to cut investment to the UK following the announcement of the windfall tax, which is set to run until 2028.
Craig Mackinlay, who runs the Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Tory MPs, said: “Forecasts that many of us made on the back of windfall taxes that energy companies would look elsewhere to invest are sadly coming true.
“The events of 2022 of an energy crisis created by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and the extreme cold weather in the USA should teach us lessons about energy security but it looks like 2023 will be more of the same. We must reverse these damaging policies.”
Bob Seely MP said: “We need to make sure that both major international firms and smaller but still important players in the energy market can invest to generate the energy we need.
“Otherwise, we become more dependent on other countries, and we have now seen how dangerous that has become.”
Two of EDF’s fleet in the UK have already closed this year due to age, making it more difficult for National Grid to cope with power shortages.
Heysham 1 in Lancashire and Hartlepool are meant to close in March 2024 because they are getting old, but EDF is considering a two-year extension to their lifespan to ease the energy crunch.
The move is regarded as feasible following recent safety inspections, although it would depend on regulatory sign-off.
EDF is expected to take a decision on Heysham 1 and Hartlepool within the next two months.
A Treasury spokesman said: "This temporary measure is not designed to penalise electricity generators.
“It is a response to the fact that, as a result of exceptional and unforeseen geopolitical events, some electricity generators are realising extraordinary returns from higher electricity prices.
“These higher prices have imposed substantial costs on households and businesses which is why the government took unprecedented action with £55 billion to directly help people with their energy bills.”
************************************************
U.K. Climate Activists Swear Off Disruptive Protests for 2023
The United Kingdom division of a climate change protest group called Extinction Rebellion says its activists will temporarily stop blocking busy roads, gluing themselves to buildings, and engaging in other acts of civil disobedience because such methods have not achieved their desired effects.
“As we ring in the new year, we make a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from public disruption as a primary tactic,” the group said in a New Year’s Eve website post. “We recognize and celebrate the power of disruption to raise the alarm and believe that constantly evolving tactics is a necessary approach.”
To further its goals of getting politicians, corporations, and the public “to end the fossil fuel era,” the group said it would instead focus on broadening its support with actions such as getting 100,000 people to surround the Houses of Parliament in London on April 21.
“In a time when speaking out and taking action are criminalized, building collective power, strengthening in number and thriving through bridge-building is a radical act,” the website post said. “This year, we prioritize attendance over arrest and relationships over roadblocks, as we stand together and become impossible to ignore.”
In response to protests by Extinction Rebellion and other direct-action groups, Britain’s Conservative government last year toughened police powers to shut down disruptive protests and increased penalties for obstructing roads, which can now bring a prison sentence.
Even tougher moves were rejected by Parliament, but the government planned to try again to pass a law that would make it a criminal offense to interfere with infrastructure.
In the four years since Extinction Rebellion formed, the group has attracted considerable criticism for climate demonstrations that were designed to be disruptive and often led to mass arrests while succeeding in snarling road and port traffic. Increasingly, American activists have been attempting to duplicate the disruptive efforts of their European counterparts on this side of the Atlantic.
Antics such as gluing themselves to famous paintings and defacing other works of art at galleries across Europe during 2022 drew scorn from the group’s critics. Their successful efforts to block roadways, with deadly consequences in some cases, led to arrests and angry denunciations by members of the public affected by the protests.
In April, British police said six people were arrested after activists climbed onto an oil tanker and blocked four London bridges to protest investments in fossil fuel. Extinction Rebellion said at the time that two former British Olympic athletes, gold medal-winning canoeist Etienne Stott and sailor Laura Baldwin, were among the protesters.
In its Sunday post titled “We Quit,” the U.K. branch of Extinction Rebellion said that while the group has helped bring about “a seismic shift” in the climate conversation, “very little has changed. Emissions continue to rise and our planet is dying at an accelerated rate.”
The group said it thinks a confluence of multiple crises made it the right time to try a new approach. In its announcement about the April protest, it said, “Surrounding the Houses of Parliament day after day in large numbers means we can leave the locks, glue and paint behind.”
https://www.nysun.com/article/u-k-climate-activists-swear-off-disruptive-protests-for-2023
******************************************************Biden Admin Blasted for 'Quietly' Changing Rule on Water on Last Day of the Year
With the apparent goal of protecting American wetlands, the Biden administration has revised the legal definition of the term “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, bringing the ire of many congressional Republicans.
This move by Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency comes while an important case regarding the EPA is being heard by the Supreme Court.
According to the New York Times, the revised definition reverts to language from before 2015, when the Obama administration made big changes that led to a multitude of legal challenges.
The new EPA rule clarifies what bodies of water are subject to federal jurisdiction and what wetlands are excluded from federal regulation, but critics see it as a federal power grab that gives the EPA far too much discretion.
As reported by CNBC, the rule also revokes past changes made by President Trump to lessen the EPA’s regulating ability.
Members of the Congressional Western Caucus released a statement condemning the EPA’s last-minute rule change, arguing that it gives the EPA far too much discretion and power. “This rule is yet another bureaucratic attack on rural America,” said Caucus Chairman Dan Newhouse of Washington state.
Of note, the Congressional Western Caucus lamented the timing of the move, as it was “quietly released on the last business day of the year before a major holiday.”
“Western Caucus Members and the rural communities we represent have consistently called on the Administration to provide regulatory certainty for farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and landowners – most recently, requesting that the Administration not move forward with rulemaking until the Supreme Court has ruled on Sackett v. EPA.”
Vice Chair Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa stated, “The Obama WOTUS rule drastically expanded the jurisdiction over bodies of water like streams and ponds leaving large swaths of Iowa land in the hands of the federal government…I am extremely disappointed in the Biden Administration’s decision to finalize a similar version of this failed rule which will have terrible consequences, for our farmers, ranchers, and landowners in Iowa.”
“Today’s announcement by the Biden Administration on their new rule for Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) is disappointing. This rule is both poor policy and badly timed,” said David Rouzer of North Carolina.
“It is another example of this Administration’s determined adherence to the demands of environmentalists at the expense of hard-working Americans.”
EPA assistant administrator Radhika Fox explained the rationale for these changes in a Times interview. “I think we have found a middle ground that creates as much clarity as possible,” she said. “I am hopeful that this is the one that will stand the test of time.”
By simplifying the definition to its pre-Obama status, it would lessen the legal conflicts over what waterways are federally protected by the Clean Water Act according to the EPA’s reasoning. The Obama-era changes were lambasted by critics as overly-restrictive and hazardous to both farmers and businesses.
President Donald Trump repealed these changes and instituted more farmer-friendly reforms, raising the ire of environmentalists and causing a cascade of legal battles.
This move by the Biden EPA is being seen by many as a preemptive measure due to a case being heard by the Supreme Court; Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, mentioned by Congressman Newhouse in his statement.
The plaintiffs, Michael, and Chantell Sackett attempted to build a home in the panhandle of Idaho, only to be stopped by the EPA, who said that they were building on a federally protected wetland.
The Sackett’s lawyer, Damien Schiff, is not concerned about the EPA’s new rule affecting the case. “It really is just a stopgap measure,” he said.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Sacketts, it could greatly hinder the federal government’s ability to regulate wetlands across the country.
“Why does every Democrat administration need to make a rule giving the federal government more power over farming and private property?” asked Doug LaMalfa of California.
“The federal government doesn’t need to regulate puddles, ditches, seasonal creeks, or culverts. All this rule does it make it more difficult to grow food or build anything.”
While the EPA has assured critics that it is not abusing its power, the new rule put in place on the last workday of the year may give them greater ability to regulate property, and the sneaky way the rule was implemented has raised red flags.
Until the Supreme Court makes its decision on the Sackett matter, these changes are likely to stay, at least as a stopgap.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/biden-admin-blasted-quietly-changing-rule-water-last-day-year
***************************************My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment