Thursday, May 04, 2023
RFK Jr. Says Climate Change Being Exploited to Push ‘Totalitarian Controls’
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that climate-related issues are being “exploited” by wealthy individuals in a bid to enact “totalitarian controls” over society.
“Climate issues and pollution issues are being exploited by … mega billionaires” like Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Kennedy told radio host Kim Iversen over the past weekend. “The same way that COVID was exploited to use it as an excuse to clamp down top-down totalitarian controls on society and then to give us engineering solutions.”
“And if you look closely, as it turns out, the guys who are promoting those engineering solutions are the people who own … the patents for those solutions,” Kennedy said during Iversen’s show. “It’s a way they’ve given climate chaos a bad name because people now see that it’s just another crisis that’s being used to strip mine the wealth of the poor and to enrich billionaires.”
“I, for 40 years, have had the same policy on climate and engineering,” said Kennedy, the scion of former Attorney General and New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. “You can go check my speeches from the 1980s, and I’ve said the most important solution for environmental issues [is] not top-down controls, it’s free market capitalism.”
Kennedy—a longtime environmental activist and lawyer—wrote in a 2014 blog post for corporations and other groups that “sponsor climate lies” should face punishment. But he wrote that he “support[s] the First Amendment which makes room for any citizen to, even knowingly, spew far more vile lies without legal consequence” before adding at the time: “I do, however, believe that corporations which deliberately, purposefully, maliciously, and systematically sponsor climate lies should be given the death penalty,” Kennedy wrote for EcoWatch.
Kennedy’s comments about climate change years ago were highlighted by Fox News and other right-leaning publications after he declared his candidacy for president last month. Although he’s better known for his comments about childhood vaccines, Kennedy worked as an environmental lawyer for New York City and also for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Also in the Iversen interview, Kennedy suggested that other than Gates, the World Economic Forum is also exploiting climate-related policies to produce a totalitarian society. The Davos, Switzerland-based group hosts annual meetings each year that include world leaders and top business executives, while in January, speakers at the forum said that governments and businesses should pursue a “net-zero” policy around carbon emissions and that people don’t need cars.
“What we have in this country now is not free market capitalism—it’s corporate crony capitalism. It’s … a cushy kind of socialism for the rich and a brutal, barbaric, merciless capitalism for the poor,” Kennedy also stated in the interview.
Kennedy filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to launch his 2024 bid on April 5. He’s joining self-help writer Marianne Williamson as well as President Joe Biden, who announced his reelection bid last week via campaign video.
When he announced his 2024 candidacy, Kennedy said that he has a desire to work with “rural and working-class Americans, and particularly hunters and fishermen.” Those individuals, he said, have been “alienated from the mainstream environmental community.”
He’s also said that he’s running because he believes Democrats have gone astray, becoming the “party of war,” corporate interests, and “censorship.”
While Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president, a Fox News poll recently showed Kennedy has around 20 percent support among Democrat voters. He also recently drew headlines after being interviewed by ABC News and accused the Disney-owned broadcaster of censoring his comments about vaccines.
“We should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines,” ABC News Live anchor Linsey Davis said last week after his presidential announcement. “We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including portions of that exchange in our interview.”
On social media, however, Kennedy accused the network of violating federal election laws by editing out his remarks about vaccines. “ABC showed its contempt for the law, democracy, and its audience by cutting most of the content of my interview with host Linsey Davis leaving only cherry-picked snippets and a defamatory disclaimer,” Kennedy said.
“I’m happy to supply citations to support every statement I made during that exchange. I’m certain that ABC’s decision to censor came as a shock to Linsey as well. Instead of journalism, the public saw a hatchet job,” he added.
**********************************************
Global Warming Trend Is 'Only One-Half of the Climate Model Simulations,' Says New Paper
Let's first take a look at research using surface thermometer data assembled from weather stations, ocean-going ships, and buoys. The Berkeley Earth team reports that since 1980, the global average temperature is increasing at the rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finds that the global average temperature has been increasing at the rate of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade since 1981. NASA's GISTEMP data set reports an increase of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The U.K.'s Hadley Centre finds the increase is about 0.20 degrees Celsius per decade.
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts reports the global average temperature trend generated by its fifth-generation atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5). Reanalysis is a blend of observations with past short-range weather forecasts rerun with modern weather forecasting models. From 1979 on, the ERA5 calculates that the global average temperature has been increasing at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The Japan Meteorological Agency's JRA-55 reanalysis finds the per-decade rate of increase is 0.18 degrees Celsius.
Climate researchers also have access to temperature data sets derived from satellite measurements that essentially measure temperature trends in the whole atmosphere (troposphere) beginning in 1978. The first satellite data set was devised by University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) climate researchers John Christy and Roy Spencer. According to UAH measurements, the rate of global average temperature increase is running at 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.
Researchers don't just read numbers off satellite feeds to discover temperature trends. They must take into account the orbital decay of satellites, the deterioration of instruments, and changes related to replacing satellites over time. Another team of researchers at Remote Sensing Systems has parsed the satellite data and derived a tropospheric temperature trend of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade. Clearly, this more closely matches the surface thermometer trends.
In March, another team associated with NOAA's Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres its analysis of the satellite temperature data. Earlier, the STAR researchers had calculated that the temperature trend for the total troposphere (TTT) was about 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade. After making further adjustments, the STAR team in March lowered the trend to a bit over 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade.
"The total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model simulations," the STAR researchers note. "Possible reasons for the observation-model differences in trends may include climate model biases in responding to external forcings, deficiencies in the post-millennium external forcings used in model simulations, phase mismatch in natural internal climate variability, and possible residual errors in satellite data sets." Translation: The models simply run too hot, the historical inputs like volcanic aerosols and ozone to the models may be wrong, a temporary natural cooling trend could be masking warming, and adjustments to the satellite data may be wrong.
The STAR researchers tellingly add that their findings are "consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020) for a slightly shorter period (1979–2014)." In that 2020 study, environmental economist Ross McKitrick and Christy compared the outputs of the latest suite of climate models to satellite, weather balloon, and reanalysis products. They found that every one of the 38 new generation "climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics." The models are predicting much more warming than appears to be occurring. Again, they are running too hot.
Time series of model and observation temperature anomalies, global lower troposphere. Individual model runs (gray lines), model mean (black line), and observational mean (blue line). All series shifted to begin at 0 in 1979.
The new STAR study researchers do additionally observe, "A striking feature is that trends during the latest half period (around 0.21–0.22 K/decade) nearly doubled the trends during the first half period (around 0.10–0.12 K/decade) for the global and global ocean means. These large differences in TTT trends between the first and second half periods suggest that the tropospheric warming is accelerating." It is worth noting that this accelerated trend is still about a third lower than the average of the model projections.
However, McKitrick in a preliminary analysis over at Climate Etc. finds, "the new NOAA data do not support a claim that warming in the troposphere has undergone a statistically-significant change in trend."
Given that climate science is continually evolving, it's a good idea to heed University of Colorado climate policy researcher Roger Pielke Jr.'s admonition to "be careful celebrating the results of any one study too much, because science moves ahead and there is no guarantee that any single paper stands the test of time."
In his comparison of new STAR data with other temperature data sets, NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt gamely points out, "The upward trends differ slightly for sure, but they are all recognizably describing the same climate change." But, in fact, all of the surface and satellite temperature trends are considerably lower than the average of the projections made by the most recent set of climate models.
Average global temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century. If the rate of warming is not in fact accelerating, rough extrapolations of the lowest and highest rates of warming derived from the observational records suggest that unabated global warming would further boost average temperatures between 1 and 1.6 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Such an increase is in line with recent research that finds that the average global temperature is likely to rise by 2100 to about 2.2 degrees Celsius above the 19th century baseline. That's not nothing, but such an increase is unlikely to be catastrophic for future generations.
*************************************************
A not-so-green reality behind green transition
In the rollicking world of net-zero policy-making and initiatives, Canada aims to be a global leader. The country’s bankers, mining executives, auto companies, electricity producers and political leaders have merged into a unified machine around the idea that a new green economy can be achieved via a just transition to a global energy system free of carbon emissions.
The nationalist clatter last week around the possible sale of Teck Resources of Vancouver to Swiss mining giant Glencore reflected the new official Canadian corporatist approach. As a key global player in the business of producing “critical minerals” — copper, zinc, molybdenum — Teck is seen as a vital cog in the wheel of economic fortune swirling around the net-zero objectives.
The Trudeau Liberals’ enthusiasm for the new national economic model was captured in “The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy,” a report released last December by Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson and Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne. “Critical minerals are the building blocks for the green and digital economy. There is no energy transition without critical minerals: no batteries, no electric cars, no wind turbines and no solar panels. The sun provides raw energy, but electricity flows through copper. Wind turbines need manganese, platinum and rare earth magnets. Nuclear power requires uranium. Electric vehicles require batteries made with lithium, cobalt and nickel and magnets. Indium and tellurium are integral to solar panel manufacturing.”
But exactly how clean and green is the net-zero economic strategy? It’s a question raised in a revealing commentary by veteran Canadian environmental journalist Andrew Nikiforuk. Writing in The Tyee, a Vancouver-based online publication, Nikiforuk reviews the work of academics and a “rising chorus of renewable energy skeptics” who believe that the great transition to a renewable energy future is a green techno-dream that is “vastly destructive.”
Nikiforuk is not writing for NetZeroWatch, the insightful climate and renewable energy skeptic website operated by the Global Warming Policy Forum in London. Nor is he in the same camp as anti-renewable author Alex Epstein, whose book, Fossil Future, rips the renewable alternatives and champions oil and gas. At The Tyee, Nikiforuk continues his work as an anti-fossil-fuel environmental writer whose books include Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, and The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude.
In his new commentary, which has received far too little attention in the media and among policy-makers, Nikiforuk spares no one and pulls no punches. “For largely ideological reasons,” he writes, “many greens and ‘transitionists’ have presented the transition to renewables as a smooth road with no potholes.” Drawing on the work of an array of analysts and scientists, Nikiforuk describes the destructive forces that will be unleashed by the global push to replace fossil fuels.
A dirty wake-up call from the environmental left
Much of the impact of the renewable crusade should be obvious. Solar panels, wind mills or electric cars cannot be built without mining more copper, lithium, iron and aluminum. “That means vastly more destructive scraping and digging of ocean floors, rainforests and tundras on a scale inconceivable to most environmentalists.”
Nikiforuk then lists some of the inconceivable, citing various sources, including Simon Michaux at Finland’s Geological Society. Michaux calculates that to replace 46,423 power stations run by oil, coal, gas and nuclear energy would require the construction of 586,000 power stations run by wind, solar and hydrogen.
Another example: “Every electric vehicle contains about 75 kilograms of copper or three times more than a conventional vehicle. A single wind turbine generally contains 500 kilograms of nickel. That nickel requires 100 tonnes of steelmaking coal to be refined. And every crystalline silicon solar panel contains 20 grams of silver paste. It takes 80 metric tons of silver to generate approximately a gigawatt of solar power.”
On copper, Michaux states that current copper reserves at 880 million tonnes are equal to approximately 30 years of production. “But industry will need 4.5 billion tonnes of copper to manufacture just one generation of renewable technologies,” he estimates. “That’s six times the volume of copper mined throughout history.”
No wonder Glencore wants to get its financial paws on Teck Resources’ copper operations in South America and Canada.
Nikiforuk’s summary of the work of renewable skeptics outlines the reasons green enthusiasts and activist politicians should put a yellow light over their critical mineral campaigns, as should the bands of corporate activists eager to capitalize on being green.
The ideas of renewable skeptics lead logically to an even more troubling implication. If fossil fuels are destructive, and renewable alternatives are maybe even more destructive, then what? The only option left is some anti-development strategy. Growth is bad, no matter how it’s pursued, which means we need de-growth and depopulation.
That conclusion would be the logical outcome that arises out of the underlying green environmental premise, which is that humans are enemies of nature. For those of us with a different perspective on human existence, the real alternative is to scrap both the anti-fossil and the anti-renewable movement and get on with the business of improving the lives of humans.
*********************************************************
Australia: Northern Territory clears way for fracking to begin in Beetaloo Basin
The Northern Territory government says it is satisfied the recommendations of an independent inquiry into fracking have been met, clearing the way for gas production and the expansion of wells across the Beetaloo basin.
The NT chief minister, Natasha Fyles, announced Wednesday morning her government was giving a green light for gas production in the region between Katherine and Tennant Creek, a move environment organisations and scientists have warned will have an unacceptable impact on the climate.
Wednesday’s announcement means gas companies can apply for production licences and environmental impact assessments.
“Along with our world class renewable resources, our highly prospective onshore gas resources will support the energy transition to renewables not only for the Northern Territory, but for Australia and the world,” Fyles said.
The territory’s deputy chief minister, Nicole Manison, said “we want nations to be able to decarbonise the economy in a safe and sustainable way and gas will be that important fuel of transition, the onshore gas industry will also be good for the territory’s economy.”
Companies will still need to make financial decisions about whether to proceed, but if the Beetaloo did reach full production it could see thousands of wells across the landscape.
Analysis by Reputex in 2021 estimated a high production scenario in the Beetaloo could lead to an additional 1.4 billion tonnes of life cycle emissions - which includes emissions from when the gas is sold and used - over 20 years.
On Wednesday, 96 scientists published an open letter calling for the Northern Territory government to ban unconventional gas projects because of their effects on the climate.
The International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have said no new coal and gas projects can proceed if the world is to limit global heating to 1.5C.
“This is a profoundly sad day for the Northern Territory. As we look down the barrel of unliveability here in the Northern Territory due to climate change, the Chief Minister has today given the green light for a carbon bomb that will hurtle us towards climate collapse,” Kirsty Howey, the executive director of the Environment Centre NT, said.
Environmental groups said that despite the government’s announcement, several of the 135 recommendations from the Pepper inquiry in 2018 had not been fulfilled, which Howey said was a broken promise to Territorians and an “unacceptable capitulation” to the gas industry.
They include an expansion of the water trigger, which the Albanese government has proposed but not yet made law, comprehensive assessment of likely cultural impacts of fracking on First Nations people and cultural rights, and provision of “reliable, accessible, trusted and accurate” to Aboriginal people about fracking.
They said recommendation 9.8 – which requires the NT and federal governments to ensure there will be no net increase in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Australia from gas projects in the Beetaloo – had also not been met.
Traditional owner and chair of the Nurrdalinji Aboriginal Corporation Johnny Wilson said “the government has broken its promise to us that it would implement all recommendations of the Pepper Inquiry before fracking starts”.
“Fracking companies are still not listening to the wishes of Traditional Owners who do not want thousands of flaring wells that will destroy our country,” he said.
Lock the Gate Alliance National Coordinator Carmel Flint urged the Albanese government to meet commitments on water and climate and “step in and stop the NT government jumping the gun with a dangerous rush to fracking”.
Flint said while an expansion of the water trigger to all forms of unconventional gas had been promised it was not yet law, with reforms to Australia’s environmental laws still to be drafted.
She said the issue of how to implement greenhouse gas controls in the Beetaloo had also only been referred to Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council a month ago.
Changes to the safeguard mechanism that passed the federal parliament last month require scope 1 – direct onsite emissions – for Beetaloo projects to be net zero.
Environment groups said this did not address all of recommendation 9.8 which requires that domestic scope 2 – the energy used by gas companies - and scope 3 emissions – when the gas is sold and burnt – also be net zero.
Fyles disagreed on Wednesday that 9.8 had not been met, telling a media conference “we have absolutely met the recommendation”. She later said she acknowledged work needed to be done with the Commonwealth government on scope 2 and 3 emissions.
A spokesperson for the environment and water minister Tanya Plibersek said expanding the water trigger was part of the government’s environment reforms and draft legislation would be released for consultation later this 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
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment