Monday, July 29, 2024
I Wrote An Article For Forbes Defending J.D. Vance From Accusations Of ‘Climate Denialism’. Forty Eight Hours Later, Forbes Un-Published The Article And Sacked Me As A Contributor
Written by Tilak Doshi
An article I wrote for Forbes about J.D. Vance published on July 18th began as follows:
Within a day of ex-President Trump’s announcement of “climate denier” Mr. J. D. Vance as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, the climate industrial complex and supportive mainstream media had the knives out.
Little did I know that within a day of publishing that article, the knives would come out for me.
The editors of Forbes deleted my article, stating that “we had to take down your latest Forbes article about J.D. Vance because it did not meet our editorial guidelines which we take seriously”.
This was followed by a short note stating that I was sacked as a contributor. Similar complaints of not abiding by the magazine’s guidelines were made by an editor on a couple of previous published articles.
What editorial guidelines? “Avoid advocacy, opinion, polemic and rumour-mongering.”
I have yet to read any Forbes piece that avoided opinion, given that Forbes contributors are opinion columnists and not journalists who are hired to merely report the news. The contributor’s role, one would have thought, is to offer opinions and advocate certain lines of argument about current affairs or topics of interest based on a reasonable reading of verifiable data. Otherwise, what is the contributor’s purpose?
But here is the catch. It depends on whether you are “on message”. Are you with or against the accepted narratives? If against, you are cancelled. That is how the establishment operates – within Forbes and in the mainstream media – as I found out.
“Avoid Advocacy”
Here is the lead paragraph of a recent article in Forbes entitled “GOP Platform: Back To The Carbon Age” in the weekly column “Current Climate” by two “Forbes Senior Editors”:
Ahead of the Republican Party’s National Convention that kicks off today in Milwaukee, the GOP released its official platform of key priorities for a second potential Trump Administration. As with any such political document, it’s long on platitudes and slogans, but very short on detail.
But there’s at least one clear takeaway in the document: it prioritises increasing energy from fossil fuels while ignoring the carbon-fuelled climate crisis that’s triggered record-setting heatwaves and earlier and more intense hurricanes.
The authors assert that the GOP official platform “prioritises increasing energy from fossil fuels while ignoring the carbon-fuelled climate crisis”.
They further claim that the “carbon-fuelled climate crisis” has “triggered record-setting heatwaves and earlier and more intense hurricanes”. By these leading statements, the reader is led to believe that both constitute “settled science”.
Here is another example of writing from another recently published Forbes article that allegedly does not constitute advocacy or opinion:
Imagine not being able to get the warning about the approaching hurricane or tornado. How would you know when to evacuate to stay safe or board up your home or business? Or make sure your staff is protected? It’s not a bad dream, it could be the reality if Donald Trump takes office again.
My suggestion that the policy positions of J.D. Vance in support of fossil fuels and sceptical of climate alarmist claims are consistent with the verities of physics and economics got me cancelled. But arguing that if Donald Trump takes over, it would be “a bad dream” is perfectly fine in a Forbes world allegedly devoid of advocacy or opinion.
***********************************************
UK: ‘Climate Crisis’ Used To Justify Govt’s Record Spending On ‘Renewables’
The Government appears ready to claim that the ‘imminent’ threat of ‘climate change’ justifies what will be the largest taxpayer-funded investment in wind and solar farms in British history
The Telegraph has the details.
Sir Keir Starmer is to unveil the first investment by the £8.3 billion taxpayer-funded Great British Energy, which will back renewable energy projects to help meet the Government’s Net Zero goals.
The Prime Minister will say the Government is “rolling up our sleeves to deliver for Britain” as he announces a partnership with the Crown Estate to help develop the seabed for offshore wind power.
Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, said the £8.3 billion investment in GB Energy was vital to meet the “huge challenges” the country faced, including the climate crisis, which was “not a future threat but a present reality”.
“In an unstable world, the only way to guarantee our energy security and protect billpayers permanently is to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels and towards home-grown clean energy,” he said.
“That is why making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the Prime Minister’s five missions, with the biggest investment in home-grown clean energy in British history.”
A Great British Energy Bill will be introduced in Parliament on Thursday to formally establish the company, which will have its headquarters in Scotland.
The company is expected to take a stake in renewables energy projects alongside the private sector. …
In its first major project, GB Energy will provide spatial planning, surveying and grid design assistance to the Crown Estate to help speed up the development of offshore wind projects. …
It is not yet clear how much of the £8.3 billion will be divided between projects such as the Crown Estate deal and other types of investment. …
Josh Buckland, a former civil servant in the energy department and senior fellow at Policy Exchange, said there was a lack of clarity about how GB Energy will operate.
“This includes how any public ownership will be designed in such a way not to distort the market for private investment,” he said.
“Until that is understood, it’s hard to assess how much value GB Energy will deliver in practice to the taxpayer or billpayer.”
**************************************************
UK may need new gas-fired power stations to decarbonise grid
Labour is likely to have to approve new gas-fired power stations in its attempt to decarbonise the UK’s electricity systems by 2030, in what would be a tricky decision for the new government.
Keeping the lights on for the rest of the decade, and beyond, will require some additional baseload power, and new nuclear power stations will not be built in time, according to a report from the National Engineering Policy Centre.
All the UK’s existing gas-fired power stations are expected to be kept going as long as possible but it is probable that more will be needed. Wind and solar generation are set for large increases but the UK’s nuclear reactors are ageing and coal has almost been phased out.
Nilay Shah, a professor of process systems engineering at Imperial College London and a co-author of the report, said: “There is a reasonable chance that we will need new gas-fired power stations.”
However he called for them to be “genuinely” ready for the attachment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which could be achieved by locating them near potential underground carbon storage sites. He said the number needed would depend on factors such as building new interconnectors between the UK and overseas electricity grids.
Simon Harrison, the head of strategy at the engineering company Mott MacDonald who co-chaired the committee that wrote the report, added that having a small number of gas-fired power stations available would add to the UK’s resilience, even if they did produce some carbon emissions. “We have to not be purist about unabated gas,” he said.
This would be a tough decision for Ed Miliband, the energy and net zero secretary, as he attempts to meet the “stretching” target of decarbonising electricity generation by 2030. Rishi Sunak drew criticism from green campaigners when he announced plans for new gas-fired power plants in March, which campaigners said was the result of the Tory government’s failure to encourage enough new renewable energy generation.
However, Jess Ralston, the head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit thinktank, said: “Keeping a supply of unabated gas plants in 2030 – some new as older ones are planned to go offline before then – in reality would probably mean they are only on for short, infrequent periods of time, rather than being on much of the time like they are today. These plants will probably be expensive to run, and gas prices are predicted to remain volatile, so it is in consumer interests to keep their usage low as well as in the interests of our energy security and, of course, climate change.”
Labour acknowledged in its manifesto the likely need to keep some “unabated gas” – that is, without CCS – for security of supply, and the Committee on Climate Change has also said some gas-fired electricity could be needed even as the UK pushes to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Miliband will also face serious problems in updating the UK’s creaking electricity grid and erecting the new pylons required for the transmission of power from a new generation of onshore and offshore wind and solar farms, according to the report published on Tuesday.
The report found that major work was needed on transmission infrastructure, including new pylons, and that although there could be local objections, the upgrade would produce benefits for people all over the country, from new jobs and the rejuvenation of regional economies, to cleaner air and better health, and helping to reduce the impacts of the climate crisis.
Protests against new pylons have been coordinated by local groups and have been supported by the co-leader of the Green party, Adrian Ramsay, and other Green and Liberal Democrat politicians. The Tory party manifesto contained a commitment to bury pylons, but this would be more expensive than using overhead cables.
“We need to show people the benefits,” said Harrison. “There should be a proper opportunity for public debate about this plan.”
*******************************************
Court rules in favour of Roundup over cancer query
A great relief. The Greenie jihad against glyphosate has been relentless
Australian farmers are relieved by a Federal Court ruling that the commonly used herbicide Roundup does not cause cancer.
Regarded as a key tool for controlling weeds in agricultural crops, Roundup’s manufacturer Monsanto has been hit by a barrage of legal action across the world in recent years.
A landmark class action in the Federal Court against Monsanto’s Australian offshoot, Huntsman Chemical Company, was filed by 800 on-Hodgkin lymphoma patients in 2020, but judge Michael Lee late on Thursday found the evidence did not prove the glyphosate based herbicide was carcinogenic.
German chemicals and pharmaceuticals company Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, is facing multiple lawsuits in the US and has in some cases been found liable by juries for causing cancer.
National agencies, including the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, which last considered glyphosate in 2016, European Food Agency and European Chemicals Agency and the US Environmental Protection Agency have all approved use of glyphosate as a weed killer, subject to conditions, after strict safety assessments.
Justice Lee found there was not enough evidence to prove Roundup caused the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of 41-year-old Kelvin McNickle, who was diagnosed with the cancer six years ago after two decades of using the chemical on his family’s property.
The National Farmers Federation said Justice Lee’s decision was reassuring, given the widespread use of the product in the agriculture sector.
“As a farmers and stewards of the land, it’s important we use products that are safe for humans and the environment,” the NFF said after the verdict.
“Glyphosate is one of the most common products farmers and home gardeners use all over the world to combat invasive weeds. It allows us to be more productive and sustainable, often being associated with no or minimal till farming, which preserves soil structure.
“The decision from the Federal Court today reinforces that our regulator is doing its job to ensure the health and safety of our farmers, communities and environment.”
Describing glyphosate as “a critical component of modern and sustainable agricultural production”, NSW Farmers Ag Science Committee chair Alan Brown said Australian farmers were “well aware of how to use this chemical correctly to protect the health of their families and communities”.
“Without access to the chemical, farmers would have to resort to cultivation to manage weeds – degrading our landscape and making it harder than ever to maintain productivity” Mr Brown said.
Bayer said the decision was consistent with worldwide regulatory and scientific assessments and “remains committed to supporting Australian farmers by ensuring safe-for-use and effective products such as Roundup continue to be available”.
*************************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
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)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment