Actor Storms Out of Chevron Play Over Politics

Dear Friends,

I'm just going to the airport to catch the plane for the opening weekend of "The $18-Billion Prize" but I wanted to let you now about the very depressing reports circulating about the production.

According to some reports the lead actor has walked out because he doesn't like the politics of the play. You can read the full report HERE.

I don't want to comment on the report but I want you to know that the show is going on as planned and we will have preview tonight and opening night tomorrow night.

We have replaced the leading actor and the truth will be told. It's just like the Ferguson play in LA when nine of the actors walked out because they didn't like the script. This is crazy because both scripts are overwhelmingly verbatim - using eyewitness testimony. What the actors are saying is that they don't like the truth - it seems they would rather promote a fairytale that supports their politics. This has not been the only problem we have faced in the production. It was almost impossible to get a venue in San Francisco and not one publicist or lighting designer in the whole city would work on the production.

It has been a tough few days as we struggle to get a show on the stage but it has been worth it. The $18-Billion Prize is a great story of how one of the world's biggest frauds was carried out by an environmentalist. And it was all aided and abetted by the mainstream media and Hollywood actors. They almost got away with $18 billion.

But we are exposing the fraud on the stage despite the attempts to disrupt the show. Thats why I need your help. It has not been cheap bringing people in from out of town and dealing with all the disruption. I'm crowdfunding the project because the theatrical establishment don't want the truth to be told.

So please give whatever you can - you can donate at www.ChevronPlay.com.

It would be great if you could come to a performance but if you are from out of town think about buying the script or a poster of the play.

It is a stunning tale of malfeasance but also exposes Hollywood celebs going wild in the jungle.

So please go to www.ChevronPlay.com and give what you can.

Thanks
Phelim McAleer Via email





A lady with delusions of grandeur

Wild assertions instead of facts and logical reasoning.  And she no doubt wonders why men say women are too emotional.

What the world would be like without fossil fuels needs no imagining. There are many parts of the third world that already do without fossil fuels -- But you wouldn't want to be like them. Their lives are nasty, brutish and short.  So her  claim that women will rid the world of fossil fuels is particularly dumb. She offers a nightmare

At the American Geophysical Union fall meeting in New Orleans last December, Sarah Myhre, PhD, joined with other scientists on a panel presenting and fielding questions on the science, economics, and politics of climate solutions.

Myhre (pronounced my-ree) delivered a message that may have been startling to some in the audience – that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades. Myhre characteristically delivered her talk with a sense of urgency, confidence, and polish.

After the presentations, an audience member directed a comment to panelist Stefan Rahmstorf, PhD, of the Potsdam Institute. Rahmstorf had illustrated just how quickly the world will need to stop burning fossil fuels if warming is to be kept to no more than 2 degrees C, about 3.6 degrees F.

“You show that we’ll need to drop all the way to zero fossil fuel use within the next few decades,” the commenter said. “But I have a hard time even imagining a world without fossil fuels.”

As Rahmstorf prepared to answer, Myhre leaned over to the microphone. “Imagine a world where women are in charge,” she said wryly, “And then you’ll imagine a world without fossil fuels.”

Laughter echoed through the room – some of it no doubt nervous laughter. But Myhre’s comment was more than just a witty comeback. Myhre later mentioned that her intent was not to disrespect men, but to emphasize that only an entirely different leadership could bring about the radical change she says is needed to reverse reliance on fossil fuels.

Her retort appeared to resonate because it acknowledged the potential of women as creative leaders at a time when there’s little optimism for “politics-as-usual” to get a handle on climate change.

Fast forward a few months, and Myhre spoke more about her work over a video call. She recounted that moment at AGU and filled in the backstory.

“I remember that very clearly, it was a laugh line. I was not saying, let’s take every man out of power,” she said. She switched from a tone of conversation to one of oration in explaining the reasoning behind her comment.

What if women were in charge for a decade? Just 10 years – and we would hand it all back to you after 10 years. I’m going to guarantee that after 10 years, you would be in a better place. You, man, would be in a better place if all of us women were running the show. Cause you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to give you health care. We’re going to give you education. We’re going to empower your communities. We’re going to work on affordable housing, we’re going to work on diversity and inclusivity so that your queer son can go to an institution and not be, you know, bullied and harassed. Like … it’s gonna be good for you.

Myhre argues that addressing climate change requires a humanist perspective. In other words, one empathizing with people who are marginalized by the effects of climate change but lacking a powerful voice in brokering solutions. She points to “indigenous people, people from small island nations and polar communities, and the global population of the poor and vulnerable. And to people living in the future – our descendants.”

Women, Myhre posits, are leaders in extending empathy to different populations, in part because many women, particularly women of color, have experienced discrimination themselves.

But Myhre also described the darker side of that AGU moment. “Afterwards, I received two messages from men. Both of the messages were, ‘I was on board with your presentation until you made that joke.’ One was a threatening note: ‘You need to watch your back because people are paying attention to you, and they’re ready to take you down.'”

“It shows you that women making jokes are unpalatable,” Myhre said.

So, here’s what some might see as an inevitable dilemma: On one hand, Myhre fiercely wants the world to be a better, more equal, more caring place. And on the other hand, she finds herself embroiled in controversy for saying so.

SOURCE





In Attacking ‘Uncertainty,’ King County Climate Lawsuit Undermines Fellow Litigants

Last week King County, Washington, became the latest municipality to sue the oil and gas industry in an effort to extract monetary damages for climate change. Like San Francisco, Oakland, and New York City, King County hired the Seattle-based plaintiffs’ firm Hagens Berman to represent it.

Curiously, even after facing heavy skepticism and criticism of its past lawsuits, Hagens Berman doubled down on some of its weakest arguments, and in doing so, may have thrown its fellow plaintiffs under the bus.

King County’s lawsuit criticizes fossil fuel companies for acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in attempting to predict the future. Here is one example from the King County complaint:

“Until approximately early 2017, Exxon’s website continued to emphasize the ‘uncertainty’ of global warming science and impacts: ‘current scientific understanding provides limited guidance on the likelihood, magnitude, or time frame’ of events like temperature extremes and sea level rise. Exxon’s insistence on crystal-ball certainty was clear misdirection, since Exxon knew that the fundamentals of climate science were well settled and showed global warming to present a clear and present danger.” (emphasis added)

It’s an accusation opponents of the oil and gas industry have made before, but it now serves to cast doubt on the lawsuits brought by King County’s fellow climate plaintiffs in California, who recently released a report that praises their own efforts to emphasize the uncertainty of climate projections.

It could also create additional legal headaches for King County and other plaintiffs.

In January, one of the defendants of these climate lawsuits filed a petition in a Texas District Court suggesting that the California municipalities’ claims of climate damages were either exaggerated in their lawsuits or downplayed in their municipal bond disclosures. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was later asked by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Association of Manufacturers to investigate the municipalities’ bond disclosures for possible securities fraud.

Seeking to clear their name, five of the municipalities (all represented by Sher Edling LLP) hired a former SEC official to review their bond disclosures. That former SEC official’s conclusion emphasized that the effects of climate change were too far away to have any noteworthy impact on the municipalities, and praised them for emphasizing the uncertainty of climate change modeling. Discussing the bonds of one of the plaintiffs, the report states:

“Furthermore, the disclosure documents for the bonds San Mateo County issued in 2014 and 2016 included general disclosures regarding potential risks from sea level rise and included appropriate cautionary language about the uncertainty of whether or when flooding from sea level rise might occur and of the County’s inability to predict whether such future events would have a material adverse effect on the financial condition and business operations of the County or on the local economy.” (emphasis added)

As Energy In Depth noted at the time, the former SEC official’s report was almost certain to cause headaches for the plaintiffs’ lawsuits, whose very premise relies on the idea that these municipalities have already been harmed by climate change and that the energy industry was inappropriately acknowledging the same uncertainty noted by the municipalities.

So when ExxonMobil acknowledges the uncertainty of climate projections, it’s “clear misdirection.” But when San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties and the Cities of Imperial Beach and Santa Cruz do the same, they were acting appropriately? That is a textbook example of hypocrisy.

Further ignoring the former SEC official’s report and throwing caution to the wind, King County’s lawsuit begins with:

“Global warming is here and it is harming King County now as King County is already experiencing the impacts of a changing climate: warming temperatures, acidifying marine waters, rising seas, increased flooding risk, decreasing mountain snowpack, and less water in the summer.”

In its first line, King County’s complaint contradicts the report paid for by the California municipalities, which stated: “in the case of sea-level rise and certain other climate impacts, municipal entities generally will not be greatly affected for decades…”

It is also clear that Hagens Berman has not updated the language in its lawsuits to reflect recent events. In fact, much of King County’s complaint is copied over from the San Francisco and Oakland complaints, with minimal alteration.

The copy of the complaint available on King County’s website is even titled “Template that creates a custom pleading,” providing some of the strongest evidence yet that Hagens Berman is shopping these lawsuits as an off-the-shelf deliverable. The firm stands to make tens of billions of dollars in contingency fees should any of the plaintiffs find success in the courtroom.

But the firm’s inattention to detail and its history of bringing “baseless” cases that give a “new meaning to ‘frivolous’” – as one judge put it – may ultimately prove a legal headache for the firm and the cities and counties it represents.

SOURCE





Here's why Congress and think tanks think a carbon tax would be disastrous

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., and Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., recently introduced a resolution that explains why a carbon tax would harm the economy and why it should not be enacted. A similar resolution, introduced by Scalise in 2016, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 237 to 163. Six Democrats joined the entire Republican caucus in supporting the resolution.

I applaud Scalise and McKinley’s unswerving effort to prevent a carbon tax in the U.S., and you should as well. The resolution is important and timely because a group of old-guard, “swamp” Republicans, including Reagan-era luminaries like James Baker and George Shultz, have joined with anti-fossil-fuel zealots such as Obama Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to push a new federal carbon tax.

In addition, a number of states have considered or are still considering carbon taxes in their most recent legislative sessions. In Washington State, for example, activists were unable to con voters into passing a carbon tax initiative in 2016, and, despite support from billionaire Tom Steyer, a carbon tax proposal died in the legislature in March. Despite repeated failure, anti-progress environmentalists are back again, gathering signatures to put another carbon tax initiative on Washington’s ballot.

Scalise and McKinley’s resolution would put Congress on record again opposing the carbon tax, which President Trump also opposes.

The resolution states any carbon tax would result in myriad harms, including an “increase [in] energy prices, including the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home heating oil.” It would also “mean that families and consumers will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and electricity,” causing the most harm for “the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes.” The resolution also claims a carbon tax would “lead to more jobs and businesses moving overseas.”

Scalise says his resolution is meant to combat those “special interests” working to stop Republicans’ plan to make America energy dominant again. McKinley has said that a carbon tax "will take money out of the pockets of middle-class families" and "lead to a decrease in the production of America’s abundant energy resources that would result in lost jobs" and higher energy costs.

A group of 29 research institutes, legal foundations, and grassroots-activist groups, including The Heartland Institute, submitted a letter to Congress expressing support for the anti-carbon-tax resolution.

The letter noted multiple independent analyses have concluded a carbon tax would cost jobs, reduce economic growth, and disproportionately harm the poorest Americans. For instance, the signatories write, “a 2014 Heritage Foundation report found that a $37 per ton carbon tax would lead to a loss of more than $2.5 trillion in aggregate gross domestic product by 2030 … [or] more than $21,000 in income loss per family. In addition, a carbon tax would cost over 500,000 jobs in manufacturing and more than one million jobs by 2030. According to a 2013 CBO report, a carbon tax is highly regressive.”

Neither a carbon tax nor domestic regulations will do anything to prevent global climate change, even if human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to it. However, carbon taxes will, ironically, increase pollution overall. Facing higher energy costs, some or even many American companies will be forced to move operations overseas to remain profitable. Countries such as China and India, where many companies are likely to relocate to, have weaker environmental standards and less efficient methods of production than in the U.S. As companies fleeing the carbon tax shift production overseas, additional air pollution will spew into the atmosphere.

There is never a good time to enact bad policy, and a carbon tax is one of the worst policies we could adopt.

SOURCE





Climate Derangement Syndrome: Al Jazeera Abandons Science For Dogma And Fake News

THIS Al Jazeera article demonstrates beautifully how belief and dogma have infected much of the mainstream media and the global warming climate change orthodoxy, where groupthink doctrine insists that man-made climate change is responsible for all weather events, regardless of facts, data, empirical evidence or ‘science’.

THIS particular article also displays a troubling shift in climate change reporting where the narrative has progressed from ‘might climate change be affecting the weather?’, to ‘what impact is climate change having on X (cricket)’. There’s a big difference, with the latter presuming that man-made climate change is now a foregone conclusion…

“As recently as the summer of 2012, three of England’s 13 One Day International events were abandoned due to rain, while no result was possible in two of their seven Test matches with West Indies and South Africa.

That’s why the sport must take notice of a report published by Climate Coalition, the UK’s largest climate change action group, in February."

The document names cricket as the sport that will be hardest hit by climate change in England, stating that “wetter winters and more intense summer downpours are disrupting the game at every level”.”

LET’S check the latest Met Office data to see if “wetter winters and more intense summer downpours are disrupting the game at every level”…

ACROSS England, there is no trend, at all, for “wetter winters and more intense summer downpours.”

AL Jazeera is making up climate change falsehoods based on a strange ‘report’ that does not even exist…

CLASSIC fake news that will not be corrected and has already achieved its purpose of further brainwashing the masses into the belief that man-made ‘climate change’ is a foregone conclusion.

WHO are the real science “deniers”, propagandists and deceivers?

SOURCE

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

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

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