Sunday, March 10, 2019

America needs President Trump’s Climate Science Committee

Independent scientists must review alarmist “science” that is driving anti-fossil fuel policies

John Droz

America is in the midst of a cataclysmic battle – and yet you’ve likely heard very little about it.

Right now, the 30-year US global warming fight is coming to a pivotal juncture – within the next few days. It is vital that we take immediate action to support President Trump on an important initiative.

Dr. William Happer (an eminently qualified scientist in the White House) has proposed the Presidential Committee on Climate Science [or Presidential Commission on Climate Security] (PCCS).

The PCCS will bring together multiple qualified scientists who will review such significant issues as global warming’s alleged impact on national security, agriculture, sea levels and extreme weather. Their assignment will be to separate real, evidence-based science from agenda-driven  political science.

Those who want a genuine scientific assessment of global warming / climate change claims fully support the PCCS.

They know claims that American and the world face imminent disaster from soaring planetary temperatures, rising seas, more frequent and extreme storms and droughts, species extinctions and other human-caused climate calamities have never been subjected to full-throttled scientific review in a public forum. That’s because every attempt to have such a review has been opposed and silenced.

Those who oppose a real scientific assessment of climate chaos claims are against the PCCS. Not surprisingly, so far the most vocal and dominant voices oppose any scientific review of their claims.  (See here, here and here.)

They know their “science” is based on computer models and is contradicted by real-world evidence.

We need to make it clear to the President that citizens are following the PCCS matter, and that citizens fully support this excellent idea. There are two ways to send the President a message on this vital topic:

Phone the White House comment line: 1-202-456-1111

Email the White House explaining your support using this link.

Doing both would be even better!

The President’s decision is expected within the week, so please do this quickly.

To give you some perspective on the PCCS matter, I wrote two new documents:

1) Answers to some of the PCCS critics’ objections, and

2) Background on the 30-some year history of US climate alarmism (and how the PCCS fits in).

I hope there will be a segment about the PCCS on Fox News, an article or editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and more sensible articles on other media outlets (like this, this, this, and this).

These faulty to even fraudulent global warming and climate change claims are the driving force behind the Green New Deal’s plans to terminate fossil fuel use, ban cattle raising, and eliminate cars and airplanes; force us to rely on wind and solar power that would blanket millions of acres with turbines and panels; and replace our free enterprise system with socialist policies that would take money from you – and give it to someone else.

Get involved. Write to President Trump – and ask him to appoint his PCCS immediately.


Stop the anti-climate science totalitarians

They want to upend and transform America, but demand No Debate on underlying “science”

Paul Driessen

Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.

The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?

No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?

For years, you have loudly and incessantly asserted that the United States and world must end fossil fuel use, or we are “doomed.” Now you’re demanding that the United States completely upend its energy production, transportation and manufacturing sectors, housing and office buildings, and entire economy. You want the federal government to control and limit our lives, choices and living standards – and redistribute our wealth, even to those “unwilling to work,” according to confiscatory socialist principles.

For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence manmade climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate. All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this.

Your Climate Industrial Complex is a $2-trillion-per-year global behemoth. Your Green New Deal would cost this nation up to $93 trillion by 2030 – sticking every US family with a $65,000 annual bill. 

And still you insist that the science is settled, that there is no room for discussion, that we must act immediately to “save the planet” from climate and extreme weather disaster. Now you want to wrap up your kangaroo court proceedings – with our side given no opportunity to present our evidence, defend fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, examine your alleged evidence, or cross-examine your experts.

If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours – extensively and mercilessly.

After all, the future of our planet is at stake – or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is.

Your radical agenda and actions are un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and contrary to our most fundamental principles of open, robust debate – on one of the most critical issues in US history.

A large majority of Americans believe our planet has warmed and is warming. No one denies that. And thank goodness, or we’d still be stuck in the Little Ice Age. But that’s not the issue. The issues are: Is any likely future warming going to be disastrous? And are humans and fossil fuels to blame?

You claim the answer is Yes. Again, where is your proof? If you have any actual evidence, lay it on the table. Show us exactly where the natural forces that have driven countless climate changes throughout history end – and where the human factors begin. Quantify them. Don’t give us computer models that simply reflect the assumptions that went into them. Present solid, Real World evidence. If you have any.

While you’re at it, you also need to prove that dismantling America’s energy and economic system will make one whit of difference in our climate and weather (assuming for the sake of argument that human carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate and weather) – when China, India and other countries are building thousands of coal and natural gas fueled power plants, and millions of cars and trucks.

Their emissions already dwarf ours. And they are not going to give up fossil fuels for decades, if ever.

Prove your GND energy system can actually power America, without destroying jobs, living standards, manufacturing, health, prosperity and environment. As I have said over, over and over, it cannot be done. Your alternatives are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable.

Here’s just a few of the Real World climate science facts that alarmists don’t want exposed or discussed.

* Temperatures have risen by tenths or hundredths of a degree in recent years – less than the margin of error, and most of the “highest temperatures on record” have been in urban areas, where local manmade heat skews the data. We’re also experiencing record cold and snow in numerous locations.

* The average prediction by 102 climate models is now a full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites are measuring. Michael Mann’s climate model could concoct hockey sticks from telephone numbers and other random numbers. Are we supposed to trust these models on critical energy policy?

* Violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) averaged 56 per year from 1950 to 1985. But from 1986 to 2018 only 34 per year touched down in the USA on average – and for the first time ever not one did in 2018. The March 3 Alabama tornado was tragic, and the 2-mile-wide 2013 Oklahoma City monster lasted 40 minutes. But the 1925 Tri-State Twister was a mile wide, traveled a record 220 miles, lasted a record 3.5 hours, and killed a record 695 people.

* Hurricanes becoming more frequent and intense? From 1920 through 1940, ten Category 3-5 hurricanes made US landfall; from 1960 through 1980, eleven; 1980 through 2000, ten; 2001 through 2018, nine. There is no trend. Moreover, Harvey and Irma in 2017 were the first category 3-5 hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the Civil War era.

* A warmer Arctic? The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922!

* Polar bear populations are the highest on record: between 24,500 and 28,500 or more of them!

* Oceans cannot become “more acidic,” because they are not and have never been acidic. Earth’s oceans are slightly alkaline. That slight alkalinity has decreased slightly (from 8.2 on the pH scale to 8.1) over the past few decades. But they are not getting acidic … and won’t anytime soon.

* Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. In fact, the more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow – and the better they can withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and viruses.

* In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendously beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.

Millions of Americans are exasperated with Republicans like Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, who recently whined that it’s “just not worth the fight anymore” to battle climate alarmism – and protect our nation and our children’s future. Elected officials like him need to get spinal implants, learn the Climate Facts, or resign and turn their seats over to someone who will fight for us. That’s why we need the PCCS.

It’s why they hope the President Trump we elected to clean out the Deep State … show why manmade climate chaos claims are pseudo-science … and Make America Great Again for decades to come … will demonstrate his toughness and leadership right now, when we so need him to.

We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.

Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science now! Give sound, honest science a chance.

Via email

Strange prophecy

Human civilisation is going to ‘crumble’ under an onslaught of climate change-induced superstorms and ‘apocalyptic heatwaves’, it’s been claimed. But don’t worry too much, because the electrical grid in western countries will probably survive mother nature’s bitter blitzkreig.

Cell Press, a leading science publisher, sketched a vivid portrait of the grim fate awaiting society in a press release entitled: ‘Good news! Europe’s electric grid will still work even as the world crumbles.’

The study described in this release is called ’21st Century Climate Change Impacts on Key Properties of a Large-Scale Renewable-Based Electricity System’ and is rather more sober than the notice announcing its publication.

‘Scientists at Aarhus University in Denmark studying the effects of climate change on weather-dependent electricity systems have found a silver lining in Earth’s otherwise fraught future outlook,’ Cell Press continued. ‘Temperatures may climb and seas may rise, but the lights (and, undoubtedly, the air conditioning) will still be on in nations with high capacities for wind and solar energy.’

 The study’s authors found that Europe’s power grid is actually well-placed to survive the ravages of climate change. Systems currently in place are built to survive extreme weather events, so should be able to weather the storm as Earth heats up over the next century.

Scientists also suggested the increase in power usage caused by an increased need for air-conditioning could be offset slightly by the lower demand for heating in northern Europe. In its statement, the Cell Press added: ‘If humans fail to mitigate the apocalyptic heatwaves and superstorms to come, at least it seems probable that we can hole up in our climate-controlled living rooms and watch HBO Nordic. Indefinitely.’


Bipartisan Bill Would Enrich a Few Energy Technologies at Expense of American Taxpayers

As Americans work to file their taxes, Congress is setting to work on a package of expired tax credits this spring to enrich a few energy technologies at the expense of federal taxpayers.

Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., of the Senate Finance Committee last week introduced a bill that would retroactively renew 26 tax credits that expired at the start of 2018.

The Grassley-Wyden bill would carry those tax credits through 2019 even though they were intentionally left out of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and past omnibus spending deals.

Called the Tax Extender and Disaster Relief Act of 2019, the legislation carves out favors for a few odds and ends such as race horses, motor sports complexes, and medical expenses.

But most of the bill gives special breaks to energy companies that produce biofuels, electric and fuel cell vehicles, and certain boutique renewable energy technologies, including biomass and geothermal.

Targeted tax credits have become a popular way for government to award special treatment and artificially attract private-sector interest to politically favored and well-connected industries.

In short, they’re nothing more than subsidies doled out through the tax code. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but Congress also does no service to these energy technologies and companies in the long run by subsidizing them.

It’s bad enough that several years of lobbying by these special interests appears to be working. Rather than getting closer to a free energy sector, that’s unfortunately business as usual for Washington.

But it’s another thing altogether to see some in Congress all too willing to hand out subsidies apparently unsolicited by lobbyists. How efficient.

As reported by E&E News, some Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee are angling to add wind and solar tax credits to a larger tax extenders package like the one introduced by Grassley and Wyden.

On these, Republicans and Democrats reached a compromise in the 2015 omnibus spending bill to extend credits one more time and put them on a schedule to sunset in 2022, a decision that diverted over $14 billion to the green energy industry. From the beginning, these credits (like those in the Grassley-Wyden bill) were designed to be temporary but have expired, been extended, re-extended, and retroactively extended for decades.

Finally, it seemed that Washington had had enough, and the wind and solar industries could no longer claim they were infant industries in the face of falling costs and industry growth.

Fast forward four years to now.

About the wind production tax credit, the wind industry said: “The wind industry agreed to an orderly phase-out of the production tax credit … We aren’t actively asking for an extension to our PTC.”

And the solar industry said of the solar investment tax credit: “We have not asked for an extension of the ITC.”

And yet now, that compromise could mean nothing if Democrats have their way.

There is some hope of responsible action winning out. Grassley, historically a champion of wind subsidies, said: “We made that decision in 2015. I think it would be wrong for me to go back on my word.”

But one has to ask: What will it take to get the rest of Congress to keep a promise?


Australia: Rebel National Party members ignite energy war over ‘big stick’ laws, power prices

Six Queensland Nationals MPs have reignited the Coalition’s civil war on energy policy, demanding that Scott Morrison put his shelved “big stick” laws to a vote in budget week and fast-track a decis­ion on the underwriting of a new cleaner coal plant.

The energy rebels have signed a letter to Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, challenging his authority with written demands calling for “immediate” ­action to address “unsustainable Queensland electricity costs”, after he failed to avert the deferral of the legislation to bring energy companies to heel.

In the letter, obtained by The Australian, the MPs called on the “Coalition executive” to revive the legislation that would allow the government to seek orders divesting an energy company of its power generation assets.

The MPs have also called on the government to underwrite a new power generation project in regional Queensland before the May election is called, raising the stakes in the push by conser­vatives for contracts to be signed backing a new cleaner coal plant.

The letter does not identify a preferred power generation source but Queensland Nationals said yesterday they would support “whatever is the cheapest option”, although some indicated their first preference would be for a cleaner coal plant.

The six Nationals who signed the letter include frontbencher Michelle Landry — an outspoken advocate for a new cleaner coal plant — as well as Keith Pitt, Llew O’Brien, George Christensen, Ken O’Dowd and outgoing senat­or Barry O’Sullivan.

“We the undersigned call on the Coalition executive to take immediate action to legislate the big stick bill in the next parliamentary sitting and to underwrite new gener­ating capacity (power station­) construction for regional Queensland,” the letter said. It warned that voters in the MPs’ regional Queensland seats were at their “wit’s end”.

“Since our government’s election in 2013, our constituents have consistently raised with us the cost of energy in our electorate and our state,’’ the letter said.

“The combination of drought, other natural disasters and a recalcitrant Labor state government has our local industries, small businesses and everyday consumers at their wit’s end. They simply cannot continue to pay such exorbitant energy costs.”

Regional Queensland will be a key battleground in the federal election campaign, with the ­Coalition defending a string of marginal seats and hoping to wrest the Townsville-based seat of Herbert from Labor.

The MPs said the cost of electricity in regional Queensland was governed by the Labor state government, which “owns the only retailer, all of the poles and wires and 70 per cent of the generation ­capacity. Without divestiture powers, in our view, no action can be taken which would cause Queensland Labor to reduce power prices”.

The letter follows the announcement by Scott Morrison of a $2 billion top-up for Tony ­Abbott’s direct­ action fund to tackle climate change, and a further $1.4bn equity injection in the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project.

The government has also announced $86 million towards a new Tasmanian hydro power project, Battery of the Nation, and a new Bass Strait transmission link.

The letter, copied in to Energy Minister Angus Taylor, was sent after Nationals were denied a party­room meeting last month to discuss deferral of the “big stick” laws aimed at cracking down on energy market misconduct.

The proposed divestiture shake-up — opposed by Labor and big business and initially attacked by energy companies as unconstitutional — is seen as a major initiative of the minor Coalition partner, with some Nationals ­arguing for a broader divestment power to be enshrined in law to capture supermarkets and banks.

The government deferred the legislation last month after the Greens threatened to move an amendment that would prevent public money being used to underwrite coal-fired power stations.

Mr Pitt and Mr O’Brien yesterday urged the government to put the “big stick” laws to a vote, even if Labor and the Greens tried to sabotage or defeat the bill in the house.

“If the Labor Party want to vote against lowering energy ­prices and cost of living in this country, then we should let them,” Mr Pitt said.

“I want to be able to look every one of my constituents in the eye and tell them we have done everything we possibly can to deliver lower energy costs.”

When asked today if the big stick policy was a test of Mr McCormack’s leadership, Mr Pitt told ABC radio: “That’s a question for Michael. We are asking for action and I suspect he will have the horsepower to get it done.”

Mr O’Brien said the “big stick” was a “matter of priority” that meant “putting the legislation to a vote at the first opportunity”.

Asked whether he would broach the issues raised in the letter with the Prime Minister, Mr McCormack said the government would “consider these matters again when the parliament resumes in April”.

“I speak with the Prime Minister regularly on matters of importance to regional Australia, such as power prices that are hurting households and small businesses at the moment,” he told The Australian. “That’s why the Australian government has introduced legislation into the parliament to help set up permanent ways to reduce power prices for all consumers.”

A spokesman for Mr Morrison told The Australian: “Every Liberal and Nationals member wants to see lower energy prices, which is why our legislation is so important and why we want it to pass un­amended through the parliament.

“It’s a stark contrast to Labor who … refuse to back any mechanism to ensure we have reliable, ­affordable power for Australian families and businesses.”

Opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said this morning he agreed with the rebel National MPs about bringing on a vote on the “Venezuelan-style” big stick bill in the budget sitting week.

“I’m happy for it to come to a vote because Labor will be voting against it,” he told ABC radio.

“The National Party are right to say parliament should have a say … this is an anti-business, anti-investment, Venezuelan-style, socialist intervention from a government that believes in nothing.

“This is a piece of populist gimmickry on the part of Josh Frydenberg … it is appalling policy.”



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: