Displaying posts categorized under

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE

Save California, Ban Environmentalists Hold the straws, legalize the rats. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274841/save-california-ban-environmentalists-daniel-greenfield

The 6-foot-tall man dressed as a giant receipt stood on a stool next to the emblem of the State Capitol in Sacramento. He was there because Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Fran wanted to ban receipts.

California had a great ban streak going. It had already banned plastic bags, straws and dog breeders. Assemblyman Ting, who had only been known for wearing bow ties, had declared war on receipts.

And Ting had his aide wear a giant receipt to show how bad receipts were for the environment. And how better to crusade for the environment than by printing up a receipt 100,000 times normal size?

According to Ting’s people, receipts not only wasted trees and water, but were actually toxic. The San Francisco Democrat explained that receipts were coated in chemicals that weren’t allowed in baby bottles. It’s probably a good thing then that receipts don’t go inside baby bottles. Or inside babies.

There was even a hashtag, #SkiptheSlip.

In an extraordinary setback for stupid bans, Ting’s receipt ban bill never made it to the floor. But Ting tweeted that he was “glad to have raised awareness about the health & environmental harm receipts can cause. Change often takes time.” Next time around, the receipt bill ban will succeed.

Perhaps Ting ought to consider raising awareness about the 16,000 complaints of filth and waste in his own city. The human waste spread by his constituents is a lot more toxic than paper receipts.

The same Democrats who shrug at a hepatitis outbreak gasp at the toxicity of store receipts.

Grandiose, Coercive, and Expensive Democratic presidential candidates’ all-encompassing climate-change plans would remake American life—without even solving the problem they want to solve. James B. Meigs

https://www.city-journal.org/democratic-presidential-candidates-climate-change-plans

Watching the Democratic presidential candidates on CNN’s seven-hour town hall on climate change was like attending the shot-put competition at a track meet. It wasn’t even a debate because the candidates agreed on most major points. Any sense of competition came in seeing which would offer the most grandiose plans. One after another, each candidate strained to hurl the biggest, most expensive wad of policy proposals as far as humanly possible.

Senator Bernie Sanders set the bar high. “We are proposing the largest, most comprehensive program ever presented by any candidate in the history of the United States,” he declared. Other candidates didn’t want to come up short, offering plans to transform radically fundamental elements of American life—not just energy, but farming, housing, transportation, and more. No detail was too small. Yes, Senator Kamala Harris admitted, it will be necessary to ban plastic drinking straws to avert climate change.

There were quibbles over some particulars, but, as the New York Times noted, “One thing is certain: All of the candidates want to spend money, and lots of it.” Former Vice President Joe Biden’s plan alone clocks in at a relatively modest $1.7 trillion over 10 years. Senator Cory Booker, meantime, wants to spend $3 trillion. Harris ups the ante to $10 trillion, but Sanders prevails in the spending contest with a $16 trillion plan.

Long Live the Incandescent Bulb The Energy Department will now allow you to choose your lighting.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/long-live-the-incandescent-bulb-11567810793

Good news, Americans. If you like old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs, you can keep buying them. The Energy Department on Wednesday extended the lifespan of incandescents, which the Obama Administration in its twilight sought to extinguish.

Among Congress’s dimmer ideas was to create lighting efficiency standards in 2007 that effectively mandated the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. Americans were told higher-efficiency bulbs would save them thousands of dollars and reduce the nation’s carbon emissions. Where have you heard this before?

Conventional incandescents have already been supplanted by higher efficiency “halogen” bulbs that are virtually indistinguishable. But the Obama Administration in its waning days sought to ban halogens too and extend efficiency standards to certain incandescent lamps that were exempted by Congress.

The Trump Administration is proposing to rescind the Obama regulations. “More stringent standards are not economically justified,” the Energy Department concludes.

An overblown hypothesis by James Piereson On hurricanes and climate change.

https://newcriterion.com/blogs/dispatch/an-overblown-hypothesis

We are well into hurricane season with a dangerous storm lurking off the coast of Florida and now poised to make a run up the east coast of the United States. As happens every year at this time, the appearance of hurricanes provokes speculation about the role of climate change in the formation of these destructive storms.

Climate change theorists assert that warming ocean temperatures are increasing the number and strength of hurricanes that form and make landfall in the United States. As David Leonhardt writes this week in the New York Times, “The frequency of severe hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean has roughly doubled over the last two decades, and climate change appears to be the reason.” He cites some statistics to support this conclusion, though his review of the facts is far from thorough.

As he notes, the underlying science holds that hurricanes develop in warm ocean waters in late summer, so that over time rising ocean temperatures will generate rising numbers of hurricanes, and stronger ones as well. According to scientists, average ocean temperatures have increased by about one degree Fahrenheit over the past one hundred to a hundred and fifty years, a finding that provides a foundation for the “hurricane hypothesis.” Thus, we hear the refrain that global warming is causing more storms with higher wind speeds, and that these storms last longer, are more destructive, and make landfall more often than in the past.

The ABC’s Bended-Knee Adoration of Al Gore Tony Thomas

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/the-abcs-b

“Gore is a hypocritical money-grabbing driver of the climate-apocalypse bandwagon.”

What delusionary world do ABC people inhabit?  The national broadcaster’s editorial director, Alan Sunderland, last year fulminated against “liars and cheats and deceivers” generating fake news for the gullible. He wrote, “All responsible media organisations promise to aim for accuracy, to tell all sides of a story… Some, like the ABC, promise never to take an editorial stand or express an opinion, while others promise to make clear the distinction between their reporting and their commentary…” (My emphasis)

Oh, I see. There’s no ABC green-left narratives on lovely wind and solar energy, or ABC tear-jerking for discredited Sri Lankan “refugees”, or for stacking panels with ‘progressives’ and blackballing the Institute of Public Affairs…

My incredulity accelerated when I came across Sunderland’s 11-page audit of the ABC’s coverage of Al Gore’s Melbourne-Sydney visit in mid-July 2017. Gore came to push his new climate-horror film “An Inconvenient Sequel”.

Sunderland’s “Editorial review of ABC interviews with Al Gore, July 2017” checked if the ABC’s coverage of Gore was biased and/or excessive, and whether Gore suckered the ABC into unduly promoting his film. Sunderland also checked whether the ABC, as per charter, was “present(ing) a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.”

Actually Gore was here again only last June, when the Queensland government spent $320,000 for his Climate Week appearance. (His regular fee is $100,000). My partial list of some Gore visits is 2003, 2005, 2006 (twice), 2007, 2009, 2014 (rostrum-sharing with Clive Palmer), 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019. He’s about as newsworthy as a Collins Street tram.

Buttigieg: ‘Eating a Burger, Am I Part of the Problem? In a Certain Way, Yes.’ By Jim Geraghty

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pete-buttigieg-earting-hamburgers-climate-change/

Pete Buttigieg, this morning: “Right now, we’re in a mode I think we’re thinking about [climate change] mostly through the perspective of guilt. You know, from using a straw, to eating a burger, am I part of the problem? In a certain way, yes, but the most exciting thing is that we can all be part of the solution.”

Is Buttigieg pledging to not eat burgers anymore? No. Is he proposing banning burgers? No. But he’s declaring that people eating burgers is part of the climate change problem. Because every Democrat agrees that climate change is such a pressing problem that it has to be addressed through public policy, it’s fair to wonder if someday a Buttigieg administration might start looking at policies designed to reduce the public’s consumption of meat. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio instituted “meatless Mondays” in all of the public schools — not that he bothered to ask the kids what they thought. A 2018 study proposed a new “meat tax” designed to reduce consumption. And another National Institutes of Health study concluded, “The public and environmental health benefits of reducing meat consumption create a need for campaigns to raise awareness and contribute to motivation for change.” Hearing a presidential candidate declare that eating burgers is “part of the problem,” it’s fair to ask whether he’ll ever be tempted to try to remedy this perceived problem through federal policy or law.

10 Craziest Things CNN Town Hall Revealed About Democrats’ Economy-Wrecking Climate Extremism By Chrissy Clark

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/05/10-craziest-things-cnn-town-hall-revealed-democrats-economy-wrecking-climate-extremism/

Despite seven hours of conversations, there was no substantive talk. The majority of questions were asked by climate change activists tossing softball questions.

On Wednesday CNN hosted a town hall focused on environmentalism with the 10 Democratic presidential candidates qualified to stand on the September debate stage in Houston. These candidates are Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and Elizabeth Warren.

Despite seven hours of conversations, there was no substantive talk. The majority of questions were asked by climate change activists tossing softball questions at the candidates, or Sanders supporters who wanted to attack other candidates — cough, cough Joe Biden — and their climate platforms.

Among the dull questions and lackluster answers, several moments highlighted Democrats’ full-fledged dive into extremist policies that will wreck the American economy and scientific advancement.

Trump Admin Overturns Lefty Light Bulb Tyranny Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/274847/trump-admin-overturns-lefty-light-bulb-tyranny-daniel-greenfield

Forget, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

In the miserable Obama years, you didn’t even have the right to choose your own light bulb. Light bulb experts from organizations dedicated to sending human beings back to the caves to save the planet from the threat of light bulbs determined which light bulbs you could use.

But, in the latest resistance to the ecocracy, the light is back and light bulbs were liberated from the latest set of “standards”.

That’s right.

If you like your decorative globes, candle-shaped lights, three-way light bulbs and reflector bulbs, you can keep them.

The usual ecocratic suspects are fuming over the threat of light bulb freedom.

“The Energy Department flat out got it wrong today. Instead of moving us forward, this rule will keep more energy-wasting bulbs on store shelves,” Jason Hartke, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, said in a statement. “If you wanted folks to pay a lot more than they should on electric bills, this rollback would be a pretty good way of doing it.”

That’s a decision that people get to make. This is America.

People can choose between cheaper light bulbs and lower electricity bills without bureaucrats forcing them to do it. They can also choose life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Even if that involves non-energy efficient light bulbs.

This rule does not prevent consumers from buying the lamps they desire, including efficient options,” the agency wrote in the rule. “The market is successfully transitioning to LEDs regardless of government regulation. Consumers are clearly taking advantage of the energy savings provided by LEDs.”

But it’s not a success unless a lefty regime forces people to do it.

But Noah Horowitz, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency Standards at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said incandescent bulbs still make up about 45 percent of the market.

Global Warming or Bad Data? Garbage in… by John Steele Gordon

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/climate-global-warming-data-locations/

Al Gore likes to say that the science of climate change is “settled.” But of course, science, almost by definition, is never settled.

And climate science has always suffered from the problem of shaky and missing data. Seventy percent of the globe is covered by ocean, where data is hard to collect. Reliable weather records only go back to about 1850 and, in many parts of the world, are far more recent. Modern recording weather stations date only to the early 20th century.

And many of those stations have a big problem. While they haven’t changed appreciably over the years, the land around them has changed, often profoundly, with the great growth in urban and suburban areas. The weather station that was put, say, in the middle of a Nassau County, Long Island, potato field in 1923 is still in the same spot. But the potatoes are long gone, and now it’s behind a strip mall, twenty feet from the kitchen exhaust fan of a Chinese take-out joint.

A study by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.

To develop reliable data, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed 114 state-of-the-art weather stations relatively evenly spaced about the lower 48 states. They were carefully sited to be away from urban areas, which are heat islands, airports, which can be affected by jet exhaust, etc.

The system became operative in 2005. Now, realclearenergy.com is reporting that there has been no increase in average temperatures in the continental United States over the last 14 years, as measured by these new stations. If anything, overall temperatures are slightly cooler than they were.

One big reason for this lack of warming is surely the explosion in U.S. natural gas production, thanks to fracking. The U.S. is now, by far, the number-one producer of natural gas, producing 90 billion cubic feet a day, 25 percent more than second-place Russia. This has brought the price of natural gas to its lowest point in 20 years, which has resulted in a big shift from producing power by burning coal to burning natural gas, which produces 50 percent less carbon dioxide. (The shale gas revolution has vast geopolitical implications, of course, as well as climatic ones.)

A Scientific Roundup The EPA intervenes against California’s rogue cancer regulation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-scientific-roundup-11567551770

Perhaps you’ve read that science should rule when determining environmental standards. So why aren’t progressives cheering an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring that the chemical glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer?

In an extraordinary intervention, the EPA recently said it will no longer approve product labels that claim glyphosate is carcinogenic to humans. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the popular weed killer. The herbicide has been on the U.S. market since 1974, and the scientific consensus is that it isn’t carcinogenic in humans.

The letter is a rebuke to California, which in 2015 said it would add glyphosate to its official list of carcinogens under the state’s 1986 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65. California cited the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s finding that glyphosate “probably” causes cancer.

This is the U.N. outfit that has warned against cancer from pickled vegetables, caffeine and working the night shift. California’s move has inspired a flood of lawsuits against Roundup-maker Monsanto, including a $2 billion jury judgment (reduced to $86 million by a judge) in May for a California couple claiming glyphosate caused their cancer.