“An environmentalist wish (or demand) list – with little basis in science, practical experience or real world impacts.”
– Paul Driessen

(Tyranny, is what I call it. The man-made-global-warming lies and the Covid-19 lies are both promulgated by would-be tyrannical rulers, in my opinion. )
_____________

“I know this is short notice,” writes Driessen,  “but I just learned about this debate a couple hours ago. It promises to be an important, informative and entertaining review of yet another in a long line of EU initiatives designed to impose hard green environmentalist policies on the entire world. You and lot of folks may want to tune in, if they find out about the program in time.

___________

Food Security in a Post-Covid World

European Conservatives and Reformists Party hosts another ‘Europe Debates’ webinar

Paul Driessen

US-EU trade talks are already stalled over agriculture issues. And yet the European Union’s new “Farm to Fork” strategy doesn’t just double down on the EU’s contentious agricultural regulations. It promises to use access to European markets to compel the United States and other countries to adopt EU-style organic farming, precautionary and other regulations if they want to remain trading partners with Europe.

“Farm to Fork” (or F2F) is being billed as “the heart of the European Green Deal.” Like recent energy, climate and other initiatives, it is largely an environmentalist wish (or demand) list – with little basis in science, practical experience or real world impacts. It sets out three primary objectives, which the EU intends to implement fully by 2030, barely nine years from now:

* Bring “at least 25% of EU agricultural land under organic farming” – from its current 7.5%

* Reduce “overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50% – forcing greater use of “natural” chemicals

* Reduce the use of manmade chemical fertilizers “by at least 20%” – again forcing “natural” substitutes

F2F is being billed as a continental and global agricultural transformation that will ensure a “just transition” to a “more robust and resilient food system,” guarantee “affordable food for citizens,” and simultaneously improve human health, protect biodiversity, and promote environmental sustainability.

It will almost certainly end up doing just the opposite. Which is why the European Conservatives and Reformists Party is hosting a ‘Europe Debates’ webinar on the topic this Wednesday, July 29.

The problems with “organic” farming are well documented, though largely ignored by environmentalists, policy makers, regulators, journalists and academics.

Organic agriculture requires far more land and much more human labor than modern mechanized farming with manmade fertilizers and crop-protecting chemicals, to get the same crop yields. Many of the “natural” fertilizers and other chemicals that organic farmers employ are equally or more dangerous to bees, other insects, birds, fish and terrestrial animals than modern manmade alternatives.

A less resilient food system

Low-yield organic agriculture raises food prices for consumers, particularly harming poor families and countries, many of which have been especially hard hit by the Covid pandemic. It makes EU farmers increasingly uncompetitive in world markets. It creates a less resilient food system that is increasingly vulnerable to plant diseases, invasive species, floods, droughts and insects. As a result, it inevitably undermines the climate, “sustainability,” biodiversity and nutrition goals it promises to achieve.

Finally, Farm to Fork will also likely exacerbate the EU’s growing trade frictions with other nations. Even before F2F, agriculture issues were already imperiling US-EU bilateral trade agreements. Meanwhile the US and some 35 other nations had formally complained to the World Trade Organization that current EU regulations on agricultural imports clearly violate internationally accepted norms, because they are not based in science. And now F2F promises to impose similar productivity-destroying regulations on even its poorest trading partners: African countries. In fact, the European Commission (EC) itself has admitted:

“It is also clear that we cannot make a change unless we take the rest of the world with us.… Efforts to tighten sustainability requirements in the EU food system should be accompanied by policies that help raise standards globally, in order to avoid the externalisation and export of unsustainable practices.”

Now the European Conservatives and Reformists Party (ECRP) is offering an opportunity to learn more.

This Wednesday, July 29, US Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and new European Commissioner for Agriculture Janusz Wojciechowski will appear together in a webinar hosted by the ECRP.

The event is free and open to the public. It will be the first high-level discussion of these agriculture and trade issues between the US and EU since Farm to Fork was released. Other debate participants include:

* Anna Fotyga, Member of European Parliament, Poland & Acting President of the ECR Party

* Hermann Tertsch, Member of European Parliament, Spain

* Jon Entine, Founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project

* Richard Milsom, Executive Director, ECR Party

Please tune in: Wednesday * July 29 * 10 am ET / 4pm CET

Go here for more information and here to register.

(The European Conservatives and Reformists Party https://www.ecrparty.eu/ is a conservative Eurosceptic European political party primarily focused on reforming the European Union on the basis of “Eurorealism,” as opposed to totally rejecting the EU. Its more than 40 political parties are united by center-right values, under the Reykjavik Declaration, and dedicated to individual liberty, national sovereignty, parliamentary democracy, private property, limited government, free trade, family values and the devolution of power away from a centralized EU and EC) .

Quite clearly, humanity’s brief encounter with food uncertainty in the early days of COVID was a stark reminder that even the most advanced, technologically capable nations on Earth cannot take the safety and security of their food supply for granted. Poor countries are still dealing with Covid-related food uncertainty. Among the other topics the panelists will be discussing are the following.

What lessons have we or should we have learned from the Covid crisis? From past experience with organic agriculture, pesticide and fertilizer policies and practices?

What policies could give our vast and complex food supply system the strength and resilience it needs to withstand whatever shocks and dislocations may hit us in the future?

How will the US respond to these EU demands and threats under the Farm to Fork initiative?

Inside the EU, who will bear the costs involved and how can the EU and EU nations assure equity, given the vast regional disparities across the EU?

How will F2F impact the global competitiveness of European farmers?

Does growing political opposition to the EU’s agreements with Latin America and Canada signal a reassessment of its broader trade strategy?

Will the EU take an evidence-based scientific approach to the climate, sustainability, biodiversity and safety shortcomings of organic agriculture?

How does the EU demand that impoverished African countries adopt European ideas – on organic farming, agro-ecology, the precautionary principle, pesticides, fertilizers and sufficient affordable energy, for instance – reflect EU ideals on justice, human rights and self-determination?

This week’s debate promises to be an invigorating and informative program.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

The post appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/2P5iqiJ

July 28, 2020 at 10:17AM

Sacked James Cook University professor Peter Ridd will go to the High Court over his controversial sacking for publicly criticising the institution and his colleagues over their climate change science.

A week after the Federal Circuit Court overturned an earlier court decision awarding him $1.2m, the marine physicist has confirmed the next front in his legal battle that has already cost more than $1m. Professor Ridd, who has personally spent $300,000 in his fight, has rallied his supporters in a fresh fundraising bid aimed at amassing $630,000 to bankroll his appeal to the highest court.

The Federal Circuit Court found the Townsville-based university had not acted unlawfullywhen it sacked their employee of 30 years in 2018 for breaching its code of conduct with his criticism and by breaking a confidentiality direction in discussing the ensuing disciplinary process.

The court ruled that the code of conduct trumped the intellectual freedom provisions in the university’s enterprise agreement.

Professor Ridd told The Australian on Tuesday he had already spent $1.15m on his legal campaign, $860,000 of which came from donations.

For the scientist, 59, the fight is about more than the loss of potential earnings from a stalled academic career. “This is about principle,” Professor Ridd told The Australian. “We’ve got to have it that academics can speak.

“The fact is that because it was justified to fire me, any academic who wants to speak out about the Great Barrier Reef or any controversial issue will know it’s not worth the risk.”

Professor Ridd said his lawyers had convinced him of “numerous strong grounds for appeal”, which he had weighed against the exhaustive mental toll wrought by two years of legal action.

“I don’t take the decision to ­appeal lightly,” he said in a notice to be ­uploaded to his GoFundMe page, which has been the basis of his fundraising effort.

“The financial and emotional costs are high and legal action is fraught with uncertainties.” First, Professor Ridd would have to convince the High Court the case involved “a question of law of public importance”, to be granted special leave to appeal the Federal Circuit Court decision.

The court’s verdict has been praised by the university representative group, the Australian Higher Education Industrial ­Association, which said the verdict “upholds the university’s right to set appropriate behavioural standards in the exercise of those rights” and rejected the premise that the sacking was an intellectual freedom issue. Professor Ridd said the criticism of colleagues was integral to his argument that the university’s climate change science relating to the reef was untrustworthy, driven by emotion and lacking rigorous scrutiny.

“I was fired for being critical of my colleagues … for an academic comment I made about quality assurance in science,” he said.

Professor Ridd said he was “quite encouraged” by federal Education Minister Dan Tehan’s commitment last week to review the new university model code, developed by former High Court chief justice Robert French, aimed at protecting freedom of speech on university campuses.

“Anything he (Tehan) does has to be put into the (enterprise) agreement,” Professor Ridd said.

“As soon as there is any doubt, the university will win because the academic knows they can’t afford the legal battle.”

Full story ($)

The post Peter Ridd Seeks High Court Appeal: Universities Face Govt Review Of Threat To Academic Freedom appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/3hP8ZR7

July 28, 2020 at 08:44AM

Career Opportunities in Writing  (T. Allan Taylor, James Robert Parish, 2006) is a book describing various jobs in writing. On page 101, it lists

Fact Checker

Fact Checker

Duties: Check the accuracy of manuscripts or other material prior to publication

Position Description

Publishers of books, periodicals, and reports tend to rely heavily upon the accuracy of their authors, but most publishers have Fact Checkers double-check for errors. … Thus, a Fact Checker helps to guard the reputation of a publisher and its writers. Fact Checkers usually work from a copy of the manuscript and frequently have access to the author's original notes, interview tapes, and other original material. … if an author states that a certain event occurred on a particular date and in a certain place, a Fact Checker must verify all three elements by using such sources as an encyclopedia or specialized biographical dictionaries.

Thus, a fact checker is a person employed by a publisher, and working with its authors and editors to ensure accuracy of books and other materials it publishes. Fact checker does not debate third parties. Magazines and newspapers used to employ multiple fact checkers. It used to be a serious job.

The Fact Checker’s Bible: A Guide to Getting It Right (Sarah Harrison Smith, 2004) is a book explaining ins and outs of this job. Examples:

Fact-checking has a long history in American magazine publishing. The first fact checkers were probably those hired in the early 1920s by Briton Hadden and Henry Luce for their fledgling publication Time, which was founded in 1923. These checkers verified names, dates, and facts and marked news items for writers to use when compiling their stories.

I was a checker at The New Yorker for about five years, and since August 2002 I’ve headed the checking department at The New York Times Magazine. ... Both magazines employ full-time fact checkers who check virtually every word that goes into print.

That was written more than a decade ago. Now these publications decided to stop checking themselves and to check their opponents.

Fact-checking protocol will vary from publication to publication, but in general, the author will provide sources of some kind to support all factual assertions.

Now they check only the party line.

Fact checkers who are allowed to do their work to a high standard will almost certainly catch fabrications before they go to press ...

Brings to mind the Steele dossier and Russia Hoax.

Fake Fact Checkers

When Google, Facebook, and Microsoft say they use fact checkers, some of their users think they are publishers, even in respect to information received from third parties. Such representation might override the limited protections given to them by the Section 230, but not bring their activities under the protection of the First Amendment.

via Science Defies Politics

https://ift.tt/3hKHubi

July 28, 2020 at 08:32AM

Aren’t they in effect spelling out why the target is unachievable, not to say ridiculous? Whichever way you look at it – cost, feasibility, technology, benefits (lack of?) etc. – it has failure written all over it.
– – –
Britain’s goal of achieving net zero emissions by mid-century is achievable but immediate action is needed across a range of technologies including carbon capture and storage (CCS), electricity grid operator National Grid said.

Last year Britain became the first major economy to pass a law to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, compared with its previous target of at least an 80% reduction from 1990 levels, says yahoo!finance.

“Reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is achievable. However, it requires immediate action across all key technologies and policy areas, and full engagement across society and end consumers,” National Grid said in its annual Future Energy Scenarios report.

“Hydrogen and carbon capture and storage must be deployed for net zero,” it added. “Industrial-scale demonstration projects need to be operational this decade.”

Hydrogen as a fuel has been gaining traction but the number of projects using “green” hydrogen – made from renewable energy – are quite few and costly.

CCS – which traps emissions and buries them underground – is also not at the commercialisation stage.

Last month, Norwegian oil firm Equinor said it planned to build a plant in Britain to produce hydrogen from natural gas in combination with CCS.

Full article here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/3f4gnpL

July 28, 2020 at 08:15AM