The Bolt Report
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P
By Paul Homewood
The admirable Andrew Bolt has the latest on South Australia’s energy crisis.
Well worth watching for 5 minutes:
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P
March 16, 2017 at 07:24AM
A Particularly Troublesome Aspect of Climate Alarmism
via Carlin Economics and Science
http://ift.tt/1gVT2t3
Last week EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that:
I can only applaud Pruitt’s thoughtful comments. But in fact there is not just uncertainty as Pruitt said, but actual evidence that there are no significant effects of rising human-caused emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) has responded to Pruitt’s comments with all its usual propaganda concerning 97% of scientists, sea level rise, scientific “consensus,” etc., all of which are either incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant to the CIC’s assertion that human activity is the primary contributor to global warming.
The CIC response suggests what a serious problem the CIC has created by its climate alarmist propaganda. They have told the public, politicians, and the press that “global warming” (alias “climate change”) is primarily due to human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide, and that if this continues at current levels that this will result in catastrophic global warming. Since carbon dioxide from human sources comes primarily from human use of energy, they claim that such use must be restricted if not ended.
There are many problems with this argument. First, most CO2 originates primarily from sources other than humans. Second, the CIC has never proven that this hypothesis is valid science even though they are the ones arguing for huge public expenditures to implement their desired policies. Third, climate skeptics have shown that every alarmist argument is contradicted by science. Fourth, a recent study concludes that the basic alarmist hypothesis is scientifically incorrect by showing that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have no statistically significant effect on global temperatures. Fifth, the governmental actions the CIC proposes would have no measurable effect on global warming, and probably none at all, at a very high cost to taxpayers and ratepayers, particularly less well-to-do ones.
The major problem arises from the fact that the CIC has been making scientifically invalid statements about climate for decades and is unwilling to admit that they have been wrong. Unfortunately, this misleading propaganda has persuaded many people, particularly Democrats in blue states. These attempts to mislead the public may well have huge adverse effects on the climate issue, the future of blue/red politics, public trust in the press and public officials, serious damage to the economy and the environment, and even whether science will continue to be judged by using the scientific method. But how can there be a rational discussion of what is basically a scientific issue given the overwhelming level of misinformation promulgated by the CIC? This has to be one of the very unfortunate effects of the CIC’s long campaign to promote climate alarmism. There is a great need to find a solution, but it will be very difficult.
Pruitt has made an important beginning, but much more unequivocal statements from public officials together with references to the abundant evidence available for it will be needed if decades of misleading CIC propaganda are to be overcome.
via Carlin Economics and Science http://ift.tt/1gVT2t3
March 16, 2017 at 06:42AM
Climate-Dollar bragging is over: funding goes underground to avoid “climate-axe”.
via JoNova
http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V
Once upon a time governments bragged about how much they spent on “climate change”. Every Climate Quiz or tin-pot-program to insulate a chicken-run was wrapped under the Climate Action banner so that politicians could claim they were saving the world. Nowadays voters have voted for the guy who called it a hoax, and the funding’s gone underground because he was going to boast about how much climate funding he’d cut.
When I wrote Climate Money in 2009, a lot of the spending was already documented, under the Climate Change Science Program or by the GAO. How times have changed.
To Protect Climate Money, Obama Stashed It Where It’s Hard to Find
President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.
Climate change is so important that no one even estimates what the government spends on it:
The last time the Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies had climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending […]
via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V
March 16, 2017 at 06:22AM
Trump’s budget to “hammer climate programs” across the Federal government!!!
via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
Guest post by David Middleton The Promise Keeper keeps delivering… President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 can be read as a political document, a statement of his administration’s policy priorities. Many of these proposed cuts won’t get passed by Congress, but it’s a look at what Trump values. And what’s clear is […]
via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3
March 16, 2017 at 06:03AM
