Category Archives: Science & technology

Environmentalist apologizes for climate-change alarmism; censored by Forbes

An apology by climate-change activist Michael Shellenberger was originally published on Forbes website, but subsequently taken down.

Michael Shellenberger is an American author and environmental policy writer. He is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins, June 30, 2020).

Spectator USA has republished Shellenberger’s apology on July 7, 2020. Here it is in its entirety. I added the red bold emphasis.

An environmentalist’s apology: ‘I was guilty of alarmism’

‘I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public

By Michael Shellenberger

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening, it’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30, so I may seem like a strange person to be saying this.

But as an energy expert asked by the US Congress to provide objective expert testimony and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as an Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’
  • The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’
  • Climate change is not definitively making natural disasters worse
  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have declined in Britain, Germany, and France from the mid-1970s
  • Netherlands is becoming richer, not poorer while adapting to life below sea level
  • We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are potentially larger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like ‘climate denialism’ to many, but that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

When some people read this, they will imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23, I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s, I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26, I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27, I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s, I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization and called it a ‘crisis.’

But mostly, I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, ‘The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.’ While Britain’s most high-profile environmental group, Extinction Rebellion, claimed, ‘Climate Change Kills Children.’

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the ‘greatest challenge humans have ever faced’ and said it would ‘wipe out civilizations.’

Mainstream journalists were repeatedly reporting the Amazon as ‘the lungs of the world,’ and that deforestation was akin to a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children, you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter – after we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough; I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialisation, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are key to human liberation and environmental progress
  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
  • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
  • 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 pc to 50 pc
  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 pc
  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
  • ‘Free-range’ beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 pc more emissions
  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty ‘sustainable.’ While status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism.

Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

Apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change have been made in the news since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever. But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis which puts the climate ‘crisis’ into perspective. Even if you think we overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicisation of science – their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalism at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

My invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. ‘Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,’ writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. ‘This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,’ says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

‘We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,’ wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. ‘But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.’

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not so strange for a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

New study finds soda tax has very little impact on soda consumption

Soda tax is another baseless, utopian, “Nanny-State” scheme of the Left.

Like other Democrat-controlled cities, in the name of public health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, implemented an excise tax ($ 0.015/ounce) on sugar-sweetened and diet beverages in January 2017.

A team of five researchers at the Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, undertook a study on whether the soda tax led to changes in consumption a year after. They found, alas, that “there was no major overall impact of the tax on general population-level consumption of sugar-sweetened or diet beverages, or bottled water.”

The researchers Yichen Zhong, Amy H. Auchincloss, Brian K. Lee, Ryan M. McKenna, and Brent A. Langellier published their findings in “Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax,” in the journal Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 202017(4), 1336.

Sample: The study conducted a random-digit-dialing landline and cell phone survey between December 2016 and February 2017 of residents aged 18–64 who lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (“Philly group”) and nearby comparison cities (Trenton, New Jersey; Camden, New Jersey; and Wilmington, Delaware, “non-Philly group”) A total of 863 participants (N = 479 in the Philly group and N = 384 in the non-Philly group) responded to the follow-up survey (33% retention). Participants were paid $20 at follow-up but were not paid at baseline.

Measures: The survey collected age, sex, race, education, income, height, weight, health status, smoking, and alcohol use. Self-reported bottled water and consumption of sugar-sweetened and diet beverages (SSDB), including regular soda, regular fruit beverage, regular energy beverage, diet soda, diet fruit beverage, and diet energy beverage, were measured.

Results:

  • “No significant changes” were found in SSDB consumption over time between the Philly and non-Philly groups.
  • Although a slightly higher proportion of Philly participants decreased their monthly SSB consumption and a slightly lower proportion increased their monthly SSB consumption, the majority of the participants (around 80% in both groups) did not change daily consumption of SSBs. After covariates adjustment, there were no differences between Philly and non-Philly in within-person change in consumption regardless of the type of beverage or operationalization (daily, continuous ounces, continuous frequency of consumption).

Although the researchers admitted that the results are based on a relatively small sample, and that the sample was slightly older and had higher median income, nevertheless the sample was roughly comparable to the general Philadelphia population on other census characteristics. Furthermore, the prevalence of SSB consumption in the study’s sample (e.g., 24% daily SSB consumption and 11% daily soda consumption) roughly aligned with the prevalence of SSBs reported in other population-based samples within Philadelphia.

Conclusions: 

Limitations notwithstanding, this study is among the first to suggest that the impact of the tax on consumption may have been more modest than anticipated. Reasons for a modest impact may be the continued low price of SSB relative to healthier beverages (such as milk and 100% vegetable juice), high availability, aggressive marketing [9,10,11,42], as well as tax avoidance (purchasing SSB from retailers within Philadelphia who chose to not raise the price of SSB or purchasing from retailers outside of Philadelphia). Taken in context with other studies, it is important to conduct further research to understand the full effects of the tax on consumption, including research in larger population-based samples across multiple cities, as well as, among high-risk sub-populations. The Philadelphia beverage tax proposal was introduced with the explicit goal of generating revenue by taxing a luxury/non-essential item that could be used to finance universal pre-kindergarten programs and improvements to parks and recreation facilities [15]. Future studies could also examine whether health benefits are detectable from these health-promoting investments.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

WTH? A new flu virus similar to H1N1 in 2009 has been identified in China

WHO gonna help Chicoms again?

Here we go again?

Apparently there is another potential flu virus with “pandemic potential” coming from the Chicoms. From BBC:

A new strain of flu that has the potential to become a pandemic has been identified in China by scientists.

It emerged recently and is carried by pigs, but can infect humans, they say.

The researchers are concerned that it could mutate further so that it can spread easily from person to person, and trigger a global outbreak.

While it is not an immediate problem, they say, it has “all the hallmarks” of being highly adapted to infect humans and needs close monitoring. As it’s new, people could have little or no immunity to the virus.

The scientists write in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that measures to control the virus in pigs, and the close monitoring of swine industry workers, should be swiftly implemented.

A bad new strain of influenza is among the top disease threats that experts are watching for, even as the world attempts to bring to an end the current coronavirus pandemic.”

Read the whole story here.

DCG

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-53218704

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

You buying this: IHME model claims 38K American lives could be saved if 95% of people wore masks in public

The many faces of Gates that you should trust…

Back in April, I told you how the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) was WAY OFF in their modeling numbers of how many Americans would die from Wuhan virus. From my blog post:

“Based upon models created by “experts,” hospitals and healthcare facilities have set everything aside to deal with the thousands of anticipated Wuhan virus cases. We have shutdown and basically crashed our economy.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) – funded by Bill Gates – created models to predict how many Americans would die of the Wuhan virus. These numbers were used in anticipation of determining the number of beds needed to treat Wuhan virus victims at hospitals.

Sean Davis at The Federalist has done a good job of tracking the “experts” and their predictions. Turns out they aren’t so “expert” at all. Their numbers have continuously been revised to lower numbers. Or as they say, “our estimates will change, much like weather forecasts adjust.”

Read my whole April blog post here.

Now the IHME has come out with some a new modeling prediction: “Model shows that 33,000 American lives could be saved if 95% of people wear masks in public.”

From the MyFoxChicago story:

“If almost everyone wears a mask in public over the next few months, tens of thousands of lives could be saved in the United States, according to a widely-cited coronavirus pandemic model used by the White House.

Researchers are forecasting that more than 179,000 Americans will die by Oct. 1. That number drops to around 146,000 people if at least 95% of people wear masks — a difference of 33,000 lives.

The projections comparing different actions to control the spread of COVID-19 are from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.

“There is no doubt that even as states open up, the United States is still grappling with a large epidemic on a course to increase beginning in late August and intensifying in September,” IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray said in a statement. “People need to know that wearing masks can reduce transmission of the virus by as much as 50 percent, and those who refuse are putting their lives, their families, their friends, and their communities at risk.”

Read the whole story here.

Given the flaws in IHME’s past modeling predictions, I’m not about to take this prediction at face value. Especially when Bill Gates’ name is connected to it and his role in the Wuhan virus and interest in vaccines.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Do you Zoom? Be aware of their connection with the Chicoms

Ever since lockdowns due to the Wuhan virus, many started using the “Zoom” application for videoconferences and online chats.

Zoom was founded by Eric Yuan in 2011. Eric is a Chinese-American and became a billionaire when Zoom went public in 2019. The company is based in San Jose, California.

If you use Zoom, you should know about their STRONG connections to the Chicoms.

From Wikipedia:

A large part of Zoom’s workforce is based in China, which has given rise to surveillance and censorship concerns.

The company has also been criticized for its privacy and corporate data sharing policies.

In March 2020, New York State Attorney General Letitia James launched an inquiry into Zoom’s privacy and security practices; the inquiry was closed on May 7, 2020, with Zoom not admitting wrongdoing, but agreeing to take added security measures.

In April 2020, Citizen Lab warned that having much of Zoom’s research and development in China could “open up Zoom to pressure from Chinese authorities.”

Pressure from the Chicoms? ‘Ya don’t say.

Well, that’s EXATLY what happened recently.

Axios reported on June 10 that Zoom “closed account of U.S.-based Chinese activist “to comply with local law.”

AKA: They complied with the Chicom’s request. From the Axios story: “The U.S. video-conferencing company Zoom closed the account of a group of prominent U.S.-based Chinese activists after they held a Zoom event commemorating the 31st anniversary of the June 4 Tiananmen Square Massacre. A Zoom spokesperson confirmed to Axios that the account had been closed “to comply with local law” and said it had now been re-activated.”

Read the whole Axios story here.

Then there’s this, from The Intercept (from this past April): “Zoom’s Encryption Is “Not Suited for Secrets” and Has Surprising Links to China, Researchers Discover.”

I’m challenged when it comes to computer stuff so I won’t pretend to understand everything in the Intercept article. Some excerpts:

“Meetings on Zoom, the increasingly popular video conferencing service, are encrypted using an algorithm with serious, well-known weaknesses, and sometimes using keys issued by servers in China, even when meeting participants are all in North America.

They (researchers) conclude, in a report for the university’s Citizen Lab — widely followed in information security circles — that Zoom’s service is “not suited for secrets” and that it may be legally obligated to disclose encryption keys to Chinese authorities and “responsive to pressure” from them.”

Read the whole story here.

The Department of Defense doesn’t trust Zoom and the Chicoms; they’ve banned the use of Zoom.

What I DO know is that I’d stay far, far away from Zoom. Chicoms are no doubt watching your every move.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

America: Coming Full Circle from the 1960’s

Cross-posted from trevorloudon.com

May 30, 2020

This is being written moments after the successful launch of the Crew Dragon – atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. This marks the first time in about a decade that the United States of America has been capable of launching astronauts into space – heralding a triumphant recovery from the Obama administration’s evisceration of NASA.

It crossed my mind that, thanks to Obama, the 50th anniversary of America’s moon landing passed with America rendered incapable of even launching an astronaut into orbit. Just one of the many wrenching examples of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America.

So watching on TV this American with several grey hairs could detect dampness in his eyes – as memories of the “space race” and John Glenn; the tragedy of Apollo 1 fire; the Apollo 8 crew reading from The Book of Genesis on Christmas Eve, 1968; and America’s triumphant landing on the moon in July, 1969 – all came flooding back.

Today’s launch is yet another fitting symbol that President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” is well underway – “promises made, promises kept.”

Continue reading

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0
 

Even in times of trouble, remember our greatness: NASA and SpaceX successful launch to space station

Amidst all the rioting, looting and unrest going on right now, America continued to show her greatness in achievements yesterday with a new mission to the International Space Station.

In a public/private partnership with Elon Musk’s SpaceX, astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley launched from Kennedy Space Center’s historic Launch Pad 39A at 3:22 p.m. EDT yesterday. NASA’s SpaceX Demo-2 mission to the International Space Station is a critical final flight test of the SpaceX crew transportation system. Read about the launch here.

Better yet, watch the videos!

We watched the launch live. It was amazing!

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Hypocrite: Creepy Joe criticizes Trump for inaction on China while his son Hunter invests in Chicom’s public surveillance

From The Intercept:

“Human Rights Watch released a troubling report about a phone application made by the Chinese government. The app provides law enforcement with easy, daily access to data detailing the religious activity, blood type, and even the amount of electricity used by ethnic minority Muslims living the western province of Xinjiang.

Read the full Intercept story here.

h/t Ryan Saavedra

So typical of a hypocritical demorat.

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Lockdown deaths on pace to exceed Wuhan virus deaths

As if no one could have predicted this…

h/t Twitchy

See also:

Hypocrite: Epidemiologist whose computer model prompted coronavirus lockdown policy had trysts with married woman
The U.S. Wuhan virus models have been way off target
Some random thoughts about the rush to shutdown so many businesses in this country
The economic cost of shutting down the US economy
A Planned Pandemic?

DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0

 

Deceptions of the sleazoid Swamp Donkey


Swamp Donkey –  Individual who is part of the Democrat party or allied with the Democrat party that deceives the citizens of America for personal gain.   A Swamp Donkey works against the will of the people, the government, the President. They think they are above the law.  They lack honor, integrity, and loyalty.  Public opinion indicates that they are responsible for many False Flag events.     Synonymous with  rats on a sinking ship,  traitor, periplaneta americana, deep state, globalist, Cabol, Illuminate, sell out, stooge, puppet, bottom feeders.”  Wikipedia
*A Wikipedia editor removed this entry claiming ” Attack Page”.  Wikipedia is a poor source being that the controlling editors lean politically left.  As a editor at Wikipedia I have challenged  it’s removal.  Although it’s an uphill battle, I still spend time trying to “balance” the level of political bias on wikipedia.  I encourage others to get involved.


Continue reading

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0

0
0