Trump has never bought into their delusions about manmade climate change and can’t be bullied the way liberals can into supporting their profitable green measures. Not only has he ridiculed some of their more outlandish claims in the past, but he has also promised to continue the practice of extracting fossil fuels and back out of the highly flawed Paris climate accord.
Clean technology proponents are already in damage control mode, with United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell trying to allay market fears by stating: “Those investing in clean energy are already enjoying huge wins in terms of jobs and wealth, and cheaper, more secure energy. This is because the global energy transition is inevitable and gathering pace, making it among the greatest economic opportunities of our age.”
Reuters, meanwhile, reported that Trump’s win “has darkened the outlook for a strong deal at the COP29 climate summit” scheduled for next week in Azerbaijan. The participating countries are expected to set a new target for climate aid that may surpass $1 trillion annually; climate alarmists are worried that other countries won’t provide funding if the U.S. doesn’t get on board.
Reuters was also quick to point out that he has called out climate change for being a hoax and that his policy advisers considered removing the U.S. from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many are worried that he will try once again to withdraw from it when he retakes office, which could also set the stage for other countries being reluctant to participate.
Centre for European Reform Senior Research Fellow Elisabetta Cornago implied that the outcome of the election could spell disaster for climate change funding. She said: “Pushing for more ambitious climate finance is going to be almost impossible without the U.S. buy-in, which will de-motivate developing countries from taking seriously the climate ambitions of the West.”
One Latin American climate minister told the AP that Trump’s return to the Oval Office is a big setback.
“The election feels like a slap in the face to climate progress, but it won’t stop the global push for clean energy. Sticking with fossil fuels is a dead end,” the official stated.
Trump is expected to boost fossil fuel production
Trump has stated his intention to increase the production of fossil fuels, and he is expected to prop up the industry through regulation and potentially opening more federal lands up for drilling. He may also roll back some policies that pertain to emissions and fossil fuels, something he did during his first term in office as well. In addition, he plans to support new liquefied natural gas export terminals. This is something that Biden has been actively working against.
Climate change alarmist Sam Ricketts said that Trump’s presidency will make the planet unsafe for children.
“This is obviously a difficult result to stomach for those of us who care about our democracy as well as healthy communities and a safe and livable planet for our children. There’s no sugar-coating it: This is a gut punch,” he said.
Trump has yet to release his official climate agenda, but he has said that he will repeal the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which spends billions of dollars on greening the economy.
Sources for this article include:
]]>With Election Day right around the corner, one of the issues voters are voting on this election cycle is energy policy. Donald Trump talks a big game about reinvigorating America’s energy independence through the expanded use of native fossil fuels while Kamala Harris wants more climate authoritarianism, which in the end will only lead to the destruction of America’s economy.
California’s Kern County – Kamala used to be attorney general in California – is a gold mine for fossil fuels. It boasts some of the world’s largest oil fields with an estimated reserve of somewhere around 27 billion barrels. Since that oil is considered “heavy” oil, making it more difficult to extract and refine, California developed some of the cleanest and most advanced methods of purifying that oil without destroying the environment – a win-win, right?
The problem is that, thanks to the climate policies of Democrats, California currently imports around 75 percent of its oil and 90 percent of its natural gas. On top of that, Democrats in California are also forcing the state’s residents to subsidize expensive “renewable” energy programs based on wind and solar.
It is a mess, in other words, and one that Kamala wants to replicate on a national scale. Should she end up getting installed into the White House, Kamala will turn the entire country into California, but in all the wrong ways.
“Californians are victims of a special interest-driven regime that is determined to keep the state on the bleeding edge of so-called renewable energy technology,” writes Edward Ring for AMGreatness.com.
“It is naïve to think Kamala Harris is going to deviate from these energy policies if she ends up getting elected U.S. president. Across the entire nation, the result will be higher energy costs than ever, costing taxpayers and consumers not hundreds of billions, but literally trillions of dollars. Most of this money will be wasted.”
(Related: Kamala Harris is doubling down on her climate conspiracy theories, which she is trying to leverage as a means to force America into accepting “net zero” carbon tyranny.)
Kamala: an enemy of cheap, domestic energy
The situation in California is disturbing in that the Golden State sits atop virtually limitless amounts of cheap and abundant energy that is increasingly staying trapped in the ground as state officials refuse to issue new drilling permits. The latest “green” laws in the state have made it steadily more impossible for the state to be energy independent, which is what Kamala wants for the entire country.
It turns out that only a select few are given access to the gold mines full of energy as beneficiaries of the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris regime’s “Green New Deal.” Special subsidies and grants are made available only to those with these special connections while everyone else is simply out of luck.
“Expect streamlined zoning and tax subsidies for solar and wind farms,” Ring writes about what Americans can expect under a Kamala regime.
“Expect restrictions not only on conventional fuels but also on every imaginable petroleum derivative, including fertilizer. Expect therefore to see every business that lacks the economies of scale to withstand the new regulations to die a slow death, while ‘green’ financiers and ‘green’ monopolists – i.e., Kamala Harris’s donors – consolidate and dominate every sector of the American economy.”
Climate fanaticism is a mental illness. Learn more at Climate.news.
Sources for this article include:
]]>The title of the research article is: Effects of system-sanctioned framing on climate awareness and environmental action in the United States and beyond. Sounds pretty heady, I know. But I bought it and read it so you don’t have to.
The purpose of the study is to determine whether people are more likely to get on board with climate action if they are first exposed to “patriotic” and “system-sanctioned” messaging. My Spidey sense is already tingling, because there’s a hypothesis embedded in that purpose and it doesn’t feel right.
They didn’t go into the study wondering whether people might be influenced by some sort of messaging (that would sound like objective science). They began with a specific message—which means someone wanted to know whether that particular message would have the desired effect. That sounds like an agenda.
So let’s consider the inciting incident for such a story. The authors note that planetary concern alone has failed to inspire enough people to make the sacrifices needed to avert an alleged disaster. It seems many of us, like the poor R2 unit, have a bad motivator. So we need something else. Something more visceral. Something that really moves us.
That something, it turns out, is the status quo. Here in America we care deeply about preserving our way of life. And we should—it’s a good way. In fact, the authors suggest the status quo is what keeps many people from taking action. Their version of supposedly saving the planet requires changes that impact our way of life, and we naturally resist such changes—especially if we’re not convinced the cause is real. So someone hatched a plan to use our defense against us. And they tested their idea with this study.
Here’s how they did it. They presented participants with a series of statements and sentimental photos that connect environmental themes with happiness and life in America. It ends with Let’s keep the United States as it should be. Shrewd.
After looking at the “messaging,” the participants answered questions about the severity of climate change and what should be done about it—from raising taxes to government-mandated “sustainable” energy. The control group, who only read a random passage from Great Expectations, answered the same questions.
And now for the exciting conclusion:
In a large, nationally representative U.S. sample, we found that the system-sanctioned change intervention successfully increased liberal-leftists’ as well as conservative-rightists’ belief in climate change; support for pro-environmental policies; and willingness to share climate information on social media.
Sounds Orwellian? I thought so too.
It’s probably no coincidence this study was published on September 9 and the presidential debate was one day later. Kudos to the Harris team for picking it up and weaving it in so quickly—unless perhaps they had an advance copy, since it was accepted by PNAS in June.
There’s a lot I could say about the study itself and how the “messaging” is constructed using the principle rules of propaganda. But few of us are truly innocent of that charge, even for honorable purposes. Nonetheless, the mission for this sort of message is not to win on logical grounds. In the words of the research article:
We tested an experimental manipulation derived from system justification theory in which pro-environmental initiatives were framed as patriotic and necessary to maintain the American “way of life.”
From the text it is objectively clear that someone wants to manipulate us. Someone wants us to hear something that makes us go along with what they want.
If the intention were genuinely about protecting our way of life, then the environment is a consideration. But in today’s world the chief factor is affordable, reliable energy—without which everything stops. If we truly want to keep the United States as it should be, then it all starts with energy. And the only proven solution at this time comes from cheap, abundant oil and natural gas. We have plenty of that in America to maintain our way of life for a long time. At least until someone perfects dilithium crystals.
This allegedly scientific study is not about preserving our way of life. But it certainly provides a base from which to launch a barrage of new messaging.
Coming soon to a campaign near you.
Michael O’Sullivan is Program Director and COO for Blue Energy Nation, a non-profit committed to educating young people on energy realities. He is also a popular podcast host and an advocate for smart energy choices.
(DCNF)—A radical climate protest group called Climate Defiance endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday, citing their belief that she will be able to be pressured on energy policy.
The activist group initially held back its endorsement of Harris, appearing to condition its support on her acceptance of a list of demands that included a complete moratorium on new oil and gas projects and a ban on new fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and waters. After meeting with a top Harris adviser earlier in September, Climate Defiance — which once targeted Harris with one of its signature disruptive protests in 2023 — is now backing her candidacy because she “is the leader we can pressure and move” on key energy policies, the group announced in a Wednesday social media post.
“Climate Defiance is endorsing Kamala Harris for President of the United States,” the group wrote in a post to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “Harris is not the visionary we need, but she is the leader we can pressure and move. A Trump Presidency would be a full-fledged disaster for our climate & our water & our lands. Trump would gut the [Environmental Protection Agency], tearing down regulations on cars and power plants and farms. He would sell out our sacred public spaces to his billionaire cronies. This is a nonstarter.”
MAJOR UPDATE: Climate Defiance is endorsing Kamala Harris for President of the United States.
Harris is not the visionary we need, but she is the leader we can pressure and move. (1/12)
— Climate Defiance (@ClimateDefiance) September 25, 2024
The disruptive activism outfit, which often interrupts speeches and prominent events to protest against fossil fuels, joins a list of hardline eco-activism groups that are lining up to support Harris despite her pivot away from unequivocally supporting a fracking ban. Climate Defiance figures that Harris is a “finger-to-the-wind politician” who can be pressured into taking stances she may not initially want to take.
Climate Defiance “vehemently” opposes Harris’ recent about-face on the issue of fracking, which she formerly wanted to ban, and also the Biden-Harris administration’s policy of continuing arms shipments to Israel as it fights against terrorist groups in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. However, the group is so strongly repulsed by former President Donald Trump — who it claims is “beholden to racists, rapists, fascists, and billionaires” — that it is throwing its weight behind Harris.
Climate Defiance is one of numerous similarly-styled environmental protest groups that receives funding from the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), a U.S.-based nonprofit that receives funds from many prominent and wealthy American liberals. CEF donors include Hollywood writer Adam McKay and actor Jeremy Strong, according to the organization’s 2023 annual report.
Neither the Harris campaign nor Climate Defiance responded immediately to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>(DCNF)—The Supreme Court is being inundated with emergency appeals targeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and regulations in the wake of a landmark decision that curbed the agency’s power.
The Supreme Court’s emergency docket, which is made up of expedited cases from applicants seeking immediate action, currently features 18 applications, with 11 of them pertaining to the agency’s aggressive power plant regulations finalized in April. The flood of emergency applications seeking immediate relief from landmark EPA rules is a sign of things to come in the wake of the court’s June ruling that overturned Chevron deference, a precedent that formerly gave federal agencies broad power to essentially interpret the law themselves in instances of statutory ambiguity, former high-ranking EPA officials told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“I do think we’re going to see more of this in a post-Chevron world, particularly when an agency tries to go beyond the congressional intent or the longstanding regulatory practices of the agency,” Andrew Wheeler, who served as EPA administrator for former President Donald Trump, told the DCNF. “This power plant rule is supposed to be fuel switching, and this section of the Clean Air Act has not done that in the past. I think when you deviate from standard practices, you’re going to see more post-Chevron challenges.”
‘Entirely Unachievable’: Biden EPA Locks In Stringent Emissions Rule For Heavy-Duty Vehicles To Fight Climate Change https://t.co/hTI7251lp1
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 30, 2024
Each of the 17 cases pending against the EPA were filed in the weeks that followed the court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference, according to SCOTUSblog. Beyond the 11 applications that pertain directly to the EPA’s power plant regulations, there are also six taking aim at the agency’s May 7 action establishing new National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and one application does not have to do with the EPA.
If enforced, the EPA’s power plant rules will require existing coal plants to control 90% of their emissions by 2032 if they want to run after 2039, and the regulations will also mandate new natural gas-fired plants to do the same in order to stay open past 2039, according to the agency. Critics of the EPA’s power plant rules have characterized the regulations as a de facto attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which overturned the Obama EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan.”
Plaintiffs in the various applications sitting on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket — sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket” — include states, such as Oklahoma and North Dakota, and industry stakeholders like Continental Resources and America’s Power. While it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up all or even many of these cases, it has the opportunity to seize on at least one of the opportunities in the emergency docket to take on one of the most aggressive regulations promulgated during President Joe Biden’s term in office.
“To me, it’s very exciting, because it is an available legal tool that I think will be really important to push back against this administration’s continued disregard for clear lines of the law,” Mandy Gunasekara, who served as chief of staff for the Trump EPA, told the DCNF regarding the post-Chevron deference legal landscape.
Dems’ Climate Bill Overrules Supreme Court, Expands EPA’s Control Over Energy Industryhttps://t.co/mhG3FJvxoz
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 25, 2022
Gunasekara likened the Biden EPA’s approach to major regulations as “a little bit of the spaghetti-against-the-wall approach,” but also gave the agency some credit for generally being strategic in pursuit of its agenda. However, the agency may have made a miscalculation by rushing to finalize major rules quickly in hopes of avoiding possible Congressional Review Act (CRA) actions if a second Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress came into power in November, according to Gunasekara and Wheeler.
“They are giving the Supreme Court numerous opportunities to take a shot at fundamental legal problems with this administration’s regulatory activity,” Gunasekara said of the EPA.
Wheeler agreed that the EPA may have blundered in rushing out major rules to beat CRA deadlines at the expense of being able to hedge their work against a post-Chevron deference future.
“I think the Biden administration made a strategic error in trying to push these regulations out prior to the artificial deadline of the Congressional Review Act,” Wheeler told the DCNF. “I said this at the time, they should have waited for the Loper decision so that they could incorporate the Supreme Court’s decision into their cases to make their regulations stronger. They made a conscious decision to try to get as many of these regulations through the process before the artificial Congressional Review Act deadline, knowing that the Loper decision was coming. And I think they should have waited.”
The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>The Washington Free Beacon reported on this matter, citing the Climate Kids webpage operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). While the webpage includes educational materials and activities for children, it also parrots talking points from the climate alarmists. These include claims like “the world is undergoing cataclysmic warming,” “sea levels are rising” and “global ice coverage is diminishing.”
Just like the green tyrants claim, the Climate Kids page claims that fossil fuels are to blame for “pollution, the destruction of landscapes and natural habitats, oil spills in the ocean, and nasty fracking chemicals in the ground.” It also proclaims that global warming is the “biggest problem of all” despite studies that prove that the world’s temperatures are actually cooling. (Related: NO WARMING AT ALL: Global COOLING continues for eighth straight year, according to NOAA data.)
The Free Beacon also showed an example of NASA’s Climate Kids webpage brainwashing children about the dangers of “climate change” and rising sea levels. One image predicted that cities like New Orleans and Miami could be underwater. However, the site does not show a timeline as to when it will happen.
Meanwhile, the NOAA Education Portal managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also peddles talking points from climate alarmists. It includes a curriculum with catastrophic language about global warming. “Courses linked on the portal, for example, encourage students to foster negative emotions about the state of the environment into taking action,” noted the Free Beacon.
“The online resources appear to be a peg in the Biden-Harris administration’s broader strategy of aiming climate messaging at younger generations.”
Texas Sen. Cruz to investigate the two climate portals
According to the Free Beacon, the NASA Climate Kids webpage was created during the Obama administration in 2012. However, the NOAA Education Portal was made under the Biden administration only in 2022.
The webpages did not sit well with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, with both now the subject of an investigation he is spearheading. On Aug. 22, he wrote letters to NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and NOAA Administration Richard Spinrad over the two resources. Cruz demanded information from the two officials about their efforts to stoke climate anxiety and “manufacture support” for “radical environmental activism.”
The senator accused the two agencies of producing “faux-educational materials that fuel climate alarmism” to generate support for the Biden administration’s climate agenda. Such fearmongering, he noted, contributes to the rise of “eco-anxiety” among young Americans.
“Young people are absorbing the rhetoric. They report high levels of anxiety about climate change and are adapting their behavior in radical ways, including by foregoing children. Is this anxiety based on science or sensationalism? The evidence points to the latter.”
Cruz wrote in his letter to Nelson that the prediction of submerged cities shown in the Climate Kids webpage wouldn’t happen for hundreds of years, if it will, based on the most updated analyses. “Our country’s approach to climate change should be driven by science, not the woke zeitgeist,” the senator wrote.
The Texas Republican meanwhile wrote in his letter to Spinrad that a video from 2012 in the NOAA Education Portal warned that melting ice caps could create an “inescapable death spiral.” The same video warned that “global warming” would leave no ice in the Arctic Ocean by 2022. However, NASA’s own data showed the opposite – the minimum extent of Arctic ice has increased by 29 percent since the video’s creation.
NASA spokeswoman Jennifer Dooren told the Free Beacon that her agency received the letter and would respond to the senator directly. Meanwhile, NOAA – which is under the Department of Commerce – did not respond to a request for comment.
Visit ClimateAlarmism.news for similar stories. Watch Christopher Monckton, a former advisor to the British Tory government, denouncing climate alarmism as a communist scheme below.
This video is from The New American channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
- 96% of NOAA heat measurement stations are corruptly placed to support climate change hoax.
- Governments wasting TRILLIONS on “climate change” using faulty temperature data, experts warn.
- PROOF that NASA is faking global temperature data to push the false “global warming” science fraud.
- World Economic Forum tells governments and corporations: Spend $3.5 TRILLION ANNUALLY to “decarbonize” the planet.
- CLIMATE LIES: Top climate scientists say they were ordered to “cover up” truth that earth’s temperature hasn’t risen in 15 years.
Sources include:
]]>The EU in particular has been aggressive in expediting similar programs which now threaten the agricultural base of half of Europe. This has led to rising farmer protests and given momentum to “far-right” movements, a prospect that the social engineers at the EU Commission seem to fear more than anything else. Their solution? They are attempting to bribe farmers with subsidies and have offered to lessen the number of visits farms would receive from bureaucratic agents armed with fines and red tape. How nice of them…
As Jeremy Clarkson has cleverly proven in his show ‘Clarkson’s Farm’, trying to operate an agricultural business almost anywhere in Europe or the UK is a regulatory nightmare that would put most farmers in the US out of business immediately (America is headed in this direction). And that’s without the benefit of carbon emissions rules. Subsidies are the only thing keeping them alive, but the real trick is that the strict regulations force farmers into a position where they need subsidies. It’s a government enforced racket.
Europeans suffered supply chain collapse and true famine during and after WWII and the experience is still burned into their collective cultural memory. It’s hard to say if the bribery scheme will work out the way the EU elites hope. Once carbon rules are passed and accepted as the norm, though, there’s no chance that they will be rescinded. They will continue to be enforced even when food inflation skyrockets again and mass starvation becomes a reality.
In the US, staunch opposition from conservatives prevented the direct passage of the Green New Deal. Biden denied his administration had any intention of pursuing GND policies in 2020 during a debate with Donald Trump.
Biden was asked by moderator Chris Wallace if he supported the Green New Deal:
- “No, I don’t support the Green New Deal,” Biden said.
- “Oh you don’t? Oh, well, that’s a big statement,” Trump interrupted.
- “I support the Biden plan that I put forward,” Biden said, “which is different than what (Trump) calls the ‘radical’ Green New Deal.”
Of course, Biden would later covertly embed carbon policies into his “Inflation Reduction Act” – A piece of legislation that utterly failed to accomplish its name (CPI measurements have gone down, but inflation has not), but succeeded in launching the first stage of climate controls outlined in the GND. Biden has continued to deny that the GND is a goal of his administration, but Kamala Harris seems to have spilled the beans in her first major media interview since she became the Democratic candidate.
Holy Shlit this is so bad
In the first clip, Kamala just admitted that the Inflation Reduction Act was a backdoor way to get the Green New Deal passed
She totally forgot the cover story they've been saying all alongpic.twitter.com/MeijpHA5lX
— Jack Poso
(@JackPosobiec) August 29, 2024
“I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed…You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed – and I have worked on it – that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.”
Running damage control, the Harris campaign claimed after the interview that she “does not” support the Green New Deal. Except, she just said that her “values have not changed” in reference to the Green New Deal. The ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ was a Trojan horse, and it’s only the beginning if Harris becomes president.
Man-made climate change theory is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud in our modern era, with absolutely no hard evidence that global warming is caused by human industrial or agricultural activity. Official temperature records used by climate scientists only date back to the 1880s; this is a tiny sliver of time in the Earth’s climate history. When we examine the long term temperature record there have been numerous warming periods long before human created emissions.
When we compare long term temperature records to the long term carbon record, it becomes clear that carbon-based emissions have little to no influence over the Earth’s climate. Correlation is not proof of causation, and in many cases there isn’t even evidence of correlation.
The Green New Deal has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with environmental communism. One of the primary reasons why the GND failed to gain public support was because it included “Climate Justice” protocols which are designed to redistribute the wealth of richer nations over to poor nations. This same agenda has been promoted by globalist institutions like the Summit For A New Global Financing Pact, which has called for the IMF and World Bank to “administrate” these carbon taxes.
In other words, the globalists get billions (or trillions) in funds annually through carbon regulations, then they use that cash as leverage to pressure nations to adopt whatever policies they want. In the meantime, richer western nations break down economically until everyone is equally poor and the globalists control the planetary pocket book. In essence, it’s a modern-day form of feudalism in the name of a climate crisis that doesn’t exist.
]]>(DCNF)—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has committed to improving the “documentation and transparency” of a key data set frequently cited by activists and policymakers to suggest that climate change is getting worse.
Roger Pielke Jr., a former environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, requested that NOAA correct its billion dollar disasters (BDD) dataset in January, alleging that the dataset’s sourcing and methodology are not sufficiently transparent for the metric to inform policy. NOAA responded to Pielke’s correction request on Aug. 21, admitting that the dataset has not undergone external peer review since 2015 and committing to improving its “documentation and transparency” of the dataset’s component parts going forward.
BDD data keeps track of natural disasters that caused $1 billion or more in inflation-adjusted damages going back to 1980, with NOAA and the Biden White House contending that the increasing frequency of BDD events evidences worsening climate change. However, BDD is an economic statistic rather than an indicator of changing meteorological conditions; the same exact hurricane could hit the same exact city 100 years apart, but the damage totals for each storm would be vastly different given that there are more assets to be destroyed in harm’s way now than there were a century ago.
NOAA BDD RFC Response by Nick Pope on Scribd:
In response to Pielke’s request, NOAA said it would start disclosing more of the publicly available sources that it uses to craft its data, formalize and disclose the steps the agency takes to ensure the BDD data’s “robustness” and set up a peer-review system that is consistent with NOAA’s own policies.
“NOAA made some difficult admissions here about the fact that the BDD tabulation has failed to meet their standards for scientific integrity and information quality,” Pielke, who believes climate change is a serious problem, told the DCNF. “The BDD tabulation is clever marketing and the media love it. However, no one should mistake it as science.”
Pielke addressed NOAA’s response to his request in an Aug. 21 post to his Substack page, writing that “these responses and admissions clearly indicate that the NOAA tabulation is not suitable for research.” He added that NOAA’s response to his correction request concedes that “historical versions of the tabulation (and thus new entries and changes to it) are only available since 2020,” meaning “that 40 of (almost) 44 years of the tabulation lack basic information on the loss estimates and how they were originally compiled.”
While BDD’s critics contend it is a flawed metric to use as a proxy for the intensity of climate change, the statistic was used in a landmark climate report published by the Biden administration in 2023 and cited as evidence to support the administration’s freeze on approvals for new liquified natural gas export terminals by Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk in written testimony submitted to Congress in February.
“NOAA notes that the RFC [request for correction] did not identify specific data points that need correcting. In conducting its review of the RFC, NOAA has not identified any data inaccuracies in the Billion Dollar Disaster data set,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “NOAA has determined the U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters data set meets the threshold for influential scientific information (ISI) under NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines. As a result, NOAA will review and update its management practices for the data set.”
The actions NOAA will take to improve its BDD data include “disclosing and facilitating access to several publicly available input sources; disclosing and facilitating access to methodologically relevant factors, such as insurance penetration rates and underlying economic data; formalizing procedures currently used to check the robustness of NOAA’s analyses, and stating these on the Billion Dollar Disaster website; and, instituting a peer-review cycle consistent with the data set’s ISI determination,” NOAA added in its statement.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>Shor did not say it this way, of course, and we are not speaking for him on the subject. What we are saying is that everything in the “best” messaging column is a lie if you actually look into it.
According to the poll, the “best messages ever tested” include the following false claims about the “benefits” of climate tyranny:
- Lowered energy costs
- Lowered kitchen sink costs
- Creation of stable jobs
- Investments in transit, infrastructure and manufacturing
- Research and development (R&D) for clean energy
All of this is fluff talk, meaning none of these things actually happen when the government drops the climate hammer. In fact, the opposite is usually true as “green” energy is costly, inefficient and highly politicized for societal division.
The “lefties” are programmed to love all things green while the “righties” are programmed to hate them. The truth, meanwhile, is that earth-based “fossil” fuels are abundant, cheap and a really good bet for creating stability and prosperity for all – and they can also be used cleanly, despite what the greenies claim to the contrary.
(Related: If you let them, the climate terrorists will eventually take away your gas stove.
Green is not the way
Watts Up With That published a report about the lies of the “best” column in Shor’s poll. It provides a breakdown of the falsities.
Concerning lowered energy and kitchen sink costs, author Charles Rotter explains that consumers in the greenest areas of the world – this includes California, the United Kingdom, Canada and Germany – pay among the highest energy prices, especially compared to places where green energy is barely or not a thing.
As for the creation of “good, stable jobs,” the green agenda is a poster child for what not to do:
“Employees of Solyndra, Proterra, Fisker, Arrival UK, or any large industry in Germany, the list goes on, may have a different take, not to mention pipeline and construction workers,” Rotter explains.
The California High Speed Rail disaster is another example of green gone bad. Like other green projects of a similar nature, California’s rail pipe dream is “no more beneficial to the overall economy than if you simply paid one group of workers to dig holes and another group to fill them back up again,” to quote Rotter.
Green R&D into “clean energy” is another hoax in that it represents a lot of money being wasted “to fight the laws of thermodynamics, detract from economic growth, raise energy prices, (and) create environmental devastation.” Traditional energy, meanwhile, creates “stable, dispatchable, small environmental footprint baseload power,” Rotter says.
What about the bad messaging, you might be asking? Here we go:
“Worst messages tested: electric cars, Green New Deal, frontline communities, ‘Big Oil lied,’ climate pollution
Talking about electric cars is especially deadly for Democrats. Women in particular are frightened of batteries running out. (Interesting gendered spin on range anxiety I hadn’t thought about before).”
The Green New Deal is an especially bad talking point for the greens because it is associated with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) who first introduced it in 2019, as well as with “bans on burgers and flying, and in particular provoked a fear of making energy expensive,” to quote the poll’s findings.
Man-made global warming is a lie designed to strip you of all freedom and liberty. Learn more at Climate.news.
Sources include:
]]>The “socialism” is settled, and it has NOTHING at all to do with science, otherwise, all the conspiracy theories would crumble to bits instantly. The science shows that vaccines are dangerous, and that the risk highly outweighs the benefits, if there even are any. The science shows the earth is actually in a slow cooling period lasting thousands of years. The science shows that cosmetic operations, hormone pills and breasts and genitalia-mutilation surgeries do not make a boy a girl, or a girl a boy, or a man a woman, or a woman a man. In those aspects, the science is settled, but don’t go arguing or debating “science” ever again, or the price you pay is censorship and social excommunication.
The “science is settled” means don’t talk about science when it comes to deadly vaccines, climate change hoaxes or gender-fluid role-playing (acting)
The science is never “settled,” or it’s not science at all. Nobody can say the Covid “vaccines” are safe and effective, because they can’t prove that with science, and there are no long term studies available because they’re just three years young. However, the short-term consequences are happening all around us, every day, as millions of people who got the biological weapons of mass-immune destruction injections (mRNA jabs) are suffering from vascular clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, spontaneous miscarriages, anxiety and depression, and that science is now “in.”
The science is only “settled” when that science is a lie and is part of a eugenics agenda, like with the deadly mRNA vaccines, and the bankrupt-the-middle-class climate change Ponzi scheme. No Leftist can have a healthy debate or civilized discussion about their “platforms” and narratives because it all falls apart the second someone brings up real science. They can’t prove the world is getting hotter, or that there are more hurricanes or earthquakes than ever before. The sea level is not rising, and no beaches are disappearing. Men still can’t get their period or birth children. Women still can’t play linebacker in the NFL, or compete with men in the UFC, it’s just biologically not going to work out so well.
The Science Wars are underway, but there’s only news about one side being published in the mainstream media, and that is where ALL the misinformation and disinformation is rooted and festers, 24/7/365. The Science Wars of 2024 have never been more dangerous for the populace, who walk around mis-educated and brainwashed, like sheeple living on the battlefield without a shield. They walk into health disasters daily, while relying on disinformation from their doctors, nurses, the CDC and the FDA. They are losing every battle in the Science Wars, by default, and they simply cannot figure out why.
The people on prescription medications are the sickest people in the world, and they believe the fake science that the pharma cartel publishes for them to gobble up. Just listen to the side effects advertised on TV for any medication. You have to be brainwashed to accept this as “science.” Tune your internet dial to Gender.news for updates on extreme liberals who hate science because it proves their fraud. Welcome to World War III, and it’s not about guns, bombs and missiles, it’s about BAD science, eugenics and depopulation. Wake up.
Sources for this article include:
]]>