Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Earlier this month, atmospheric scientists noticed something unusual in the Arctic stratosphere. The polar vortex was spinning backward.
“The vortex changed direction around March 4th,” reports Dr. Amy Butler, author of NOAA’s Polar Vortex Blog. “It was a substantial reversal, reaching -20.5 m/s a few days ago, which puts it in the top 6 strongest such events since 1979.”
Two weeks later, it is still spinning backwards. What’s going on?
“Atmospheric planetary waves have been breaking in the polar stratosphere, increasing its temperature,” says Butler. “We call this a ‘Sudden Stratospheric Warming‘ event, and it can cause the vortex to change direction.'”
In recent years, many people have heard the phrase “polar vortex” because of the effect it can have on winter weather. When the polar vortex is strong and stable, it helps confine cold air to polar regions. When the vortex weakens or becomes disturbed, cold air spills out to lower latitudes.
This month’s backward vortex has *not* caused an outbreak of winter weather. Instead, it has produced a very strong increase in polar ozone.
The red curve shows how polar ozone has skyrocketed in March 2024.
“Sudden Stratospheric Warming events accelerate the transport of ozone from the tropics to the poles,” explains Butler. “Also, warming air helps prevent chemical ozone loss.”
The current ‘ozone spike’ — the opposite of an ozone hole — is the biggest in the month of March since record-keeping began in 1979.
Soon, things could return to normal. The vortex’s backward-spin is slowing, and “could become westerly again in about 10 days,” says Butler. If so, the ozone spike will subside.
For one of the wealthier countries on this planet, America, with 330 million people ⏤ representing about 4% of the world’s 8 billion on this planet, President Biden is speeding ahead with EV mandates to ditch most new gas cars by 2030.
For one of the wealthier countries on this planet, America, with 330 million people ⏤ representing about 4% of the world’s 8 billion on this planet, President Biden is speeding ahead with EV mandates to ditch most new gas cars by 2030.
Biden may not be cognizant that 80 percent of the 8 billion on this planet earning less than $10 a day, which is more than 6 billion on this earth, may never be able to enjoy the materialistic living styles of those in wealthier countries, or ever own an automobile.
In America, the elites have bought EVs, and the elites may continue to buy EVs, BUT we’re quickly running out of elites!
> The average debt in America is almost $60,000 across credit cards, mortgages, auto loans, and student loans.
> The common folk need a workhorse vehicle, not just a second car toy that sits in the garage to be used on short ventures!
> The current EV ownership profiles are reflected in the oligarchic elite, which consists of highly educated, highly compensated, multi-car families with low mileage requirements for the family’s second car.
> Current EV owner profiles are dramatically different from those of most vehicle owners. They are single-car owners, not as highly educated or compensated, and have higher mileage requirements for their workhorse vehicles.
Mandating a change to EV ownership and further austerity on those who can least afford it, the Nation and the other 96% on this planet may face a rebellion from those who need transportation.
Well, to date, the mandate for EVs has been a failure as we’re running short of elites who are buying them, and the auto manufacturers are starting to absorb the financial hits!
The previous worldwide gasoline usage peak was in 2019, before the Pandemic.
Today, there are 30 million EVs on the world’s roads that are owned by the elites who can afford them, and are mainly second vehicles parked in the garage, or with low mileage usage, vs the high mileage workhorse vehicles that have internal combustion engines.
Today, there are also hundreds of millions of workers who now work virtually since the Pandemic and thus do not “drive” to work as often.
Well, even with those 30 million EVs and millions of workers not driving as much, gasoline usage continues to rise. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that global gasoline consumption in 2023 blew past the pre-lockdown 2019 peak!
By re-enforcing EV mandates, Biden is forcing automobile manufacturers into a death spiral, as most of the 8 billion on this planet will never be able to afford an EV!
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the fraud by which government functionaries alter data collected and previously reported in official data bases in order to support a narrative of impending catastrophic global warming. No other scientific fraud in world history comes close to this one in scope or significance.
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the fraud by which government functionaries alter data collected and previously reported in official data bases in order to support a narrative of impending catastrophic global warming. No other scientific fraud in world history comes close to this one in scope or significance. While prior frauds may have scored a crooked scientist some funding or maybe some temporary fame, this one drives trillions of dollars of worldwide government spending and seeks to transform the entire world economy. The prior 31 posts in this series are all collected for your reading enjoyment at this link. (They are in groups of six posts each, beginning with the most recent. After each six, you must go to the bottom and click the “NEXT” button to get the next six posts.)
Those prior 31 posts have all concerned alteration of one particular sort of data, namely temperature records. The posts document how, at station after station, previously-reported data have been altered to make earlier temperatures cooler and later ones warmer, and thus to show an enhanced warming trend (or in many cases to replace a cooling trend with a warming trend). The altered temperatures then form the basis for hockey-stick shaped charts of world temperatures, showing rapid recent warming, and for claims from NASA and NOAA and the media that the most recent year or month was the “warmest ever.”
But why should we really care that the earth’s atmosphere is getting a little warmer? The UN has supposedly set some kind of Maginot Line at a 1.5 deg C temperature increase from 20th century levels — an amount so small that you can barely feel it when it occurs each day. The 1.5 deg mark is just not that all that scary. So the bureaucrats and leftists need a Plan B to scare the bejeezus out of the people. Plan B is sea level rise.
So don’t be surprised to learn that the sea level data, produced by NASA, have recently been altered — and of course, in a way to enhance the global warming scare narrative.
With a little looking you can quickly find hundreds of articles endlessly repeating the narrative that human-caused global warming is melting polar ice caps and thus causing the sea level to rise. But note that for this narrative to be effective requires more than just a linear rising. After all, skeptics quickly point out that the sea level has been rising at a slow, steady rate of a few millimeters per year since the end of the last ice age. So, to actually be scary, the narrative needs to be that sea level is not just rising, but that the rise is accelerating.
Global sea level has been rising for decades in response to a warming climate, and multiple lines of evidence indicate the rise is accelerating. The new findings support the higher-range scenarios outlined in an interagency report released in February 2022. That report, developed by several federal agencies – including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey – expect significant sea level rise over the next 30 years by region. . . . The researchers noted that the accelerating rate of sea level rise detected in satellite measurements from 1993 to 2020 – and the direction of those trends – suggest future sea level rise will be in the higher range of estimates for all regions.
NASA is the guru of the sea level rise data because, starting in 1993, NASA put up satellites with altimeters to measure sea level. The data have been made public on a NASA web page, and various researchers have gone through the data looking for trends. Some have claimed to find an acceleration in sea level rise. For example, a 2018 article in PNAS by Nerem, et al., titled “Climate-change-driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era” asserted that the authors had detected an acceleration of 0.084 +/- 0.025 mm/yr^2. But is that purported acceleration real and, if real, is it significant?
And no effort to scare you about sea level rise would be complete without a picture of some coastal community under water. So they provide this one from Norfolk, Virginia:
As if that had something to do with human CO2 emissions.
Reader Bill Ponton has looked into this, and has had some back and forth with NASA about what their data show. He has also come up with a few graphics to help make this understandable for the readers.
On February 24 Bill used the NASA sea level data since 1993 to create a graph, and then sought to fit two curves to the graph — one a straight line, and the other a parabola implying acceleration. Here are the results:
A first obvious question is, does your eye detect in the plot of data points any acceleration in the rate of rise? It is certainly not apparent to me. What is very apparent is that there was an anomalous increase in the rate of rise in 2017/18, followed by two years of actual decreases. Those two years of unusual increases may well explain the results of the Nerem, et al., paper (published in 2018).
The linear fit shows a steady increase of 3.2629 mm/yr. (That would be about one foot per century.). The R^2 is a measure of the closeness of the fit of the line to the scattered data points, and an R^2 of 0.9869 is a remarkably close fit. With this close a fit, and the line actually higher at the right side than the most recent data point, is there really any basis to claim an ability to detect an acceleration?
The second graph has a curve based on a quadratic equation, and therefore is shaped like a parabola — although it is almost impossible for the eye to detect the very slight upward curve. The fit, as measured by the R^2, is ever so slightly better than the linear fit, 0.9899.
Bill explains that the formula of the quadratic equation in the second chart would reflect an acceleration rate (if it is real) of 0.045 mm/yr^2, or only about half of that claimed in the Nerem, et al., paper.
Bill then commenced an email correspondence with a guy name Josh Willis at NASA. He asked Willis whether there was any reason to try to fit a parabola to these data, rather than just a straight line, to which he got the response “A linear fit is not a ‘simpler’ explanation, it is an incomplete one. The acceleration is real, and there is no justification for ignoring it.” Note that Willis has no basis for claiming that the acceleration “is real” other than the data, which are the same data that you and I can look at. Willis then referred Bill to the Nerem, et al., paper. But Bill pointed out that Nerem, et al., claimed an acceleration of 0.084 mm/yr^2, whereas the NASA data as of February 2024 at best would only support an acceleration rate of 0.045 mm/yr^2. Bill remarks, “Josh must have found this to be a troubling contradiction because soon after he indicated that he preferred our correspondence cease.”
But meanwhile, in early March the sea level data reported by NASA suddenly got altered. Here is a graph provided by Bill showing the NASA data before and after alteration:
Before Willis cut off correspondence, Bill got the following (totally inadequate) explanation for the alterations: “[T]he data on the websites was recently updated to include improved estimates of sea level from our first precision sea level satellite, TOPEX/Poseidon, and to correct small errors in later missions. Sure. Most of the actual readings have become lower, but an enhanced curvature has been introduced. The quadratic formula of the best fit for the red (altered) data points now would imply an acceleration rate of 0.065 mm/yr^2. That’s still well less than the 0.085 mm/yr^2 claimed in the Nerem, et al., paper, but at least not so embarrassingly far off.
Is all of this anything to get scared about? Absolutely not. As stated earlier, linear sea level rise of about 3.3 mm/yr is consistent with what has been going on throughout history since the last ice age, and implies a rise of around one foot by 2100. Nerem, et al., state in their paper that the acceleration rate that they estimate of 0.084 mm/yr^2 would imply sea level rise of 65 cm by 2100, which is 25.6 inches, or just over 2 feet. The rate of 0.045 mm/yr^2 derived from the unaltered NASA data would imply a much smaller increase by 2100 of about 16 inches, really not much more than the ongoing linear trend. Meanwhile, here in Manhattan, where everyone claims to believe the worst climate scare stories, the fanciest new condos continue to get built along the shoreline, just a few feet above sea level. The new thing is to put the building mechanicals a few floors up, in case some big storm brings the sea water into the basement.
What’s most interesting about all this is what it reveals about the sea level rise scare story. The claims of “acceleration” prove to be based on dubious extrapolations from data that show only very slight, if any, deviations from linearity. Those slight deviations may reflect some underlying process or may just reflect the effect on a curve-fitting exercise of one or two outlying data points. Our overlords modify the data to enhance the apparent acceleration, and then claim the ability to use a slight non-linearity to project sea level out 80 years or so to try to scare us with a few inches of difference. In the real world, the few extra inches are insignificant, and none of us will even be around then anyway. I plan to recommend to my grandchildren — all now 5 and under — not to live too near the coast in their retirement. That should take care of it.
The lengths that the bureaucrats will go to maintain their scary narrative are truly extraordinary. And what’s most amazing is how many seemingly smart people don’t see through it.
The Bloomberg Green authors call it “the campaign against climate.” Realists would call it a long overdue populist campaign for energy justice and against alarmism and energy rationing. And expect a lot more such protest in the future as Net Zero fails–and an “energy transition” back to the real thing (dense, stock, affordable, plentiful, reliable energies) occurs.
Here is the Bloomberg Green Daily story:
Politicians are vowing to roll back green policies and downplaying climate change ahead of key elections on both sides of the Atlantic, casting doubt on whether countries can maintain momentum in the transition away from fossil fuels.
In the US, former President Donald Trump, who has a long record of climate denial, is the frontrunner to challenge President Joe Biden in November. On the campaign trail, Trump has minimized the effects of climate change, attacked electric vehicles and pledged to repeal Biden’s signature climate law.
Meanwhile, in Europe, polls show right-wing parties that oppose strong climate action are likely to increase their representation after the European Union’s parliamentary elections in June, while the climate-minded Greens are expected to lose seats.
That raises the prospect of the US and the EU, two of the world’s top three climate polluters, retreating on environmental ambition following the world’s hottest year on record.
The shift is a mix of backpedaling — goals being pushed back or watered down — and backlash. The growing hostility in some cases veers into outright climate denial and is part of a drift into authoritarian rhetoric that relies on attacks and emotional appeals more than traditional policy debate.
Here comes the hyperbole, the religious-like premise of climate alarmists and forced energy transformationists:
Scientists warn that what’s at stake is a livable planet. Earth has already warmed 1.2C compared to the preindustrial era, and that’s on track to go up to about 2.5C by the end of the century if the world doesn’t speed up the shift to clean energy. Any slow-walking comes at the risk of additional warming that’s already driving disasters and costing billions of dollars every year.
That’s the regular green hype. Then comes the politics, where the authors get realistic. I offer my comments (in green).
Climate isn’t a core issue for most voters the way the economy and security are. But the populist right has made climate policy another culture-wars flash point — an example in their eyes of costly, intrusive overreach that compromises personal choice and national sovereignty.
Correct–and more. Frankly, the general public knows about exaggerated climate “science” and the behind-the-scenes shenanigans from a politicized profession (Climategate turns 15 years old this year).
Much of the right believes that the bigger threat “is not climate change; it’s the actions taken by governments to decarbonize economies,” says Mahir Yazar, a researcher at the Centre for Climate and Energy Transformation at the University of Bergen in Norway.
Correct! Just add “policy” to climate change to understand the real threat to what Alex Epstein calls human betterment.
Part of the reason the political winds are shifting is that climate regulations, as they ramp up in stringency, are starting to impinge more on people’s daily lives — at a time when many feel squeezed by inflation and the cost of living. “Do you choose a heat pump in your house? What car are you going to drive? These are emotional things to people,” said Bas Eickhout, a Dutch member of the European parliament with the European Green Party.
Yes, “green” policies increase energy prices and swell government budgets (and deficits in many places, led by the U.S. And yes, personal freedom to choose the best energy appliances and energies is a human preference against the Climate Industrial Complex.
Far-right politicians have prospered by tapping into that sentiment. Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders won over voters last year by promising to scrap the Netherlands’ climate law and exit the Paris Agreement. Libertarian Javier Milei, who has called global warming “a socialist lie,” became Argentina’s new president in December. Germany’s far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, which rejects the decades-old scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, has promised to tear down Germany’s wind farms and has recently broadened its public support.
Fantastic! Removing ill-performing industrial wind turbines to allow more green space is surely environmental…. Climate policy is all pain, no gain, whatever one’s views on the cause and pace of physical climate change.
Closer to the political center, leaders are scrambling to show they’re not prioritizing net zero at the expense of household budgets or consumer choice. In the UK — by some measures a world leader in efforts to cut carbon emissions — Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hit the brakes on decarbonizing as one of his ministers vowed the Conservative government wouldn’t “save the planet by bankrupting Britons.” The rival Labour Party dropped its own pledge to invest £28 billion in green projects should it win the country’s next general election.
So climate policy does increase energy prices. So much for the “magical thinking” that Net Zero was a free lunch or one you are paid to eat….
But abandoning pledges is one thing; undoing settled policy is another.
But failed policy needs to be rescinded. Apologies are in order from Bloomberg Green. In terms of social justice, why hurt the average person as consumer, ratepayer, and taxpayer?
WIRED, once ostensibly a tech magazine, recently ran an article titled “Climate Change Is Bad for Your Health, Wherever You Are,” which claims that climate change is threatening human health everywhere around the world by causing more extreme weather, introducing diseases to new areas, and driving economic insecurity and migration. The claims that are testable are false.
Marina Romanello, the executive director of the Lancet Countdown
WIRED, once ostensibly a tech magazine, recently ran an article titled “Climate Change Is Bad for Your Health, Wherever You Are,” which claims that climate change is threatening human health everywhere around the world by causing more extreme weather, introducing diseases to new areas, and driving economic insecurity and migration. The claims that are testable are false. The other claims, especially those dealing with “indirect” impacts of climate change, are speculative and not backed by data.
The article, written by Rob Reddick, consists of an interview with Marina Romanello, the executive director of the Lancet Countdown, a climate change activist group.
Reddick writes that extreme heat kills “roughly half a million people worldwide each year, but at the current rate of global warming it could be close to five times as deadly by 2050.”
While it is true that a 2021 Lancet study found that high temperatures kill almost 600,000 people worldwide every year, what Reddick left out is that the same study found that cold temperatures kill 4.5 million people worldwide every year. As explained in Climate at a Glance: Temperature Related Deaths, while an increase in average temperatures may result in a few more deaths due to heat, cold deaths decline by a much greater amount, resulting in an net reduction in temperature related mortality. (See figure below)
Multiple other studies, including some published in The Lancet referenced in Climate Realism posts, here, here, and here, for example, confirm that because cold kills as many as ten times more people than heat, deaths tied to temperature have declined dramatically as the Earth has slightly warmed.
Reddick also claims that climate change causes “chaotic weather and higher temperatures” which “generate natural disasters,” however data on the most severe natural disasters, and most importantly, their impacts on human lives, do not show that these events are getting deadlier. In fact, data collected by the International Disaster Database show that deaths tied to extreme weather events and other natural disasters have dropped substantially over time. This is largely due to improvements in warning systems, emergency services, and technology. There is no reason to believe this trend will not continue.
Nor are extreme weather events getting more common, as explained in detail in Climate Realism posts here, here, and here, for a sampling.
Romanello also asserts that climate change is causing indirect impacts that are deadly. She says that extreme weather (which is, in fact, not getting worse) is impacting “food systems, water quality, and the transmission of infectious diseases like dengue and malaria, which are spreading into new parts of the world.”
Regionally or locally, different crops may be impacted by weather events and have poor yields for a season or several seasons. This is nothing new. Overall, crop production across the board has grown substantially during the recent period of modest warming, even in regions like Africa and India, which are frequently cited as being particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change.
Water quality is a water handling and storage issue, not a climate issue.
And finally, Romanello’s comment about dengue and malaria is also incorrect. They are not spreading to “new parts of the world,” climate models predict they might, as research by epidemiologists and experts in insect-borne illnesses shows. As discussed in the Climate Realism post about dengue fever, the disease already existed in the regions it currently inhabits, like Asia, for hundreds of years. It is not spreading to new areas. Regarding malaria, that disease was endemic in over half of the world’s land surface in 1900 and has declined to 30 percent since then. More than a dozen peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that a slight rise in temperature alone is not enough to guarantee migration or longer survival of mosquitoes or mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria, and the data to date shows no spread.
Regarding migration, Romanello claims that climate-related migration is “growing rapidly.” She claims it’s “very difficult to measure, because there’s no good international monitoring, or much internal monitoring—and most movement is actually within country boundaries.” Again, this is nothing new, and since extreme weather is actually not getting more frequent or intense, and crops are regularly setting records, regional relocations of people can’t be blamed on climate change. This claim has nonetheless been made over and over in the media, often pointing to war-torn regions like South Sudan and Somalia, but government corruption, civil strife, and war are responsibly for those peoples’ suffering, not the weather, which has not measurably changed.
Many of the metrics of human suffering discussed by Romanello are based on self-reporting, which is unreliable at best. For the problems for which metrics, hard data, and copious amounts of research exists, it does not support Reddick’s or Romenallo’s assertions that climate change is making them worse. By contrast, in many cases, such as food production and temperature related mortality, the modest warming has made the situation better.
Romanello claims that Lancet Countdown has linked a staggering variety of problems to climate change, from kidney and heart disease to “lost labor capacity,” but based on the available data, it appears that they and WIRED are looking at human health through the myopic lens of climate change, seeking to connect climate change to each and every harm people and societies experience, even with connections are tenuous or even non-existent. WIRED has been publishing on climate change for a while now, but they should probably stick to their technology wheelhouse.
“…the committee’s parent body, the International Union of Geological Sciences, has decided the results will stand, the union’s executive committee said in a statement on Wednesday.
That means it’s official. Our planet, at least for the time being, is still in the Holocene epoch, which began 11,700 years ago with the most recent melting of the ice sheets.”
The reporting at that time included that the chair and the vice-chair of the commission both objected to the vote. “Even so, it was unclear Tuesday morning [March 5th] whether the results stood as a conclusive rejection or whether they might still be challenged or appealed. In an email to The Times, the committee’s chair, Jan A. Zalasiewicz, said there were “some procedural issues to consider” but declined to discuss them further. Dr. Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester, has expressed support for canonizing the Anthropocene.”
The highest governing body in geology has upheld a contested vote by scientists against adding the Anthropocene, or human age, to the official timeline of Earth’s history.
The vote, which a committee of around two dozen scholars held in February, brought an end to nearly 15 years of debate about whether to declare that our species had transformed the natural world so thoroughly since the 1950s as to have sent the planet into a new epoch of geologic time.”
Despite the continued objections of Dr. Zalasiewicz and his vice-chair, Martin J. Head:
“…the committee’s parent body, the International Union of Geological Sciences, has decided the results will stand, the union’s executive committee said in a statement on Wednesday.
That means it’s official. Our planet, at least for the time being, is still in the Holocene epoch, which began 11,700 years ago with the most recent melting of the ice sheets.”
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
And, hopefully, that is the end of that! At least “officially”.
Activists and Advocates-of-all-stripes will continue to use the term to forward their anti-human stances and to blame all “bad things” on humans and human influences.
“… exchanged messages with others who shared his hatred of government in groups called Earth Militia, Total Earth Liberation and Neo Luddite Action. …”
Jacob Graham: Left-wing anarchist jailed for 13 years over terror offences after declaring he wanted to kill at least 50 people
The security services uncovered Jacob Graham’s activity as part of an investigation into the purchase of chemicals online, it can be disclosed.
By Duncan Gardham, security journalist Tuesday 19 March 2024 09:17, UK
A left-wing anarchist has been jailed for 13 years for preparing acts of terrorism by compiling and sharing a bomb-making manual, after declaring he wanted to kill at least 50 people.
Jacob Graham, 20, from Norris Green, Liverpool, dedicated his manual, called the “Freedom Encyclopaedia”, to “misfits, social nobodies, anarchists, [and] terrorists past and future, who want to fight for freedom against the government”.
The judge said the college student was a “dangerous young man”, adding that Graham described himself “as the first UK home-grown terrorist”.
The security services uncovered Graham’s activity as part of an investigation into the purchase of chemicals online, it can be disclosed.
When they raided the home he shared with his mother and sister, they discovered he had filmed bomb-making experiments in his back garden and buried supplies in a secret woodland hide in Formby, Merseyside.
…
On a wall in his bedroom, Graham had printed out a picture of a car bomb exploding with the words: “Make politicians afraid to start their cars again.”
…
The court heard Graham came to idolise an American terrorist called Theodore Kaczynski – known as the Unabomber – after watching a Netflix series called Manhunt, and pledged to “finish what he started”.
If Jacob was just a fantasist, he is paying a heavy price for his sick fantasy.
On one hand it doesn’t sound like Jacob actually killed anyone. But the evidence of Jacob mixing with green extremists online, drawing up kill lists, stockpiling dangerous chemicals and urging others to commit terrorist acts couldn’t be ignored.
In 2017 Manchester was the victim of a horrific mass casualty terror attack, the Manchester Arena Bombing, so Manchester police don’t have much patience with locals boasting about all the people they plan to kill.
In Episode 423 of District of Conservation, Gabriella welcomes back Andrew Sandstrom, a conservative conservationist activists hailing from Utah, to discuss the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service’s Bear Ears National Monument Draft Plan. This is the third plan of its kind.
“Alternative E: it restricts hunting. It restricts what it calls trophy hunting in some areas, which anybody who’s listening, who knows anything about hunting knows that trophy hunting is not anything hunters ever identify as or talk about…It’s kind of a made up kill word in some ways. So I’m still trying to figure out what they mean by that, is it that you have to be subsistence hunting? Do you have to be feeding yourself with it? I don’t know how they’re going to determine that. But there’s a large area that will be called remote that they won’t be allowing any kind of any kind of motorized traffic and and then like wilderness areas. Wilderness areas will be restricted to parties of, I think, it’s usually 20. They’re going to have restrictions like that where you’re going to have a limited party size, you’re not going to be able to be on any kind of vehicle with wheels. There’s going to be areas that are essentially going to be, you know, managed, like wilderness more, so an alternative II. And then you mentioned the alternatively on like the others would restrict in most areas having except in designated areas there would be no sport shooting, which is sort of interesting, and to me is kind of seems unnecessary. I’ve been down there and have not seen a lot of destruction to the land from sport shooting. The most destruction I’ve seen is from increased tourism, and tourists don’t usually bring their guns. They usually go and see the indigenous sights…The problems come from tourists touching the sights or being disrespectful; they don’t come from locals going out shooting.” — Andrew Sandstrom, conservation activist
In Episode 423 of District of Conservation, Gabriella welcomes back Andrew Sandstrom, a conservative conservationist activists hailing from Utah, to discuss the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service’s Bear Ears National Monument Draft Plan. This is the third plan of its kind.
The Biden administration’s preferred alternative – Plan E – would rely on indigenous knowledge and prohibit grazing, so-called trophy hunting, recreational shooting, and OHV access throughout most of the national monument.
In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
The Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF) is pulling $8.5 billion from the investment firm BlackRock over its use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies.
The Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF) is pulling $8.5 billion from the investment firm BlackRock over its use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies.
“The PSF’s relationship with Blackrock was not in compliance with Texas Government Code Section 809, commonly known as Senate Bill 13, which prohibits state investment in companies like Blackrock that boycott energy companies,” Texas State Board of Education Chairman Aaron Kinsey said in a Tuesday statement.
“BlackRock is helping millions of Texans invest and save for retirement,” a BlackRock spokesperson told the DCNF. “On behalf of our clients, we’ve invested more than $300 billion in Texas-based companies, infrastructure and municipalities, including $125 billion invested in the energy sector, including $550 million a joint venture with Occidental. We recently hosted an energy summit in Houston designed to explore how to strengthen Texas’ power grid.”
JUST IN: The state of Texas is pulling $8.5 billion from @BlackRock, over their continued pursuit of the ESG agenda.
The Texas Permanent School Fund has officially terminated their relationship with the woke asset manager. pic.twitter.com/rVlDigJpAk
BlackRock has been accused of leveraging its investment in companies to push ESG issues, which push companies to prioritize social and environmental factors into their investment considerations instead of “simply considering the potential profitability,” according to Investopedia.
“Under Larry Fink’s leadership, BlackRock has been misusing client funds to push a political agenda for years. Nowhere was that more egregious than in Texas, where BlackRock was simultaneously trying to destroy the domestic oil and gas industry while managing funds that depended on royalties derived from that very same industry,” Hild commented in a post on X. “A more flagrant violation of fiduciary duty is difficult to imagine.”
My full thoughts on the matter:
"Under Larry Fink's leadership, BlackRock has been misusing client funds to push a political agenda for years. Nowhere was that more egregious than in Texas, where BlackRock was simultaneously trying to destroy the domestic oil and gas industry…
“By divesting $8 billion from BlackRock, Chairman Kinsey and the Permant School Fund are not only fulfilling their role as fiduciaries to one of the largest education funds in the country but sending a clear message to Wall Street elites that people can no longer be bullied into complying with ESG’s destructive ideology,” Hild continued. “I look forward to seeing many more states follow suit.”
BlackRock saw almost $4.5 billion pulled from the company over its use of ESG in 2022. Republican Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee sued Blackrock in December, accusing the company of depriving consumers of “the ability to make an informed choice” about the potential impacts using ESG factors for investment.
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 licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
In a radical move, the CEO of an oil giant actually defended oil. For a brief moment the space-time continuum opened a worm hole to reality, and leaders of some of the world’s largest corporations briefly said sensible things.
The clean energy revolution is failing, and everyone knows it
In a radical move, the CEO of an oil giant actually defended oil. For a brief moment the space-time continuum opened a worm hole to reality, and leaders of some of the world’s largest corporations briefly said sensible things.
The energy transition is falling apart so fast, even the prime targets of hate, the Big Oil Men themselves, are now openly pointing out what a waste of time and money solar and wind power are. BP was trying to cut oil production 40% until very recently when it flipped to increasing it. But now we have a whole conference of Big Oil.
HOUSTON — Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said Monday that the energy transition is failing and policymakers should abandon the “fantasy” of phasing out oil and gas, as demand for fossil fuels is expected to continue to grow in the coming years.
“In the real world, the current transition strategy is visibly failing on most fronts as it collides with five hard realities,” Nasser said during a panel interview at the CERAWeek by S&P Global energy conference in Houston, Texas.
We spent trillions of dollars and we have nothing to show for it:
Nasser said alternative energy sources have been unable to displace hydrocarbons at scale, despite the world investing more than $9.5 trillion over the past two decades. Wind and solar currently supply less than 4% of the world’s energy…
Meanwhile, the share of hydrocarbons in the global energy mix has barely fallen in the 21st century from 83% to 80%, Nasser said.
The free market cut six times as many emissions with energy efficiency measures as the socialists did with wind and solar and billions of your dollars:
The CEO said efficiency improvements alone over the past 15 years have reduced global energy demand by almost 90 million barrels per day oil equivalent. Wind and solar, meanwhile, have substituted only 15 million barrels over the same period, he said.
And they say they care about CO2…
For thirty years it’s been obvious that we could make bigger reductions in emissions by burning coal at hotter temperatures, and using shale gas when we could, but instead of “saving the world” the Eco-Worriers really wanted to prop up their crony industries instead.
Australia is about to bolt headlong into a renewables quagmire that the rest of the world is starting to back away from. Spread the message!
You must be logged in to post a comment.