argonne

AT&T Taps Argonne National Labs For Climate Change Resiliency Project

Technocrats of a feather, flock together. The national labs system, including Argonne, has been densely populated with Technocrats for decades. Together with AT&T they will spend millions on mitigating climate change using sophisticated computer modeling. ⁃ TN Editor

AT&T* has engaged the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory for help on a Climate Change Resiliency Project to better anticipate, prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change.  This is the first such project publicly announced in the telecommunications industry. It has brought together insights from Argonne National Laboratory’s leading climate and environmental science with AT&T data scientists. This has led to AT&T developing a Climate Change Analysis Tool that will help anticipate potential impacts of climate change on our network infrastructure and business operations 30 years into the future.

“Extreme weather and climate-related events disrupt businesses, public services and communities,” said Scott Mair, president, AT&T Operations. “Together with Argonne National Laboratory, we’re using industry-leading science and technology to assess the risks of a changing climate to our business, so we can make data-driven decisions to better serve our customers and improve our corporate resilience.”

By combining Argonne National Laboratory’s regional climate modeling data with sophisticated mapping capabilities, the tool allows AT&T to visualize climate change risk on company infrastructure and make smarter, climate-informed decisions for the future. For example, instead of relying on 10-day weather forecasts and historic events, we can now visualize climate-related events, such as projected sea-level rise, surrounding copper lines, fiber cable locations, cell sites, central offices and much more decades into the future. This information can be used to help us plan for maintenance, disaster recovery and future construction to best serve our customers and the communities we serve.

“Global climate change does not affect all regions or communities in the same way,” said Dr. Rao Kotamarthi, chief scientist, Argonne National Laboratory’s Atmospheric Science and Climate research group. “At Argonne National Laboratory, we are using high-resolution models and vast statistical techniques to project climate change at regional, local, and even neighborhood scales. Our project applies this detailed information to AT&T’s infrastructure planning, so it can safeguard networks and help ensure resiliency as the climate changes around it.”

AT&T is piloting the Climate Change Analysis Tool in the Southeastern United States, which has been hit hard by severe weather and hurricanes in recent years, and is exploring the possibility of expanding the project to include additional regions in the future. In coordination with Argonne National Laboratory, we’ll also make the regional climate modeling data calculated by Argonne National Laboratory for AT&T available to the public, including universities, municipalities and others, to use in their own climate risk analysis.

“As a company, we’ve long been working to help mitigate the impacts of climate change,” said Charlene Lake, AT&T senior vice president – corporate social responsibility and chief sustainability officer. “This project builds upon these efforts and helps boost climate resiliency for our business, our employees and our customers, who count on us to adapt and recover quickly when disaster strikes.”

AT&T is taking action to help build climate resilience for our business, our employees and our communities. We’ve invested more than 150,000 working hours and $650 million in our Network Disaster Recovery program to help keep customers connected when disaster strikes.1 Between 2014 and 2018, we’ve donated $3.7 million in humanitarian aid to support communities impacted by climate-related events. And, along with our employees, we’ve provided an additional $5.4 million in aid to more than 5,700 AT&T employees impacted by natural disasters events through our employee relief funds since 2011.2

AT&T’s Climate Resiliency Project is just one of our environmental sustainability initiatives. We have set a 10x Carbon Reduction goal to enable carbon savings 10x the footprint of our operations by 2025.

To help reach this goal, we are working across our company to make our network, fleet and operations more efficient. We’re also helping our customers leverage technology, such as mobile connectivity and the Internet of Things (IoT), to help reduce their carbon emissions. AT&T is one of the largest corporate purchasers of renewable energy in the U.S., and our investments are helping to support America’s transition to a low-carbon economy and enable a clean energy future.

Read full story here…




methane

Eco-Dilemma: Trees Found To Release Flammable Methane Gas

In light of this new discovery, we can only hope that the eco-brainless don’t decide to declare war on trees and do something stupid like ban tree planting, or worse, start destroying them. This will definitely throw a monkey wrench into remediation of global warming. ⁃ TN Editor

In 1907, Francis W. Bushong, a chemistry professor at the University of Kansas, reported a novel finding in the journal Chemical and Physical Papers. He’d found methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, in a tree.

Years earlier, he wrote, he’d cut down some cottonwood trees and “observed the formation of bubbles in the sap upon the freshly cut trunk, stump and chips.” When he struck a match, the gas ignited in a blue flame. At the university, he replicated the flame test on a campus cottonwood and this time captured gas samples. The concentration of methane was not much below the level measured in samples from Kansas’s natural gas fields.

An expanding network of researchers has discovered methane flowing out of trees from the vast flooded forests of the Amazon basin to Borneo’s soggy peatlands, from temperate upland woods in Maryland and Hungary to forested mountain slopes in China.

Even as they strap $50,000 instruments to trees to record gas flows, more than a few of these researchers have been unable to resist using a lighter or match to produce the same blue flame that took Professor Bushong by surprise more than a century ago.

But the research now is driven by far more than novelty. Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in its importance as a greenhouse-gas emission linked to global warming. In a natural gas pipeline, methane is a relatively clean fossil fuel. But it is a powerful heat-trapping addition to the planet’s greenhouse effect when it accumulates in the atmosphere.

The gas builds up as long as new emissions outpace the rate at which natural chemical reactions in the air or some forest soils break it down (that generally takes about a decade, compared to centuries for carbon dioxide). Since 1750, the atmospheric concentration has surged more than 250 percent (from around 700 parts per billion to more than 1,800 parts per billion). The main human sources linked to the rise are global agriculture—particularly livestock and rice paddies—landfills and emissions from oil and gas operations and coal mines.

Natural sources have always produced large amounts of the gas—currently on a par with those from agriculture. The main source is microbial activity in oxygen-deprived soggy soils and wetlands. (Increasingly, human-driven warming appears to be expanding wetlands, particularly in high latitudes, adding even more methane emissions.)

The full climate impact of methane from trees is nowhere near that of the tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide released annually from smokestacks and tailpipes, or the methane from, say, humanity’s vast cattle herds or gas fields. But there is sufficient uncertainty in the estimates setting the “global methane budget” that trees could turn out to be a substantial source.

For the moment, this is a newly revealed frontier, said Kristofer Covey, a Skidmore College scientist focused on the chemistry and ecology of forests.

“At the global scale this could be huge”

“The emissions from an individual tree are small,” Covey said. “But there are several trillion trees. At the global scale this could be huge.” Covey organized an international workshop last spring to identify research priorities and just published a paper in New Phytologist that is, in essence, a call for help from a host of disciplines not yet focused on this issue. His coauthor is J. Patrick Megonigal, a tree researcher at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland.

New papers are being published month by month with remarkable rapidity, with each field measurement essentially constituting a new publishable finding.

Read full story here…




Note To Beto: There Is No Impending Climate Refugee Crisis

Beto O’Rourke is an example of a snowflake teenager growing up thinking he knows everything about anything that is, in actuality, a big nothing-burger. There is no impending refuge crisis and never has been. Beto is simply reading old scripts from the United Nations. ⁃ TN Editor

This Tuesday, the newest entrant to the 2020 Democratic presidential field, Beto O’Rourke, warned on his first campaign stop in New Hampshire of a mass refugee crisis when “some of the countries in the Western hemisphere are no longer habitable by human beings.” The notion that climate change is causing forced migration all around the world is bogus, and O’Rourke would be well advised to avoid commenting on a subject he plainly hasn’t studied very closely.

The notion of mass climate refugees is usually traced to a 1993 book by British environmentalist Norman Myers, who somewhat magically produced the figure of 200 million climate refugees to get the debate going. Prominent Norwegian peace scholars Nils Petter Gleditsch and Ragnhild Nordås have said “it is generally recognized that this figure represents guesswork rather than a scientifically-based estimate.”

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme warned there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. They removed the claim from their website when a reporter for the Asian Correspondent pointed out the lack of any evidence supporting such a claim, and in fact that the number of individuals seeking asylum “have fallen significantly.”

In an amusing twist, a professor at the University of California — Los Angeles almost immediately recycled the U.N.’s discredited claim and just changed the year to 2020. Now that we’re approaching 2020, we can be sure someone will claim there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2030.

In 2011, the British Government Office for Science published the Foresight Report on Migration and Global Environmental Change, the work of some “350 experts and stakeholders from 30 countries across the world,” referred to by one respected researcher as “by far the most authoritative scientific account of the relationship between climate change and human migration.” According to the report, “the range and complexity of the interactions between these drivers [of migration] means that it will rarely be possible to distinguish individuals for whom environmental factors are the sole driver” (p. 9). After pointing out that “17 million people were displaced by natural hazards in 2009 and 42 million in 2010,” the authors say, “Environmental change is equally likely to make migration less possible as more probable. This is because migration is expensive and requires forms of capital, yet populations who experience the impacts of environmental change may see a reduction in the very capital required to enable a move” (ibid.). In other words, there may be no net increase in the number of environmental refugees.

Read full story here…




Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee

Global warming zealots, including Green New Deal advocates, are throwing an enraged fit against president Trump’s Climate Science Committee that seeks to establish the factual truth about climate change. ⁃ TN Editor

A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports. Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.

The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders, argues that an independent review of federal global-warming reports is “long overdue.” “Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports,” the leaders and organizations explained. Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions.

“Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred,” the signatories wrote.

The highly unscientific nature of the claims — many of which cannot be tested or falsified — also casts doubt on the alarmist findings contained in widely ridiculed federal climate reports. “An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method,” explained the coalition letter to Trump supporting the PCCS, which brought together many of America’s most influential environmental and conservative-leaning public policy organizations.

Perhaps the most alarming element of the whole saga is that this supposed “science” is serving as the pretext for trillions of dollars in government spending, as well as unprecedented empowerment of governments and international bureaucracies such as the United Nations and its various agencies. The man-made global-warming hypothesis also underpins drastic policy changes that restrict individual liberty and free markets that harm everyone, and especially the world’s poorest people, for nebulous alleged benefits. As such, the science must be thoroughly reviewed, and it must be completely transparent, the coalition said.

“The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades,” the letter explained. “Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.”

As The New American reported earlier this month, the establishment is in full freak-out mode over the proposed presidential commission on climate science. Far-left Democrats in Congress have slammed the idea as “dangerous.” A coalition of globalist “national security” professionals, mostly from the far-left Obama administration, even claimed reviewing the science would be a threat to “national security.” The establishment media has gone absolutely bonkers, endlessly demonizing Trump and Happer for failing to genuflect before their climate beliefs — the faith of a “climate” movement that leading experts such as MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen have even described as a “cult.”

The letter highlighted how bizarre this was. “We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission,” the signatories wrote. “We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.”

Indeed, as this magazine and many other sources have documented, the alleged “science” upon which the man-made global-warming hysteria is based is highly suspect at best. Self-styled “climate scientists” have been repeatedly exposed in unethical behavior, including hiding and manipulating data that contradicts their hypothesis. The predictions of the alarmist movement have been remarkably consistent, too — for decades, they have been wrong about virtually everything. And even former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have blown the whistle on massive fraud, only to be ignored or demonized by alarmists.

The nasty and vitriolic attacks on skeptical scientists such as Dr. Happer are also highly suspicious. “We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer,” the letter to Trump continued, praising the Princeton physics professor who is almost universally respected in the scientific community. “Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.”

Indeed, Happer is a leading expert in this field, and is widely respected scientist even among those who disagree with him. He also happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man’s emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate. “CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. He added it was “pretty clear that we’re not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.

Read full story here…




Nationwide Climate Change School Walkouts Led By Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Daughter

The Green New Deal is being vigorously supported and promoted by high-visibility Muslims in America, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Nasim Thompson, Executive Director of Justice Democrats. TN has long pointed out the attraction of Sustainable Development to the global Islamic community.

The global elite is pledging full support behind the Green New Deal and student protests.  This is another clue that GND is Technocracy! ⁃ TN Editor

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) daughter is leading a national movement of students seeking to ditch class on Friday to participate in a worldwide climate change protest.

The ultra-elitist Club of Rome fully supports the movement. Image: Twitter

Omar’s daughter, Isra Hirsi, 16, of Minneapolis, is spearheading the nationwide youth climate strike protests across the U.S. in nearly 50 states and Washington, DC., along with co-organizers Alexandria Villasenor, 13, of New York, and Haven Coleman, 12, of Denver.

Hirsi, who lists on Twitter page that she is the head of the Minnesota High School Democrats and several other left-wing youth-based organizations, said in a recent interview with Grist that she is looking to “change the conversation” on issues such as the Green New Deal by organizing the strike.

“That’s what we’re trying to do: Change the conversation not only about things like the Green New Deal but so much more. Obviously, one strike isn’t going to change everything, but this isn’t the last strike,” Hirsi said.

Omar is also supporting her daughter’s movement by promising to attend the nationwide protest in Washington, DC, on Friday. The Minnesota Democrat tweeted Wednesday that she hoped her colleagues would join her at the protest:

“We need to listen to the wisdom of our kids!” she added.

The U.S. climate change walkouts are part of a larger worldwide climate change movement called #FridaysforFuture where tens of thousands of student climate change activists around the world in more than 90 countries are expected to cut class on March 15 to demand that lawmakers in their respective countries take action on climate change and stop global warming.

Read full story here…




Tim Ball: Technocracy Is A Data-Fed Frankenstein Monster

At its root, Technocracy is based on Scientism and Logical Posivitism that invalidates all knowledge except scientific knowledge. See Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation for a detailed examination of these errors. ⁃ TN Editor

The rise of technocracy is intertwined with data and data collection. These activities are the very heartbeat of our technocratic society. We are now members or rather slaves of the technocrat’s dream, a number. Everything and everyone is quantified, a number registered in a technocrats computer in which they are maneuvered and manipulated, usually without their knowledge. Think about a society in which a family who adopt a child end up knowing more about the child than natural parents. For those of you who think that is important, consider that people raised children of their own and those of others throughout history without that information. Being a parent and raising children has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with humanity and retaining your soul. So much literature is about the struggle people have with that retention. Increase in this type of literature reflects the growing battle and sadly indicates we are losing.

Application of numbers to society began with the introduction of statistics in the early 20th century. I will use climate as a good example of this development but link it across the wider society.

Many scientists deride the involvement of social scientists in climate studies. They claim it is a math and physics number problem, with no need for ill-informed social scientists. Despite that claim, the application of physics and numbers has not improved the accuracy of forecasts.

Ironically, science brought this on themselves when they used science to defeat religion. More narrowly, they used Darwin’s theory of evolution, although Darwin, as an atheist, likely would support the move. By replacing religion, in this case Christianity, they removed God and the reason for people being so remarkably different than all the other species. Academia filled the intellectual vacuum this created with an entirely new faculty called the Social Sciences. It joined the Humanities and the Natural Sciences but became a single focus faculty with detailed studies of people and their behavior. I call it human navel-gazing.

It was already the largest faculty on most campuses by the 1930s but suffered a justified inferiority complex as a shallow and unnecessary development in learning. For example, somebody said about sociology that they were trying to prove scientifically what your grandmother already knew. The title “Social Sciences” and the word “scientifically” underscores their problem. Scientists say it is not a science and Sociologists tried to make it a science by applying statistics. They were so inept they had to create a book of statistical tests titled Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (SPSS). All you had to do was plug in the data without any knowledge of what was needed or what the results were telling you.

The big difference that really distinguishes the Social Sciences as unscientific is in the ability to predict. Science is easily and completely defined as the ability to predict.  If, your predictions are wrong your science is wrong. In Social Sciences a prediction invalidates itself. For example, if an economist does a study of a community and makes predictions on the findings, the leaders in the community will read it and make adjustments that invalidate the predictions. That cannot happen in science.

In climate, application of statistics began with averages. Climate is the average of the weather in a region or how it changes over time. and explains what it is in a region. That was the first application in society. Suddenly, we saw and heard about averages everywhere. People were identified as above or below average with glory or stigma applied. Bureaucracies and businesses began to group the people for planning purposes. Already, the individual was subsumed as just one component of the average. Consider the information that appeared at the time that there are, on average, 2.6 children per family. I am proud to be the 0.6 child in my family. Emotionally, it is better than being the ‘middle’ child.

The next development came from a need to make predictions for planning and social engineering as modern postwar societies evolved. It was the evolution of simple trend analysis, a pattern that still dominates as the recent assumption that house prices and stock markets would continue to trend upward, proves. What’s interesting is how this mentality persists despite recent evidence of downturns or upturns. The application of trends to climate data began in the 1970s with the prediction of a coming ice age as temperatures declined from 1940. When the temperature turned to warming in the mid-1980s we were told, again simplistically and incorrectly, it would continue unabated. In addition, they now knew human CO2 was the cause and since it would continue to increase because of human additions the upward trend was certain to continue. Like all previous trends it did not last as temperatures trended down starting in 2000. Instead of recognizing that this was a normal statistical trend they chose to change the name from global warming to climate change.

The most recent trend in climate change allowed them to accommodate the third variable of statistics, variation. In recent years, weather has become more variable particularly from month to month and year to year. Authorities exploit this pattern to say, incorrectly, it is evidence of their claim of human-caused global warming. No, it isn’t. It reflects that there is pattern of climate not seen for 60-years.

One of the objectives is to adjust the data so that it masks evidence or confirms or appear to confirm its political position. A good example is the practice of smoothing the graph. You see this practice in almost all graphs and a climate one illustrates the major problem.

The figure shows two measures of atmospheric CO2 for 2000 years between 7 and 9000 years ago. The one on the left is the record from bubbles in the ice. The other is the measure from fossilized tree leaves. They actually measure the size of the holes in the leaf called stomata. These are like your nostrils and their size varies with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even though they are a more precise measure they are made to look better because a 70-year moving average was applied to the ice core data. It removes all the variability and all the important and unique characteristics of the data.

The application of numbers and statistics to everything quickly reached a peak in the early 20th century with a philosophical movement called logical positivism. In simple terms, it implied that everything could and should be quantified and measured. It created a brief intellectual opposition with scientific philosophers like Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. The latter produced a quote that summarized their views.

“There is no more common error than to assume that because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

Russell’s observation is frighteningly applicable in today’s world.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

And so, we stand on the verge of having capsules with electronic identity numbers injected under our skins as if, out of sight out of mind, it will make us lose sight of the danger to our freedoms. Of course, there are benefits to the identifiers and to the collection of data. However, this is always the major argument to cover the removal of individual power.

Governments expand their voracious need for data and subjugation of the individual constantly. In Canada the fine for not completing the census is $500 and 3 months in jail. In the US the fine is $100 but a form of emotional blackmail was attached.

“Originally, the census was meant to be a way to count everyone so that the members of the House of Representatives could be allocated properly to the states. Every 10 years there would be a count, and states with more people got more members in the House.”

The idea was they needed the information for planning and for the benefit of the people. It was taken a long way from that over the years to the point of almost total control of the people by the technocrats for the benefit of the government. I am not making a comparison about control with any present government, but we must never forget that the ultimate subjugation of people in history was symbolized by a tattooed number on the arm.




Blind Leading Blind: ‘US Youth Climate Strike’ Promotes Green New Deal

The current generation of youth are completely brainwashed to believe in corrupted science that they have no ability, experience or education to understand; the Green New Deal is attempting to build a tsunami that will sweep the world, not just the U.S. ⁃ TN Editor

Adults won’t take climate change seriously. So we, the youth, are forced to strike.”

We, the youth of America, are fed up with decades of inaction on climate change. On Friday, March 15, young people like us across the United States will strike from school. We strike to bring attention to the millions of our generation who will most suffer the consequences of increased global temperatures, rising seas, and extreme weather. But this isn’t a message only to America. It’s a message from the world, to the world, as students in dozens of countries on every continent will be striking together for the first time.

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has pumped greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere. Thirty years ago, climate scientist James Hansen warned Congress about climate change. Now, according to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global temperature rise, we have only 11 years to prevent even worse effects of climate change. And that is why we strike.

We strike to support the Green New Deal. Outrage has swept across the United States over the proposed legislation. Some balk at the cost of transitioning the country to renewable energy, while others recognize its far greater benefit to society as a whole. The Green New Deal is an investment in our future—and the future of generations beyond us—that will provide jobs, critical new infrastructure and most importantly, the drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions essential to limit global warming. And that is why we strike.

To many people, the Green New Deal seems like a radical, dangerous idea. That same sentiment was felt in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the New Deal—a drastic piece of legislation credited with ending the Great Depression that threatened (and cost) many lives in this country. Robber-barons, ordinary citizens, and many in between were enraged by the policies enacted by the New Deal. But looking back at how it changed the United States, it’s impossible to ignore that the New Deal brought an end to the worst economic disaster in history by creating fundamental programs like Social Security and establishing new regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Works Progress Administration mobilized workers across the nation to build important infrastructure—including thousands of schools—that has improved Americans’ everyday life for generations.

Change is always difficult, but it shouldn’t be feared or shied away from. Even for its detractors, Roosevelt’s New Deal ended up working out quite well. The United States led the world’s economy throughout the many decades since. The changes proposed in the Green New Deal will help ensure our entire species has the opportunity to thrive in the decades (and centuries) to come. As the original New Deal was to the declining US economy, the Green New Deal is to our changing climate. And that is why we strike.

The popular arguments against the Green New Deal include preposterous claims that it will ban airplanes, burgers, and cow flatulence—claims that are spread even by some of the most powerful leaders in our nation like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Although these outlandish claims are clearly false, they reveal a larger truth apparent in the American, and world, populations: Instead of taking action on the imminent threat of climate change, our leaders play political games. Because adults won’t take our future seriously, we, the youth, are forced to. And that is why we strike.

The alarming symptoms of Climate Denialism—a serious condition affecting both the hallways of government and the general population—mark our current historical crossroads of make-it-or-break-it action on climate change. Although there are many reasons for this affliction—such as difficulty grasping the abstract concept of a globally changed climate, or paralysis in the face of overwhelming environmental catastrophe—the primary mode of Climate Denialism contagion involves lies spouted by politicians, large corporations, and interest groups. People in power, like Senator McConnell and the Koch brothers, have used money and power to strategically shift the narrative on climate change and spread lies that allow themselves and other fossil fuel industry beneficiaries to keep the fortunes they’ve built on burning fossil fuels and degrading the environment.

The current US president is a rabid climate change denier himself. President Trump pulled out of the historic Paris Agreement and repeatedly tweets aboutweather phenomena that he claims somehow disprove the existence of climate change—despite the fact that his own administration has reported the facts of climate change and its impact on the United States.

Read full story here…




weathercasters

Weathercasters Now Promote ‘Climate Change’ To Viewers

Technocrat propaganda has trickled down to the local TV broadcast level where weather reporters are now promoting global warming myths as facts to unsuspecting viewers. The only solution ever offered is Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

When most people tune in to their local TV news station, they’re used to learning whether it’s going to rain tomorrow from the trusted, familiar voice of their favorite TV meteorologist or weathercaster.

Increasingly, those viewers are also learning about the effects of climate change in their own communities from those same trusted voices.
It was once thought to be a topic to be avoided, but many on TV have become emboldened to talk about this subject as their own understanding has evolved.

Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, has surveyed TV weathercasters since 2010 on their opinions on climate change, as well as the incorporation of the topic into their broadcasts.

In 2010, the broadcast community was split right down the middle: Fifty percent of those surveyed were convinced that humans were causing climate change, and 50% weren’t. Of the half who weren’t, most acknowledged that the climate is changing, they just didn’t see the human connection.

What Maibach found most disturbing, however, was that a significant amount, roughly 20%, didn’t even acknowledge that the climate was changing.

In his most recent survey, conducted in 2017, that number has dropped, and now 95% of broadcasters believe that the climate is changing.
Additionally, 85% of those surveyed see humans as the cause.

Getting local with global warming

What changed?

Maibach points to an initiative launched in 2010 by Climate Central, a nonprofit news organization of scientists and journalists who research and reports on climate change, called Climate Matters. As an academic researcher, Maibach partners with Climate Central on the project, tracking the use of the materials and investigating their effectiveness.

The program provided weathercasters with tools they previously lacked: localized climate data tailored to a specific TV market.
Jim Gandy, a local TV meteorologist in the deep red state of South Carolina, launched the pilot Climate Matters project, and Maibach gauged the success of the program by surveying viewers from Gandy’s and competitors’ stations.

“We found that the more viewers watched Jim’s station, the more likely their views on climate change evolved,” Maibach said.

Read full story here…




CO2

Scientists: Turn CO2 Back Into Coal And Bury It

Science is being weaponized against planet earth, its eco-system and inhabitants. If CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, it would sterilize earth into a barren desert devoid of all life. ⁃ TN Editor

Researchers have used liquid metals to turn carbon dioxide back into solid coal, in a world-first breakthrough that could transform our approach to carbon capture and storage.

The research team led by RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, have developed a new technique that can efficiently convert CO2 from a gas into solid particles of carbon.

Published in the journal Nature Communications, the research offers an alternative pathway for safely and permanently removing the greenhouse gas from our atmosphere.

Current technologies for carbon capture and storage focus on compressing CO2 into a liquid form, transporting it to a suitable site and injecting it underground.

But implementation has been hampered by engineering challenges, issues around economic viability and environmental concerns about possible leaks from the storage sites.

“While we can’t literally turn back time, turning carbon dioxide back into coal and burying it back in the ground is a bit like rewinding the emissions clock,” Daeneke, an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, said.

“To date, COhas only been converted into a solid at extremely high temperatures, making it industrially unviable.

“By using liquid metals as a catalyst, we’ve shown it’s possible to turn the gas back into carbon at room temperature, in a process that’s efficient and scalable.

“While more research needs to be done, it’s a crucial first step to delivering solid storage of carbon.”

How the carbon conversion works

Lead author, Dr Dorna Esrafilzadeh, a Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow in RMIT’s School of Engineering, developed the electrochemical technique to capture and convert atmospheric CO2to storable solid carbon.

To convert CO2, the researchers designed a liquid metal catalyst with specific surface properties that made it extremely efficient at conducting electricity while chemically activating the surface.

The carbon dioxide is dissolved in a beaker filled with an electrolyte liquid and a small amount of the liquid metal, which is then charged with an electrical current.

The COslowly converts into solid flakes of carbon, which are naturally detached from the liquid metal surface, allowing the continuous production of carbonaceous solid.

Esrafilzadeh said the carbon produced could also be used as an electrode.

“A side benefit of the process is that the carbon can hold electrical charge, becoming a supercapacitor, so it could potentially be used as a component in future vehicles.”

“The process also produces synthetic fuel as a by-product, which could also have industrial applications.”

Read full story here…




Climate Chang

Slouching Toward Green New Deal, Some Republicans Flip-Flop On Climate Change

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) used to forcefully fight against climate change fanatics. Now he says, “It’s just not worth the fight anymore.” Such surrender is spreading among Republican and conservative ranks. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Representative John Shimkus once issued a forceful rejection of climate science at a congressional hearing, invoking the Bible and declaring that “Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over.”

Last month, in a turnabout, the Illinois Republican signed onto a letter with the top Republican of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that said “prudent steps should be taken to address current and future climate risks.”

“It’s just not worth the fight anymore,” Shimkus said in an interview when asked about his changing stance on climate change. “Let’s just see what we can do to address it and not hurt the economy.”

Shimkus is among a number of Republicans who — after years of sowing doubt about climate change or ignoring it altogether — are scrambling to confront the science they once rejected. They are planning hearings on the issue, pledging to invest in technologies to mitigate its impact and openly talking about the need for taking action.

The shift in posture follows the public’s growing anxiety after catastrophic hurricanes, flooding and wildfires linked to global warming. Fully 74 percent of registered voters think global warming is happening and 67 percent said they are worried it, according to polling conducted by Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Among conservative Republicans, just 42 percent think global warming is happening but that is up five percentage points since a poll taken in 2017.

Moreover, Democrats have seized the issue with populist fever — even proposing a sweeping plan to phase out climate-warming gas emissions through a “Green New Deal.”

“Members are openly using the term climate change,” Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, from oil-rich Alaska, said of her GOP colleagues. “You are not seeing this kind of dismissive attitude but more open conversations about some of the challenges, some of the technologies we can look to, some of the solutions.”

To be sure, the party hasn’t gone completely green. It hasn’t passed any major proposals to combat climate change and generally supports Trump administration policies to roll back environmental regulation.

“It’s a baby step forward,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president with the League of Conservation Voters. “It remains to be seen whether they are sincere or whether they are just starting to engage in deceitful rhetoric.”

Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and has long acknowledged climate change, has scheduled the panel’s first hearing on the topic in years, focused on electricity generation. Additional GOP controlled-committees plan to follow with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions, Murkowski said. “It is very much a multicommittee effort,” she said.

In addition to Murkowski, other Republicans have been meeting in small groups to come up with a strategy on the issue: Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and former 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney, now a senator representing Utah.

“There is a growing consensus on our side that man-made emissions are contributing to global warming, that the ‘green deal’ is absurd, and we should be able to find a more appropriate solution to the problem,” Graham said in an interview, adding he had recently been discussing the issue with Romney, who has called climate change a critical issue.

Read full story here…