True Technocrat: Elon Musk Pushes Self To Brink To Save World From Global Warming

The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree when you consider that Elon Musk’s grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was head of Technocracy, Inc. in Canada during the 1930s. Technocracy is just as radical today as it was in the 1930s and 40s. ⁃ TN Editor

Elon Musk has become infamous for his extreme work schedule.

When he was ramping up production of the Model 3 Tesla, he put in as many as 120 hours in a week. He slept at the factory because he had no time to go home. He called 2018 “the most difficult and painful year of my career.” “[I]t was excruciating,” he told The New York Times.

In late October Musk finally said he was working a much more manageable schedule of 80 to 90 hours a week.

This from a man who is already worth more than $20 billion, according to Forbes.

So why does Musk push himself? To hear Musk tell it, he is trying to save planet Earth. Literally. Musk wants Tesla to be successful so the world moves away from driving cars that run on petroleum-derived fuel.

“Tesla is incredibly important for the future of sustainable transport and energy generation. The fundamental purpose, the fundamental good that Tesla provides is accelerating the advent of sustainable transport and energy production,” Musk said told Recode’s Kara Swisher. “The success of Tesla is, by far, the biggest forcing function for the other car makers to get into … electric cars.”

Providing alternative methods for mass transportation that do not depend on petroleum-derived fuel is key to slowing global warming.

“Yes. It’s very important for the future of the world. It’s very important for all life on Earth. This supersedes political parties, race, creed, religion, it doesn’t matter. If we do not solve the environment, we’re all damned,” Musk told Swisher.

Building an electric car company that will one day mass produce electric vehicles is not easy, even for an entrepreneur like Musk.

“It’s trivial to start a car company,” Musk tells Swisher. “It is insanely difficult to make it successful. … So as a startup, a car company, it is far more difficult to be successful than if you’re an established, entrenched brand. It is absurd that Tesla is alive. Absurd! Absurd.”

Musk attributes Tesla’s survival to this point to “excruciating effort” and “hundred-hour weeks by everyone,” he told Swisher.

“There wasn’t some other way to do this, Kara,” Musk insisted.

Read full story here…

Dr. Tim Ball: Why Canada Must Get Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement

The world can thank the late Canadian, Maurice Strong, for leading the first Earth Summit that produced Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and alarmist calls on global warming and population reduction. Another Canadian, Dr. Timothy Ball, is leading the CLEXIT movement to get Canada out of the Paris Climate Agreement. ⁃ TN Editor

I am proud to be the Canadian representative for the climate exit (CLEXIT) movement. Canada has more culpability than any other nation in creating and perpetuating the deception. It is not hyperbole to say that Canada was central to creating and mobilizing the false claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The idea that humans were causing runaway global warming originated with the Club of Rome. Formed in 1968 by David Rockefeller, it expanded on the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply. The expansion was that world population would outgrow all resources. They made three major assumptions.

    • The demand for resources would increase every year because the population is increasing every year.

    • Developed nations increase the demand by using resources at a much greater rate than developing nations.

    • More nations are changing from developing to developed and accelerating demand.

They produced a few books and reports to substantiate the claims about population and demand. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb garnered enormous attention. Less well read but still influential was the 1972 book Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. It used a very primitive computer program that started with two components. The known volume of a resource and the current rate of use. Then, using a simple linear trend, it projected the point at which the resource would run out. It also projected the point at which the volume of the resource use peaked. Another book published in 1977, Ecoscience, Population, Resources, and Environment, influenced policy for a long time because of Paul Ehrlich’s co-author John Holdren. He later became Science Advisor in the Obama White House.

All of this activity developed around an important paradigm shift. These are major changes that occur when a society completely reconsiders the way they see the world and themselves. The two most important in the latter half of the 20th century were feminism and environmentalism. Both were necessary changes, and both went through the same sequence as all shifts. This point is important because anyone who dared to question the deception that humans were causing global warming was accused of not caring about the environment.

A paradigm shift begins, like all things, with an idea. You can call it a hypothesis, a speculation, a ‘what if,’ but it is an idea that asks people to think differently. They don’t occur very often partly because, as philosopher A.N. Whitehead said,

“It takes a very unusual mind to undertake analysis of the obvious.”

Many ideas are proposed, but few catch on because people are generally afraid of change. They know change occurs, but they also know there are always winners and losers. Since every idea is new, they lack the information and ability to decide. It is simpler to assume they will lose, and it is safer to maintain the status quo.

However, certain ideas are attractive to people who see the potential for power and wealth or both. This was the case with environmentalism. A small group seized the idea of environmentalism and immediately took the moral high ground. Only they care about the Earth, the children, and their future. Most people realized it made sense not to soil your nest but were afraid of the change. How far would or should we go? Since they knew little, it was easy for the power group to marginalize any who dared to question. I recall questions from the media prefaced with the idea that I was “giving comfort” to the polluters. This troubled me until I realized that giving false information and misleading the people was more problematic. Once the public learned that they suffered for change and made sacrifices on false information, it would give greater comfort to polluters.

If the idea has basic merit, as was the case with environmentalism, a majority of the people will adjust and accommodate. They are still unclear about the limits to the idea and its application. Those are identified by the people who started the idea and their disciples. When negative impacts, such as loss of jobs or economic downturn, appear their reaction will define the limit. They either acknowledge that it is a limit, or they become more strident and unreasonable. That is the stage we are at with environmentalism.

The claim that the world was overpopulated was false but was now established as a threat. It fits into the environmentalist paradigm shift because more people could do more damage. The question was what to do about it. There were a very strong anti-capitalism and anti-development agenda behind the idea and therefore the responses.

The overarching environmental theme provided a background to the ideas about overpopulation and exhaustion of resources of the Club of Rome (COR) and culminated in what they called The First Global Revolution set out in a book of the same name. Published in 1991, it was a follow-up and expansion on The Limits to Growth. Here is a quote that typifies the approach and the sentiment.

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

At this point, the challenge is to convert ideas to action. It is where most ideas founder. The AGW idea didn’t founder because, unfortunately, a Canadian and member of COR, Maurice Strong, became the pivotal person with the skills to make it happen.

In 2001, Neil Hrab, a Canadian who spent much time monitoring and reporting on Strong wrote,

Mainly using his (Strong) prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups…

It began in the 1977 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference. Hrab quotes from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The three specific goals set out by the Secretary General of the Conference, Maurice F. Strong, at its first plenary session—a Declaration on the human environment, an Action Plan, and an organizational structure supported by a World Environment Fund—were all adopted by the Conference.

He also noted:

What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.

We know how Strong, as a member of the COR, took the ideas and translated them into policy. Elaine Dewar, an investigative journalist, and another Canadian planned to write a book praising Canadian environmentalists. Her research showed that all the people on the list were more corrupt than the people they were attacking. Dewar wrote a book titled Cloak of Green with at least 20 % on Strong that included details on five days with him at UN headquarters.

After those days with Strong at the UN Dewar concluded,

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

The overall aim was exploitation of environmentalism, using the secondary issue of global warming. Strong knew that the best way to achieve his goal was through the bureaucrats at the UN and the bureaucrats at every National Weather Office in every UN member nation. He knew what US social commentator Mary McCarthy warned.

Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, is becoming the modern form of despotism.

To McCarthy it was a threat, to Strong it was the potential for total, unaccountable control. He set up the entire COR objective under the organization he created called the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The overall control of politics and science is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

The IPCC was critical to creating the science needed to ‘prove’ human CO2 was causing global warming. It was easily achieved by the definition given it by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that limited them to only human causes of climate change. It was at this juncture another Canadian became directly involved. The founding meeting of the IPCC occurred in Villach Austria in 1985 and was chaired by Canadian scientists Gordon McBean. Later McBean became an Assistant Deputy Minister at Environment Canada (EC). In that role, he supervised and directed the department to convince politicians of the legitimacy and accuracy of the IPCC science.

Under McBean, EC became increasingly committed to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) of the IPCC sending large delegations to their meetings and assigning increasing funding to climate change research. They did this at the expense of maintaining legislated services. Budget overruns drew the attention of the Canadian Auditor General (AG) and activities to increase other sources of funding all drew public attention. For example, from 1997 to 2005 the AG reported EC spent $6.8 billion on climate change, with no results. To pay for this, they diverted funds from other legislated activities. They closed stations and replaced many with Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS). These were so bad that NavCanada, an agency set up to run the airports including the weather stations refused to accept them. It triggered an inquiry by BC Senator Pat Carney that confirmed the problem.

Much of the money EC wasted was on computer models studying AGW that produced terrible results. The EC computer model was one of dozens used in the ensemble of models that the IPCC used to make their projections. Ken Gregory of the Friends of Science group showed that the Canadian model produced the most inaccurate projections of all the models in the ensemble (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The result of all this waste and misdirection is that Canada has fewer weather stations than it did in the 1960s. The weather forecast accuracy has not noticeably improved, especially for severe weather. They continue to waste money on propaganda and attendance at the IPCC meetings – they invariably have the largest delegations at the annual Conference of the Parties meetings (Figure 1). It is time to severely limit all national weather agencies, including EC, to only data collection agencies. All weather forecasting should be done by private agencies, so they will only succeed based on the quality and accuracy of their work. No government agency should be involved in research because the potential for political bias or influence is very high.

The program to create and push the deception that human CO2 was causing global warming was primarily the brainchild and successful because of Canadian Maurice Strong. He applied it in complete form when, in 1992 he became Chairman of Ontario Hydro, the government agency that controlled all energy production in the Province. It destroyed the economy of Ontario taking it from the best performer of all Canadian provinces to one of the poorest.

People are still paying for the damage he did and will for years to come. Fortunately, Ontario voters became additionally angry about this when the Federal government of Justin Trudeau proposed a carbon tax. Now there is open revolt against the carbon tax from major Provincial governments.

In addition to Alberta, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario in mid-July announced an alliance against the carbon tax, which they believe is harmful to the economy. Ontario — Canada’s richest and most populous province — elected a climate-sceptic prime minister in June, who is working to dismantle climate change policies.

Ontario elected a new government and among the first actions Premier Doug Ford took was to seek retirement of the Chairman of the Board of Hydro One (the new name for Ontario Hydro) and ask for the resignations of all Board members. It is a step in the right direction.

Politicians still lack the knowledge about the bad science created principally by Canadians to deceive the world on AGW. They, like the US Senate who rejected voting on the original Kyoto Protocol 95-0 because it damaged the economy and would make virtually no change to global temperatures, are comfortable with the economic argument. Even if you accept the bad science, the cost of reducing global temperature by controlling CO2 is not tenable. They are still afraid of attacks from the eco-bullies. However, a majority are prepared to take an economic stand.

Bjorn Lomborg puts in even more stark terms.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. (His emphasis).

Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030 and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

The bureaucrats at Environment Canada became a major force nationally and internationally in promoting and perpetuating the deception. The government of Canada must use them to take the lead in a return to sanity. It is time to shut them down and CLEXIT from the fiasco, deception, and devastating costs in lost opportunities. It is guaranteed to create bad science when you have scientific bureaucrats. If the evidence shows what thy told politicians were the case, they are not going to risk their job by admitting they got it wrong. As Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

The only role of EC should involve as much data collection as possible made available to anybody who needs it.

Read full story here…

Climate Alarmism Is In Retreat Across The World

Climate change has been the UN’s sole driving mantra to push its only solution, Sustainable Development. If Global Warming is indeed discredited in the people’s eyes, the global Technocrats will find another reason to implement Sustainable Development. ⁃ TN Editor

From Poland to France, from Canada to the U.S, the climate alarmists are in retreat as the public begins to tire of their taxes, their constrictive regulations, their dodgy, ugly, inefficient renewable projects and their hysterical junk science scare stories. Economics is beginning to reassert itself over green propaganda.

At the UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, a pro-energy faction of oil-producing nations – led by the U.S. – has caused huge upset to the greenies by refusing to endorse the latest scaremongering report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

According to Associated Press:

A diplomatic standoff over a single word could set the stage for a bigger showdown during the second half of this year’s U.N. climate summit. Negotiators took time out Sunday to rest after the first week of talks ended on a sour note the previous night, when the United States sided with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in blocking endorsement of a landmark study on global warming.

The US State Department is unapologetic:

The United States was willing to note the IPCC report and express appreciation to the scientists who developed it, but not to welcome it, as that would denote endorsement of the report. As we have made clear in the IPCC and other bodies, the United States has not endorsed the findings of the report.

According to Politico there is a new scepticism abroad towards green measures like carbon taxes:

This month’s fuel-tax riots in Paris and the defeat of a carbon-fee ballot measure in Washington state show the difficulty of getting people to support a levy on the energy sources that heat their homes and power their cars. Meanwhile, even the most liberal Democratic candidates this year gave carbon taxes scant if any mention in their climate platforms, focusing instead on proposals like a phaseout of fossil fuels and massive investments in wind and solar power.

Except that renewables aren’t working either. Despite massive efforts by governments, especially in Europe, to force a transition from fossil fuels to “clean” energy, the money has been wasted and all those birds and bats sliced and diced by eco-crucifixes have died in vein.

A damning report by John Constable for the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that, despite years of propaganda and eye-watering subsidies to rent seekers, renewables still represent an all but negligible percentage of global energy production.

For almost as long as there has been a climate policy, emissions reduction has been seen as dependent on the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Policies supporting this outcome are ubiquitous in the developed and developing world; markets have been coerced globally, with varying degrees of severity it is true, but with extraordinary force in the OECD states, and particularly in the European Union. The net result of several decades of such measures has been negligible. Consider, for example the global total primary energy mix since 1971, as recorded in the International Energy Agency datasets, the most recent discussion of which has just been published in the World Energy Outlook (2018):

Figure 1: Global Total Primary Energy Supply: 1971–2015. Source: Redrawn by the author from International Energy Agency, Key World Energy Statistics 2017 and 2018. IEA Notes: 1. World includes international aviation and international marine bunkers. 2. Peat and oil shale are aggregated with coal. 3. “Other” Includes geothermal, solar, wind, tide/wave/ocean, heat and other.

Read full story here…

Democrats Introduce Massive Carbon Tax Legislation

It’s the “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018” and it will face an uphill battle even though the House has a majority of Democrats. The mere fact that it is being reintroduced again demonstrates the persistence of global warming activists. ⁃ TN Editor

Democrat Florida Congressman Ted Deutch has introduced a carbon tax bill to impose a new national energy tax on the American people. The bill is a massive tax increase and would increase utility bills and the price of all products and services. In true politician-speak, Deutch has dubbed it “The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018.”

Voters across the USA — even in blue areas — have consistently rejected carbon taxes when faced with the issue at the ballot box. See the timeline here. On top of that, Paris is burning as hundreds of thousands of French citizens — yes even the French — protest that country’s own carbon taxes.

Despite all this, Democrat Deutch just can’t take a hint. Let’s look at the details of Deutch’s horrible bill:

Imposes a massive and continually racheting national energy tax, allowing politicians to raise taxes without ever having to vote. Just like the French proposal that starts with a big tax that gets more oppressive with time, the bill imposes a $15 per ton carbon (energy) tax, increasing by $10 per year into the future. Within five years the tax would automatically rise to $55 per ton. For reference, the carbon tax handily rejected by blue Washington state voters in November started at $15 and ratcheted up by $2 per year. Perhaps Deutch thinks the voters just want to be taxed at even higher rates.

Shovels taxpayer money into a giant vat for IRS, EPA, and State Department bureaucrats. The IRS and EPA will develop a cozy relationship — and what’s not to love about that — to siphon funds from the vat of taxpayer funds for what the bill calls “Administrative Expenses” and “Other Administrative Expenses.” For reasons unclear, State Department bureaucrats will also have access to the vat of taxpayer funds. What could go wrong?

Gives broad powers to IRS chief to find new products and entitites to be carbon-taxed. The IRS is directed to work with the EPA in order to find more tax targets: “Any manufactured or agricultural product which the [Treasury] Secretary in consultation with the [EPA] Administrator determines” is a tax target. The newly-carbon-taxed items will be added to the long list already specified in the bill: Iron, steel, steel mill products including pipe and tube, aluminum, cement, glass, fiberglass, pulp, paper, chemicals, and industrial ceramics.

Gives broad powers to the EPA chief. The bill gives czar-like powers to the EPA chief including the power to impose “monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements” on Americans. The bill also gives the EPA chief power to conduct investigations and force “information collection.”

Establishes a creepy DC-based “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” that seeks a backdoor two-child limit on families. The “Carbon Dividend Trust Fund” leftovers will somehow be routed from DC on a per-person basis and households with more than two children are considered unworthy: The legislative language specifically imposes “a limit of 2 children per household.”

Here it is, straight from the bill text:

“A carbon dividend payment is one pro-rata share for each adult and half a pro-rata share for each child under 19 years old, with a limit of 2 children per household, of amounts available for the month in the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Gives broad powers to the Treasury Department to issue even more rules and regulations. The bill language states:

“The Secretary shall promulgate rules, guidance, and regulations useful and necessary to implement the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

Imposes income tax on the carbon tax “dividend.” Yes, the government fleeces the taxpayers and sends the carbon tax money to DC, where it is siphoned off by bureaucrats. Then a leftover “dividend” is supposedly sent out to the countryside where it is then subject to income tax! Here is the bill language:

 “(D) FEE TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS. — Amounts paid under this subsection shall be includible in gross income.

A tax on a tax, which will likely increase the complexity of your annual tax filing. Here’s an idea — how about not taking the money from taxpayers in the first place?

Greases the skids for a European-style Value Added Tax, a cash cow for big government by erecting a complex carbon tax border adjustment scheme.

Authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents. The bill authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents to collect the new tax on energy used by Americans. As if customs enforcement doesn’t already have enough on its plate, the bill states:

“The revenues collected under this chapter may be used to supplement appropriations made available in fiscal years 2018 and thereafter –

 “(1) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in such amounts as are necessary to administer the carbon border fee adjustment.”

Authorizes certain government sharing of Social Security information. The bill states:

“(B) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. — The Commissioner of Social Security shall, on written request, disclose to officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury individual identity information which has been disclosed to the Social Security Administration as is necessary to administer section 9512

Americans for Tax Reform opposes the bill. “The proposed carbon tax is a gas tax and a tax on your electric bill. Worse, it increases automatically year after year so the politicians can raise your taxes without ever having to vote,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The tax will be hidden in the price of all goods and services. A hidden tax. A permanent tax. An uncontrolled tax that increases without end.”

The text of Democrat Deutch’s carbon tax bill can be found here.
Read full story here…

Note To Technocrat Lawyers: Rules Are Not Laws

The only silver bullet to permanently ground global warming fanatics in America is to strike down the EPA’s declaration that CO2 is a harmful gas. Until this is done, the higher court’s cannot and will not deal with the issue. ⁃ TN Editor

I noticed years ago that rules are created to make society, or components of a society, function. The paradox is that when people say they are going to work to rule it means they intend to stop society functioning. America says it is a nation of laws. These were written to make the society function, but now they are used to ensure the society doesn’t function or worse, is easily controlled by an elite few. Why did they only need ten commandments while the US needs thousands of laws? Why does America have more lawyers than the rest of the world combined? Who are they serving and protecting? Most people cannot afford a lawyer, especially “a good” one, that is one who knows how to beat the law whatever it says.

That last comment was underlined for me by a former student who became a lawyer. He took a course in contract law from one of the best contract lawyers in the country. The professors opening comment to the class said, ‘If you sign a contract there is no problem. If you don’t sign a contract, there is no problem. Now we will have a course in contract law.’

The lawyers provided the ideal environment for technocrats, by destroying the keystone of society, trust. A few years ago, a Canadian newspaper ran a contest for the best humorous description of a Canadian. None of the winners was funny, least of all the runner-up. It said a Canadian is a person who will stop at a stop sign at three in the morning even though nobody is watching. Not only is this not funny, but it speaks to the very fabric of a law-abiding society. Each citizen trusts that every other citizen will obey the law when not watched. The legal profession says you don’t trust anyone. You need a contract to guarantee trust. As some people ask, whatever happened to the solemnity and trust of a handshake?

The collapse of trust created a devastating side-effect. The attitude among many and certainly most of the young is that you only broke the law if you get caught. Then, even if you get caught, the wealthy technocrats hire the best lawyers, often with other people’s money, to avoid the law.

The technocrats who construct and control the technology need to control the rules, and so they co-opt the law through the lawyers. This gives them far more control than people can imagine. Lawyers are the most prevalent profession of those in politics. Even if the politicians are not lawyers, it is the lawyer as a bureaucrat who writes the laws. The entire legal profession is a closed shop. They run the law faculties at the universities from top to bottom as Presidents, Deans, and other officers of their faculty.

The incestuous nature of the hierarchy continues in society at large. All recognition of a ’good’ lawyer is determined by other lawyers. The Founding Fathers tried to prevent this by having Senate confirmation hearings, as we witnessed at the recent Kavanaugh Hearings. I watched that hearing and other Senate Judiciary Committee hearings of Administration appointees to Federal courts. In all cases, the majority of the Senators were lawyers or even former judges.

There is little danger of lawyers replacing the technocrats because they are almost exclusively Arts majors. I wrote about this bias in an earlier article. The classic example of technocrats abusing climate science with the aid of lawyers using laws they wrote to accommodate involved the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The State of Massachusetts lawsuit, was probably in an arrangement against the EPA. It accused them of failing to fulfil their legislated duty of protecting the citizens of Massachusetts against a ‘harmful substance’ CO2. EPA lost the case, and after reading some of the case, I believe deliberately lost. This guaranteed its consideration by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

Justice Scalia asked why a science issue appeared before a court that knew nothing about science. He then said he had no choice in the ruling because it came under Administrative Law. The technocrats got the lawyers to write them back in the 1940s to protect what they were doing. Basically, it says we as ‘experts’ set the rules and define the laws, that always makes us the authority.  In this case, Administrative Law said the EPA must control a “harmful substance.” What Scalia and the Justices didn’t know was that the EPA determined that CO2 was a harmful substance. So, the EPA wrote the definitions and the laws all to give them absolute control over CO2. As Scalia said, he had no choice in his ruling.

If Trump wants to do something meaningful beyond abandoning the Paris Climate Agreement, he should get the EPA to remove the ‘harmful substance’ designation from CO2. It is a valuable gas essential to plant growth and does not cause warming or climate change.

If he wants to take back much of the control of America by the technocrats and their slaves, he can stop the lawyers by eliminating Administrative Law. He can use the abuse of the law to demonize CO2 as the perfect example. If you eliminate the biased rules, then they can’t be used to control society.

Scientists: Spray The Stratosphere, Dim The Sun, Cool The Planet

The Technocrat plans for geoengineering are now official and publicly declared: the goal is to dim the sun with stratospheric spraying, thereby quickly cooling the earth.  Of course, all of these scientists are paid directly or indirectly by taxpayer money. ⁃ TN Editor

Zhen Dai holds up a small glass tube coated with a white powder: calcium carbonate, a ubiquitous compound used in everything from paper and cement to toothpaste and cake mixes. Plop a tablet of it into water, and the result is a fizzy antacid that calms the stomach. The question for Dai, a doctoral candidate at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and her colleagues is whether this innocuous substance could also help humanity to relieve the ultimate case of indigestion: global warming caused by greenhouse-gas pollution.

The idea is simple: spray a bunch of particles into the stratosphere, and they will cool the planet by reflecting some of the Sun’s rays back into space. Scientists have already witnessed the principle in action. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it injected an estimated 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere — the atmospheric layer that stretches from about 10 to 50 kilometres above Earth’s surface. The eruption created a haze of sulfate particles that cooled the planet by around 0.5 °C. For about 18 months, Earth’s average temperature returned to what it was before the arrival of the steam engine.

The idea that humans might turn down Earth’s thermostat by similar, artificial means is several decades old. It fits into a broader class of planet-cooling schemes known as geoengineering that have long generated intense debate and, in some cases, fear.

Researchers have largely restricted their work on such tactics to computer models. Among the concerns is that dimming the Sun could backfire, or at least strongly disadvantage some areas of the world by, for example, robbing crops of sunlight and shifting rain patterns.

But as emissions continue to rise and climate projections remain dire, conversations about geoengineering research are starting to gain more traction among scientists, policymakers and some environmentalists. That’s because many researchers have come to the alarming conclusion that the only way to prevent the severe impacts of global warming will be either to suck massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or to cool the planet artificially. Or, perhaps more likely, both.

If all goes as planned, the Harvard team will be the first in the world to move solar geoengineering out of the lab and into the stratosphere, with a project called the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). The first phase — a US$3-million test involving two flights of a steerable balloon 20 kilometres above the southwest United States — could launch as early as the first half of 2019. Once in place, the experiment would release small plumes of calcium carbonate, each of around 100 grams, roughly equivalent to the amount found in an average bottle of off-the-shelf antacid. The balloon would then turn around to observe how the particles disperse.

The test itself is extremely modest. Dai, whose doctoral work over the past four years has involved building a tabletop device to simulate and measure chemical reactions in the stratosphere in advance of the experiment, does not stress about concerns over such research. “I’m studying a chemical substance,” she says. “It’s not like it’s a nuclear bomb.”

Nevertheless, the experiment will be the first to fly under the banner of solar geoengineering. And so it is under intense scrutiny, including from some environmental groups, who say such efforts are a dangerous distraction from addressing the only permanent solution to climate change: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The scientific outcome of SCoPEx doesn’t really matter, says Jim Thomas, co-executive director of the ETC Group, an environmental advocacy organization in Val-David, near Montreal, Canada, that opposes geoengineering: “This is as much an experiment in changing social norms and crossing a line as it is a science experiment.”

Aware of this attention, the team is moving slowly and is working to set up clear oversight for the experiment, in the form of an external advisory committee to review the project. Some say that such a framework, which could pave the way for future experiments, is even more important than the results of this one test. “SCoPEx is the first out of the gate, and it is triggering an important conversation about what independent guidance, advice and oversight should look like,” says Peter Frumhoff, chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of an independent panel that has been charged with selecting the head of the advisory committee. “Getting it done right is far more important than getting it done quickly.”

Joining forces

In many ways, the stratosphere is an ideal place to try to make the atmosphere more reflective. Small particles injected there can spread around the globe and stay aloft for two years or more. If placed strategically and regularly in both hemispheres, they could create a relatively uniform blanket that would shield the entire planet (see ‘Global intervention’). The process does not have to be wildly expensive; in a report last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that a fleet of high-flying aircraft could deposit enough sulfur to offset roughly 1.5 °C of warming for around $1 billion to $10 billion per year1.

Most of the solar geoengineering research so far has focused on sulfur dioxide, the same substance released by Mount Pinatubo. But sulfur might not be the best candidate. In addition to cooling the planet, the aerosols generated in that eruption sped up the rate at which chlorofluorocarbons deplete the ozone layer, which shields the planet from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. Sulfate aerosols are also warmed by the Sun, enough to potentially affect the movement of moisture and even alter the jet stream. “There are all of these downstream effects that we don’t fully understand,” says Frank Keutsch, an atmospheric chemist at Harvard and SCoPEx’s principal investigator.

The SCoPEx team’s initial stratospheric experiments will focus on calcium carbonate, which is expected to absorb less heat than sulfates and to have less impact on ozone. But textbook answers — and even Dai’s tabletop device — can’t capture the full picture. “We actually don’t know what it would do, because it doesn’t exist in the stratosphere,” Keutsch says. “That sets up a red flag.”

SCoPEx aims to gather real-world data to sort this out. The experiment began as a partnership between atmospheric chemist James Anderson of Harvard and experimental physicist David Keith, who moved to the university in 2011. Keith has been investigating a variety of geoengineering options off and on for more than 25 years. In 2009, while at the University of Calgary in Canada, he founded the company Carbon Engineering, in Squamish, which is working to commercialize technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. After joining Harvard, Keith used research funding he had received from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington, to begin planning the experiment.

Read full story here…

Ocean Circulation: More Evidence Of An Approaching Mini-Ice Age

Global Warmists are in total denial, claiming that it is really global warming that is causing dislocations in the weather. Technocrats who live by their science will eventually be crushed by it. ⁃ TN Editor

Researchers have discovered that water in the North Atlantic has ‘dramatically weakened.’

The study shows the levels are at their lowest of for 1,500 years – and climate change is to blame.

Researchers warn the currents will have a ‘profound effect’ on both the North American and European climate.

Researchers studied the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the branch of the North Atlantic circulation that brings warm surface water toward the Arctic and cold deep water toward the equator.

The research, co-led by Drs. Christelle Not and Benoit Thibodeau from the Department of Earth Sciences and the Swire Institute of Marine Science, The University of Hong Kong, is interpreted to be a direct consequence of global warming and associated melt of the Greenland Ice-Sheet.

Slower circulation in the North Atlantic can yield profound change on both the North American and European climate but also on the African and Asian summer monsoon rainfall.

‘The AMOC plays a crucial role in regulating global climate, but scientists are struggling to find reliable indicators of its intensity in the past.

‘The discovery of this new record of AMOC will enhance our understanding of its drivers and ultimately help us better comprehend potential near-future change under global warming’ said Dr. Thibodeau.

The research team also found a weak signal during a period called the Little Ice Age (a cold spell observed between about 1600 and 1850 AD).

While not as pronounced as the 20th century trend, the signal might confirm that this period was also characterized by a weaker circulation in the North Atlantic, which implies a decrease in the transfer of heat toward Europe, contributing to the cold temperature of this period.

However, more work is needed to validate this hypothesis.

‘While we could ground-truth our temperature reconstruction for the 20th century against instrumental measurement it is not possible to do so for the Little Ice Age period.

‘Therefore, we need to conduct more analysis to consolidate this hypothesis’ said Dr. Not.

The findings were recently published in the prestigious journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is the branch of the North Atlantic circulation that brings warm surface water toward the Arctic and cold deep water toward the equator.

This transfer of heat and energy not only has direct influence on climate over Europe and North American but can impact the African and Asian monsoon system through its effect on sea surface temperature, hydrological cycle, atmospheric circulation and variation in the intertropical convergence zone.

Read full story here…

UNEP Chief Booted Over Excessively High Carbon Footprint

Of course, there is more to the story but basically the UN turned on its top environmental executive for globe-trotting and logging too many plane flights. The internal report said that his penchant for travel was “contrary to the ethos of carbon emission reduction”. ⁃ TN Editor

The UN’s environment chief, Erik Solheim, has resigned following severe criticism of his global travels and internal rule-breaking which led some nations to withhold their funding.

The Guardian understands Solheim was asked to resign by the UN secretary general, António Guterres. Sources at the UN Environment Programme (Unep) said that countries unhappy with Solheim’s conduct were holding back tens of millions of dollars, threatening a financial crisis at the body.

A draft internal UN audit leaked to the Guardian in September found Solheim had spent almost $500,000 (£390,000) on air travel and hotels in just 22 months, and was away 80% of the time. The audit said this was a “reputation risk” for an organisation dedicated to fighting climate change.

A UN staff union leader called some of the revelations “mind-blowing” and a prominent climate scientist accused Solheim of “obscene CO2 hypocrisy”.

The audit said Solheim had “no regard for abiding by the set regulations and rules” and had failed to account properly for some of his travel. He also unofficially allowed chosen staff to work from Europe rather than at Unep headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Solheim told the Guardian he had already paid back money for instances of oversight and made changes where other rules had been broken.

On Tuesday, the UN secretary general’s official spokesman said Guterres had accepted Solheim’s resignation. “The secretary general is grateful for Mr Solheim’s service and recognises he has been a leading voice in drawing the world’s attention to critical environmental challenges.”

The final version of the internal audit report has yet to be made public, but the spokesman said: “The secretary general is pleased to see that Unep is committed to implementing the recommendations that are found [in the report].” Unep’s deputy executive director, Joyce Msuya, has been appointed acting head while a replacement is sought.

The Guardian had also revealed that Solheim had to recuse himself in September from professional dealings with his own wife and a Norwegian company that employed her shortly after it signed a deal with Unep in April.

The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden are among the countries that publicly said they were halting funding for Unep until the issues around Solheim were resolved. The total sum at stake is in the region of $50m, according to sources.

Some staff at Unep have been deeply unhappy with Solheim’s leadership for a long time. At a meeting between Solheim and staff in Nairobi in September, of which the Guardian has seen a recording, Tim Christophersen, the head of the freshwater, land and climate branch at Unep, said: “Some of the work in my branch basically has hit a bit of a wall, because the donors we speak with are freezing their contributions to the environment fund.

“None of us individually is more important than the UN,” Christophersen told Solheim. “What should not happen in this organisation is that people are allowed to put their personal agenda ahead of the organisation, whether this is where you prefer to live, how you prefer to travel.”

Numerous Unep staff have contacted the Guardian criticising Solheim’s perceived closeness to China and the project he initiated related to the environmental sustainability of China’s huge infrastructure Belt and Road Initiative. The US in particular was concerned and its representatives raised a long list of questions as far back as April, including about how the project was funded and how intellectual property rights would be protected.

Another concern to staff was the $500,000 sponsorship Solheim agreed to give the Volvo Ocean Race, despite it not being mentioned on the VOR sponsors’ web page or announced by Unep.

Solheim emailed staff on Tuesday and said: “I wanted UN Environment to be a lead agency for reform, even if it raised some questions. Doing things differently is never easy and I will depart knowing I never spared a moment in my effort to implement this vision and leave UN Environment more capable and more impactful.”

Read full story here…

Coldest Thanksgiving On Record Expected In Northeast

Plunging temperatures may crush the global warming narrative after 30,000 dissenting scientists could not. Councilors should stand by to council warmists who suddenly realize that their ladder was leaning up against the wrong wall all along. ⁃ TN Editor

High temperatures on Thanksgiving Day could rank among the coldest on record for some Northeast cities as early-season arctic air engulfs the region late this week.

A strong area of high pressure from the Arctic Circle will descend southward across Canada and into the Northeast, sending temperatures plummeting toward levels more common on New Year’s Day, not Turkey Day.

For some Northeast cities, high temperatures on Thanksgiving could be close to the coldest on record no matter what day of the month the holiday was celebrated (e.g. Nov. 22, Nov. 24, Nov. 26, etc.).

New York City has only had three Thanksgivings dating to 1870 when the high temperature failed to rise out of the 20s, according to National Weather Service statistics. The coldest was a high of 26 degrees on Nov. 28, 1901.

While this year may not touch that record in the Big Apple, it could still be just the fourth time when the high on Thanksgiving is only in the 20s.

In southern New England, Boston could come within a couple of degrees of its coldest Thanksgiving high of 24 degrees, also set Nov. 28, 1901.

Providence, Rhode IslandPhiladelphia and Burlington, Vermont, may also see highs within striking distance of the coldest on record for Thanksgiving Day in each city.

Low temperatures Thanksgiving morning and Black Friday will likely be 15 to 25 degrees below average for late November.

The temperature for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade in New York City is expected to be in the low- to mid-20s. It will feel even colder when you factor in the wind chill, possibly in the mid-teens.

A low temperature of 21 degrees Thursday morning would tie as the third-coldest low on Thanksgiving Day in New York City.

Elsewhere, low temperatures Thursday and Friday mornings will be in the single digits and lower teens across the interior Northeast. Closer to the coast, it will be in the teens or lower 20s.

A few cities may flirt with daily record lows for Nov. 22 (Thursday) or Nov. 23 (Friday).

This includes Albany, New York, and Providence, Rhode Island, where the daily record-low temperature Thursday is 9 degrees and 16 degrees, respectively.

Although it will be cold, the air will also be dry, which means there won’t be any snowfall to worry about Thursday and Friday.

Read full story here…

Climate Contrarian Uncovers Big Scientific Error, Upends Major Ocean Warming Study

Mathematician Nic Lewis, a global warming critic, found problems on the very first page of a peer-reviewed study published in the “world’s premier scientific journal”. This demonstrates the groupthink phenomenon among global warmists when they cannot see the forest through the trees. ⁃ TN Editor

Researchers with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.

In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.

“The findings of the … paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

A correction has been submitted to the journal Nature.

According to the most recent IPCC report, climate emissions need to be cut by 20 percent by 2030 and then zeroed out by 2075 to keep warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

Authors of the recent study had previously claimed that emissions levels in coming decades would need to be 25 percent lower to keep warming under that 2-degree cap.

While papers are peer reviewed before they’re published, new findings must always be reproduced before gaining widespread acceptance throughout the scientific community, said Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

“This is how the process works,” he said. “Every paper that comes out is not bulletproof or infallible. If it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny, you review the findings.”

The report relied on a novel approach that still has the potential to revolutionize how scientists measure the ocean’s temperature.

Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array, robotic devices that float at different depths. The program, which started in 2000, has gaps in coverage.

By comparison, Keeling and Laure Resplandy, a researcher at Princeton University’s Environmental Institute who co-authored the report, calculated heat based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the ocean, filling round glass flasks with air collected at research stations around the globe.

Read full story here…