Monthly Archives: December 2018

What’s the fuss over a border wall necessary for national security? Congress needs to fund the wall so the country can move on.

“The federal government is in the midst of a partial government shutdown as Congressional Republicans and Democrats have failed to produce a funding bill that would include monies for building a southern border wall and border security. The partial shutdown officially began after midnight the Friday before Christmas, but the first several days of it included weekend and already schedule holiday days off including Christmas Day.” click here

President Trump issues an Executive Order to improve conditions and reduce wild fire risk

Wildfires have burned more than 8.5 million acres this year. President Trump issued an executive order (here) allowing agencies to do more to prevent massive wildfires. The order came one day after Trump signed GOP-backed wildfire legislation.

“…California is now the leading state in the US for trafficking.”

“A southern border that’s open is the reason California is now the leading state in the United States for trafficking,” click here

“Democrats…opposing securing the border.” Is this for real?

“The Administration understands this crisis and made a reasonable, common-sense solution to Democrats five days ago – we’ve not received a single response. The President and his team stayed in Washington over Christmas hoping to negotiate a deal that would stop the dangerous crisis on the border, protect American communities, and re-open the government. The Democrats decided to go home. “ click here

Pursue goals like sustainable development and poverty eradication on their own merits (and not based on inadequate climate science)

Conclusions

“The SR1.5 report represents a very significant departure from previous IPCC reports in the direction of increased alarm regarding global warming, particularly as compared with the Fifth Assessment. No rigorous justification for this departure has been provided.

In reality, since the Fifth Assessment considerable evidence has accumulated suggesting that global warming is more of a long-term threat than a planetary emergency. This evidence consists mainly of observational results suggesting lower climate sensitivity (i.e. less warming in response to any given increase in greenhouse gas concentrations) and results indicating a greater contribution from natural variability to explaining observed global temperature trends. The IPCC has not passed on this evidence to policymakers in its SR1.5 report.

The report has also not passed on to policymakers some very important information published by climate modellers since the last IPCC assessment report regarding the empirical tuning of climate models to achieve desired results. The failure of previous IPCC reports to document the models’ tuning procedures has been described by these modellers as a ‘lack of transparency’. The projections of future warming published by the IPCC are completely dependent on the reliability of these models.

In view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document. There is much recent scientific evidence, not referred to in the report, to support a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme measures proposed in the report.

Meanwhile, the worthy goals discussed in the report, such as sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing inequalities, should be pursued on their own merits and not made dependent on unsettled climate science.”

Supplying energy globally using only solar and wind is impossible

“Germany took on that challenge, to show the world how to build a society based entirely on “green, renewable” energy. It has now hit a brick wall. Despite huge investments in wind, solar and biofuel energy production capacity, Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last ten years. However, during the same period, its electricity prices have risen dramatically, significantly impacting factories, employment and poor families.” click here

The business model of Greenpeace

“Greenpeace have successfully created a public perception that they are fighting to protect humanity, nature and the environment from the evils of corrupt industries and vested interests. This perception is so popular and wide-spread that whenever Greenpeace speaks out on an issue it is automatically assumed to be true, and anybody who questions Greenpeace’s claims is assumed to be corrupt. However, as we will discuss in this report, the reality is almost exactly the opposite…” click here