According to the National Association of Scholars (NAS) “‘Sustainability’ is a key idea on college campuses in the United States and the rest of the Western world. To many, sustainability is just a new name for environmentalism. But the word has come to mean something much larger: an ideology that demands new limits on economic, political, and intellectual freedom as the price that must be paid to ensure the welfare of future generations.”
NAS has just released a study critical of the “sustainability” movement in our colleges. The report is titled “Sustainability – Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism.” This 260-page report may be downloaded as a whole or by chapter from http://www.nas.org/projects/sustainability_report.
Even though recent scientific studies show that global warming has nothing to do with California's multi-year drought, a new survey shows that nearly two-thirds of residents believe it does. The statewide survey, which was conducted in mid-July by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and released July 29, cited that the most pressing issues facing Californians were the current drought and water supply.
Notably, 66 percent of Democrats are more likely than Independents (51%) to call the threat of global warming to California's future "very serious," while only 26 percent of Republicans hold that view. Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, said "The threat of global warming to the state’s future is a shared belief among inland and coastal residents and Californians across racial and ethnic groups. But there are persistent partisan divisions on climate change."
The Obama Defense Department is at it again, ratcheting up the global warming fear index in preparation for the big UN climate summits in New York (September) and Paris (December).
Last year the Obama’s Defense Department issued an embarrassing report on the alleged national security risks posed by global warming, replete with hysterical claims that read as if they had been written by Al Gore. The report was filled with glaring errors and wild statements that had been drawn from the administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment (NCA), a climate doomsday study that had already been thoroughly discredited by eminent scientists armed with facts.
I want to change public concern from Global (GW) to Global Cooling (GC). Presented here are three arguments in favor of such a drastic shift -- which involves also a drastic shift in current policies, such as mitigation of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide.
My main argument relies on the fact, backed by historical evidence, that cooling, even on a regional or local scale, is much more damaging than warming. The key threat is to agriculture, leading to failure of harvests, followed by famine, starvation, disease, and mass deaths.
Also, GC is reasonably sure, while GW is iffy.The evidence, again, is historical -- from deep-sea sediment cores and ice cores.Our planet has experienced some 17 (Milankovitch-style) glaciations in the past 2 million years, each typically lasting 100,000 years, interrupted by warm inter-glacials, typically of around 10,000-yr duration. The most recent glaciation ended rather suddenly about 12,000 years ago.We are now in the warm Holocene, which is expected to end soon.
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to relax the air-pollution limits placed on power-plants emissions. The EPA instituted these rules as some gases cross state lines and impact "downwind" states. The court's ruling, which was handed down on Tuesday, still upholds the EPA's right to impose clean-air standards under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, rejecting the states and industry groups' argument that the rule was "overly burdensome." This ruling will force the EPA to redo its rules for 13 states that emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, gases that get carried on winds and cross state lines, eventually reaching the East Coast.
According to the Associated Press (AP), the appeals court ruling said the "EPA's rule imposed overly strict limits on the 13 upwind states," which would "result in downwind states 'overachieving' air quality standards for harmful pollutants, the court wrote."
A new Pentagon report says that climate change is an "urgent and growing threat to our national security" and blames it for "increased natural disasters" that will require more American troops designated to combat bad weather.
"Global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems — such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions — that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries," says the report released Wednesday.
Hillary Clinton said she's "skeptical" of oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, a split from President Obama on one high-profile environmental issue even as she refuses to take a position on another: construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
"I have doubts about whether we should continue drilling in the Arctic," Clinton told New Hampshire station NH1 in an interview that posted late Tuesday night. "And I don't think it is a necessary part of our overall clean energy climate change agenda. I will be talking about drilling in general but I am skeptical about whether we should give the go ahead to drill in the Arctic."
Politico reported yesterday that Jon Stewart met privately with President Obama on at least two occasions, raising eyebrows and questions about Stewart's role as Obama's agenda-driven advocate. The secret visits coincided with crucial moments in his presidency: the bitter, partisan 2011 budget fight, and again before Obama went on TV to warn Russia that “there will be costs” if it made any further incursions into Ukraine. After each of these undisclosed visits, Stewart's show had segments that put the president's position in a more favorable light. The private meetings in the Oval Office were confirmed by White House visitor logs and three former Obama aides.
Politico also noted that the show's popularity with left-wing ideologues and progressives gave politicians and activists the perfect platform to affect change in the all-important, "hard-to-reach 18 to 34-year-old male demographics." This included everything from Obamacare to political appointees to the EPA's war on fossil-fuel energy. So much so that even former Vice President Al Gore took advantage of Stewart's unique brand of simplifying difficult issues to pimp his green agenda.
New research confirms that the land under the Chesapeake Bay is sinking rapidly and projects that Washington, D.C., could drop by six or more inches in the next century — adding to the problems of sea-level rise.
This falling land will exacerbate the flooding that the nation’s capital faces from rising ocean waters because of a warming climate and melting ice sheets — accelerating the threat to the region’s monuments, roads, wildlife refuges and military installations.
For sixty years, tide gauges have shown that sea level in the Chesapeake is rising at twice the global average rate and faster than elsewhere on the East Coast. And geologists have hypothesized for several decades that land in this area, pushed up by the weight of a pre-historic ice sheet to the north, has been settling back down since the ice melted.
Twenty-nine states, more than half the stars on the American flag, have filed lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for redefining the “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. EPA rewrote the law, erasing “navigable” and usurping states’ rights by including local seasonal streams, farm irrigation ponds, roadside ditches, and even “connective” dry lands placed under authority of the Clean Water Act.
The WOTUS rule, published the morning of June 29, potentially subjects every food, energy, transportation and manufacturing industry in the nation to high-handed regulation by one of the most reviled and least trusted federal agencies, dreaded for its cadre of “revolving door” officials hired from anti-industry green groups.
The astonishing response began on the afternoon of June 29: states teamed up in clusters to file their lawsuits in U.S. District Courts. Utah and eight others filed with Georgia in Augusta’s U.S. District Court; Alaska and eleven others filed with North Dakota in Bismarck. Days later, Mississippi and Louisiana filed with Texas in Galveston; Michigan filed with Ohio in Columbus; Oklahoma filed alone in Oklahoma City.
The 3 July 2015 issue of Science features a remarkable editorial by Editor Marcia McNutt. Titled “The beyond-two-degree inferno,” it suggests that an anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) warming of more than 2 degrees C (global average) will literally cause hell on earth, unless we can all agree to reduce emissions of the “infernal” GH-gas carbon dioxide – preferably before or at a UN-sponsored mega-confab in Paris in December. This much-hyped event, to be attended by nearly 200 national delegations and thousands of hangers-on, has even been endorsed in a papal encyclical, referred to, somewhat irreverently, as a “Pope-sicle” by my Virginia colleague Dr Charles Battig.
McNutt’s editorial claims a “global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet.” Yet none of these threats are supported by any scientific evidence -- even from the usually alarmist UN-IPCC. She fails to remind us that atmospheric CO2 is the essential ingredient for sustaining carbon-based life on Earth. The low CO2 levels during the recent ice age severely limited the rate of photosynthesis; at slightly lower levels, we and almost all living things on the Earth’s surface would just starve and die. And she takes for granted that rising CO2 will cause significant Global Warming (GW), with all the usual calamities that are recited by climate alarmists -- in spite of overwhelming evidence for absence of 21st-century warming.