Cruces Atmospheric Sciences Forum – In science, the debate is never over!
[def. src. unkn.]
noun: economics; plural noun: economics
1. the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.
2. the condition of a region or group as regards material prosperity. “he is responsible for the island’s modest economics”
[added comments] It may be argued that the economics of climate change (global warming) was intended by the UN and the IPCC to disrupt capitalism and the free enterprise system and transfer wealth from industrialized nations to the third world. This conclusion was voiced by representatives of the IPCC as well as at least one member of the U.S. Senate.
___________ “Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said. “It has repercussions for society. It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?” ___________
[This interview article about ‘skeptic’ climate scientist Nir Shaviv was published and then quickly pulled from Forbes.com. We discovered the article after it was reprinted by Jim Lakely, Communications Director of the Heartland Institute. We are reprinting it here under the fair use doctrine. Ed.]
The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear
deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.
[This article is a reprint from the Climate Change Weekly, #322, with the permission of the author/editor of that periodical. The Climate Change Weekly is published by the Heartland Institute. The original article is available here. This article should be of particular interest to our forum in light of the recent discussions regarding progress, or lack thereof, in getting the skeptical point of view out to the general populace. One might conclude from this article that the skeptical community with help from climate economics may be seeing more success in changing minds than we might have thought. Ed.]
From Alberta to Australia, from Finland to France and beyond, voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with expensive energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to fight purported human-caused climate change.
Skepticism about whether humans are causing dangerous climate change has always been higher in the United States than in most industrialized countries. As a result, governments in Europe, Canada, and in other developed countries are much farther along the energy-rationing path that cutting carbon dioxide emissions requires than the United States is. Residents in these countries have begun to revolt against the higher energy costs they suffer under as a result of ever-increasing taxes on fossil fuels Continue reading “Climate Politics Abroad Are Turning Decidedly Skeptical”
[This article was originally posted on Apr 05, 2019 at finance.townhall.com and is reproduced here under the fair use doctrine. Ed.]
The birth of Christ was the most important event in human history. Second to it was the hockey stick growth in per capita GDP (standards of living) that began with the creation of the Dutch Republic in the late 16th century. Most know it as the Industrial Revolution, which socialists claim impoverished and enslaved mankind, but it was much more than that. It was a revolution in culture, including the laws, government, religion, social structure and attitudes toward business.
Climate Crisis Inc. gets billions to promote imaginary man-made cataclysm – but attacks realists
By Paul Driessen
The climate crisis industry incessantly claims that fossil fuel emissions are causing unprecedented temperature, climate and weather changes that pose existential threats to human civilization and our planet. The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that provide 80% of the energy that makes US and global economies, health and living standards possible.
Failing that, CCI demands steadily increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.
However, as France’s Yellow Vest protests and the latest climate confab in Poland demonstrated, the world is not prepared to go down that dark path. Countries worldwide are expanding their reliable fossil fuel use, and families do not want to reduce their living standards or their aspirations for better lives.
[David Tofsted, CASF member and a candidate for the NM House of Representatives in NM District 36, has also posted a similar analysis of the Grisham Energy Plan on his own web site at this link. Ed.]
Contained herein is a preliminary attempt to bound the cost of the proposed Grisham Energy Plan. This plan calls for renewable power in New Mexico to account for 50% of all electrical power used by 2030, and increases that to 80% by 2040. The current document attempts to assess the costs of the Grisham plan by three different methods, and by employing two sets of
assumptions for one of the methods. The metric used for assessing cost was the surcharge to the average NM household yearly electric bill. In each case the cost per household was found to be on the order of just over one thousand to several thousands of dollars of added expense per year over the full 20 years of the plan.