Green New Deal

Italian Scientists Praise Russian and Chinese Climate Models, Blast Coming IPCC Report

May 30, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in Economic development updates, Environmentalism updates, General, General updates, Green New Deal

May 28 (EIRNS) — At the first “Climate Dialogues” webinar on May 26, organized by the Padua Association of Engineers and by Galileo magazine, Italian climate scientists have exposed the biased climate models used by the IPCC to justify a so-called “climate emergency” and have praised more balanced Russian and Chinese climate models. They have also warned against the new IPCC report, expected to be issued soon, which is based on questionable 2019 charts. There will be seven more webinars between now and October.

Prof. Nicola Scafetta, a world expert on climate models based on Sun activity, counterposed climate models based on CO2 to models based on astronomical oscillations. The former are used by the IPCC and are regularly refuted by real data. When applied to the past, they are not able to reproduce past temperatures. Astronomical oscillations (Sun, Earth and other planets) can explain climate cycles much better.

Whereas polls show that 97% of scientists agree that we are in a warming phase, only 26% of them are convinced that it is due to human activity to some extent. Therefore, the famous “consensus” reported by the media is fake news. Professor Scafetta does not exclude human participation in climate change, but it considers it secondary to astronomical causes.

The next IPCC report, coming soon, is based on a 2019 chart which is very problematic, Scafetta said, because it puts together a series of inconsistent data for the purpose of demonstrating their hypothesis. There is a 1,000-year cycle determined by solar activity, which IPCC simply ignores, which is unacceptable.

What is interesting, in his view, are the indices of climate sensitivity that measure climate variations when CO2 doubles. Here, Chinese and Russian models show much lower indices than the Western ones (in particular Canadian models.) The Chinese and Russian results are converging on real historical data, and they have a higher rate of forecasting actual temperatures.

Professor Scafetta was preceded by Massimo Coccato, chairman of the Padua Association of Engineers, Galileo editor Enzo Siviero and by Prof. Alberto Prestininzi, founder and chief editor of the Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment. Both Scafetta and Prestininzi are among the initiators of the 2019 “There Is No Climate Emergency” manifesto of 200 Italian scientists, which became an international group of over 500 scientists by October 2019. Since then, at least another 300 scientists have signed the manifesto.

Siviero, who moderated the event, announced the cycle of “climate dialogues,” which is open to all opinions based on scientific data. In order to be a good engineer you need to be a great humanist, Siviero said.

Professor Prestinizi regretted that supporters of man-made climate change won’t undertake a scientific debate with critics. The debate occurs in the media instead of within scientific forums, while hundreds of millions of people in the world, whose primary fuel source is coal, have no adequate access to electricity. He gave a short historical review of climate hysteria, highlighting the example of the “hockey stick” curve, which was ruled to be false even by a court. In 1977, the IPCC forecast a sea level increase of 6 meters by 2030. Eventually, they revised their forecast and the most recent ones say the increase will be between a half and 1 meter.

Mark Carney: Africa Will Get Rich with Carbon Offsets by Rejecting Development

May 19, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in Agriculture, Economic development updates, Environmentalism updates, Finance, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Green New Deal

Mark Carney: Africa Will Get Rich with Carbon Offsets by Rejecting Development

May 18, 2021 (EIRNS)–Speaking at “The Road to COP26: Opportunities, Challenges and the African Transition to Net-Zero” on April 22, Mark Carney spelled out his plan for mass death in Africa and the occupation of Africa by Green police — the modern version of colonial occupiers.

From Carney’s answers to a question about Africa getting funds from “carbon offsets,” he said that the “carbon offset market” will be set up by the end of the year. Africa will get rich, he said, by providing these offsets to western companies who want to buy “offsets” for their carbon emissions. Carney said he was impressed by the “incredible service that is provided by the existing national capital in Africa, and the opportunity from emissions reduction, and to grow that through reforestation.”

What does the madman mean? By not developing its resources, and by not cutting down any trees — in fact, reforesting existing agricultural lands — Africa will be paid huge sums in “carbon offsets.” So, by not developing, they will get money for “development,” remaining forever without modern infrastructure, industry, or agriculture.

Carney: “90% of demand from carbon offsets will come from advanced economies, and 90% of supply will come from the developing economies, including Africa. This is a market which could scale rapidly to $100 billion per annum.”

Of course, the “advanced economies” could not trust the ‘wogs’ to live up to their promises, so a new kind of colonial overlords will be required. Says Carney: “Of course, there must be integrity around the offsets, and a degree of permanence of these offsets, with verification and monitoring of that permanence. This is a private market, so the offsets will be bought by private companies, like Microsoft. They are not going to make these commitments unless they know that in Rwanda or other places in Africa these offsets are permanent.”

Who, one may ask, will have the responsibility to “verify and monitor” that no African country breaks it’s business-contract to not develop its resources or clear forests to build factories, farms, or new cities? The Green colonial masters will be more than willing to perform that important task.

“Depriving the Poor of Energy Is Bad Climate Policy,” China Daily Op-Ed Warns

April 21, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in Economic development updates, Environmentalism updates, Finance, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Green New Deal, Power & Energy

“Depriving the Poor of Energy Is Bad Climate Policy,” China Daily Warns in Lomborg Op-Ed

April 20, 2021 (EIRNS) – The President of the Copenhagen Consensus, Bjorn Lomborg, penned an op-ed published by China Daily yesterday, which contains a strong argument along the lines we have been hearing recently from Indian officials and others: They pay lip-service to the green paradigm, and then insist that those policies cannot possibly be imposed on the developing sector. Some quotes from Lomborg:

“To tackle climate change, rich countries are promising to end fossil fuel use in 29 years. As this becomes excruciatingly costly, the G7 is now thinking about making the world’s poor pay for it. That will go badly… Despite green protestations, rich people still get 79 percent of their energy from fossil fuels. Ending that will be hard, socially destabilizing and surprisingly ineffective. Besides, it will also destabilize rich countries… As climate policies reduce growth further, this will threaten long-term social coherence as people realize their children won’t be better off and pensions will wither. Moreover, the cuts will matter little for the environment.”

Lomborg continued: “Six billion not-rich people also want access to plentiful and cheap energy, lifting them out of hunger, sickness and poverty. They are more concerned about economic growth that will create welfare and resilience against disease and even climate change… The main effect of carbon tariffs is to shift the economic burden of developed-world climate policies to the developing world… [provoking] profound resentment with a rich world that claims to implement climate policies to help, but in reality shifts the costs onto the world’s poor… Depriving the world’s poor of the twin drivers of development, abundant energy and free trade, is unacceptable.”

Like Father, Like Son: Prince Charles Demands Environmental War Drive at COP26

November 3, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in Britain, Environmentalism updates, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Green New Deal

Like Father, Like Son: Prince Charles Demands Environmental War Drive at COP26 –

Nov. 2, 2021 (EIRNS)—While the Queen ensured that Prince Phillip’s virus hovered visibly over the proceedings, recording her video for the Royal Family’s reception for the world leaders gathered to open COP 26 with the late His Royal Virus’s picture prominently next to her, Prince Charles well saluted his father’s Nazi-like approach to depopulation, demanding that this be accomplished by replacing governments by a global system of private interests imposed through “a vast military-style campaign.”

Twice he insisted that “a war-like footing” be adopted. “Climate change and biodiversity loss … pose an even greater existential threat than the COVID-19 pandemic, to the extent that we have to put ourselves on a war-like footing,” Prince Charles asserted from the outset. “We know what we must do. With a growing global population creating ever increasing demand on the planet’s finite resources, we have to reduce emissions urgently, and take action to tackle the carbon already in the atmosphere, including from coal powered power systems….”

“Our efforts cannot be a series of independent initiatives running in parallel; the scale and scope of the threat we face, call for a global systems-level solution, based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel-based economy to one that is genuinely renewable and sustainable….

“We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. We also know that countries, many of whom are burdened by growing levels of debt, simply cannot afford to go green. Here what is needed is a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector. With trillions at its disposal, far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders, it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition,” he concluded. His ghoulish speech can be found here,

HRH’s reference to a military approach is not mere metaphor. As EIR reported in its Oct. 1, 2021, Daily Alert, the British Crown’s premier policymaking think tank, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA)—known as Chatham House—had just published a paper, “Building Global Climate Security,” arguing that since climate change poses such a serious threat to global security, it will now be necessary to rethink “traditional security concepts,” because climate change is “the most serious threat to global security we face,” and the “security community” is going to play a major role in enforcing green fascism and depopulation. For example: the RIIA paper enthusiastically noted that since there are growing calls to legally define “ecocide” as a crime under the International Criminal Court (ICC), the chance of the armed forces being called on to defend against ecocide “looks increasingly likely.”

Experts Speak Out Against Suicide in the Name of Climate

November 2, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in Economic development updates, Environmentalism updates, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Green New Deal

Experts Speak Out Against Suicide in the Name of Climate –

Oct. 31 (EIRNS) – Quite a number of seasoned experts on power, carbon, and weather are challenging the premises of the Suicide on the Clyde in Glasgow. Among those who have not yet participated in Schiller Institute and LaRouche Organization events, are Bjorn Lomborg, Robert Bryce, and Richard Lindzen.

Swedish economist Lomborg was quoted in Manila Times: “You’ve probably seen the latest alarming headlines: Rising sea levels from climate change could flood 187 million people out of their homes. Don’t believe it. That figure is unrealistic — and it isn’t even new. It appears in a new scholarly paper, whose authors plucked it from a paper published in 2011. And what the earlier paper actually found was that 187 million could be forced to move in the unlikely event that no one does anything, in the next 80 years, to adapt to dramatic rises in sea level.

“In real life, the 2011 paper explained, humans ‘adapt proactively,’ and ‘such adaptation can greatly reduce the possible impacts.’ That means ‘the problem of environmental refugees almost disappears.’ Realistic assumptions reduce the number to between 41,000 and 305,000 — at most, less than 1/600th of the figure in those headlines.

“Sober scientific findings get less attention than alarming and far-fetched scenarios…. We have more knowhow and technology than ever to build dikes, surge barriers and dams, expand beaches and construct dunes, make ecosystem-based barriers like mangrove buffers, improve building codes and construction techniques, and use land planning and hazard mapping to minimize flooding….”

Bryce, a regular Forbes contributor on energy and power, spent two days with no power in Texas in February. He testified Oct. 27 at the House Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on the American power grid. Whereas from 2000-2007 there were fewer than 100 blackouts in any year around the country, in the past three years there have been 220, 278, and 383 blackouts as interruptible sources have been pushed out and onto the grid. “These policies are not just wrongheaded, they are deeply dangerous,” Bryce told the Committee. “Banning the use of liquid and gaseous fuels will reduce America’s energy security because it will concentrate our energy risks on a single energy network, the electric grid. Furthermore, they would require an electric grid with more than two times the capacity of today’s grid. That’s a largely fanciful notion given that the electric grid is faltering under existing demand.” His Forbes piece is here.

Richard Lindzen is emeritus Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He is quoted, also in Manila Times by author Yen Makabenta. After explaining that the demanded “climate mitigation” measures will have no effect on climate, Lindzen says: “Consider what the climate system actually is. This system consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid, and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and re-emission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2 percent perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds, ocean circulations, and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood that the climate (which itself consists of many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomalies) is controlled by a 2 percent perturbation in the energy budget due to just one of the numerous variables, namely CO2?

“Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic…. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

Global Times Editorial Defends Developing Nations’ `Industrialization’ vs. Climate Geopolitics

April 20, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in China, Economic development updates, Environmentalism updates, General, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Global Diplomacy, Green New Deal, New financial order updates, Power & Energy

Global Times Editorial Defends Developing Nations’ `Industrialization’ against Climate Geopolitics

April 19 (EIRNS) — The unsigned editorial in the April 19 Global Times, “To deal with climate change, China-US cooperation is important and sensitive,” takes the global anti-Malthusian resistance shown by India and others to another level. The developing nations’ 2009 resistance to population reduction and genocide, effective in Copenhagen then, is revived.

The unsigned editorial (indicating a Politburo statement) begins with reserve, pointing out that it is “fair to say that China and the U.S. have communicated quite effectively and achieved some results. China has not yet announced plans for its top leader to attend the climate summit; analysts are waiting for things to become clearer.” The editorial likewise points out that “the general environment among the big powers is not good. The U.S. wants to show leadership by working with China and Russia to address the climate challenge, while it is also obstructing China and Russia in other spheres. That is not what normal relations among great powers should be like.”

But then the principles of economic development against environmental extremism become very clear indeed. “UN climate action involves the fundamental interests of humanity, and the specific arrangement for reducing emissions concerning all countries’ major development interests,” says Global Times. “The developed countries have completed industrialization, while developing countries are still in the process of industrialization, and some have just started this process…. People’s living standards are still low in these countries, and it is particularly important to create more resources to improve people’s livelihoods through further industrialization.” The article states that the U.S. has used its power to force more obligations on countries, while taking benefits.

“In an extreme scenario, if the world is about to promote carbon neutrality today, then the world’s economic development pattern will be perpetuated as it is today. The development gap between the developed and underdeveloped countries will become permanent.” The newspaper reminds that while the American elite fight over many issues, they agree on U.S. hegemony. “The current U.S. administration is trying to play the role of a leader and thus squeeze developing countries’ room for growth, as the previous U.S. administration desired.

“China and the U.S. are both the largest emitters; the two countries have huge differences in population and economic development, but the U.S. wants China to take more responsibilities in reducing emissions. It is worth observing the relation between such [environmentalist] pressure from the U.S., and the U.S.’ geopolitical move to pressure China.”

It concludes: “We should promote that the common interests of humanity are jointly defined by the interests of people from all countries, rather than by a handful of countries that want to monopolize this definition.”

Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche suggested today that the editorial has a clarity that would not have come without the LaRouche movement’s organizing and reports exposing the Green New Deal. She called it the strongest statement since the 2009 announcement of the G77 nations that they would not sign the Copenhagen “suicide pact” of population reduction.

Did Geopolitics Sink Portugal’s Sines Port Expansion Project for Now?

May 6, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in Economic development updates, General, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Green New Deal, New Silk Road / BRI updates, World Land-Bridge updates

Did Geopolitics Sink Portugal’s Sines Port Expansion Project for Now?

May 5, 2021 (EIRNS)—At the close of the April 6 deadline for submitting bids to construct a new, huge container terminal at Portugal’s Sines Port, not a single bid had been entered. Port authorities blamed the fiasco on the drop in world shipping from the pandemic, and are talking of launching another offer with more “flexible” conditions when “market conditions” are better. The chairman of the port’s board of directors José Luís Cacho assured that the port expansion will happen, calling the possibility of a two-year delay “almost irrelevant.”

Most likely more than pandemic effects were involved. Portugal and China have been working for several years to use the planned “Vasco de Gama” terminal at Sines’s excellent deep-water port, just south of Lisbon on the Atlantic coast, as a key Belt and Road Initiative hub, connecting the westernmost point of the Eurasian rail network with the Maritime Silk Road in the Atlantic, thereby facilitating trading connections with the Americas and the Western coast of Africa. The Schiller Institute supported the plan as key for developing the Americas, and Portugal pinned its own industrial expansion on the project, envisioning proudly a return to its historic role as a leading center of maritime development. In late 2018, Portugal signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China on the Belt and Road, becoming one of the few countries in Europe willing to counter pressure from Washington and the EU.

The Anglo-American nexus moved in. The U.S. Embassy organized multiple visits of U.S. gas companies promising big investments to build up Sines’s LNG facilities. The Portuguese government welcomed investments from all serious bidders, but in September 2020, U.S. Amb. George Glass told the Portuguese daily Expresso that Portugal is inevitably “part of the European battlefield between the United States and China,” and Portugal now had to choose between its American “friends and allies” and its “economic partner” China. Among other threats, Glass stated that if Portugal awarded the Sines terminal contract to China, the U.S. would pull out of its LNG investments there.

Keeping the pressure on, former British diplomat John Dobson published an op ed in the Sunday Guardian of India on Dec. 5, 2020, picked up in Portugal, stating that the fight over Sines was an “economic flashpoint” between China and the U.S., similar to the military flashpoint building up in the South China Sea. “So will it be America’s huge LNG terminal, or China’s huge container port?,” he wrote. “Whoever is the winner, the geopolitical consequences will be massively significant.”

Join The Anti-Malthusian Movement To Defeat the “Green New Deal”

April 20, 2021by Malene Robinson in General, Green New Deal, Harley Schlanger Daily Update

Unbeknownst to most Americans, resistance is growing internationally to the scientific fraud and economic disaster known as the “Green New Deal” (GND). Furthermore, few are aware that the movement behind it was launched by a rabid opponent of human civilization, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, whose passion — like that of those oligarchs who rushed in to support him — was population reduction. In 2002, Nelson lamented that the environmentalist movement did not speak openly about reducing the world’s population, which he said was the result of “McCarthyism” and “demagogic contrivance.” Nelson, like most of those in power today trying to impose the GND globally, would prefer to cover up the British roots of Malthusian genocide, and its successful implementation of population reduction based on eugenics and British “race science”, in Nazi Germany.

CLINTEL Challenges IPCC Conclusions to Its Chairman

October 31, 2021by Mary Jane Freeman in Economic development updates, Environmentalism updates, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Green New Deal

Oct. 28, 2021 (EIRNS) — Fresh from challenging the Schachtian axioms of the COP26 conference in a joint statement with the Schiller Institute, CLINTEL (the Climate Intelligence group, consisting of nearly 100 scientists, engineers, and professionals disputing the apocalyptic nature of climate change) has pointed out the numerous discrepancies between the IPCC’s full report and its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). These are sufficient to challenge the conclusions and proposed actions to be taken, nominally based on the AR6, “The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report,” but actually based on the Summary for Policy Makers, drawn up by working group 1 [WG1]), which, CLINTEL alleges and demonstrates, misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas.

Attention: Dr Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC, c/o WMO, 7bis Ave de la Paix, CP2800, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland.
Critique of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

Dear Dr. Lee,
We have now carried out an interim review of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and believe that it misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas:

1. It is not “unequivocal” that human influence alone has warmed the planet; the observed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred through some as yet unresolved combination of anthropogenic and natural influences.

2. The new “hockey-stick” graph (Fig SPM.1), when analysed in detail, is a concoction of disparate indicators from various time periods over the last 2,000 years, which together fail to recognise the intervening well-established temperature variability, for example of the Roman and Medieval Warming periods and of the Little Ice Age.

3. The incidence of so-called “extreme weather” events is erroneously misrepresented in the SPM compared to the more accurate depictions in the draft main report, which latter identify no statistically-significant trends in many categories over time.

4. Developments in the cryosphere are also misrepresented in the SPM, particularly noting that there is virtually no trend in Arctic sea ice in the last 15 years.

5. Likewise, developments in the ocean are erroneously misrepresented in the SPM; in particular, the likely modest GMSL [global mean sea level] rise to 2100 does not point to any “climate crisis.”

6. The CMIP6 [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase] climate models are even more sensitive than the already overly-sensitive CMIP5 models of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence of low climate sensitivity. The models lead to invalid conclusions on ECS [climate sensitivity estimates] and “carbon budgets”; the likely global temperature increase to 2100 does not indicate a “climate crisis.”

These concerns are summarised in the table overleaf and are then analyzed in more detail in the pages that follow. Our more detailed analysis will follow in due course.

We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation to whatever modest climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropriate. Given the magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific standards and demonstrate impeccable scientific integrity within the IPCC.

You may recall that, in 2010, the InterAcademy Council carried out an independent review of the IPCC procedures at the request of the then UN Secretary-General and IPCC Chairman. Among its recommendations were that reviewers’ comments be adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies be adequately reflected in IPCC reports. The AR6 SPM inspires little confidence that these recommendations have been put into effect.

We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.

Yours sincerely,
Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL (https://clintel.org),
Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF (www.ICSF.ie).

EU Gas Shortage: What About the Netherlands?

October 24, 2021by madeleine in Finance, Green New Deal, Power & Energy

Brussels is blaming Putin for causing gas shortage in the EU. As ridiculous as this can be, the established media and politicians trumpet this lie around. But nobody mentions that the Netherlands, once a major provider of gas to Europe, is curbing its production right now.

The Dutch government had decided to shut down the Groningen gas field, because of fear of earthquakes, and began to wind it down last year. Earlier this month, Dutch Home Affairs Minister Kajsa and Economic Affairs Minister Stef Blok said that the government will not increase natural gas production from the Groningen fields to head off the impact of soaring gas prices. The gas taps will only be turned on again if there are very cold winters, not for price rises, the ministers said.

If reactivated fully in an emergency, Groningen could alleviate the scarcity. It delivered 88 billion cubic meters at its peak in 1976 and above 30 billion cubic meters just five years ago. Natural gas production in the Netherlands has been falling in recent years, and in 2020 totaled 20 billion cubic meters. This was the lowest production of natural gas in the Netherlands since the turn of the century.

Gas consumption in the EU amounted to 521 billion cubic meters in 2019, and it dropped to 380 cubic meters in 2020, due to lockdowns. As demand resumed this year, and Gazprom increased its supply, the Dutch could help fill the gap. But maybe the Dutch government wants to let “creative destruction” get its way…

Page 2 of 6«123 »...Last