Forum

Climate Update

Posted by The Tradesman on July 11, 2024 at 3:53am

Source; SNGLR

The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee released a report describing collusion between radical environmental groups, progressive activists, and corporate interests, especially in the financial sector, to impose Environment, Social, and Governance goals on the American people. This includes collusion which reduces competition, limiting consumer choice, and increasing prices through efforts to decarbonize the economy, in pursuit of bogus environmental and environmental justice demands.

Doctrinaire, elitist adherents of esg goals view capitalism a sin against the environment that must be restrained through social engineering to ensure that the social, environmental, and ethical ends they believe and required by their woke social justice, adopted and enforced across society. Evidence shows that there is no climate crisis, but esg pushers use the alleged threat of catastrophic climate change to push progressive ends. The climate cartel seeks to “keep fossil fuels in the ground,” raising prices and reducing output for American consumers.

The report says that the climate cartel has, among other things:
"[D]eclared war on the American way of life [by] … waging a Global World War for net zero against disfavored American companies, including those in the fossil fuel, aviation, and farming industries that allow Americans to drive, fly, and eat...The climate cartel has agreed to force corporations to decarbonize by disclosing their carbon emissions, reducing their carbon emissions, and adopting enforcement mechanisms to strengthen these commitments...The climate cartel r]amps up and escalates pressure against corporations on the wrong side...The climate cartel is willing to go to the top rung by filing shareholder resolutions, voting against management, and replacing board members with those of its own choosing.”

This exhaustively referenced report uses the climate cartel’s own documents and independent research to expose how these groups are colluding through in pressure tactics and political influence (politicians and bureaucrats), to force companies to adopt esg goals that further their social and political aims, to the detriment of the interest of many of the companies themselves, consumers, and the general public.

The Committee’s ongoing investigation into collusion between left-wing activists and major financial institutions has revealed that a climate cartel is working to harmfully decarbonize the U.S. economy—with disastrous implications. The climate cartel has declared war on our way of life, escalating its attacks on free markets and demanding that companies slash output of the critical products and services that allow Americans to drive, fly, eat, thrive, prosper and remain free.

the report understates the danger to humanity’s short-term and long-term well-being. esg is a recipe for equality in squalor—with the exception of the neo-liberal elites in charge of the climate cartel—, with poverty and premature death being the end result.

The corrupt biden regime has failed to act upon the climate cartel’s apparent violations of longstanding U.S. antitrust law.

The groups include, but not limited to:
-Climate Action 100+, the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ);
-blue state pension funds like the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS);
-radical environmental non-profit organizations like Ceres;
-stockholder engagement service providers like As You Sow;
-activist investors like Arjuna Capital, LLC (Arjuna), Trillium Asset Management,
-LLC, Engine No. 1 LP, and Aviva Investors Americas, LLC
-BlackRock, Inc. (BlackRock)
-State Street Global Advisors (State Street)
-Vanguard Group, Inc. (Vanguard
-foreign-owned proxy advisory duopoly of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co. (Glass Lewis), which combined 90% advise mutual funds controlling more than $27 trillion in assets.

We will know when “Green New Deal” totalitarianism is “winning” when we see formerly law-abiding citizens illegally logging in protected forests and parks.  The more expensive energy becomes, the more likely that the skies above towns and cities will be filled with soot.

Meanwhile, scientists have begun telling a surprising new story about islands. By comparing mid-20th century aerial photos with recent satellite images, they’ve been able to see how the islands have evolved over time. What they found is startling: Even though sea levels have risen, many islands haven’t shrunk. Most, in fact, have been stable. Some have even grown.

Growing islands during the recent period of climate change is not new news. Linnea Lueken noted a study published in 2018 found 89% of islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans increased in area or were stable, and only 11% showed any sign of contracting. Indeed, geological understanding of coral atoll growth and demise is not newly discovered. “Scientists have known for decades, if not more than a hundred years, that atoll islands uniquely change with changing sea levels, Charles Darwin was the first to propose that reefs were many thousands of feet thick, and grow upwards towards the light. He was partially correct, though reality is more complicated than his theory.” Repeated studies show that what is true of the Maldives, growth amid rising seas, is equally true of the island in the Tuvalu, Kiribati, and across the island chains of Micronesia. One well-cited study from 2015, reported that 40% of islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans were stable, and another 40% had grown, in recent decades.

Nowhere can be found the much-bemoaned decline in island nations hyped be climate hucksters with regularity. When even the left-wing ny times is forced to admit this truth, you know the climate alarm narrative is in trouble.

 
Meanwhile, a team of researchers from various universities and research institutes in the UK, the US, and Germany undertook a dating from nuclear bomb tests in the 1960s. This analysis found that vegetation removes more CO2 from the atmosphere than climate models assume, with the CO2 being stored in short-lived, non-woody tissues.

This is important because assumptions about the longevity of atmospheric CO2 and the atmosphere’s sensitivity to it are the foundation of climate model forecast of future temperatures and climate conditions. The difference between common assumptions of the global vegetation’s net primary productivity (NPP), the storage of carbon within plant tissues resulting from photosynthesis, and what this research found is significant. The authors’ write: "We combined a new budget of radiocarbon produced by nuclear bomb testing in the 1960s with model simulations to evaluate carbon cycling in terrestrial vegetation. We found that most state-of-the-art vegetation models used in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project underestimated the radiocarbon accumulation in vegetation biomass. Our findings, combined with constraints on vegetation carbon stocks and productivity trends, imply that net primary productivity is likely at least 80 petagrams of carbon per year presently, compared with the 43 to 76 petagrams per year predicted by current models.”

In short, the Earth’s plant life removes, and at least temporarily stores, between 5 and 47% more CO2 in vegetation than climate models assume. Getting the carbon budget right is critical to understanding the short and long-term impacts of CO2 on temperatures and climate, and what policies, if any, might be justified to reduce CO2 emissions. Policies should be informed by sound science, if not necessarily dictated by scientific findings, the latter being shaped by a myriad of considerations, including the trade-offs inherent to different actions, and the desires of populations in democratically elected countries.

Meanwhile, research in Nature Communications suggest part of the reason for the recent increase in ocean temperatures has nothing to do with climate change or the El Nino cycle, but rather, actions taken by the shipping industry to reduce the sulfur in shipping fuel, which reduced the sun blocking/filtering sulfur dioxide emissions, causing the top layer of the ocean to warm. Shipping fuel regulations introduced in 2020 have led to a substantial cut in sulfur dioxide (SO2) but may also have made the ocean warmer by reducing cloud cover, according to a modelling study. International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules forced shippers to cut their fuel sulfur content to 0.5% from 3.5%, leading to an 80% decline in SO2 emissions, according to a research team led by Tianle Yuan at the University of Maryland.


Since SO2  forms aerosol droplets that thicken and brighten clouds, more solar rays are directed back into space rather than warming the surface. This research suggests that the reduction in shipping fuel emissions alone may be responsible for as much as 80% of the “planets total net heat update since 2020.” Leaving one to ask, is the source of recent global warming, human CO2 emissions? Likely not! One thing is sure, climate models fail to account for changes in clouds or the factors like So2 increases and reductions that can contribute to them.

Stuart Haszeldine, director of the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute at the University of Edinburgh, who did not contribute to the recent research, said:  “[t]his cooling effect (of SO2) is well understood - and documented episodes have occurred as consequences of several major volcanic eruptions emitting SO2 during the past 2,000 years."

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –
Follow