My newest book is called “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Stop Cows from Farting”

My newest book is called Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Stop Cows from Farting.

That title is not a joke. Ocasio-Cortez really does want to stop cows from farting. She said so on her official Congressional website, as well as in a document which she gave to NPR.

This book is not a joke book. Instead, it presents a serious discussion of Ocasio-Cortez’s policy proposals.

In July 2018, DNC Chairman Tom Perez said that Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party.”

This book shows you that future by quoting Ocasio-Cortez in her own words.

The book’s author also presents his own opinions about Ocasio-Cortez’s policy proposals.

Here are the chapter titles to give you an idea of what’s in the book:

Chapter 1: U.S. Population

Chapter 2: Unemployment rate

Chapter 3: Upper middle class

Chapter 4: Cow farts and airplanes

Chapter 5: Unwilling to work

Chapter 6: Private ownership and profits

Chapter 7: Billionaires

Chapter 8: Military budget

Chapter 9: False accusation of catcalling

Chapter 10: False accusation of mansplaining

Chapter 11: Funeral expenses

Chapter 12: Linda Sarsour

Chapter 13: Nuclear power

Chapter 14: Banning reporters

Chapter 15: Judiciary

Chapter 16: House Ehtics rules

Chapter 17: The end of the world

Chapter 18: Raising taxes on the rich

Chapter 19: Uber

Chapter 20: Republicans and typos

You can buy the paperback version at https://www.amazon.com/dp/1796936030

You can buy the amazon kindle version at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NRL9ZM8

Here’s the cover:

February 15, 2019. Tags: , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Books, Economics, Environmentalism. 2 comments.

Saikat Chakrabarti, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, blames “typos” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work”

As I explained in this previous post, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently put a document on her official Congressional website which said that she wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.” After a huge number of people criticized her for this, she took the document down. Fortunately, the internet archive has a copy of the page at this link, and NPR has a copy of it at this link.

The latest news, as reported in this new article by the Washington Post, is that Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, is blaming “typos” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.”

The Washington Post reported that Chakrabarti said:

People are trying to take the focus away from the big picture to these little typos.

Typos?

Seriously?

I’m not buying that.

A “typo” is when you type “pwn” instead of “own.”

There is no way that the following text from Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website is a “typo”

The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then.

Likewise, there’s no way that this other text from the same document is a “typo”

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
High-quality health care
Clean air and water
Healthy food
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
An economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

There’s no way that those words in either example are “typos.”

Someone deliberately typed those words into the document.

And who might that someone be?

Well, as I also explained in my previous post, the document’s metadata proves that the document was created by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff.

That’s the same Saikat Chakrabarti who blamed “typos” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.”

Chakrabarti’s lie about “typos” is just as unbelievable as the other lie that I mentioned in my previous post, where Ocasio-Cortez advisor and Cornell Law School professor Robert Hockett blamed “Republicans” for starting a rumor about the document being on Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website. Here’s the video of that again. Skip to 1:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qyx6eDkrmw

At the end of my previous post, I wrote:

Hockett is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. So I’m 100% certain that he is familiar with the laws against defamation. I hope that he will apologize to the “Republicans” that he falsely accused of lying about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s positions on the above issues.

Hockett must have read my post, because he just admitted that he had been wrong.

So first they blamed this on “Republicans.”

And now they’re blaming it on “typos.”

I wonder if they will have a third bogus explanation for it.

Perhaps they will blame it on hackers from Freedonia.

February 11, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 10 comments.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advisor and Cornell Law School professor Robert Hockett falsely blames “Republicans” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently put a document on her official Congressional website which said she wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.”

After a huge number of people criticized her for this, she took the document down.

Fortunately, the internet archive has a copy of that same webpage from Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website at this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

The original link (which no longer works) to the page at Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website is https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

In addition, NPR (a highly reliable source, which liberals love) has a copy of the same document at this link: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

And in case NPR ever takes that page down, here is the internet archive of that NPR page: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207164217/https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

The document in question says the following:

The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then.

The same document also says:

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
High-quality health care
Clean air and water
Healthy food
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
An economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

That second quote reminds of this cartoon, which is a parody of the nationally syndicated comic strip The Wizard of Id. Like I said, this is a parody of The Wizard of Id. It is not a real Wizard of Id cartoon. Copied form this link, and poster here under fair use:

The cartoon starts out with a political candidate and his assistant talking in private. Here’s the text of their conversation:

Assistant: What are you offering the peasants in your election speech today?

Candidate: Nothing they can afford to refuse.

The rest of the cartoon shows the same candidate giving a speech to a large crowd of people. Here’s the text for that:

Candidate: Elect me, and I promise you free health care!

The crowd cheers.

Candidate: Free housing! Free clothing! Food stamps!

The crowd cheers again.

Candidate: And jobs for everybody!

The crowd cheers again.

Candidate: Any questions? Yes?

Man in the crowd: What do we need jobs for?

Heh heh. That guy in the crowd is a heck of a lot smarter than any liberal politician that I have ever heard of.

Anyway, after a huge number of people criticized Ocasio-Cortez for wanting to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work,” Ocasio-Cortez removed the page from her official Congressional website.

What’s even worse is that Ocasio-Cortez advisor and Cornell Law School professor Robert Hockett falsely blamed “Republicans” for the document being on Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website.

Here’s a video of Hockett on Fox news, where he falsely blames “Republicans” for the document that Ocasio-Cortez had put on her official Congressional website. Skip to 1:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qyx6eDkrmw

Fortunately, the internet archive and NPR have both saved the document in question.

In addition, the Gateway Pundit has published this article, which says that the document’s metadata proves that the document was created by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff. The Gateway Pundit article includes this image of the metadata:

Hockett is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. So I’m 100% certain that he is familiar with the laws against defamation. I hope that he will apologize to the “Republicans” that he falsely accused of lying about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s positions on the above issues.

February 10, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 9 comments.

Here’s my response to a Washington Post article called “Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.”

I know that manmade global warming is real.

I know that as we burn fossil fuels, we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this makes the atmosphere’s temperature increase.

I am not a denier of global warming.

But I am someone who rejects the ridiculous scaremongering that is going on regarding global warming.

The Washington Post recently published this article, which is called, “Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.”

Here’s video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez making her statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18

I would now like to propose my own hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

My hypothesis is based on the following four scientific observations:

1) According to this article from Live Science, back when the dinosaurs were alive, carbon dioxide levels in the air were five times as high as they are today. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

2) According to this article from the BBC, back when the dinosaurs were alive, global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

3) According to this article from the Ontario Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Rural Affairs, the owners of commercial greenhouses deliberately pump extra carbon dioxide into the air inside their greenhouses. But this has not caused the world to end. On the contrary, it makes the plants inside the greenhouses grow better.

4) According to this article from NASA, humans’ burning of fossil fuels has caused an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. But the world did not end. On the contrary, the title of the NASA article is “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

So there we have four different real world examples – all verified by scientists – that show that having higher levels of carbon dioxide causes an increase, not a decrease, in plant life.

Animals eat plants.

And other animals eat the animals that eat plants.

Carbon dioxide is plant food.

Carbon dioxide if the bottom of the food chain.

Therefore, to repeat my hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

One of the great things that we learn from the scientific method is that if an event is based on science, then that event can be repeated. Given the four scientific observations that I have posted above, science tells us that having more carbon dioxide in the air makes things better for life, not worse.

Another great thing about the scientific method is that over time, we can find out if our hypothesis turns out to be true or false.

So all we have to do now is to wait 12 years, and we’ll find out who is right and who is wrong about the world ending in 12 years due to our emissions of carbon dioxide.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/24/ocasio-cortez-says-world-will-end-years-she-is-absolutely-right/

Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.

January 24, 2019

Apparently all anyone has any strength or enthusiasm for is applying a literalism test on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s all-too-accurate warnings. She said recently that if we don’t start to address climate change aggressively right now, the world will end in 12 years. I know, let’s feign alarm that she has exaggerated instead of having genuine alarm about the genuine problem she is raising the red flags over.

Here’s another idea. Why don’t we apply the same exactitude of judgment on some other things that have been said about climate change? Here’s a sampler:

“Climate change is a hoax.” “The science is unclear.” “If there were warming, we’d see it.” “If we saw it, we’d do something.” “Maybe it’s cooling.” “It’s too soon to act.” “There’s nothing we can do.” “If this is climate change, I’ll take it!” “It’s arrogant to think humans could change the climate.” “It’s cold today, so climate science is wrong.” “Yes, there’s a problem but hardly a crisis.”

That last position is where the Washington consensus currently resides (President Sir Lies-a-Lot notwithstanding), and it is that position that is dangerously wrong, and what AOC is (correctly) fighting against. The last word on the subject from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not have been more dire.

We need to start NOW, to cut carbon emissions aggressively, or by 2030 we may have passed a tipping point beyond which the planet, and yes you people living on it, is in for a world of possibly permanent hurt. So let’s quibble that AOC said the world will end instead of the world as humans and current species have known it and depended on it will end, forever.

Meanwhile, your friendly corporations believe in climate change, all right. They are planning to bleed your last coins into their pockets selling you generators when the climate disasters wipe out your power grid.

Now tell me who is getting this crisis right and in your best interests.

February 2, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism, Science. 2 comments.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to know that there is actually an INVERSE correlation between billionaires and dangerous intestinal parasites

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said that it was immoral to allow billionaires to exist when there are people who have ringworm.

She later said that she had meant hookworm, not ringworm.

Hookworm is transmitted to people when they walk barefoot in the feces of other people who are infected with hookworm.

And in the real world, there is actually an inverse correlation between the existence of billionaires, and the rate of hookworm infection.

According to wikipedia, this is how to prevent hookworm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookworm_infection

Hookworm infection

Prevention

The main lines of precaution are those dictated by good hygiene behaviors:

Do not defecate in the open, but rather in toilets.

Do not use untreated human excreta or raw sewage as fertilizer in agriculture.

Do not walk barefoot in known infected areas.

The places with the highest concentrations of billionaires, such as Manhattan, Silicon Valley, and Singapore, have very few or even zero cases of hookworm. (Although I will admit that San Francisco may be an exception to this trend, as an expert on global public health recently stated that the city’s high rate and tolerance of open defecation actually makes the city dirtier than third world countries. San Francisco is run so badly that the government spends $37,000 on each homeless person per year, and yet they still somehow manage to remain homeless. Can you imagine how much housing any city that wasn’t run by idiots could rent or buy for that much money?)

A long time ago, when there were no billionaires anywhere in the world, hookworm was very common all over the world.

Anyone who is truly against hookworm would be in favor of the existence of billionaires, not against it.

And that’s not even taking into account the charitable work of billionaires such as Bill Gates, which has saved huge numbers of lives.

And that also doesn’t take into account all the jobs that these billionaires provide, as well as the goods and services that these billionaires provide. For example, think of LEGO billionaire Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen and IKEA billionaire Ingvar Kamprad. Does anyone seriously want to argue that the world would be better off if the countries of western Europe had not allowed these two people to become billionaires?

January 27, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Animals, Economics, Environmentalism, Health care, Science. Leave a comment.

San Francisco bans plastic straws, allegedly to reduce pollution, but gives more than four million free needles to illegal drug addicts every year, which is a dangerous pollution problem

The government of San Francisco has banned plastic straws, allegedly in the name of reducing pollution.

Meanwhile, the same San Francisco government gives more than four million free needles to illegal drug addicts every year.

The alleged reason for the city banning straws is that they end up in the ocean.

However, this ban ignores these four facts:

1) The real issue is littering, not straws. If people put their straws in a proper waste disposal unit, they won’t end up in the ocean.

2) Plastic straws make up only 0.02% of the plastic waste in the ocean.

3) 90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from just 10 rivers – eight in Asia, and two in Africa.

4) People with disabilities need plastic straws. Before plastic straws were invented, people with disabilities aspirated liquid in their lungs, developed pneumonia, and died.

There is no evidence to show that the plastic straws used in San Francisco have ever been a threat to the environment. San Francisco’s ban on plastic straws is nothing more than a form of virtue signaling. It won’t do anything to help the environment.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence to show that the more than four million free needles that San Francisco gives away every year are a threat.

The San Francisco affiliate of NBC News reported that there was an abundance of used illegal drug needles on the sidewalks of San Francsiso, even on the sidewalks that are used by preschool students. The mother of a three-year-old girl told NBC that she “often” had to pull her daughter away to prevent her from stepping on needles (as well as human poop) that were on the sidewalk.

KTVU reported that a second grade teacher taught her students not to touch the needles they see on the ground.

Dr. Lee Riley, an infectious disease expert at UC Berkeley, said of San Francisco’s needle problem:

“If you do get stuck with these disposed needles you can get HIV, Hepatitis C, Hepatitis B, and a variety of other viral diseases”

Regarding the needles (as well as the human poop) on the sidewalks in San Francisco, Dr. Riley said:

“The contamination is… much greater than communities in Brazil or Kenya or India”

On a global scale, the environmental Kuznets curve shows that richer cities tend to be much cleaner than poorer cities. The fact that San Francisco goes in the opposite direction of this trend is highly unusual.

Business Insider reported that at Starbucks locations all over the country (not just in San Francisco), employees who clean the bathroom have repeatedly expressed concerns after seeing drug needles in the trash and on the floor. Some employees have been accidentally stabbed with drug needles that were hidden in trash bags, and had to go to the doctor so they could take antiviral medications to protect themselves from the HIV and hepatitis viruses that might have been in the needles.

Clearly, the free needles that San Francisco gives to illegal drug addicts are a substantial safety risk to innocent, law abiding restaurant employees who are just trying to earn a living.

This problem would still exist even if the San Francisco government was not giving away free needles. But giving away more than four million free needles every year certainly makes the problem much worse than it would otherwise be.

Although every free needle comes with a plastic safety cap that can be used to cover up the dangerous tip of the needle, many illegal drug addicts toss these caps aside instead of putting them back on the tip of the needle.

Drug needles were cited as one of the reasons for the recent cancellation of a previously recurring medical convention which, in the past, had brought 15,000 conference attendees and $40 million worth of business to San Francisco during each previous event.

The needle problem is so bad that the San Francisco government recently hired ten new employees whose sole responsibility is to clean up these needles from the sidewalks and streets.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the plastic straws used by the people of San Francisco are a threat.

And yet, San Francisco has banned plastic straws, while giving away more than four million free needles to illegal drug addicts every year.

January 12, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

In California, bottle recycling is mandatory, except when it’s illegal

California requires people to recycle their empty bottles.

However, this recent news article from the Merced Sun-Star says that three people have been charged with “recycling fraud” in California, because the bottles they recycled were “smuggled” into California from Arizona. The bottles from both states are physically identical to each other, but the price paid for the bottles is higher in California than in Arizona.

In the private sector, this kind of behavior is completely legal, and it’s called “arbitrage.” This is what wikipedia says about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage

Arbitrage

In economics and finance, arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices.

This video shows an example of legal arbitrage. In the video, a guy goes to a bunch of Wal-Marts, buys up every copy of Monopoly for Millennials for $19.82 each, and sells them online for three times that price:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknkqT5tHK8

What that guy in the video did is 100% legal.

But for some strange reason, the people who sold bottles from Arizona in California were breaking the law.

Even though the bottles that they sold were real bottles, they were charged with “fraud.”

And even though the bottles from Arizona were physically identical to the bottles from California, they were charged with “smuggling.”

It’s completely ridiculous that this is illegal.

The people who bought Monopoly for Millennials from that guy in the video don’t care where it came from. As long they get what they paid for, they are happy.

But for some weird reason, politicians seem to think that there is some inherent difference between bottles from California and bottles from Arizona.

In the real world, the only difference is the price. There is no physical difference between the bottles.

If recycling bottles was truly a good idea, then California would be happy to recycle bottles from Arizona, just like the customers who bought Monopoly for Millennials from that guy in the video were happy to buy what they bought. If the item in question is truly valuable, then the buyer won’t care where it came from.

Therefore, for California to mandate bottle recycling in some cases, while outlawing it in other cases –  even though the bottles involved in both cases are physically identical to each other – is absurd.

Here’s a clip from “The Bottle Deposit” from season 7 of Seinfeld, where Kramer and Newman try to make money by recycling bottles from New York in Michigan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGJZcHgqX1g

December 5, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Economics, Environmentalism. 1 comment.

Global warming hypocrites fly private jets to global warming conference in San Francisco

Global warming hypocrisy at its finest!

Every single time they have one of these international global warming conferences, there’s a always a huge number of attendees who arrive on private jets.

The most recent example of this hypocrisy just happened at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, California. The San Francisco International Airport said that corporate jet traffic was 30% higher than normal, and that much of this was due to attendees of the environmental conference.

Why not fly commercial air travel instead?

Or better yet, why not stay home and attend via Skype?

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/How-to-fly-to-a-climate-change-summit-In-a-13231466.php

How to fly to a climate change summit? In a private, carbon-spewing jet

September 16, 2018

One of the hottest spots during the just-concluded Global Climate Action Summit was the private runway at San Francisco International Airport, where SFO spokesman Doug Yakel reports corporate jet traffic was up 30 percent over normal.

Airport sources told us that the carbon-spewing corporate jets nearly filled the landing area’s parking slots and that many had flown in for the conference.

The three-day climate confab drew more than 4,000 elected officials, business executives and environmentalists from around the globe and was aimed at addressing how to lower the carbon emissions responsible for global warming.

The summit was organized by Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been known to fly private.

In 2015, Brown flew with real estate mega-millionaire and major Democratic Party donor George Marcus via private jet to a climate change conference at the Vatican. The next year, the go-green governor jetted off with Marcus for a two-week trip that included stops in Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine.

This time, the governor and his wife, Anne Gust Brown, stayed grounded and carpooled in from Sacramento with his security detail.

September 23, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Study shows global forest loss over past 35 years has been more than offset by new forest growth

Satellite measurements show that between 1982 to 2016, the total global land area covered by trees increased by a net amount equal to the combined area of Texas and Alaska.

This does not surprise me, because I already knew that among countries with an annual per capita GDP of least $4,600, deforestation has ceased to exist.

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html

Study shows global forest loss over past 35 years has been more than offset by new forest growth

August 9, 2018


a, Mean annual estimates. b, Long-term change estimates. Both mean and change estimates are expressed as per cent of pixel area at 0.05° × 0.05° spatial resolution. Pixels showing a statistically significant trend (n = 35, two-sided Mann–Kendall test, P < 0.05) in either TC, SV or BG are depicted on the change map. Circled numbers in the colour legend denote dominant change directions: 1, TC gain with SV loss; 2, BG gain with SV loss; 3, TC gain with BG loss; 4, BG gain with TC loss; 5, SV gain with BG loss; and 6, SV gain with TC loss. Credit: Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9

A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center has found that new global tree growth over the past 35 years has more than offset global tree cover losses. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes using satellite data to track forest growth and loss over the past 35 years and what they found by doing so.

There has been a growing consensus in recent years that because humans cut down so many trees (most particularly in the rainforests) that global tree cover is shrinking. In this new effort, the researchers have found that not to be the case. They contend that global tree cover is actually increasing.

To track global tree cover changes, the researchers studied data from advanced very high-resolution radiometers aboard a series of 16 weather satellites covering the years 1982 to 2016. By comparing daily readings, the researchers were able to see small changes occurring regularly over a relatively long period of time—which added up to large changes. Over the entire span, the researchers found that new tree cover had offset tree cover loss by approximately 2.24 million square kilometers — which they note is approximately the size of Texas and Alaska combined.

The researchers report that most of the new tree cover occurred in places that had previously been barren, such as in deserts, tundra areas, on mountains, in cities and in other non-vegetated land. They further report that much of the new growth came about due to efforts by humans (such as reforestation efforts in China and parts of Africa) and because of global warming—warmer temperatures have raised timberlines in some mountainous regions, and allowed forests to creep into tundra areas. Other areas of new tree growth resulted from large farm abandonments in places like Russia and the U.S. The researchers report that their calculations showed that human activities have directly caused approximately 60 percent of new global tree growth. They suggest their technique for monitoring tree cover could be used to predict tree cover changes in the future due to global warming.

More information: Xiao-Peng Song et al. Global land change from 1982 to 2016, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9

Abstract

Land change is a cause and consequence of global environmental change. Changes in land use and land cover considerably alter the Earth’s energy balance and biogeochemical cycles, which contributes to climate change and—in turn—affects land surface properties and the provision of ecosystem services. However, quantification of global land change is lacking. Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers such as climate change. Land-use change exhibits regional dominance, including tropical deforestation and agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation or afforestation, cropland intensification and urbanization. Consistently across all climate domains, montane systems have gained tree cover and many arid and semi-arid ecosystems have lost vegetation cover. The mapped land changes and the driver attributions reflect a human-dominated Earth system. The dataset we developed may be used to improve the modelling of land-use changes, biogeochemical cycles and vegetation–climate interactions to advance our understanding of global environmental change.

Journal reference: Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9

August 11, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Video: Living off grid with solar panels and batteries

The woman in this video talks about what it’s like for her and her family to live off grid with solar panels and batteries. She and her family are real environmentalist who practice what they preach. She says there are some inconveniences, but that they have manged to get used to them. She also says their daily electric usage fell from 60 kwh to between 4 and 6, not counting their limited use of air conditioning, which brings their daily usage up to 10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLhlm-iZFVI

 

August 10, 2018. Tags: , , , . Environmentalism, Technology. Leave a comment.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just buy new crayons?

A woman named Emily Skopov started a non-profit organization called No Crayon Left Behind.

The charity collects used crayons from restaurants and other organizations and gives them to people who can’t afford them.

When the collected crayons are misshapen, Skopov melts them down on her own stove and molds them into new crayons.

Skopov said she spends approximately 45 hours a week volunteering for No Crayon Left Behind.

In addition, she hired a consultant and has a paid staff as well.

She also rents an office.

Skopov said of her endeavor:

“I purposely haven’t kept track of how much I’ve spent because it would freak me out, but it’s got to be thousands of dollars.”

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart sells a box of 64 brand new crayons for $2.94.

So here’s my question: Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just buy new crayons?

 

 

July 12, 2018. Tags: , , , , , . Economics, Environmentalism. 1 comment.

Media bias: Wikipedia has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information about how hunting endangered animals, when done properly, makes their populations get bigger

Wikipedia has repeatedly removed the following reliably sourced information from its Trophy hunting article. (The deletion history can be seen here, here, here, and here.)

In 2015, a Texas hunter who had won an auction paid $350,000 for legal permission to kill an endangered black rhinoceros in Namibia. The Washington Post wrote the following about the particular animal that was chosen for this kill: “The bull, Knowlton said, was a problem in his own herd. The animal was too old to breed but so aggressive that it had already killed calves, cows and and other male rhinoceroses in a jealous rage.” The money was used to fund conservation efforts. Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism had approved of the kill. The meat was eaten by residents of a nearby village.

In 2017, a hunter paid $35,000 for permission to kill one bongo at a ranch in Texas. The ranch’s manager said this was enough money to feed the ranch’s approximately 30 remaining bongos for an entire year.

In 2017, wildlife experts said the ranches in Texas had more blackbuck antelope than their native country of India.

In 2018, a hunter from Kentucky legally killed an adult male giraffe in South Africa. Because this particular male was too old to breed, and because it had previously killed three younger adult males who were capable of breeding, this particular kill caused the population to get bigger, not smaller.

The above content is notable, relevant, and reliably sourced. There is no legitimate reason to not include it in the article.

July 2, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , . Animals, Economics, Environmentalism, Media bias, Wikipedia. Leave a comment.

Shame on the mainstream media for ignoring government tampering with global temperature data!

Real Climate Science just posted this article, which claims that the NOAA has been tampering with its global temperature data.

The article links to government data to support its claims that the government has been tampering with the data.

This is the first chart shown in the article:


The article includes these links to government websites to verify that the government really has been tampering with global temperature data:

Raw NOAA Data:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz

Adjusted NOAA Data:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

Unfortunately, the mainstream media is not reporting on this government manipulation of global temperature data. Shame on them!

March 21, 2018. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism, Media bias. 3 comments.

The Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is getting bigger, but I don’t expect most environmentalists to celebrate

On the one hand, this report from phys.org is good news for anyone who has been truly worried that the land area of the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu was getting smaller due to the rising sea level caused by global warming. Although the sea level is indeed rising due to global warming, wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms have actually caused the land area to get bigger. The study was conducted by the University of Auckland.

On the other hand, for environmentalists who have been using this island’s alleged shrinking as an excuse to promote a political agenda, this is bad news, not good news. They will not celebrate this news. Instead, they will ignore this news, and they will get mad at anyone who does bring this news to their attention.

Based on past experience, I think that most environmentalists will fall into the later group. I say this, based on the following three things:

1) Most environmentalists ignore the fact that so many of their past predictions of doom have failed to come true.

2) Most environmentalists show zero intellectual curiosity as to why their past predictions of doom failed to come true. (By comparison, real scientists are always curious to know why their past predictions failed to come true.)

3) Most environmentalists actually get mad at me whenever I bring up the fact that their past predictions of doom have failed to come true.

Anyway, here are some predictions of doom from the first Earth Day in 1970 that failed to come true. Most environmentalists absolutely hate it when I point out these predictions. Try showing this list to any environmentalists that you know, and see how they react:

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

 

February 9, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. 4 comments.

Democratic fascist Ian Calderon wants to give six months in jail to any California restaurant employee who gives a straw to a customer without being asked

Ian Calderon, the Democratic majority leader in California’s lower house, has introduced a bill that would give six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 to any California restaurant employee who gives a straw to a customer without being asked.

After being contacted by the media, a spokesperson for Calderon said they intend to remove the fine (although, apparently, they have not done so as of the time of publication of this article). Also, apparently, the six month jail term will remain.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-criminalize-restau

January 25, 2018

Ian Calderon wants restaurateurs to think long and hard before giving you a straw.

Calderon, the Democratic majority leader in California’s lower house, has introduced a bill to stop sit-down restaurants from offering customers straws with their beverages unless they specifically request one. Under Calderon’s law, a waiter who serves a drink with an unrequested straw in it would face up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Update: Reason spoke with Voleck Taing, a senior assistant to Assemblyman Calderon, who said they intend to amend the bill to remove the fines.

January 28, 2018. Tags: , , , . Environmentalism, Police state. Leave a comment.

When measured in kwh per square foot, Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion was rated as an “energy hog,” and used more than four times as many kwh per square foot as homes that were rated as “energy efficient”

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html

August 2017

Many Gore defenders point to the large size of his residence as an explanation for his massive energy consumption.

The facts, however, do not bear this argument out.

According to Energy Vanguard, a company devoted to making homes more energy efficient, an “efficient” home uses between 5-10 kWh of electricity per square foot each year. A house that consumes 15 kWh per square foot or more of electricity per year is categorized as “bad” due to its inefficiency and excessive electricity consumption. Homes that expend more than 20 kWh of electricity per square foot each year are labeled “energy hogs,” which is Energy Vanguard’s worst rating.

Gore’s home consumed 22.9 kWh per square foot in the past 12 months, more than quadrupling the electricity consumption of homes that are considered energy efficient, regardless of size. Based on its kWh per square foot measure, the house would easily earn an “energy hog” rating.

Even by apples-to-apples comparison, Gore’s home is extraordinarily energy inefficient and consumes an astonishing amount of electricity.

August 4, 2017. Tags: , , , . Environmentalism. 1 comment.

My response to New York Magazine’s “The Uninhabitable Earth” is to remind you of these bogus doomsayer predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970

On July 9, 2017, New York Magazine published this article, which is called, “The Uninhabitable Earth.”

On July 14, 2017 – just five days later – New York Magazine said that the article

“… is already the most-read article in New York Magazine’s history.”

My response to this article is to remind you of the following bogus doomsayer predictions that were made during the first Earth Day in 1970:

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

Real scientists learn form their mistakes, and from the mistakes of others.

However, the environmental doomsayers who have been making these bogus predictions for many decades have expressed absolutely zero interest in learning why these predictions of the past failed to come true.

Instead, these doomsayers pretend that these failed predictions were never made, in the hopes that their current audience has either forgotten about them, or was never even aware of them in the first place.

Whatever happened to the scientific method?

Whatever happened to a willingness to admit to being wrong?

Whatever happened to the desire to learn from one’s mistakes, as well as from the mistakes of others?

For the scientifically illiterates out there who don’t know that carbon dioxide is the bottom of the food chain, here is an article form NASA called “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

Also, back when the dinosaurs were alive, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were five times as high as they are today, and global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the earth was not “uninhabitable.” It was actually the exact opposite, which is why it was home to the biggest land animals that the planet has ever had.

I wrote this blog entry, which is called “The world’s supply of resources is getting bigger, not smaller.” It includes links to verify its claims.

I also made this video, which is called “Hitler gets mad at Al Gore’s global warming hypocrisy.” The video’s description contains links to verify its claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfr37Xn9IL8

 

July 16, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism, Overpopulation, Politics, Science. 1 comment.

World Health Organization: United States among least polluting nations on the planet

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/05/who-united-states-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

WHO: United States Among Least Polluting Nations on the Planet

June 5, 2017

Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet.

In the most recent WHO report on air pollution, the United States was listed as one of the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner in fact than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.

While France and other G7 countries lamented the U.S. exit from the Paris climate accord, America’s air is already cleaner than that of any other country in the G7.

Following standard practice, the WHO measures air pollution by the mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter. These are the particles that cause diseases of all sorts and are responsible for most deaths by air pollution.

According to the WHO, exposure to particulate matter increases the risk of acute lower respiratory infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

The report, which analyzed the “annual median concentration of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5) for both urban population and rural and urban population” found that the United States was one of the most pollution-free nations in the world.

The annual mean concentrations of particulate matter in the air range from less than 10 to over 100 µg/m3, the report states. At the very low end of the spectrum, the United States has a concentration of just 8, while China has a concentration more than seven times higher at 59, India at 66, Egypt at 101 and Saudi Arabia with the worst air pollution at 127.

“The mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter is a common measure of air pollution,” the WHO states.

The WHO report is corroborated by a series of other such studies on air and water pollution.

In a recent list of the 25 cleanest cities in the world, the only country to boast three cities among the cleanest on the planet was the United States of America, with Chicago coming in second place, Honolulu coming in fourth, and Portland, OR, coming in sixteenth. Unsurprisingly, no cities from China, Russia or India made the list at all.

Similarly, another list of the 15 most polluted cities in the world featured three cities from China, three cities from Saudi Arabia, and a whopping seven cities from India. No U.S. city made the list.

A third list, ranking the ten cleanest and ten most polluted cities in the world, placed two U.S. cities on the list of cleanest cities on the planet. The list of the most polluted cities in the world was led by two cities from China followed by two more cities from India. Two Russian cities also made the list. Again, no U.S. cities were found here.

With such relatively clean air throughout America, how can even reputable news agencies like Reuters continue spreading the well-worn lie that the United States is one of the “biggest polluters” in the world?

Rather than follow the time-tested practice used by the World Health Organization, which measures levels of disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs, some have played a shell game, swapping a new measure of “pollution” based solely on emissions of carbon dioxide.

The problem with this ploy is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is dishonest to say it is. CO2 is colorless, odorless and completely non-toxic. Plants depend on it to live and grow, and human beings draw some into their lungs with every breath they take to no ill effect whatsoever.

Growers regularly pump CO2 into greenhouses, raising levels to three times that of the natural environment, to produce stronger, greener, healthier plants.

Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior eras, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm.

Some experts, such as UN climate scientist Dr. Indur Goklany, have defended rising CO2 levels as a good thing for humanity. Goklany has argued that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally.”

“The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he said.

While the United States must remain vigilant to keep the level of real, dangerous pollutants to a minimum, it may take some consolation in the fact that among G7 nations, it has the cleanest air of all.

June 5, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Nature: “Continued U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement on Climate would be symbolic and have no effect on U.S. emissions.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3309.epdf?shared_access_token=by1S4GXzN-UCvp5a0p4J5dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MMaWb67ZuNosbRzMzZvfYDoC67OPvXIleME-qWdTTGP4rMIIsfv3m60DsuCVkktBakKVcErllhnGnTZcfCSrHJ-7hYUuMRcH75sS0h9TSg2sEgq30QnQ_t1-z_2ptZOQE%3D

May 22, 2017

Continued U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement on Climate would be symbolic and have no effect on U.S. emissions.

 

June 3, 2017. Tags: , , , , . Environmentalism, Politics. Leave a comment.

Support for Paris Agreement = admission that Kyoto Protocol was a scam

Two decades ago, we were told that the world needed to pass the Kyoto Treaty in order to stop manmade global warming from reaching dangerous and destructive levels. The treaty was passed.

But now, we are being told that the world needs the Paris Agreement in order to stop manmade global warming from reaching dangerous and destructive levels.

Therefore, support for the Paris Agreement is an admission that the Kyoto Protocol was a scam.

 

June 3, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism, Politics. 1 comment.

On Earth Day, Hitler gets mad at Al Gore’s global warming hypocrisy

I wrote the dialogue for this. The video’s description contains links to verify every claim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfr37Xn9IL8

April 20, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism, Humor. 2 comments.

This person says the Vortex Bladeless cannot produce the claimed power, and is just a scam to raise money

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9VjJ1e1nIY

April 16, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Wouldn’t this “toxic” Mountain Dew syrup have eventually ended up in the public sewers anyway?

I just found out that last month in Howell, Michigan, at a Pepsi bottling plant, 7,200 gallons of concentrated Mountain Dew syrup was spilled. The relevant people successfully prevented this “toxic” substance from entering the public sewer system.

But let’s say that the spill had not occurred, and the “toxic” syrup had been used for its intended purpose.

Then wouldn’t this “toxic” syrup have eventually ended up in the public sewer system anyway?

 

April 10, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism, Food. 1 comment.

Environmental hypocrites who were protesting against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, burned oil to keep themselves warm! They also left enough litter to fill more than 250 garbage trucks!

Environmental hypocrites who were protesting against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, burned oil to keep themselves warm!

They also left enough litter to fill more than 250 garbage trucks!

Fox News writes of this: (the bolding is mine)

What was once a bustling makeshift city is now a largely abandoned garbage pit. Teepees and yurts, thousands of sheets of plywood and tents, kerosene and propane stoves, diesel and gasoline generators, food, clothing, cars and mountains of human waste lie in what was once a pristine floodplain that abutted the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

Nothing but bison and horses roamed here. Unless the debris is moved, state officials say it will wash into and contaminate the Missouri River.

Already 250 loads of trash have been removed, but much more remains. And police say they need to get everyone out to finish the job.

This suggests to me that the real reason for their protest has nothing to do with protecting the environment.

I think this fake environment protest is all about the egos of the protestors, and has nothing to do with actually protecting the environment.

I think the real reason for their protest is so they can smugly pat each other on the back, and falsely claim that they “protected” the environment.

Actions speak louder than words. And their actions show that they don’t give a darn about the environment that they claim to be “protecting.”

 

February 22, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. 2 comments.

Videos show huge piles of litter left by environmentalist protestors at Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota

Environmentalist protestors at Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota left massive amounts of litter.

The litter has frozen, and could become toxic.

It will take an estimated 250 garbage trucks to carry away the litter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHgmoIno5PU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sdbcXt6m90

http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Sanitation-crews-work-to-remove-massive-amounts-of-garbage-from-DAPL-protest-camp-before-spring-thaw-412954433.html

Sanitation crews work to remove massive amounts of garbage from DAPL protest camp before spring thaw

February 6, 2017

CANNON BALL, N.D. – Last week, we showed you all the garbage that was left by Dakota Access Pipeline protesters at the Oceti Sakowin Camp.

Now, we’re showing you where all that trash will end up.

Sanitation crews are working hard to dispose of six months’ worth of garbage from a community the size of Wahpeton or Valley City. The mountains of debris need to be moved before the spring thaw occurs.

Making a dent in the immense amount of trash being hauled out of the Oceti Sakowin protest camp is being hindered by the weather. All the garbage that was left behind is now frozen into massive chunks of junk.

In a month, all this trash could become toxic.

“Standing Rock Environmental Protection Agency and Dakota Sanitation are working together to try and advert an environmental tragedy,” says Tom Doering, Morton County Emergency Manager.

It’s estimated it will take 250 trucks filled with litter to clear the camp.

“There’s a lot of work to be done,” says Doering.

Each load that’s dumped is inspected by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department.

February 8, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. 2 comments.

Next Page »