DEAR GREENPEACE

Tara & Leon Wojcichowsky 

Tara Wojcichowsky                                                November 10 at 5:37 PM

This is a letter my husband wrote to Greenpeace about them and all the people who think that oil and oil products are not needed on earth or people’s daily lives.

So to all you oil industry haters, maybe you should read this and come to reality!!!

Please, to everyone out there who agrees, share like crazy!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Greenpeace

By Leon Wojcichowsky

I am a very concerned 41-year old Canadian family man (yes, male, I can still distinguish), born in a small village in Saskatchewan and currently residing in Medicine Hat, Alberta. I would love to assist your organization in making the world a better place. I recently read a quote from Mr. Stewart that ‘oil in Alberta is unnecessary’ and something about ‘only clean energy’ (of course I am mildly paraphrasing but it was the gist of the CTV article). Now, I can tell you that I was angered by these comments. So, as Greenpeace has all the answers, I thought who better to contact other than the fine individuals of your organization.

Issue # 1 -Transportation: As almost everyone in Canada is not living in the GTA, what is the cleanest form of transportation that you could recommend for my family (which includes my wife, 2 teenage daughters, and the family dog)? Public transportation across the prairies (to visit family) is almost non-existent since the closure of Greyhound and STC (Saskatchewan Transport Company). Even when the bus lines were fully operational, 10 to 14-hour bus trips to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ were way too long and fares for the family were too expensive. I should also mention a normal drive time for a personal vehicle is approximately 6 hours. So, with public transportation out of the question, I need to own a vehicle. Please recommend a vehicle on the market that has no oil products in it. Maybe, if I can get personal on some level, what kinds of vehicles are most commonly owned by Greenpeace executives/employees? I only ask because as I read the news (and any other publication that posts the comments of individuals such as Keith Stewart), apparently Greenpeace has no use for oil and oil produced products, as they all pollute the earth. Climate change, you know. So, should I buy an electric car … NO, I can’t. As a rational, reasonable thinking Canadian, I am aware that electric cars are full of … NO, wait … Almost COMPLETELY composed of, and manufactured with/by oil-based products. I guess electric cars are out too. Horseback? NO. Riding on horseback would get me into all kinds of trouble with the good people over at PETA and WWF. Don’t want them trying to shut me down. My best guess is that none of you folks over there own a personal vehicle. Well let me know which way to go on that one.

Issue # 2- Food: Now I’m sure that no one from the world of Greenpeace buys that grubby food produced on and from farms across Canada. Those farmers use an abundant amount of diesel to produce every scrap and morsel of food that can be found in every grocery store across this great nation. I mean seriously, how is it that all Canadians can’t understand this simple truth. Milk, bread, meat, vegetables, etc. have all come from a farmer, who I can promise you, owns a tractor. Tractors burn a lot of fuel. If you were or are unaware of this revelation, I will guarantee these facts, as I was born and raised on a Canadian farm. ALL the food consumed from the store has come from a farm somewhere. Then to top it off, those grocers have everything packaged one way or another to keep food fresh and sanitary (God knows we can’t have someone else’s germs on our food). Again, oil issues, all that packaging (to keep the food safe) is made with and by oil products. Honestly, it feels like I can’t win. So, like activists, I have a garden for all our food. However; protein (you know, meat) is a real issue. City bylaws say I’m not allowed a pig (for pork products such as bacon and such), or a cow (steaks). I can have five chickens. I guess those teenage girls I mentioned earlier are going on a diet. I am very concerned for the well-being of people living in apartments (where gardens are impossible). By the way, where do you get all your food from?

Issue # 3 -Heating: This is a touchy subject. How would a man as intelligent as Keith Stewart and other lead activists heat their homes? Now I am somewhat intelligent as I only have a Grade 12 education from a small prairie high school (not big city educated), but I can’t figure this one out for two reasons. Natural gas … I don’t think so! Pollution! That clean burning gas from the ground is still produced by Big Oil (we hate those guys). I was going to switch to coal but, carbon tax (pollution, again). Wood burning is not the way to heat our homes, it’s soon going to be illegal to cut down trees (emissions, again). Solar energy, well, that doesn’t stand a chance in Canada. Geothermal would almost be the way to go if it didn’t require drilling and glycol-based fluids. I don’t need to tell you folks the ecological effects that a glycol spill has on the environment and animals. Wind turbines would be almost effective if they weren’t so expensive to set up and not to mention the amount of poor birds that would die as a result. PETA, again, would not be pleased. So, please help, I currently have no way to heat my home that isn’t a pollution issue.

Issue # 4 - Electronics: As we all hate Big Oil, we must destroy all electronic devices. No computers, phones, tablets, etc. If it has a computer chip, a plastic-coated wire, a power cord, I mean if even one component of any device/machine contains oil and/or oil by-products, it must be destroyed. Big Oil is not going to keep you and me from our dream of a better planet. No more electronics … I can’t write this letter, businesses everywhere can’t operate, you can’t get your points across. Maybe we need oil? What do you think?

If we (as a country) are not going to produce oil, whom/where does Mr. Stewart want us to buy it from - as I think we have established that it is currently a requirement in every Canadian household including yours? The obvious answer must be the Saudi’s, America or maybe Venezuela (all environmentally-conscious places, right …?). Which does leave me curious, if all our oil is imported, does the carbon tax go up or down? Maybe imported oil is carbon free? The Liberal government would have Canadians believe that the carbon tax will stop global warming. You men and women are smarter than that, right? I’d like to think that as Canadians we should support Canadian oil as it is one of the most regulated oil producing countries on the planet.

Is everyone at Greenpeace living in a time warp? Are you all individuals who are living off the land, being 100 percent self-sufficient? If you are, you wouldn’t be able to read this email. However, we both know that you have the ability to do so, which means Greenpeace is also on the Big Oil wagon. Please don’t be ashamed. Just own it. Stop preaching to the masses. When your organization and personnel are willing to walk your own talk, then I guess we’ll have something to discuss.

Are you so blinded by tofu farting hippies that you can’t see the plain truth? Let us all be honest, organizations such as yours and the ones like it are not willing to make the hard sacrifices to accomplish any real change. Like almost every lobbyist group, you’d prefer to bitch and whine about everything until the donations stop coming in and then move on until the next money-making issue swings around. Granted; Greenpeace started with admirable beginnings, but like all good ideas, it always ends up about the money. Or am I way off base?

I do expect a response, for if I don’t get one … you’re going to find this letter on every news feed and publication that will print it. I will send it to Ottawa (not a threat with the current ‘leadership’, but the Conservatives might listen). I’ll post it on every social media outlet I can sign up for and people will read it. I know that the loudest voice is the one the public hears the best. By now you must understand that you can’t be the only voice for people to listen to.

 Sincerely

 Leon W.

As you may have guessed, there has been no response from Greenpeace, so, here we go.

If you agree with my thoughts, please feel free to discuss, forward, share, post, etc. We can no longer sit back and let others be the only voice that the public, activists, government, etc. are listening to you. I think that with our oil-built electronics, we must circulate this letter. Let's get people talking. 

Thanks for your help.

NO on Water 7E

Vote NO on Water 7 E.

 The long healthy ears of corn are from part of the field not swamped out by Central.
The runts are from the swampy part. 

Central Colorado Water Conservancy District promotes 7E as “supporting family farms." That, is verifiably misleading! 

7E has nothing to do with farming. It has instead, everything to do with taking Senior Water away from its owners and moving it east past its flow’s historic drying; there, it’s diverted and sold to Water buyers for various uses.  

Documentation proves that since 2006, Senior Water Rights have been, and continue to be illegally “taken without just compensation.”

Through Colorado’s illegitimate Water Courts, certain entities have deployed an exceptionally creative host of methods to take water without paying original Senior Water Rights Owners.

Too many of my Farmer friends have been significantly harmed by Water Court(s) and Central. This is my small contribution to help them get justice. 

Here’s an extreme brief of my firsthand experience with Central.

To put it bluntly, I have no use whatsoever for Central or Kangaroo Court; my tag for Water Court.  

Here’s why: Central has become Agriculture’s main obstruction on the upper S. Platte.

Their illegal dumping of augmentation water into my privately-owned drain ditch is virtually destroying my farm. 

Central,  along with John Stulp just laugh at my in-person request and letters from my attorney to “Stop dumping augment water in my seep ditch!”

Their continuation of illegal dumping has added to the already rising water table. This damages the soil rendering it useless for crop growth. 
Because I can no longer lease that acreage, I’m accruing considerable losses in revenue.

Very soon I will cap the portion of the augmentation pipe that was illegally installed on part of my property. It now dumps right onto my private property. By stopping the illegal dumping, it is my hope that after a couple years the swampy acreage will return to Production Acreage; that which it was for a hundred years. 

Colorado Water courts refuse to recognize the “Allotment Quantity” of Senior Water Rights owners. Instead, they use a “Consumptive Use” method to value water shares. Then they claim, “because the water table’s high, you don’t need to use as much…therefore…”

Here’s a general breakout: Surface water stock is sold by acre feet of consumptive use at today’s price per share of around $10,000.00 per acre foot. 

In 2004, Godfrey shares were allocated by Water court as Consumptive Use at 19.5 acre feet per share. Thus, at today’s value of surface water, a surface water share would be $195,000.00.

In 2006, it dropped to 15.5-acre feet per share and thus $155,000.00 per share. 

Seeing their use of Consumptive Use dropping, and how rapidly this was devaluating water shares, in 2016 I sold 17 of my 21 shares at $123,000.00 per share.

Consider though, the total equity loss on 21 shares was $1.5 million dollars.

At the rate Colorado Water Court devalues Water shares, coupled with Centrals actions, they’ll soon be worth nothing.

It saddens me that most farmers haven’t figured this out. The ones who have sold, packed up lock, stock and barrel, and moved out of Colorado!

If Roni and I were younger, we’d do the same!

I’m still losing equity on my four remaining shares. But will keep them to irrigate my horse pastures - and maintain my exercise in doing so.

If you’re interested in learning the bigger picture, Roni and I would be honored to visit.

7E is a crop killer! NO on 7E!

Thank you,

Chuck Sylvester

7E is a crop killer!

 

This shows the difference pre-illegal and post illegal dumping. 

THE SEA IS RISING

Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Robert Carter                                               Photo by Roni Bell 2014

The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change. 

There is nothing we can do about it, except to build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher. 
By Fred Singer

WSJ, May 15, 2018 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sea-is-rising-but-not-because-of-climate-change-1526423254 

Of all known and imagined consequences of climate change, many people fear sea-level rise most. But efforts to determine what causes seas to rise are marred by poor data and disagreements about methodology. 
The noted oceanographer Walter Munk referred to sea-level rise as an “enigma”; it has also been called a riddle and a puzzle. It is generally thought that sea-level rise accelerates mainly by thermal expansion of sea water, the so-called steric component. But by studying a very short time interval, it is possible to sidestep most of the complications, like “isostatic adjustment” of the shoreline (as continents rise after the overlying ice has melted) and “subsidence” of the shoreline (as ground water and minerals are extracted). 
I chose to assess the sea-level trend from 1915-45, when a genuine, independently confirmed warming of approximately 0.5 degree Celsius occurred. I note particularly that sea-level rise is not affected by the warming; it continues at the same rate, 1.8 millimeters a year, according to a 1990 review by Andrew S. Trupin and John Wahr. 
I therefore conclude—contrary to the general wisdom—that the temperature of sea water has no direct effect on sea-level rise. That means neither does the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. 
This conclusion is worth highlighting: It shows that sea-level rise does not depend on the use of fossil fuels. The evidence should allay fear that the release of additional CO2 will increase sealevel rise. But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at an accelerating rate. The trend has been measured by a network of tidal gauges, many of which have been collecting data for over a century. The cause of the trend is a puzzle. Physics demands that water expand as its temperature increases. But to keep the rate of rise constant, as observed, expansion of sea water evidently must be offset by something else. What could that be? I conclude that it must be ice accumulation, through evaporation of ocean water, and subsequent precipitation turning into ice. 
Evidence suggests that accumulation of ice on the Antarctic continent has been offsetting the steric effect for at least several centuries. It is difficult to explain why evaporation of seawater produces approximately 100% cancellation of expansion. 
My method of analysis considers two related physical phenomena: thermal expansion of water and evaporation of water molecules. But if evaporation offsets thermal expansion, the net effect is of course close to zero. What then is the real cause of sea-level rise of 1 to 2 millimeters a year? Melting of glaciers and ice sheets adds water to the ocean and causes sea levels to rise. (Recall though that the melting of floating sea ice adds no water to the oceans, and hence does not affect the sea level.) After the rapid melting away of northern ice sheets, the slow melting of Antarctic ice at the periphery of the continent may be the main cause of current sea-level rise. All this, because it is much warmer now than 12,000 years ago, at the end of the most recent glaciation. Yet there is little heat available in the Antarctic to support melting. 
We can see melting happening right now at the Ross Ice Shelf of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Geologists have tracked Ross’s slow disappearance, and glaciologist Robert Bindschadler predicts the ice shelf will melt completely within about 7,000 years, gradually raising the sea level as it goes. Of course, a lot can happen in 7,000 years. 
The onset of a new glaciation could cause the sea level to stop rising. It could even fall 400 feet, to the level at the last glaciation maximum 18,000 years ago. Currently, sea-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperature, and certainly not on CO2. 
We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. By 2100 the seas will rise another 6 inches or so—a far cry from Al Gore’s alarming numbers. 
There is nothing we can do about rising sea levels in the meantime. We’d better build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher. 

Mr. Singer is a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

CDOT WASTES YOUR MONEY!

Hwy 60 bridge - Photo taken by Roni Bell 2018

A brief update on CDOT and S. Platte River  

Note the debris on the south bank (S. Platte), 

and the trees on the north bank.

This is just one of many examples of CDOT wasting your money! 

CDOT refuses to maintain their easements under road/highway bridges. Instead, they waste taxpayer dollars planting trees. 

Instead of maintaining their easements, CDOT "allows" waterways to back up and damage conjoining properties. 

Here's another photo of a CDOT easement that operates at about 30%. Scouring has already started on some of the columns. 

Governor Hickenlooper toured here 3/2014. To date, no debris's been removed. 

West side of Hwy 85 bridge - Photo by Roni Bell 2015

 CDOT also threatens some conjoining property owners with condemnation. 

Yes, that's correct. CDOT uses YOUR money to sue private property owners, subjecting them to significant harm. Just so CDOT can seize control of more property - and build bridges higher than the debris? 

Because CDOT refuses to maintain their easements, it'll only take about 3 years for the debris to add on to the preexisting. Will CDOT return to condemn more private property to build higher bridges? 

What's the truth behind CDOT's actions? 

Did you know that even though the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority whatsoever over any *waterway in Colorado, CDOT blames them, they blame CDOT, both blame the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and Governor Hickenlooper stands mute. 

Here are some excellent flood management excerpts from THE RIVER CREST.  

"Finding ways to avoid or minimize flooding impacts should always be among the first considerations for the flood preparedness effort. 

Post-evaluations of flood events have shown that poor pre-planning for disasters can lead to communication failures, inefficiencies, chaos and increased losses to life and property. Thoughtful dialog and active problem-solving by the stakeholders is fundamental to community planning for flood events.

We recommend that all residents behind levees, sponsors, and owners take a fresh look at the levee. Are drainage ditches clear, closure gates ship-shape and operable? Latest levee inspection reviewed and addressed?"

*waterway - There are no "navigable" waterways in Colorado. 

Archives: https://ronibell.blogspot.com/2017/03/union-pacific-action-update-on-hwy-85.html

ENDING SECRET SCIENCE AT EPA

Ending secret science at EPA

Administrator Pruitt initiates overdue changes to bring transparency, integrity to rulemaking

By Paul Driessen

Environmental Protection Agency Adminproposed to end the longstanding EPA practice of using secretive, often questionable, even deceptive science to support agency policy and regulatory initiatives. His proposed rules will ensure that any science underlying agency actions is transparent and publicly available for independent experts to examine and validate – or point out its flaws.

istrator Scott Pruitt has

It also responds to growing concerns that extensive scientific research in environmental, medical and other arenas cannot be replicated by other scientists, or is compromised by cherry-picked data, poor research design, sloppy analysis or biased researchers. The situation has led to calls for increased sharing of data and methodologies, more independent peer review and other actions to weed out problems. There is no excuse for hiding data when studies are funded by taxpayers or used to justify regulations.

The situation has been especially acute at EPA. As Mr. Pruitt observed, “The ability to test, authenticate and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rule making process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”

That is particularly true for regulations that exact millions or billions in compliance costs, affect thousands of jobs, target industries and coal-fired electricity generators that regulators want to close down, or seek to replace all fossil fuel use with “renewable” energy. With the cumulative economic impact of federal regulations reaching nearly $2 trillion per year, research reform is absolutely essential.

We need regulation and pollution control – but it must be based on solid, replicable, honest science. 

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has held hearings and championed multiple bills to address the problem. Several have been passed by the House of Representatives, only to languish in the Senate. With courts offering little or no help, Executive Branch action may be the only remaining solution.

Deceptive, faulty science on fine particulate pollution (PM2.5) was the bedrock of the Obama EPA’s war on coal. Particulates don’t just make you sick; they are directly related “to dying sooner than you should,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson falsely told Congress. There is no level “at which premature mortality effects do not occur,” Mr. Obama’s next Administrator Gina McCarthy dishonestly testified.

At the same time they made these claims, they were presiding over illegal experiments on humans – including people with asthma, diabetes and heart disease – who were subjected to eight, 30 or even 60 times more particulates per volume, for up to two hours, than what EPA claimed are dangerous or lethal. None of them got sick, proving that EPA’s claims were false. The agency refused to correct its claims.

EPA took a similar stance on mercury – asserting that power plant emissions were causing dangerously high mercury levels in American children and pregnant women. In reality, US power plants account for just 0.5% of all the mercury in the air Americans breathe, and blood mercury counts for US women and children are well below even EPA’s excessively safe levels, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

How did EPA’s junk science, illegal experiments and heavy-handed regulations pass muster? For one thing, politics too often dictated the science. In addition, the agency paid more than $180 million over a 16-year period to institutions represented by members of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which often rubberstamped studies and conclusions that failed integrity and transparency tests.

On global warming, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, which claimed emissions of (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels threatened the health and welfare of American citizens.

It reached this conclusion by looking only at studies and computer models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, while ignoring volumes of studies by independent scientists who found no such threat. EPA officials even told one of the agency’s own senior experts that his studies would not be shared with agency staff and he was to cease any further work on climate change, because his analyses “do not help the legal or policy case for this decision” that fossil fuel CO2 emissions endanger Americans.

EPA was also a principal force behind the “social cost of carbon” scheme that supposedly calculated how much CO2-driven climate change would cost the United States and how those costs would be reduced by slashing fossil fuel use. The alleged cost of damages began at an arbitrary $22 per ton of carbon dioxide released in 2010, then climbed to an equally random $30 per ton in 2013 and $40 per ton in 2016.

Incredibly, EPA modelers also claimed they can accurately forecast global temperatures, climate and weather, technological advances, economic development, living standards – and damages to global civilizations and ecosystems from US carbon dioxide emissions – for the next 300 years! Moreover, in the real world, the benefits of using carbon-based fuels and improving crop, forest and grassland growth via higher atmospheric CO2 levels outweigh hypothesized costs by at least 50-to-1 to as much as 500-to-1.

Deceptive, politicized, policy-driven “science” like this pervaded EPA regulatory actions for too many years. Reaction to Mr. Pruitt’s corrective actions show how poorly informed his critics can be.

* The changes will force researchers to reveal personal or confidential information about participants in health studies. No they won’t. Such information is not needed and can easily be redacted.

* EPA can keep us safe from harmful chemicals only if it takes full advantage of all available scientific research. Public health and safety depend on ensuring that research and data purportedly supporting it are made public and carefully reviewed by multiple experts, to ensure accuracy and integrity. EPA will take full advantage of all available research that passes these tests. Tax-funded studies should all be public!

* The rules will exclude studies that rely on outside funding sources which limit access to underlying data. Those studies should be excluded. The funders need to revise their policies to ensure integrity. 

* The rules will exclude so much research that they will endanger public health. Not so. The only studies EPA will likely not see is what researchers know will not pass muster, and thus do not submit. The real danger comes from research that is based on shoddy data, algorithms, models and analyses that past researchers have been able to keep secret. That is precisely what the rules will ferret out and correct.

* Pruitt has removed scientists who receive EPA funding from participating in advisory committees. As noted above, those scientists had received millions of dollars in exchange for supporting EPA analyses, initiatives and regulations. Pruitt wants input from experts whose views can be trusted.

* Pruitt has criticized the peer review process. Too many peer reviews have been conducted by closed circles of associated scientists who rely on government grants and support regulatory decisions to maintain funding. Some refused to share data with experts who might critique their work – or worked to keep contrarian research out of scientific journals. The fact that some journals rarely require access to or review of underlying data further demonstrates why the peer review process also needs to be reformed. 

Too many past EPA policies, policy-driven research and regulations have been employed to force the nation to abandon fossil fuels that still supply 80% of US and global energy – and switch to expensive, intermittent, unreliable wind and solar energy installations that will require unsustainable amounts of land and raw materials, while destroying wildlife habitats and slaughtering birds and bats by the millions.

Those actions also killed numerous jobs and left many communities impoverished. Simply put, the danger to Americans’ health and welfare, livelihoods and living standards is regulations imposed in response to secretive, sloppy, substandard science that has ill-served EPA and the nation.

Ethics charges against Mr. Pruitt should be evaluated with all this in mind – and while acknowledging that members of Congress who are railing against him never complained about Lisa Jackson or Gina McCarthy’s CASAC payment abuses, illegal experiments on human test subjects, false testimony about particulates, EPA-orchestrated sue-and-settle lawsuits that imposed billions in regulations while enriching environmentalist groups … and junk-science regulations that cost the United States incalculable billions of dollars, brought no environmental benefits, and impaired the welfare of millions of people.

Pruitt’s reforms are long overdue. Honest politicians, journalists and voters will applaud him and them. Other government agencies should initiate similar science and rulemaking reforms.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.

MAGA Success Angers Globalists

MAGA Success Angers Globalists

by Michael McCune 

Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Great Again" was dismissed a political rhetoric. But, 15 months after taking office, his MAGA effort is getting pummeled from the rest of the globe because they are seeing the actual results.

The effort to derail MAGA is taking on legendary proportions but is best seen when one considers the attackers of Trump's policy are not limited to the United States' anti-Trump coalition but is coming from almost every corner of the Earth.

The G20, IMF and OPEC are just three of the attack sources. Those three never had a single word of complaint against the U.S. of A. when globalist Barack Obama was in office but America changed more than just the leader's name last November, it changed the way the rest of the world must amend its policies if they want access to the largest consuming nation on the planet. None of them saw the effects coming.

Prior to Trump's campaign motto, the closest thing to a shock wave in the globalist community was when the United Kingdom voted to leave the Euro Union in Brexit. In looking at the global impact, Brexit was a fleabite compared to Trump's elephant stomp.

How much of an impact has MAGA had on the global community? Since last Friday there has been a steady stream of anti-Trump headlines in trade news reports.

"China May Renege of Deleveraging as Trade War Looms", "Trump's Revenge: U.S. Oil Floods Europe, Hurting Russia and OPEC", "Trump Admin Pushes Back Against IMF Trade Criticism" and "U.S. Fund Managers Brace for Trade War, Seek Pricing Power" are just examples of how quickly Trump's actions are hurting the globalist's position.

It is quite apparent the world made two mistakes. The first was it took the U.S. consumer for granted as constant that would always be there to spur their economies upwards. The second was following MSM headlines and dismissing Trump's campaign as all-talk and no-action as had become the American norm.

The first report above, on China, started out bluntly, "China's efforts to reduce its reliance on debt and find a more sustainable route to grow its economy may be derailed by the simmering trade dispute with the United States."

The report goes on to detail how some of China's most necessary economic goals--specifically gaining control of its' black shadow banking' system--have had to be abandoned because of Trump's MAGA policy. In the past week the Chinese have cut the amount of cash reserves required at banks, vowed to cut taxes and announced cuts in electricity charges.

Now most of these planning alterations "surprised financial markets" if you only follow MSM. The debt load problem is one the Rant has been pointing to for years while taking pains to detail the growing global debt problem.

The second report on U.S. Oil exports was revealing in new ways. It clearly demonstrated that the recently-breached U.S. policy of non-exporting any Continental U.S. oil has put the rest of the energy-producing reliant countries on alert. When OPEC-announced production cuts artificially drove the price of oil up (aiding OPEC, Russia and Europe's North Sea values), the altered U.S. policy neatly kicked the economic prop out from under those places.

That report stated, "the relatively high prices brought about by that [production cut] pact, coupled with surging U.S. output, are making it harder to sell Russian, Nigerian and other oil grades in Europe." It was noted in the first four months of this year U.S. Europe oil export capacity surged more than 400% to 6.8 million tonnes. 

The third report showed how the litany of complaints against the aggressive Trump reversals in U.S. trade policy has grown exponentially in the past month.

The G-20, while wrapping up another meeting, was almost unanimous in blaming the Trump-China trade war (please notice how one man's verbal assault on a foreign nation is equated as a war) for forcing it to try and find a way to coordinate other economic policy efforts to preserve "the strongest economic expansion since the 2008 recession."

Since the Federal Reserve seems to be alone in raising interest rates, the inflation-fighting policy tactics noted by the G-20 had to be directed at the U.S. alone. Therefore when the Trump Administration singled out the IMF to do more to combat unfair global trade practices, the negative feedback from the G-20 meeting was understandable. The rest of the world can not abide having Trump's MAGA policy actually succeed..

It was interesting to note most of the negative spokespeople were from lower-status G-20 members like Brazil and Argentina but that many Euro Union reps also joined the chorus of boos for the U.S. delegation's openly-stated objective of "free and fair and reciprocal trade."

Finally the report on the U.S. stock fund managers' efforts to find companies that can easily pass on higher costs to their customers demonstrated the fear of inflation are a reality. These managers are focusing on investments in companies that have "dominant niches or intellectual property" that will allow them to grow even during a time of rising costs.

The problem there is that is one area the Trump Administration has been most vocal about protecting so the investment gurus know the Trump policy is working, unlike past Administrations who placed political expediency ahead of business sense.

Trump's MAGA policy may not be making MSM headlines here in America but he sure has gotten the rest of the world's attention simply because if he is successful, they will be pushed back to the brink of early 20th Century economies.

"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson  

WHAT ON EARTH?

Climate adaptation, reparation and restoration

Boulder, CO wants oil companies to restore snowy winters of an idyllic past – and pay it billions

By Paul Driessen

This Earth Day (April 22) we need to ask whether environmentalism has gone completely bonkers.

Back in the 1970s, I skied Colorado’s cross-country and downhill slopes pretty regularly. Some years were incredible: many feet of snow as glorious to behold as to ski on. Other years, like 1977, I’d come around a bend on my XC skis, see nothing but rock in front of me, and just ditch.

Who knew the industry I worked for in the later 70s was causing these climate and weather mood swings – even then, long before carbon dioxide levels hit the cataclysmic 400 ppm mark? Who knew profit-hungry oil companies were already preventing the Centennial State from having endless seasons of perfect ski conditions, followed by ample spring meltwater for cities, agriculture and trout streams?

I ask this because the People’s Republic of Boulder, CO has joined Oakland, San Francisco, New York and other liberal enclaves in suing for “climate relief.” Boulder doesn’t share the CA/NY worries about rising seas. Even Al Gore doesn’t claim the Pacific Ocean will reach the Mile High City anytime soon.

Boulderites want the courts to force ExxonMobil and Suncor to pay treble damages for causing too much snow and thus floods in some years, too little snow and thus droughts and poor ski conditions in other years; multiple heat waves in some years, bitter cold in others. They seek unspecified cash for climate adaptation, repair and reparation expenses – and restoration of idyllic conditions of selected past years.

Their 106-page, 478-paragraph complaint (with scores of sub-paragraphs) alleges that oil companies have committed public and private nuisance, trespass, continued sales of “huge amounts of fossil fuels,” and willful concealment of known harm from those sales – all to the great detriment of Boulder citizens.

These are the same fuels that saved whales from imminent extinction and gave Boulder and humanity prosperity, technology, health and longevity no one could even imagine when Colorado became a state in 1876. But now they’re suing the companies that have provided reliable, affordable fuels and raw materials that have brought them lights, heat, livelihoods, living standards, and countless products from paints, plastics, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers to skis, ski parkas, and vehicle fuel and asphalt roads to ski areas.

No wonder Para. 476 pointedly says “plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin any oil and gas operations or sales in Colorado.” To paraphrase Para. 453: plaintiffs received immense benefits from defendants’ products and actions, and it would be unconscionable and contrary to equity for plaintiffs to retain those benefits. Before collecting a dime, plaintiffs should reject future benefits and pay Exxon for past benefits received.

As to alleged fossil fuel damages in the form of wildfires and beetle kills, perhaps Boulder and its Sierra Club allies could employ better forest management – such as thinning trees, removing dead and diseased trees, and spraying to control pine bark beetles. It would be equally salubrious if they would stop abusing gullible children – by having little Sequoia berate Exxon for causing floods, fires and less snow.

As to the allegation that Exxon and Suncor have deprived Boulder of its once-snowy climate, the area’s annual snowfall records demonstrate how ludicrous the claim is.

Its heaviest calendar year snow was 159 inches in 1997; the worst was 36 inches in 1904. It had over 100 inches 20 times since 1897, including 11 times since 1970 and four times over 125 inches since 1985. It had under 50 inches 11 times since 1897: six times 1904 to1943, just three since 1970, and none under 61 inches since 1982. Anyone who sees a rising CO2/lower snowfall connection is smoking too much ganja.

So where does Boulder get the evidence to back up its allegations? As Alfonso Bedoya might have told Humphrey Bogart in a climate change version of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, “We don’t have to show you any stinking evidence!” Instead of evidence, the city has assertions, a phony 97% consensus that fossil fuels are causing dangerous manmade climate change, a report saying Boulder will have more heat waves and less snow by 2050, and computer models that supposedly back up the report.

In the real world, the 20-year temperature “pause” is back, the sun’s “quiet phase” may be reaching a “grand solar minimum,” and actual temperature, hurricane and other data contradict climate model predictions and scenarios. In fact, the models are little more than high-tech circular reasoning.

Since they are based on the assertion that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels drive global warming, Garbage In-Garbage Out models will always generate the calamities that alarmist researchers and Boulder lawyers are blaming on Big Oil. Where reality contradicts models, reality must be wrong – and actual temperature measurements must be adjusted to reflect model outputs and dominant climate theory.

When did the sun and other natural forces cease being a factor? What caused the ice ages, interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Anasazi drought? Questions like these are off limits.

Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and dominant, government-funded climate research have gone from seeking to identify human influences on Earth’s climate … to decreeing that only human influences matter, natural forces no longer play a meaningful role, and humans can control climate and weather by eliminating fossil fuels and regulating atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

Those assertions now have the unwavering support of an entire industry – the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex: politicians, regulators, researchers, industrialists and activists, who protect and advance alarmist claims, promote allegedly “renewable” energy, resist examination and reform, and denounce anyone who questions climate chaos orthodoxy as “planet-threatening climate change deniers.”

Arrayed against the contingency fee seeking Boulder legal team is an oil industry whose spokesmen offer timid tripe: “Lawsuits like this do not solve the global problem of climate change.” It should be up to “appropriate regulatory agencies,” instead of judges, to decide how much CO2 a company may emit. Oil companies “should not be subject to liability for engaging in acts of commerce while adhering to our already stringent state and federal laws.” Can’t we have a more robust defense on the merits?

Boulder and its allied cities and counties have little reason to worry that their absurd assertions will be challenged on the merits in court. But they don’t even care about winning their case. They just hope Exxon and Suncor will pay them a few hundred million bucks – and pave the way for more lawsuits.

In fact, a 2016 “Lawyers for Better Business” report said climate lawsuits will soon “dwarf all other litigation in terms of the number of plaintiffs and the timeframe in which it can happen.” It’s likely to become a global industry, “with much bigger damages than seen with tobacco and asbestos.”

How else will profligate progressive politicians pay for all the welfare programs that keep them in power?

Such is the sorry state of US and international politics, education, science and jurisprudence.

What alternatives do these litigants and activists offer for the fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric energy they want to ban? They seem to think the billions of tons of lithium, cobalt, iron, copper, manganese, rare earth metals, concrete and other raw materials needed for millions of wind turbines and solar panels are somehow “renewable” – and blanketing the planet with wind and solar installations is eco-friendly.

They seem convinced that it’s better for Planet Earth to ban drilling, and instead convert another billion acres of crop and habitat land into gigantic biofuel plantations. In fact, this year’s Earth Day organizers want future plastics to come from non-hydrocarbon sources – which would mean plowing under hundreds of millions more acres to grow crops for petrochemical feed stocks.

This is sheer lunacy. It’s the product of the fear, loathing, despair, intolerance and groupthink that pervade Big Green environmentalism today.

Will the Scott Pruitt EPA finally reverse the ridiculous Endangerment Finding that is yet another foundation for this climate nonsense? Will Neil Gorsuch be the deciding vote that brings a modicum of sanity back to our Supreme Court and legal system? Only time will tell.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.