Corporate policy makers entering the fray should be guided by two principles, both reflecting the balance of evidence at the intersection of climate science and climate economics. First, mandatory GHG programs should be rejected in favor of voluntary approaches….  Second, voluntary actions by corporations should not go beyond win-win “no regrets” initiatives. Control practices that are uneconomic penalize either consumers or stockholders and politicize the issue of corporate responsibility.”

– Robert Bradley, “Climate Alarmism and Corporate Responsibility.” Electricity Journal, August/September 2000.

Upon the election of Donald Trump, the environmental Left redoubled its effort to politicize business on the climate issue. The subtitle to an early 2017 article in Yale Climate Connections, for example, “Business Leadership on Climate Seen as Key,” read: “With expectations of a much lower federal leadership role on controlling carbon emissions, key sectors of business community seen by some as maintaining momentum.”…

“If all the policies instituted in 1975 in the previous figure are delayed until the year 2000, the equilibrium state is no longer sustainable. Population and industrial capital reach levels high enough to create food and resource shortages before the year 2000.”

– Donella Meadows et al. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972, p. 169.

The New York Times headline screamed: “Trump Administration’s Strategy on Climate: Try to Bury Its Own Scientific Report.” Reporter Coral Davenport began her piece:

The Trump White House, which has defined itself by a willingness to dismiss scientific findings and propose its own facts, on Friday issued a scientific report that directly contradicts its own climate-change policies.

That sets the stage for a remarkable split-screen political reality in coming years. The administration is widely expected to discount or ignore the report’s detailed findings of the economic strain caused by climate change, even as it continues to cut environmental regulations, while opponents use it to mount legal attacks against the very administration that issued the report.…

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.

Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Short Video: Jordan Peterson on Climate Change

IPCC: Where Dictators Overrule Scientists

AGW Report: IPCC SR15 Climate Change Report is Based on Faulty Premises

Moving The Goalposts, IPCC Secretly Redefines ‘Climate’

UN’s Solution to Climate Change: End Capitalism

The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud

3 Surprises About Nobel Laureate Nordhaus’s Model of Climate Change

Dr.…

[Editor Note: This is the second of three posts on the human harm from pseudo-science. Part I yesterday introduced the history of scientific fraud as a precursor to the much more sophisticated misdirection of today. Part III tomorrow will consider climate-change controversies.]

Air Pollution – PM2.5

EPA exonerated glyphosate – and did so during the Obama era. That alone should be dispositive on the chemical’s dangers because, especially during the Obama years, EPA was the most dogmatic US government agency with regard to blaming industry for imagined, exaggerated or fabricated risks.

A prime example is PM2.5: particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns – soot that’s a fourth the diameter of pollen. President Obama had promised that his EPA would shut down coal-fired power plants and bankrupt the industry. PM2.5 was their weapon of choice.…