2019-10 OCTOBER

People for the West -Tucson

Newsletter, October, 2019

PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868


Real environmentalism can go hand in hand with natural resource production, private property rights, and access to public lands

Many People Don’t Know that Carbon Dioxide is Necessary for Life on Earth

by Jonathan DuHamel

During the past few weeks we have seen many demonstrations by brainwashed young people who want to get rid of all carbon dioxide emissions. They are ignorant of how climate works and are mere pawns in a globalist effort to drastically change our political systems. This real goal has been admitted by the IPCC. Earth’s climate has been changing for at least four billion years in cycles long and short. The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (400ppm) is near the lowest it has ever been. Plants die at about 150ppm and thrive at 1500ppm.

For more information, see my Wryheat post: Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth.

An icon of the current “we are doomed” demonstrations is the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg. Danish economist Björn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist and president of his think tank, Copenhagen Consensus Center opines on this phenomenon:

In a recent interview with the online Berliner Zeitung (BZ) here, economist Björn Lomborg said that 16-year old Greta Thunberg’s demands “will put people in danger”.

Greta, the Swedish teenage activist is calling for radical cuts in CO2 emissions – on a scale that would have profound impacts on the world’s market system. Moreover, Lomborg calls the demands immoral. Lomborg says it would be far wiser to invest money in bringing the world’s poor out of grinding poverty rather than to try to mitigate climate change.

“Rich countries that tell poor countries not to use fossil energy for the benefit of the environment are acting immorally,” Lomborg told the BZ.

Lomborg also sharply criticized Thunberg, telling BILD news daily: “Greta Thunberg fears the end of the world due to climate change. This fear is the result of three decades of alarmist rhetoric based on exaggerations and lies.”

Lomborg also called Germany’s “Energiewende” – transition to green energies – “the best example of a failed climate policy” which has proven to be “incredibly costly and ineffective.”

“Global warming will be reduced by 0.001 degrees at most by 2100 for 43 billion euros a year,” he told the BZ. Lomborg blames the adults for panicking Ms Thunberg and using her “to push through an agenda that costs trillions but brings almost no benefits.” For the trillions we spent on this nonsense, we will likely get far graver problems. What a deal. (Source) ☼

See more articles near the end of this newsletter and test your knowledge with the climate change quiz.

A Parable on “The Green Thing”

(You may have seen this before, but it seems appropriate given the many youth demonstrations lately.)

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

The older lady said that she was right our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then. We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.

Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the “green thing.”

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smart ass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much. (Source) ☼


Trump Bridles Obama’s Water Power Grab Rules

The president has rolled back yet another of his predecessor’s regulatory power grabs.

By Jordan Candler, Patriot Post

For most people, getting fined millions of dollars or being thrown into the slammer because of some innocuous violation of federal water rules seems unfathomable. But this isn’t hyperbole. Thanks to the Obama administration, fines and/or imprisonment for violating the Clean Water Rule (a.k.a “Waters of the U.S.”) became a real possibility if you weren’t paying close enough attention to the onerous regulations it imposed. And that’s assuming paying close enough attention even mattered.

We documented one such case back in March 2017. At the time, a farmer by the name of John Duarte was handed a $2.8 million fine. His sin? Plowing and planting wheat on his own land, which was lodged in wetlands. The government concluded that Duarte had failed to obtain certain permits and was thus liable for nearly $3 million in punitive fees. This was in addition to the government’s blatantly ignoring agricultural exemptions.

It gets worse.

As The Daily Caller further reveals, “In a 2016 case … Navy veteran Joe Robertson was criminally prosecuted and served 18 months in prison because he dug ponds around his Montana home in the hopes of keeping wildfires at bay. The ponds were connected to a foot-wide ‘river,’ so the EPA determined that Robertson had been digging too close to ‘navigable water’ without a permit.”

Thankfully, sanity is being restored.

According to an op-ed published by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Army for Civil Works Assistant Secretary R.D. James, “Today, EPA and the Department of the Army will finalize a rule to repeal the previous administration’s overreach in the federal regulation of waters and wetlands. This action officially ends an egregious power grab and sets the stage for a new rule that will provide much-needed regulatory certainty for farmers, home builders, and property owners nationwide.”

In other words, the rule is being compressed into what Wheeler and James say is “one standard that can advance economic development and environmental protection.” Obviously, ensuring that our water remains clean is a noble endeavor. But undermining property rights through onerous regulation isn’t the way to achieve it. (Source)

Heritage Expert Praises Repeal of Obama-era WOTUS

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) finalize their repeal of the Obama Administration’s infamous Clean Water Rule, otherwise known as the WOTUS rule. Heritage senior research fellow, Daren Bakst said the following:

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers protect our nation’s waters best when they define what waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act in a manner consistent with the law itself, the U.S. Constitution, and a recognition that clear and objective definitions achieve positive environmental outcomes. The Obama Clean Water Rule — notorious for garnering widespread opposition — failed on all counts. In an unprecedented power grab, this rule handed federal bureaucrats authority to regulate almost any water imaginable—creating unnecessary regulatory obstacles for everyone from farmers plowing their land to local governments building ditches for public safety to families building their homes. By repealing this rule, the Trump Administration has rightfully put an end to this definition of “waters of the United States” that made the EPA and Corps more similar to local zoning boards than federal regulators. As the administration formulates its own, more appropriate definition of “waters of the United States,” it should respect the rule of law and provide much-needed clarity to ensure an ordinary person would understand what waters are regulated. (Source)V☼


Trump’s ESA Changes: A Good Start

by H. Sterling Burnett (Read full post)


Since 1973, more than 2,470 species of plants and animals have been listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as private individuals, have spent billions to help those species recover. People have been forbidden to build homes or businesses on their own land, told they must stop farming or logging, and road and hospital construction has been halted or delayed. Yet for all this effort, just 85 species have been removed from the Endangered Species List, representing only 3.4 percent of all species ever listed.

And a majority of the species removed from the list were taken off for reasons other than successful protection. Eighteen species had been improperly placed on it in the first place, due to data errors (18 species); 22 were foreign species given no protection by the ESA; 13 were recovered due to other laws or regulations, such as the banning of DDT; and, worst of all, 10 species were delisted because they became extinct while on the list, or were already extinct at the time they were listed.

In more than 46 years of existence, at best, the ESA is responsible for helping 16 species to recover—though it’s questionable whether the recovery of those species, which are mostly plants, is actually due to the ESA, since they existed almost entirely on federal land and were thus already protected. If the ESA were a school, it would have the worst graduation rate in history!

Although the ESA has almost entirely failed to recover species, it has been spectacularly successful in violating people’s property rights, in the process depriving many of them of their hopes and dreams. Simultaneously, ESA has harmed the very species it was intended to save.

The regulatory reforms by the Interior Department (DOI) are aimed at reducing costs and focusing scarce agency resources to recover species that are most at risk of disappearing in the near term. Indeed, DOI is reversing a decades-old policy that mandated that threatened species (that is, species not as close to extinction as endangered species) receive the same protections as endangered species. The act itself had said that actions impacting threatened species should be judged on a case-by-case basis. However, previous administrations applied the same heavy-handed prohibitions intended for endangered species to threatened species.

From a regulatory perspective, this policy eliminated the significant difference between the two categories written into the law. In the process, it unjustly restricted property use even when the species purportedly being protected by the restrictions wasn’t endangered. The restrictions meant resources were diverted from protecting species at near-term risk of extirpation to issuing regulations and enforcing restrictions for species not currently at risk of decline or extinction. It’s long past time the government corrected this ineffective, unfair policy.

A second reform revises how critical habitat for species recovery is designated. This reinstates a requirement that officials review areas currently occupied by an endangered species before reviewing uninhabited areas that might harbor endangered species in the future.

Although the Trump administration’s actions are legal and eminently reasonable, they still don’t get at the root of the problem of the ESA. The true cost of the ESA should be measured in houses, homeless shelters, and hospitals not built or significantly delayed; medical and technological discoveries not advanced; funds not available for education, crime control, health, or environmental matters; and in “protected” species lost or still on the list and declining.

ESA fails to protect species because it creates perverse incentives to destroy species and their habitat. More than 75 percent of the listed species depend on private land for all or part of their habitat. Yet if people provide suitable habitat for an endangered species, their land becomes subject to severe regulation and possible confiscation.

Property owners are faced with three undesirable options: kill an endangered species member—“shoot, shovel, and shut up”—destroy habitat before a species moves in, or lose the use and value of their land. Clinging to this approach condemns the very species ESA was passed to protect. ☼


According to the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, only the federal government may set fuel economy standards, and state and local governments may not establish their own separate fuel economy standards (49 U.S. Code § 32919.Preemption):

“When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under this chapter.”

For decades, California has operated under a waiver from the Clean Air Act, allowing it to more-heavily regulate tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks – a standard 13 other states and the District of Columbia also eventually followed. A new EPA rule vacates the waiver and will prevent any state from imposing emissions standards that deviate from federal regulations. ☼


Opinions on The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)

The devil is in the details

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is leery of USMCA:

Trade deals are better than no trade deals, generally speaking. But bad trade deals can set dangerous precedents. That was why in the 1990s, the staunch free trader Fred Smith, founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (where this author works), opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) inclusion of side agreements that had nothing to do with trade. He worried that those provisions, mainly concerning labor and environmental standards, would set a precedent to elevate those goals above tariff reduction—the supposed point of trade deals. The USMCA not only elevates the side agreements to full treaty status, it does so in a way that no American free trade agreement has done before. (Read more)

Heritage Foundation opines:

Much of the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) remains consistent with NAFTA, but improvements include chapters on digital trade, intellectual property protection, and cross-border data flows. Digital trade of goods and services, as well as the need to protect intellectual property, has increased dramatically. The 1994 NAFTA did not have common rules for the U.S., Mexico, and Canada to address these new modes of trade.The USMCA falls short in several key areas, including on labor, environment, government procurement, and rules of origin. (Source)

JBS take: USMCA: Threat to Our Independence

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is intended to replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). On September 30, 2018, the initial draft of the USMCA was released totaling at 1,812 pages. The final draft of the agreement was expanded to 2,325 pages and released on November 30, 2018, when President Donald Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and then-President of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto signed it in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA or NAFTA 2.0) picks up where NAFTA left off. NAFTA was originally intended as “the architecture of a new international system” and not as a conventional trade agreement. It set the foundation to integrate the three North American countries. The USMCA will move us closer to a full-blown EU-style North American Union. Even though President Trump withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), sections of the TPP show up in the USMCA word-for-word!

Chapter 30 of the USMCA/NAFTA 2.0 establishes a new governing bureaucracy – an unelected, unaccountable Free Trade Commission overseeing various lower regional committees. Much like the TPP Commission, the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the USMCA without the consent of Congress. This completely undermines Congress’ Constitutional Article I, Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations.

Consistent with other globalist schemes, the USMCA follows the “rules-based system” of submission to international bodies such as the World Trade Organization, International Labor Organization, a plethora of United Nations conventions including the Law of Sea Treaty (which the U.S. has never ratified), and the furtherance of “sustainable development,” which is mentioned no less than six times in the environment chapter.

If America wishes to remain governed by Americans and to reject the ideology of globalism, then it must also reject the ideologies of regionalism and supra-nationalism by both opposing the USMCA and getting out of NAFTA. The primary issue is not the economic impact of the USMCA, good or bad, but its potential implications for U.S. sovereignty. The United States can weather the storms of a bad economy or recession, but it cannot survive the loss of its sovereignty.

The continuity of American sovereignty, and with it the safeguarding of our rights by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, hinges on what happens with regard to the USMCA. Those who embrace the doctrine of patriotism can contact the president, their U.S. representative, and U.S. senators to oppose the USMCA, telling them that they should uphold our rights and freedoms by voting NO on the USMCA steppingstone to an EU-style North American Union. (Source) ☼


The Resource Intensity of Electric Vehicles

(from a post by Robert Bryce)

The U.S. has about 276 million registered motor vehicles. Replacing them with electric vehicles would require roughly 18 times the world’s current cobalt production, about nine times global neodymium output, nearly seven times global lithium production, and about four times world copper production. ☼

See this Wryheat post: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/electric-vehicles-need-fossil-fuels/

Methods to extend EV range: position diesel-powered generators everywhere, or tow a gasoline-powered generator.


The solar panel toxic waste problem

By Duggan Flanakin, Cfact

For decades, the solar industry benefited from generous federal, state, and local subsidies to increase its footprint. Yet these generous subsidies ignore the costs of disposal of solar panel waste.

The truth can be brutal. The average lifespan of a solar panel is about 20 years, but high temperatures (as in the Mojave Desert) can accelerate the aging process for solar cells, and snow, dust, and other natural events (tornadoes, earthquakes),can cause material fatigue on the surface and in the internal electric circuits – gradually reducing the panel’s power output.

Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.

Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts. (Read more) ☼

Renewable Energy’s Dirty Dozen: 12 Reasons Why Chaotically Intermittent & Heavily Subsidized Wind & Solar Power Make No Sense

Read full article; here are the reasons, each supported by peer-reviewed research which is summarized in the full article:

1. “More Renewables Mean Less Stable Grids”

2. Increasing Fossil Fuel Use (Natural Gas) Reduces Emissions More Than Increasing Wind/Solar Energy

3. Renewables Fail To Deliver: When Demand Is High, Generation Capacity Is Low

4. Renewable Energy Becomes More Costly The More It Is Deployed … Renewable Energy Expansion Ensures More Fossil Fuel Installation Is Necessary As Backup

5. Biofuels – Declared Carbon-Neutral Renewables By The EU – Increase Emissions More Than Coal

6. Biofuels “Use More Energy At A Higher Cost” And Produce More Air Pollution Than Fossil Fuels

7. Proximity To Wind Turbines Significantly Reduces Quality Of Life, Well-Being For Nearby Residents

8. “Renewable Energy Consumption Has A Negative Effect On Economic Growth”

9. Research: 100% Renewable Energy Is “Unattainable” In Reality – Decarbonization Is “Arguably Reckless”

10. Wealthy Countries Foist Social-Environmental Disruption From Wind, Solar Onto Poorer Countries

11. Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere – Destroying Habitats, Endangering Rare Species

12. Wind Turbine Blade Waste Disposal A Growing Ecological Nightmare

Climate change: Electrical industry’s ‘dirty secret’ boosts warming

By Matt McGrath

The BBC claims the potent greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride leaking from EU wind turbines and other renewable electricity infrastructure components produces the global warming equivalent of putting an extra million new cars on the road.

It’s the most powerful greenhouse gas known to humanity, and emissions have risen rapidly in recent years, the BBC has learned. Levels are rising as an unintended consequence of the green energy boom.

Cheap and non-flammable, SF6 is a colourless, odourless, synthetic gas. It makes a hugely effective insulating material for medium and high-voltage electrical installations.

It is widely used across the industry, from large power stations to wind turbines to electrical sub-stations in towns and cities. It prevents electrical accidents and fires.

However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2). (Read more) ☼

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

by Myron Ebell, Steven J. Milloy, Competitive Enterprise Institute


Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited. (Read full article) ☼

There’s very little evidence that humans are making much impact as far as CO2

Climate analyst and authority on polar history and exploration, Dr. Fred Goldberg writes that the primary cause of global warming is not human activity. He says that CO2 from all sources comprises only about 1.5% of the greenhouse effect, while water vapor accounts for 95%. According to Goldberg, any impact that CO2 may have on the warming of the earth is “insignificant.” But Goldberg goes further stating that man-made CO2 accounts for only 4% of the CO2 total. Thus if 1.5% of the total greenhouse effect amount is insignificant, how insignificant must, man’s’ CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect be at just 0.06%. (Source) ☼

New Papers: Ex-NOAA Climatologist And Russian Physicists Find Human Contribution To Warming 0.0°C-0.02°C

By Kenneth Richard

Two more additions to the steadily accumulating evidence CO2 plays an insignificant to negligible role in climate change have recently been published in the scientific literature.

Last year, Dr. Rex J. Fleming, a former NOAA climate scientist who earned both his Master’s and Ph.D in meteorology, published a paper (Fleming, 2018) in the Environmental Earth Sciences journal that detailed the lack of an identifiable causal relationship between CO2 concentration changes and Earth’s temperature. Fleming theorized that the Earth has warmed in the modern era as a consequence of the strong solar activity during the 20th century (the Modern Maximum) shielding cosmic ray intensification and thus reducing decadal-scale cloud cover, which leads to warming via an increase in absorbed surface solar radiation.

Another climate sensitivity paper (Krainov and Smirnov, 2019) published in the journal Atomic and Molecular Radiative Processes finds a negligible (0.02 K) warming contribution from human emissions.(Read more) ☼

There is NO climate emergency!

By Dr. Jay Lehr, Tom Harris

Speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, held July 25 in Washington, DC, Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville said: “There is no climate crisis. Even if all the warming we’ve seen in any observational dataset is due to increasing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which I don’t believe it is, it’s probably too small for any person to feel in their lifetime.”

The so-called emergency is based on nothing but the over-active imaginations of activists who put too much faith in computer model forecasts, while ignoring historic records and observational data that tell us nothing extraordinary or unprecedented is happening – and demonstrate that the models are wrong.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies asserts that between 1880 and 2017 there has been only slightly more than 1 degree C (1.8 F) rise in the so-called global average temperature, despite a supposed 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database of state-wide extreme weather records, arguably the best of its kind in the world, shows that so far in 2019 only one weather record has been set: the lowest temperature in Illinois history.

Meanwhile, NOAA’s updated coastal sea level tide gauge data for 2016 show no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Seas are rising no faster than they have for many decades.

NOAA’s hurricane records go back to 1851. The data show that for almost 12 consecutive years – October 24, 2005 (after Wilma) until August 25, 2017 (Harvey) – not one major or moderate (Category 3-5) hurricane made landfall in the continental United States. That is the longest such period in history. In 2018, for the first time ever, not one “violent” (F4-5) tornado touched down in the United States.

To the great frustration of climate alarmists, the real-world instrumental record clearly shows that, not only is no climate emergency underway, but today’s climate is actually quite stable. Aside from the drive for world socialism, the climate scare is based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of what some say could happen someday if we do not restrict our use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions.

However, the models do not work. That’s because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because scientists do not understand planetary climate processes well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Observations demonstrate that the actual rate of warming between 1979 and 2017 is one-third of what the average of 102 different climate models predicted. In fact, that climate model average is now almost one full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites have measured!

While no one knows all the variables affecting climate, there are likely hundreds of them. Here are some important factors for which we have limited understanding:

1) seasonal, annual and decadal changes in solar irradiation; 2) energy flows between the ocean and atmosphere; 3) energy flows between the air and land; 4) balance between Earth’s water, water vapor and ice; 5) the impacts of clouds, both trapping heat below and preventing solar radiation from reaching Earth; 6) understanding the planet’s ice; 7) changes in mass among ice sheets, seal levels and glaciers; 8) our ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes; 9) the impact of vegetation on temperature; 10) tectonic movements on ocean bottoms; 11) differential rotation between Earth’s surface and its core; and 12) solar system magnetic field and gravitational interactions. (Read more) ☼

The Big Climate Change Quiz

Do young people really know just how deep the climate emergency is? Do they understand the extent of what the world is doing in response?

Covering everything from CO2 emissions and extreme weather events to renewable energy, this is a chance to identify those who know what they are talking about and those who need to spend a bit more time studying and a bit less on the streets.

You are terrified about climate change! So you have joined millions around the world for Greta’s school strike for the climate. This is not anything to do with skipping lessons of course, you feel passionately. But have you got your facts straight? Time to find out… (take quiz) ☼


Recommended Reading:

Why CO2 is Not the Control Knob of Global Temperature and Observational Proof it is Not Causing Dangerous Warming (link)

Real-world Evidence that CO2 Emissions and Fossil Energy Enhance the Human Environment (link) ☼

More Climate Madness:

Eat Me? Swedish Scientist Wants To Fight Climate Change With Cannibalism

Swedish behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund has suggested that eating other people after they die could be a means of combatting climate change. (Read more)

Seminary Students Repent to Plants, ‘Confess’ and ‘Sorrow in Prayer’ to Vegetation in Chapel Ceremony

In a story that would seem to be some kind of satire, a seminary where students gathered together during a chapel ceremony to “confess,” “grieve” and “sorrow in prayer” toward an assortment of potted plants laid out on the floor, actually took place as a part of an activity that, school officials say, was done to “atone for the harm” caused by climate change.

Union Theological Seminary (UTS), a progressive-identifying school located in New York City, which is affiliated with nearby Columbia University, tweeted out a picture and message on Tuesday from a chapel meeting where students gathered around various plants as an “offering” to the “beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor.” The tweet asked the question, “What do you confess to the plants in your life?” (Read more) ☼

Parting Thoughts:

“To this very moment slavery continues in parts of Africa and the Islamic world. Very little noise is made about it by those who denounce the slavery of the past in the West, because there is no money to be made denouncing it and no political advantages to be gained.” —Thomas Sowell

“Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.” —James Wilson (1791)

If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it.” —Benjamin Franklin (1789)

“The worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.” -George Orwell

“When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.” —Thomas Paine (1776)

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our

children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do

the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s

children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” —Ronald Reagan


* * *

Our Mission

1) Support private property rights.

2) Support multiple use management of federal lands for agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, oil and gas production, recreation, timber harvesting and water development activities.

3) Support a balance of environmental responsibility and economic benefit for all Americans by urging that environmental policy be based on good science and sound economic principles.


Newsletters can be viewed online on Jonathan’s Wryheat Blog:



See my essay on climate change:



The Constitution is the real contract with America.

* * *

People for the West – Tucson, Inc.

PO Box 86868

Tucson, AZ 85754-6868


Jonathan DuHamel, President & Editor

Dr. John Forrester, Vice President

Lonni Lees, Associate Editor

People for the West – Tucson, Inc. is an Arizona tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation. Newsletter subscriptions are free.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.