Recent Comments
Re: “The real existential threat”
Justinsale: al is correct about the caller. No, she was not from our area. She lived in Monterey County which is where MBCC started operations. She was making the point that it started off fine but quickly started costing more. She wanted to give us a warning, that was all.
Re: “A difference of opinion”
Dear Ms. Baker:
You are so right about public officials having the ability to impact all our lives. And that is why you need to slow down and not get any more emotionally involved in climate change. I believe you and Ms. Beraud and many in the current Progressive movement have been deluded with all the false narrative about the alleged climate catastrophe. Just two days ago, 16 yr. old Greta Thunberg from Sweden addressed the United States House of Representatives imploring them to act now. But, within a day, a letter from a group of 500 climatologists was presented to the United Nations in hopes that intelligent reason would return and displace the emotion-filled rhetoric consuming so many especially young minds today. Please read the following article from: Principia Scientific International, legally registered in the UK, incorporated for charitable purposes. It is a Community Interest Company overseen and regulated by Companies House.
500 Scientists to UN: There is NO Climate Emergency
Published on September 24, 2019 Written by Thomas D. Willams, PhD
More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a European Climate Declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change. Just as 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York accusing world leaders of robbing her of her future, scientists were begging the United Nations to keep hysteria from obscuring facts.
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific, the declaration states.
Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent, they declared. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rain forests.
The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm, they note. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.
If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world, they state. In particular, the scientists criticize the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is currently founded as unfit for their purpose.
Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models, they propose. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation, they declare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up, Ms. Baker, I respectfully ask you to consider the science, and remember our youth are very susceptible to the emotional hype about the imminent end of the world. I, for one, do not want to see my grandchildren over the next ten years making plans to give up eating to try and save a friend or a pet or another family member "in her or his last days before the world
Re: “The real existential threat”
G. K. Lightfoot: Unfortunately, there is not enough new technology to replace the amount of carbon neutral electricity we will lose when Diablo nuclear power is shut down. And with our backs to the wall, outside energy producers wont hesitate to stick it to us. No broker like MBCC will be able to negotiate around the multi-year obligations they will be forced to sign. And, if one day we are forced to utilize a community choice alternative, I vote for one in our own community, not dependent on other communities voting their interests over ours.