Green New Deal reveals Green-left’s true colors

Smashed watermelon on the ground

The reason everything by and from the left, regardless of color, sounds both illogical and stupid is because it is. They are desperately arguing for more regulations (control), implicit a broad foundation for taxation, but are totally failing to convince most normal people of the justification of making the rest of the world into Venezuela.

Their desperation is so severe that everything they now manage to caugh up only serve to push even more people away. We can only thank God that they are this stupid (counterfeiting important climate data, really!? Who would do that if the observations really did show a problem??)

Two articles, first one by Larry Bell (

Over the next 10 years, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., supported by at least eight prospective 2020 presidential Democratic-Socialist candidates and 40 acolyte lawmakers, plans to eliminate fossil fuels; make air travel obsolete using bullet trains; upgrade or replace every building in America to ensure energy efficiency; and ensure “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

Oh yes — and apparently for those who are dumb enough to turn away free money for doing nothing — this New Green Deal will also guarantee “A [government] job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security.”

An original summary fact sheet posted on Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s official congressional website (then rapidly removed), stated, “The Green New Deal resolution [is] a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War II to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all.”

The plan pledges to “Move America to 100 percent clean and renewable energy.”

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez explained, “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to get rid of ‘farting cows’ (her words, not mine) and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build a smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees, and restore our ecosystem to get to net — zero.”

As for that clean renewable energy, zero-carbon-emitting nuclear power will be excluded.

The fact sheet declares, “It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

Recognizing that “private companies are wary of making massive investments in unproven research and technologies,” the socialist answer, of course, is to nationalize all energy.

As the plan explains, “Once again, we’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver.”

As I pointed out in my Feb. 4 column of this year, to understand how totally crazy the Green New Deal is, it’s important to look at the full spectrum of energy demands across all consumption sectors.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2017 so-called “renewables” provided 17 percent of the 38 percent of total energy consumed in the U.S. electricity sector. Wind and solar only accounted for about 27 percent of those renewables; 4.6 percent of this total sector demand.

This amounted to a piddly two percent of total U.S. energy consumption measured in Btus.

And what about the remaining 61.9 percent of U.S. energy consumed by the transportation sector (29 percent), industrial sector (22 percent), and residential/commercial sector (11 percent)? Renewables in general — and wind/solar in particular — made only negligible contributions to any of them.

Not addressed in the plan is what energy sources would replace that equal amount backup fossil-fueled wind turbine and sunbeam capacity needed to balance out the power grid during those majority of demand times when the wind isn’t blowing and sunlight is hidden.

All of these pesky energy replacement issues might present a problem in meeting the Green New Deal pledge to ” . . . build high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create public transit available for all, with a goal to replace every combustion engine.”

That plan might prove to be more expensive than even the most ardently free-spending socialists might hope for. Consider, for example, the California bullet trainwreck which has been derailed by enormous cost overruns and land-stealing acquisition hurdles.

California voters approved a $10 billion bond measure a decade ago which was supposed to take riders from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than three hours. In the interest of helping to halt millions of years of climate change, the Obama administration generously chipped in $3.5 billion of our taxes towards building the first 160-mile segment through the San Joaquin Valley.

Perhaps only coincidentally, this route happens to be in the Congressional district of Democratic Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a strong bullet train supporter and then-vital Obamacare voter.

Meanwhile, project cost projections have soared to around $80 billion, private investors have run for the valley hills, and the state rail authority has blown more than $5 billion on acquiring and destroying hundreds of right-of way properties without laying tracks.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newson has very recently anounced that he will scrap plans to extend the line beyond the first hapless and likely hopeless link. Yet there is some good news here as well.

Imagine what it would have cost to extend that high-speed track to Hawaii in order to offset a need for airline fuel.


How disingenuous is the “green”, read: communist left?

Green New Deal’s false scientific premise exposed: Physicist rips cow farting climate fears: ‘Worrying about methane emissions is the greatest waste of time’

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot

New research finds methane virtually irrelevant as a greenhouse gas 

Physicist Dr. Tom Sheahen: “Worrying about methane emissions is the greatest waste of time in the entire lexicon of global warming fanaticism. Converting methane to CO2 is done by the process of “flaring” — setting fire to the stack gas coming off from an oil well, as is done daily throughout the middle east, where the oil is valued but the CH4 is not…The number ‘Global Warming Potential’ is completely false, a nonsense calculation thought up by the IPCC to drum up more concern beyond just CO2.”


Physicist Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen has once again dismissed fears over methane emissions as a climate change concern. “Worrying about methane emissions is the greatest waste of time in the entire lexicon of global warming fanaticism,” Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist and author of the book “An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity,” told Climate Depot. Sheahen has co-authored peer-reviewed study on methane in 2018. (See: New research finds methane virtually irrelevant as a greenhouse gas  & Greenhouse Gases -A More Realistic View by Dr Tom Sheahen and Jock Allison – Allison-Sheahen FINAL The Journal SEPT 2018 V6)

“Converting methane to CO2 is done by the process of ‘flaring’ — setting fire to the stack gas coming off from an oil well, as is done daily throughout the Middle East, where the oil is valued but the CH4 [Methane] is not,” Sheahen explained. He was reacting to this recent article, Surprise: China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rising At ‘Alarming Rate’.

“If I were the Chinese government, I’d pay a tiny bit of lip-service to mentioning methane, but in fact to do nothing at all about it. It goes away via natural processes,” Sheahen wrote. Sheahen is the writer of the popular newspaper column “Ask the Everyday Scientist.” Sheahen is featured in the new book, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ by Marc Morano. 

“The number ‘Global Warming Potential’ is completely false, a nonsense calculation thought up by the IPCC to drum up more concern beyond just CO2. Both CH4 and CO2 are far less important GHG’s (greenhouse gases) than good old H2O (water). When you’re doing underground coal mining, you have to let the trapped CH4 escape or else you’ll poison the workers. The practice of bringing a ‘canary in the coalmine’ was specifically intended to sacrifice the bird’s life to detect dangerous levels of methane so the miners could get out quickly,” Sheahen explained. Also see: Cows absolved of causing global warming: ‘Livestock could actually be good for environment…can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas’

Despite methane concerns outlined in the Green New Deal, Sheahen is not concerned about it. See: ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ LOOKS TO TACKLE THE SCOURGE OF ‘FARTING COWS’ & METHANE Mendacity : Cows, Farts And New Green Lies – ‘Climate Crisis Industry has always been the centralized control of human beings’

“The most important thing about CH4 that everybody forgets is that it drifts up from the surface to the stratosphere reasonably quickly, and there it is oxidized: CH4 + 2 O2 –> CO2 + 2 H2O. This is why H2O remains about 4 ppm even in the stratosphere, when it has supposedly ‘frozen out’ at the top of the troposphere. As for CO2, changing the stratospheric concentration from 400 ppm to 402 ppm is an undetectable change,” Sheahen wrote.

“The IPCC itself acknowledges that H2O is responsible for 70 to 90% of the greenhouse effect. Despite that, the IPCC lists the GHGs as CO2, CH4, N2O, O3 …, and leaves H2O out of their count or ‘inventory’ of GHGs. They have done so for 4 decades, due to the computational difficulties of handling H2O, which varies widely all over the world. They treat H2O as a ‘feedback factor’ upon the amount of CO2. That;s completely crazy! The importance of H2O is far greater than the importance of CO2; and CH4 is so tiny as to be completely irrelevant,” Sheahen added.

Related Links:

Physicist Dr. Tom Sheahen: ‘Methane: The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas’ – ‘Water vapor has already absorbed the very same infrared radiation that Methane might have absorbed’ – ‘The tiny increases in methane associated with cows may elicit a few giggles, but it absolutely cannot be the basis for sane regulations or national policy.’


Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!