Senior Citizens Assessment Freeze Application: Fill & Download for Free

Trudeau lacks depth and clarity and he makes bad policy choices about economics and climate change. Global warming science is not settled and there is no evidence of a climate crisis from runaway higher temperatures. Canada is a very cold country and if there were more global warming this would be a benefit. Trudeau wants to stop more warming and this it plain stupid in light of the shoddy science demonizing minute amounts of CO2 plant food at the same time the weather is record colder and destructive.Kenney wants swift approval from Trudeau for Teck Frontier oilsands mineBY BILL GRAVELAND THE CANADIAN PRESSPosted January 27, 2020 3:00 pm Lloyd RyanTrudeau will kill this project and then send out his Deputy Dawg PM to placate Albertan's with platitudes and "There, there now. We listened to you but you were asking too much" speeches and statements. Jim Carr will be onhand for the event to handout crying towels and tell everyone it's all for the good of the environment and saving the world from Climate Change. The Saudi's will be overjoyed to increase their production and celebrate the stupidity of the Trudeau Liberals.Full news story below90 LEADING ITALIAN SCIENTISTS EXPLAIN THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS OF WARMING.“t should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.”The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 201990 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…PROMOTING COMMITTEE:1. Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.2. Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.3. Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.4. Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.5. Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.6. Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.7. Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.8. Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II UniversityGLOBAL WARMING FAIL : Record Snow When You Were Assured By Climate ‘Scientists’ That There Would Be NonePosted: June 1, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmist Predictions, Climate ChangeNewfoundland Snowpocalypse Day Five: Trading Smokes for PepsiOur four key resources now are pop, cigarettes, beer, and chips. Control the corner stores, control the Island.By Drew BrownJan 21 2020, 10:45amA SOLDIER FROM THE 4TH ARTILLERY REGIMENT BASED AT CFB GAGETOWN CLEARS SNOW AT A RESIDENCE IN ST. JOHN’S ON MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ANDREW VAUGHANGentle reader, please forgive these shaky hands; the shovelling has broken my arms. It has been five days since St. John’s first declared a state of emergency after a monster blizzard gusting up to 170 km/h dumped more than six feet of snow on the city in a day. Civilization has ground to a halt under snow drifts 12 feet deep. Snowmobiles blast through uncleared city streets and Holloway Street has been turned into the island’s sickest ski jump. We shiver under the spectre of martial law as Canadian troops patrol the roads with fearsome plastic scoops in search of seniors who need aid. Snowbanks rise like towering mountains from the city sidewalks.http://HTTPS://WWW.VICE.COM/EN_CA/ARTICLE/DYG7VV/NEWFOUNDLAND-SNOWPOCALYPSE-DAY-FIVE-TRADING-SMOKES-FOR-PEPSIEN BY PIERRE GOSSELIN ON NOV 14, 2019. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSN. Hemisphere In Hypothermic Shock! Record Cold, ‘Historic Snowstorms’Winter hasn’t even officially arrived, but already large areas of the northern hemisphere are seeing “historic snowfalls,” frigid temperatures, and even avalanche alarms.The Northern Hemisphere has certainly caught a major cold, one certainly not caused by the human CO2 virus.Instead of fever, parts of the northern hemisphere are in hypothermia!Alarmists, media desperateThough global warming scientists will never admit it, they are really surprised and stunned.All that is left for them is to make up some cockamamie warming-causes-cold explanations and hope there are enough severely stupid among the media and masses to believe it.“United States — Rewrite the Record Books”Beginning in North America, “sub-zero temperatures are now blasting” millions of Americans following “the three historic snowstorms which buried parts of the U.S. last month,” reports weather site Electroverse - Documenting Earth Changes during the next GSM and Pole Shift here.Electroverse writes that “lows throughout the week will be more like January temperatures” with readings below zero for many U.S. states and “temps down into the teens are even forecast as far south as Texas.”Yesterday, 97 records were toppled.“It’s a big deal,” Electroverse writes in its headline. They also add:“No, record cold & snow IS NOT made ‘more likely in a warming world.’ In fact, the IPCC’s line—until not that long ago—was that ‘milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.'”Solar activity suspectedIt’s not the sort of thing we are supposed to be expecting from a “warming planet”. Some climate experts blame natural factors, like solar activity, for the cold, and that these warnings have long been known since the sun has entered a new period of calm.Freeze watches and warnings also extend as far south as Florida. And it’s only early November. And don’t expect to see many FFF activists show up at rallies protesting hot weather any time soon.Polar Bear Science site here also reports that the Hudson Bay in Canada has started freezing up earlier than normal three years in a row!Europe starting to get clobbered by snow, 2m in the AlpsMeanwhile cold has also spread across Europe, though not quite as brutal as what we’ve been seeing across North America.In central Europe, the Austrian online Heute here reports that “huge amounts of snow” are on the way for the Alps.German site http://Wetteronline.de reports here of “new, severe snowfalls in the Alps” with “up to two meters of fresh snow are possible in places up to the weekend” in Switzerland, Austria, and Northern Italy. “This is good news for winter sports enthusiasts – but the danger of avalanches is increasing.”Biggest November snowstorm in 40 yearsEven global warming child activist Greta Thunberg’s Sweden is getting hard hit by extreme cold and snow. Electroverse reports the Nordic country is suffering “its biggest November snowstorm in 40 years.”On November 10th, Mika tweeted that temps in northern Sweden fell 10 -34.5°C.Mika Rantanen@mikarantaneToday is the coldest morning so far during the ongoing winter season:-34.5°C in Sweden, -31.1°C in Norway and -30.6°C in Finland (not shown on the map).21411:31 PM - Nov 9, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy96 people are talking about thisMost snow in 60 yearsThe German Ruhrkultur site reports how also Finland just saw “the coldest autumn temperature and the highest snow depth in at least 60 years” and that “the temperature in Enontekiö, a municipality in Finnish Lapland, dropped to 28.2°C on Tuesday 5 November.”Deepening cold across Siberia as well“On November 11 in Yakutia, the daily temperature never rose above −30°C (-22F),” reports the SOTT site here. “Some parts of Siberia were even colder: In Evenkia and the northern regions of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the temperature dropped to −41 … −44°C.”SOTT comments (sarcastically): “I wonder how much ice will melt at −44°C (-47F).With all the early winter weather, it’s ridiculous to claim the globe is burning up. So it’s no wonder the alarmists have taken their climate ambulance to the far side of the globe, NSW Australia, and kept their narrow focus on brush fires.Read more at No Tricks ZoneN. Hemisphere In Hypothermic Shock! Record Cold, 'Historic Snowstorms'Photo Kazakhstan massive snow storm, JANUARY 2020I submit far more distinguished scientists with cogent analysis deny the CO2 greenhouse effect than support it and also admonishing governments to stop the madness of reducing cheap fossil fuel energy to effect the climate.Alarmist scientists put snowfall weather in play as evidence of global warming therefore when they are wrong this means there is something wrong with their warming hypothesis.“WHAT THE ‘VAST BODY ‘ OF SCIENTIFIC ‘EXPERTS’ ASSURED US ABOUT SNOWU.N. IPCC :IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeTHEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”warmer-winters-ipcc*CSIRO :A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose up to 40% of their snow by 2020 …CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in VictoriaBy 2020, the average annual duration of snow-cover decreases by between five and 48 days; maximum snow depths are reduced and tend to occur earlier in the year; and the total area covered in snow shrinks by 10-40%CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria*SNOWFALL Will Signal The Death Of The Global Warming MovementSNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snowlike we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.”– Professor Mojib Latif (2000)“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)***WE all associate snowstorms with cold weather. But, the effects of snow on our climate and weather last long after the storm has passed. Due to snows reflective properties, its presence or absence influences patterns of heating and cooling over Earth’s surface more than any other single land surface feature.CLIMATE models from the 1970s have consistently predicted that CO2-induced global warming climate change should be causing a significant decline in total snow cover. However, Global snow cover has actually increased since at least the start of the record (Connolly et al, 2019), leading to some scepticism within the scientific community about the validity of the climate models.”For example, Trudeau would be advised to listen to this petition by 90 leading Italian scientists explaining why there is no ‘climate crisis’ for government action.Rex Murphy: The PM has changed his look. But it's a policy change that's neededThe No. 1 priority now is not global warming. It is national cohesion. To repair the rift within Confederation, the Liberals must nullify what has been the central component of their public policy to dateREX MURPHYJanuary 28, 2020The weight of external events, some pathetically trivial, some potentially or already quite grave — Harry and Meghan, the coronavirus, the impeachment tap dance, the Iranian crisis — has pushed many of our own Canadian concerns to the back page for a while.The October election gave us a divided result and especially demonstrated that there is a huge fracture between the sentiments and politics of West and East. Alberta and Saskatchewan almost set up a blockade against the Liberals. The rest of the country — I’m being very general here — gave Justin Trudeau’s shaken leadership a tepid second chance. He’s still there as PM, but not with the élan that greeted his first term by any means. I am determined not to offer observations of any kind on the new beard, but I will note that there has been a change in his presence and manner since the election.There is less energy in his public persona, and there was a notable “stay away” period after the vote. (I’m not picking on the vacations, just noting that after so key an election, and with all its attendant issues, he seemed to almost completely remove himself for an extended period.)There was a notable “stay away” period after the voteDid the trimming to a minority shake the prime minister’s confidence? Did it impose a serious introspection on the ideas and approach of his first term? The bubbly, cheery, spotlight-seeking and superficial “sunny days” of Term 1 are certainly not the mode, so far, of Term 2. We are seeing a much more subdued Mr. Trudeau, though to leap to “chastened” would be a stretch.Does this signal a revision, a rethinking, of how best to achieve genuine engagement with the country? Does it mean an abandonment of the glib route of the PM-centric, photo-flashing, image-before-all politics that so enveloped his first term? Selfies are so 2015.Selfies are so 2015Or did this more demure, dare one say “reserved” Justin Trudeau, spring from the natural despondency of receiving a much reduced vote, and awakening to the prospect of leading in a minority, which imposes restraints that up to now he has not experienced? His whole career in politics up to this point had been a glittering glide. The family name, the celebrity “it” factor which he has — or had — in spades, arriving in leadership at a time when the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, had already had a long run; ordinary politicians work a lifetime for what Justin Trudeau harvested, with ease, in a few years and in his own time of choosing.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland prepare to speak to Liberal caucus members on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Jan. 23, 2020. Adrian Wyld/The Canadian PressAside from public demeanour there are objective signs that this is a more serious period for the prime minister. He has placed Chrystia Freeland as deputy PM, but looking at the menu of responsibilities she has been charged with — and her own increasing visibility on matters of widest concern — she appears to be more a co-PM than a deputy. Though it is still very early days, other ministers are taking the spotlight with more frequency as well. All of which may be evidence that Liberals (more quietly than the Conservatives, obviously) have taken the results to heart, perhaps have recommended some changes to the leadership and the primacy of the PMO, both stylistically and structurally.However the central question for the Liberals revolves around neither style nor even structural change. It’s policy. Particularly policy that has driven a political wedge through the Confederation and left some provinces deeply estranged and driven to rethink or attempt to rebalance the political forces of the country. The divisions that are now apparent all flow from the Trudeau government’s obsession with global warming, holding it as its commanding priority, fussing about being world leaders in the “fight against climate change.” All of this is delusion and manifestly so. Whatever your view of this problem is, it will not be solved, stopped or significantly influenced by what Canada does. India, China, America, the oil states, that is where the problem — if problem it is — lies.Alberta separatists rally outside the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton on Jan. 11, 2020. Ed Kaiser/Postmedia NewsBut the pursuit of this quixotic endeavour has meant fascination with global warming has brought to the provinces of Canada the dubious boon of carbon taxes and an extremely ambiguous, if not overtly hostile attitude, towards the country’s key industry.It is attended by a refusal to take the real measure of the damage done to all resource industries — agriculture, forestry, mining as well as oil — by the championing of international priorities at the expense of jobs, investment and “middle-class prosperity” here at home, and particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The real shift the Liberals have to make is to abandon their political infatuation with global warming, and their untenable assertion that a Canadian government holds any real sway over it.As Lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot standThe No. 1 priority for Canada now is not global warming. It is national cohesion. To repair the rift within Confederation, the Liberals have to remove, nullify what has been the central component of their public policy to date. They have to change the songbook, lay down the hymnals to climate change.As Lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot stand. As an even more revered authority has noted, no man can serve two masters. And in the Canadian context, a national government cannot serve both Paris and Calgary. On one point are the environmentalists and myself in full concord. You cannot advance the energy industry in any way, and simultaneously maintain you are foremost a champion of climate change. The romance with an issue beyond Canada’s capacity to have any realistic impact on has had the direct cost of driving large parts of Canada’s West into ruminations of separation.Rex Murphy: The PM has changed his look. But it’s a policy change that’s neededWhile Trudeau is probably more popular than Trump not that it matters but what is so sad as bad a Trump is considered by Canadians under his leadership the US has done far more to reduce greenhouse gases. YES.POLITICSKenney wants swift approval from Trudeau for Teck Frontier oilsands mineBY BILL GRAVELAND THE CANADIAN PRESSPosted January 27, 2020 3:00 pmUpdated January 28, 2020 4:54 pmWATCH: In the next few weeks, it's expected that the fate of a giant oilsands mine project in north eastern Alberta will be decided. The Teck Frontier project would be twice as large as the city of Vancouver. As provincial affairs reporter Tom Vernon explains, Premier Jason Kenney is pushing Ottawa for the green light.Alberta’s premier says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to move swiftly to approve the Teck Frontier oilsands mine north of Fort McMurray.Jason Kenney says there is no reason to delay the go-ahead for the $20.6-billion project near Wood Buffalo National Park in northeastern Alberta.A federal-provincial review last summer determined Frontier would be in the public interest, even though it would be likely to harm the environment and the land, resources and culture of Indigenous people.“Their current deadline is the end of February for a decision … and I’ve been very clear to the prime minister … if they say no to this project, then they are signalling his earlier statement that he wants to phase out the oilsands,” Kenney said Monday.READ MORE: Teck Frontier project to challenge Trudeau’s climate policies, relationship to Alberta: expertTrudeau commented at a town-hall meeting in January 2017 that his government was attempting to balance economic and environmental concerns.STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT“We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels, but it’s going to take time, and, in the meantime, we have to manage that transition,” Trudeau said at the time.The Frontier mine north of Fort McMurray, Alta., would produce 260,000 barrels of oil a day and about four million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, for more than 40 years.The federal government must make a decision on the project by the end of February under the Environmental Assessment Act.Kenney said it’s time that the federal Liberals start listening to the majority of First Nations leaders who support projects such as Teck, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the Coastal GasLink pipeline in northeastern British Columbia.“I implore the federal government. If reconciliation means something, surely it means saying ‘yes’ to economic development for First Nations people.”TWEET THISKenney was speaking at an announcement of the new board of directors for the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corp. The Crown corporation plans to allocate up to $1 billion in support, such as loan guarantees, to qualified First Nations seeking an equity position in major resource projects.READ MORE: Demonstrators rally in support of — and against — Teck’s Frontier mine projectThe communities need to come up with $20 million for investment, but can receive support of up to $250 million.STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENTKenney said the corporation could provide financial support to a group seeking to buy a stake in the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain project.“We continue to discuss this with the federal government,” he said. “The prime minister has expressed an interest in selling a stake to First Nations. If that future potential First Nations consortium comes forward to the (Alberta corporation) with an application, I’m sure it will be given serious consideration.”At least three different groups in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are seeking full or partial ownership of the pipeline, which carries crude oil from Alberta to the west coast.The federal government is studying the best options for Indigenous communities to reap economic benefits from the project, but Ottawa isn’t planning to sell the pipeline while legal and political risks remain.

The comprehensive challenge China poses to the United States might be the only issue that brings bipartisan consensus to Washington these days. There is a growing appetite to challenge China’s unfair trading policies, military buildup, worsening human rights record, coercive economic practices, and drive to dominate the key technologies and industries of the future. Regardless of any trade deal that the Donald Trump administration might strike with Beijing, and irrespective of who the next US president is, the American response to a more externally aggressive and internally repressive China is likely to endure and become sharper, broader and deeper.The future of the US-Australia alliance must evolve with this reality in mind. Both countries are committed to a vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Following nearly 70 years of a formal treaty relationship, the two countries are well-suited to working together on security and defense matters in support of that vision. But as a more comprehensive and assertive US strategy emerges, cooperating in other areas might become more challenging if Australian and US interests are, or are perceived to be, less well aligned.Failure to understand and address key differences in interests and viewpoints between allies will significantly dilute the effectiveness of cooperation between the two countries. Disagreement between close allies is normal, but without bilateral responses based on honest discussion, alliance management can easily devolve into papering over differences and a seeking of the lowest common denominator — which is simply insufficient in an era of great power competition.Navigating an increasingly complex geopolitical environment demands clarifying expectations on both sides and pushing the conversation in Australia and the United States beyond a celebration of ‘mate-ship’. The two allies need to have an honest appraisal of areas of convergence, and more importantly, areas of divergence. Greater attention to, and debate about, these areas of potential divergence should not be avoided, but rather embraced when determining independent and joint courses of action for Washington and Canberra.For it to continue to succeed and remain relevant, the US-Australia alliance demands a realistic road-map for the challenges ahead. Such a road-map requires an analysis of Chinese objectives and the emerging American and Australian responses.UNDERSTANDING CHINESE OBJECTIVESWhether from domestic insecurity or a historical belief in the centrality of its role in Asia, China appears increasingly determined to establish a Sino-centric Indo-Pacific. To accomplish this objective, China is working to ease the United States out of the Western Pacific and to fill that vacuum with its own presence and influence.Thus far, Beijing has attempted to accomplish this by diluting the credibility, effectiveness and relevance of US alliances in Asia, while simultaneously undercutting the will of Washington’s regional allies to accept the risks and costs associated with countering growing Chinese power.These efforts have accelerated noticeably in the Xi Jinping-era. This includes utilizing a combination of coercion and interference measures designed to intimidate or silence opposing views, economic incentives intended to seduce, and alternative institutional arrangements whose purpose is to lock in advantages for Beijing at the United States’ expense.The most obvious challenge comes from outright attempts to directly and physically alter the region’s strategic and political landscape. There are many instances of such behavior, although they come in different settings and with different degrees of intensity. Beijing’s most egregious flouting of international law includes: creating, claiming and militarizing land features in the South China Sea; harassing Australian and American ships and planes legally and legitimately operating in international waters; and developing and building military capabilities designed to force the United States out of the region.With respect to Chinese objectives toward Indo-Pacific states, the intent is to alter the regional status quo by presenting these states with a fait accompli and convincing them that the cost of being dragged into a dispute between Beijing and Washington is too high. As China’s messaging seems to posit, it is better for smaller states to remain on the sidelines and adjust to the inevitability of Chinese preeminence. If countries nevertheless criticize or oppose these and other Chinese actions, they frequently suffer diplomatic freezes, commercial threats or real economic punishment.Chinese coercion and threats must be understood alongside its use of economic inducements. Beijing uses its economic influence to offer countries, sub-national actors, and individuals the promise of privileged economic advantage. These include preferential trade agreements, investment in infrastructure projects, development assistance, and concessional loans in pursuit of political objectives.Unquestionably, some of these infrastructure investments and economic arrangements benefit local populations — as they are badly needed to help fuel growth in the region. But these tools of economic statecraft have proved to be a double-edge sword, which can be wielded when Beijing wants to apply political pressure. Similarly, investment from the Chinese government or Communist Party of China (CCP)-linked organisations in state governments, universities, and think tanks has been used to promote more favorable perceptions of China, to increase support for Beijing’s policies and actions, and to shape the choices of leaders within these organisations. Finally, Beijing and CCP-run organisations have financially incentivised individuals by donating to their political campaigns, placing them on corporate boards, organizing lucrative advisory positions and occasionally offering outright bribes.In multi-lateral fora, Beijing has also sought to expand its influence at the institutional level with an eye toward advancing a Chinese-centric model. In some respects, it is a welcome change that China is now taking on a greater role in established international institutions — the advancement of national interest and values through institutions is part and parcel of international politics. On issues such as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and international peace-keeping and anti-piracy operations, many of China’s efforts have been helpful and should be encouraged.But Beijing has also used this new influence to shift the rules from within, advance alternative arrangements, redefine norms of behavior in emerging domains, and shape institutions to reflect its own interests and political values — many of which are not shared by the United States or Australia. At the United Nations (UN), China has exerted a growing influence over how the UN defines, supports, and monitors human rights, with the clear aim of weakening UN oversight of Chinese human rights violations. China is also trying to reshape the constructs of international human rights standards away from individual dignity toward greater privileges for states and regimes. Beyond human rights, Beijing has sought to redefine prevailing international norms on freedom of navigation, and define the emerging rules of internet governance, space, and the polar regions to its advantage.Meanwhile, China is also advancing geo-economic projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to bring Asia into its orbit, and exclude the United States. These are not simply alternative institutional regimes that happen to be Chinese-led. They are an effort to offer alternative standards of transparency, accountability, and methods for dispute resolution in order to create a construct by which Beijing can advance its strategic and political objectives.China is clearly an indispensable economic and diplomatic player in the region and world. Therefore, a strategic outlook should not seek to shun, ignore or isolate Beijing, but rather to ensure the United States and Australia collectively determine the terms by which Beijing is engaged. There is also the need to deter the Communist Party from engaging in behaviors contrary to Australian and American interests by increasing the costs of doing so.That is the challenge for the US-Australian alliance.THE GATHERING CONSENSUSSince the administration of Richard Nixon, engagement was the preferred US strategy for dealing with a rising China. The logic was clear. Emerging out of the Mao-era with an economy walled off from the rest of the world, Beijing needed investment and commercial relations with the advanced economies of the world to modernize its industries, grow its economy, and improve the lives of its citizens. The view among policymakers in Washington was that by opening itself to the wider world, China would be pushed towards a market economy and gradually liberalize its political system.Yet, over the past several years, a consensus view in Washington has emerged that earlier hopes for political reform and economic liberalization in China have been frustrated, and the time has come for a stronger and less tolerant response to Beijing’s actions. This position now extends beyond Washington and includes leading voices from business, labor, and civil society groups who have seen the consequences of Chinese actions in their sectors. This wide array of stakeholders gives the current US administration more latitude for pursuing a harder line. Increasingly, policymakers in the United States are attuned to the scale and scope of the challenge that China presents not only to the United States, but to the norms and values of the rules-based international order — the network of alliances, treaties, conventions and institutions underpinned by international law.The broad contours of a strategy of US counter-pressure are emerging, as evidenced by both the Trump administration’s official documents and congressional action. Even though it is not yet fully formed or resourced, this new approach seems to contain an increased willingness to tolerate sustained friction, a greater appetite for risk-taking, and a search for leverage across multiple domains.The new, more assertive US approach is evident in the forthright discussion of the multiple challenges China presents to the United States. The Trump administration’s 2017 National Security Strategy — a legally-mandated document that articulates the executive branch’s defense vision and strategy — began such a discussion. It announced the return of great power competition, named China a ‘strategic competitor’, and stated that “China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor”. In October 2018, Vice President Mike Pence made a comprehensive case in a speech for Washington’s claims that China poses a systemic threat to American national interests. Similar rhetoric has come from the US departments of State, Justice, Treasury and Homeland Security, and were encapsulated best by Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shannan’s statement that the top priority of the Pentagon was “China, China, China”.Beneath the lofty and occasionally blunt rhetoric, a suite of policies is beginning to take shape. In the economic realm, the Trump administration has responded to Beijing’s unfair practices by taking steps to restructure the US-Chinese relationship through tariffs, investment restrictions, export controls, and law enforcement actions against Chinese industrial and cyber-espionage. There is also a nascent conversation about what the partial decoupling of the American and Chinese economies would look like and how the United States and its allies can best coordinate their economic policies. Beijing’s investments in artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, 5G, and robotics have spurred Washington to begin framing new industrial and innovation policies. In the military realm, the administration has declared that great power competition — and not terrorism — is its main focus. The contours of that competition and the American response was recently explained in the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Strategy Report. Finally, greater attention is being paid to the various elements of Chinese sharp power, and there are increasing efforts underway to respond to Chinese influence operations and export of its authoritarian model to Southeast Asia and further abroad.While this new strategy is largely being driven by the Trump administration, all indicators are that this is an approach that will likely last well beyond Trump and continue to receive bipartisan support. For allies of the United States, it will also likely result in requests from Washington for more support, buy-in, and burden sharing.In Australia, there is a greater diversity of opinions on the appropriate response to a rising China. Within official government circles, there is an increasing recognition of the challenges Beijing presents Canberra. Policy has followed accordingly, with the introduction of anti-foreign interference legislation, banning Huawei from building Australia’s 5G infrastructure, tightening of foreign investment screening, and moves to block Chinese companies from purchasing critical infrastructure in Australia. But, in business and education circles — and occasionally in political circles — there is less desire to recognise that Xi Jinping’s China presents Australia not only boundless opportunities, but a growing number of challenges as well.AREAS OF LIKELY CONVERGENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIAAustralia’s 2016 Defense White Paper and 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper — which are formal articulations of the government’s defense and foreign policies — reaffirm its determination to work more closely with the region’s democracies to “support a balance in the Indo-Pacific favorable to our interests and promote an open, inclusive and rules-based region”.The 67-year-old Australia-US alliance is well suited to counter instances of direct and overt coercion and interference. Both the United States and Australia are likely to increase cooperation in this context. This especially applies to defense cooperation with respect to the force posture for both countries, the interoperability of capabilities, the greater sharing of intelligence and the Australian hosting of US assets. It also applies to coordinated and joint strategic and military activities in the region.Already, advances in military technology and civilian technology with military applications are deepening cooperation between both countries. In 2017, US legislation expanded the definition of the ‘National Technology and Industrial Base’ to include Australia and the United Kingdom with the aim of better enabling innovation and interoperability between the three militaries. Australia is already engaged with the United States in areas such as electronic warfare, hyper-sonics, energy weapons, and quantum applications. This cooperation is certain to continue and increase.There will also be significant areas of convergence as both Australia and the United States update their legal and regulatory frameworks for protecting critical infrastructure, minimizing the impact of cyber espionage, and safeguarding the integrity of their democratic systems. This will be seen in the regulations governing cyberspace, in the selection — and exclusion — of companies to build 5G networks, in the upgrading of foreign investment screening to prevent Beijing’s acquisition of sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure, and in ongoing efforts to enhance foreign influence laws.There is also potential for greater policy coordination and coalition building across the Indo-Pacific region. This should focus on providing economic development that is sustainable, high standard, and market-driven. It should also affirm support for key tenets of the rules-based order, such as freedom of navigation and sovereignty. There are active efforts underway to respond to all of these issues but there is a need for more coordination — by delineating ongoing efforts, adjusting overlapping ones, prioritizing among them, and determining which nations are best equipped for which types of missions.Finally, there will likely be a growing emphasis for both Australia and the United States to do more to protect the integrity of their democratic institutions, processes, and values. As China develops new technologies and capabilities, it will have a greater ability to reach into both countries, exacerbate internal tensions, and monitor diaspora communities overseas. This is a direct threat to the principles of a democratic society and Australia and the United States will continue to be challenged by how best to respond. While each country will need to tailor such responses in accordance with their own domestic circumstances, both countries will benefit from working together to share best practices on maintaining integrity of their institutions, support for their diaspora populations and broader societal resilience.UNDERSTANDING DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIAFor all their shared interests and ongoing cooperation, Australia and the United States also have significant differences that are important to acknowledge in order to mitigate their impact on other strategic aims.The dynamic of the alliance up to this point has been largely shaped by geography and the disparate global roles played by the two countries. The United States has underpinned the liberal international order for more than seven decades. In contrast, as a smaller country, Australia has often found itself adapting to, rather than shaping global developments. While Australia has been one of the United States’ more forward leaning allies, Canberra has also been hesitant to get too far out in front in some areas. Now, as the United States and Australia face the growing power and influence of China together, these dynamics shape their respective responses and policy choices in several distinct ways.Although the United States may have the ability to either compel other states or deter competitors from doing something through threats, smaller countries such as Australia tend to exhaust possibilities for persuasion before considering other alternatives. In the context of China, this means that the United States has a far greater willingness to take more robust positions towards China than Australia. This is typified by the Trump administration’s recent efforts to force Beijing to agree to economic and trade concessions and Australia’s reluctance to join the United States in undertaking Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea.These tendencies can also be seen in the degree to which the United States is more willing to contemplate swift and profound shifts in policy vis-à-vis other great powers versus Australia’s preference to do so incrementally. From Canberra’s perspective, this allows them to both gauge the commitment of Washington to new policy initiatives, as well as assess the response from Beijing. With an increasingly assertive policy towards China from Washington, Canberra will likely seek more explicit guarantees of cover and more reassurance from senior US policymakers.On the economic front, Australia remains wary of supporting an economic offensive against China for several reasons. First, Australia benefits in some ways from the status quo. For example, genuine economic liberalization in China would be a mixed blessing for Australia, at least in the short and medium term. China’s state-led economy privileges state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and national champions, who purchase significant amounts of Australian commodities. Australia exports enormous amounts of mineral, energy and agricultural commodities, as well as services, such as education and tourism. Australian firms do not suffer the same degree of problems with forced intellectual property transfers and theft as do other economies. As a result, Australia has largely avoided the worst aspects associated with the opaque and arbitrary nature of the Chinese political economy.It is from this perspective that Australia is concerned about the outcome of a potential trade deal between the United States and China. Without more information about what sort of deal might be reached, or the ability to provide input into the terms of the deal, it is difficult for Canberra to calculate what effect any deal would have on Australia. Furthermore, while the relative size and importance of the US economy would likely limit retaliatory actions upon it by Beijing, Australia could feel disproportionate economic pain — although China’s unilateral capacity to inflict prohibitive economic costs on Australia without suffering significant economic losses itself may well be overestimated.In the arena of existing international institutions, given its relative size, Australia is more concerned about preserving even seriously flawed or ineffective institutions than the United States. For example, even though Australia recognizes the flaws of the World Trade Organization (WTO), it will nevertheless seek to preserve the relevance and integrity of the institution, because of the benefit it offers smaller economies. In contrast, the Trump administration’s frustrations with the fundamental inability of the WTO to address Chinese economic practices, such as the massive subsidies provided to SOEs and national champions, its ‘Made in China 2025’ indigenous innovation drive, and intellectual property violations has led Washington to downgrade the importance of the WTO and attempt a bilateral re-ordering of the economic relationship instead.Finally, the United States is generally much more willing to receive, or simply has become accustomed to, criticism in the Indo-Pacific region. In contrast, Australia prefers to be seen as a good neighbor and regional citizen, and therefore works harder to find consensus before acting. The result of this is that the United States is prepared to take action, and try to bring along allies after the fact, whereas Australia prefers to build the coalition before taking action.BRIDGING THE GAPThe United States and Australia have a long and storied history as close allies. They broadly admire each other and share the values that only liberal democratic societies can.And yet, at this present time, there are frustrations between Canberra and Washington. The United States would like Australia to engage more consistently in the Indo-Pacific, to be less cautious about calling out China’s destabilizing activities, and to lessen its commercial dependence on China. Canberra would like the United States to clarify its objectives, strategy and resources in greater detail and to be clearer about what it would like Australia to do. It would also like the United States to refrain from counter-productive actions, such as picking fights with allies over issues that could be resolved quietly and behind closed doors.At this juncture, both countries would be well served by clarifying their expectations of each other. Doing so, however, first demands understanding of where their interests align and are likely to engender greater cooperation and second, knowing where their interests diverge and are likely to generate friction, frustration, or disappointment. There are areas where Australia and the United States can continue, and even intensify their collaboration. But there are other areas where they will have to be content to undertake efforts independently.So, how can Australia and the United States be better allies to each other given the rapidly shifting conditions and differing perspectives on several key issues? As two sovereign states, Australian and US interests will never perfectly align. Looking only for areas of overlap inevitably leads to a lowest common denominator approach to the alliance. Given the stakes involved and the magnitude of the challenge both countries face, it is clear that such an approach is insufficient. In practical terms, the policy — and indeed political — debate requires a re-framing of the alliance. There needs to be a shift from merely asking where the two countries can logically cooperate, to taking a more strategic approach.There are several lines of effort that follow from this analysis.1. Invest to competeGiven the scale of the challenge, both Australia and the United States need to commit more resources towards both domestic and foreign initiatives. Domestic initiatives to increase long-term competitiveness, resilience, and innovation, and further investment will ensure that citizens are better equipped to thrive in the industries of growing importance in the 21st century. Australia and the United States can and should debate the best mechanisms for doing so, but without significant increases in government support for domestic education, research and development, technology and infrastructure, both societies will be less well equipped to meet the challenges they will continue to face.In the foreign arena, this applies to more disciplined and consistent messages when engaging the region and a more targeted approach to the deployment and purpose of aid, in addition to traditional aims of humanitarian assistance and development. With respect to aid, it must be a priority to find new ways to enable and facilitate the use of private investment as a complement to government assistance. And in the defense realm, the conversation should not only be what level of defense spending constitutes appropriate burden-sharing but, rather, what level meets the requirements for maintaining a favorable balance of power in the region.Calls for increased government spending should always be met with skepticism, and there is room for debate about the appropriate balance between public and private sector investment. However, in this instance, the intention is that government spending is better coordinated and aligned with strategic objectives.2. Enhance regional architectureThe security and trade architectures of the Indo-Pacific region need to be strengthened. Recent years have seen multiple, ongoing, and overlapping efforts undertaken by Australia and the United States to promote an open and liberal trade architecture and to update the set of security relationships in the region to promote stability and deter aggression. These are indeed positive steps, although they have not yet proved sufficiently robust to meet their stated — and their implied — objectives.US security architecture in the Indo-Pacific region has long been based on a hub-and-spoke model, with the United States sitting at the center of a number of different bilateral treaty alliances. Over the past several years, Washington has updated many of its bilateral alliances, sought out new partners, proliferated the number of trilateral relationships, and reconstituted at least one quadrilateral grouping. Unclear, however, is what the cumulative effect of this proliferation of arrangements adds up to, and whether they offer what is required to blunt and deter further Chinese coercion. Australia and the United States should explore what such a networked alliance system might yield, assess how to harness the widening set of security relationships in and beyond the region, and suggest what new structures would advance such a process.One particularly promising grouping is the deepening strategic, defense, and intelligence trilateral relationship between the United States, Japan and Australia. The growth of this group is a development of major consequence for the region and ought to be fast-tracked and better promoted. Additionally, Tokyo should be encouraged to take the diplomatic lead on joint initiatives more frequently given its high standing and the trust placed in it, especially by Southeast Asian nations. The United States and Australia should also make a point — in substance and rhetoric — to link the US-Japan Security Treaty and Australia-US Security Treaty together as two anchors which augment one another and which bring peace and stability in the region.With respect to economic architecture and trade agreements, both Australia and the United States must accept that the risks and sacrifices demanded of each other and other nations in countering destabilizing Chinese policies and actions must be shared and dispersed, as must emerging benefits and opportunities. The original purpose of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) remains the gold standard. The TPP addressed some areas in which the WTO fell short. It was designed to increase collective pressure on China and create new opportunities for its members. Economic and diplomatic risks and costs of Chinese displeasure were shared. The TPP also left open the prospect of China eventually joining if it agreed to abide by relevant rules and standards.The TPP ought to remain one paradigm for the United States and Australia encouraging other states to take constructive forward-leaning action in the region. Moving ahead, economic and trade agreements pursued and promoted by both countries should not only ostensibly increase mutual market access opportunities for firms from signatory countries, but promote desirable rules and standards at the same time.3. Talk more to the publicIn both Australia and the United States, more public discussion is needed about the challenges associated with China’s rise. Currently, there is a gap in both countries between governmental perceptions of the challenges posed by China, and public opinion. Without more consistent political leadership and communication, that gap is unlikely to narrow. Moreover, in the absence of clear explanations of how Beijing’s actions threaten American and Australian values and interests, steps taken to mitigate those challenges will likely appear as either provocative or counter-productive.In the United States, although there is an emerging consensus that China presents a challenge to both American values and interests, there is less agreement on the exact nature of the challenges, and even less on the appropriate response. On the one hand, China is the only country that the majority of Americans now view as a competitor, and it is the only foreign policy issue — other than terrorism — that Americans worry will adversely affect their jobs, industries, prosperity, values, and security. On the other hand, until Washington can better explain to Americans why it is competing with China, in which domains, and with what resources, it is difficult to say how long any administration would be willing to sustain this competition.In Australia, the government needs to be more upfront with its public about the challenge China poses to its interests and values, its efforts to weaken the alliance with the United States, and Beijing’s attempts to revise key aspects of the existing rules-based order. Canberra’s strategic, security and intelligence policymakers seem to be well ahead of the Australian population when it comes to understanding issues like the nature of the challenge posed by China to democratic values and institutions, and the critical importance of the US-Australia alliance to Australia and the broader region. For the alliance to remain relevant, the Australian government needs to ensure that such a gap is narrowed through the public gaining a better understanding of the challenges Australia is facing and how the alliance with the United States benefits Australia and the region.4. Coordinate betterStrategic and tactically-consequential decisions by the United States which affect allied interests should be coordinated in advance. Failing to do so can blindside allies and prevent them from being able to properly calculate the risks and benefits for their own countries. Moreover, if allies like Australia do not fully understand what Washington is trying to accomplish, or its strategy for doing so, they will be less inclined and less willing to help. Bringing Australia into the conversation earlier will give Canberra the confidence that US policymakers are taking into account their interests as well.Tighter coordination should also be used to diminish the risks allied states face. Such coordination could mitigate the challenges of China’s well-known tactic of economic coercion. For example, if Beijing were to deliberately reduce the number of Chinese students or tourists it sends to Australia as a way to put pressure on Canberra, the United States should consider cutting the number of tourist and student visas it gives to Chinese visitors. Australia should recognize that the United States is prepared to accept a large disruption to its own markets and trade in its attempt to re-balance the global trading relationship with China, and will look to Australia to support these efforts, even if not to the same scale.5. Diversify marketsChina will remain an important economic partner for both nations, but Canberra and Washington should ensure that they are not overly dependent on any single market, making them intolerably vulnerable to economic coercion or to political frictions with Beijing. Australia and the United States need to re-frame the terms of their engagement with China, albeit in different ways.Washington is in the midst of a debate about what appropriate decoupling of the US and Chinese economies might look like. The undeniable challenge is the degree to which the world’s two biggest economies are already intertwined and interdependent. However, as the strategic competition between the United States and China intensifies, both countries will be looking to determine how to protect their industries, their ability to innovate, and their critical infrastructure.In Australia, there is a nascent conversation about how the government can support and encourage business and higher education to diversify their sources of revenue, investment and trade. As Australia’s largest trading partner, China accounts for 30 per cent of Australia’s export market, and 31 per cent of Australia’s education exports (nearly three times as much as India, the second largest source). This reliance leads many in the business and education communities in Australia to become some of the biggest advocates of a closer Australia-China relationship. The most obvious solution to this issue would be active diversification. To some degree, the largest Australian exports to China — iron ore and coal, are fungible and capable of being sold to other buyers on the global market. And Australian education is an attractive investment for not only Chinese middle-class families, but for an increasing number of families across the world. If Australia can identify and tap into a more diverse array of export markets and sources of investment, it would spread risk and enable greater economic and political resilience in the event of political displeasure from Beijing.It is true that democratic governments cannot force private firms to make decisions that are commercially irrational or unacceptable to their stakeholders. This is not being suggested. One virtue of a more open conversation about the comprehensive challenge China poses is that private firms ought to take into consideration the predatory, coercive, and punitive actions China occasionally inflicts on other economies for non-commercial reasons as part of a firm’s normal risk management calculations. Private firms should have no reason to be ignorant about the reality that the Chinese political economy and market operates differently to the open and market-based economies of liberal democratic countries.Moreover, private firms ought to be encouraged to consider themselves ‘responsible stakeholders’ within a rules-based system in addition to creators of economic wealth and value.6. Earn regional leadershipAustralia and the United States have begun focusing their time, energy, and resources on the Indo-Pacific. They can do more. For a long time, the alliance cooperated best and most seamlessly further afield, most notably in the Middle East. But as China is expanding its influence across the region and intervening in the domestic affairs of more countries, the alliance has been responding by shifting its strategic orientation closer to Australia’s neighborhood. Both countries have publicly recognized this, with former US Secretary of Defense James Mattis proclaiming that the Indo-Pacific “is our priority theater”, and Canberra’s 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper stating its intentions to “support a balance in the Indo-Pacific favorable to our interests and promote an open, inclusive and rules-based region”. What remains to be seen is how they will follow up on those statements.Australia has committed itself to regaining its strategic focus on the Pacific and earning regional leadership. As Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated in November 2018, Canberra would be “returning the Pacific to where it should be — front and center of Australia’s strategic outlook”. This came with a commitment from the Australian government for A$2 billion for regional infrastructure projects; another A$1 billion for Australian businesses operating in the Pacific; a joint naval base on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea; annual meetings between defense, police and border forces in the region; and new diplomatic posts throughout the Pacific Islands. The results of these promises will now depend on how Canberra prioritizes this critical region, re-orients military assets, and the speed with which Canberra can follow up.Moreover, Australia can use its preexisting inclination for consensus building to take the lead in communicating with other countries in the region and developing initiatives which are constructive and beneficial for regional partners. This would utilize Australia’s particular expertise and better position the United States to deepen alliance relationships as stabilizing rather than disruptive factors.In the South Pacific, the United States should support Australia’s efforts in the region, as Canberra is best suited to take the lead in this area. But if Washington expects more of Australia in the Pacific, it will need to follow through on its resource commitments. The White House has signaled its attention to the region but will need to do more to strategically increase aid and investment, to acknowledge the effects of climate change in the Pacific, and to build capacity in the region to combat corruption.Additionally, for Australia and America to make headway in the Pacific, it would be helpful for the US administration to stop taking punitive measures against allies and resolve differences behind closed doors and in a less provocative manner. The United States’ increased focus on the region has been marred by the Trump administration’s economic policies. There is a clear reason to take a strong stand against China’s market distorting policies. However, the message becomes diluted when the United States is simultaneously complaining about European, Japanese and South Korean economic policies. Resorting to tariffs against these allied countries makes it difficult for the United States to lead any collective response against Chinese practices — a lost opportunity when these countries have similar complaints about Chinese economic practices. It also puts allies like Australia in an awkward position of trying to support the US-led action against Chinese economic practices at the same time that the United States is also pushing for actions against other allies. “America First,” might have political utility in the United States, but it works less well for alliance management and undercuts more successful prosecution of a China strategy.7. Acknowledge differencesAs strategic competition heats up, both Washington and Canberra will have to work to ensure that differences in approach do not put them at cross purposes. While Australia and the United States share a common vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific and have interests and values that are perhaps more aligned than any other two alliance partners, their viewpoints will occasionally differ — usually in tactical terms but also occasionally in strategic terms. The ability to work through areas of divergence will determine the alliances’ relevance in the future.The Trump administration has declared China a long-term strategic competitor and has taken a host of more proactive policies in response to Chinese actions. If the United States is going to continue its effort to decouple its economy from China’s, it is not yet clear how deep or quickly the decoupling will move or which industries would benefit or suffer. As the United States takes on the challenge of redefining the terms by which the world engages with China to make it fairer for everyone, it will benefit from a united front amongst its allies. In order to achieve this, it will be critical for the United States to clearly articulate its intentions, demonstrate its willingness to make sacrifices, and work to ensure that the priorities of its allies are also taken into account.The challenges posed by China are not just a threat to the United States, they are matters of regional and global concern. As Australia continues to reckon with the challenges China poses in the economic, security and human rights realms, it would do well to look past some of the immediate differences in approach and tactics and focus more on the overlap in priorities and objectives. In doing so, it will become clear that many of the actions being taken by the United States now will ultimately benefit Australia in the long run.STRENGTHENING THE ALLIANCEThe US-Australia alliance has been indispensable for more than seven decades, but it has also always been a work in progress. In the present environment, both Australia and the United States are confronting an increasingly assertive China, which is bringing new challenges to the alliance. As China continues its backsliding, Canberra will have to determine how much it is willing to say publicly about China’s worsening domestic human rights record, unfair trading policies, and coercive practices. The United States and its allies in the region can shape the way they engage with China, but not if they are divided on a collective response on the issues and areas that will be decisive.Shared history, values, and prosperity have allowed the US-Australia alliance to thrive for the better part of a century. But the closeness of the relationship can easily drift into complacency. Washington and Canberra have long affirmed their cooperation and shied away from highlighting their differences. But it is precisely their closeness that should allow them to undertake the exacting work of candidly exploring those differences, asking more of themselves and demanding more from each other in order to take on the multifaceted challenges of great power competition. This is the path to recapitalizing their alliance and modelling how to revitalize other alliances in the region.Source: The future of the US-Australia alliance in an era of great power competition — United States Studies Centre

Yes. This question is very relevant to whether there is a climate crisis or not. The reason is the so called crisis is based on the view that warming today is unprecedented. If it is not because in the recent past the climate has been warmer then no climate crisis.The affirmative answer is supported by the specific terms of a very recent petition signed by 90 leading Italian scientists announcing to governments and the public that there is no climate crisis. The petition said -This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The following historical graph shows the history as explained in the petition.The full petition follows -“90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019NOTE: The English version of the petition that follows below is an unpolished translation of the original Italian version. The English version still needs to be polished up a bit, but it fully and accurately conveys the overall thrust of the original Italian version.“In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…PROMOTING COMMITTEE:Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.SIGNATORIESAntonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Bologna, Founder and President of the Ettore Center for Scientific Culture Majorana di Erice.Renato Angelo Ricci, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Padua, former President of the Italian Society of Physics and Society European Physics; Galileo Movement 2001.Aurelio Misiti, Professor of Health-Environmental Engineering, University of Sapienza, Rome.Antonio Brambati, Professor of Sedimentology, University of Trieste, Project Manager Paleoclima-mare of PNRA, already President of the National Oceanography Commission.Cesare Barbieri, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, University of Padua.6. Sergio Bartalucci, Physicist, President of the Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.7. Antonio Bianchini, Professor of Astronomy, University of Padua.8. Paolo Bonifazi, former Director of the Institute of Interplanetary Space Physics, National Astrophysical Institute.9. Francesca Bozzano, Professor of Applied Geology, Sapienza University of Rome, Director of the CERI Research Center.10. Marcello Buccolini, Professor of Geomorphology, University University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.11. Paolo Budetta, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Naples.12. Monia Calista, Researcher in Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.13. Giovanni Carboni, Professor of Physics, Tor Vergata University, Rome; Galileo Movement 2001.14. Franco Casali, Professor of Physics, University of Bologna and Bologna Academy of Sciences.15. Giuliano Ceradelli, Engineer and climatologist, ALDAI.16. Domenico Corradini, Professor of Historical Geology, University of Modena.17. Fulvio Crisciani, Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, University of Trieste and Marine Sciences Institute, Cnr, Trieste.18. Carlo Esposito, Professor of Remote Sensing, La Sapienza University, Rome.19. Mario Floris, Professor of Remote Sensing, University of Padua.20. Gianni Fochi, Chemist, Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa; scientific journalist.21. Mario Gaeta, Professor of Volcanology, La Sapienza University, Rome.22. Giuseppe Gambolati, Fellow of the American Geophysica Union, Professor of Numerical Methods, University of Padua.23. Rinaldo Genevois, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Padua.24. Carlo Lombardi, Professor of Nuclear Plants, Milan Polytechnic.25. Luigi Marino, Geologist, Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.26. Salvatore Martino, Professor of Seismic Microzonation, La Sapienza University, Rome.27. Paolo Mazzanti, Professor of Satellite Interferometry, La Sapienza University, Rome.28. Adriano Mazzarella, Professor of Meteorology and Climatology, University of Naples.29. Carlo Merli, Professor of Environmental Technologies, La Sapienza University, Rome.30. Alberto Mirandola, Professor of Applied Energetics and President of the Research Doctorate in Energy, University of Padua.31. Renzo Mosetti, Professor of Oceanography, University of Trieste, former Director of the Department of Oceanography, Istituto OGS, Trieste.32.Daniela Novembre, Researcher in Mining Geological Resources and Mineralogical Applications, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti Pescara.33. Sergio Ortolani, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Padua.34. Antonio Pasculli, Researcher of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.35. Ernesto Pedrocchi, Professor Emeritus of Energetics, Polytechnic of Milan.36. Tommaso Piacentini, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.37. Guido Possa, nuclear engineer, formerly Deputy Minister Miur.38. Mario Luigi Rainone, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Chieti-Pescara.39. Francesca Quercia, Geologist, Research Director, Ispra.40. Giancarlo Ruocco, Professor of Structure of Matter, La Sapienza University, Rome.41. Sergio Rusi, Professor of Hydrogeology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.42. Massimo Salleolini, Professor of Applied Hydrogeology and Environmental Hydrology, University of Siena.43. Emanuele Scalcione, Head of Regional Agrometeorological Service Alsia, Basilicata.44. Nicola Sciarra, Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.45. Leonello Serva, Geologist, Director of Geological Services of Italy; Galileo Movement 2001.46. Luigi Stedile, Geologist, Geological Risk Review and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.47. Giorgio Trenta, Physicist and Physician, President Emeritus of the Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection; Galileo Movement 2001.48. Gianluca Valenzise, Director of Research, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome.49. Corrado Venturini, Professor of Structural Geology, University of Bologna.50. Franco Zavatti, Astronomy Researcher, University of Bologna.51. Achille Balduzzi, Geologist, Agip-Eni.52. Claudio Borri, Professor of Construction Sciences, University of Florence, Coordinator of the International Doctorate in Engineering Civil.53. Pino Cippitelli, Agip-Eni Geologist.54. Franco Di Cesare, Executive, Agip-Eni.55. Serena Doria, Researcher of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.56. Enzo Siviero, Professor of Ponti, University of Venice, Rector of the e-Campus University.57. Pietro Agostini, Engineer, Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.58. Donato Barone, Engineer.59. Roberto Bonucchi, Teacher.60. Gianfranco Brignoli, Geologist.61. Alessandro Chiaudani, Ph.D. agronomist, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.62. Antonio Clemente, Researcher in Urban Planning, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.63. Luigi Fressoia, urban architect, Perugia.64. Sabino Gallo, nuclear engineer.65. Daniela Giannessi, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.66. Roberto Grassi, Engineer, Director of G&G, Rome.67. Alberto Lagi, Engineer, President of Restoration of Complex Damaged Plants.68. Luciano Lepori, Ipcf-Cnr Researcher, Pisa.69. Roberto Madrigali, Metereologo.70. Ludovica Manusardi, Nuclear physicist and scientific journalist, Ugis.71. Maria Massullo, Technologist, Enea-Casaccia, Rome.72. Enrico Matteoli, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.73. Gabriella Mincione, Professor of Sciences and Techniques of Laboratory Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.74. Massimo Pallotta, First Technologist, National Institute for Nuclear Physics.75. Enzo Pennetta, Professor of Natural Sciences and scientific divulger.76. Nunzia Radatti, Chemist, Sogin.77. Vincenzo Romanello, Nuclear Engineer, Research Center, Rez, Czech Republic.78. Alberto Rota, Engineer, Researcher at Cise and Enel.79. Massimo Sepielli, Director of Research, Enea, Rome.80. Ugo Spezia, Engineer, Industrial Safety Manager, Sogin; Galileo Movement 2001.81. Emilio Stefani, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Modena.82. Umberto Tirelli, Visiting Senior Scientist, Istituto Tumori d’Aviano; Galileo Movement 2001.83. Roberto Vacca, Engineer and scientific writer.”FOLLOW UP OPINION - What now for global climate catastrophe?“90 Italian scientists reject global warming in petition to Italian leadersBy YEN MAKABENTAJuly 13, 2019YEN MAKABENTA“First wordONLY two months away from the convening of a climate action summit in New York, the United Nations has been rocked by news of a petition signed by 90 of Italy’s leading scientists that was sent to the highest Italian leaders.It carried the title “Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming,” and it was addressed to the president of the Republic, the president of the Senate, the president of the Chamber of Deputies, and the president of the Council.The scientists told the leaders that carbon dioxide’s impact on climate was “unjustifiably exaggerated,” and catastrophic predictions were “not realistic.”The story calls to mind that of another Italian, the great Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who is acknowledged as the father of the scientific method. He was forced to recant his views during the Inquisition, and then was proved overwhelmingly right…The detailed letter to lawmakers challenges the claim that man is causing catastrophic global warming, and that carbon dioxide emissions are the culprit.The scientists argue that a nation’s policies with regard to global warming should not be based on hysterics but should be “consistent with scientific knowledge.”They state flatly that “the anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate simulation models.” In other words, the entire catastrophic global warming scare rests on very imprecise and almost invariably wrong simulation models, which cannot account for natural variability.“Natural variability,” in fact, “explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.” It is irresponsible and unrealistic to blame warming on human beings, and further, it’s nonsense to believe all the doom and gloom warnings. The climate simulation models “overestimate the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability.”The scientists completely blow up the myth that science is in any way based on a show of hands.They are living proof that “the alleged consensus (on global warming) does not exist.” Their petition itself demonstrates clearly the absence of a scientific consensus on the matter.The list of signers includes professors of physics, atmospheric physics, physical chemistry, natural sciences, environmental engineering, astronomy, applied geology, volcanology, meteorology and climatology, oceanography, satellite interferometry, hydrogeology, and probability and mathematical statistics. In other words, they are outstanding and highly credentialed scientists. They know what they are talking about.Will UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres answer them? What happens now to his forecast of global climate catastrophe?The ship of climate change is sinking.”[email protected] belongs to : www.manilatimes.net”When faced with the obvious fact that the warming today is not unusual then some alarmist counter by saying well the warming today is happening too fast. But what about the pause in warming? How can warming be too fast if it has stopped or paused.Further the alarmists did put winter weather in issue and predicted moderate weather without hardly any snow. This alarmist view of the future makes sense or how will global warming hang around if there are freezing winters that create major snow albedos and cause polar ice to expand?Recent very snowy and record winters are contradicting alarmism especially in the US, Australia, Chile, Russia and even Morocco.For example, —-Extreme Weather GSM“THE CONTINENTAL U.S. JUST SET IT’S COLDEST-EVER OCTOBER TEMPERATURE, BREAKING THE PREVIOUS RECORD FROM 1917OCTOBER 29, 2019 CAP ALLONThe western U.S. was blasted by a yet ANOTHER brutal Arctic air mass yesterday, Oct 28, with this one delivering the COLDEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.Peter Sinks, Utah –east of Logan– broke the Lower-48’s cold temperature record for the month of October on Monday morning with a staggering reading of minus 35 degrees.The area is know for it’s cold temperatures thanks to its high elevation (8,164 ft) as well as its unique topography, said Chicago meteorologist Tom Skilling.“It is a basin a half mile (804.67 meters) in diameter with no outlet, like a large bowl. Cold air collects in the basin on clear, calm nights,” Skilling said. “Very low temperatures can occur there, especially during outbreaks of arctic air in the winter.”The weather station located at the bottom of the sink took the -35F (-37.2C) reading at approximately 6:15AM on Monday morning, Oct 28 — beating-out the previous record low of -33F (-36.1C) set way back in 1917 (just after weak solar cycle 14, which was similar to the cycle we’ve just experienced, 24).Forgive me but I’d like to type it again, the Lower-48 just broke it’s coldest-ever temperature record for the month of October. And in addition, and perhaps even more astonishingly, the record may not even last that long — another all-time low mark is expected to be reached overnight Wednesday.Brutal Arctic air will continue to be funneled southwards from Canada by a dominant meridional (wavy) jet stream flow, which itself is associated with historically low solar activity.Prepare for the COLD — grow your own.Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: http://patreon.com/join/electroverseAny way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.Grand Solar Minimum + Pole ShiftThe Continental U.S. just set it's Coldest-Ever October Temperature, Breaking the Previous Record from 1917 - ElectroverseAlso record low temperatures hit the world from about 1940 -75 causing fear of another ice age or glaciation as Arctic ice expanded. Media recored the fears. This cooling coincided with the sharpest rise in Co2 as industrialization accelerated yet no warming from this marvelous gas. See also the reference to this period by the Italian petition.There is no climate crisis and certainly no evidence of human or Co2 climate effects. The scientists working for the UN IPCC knew this, but their doubts were over ridden by the UN political leaders as far back as 1995. The story is documented by Bernie Lewin.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.11.1 IntroductionPresent shortcomings include Significant uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding* the sensitivity of the global average temperature and mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,* Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic impacts, such that current climate change predictions have little meaning for any particular location,* Uncertainty in the timing ot the expected climate change,* Uncertainty in the natural variationsTo overcome these shortcomings, substantial improvements are required in scientific understanding which will depend on the creative ettorts of individual scientists and groups. Nevertheless the scale of the task demands international coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system we must recognize that this system is influenced by a complex array of interacting physical chemical and biological processes The scientific strategy to address these processes must include both observation and modelling. We must be able to understand the mechanisms responsible for past and present variations and to incorporate these mechanisms into suitable models ot the natural system. The models can then be run forward in time to simulate the evolution of the climate system. Such a programme includes three essential step* Analysis of observational data, often obtained from incomplete and indirect measurements, to produce coherent information and understanding,* Application of observational information and under standing to construct and validate time-dependent mathematical models of natural processes,* Running such models forward to produce predictions that can (and must) be tested against observations to determine their "skill" or reliability over relatively short time-periods.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...Scientists around the world are in revolt about what they say is a fake climate crisis based on bad science. Here are two recent petitions from Italy and Europe generally with specifics of the errors in government thinking.The best evidence is that anthropogenic global warming is modest and benign, and rising CO2 levels are beneficial, rather than harmful, for both mankind and most natural ecosystems.“That’s why over 30,000 American scientists (including me DAVE BURTON) in 1997 have signed the “Global Warming Petition” attesting to the fact that:“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”Dave Burton, IPCC AR5 WGI expert reviewer31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDsFor information about this project, click on the appropriate box below.Global Warming Petition ProjectHeidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel LaureatesFebruary 2, 2017 american science, hidden gems, L1shortJune 2, 2017 (four months from today) will be the 25 year anniversary of the Heidelberg Appeal. This historical document signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) to oppose environmental obscurantism, including climate alarmism. Among other things, the Heidelberg Appeal said:We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …These wise words by the most distinguished scientists in the world were dismissed by climate alarmism mouthpieces using their standard smear template**********************************************************ReferencesThe European Parliament building in Strasbourg. Image: AOPSome 300 professional scientists in Europe have signed a petition urging the European Parliament to abandon the unfounded alarmist position about an imminent "Climate Crisis" and adhere to the scientific facts as revealed by observations: european-petition.pdfSEPTEMBER 22, 2019EmielCharles Michel, President of the European Council Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission ‘To be appointed’, Head of the European Parliament -------------There is no climate emergencyWe, the undersigned 300(?) independent Climate Scientists and Professionals from 15(?) countries, wish to convey five urgent messages to you:1. Climate change is a fact. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with naturally-driven cold and warm cycles.2. After leaving the Little Ice Age (around 1870 AD), it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a warming-up period. This is fully in line with the natural behavior of the climate system. However, measurements show that the temperature-increase is significantly less than mainstream models predict.3. Anthropogenic Global Warming is only a hypothesis. There exists no proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the principal cause of global warming. On the contrary, latest insights confirm that more CO2 has only a modest influence on climate but it is hugely beneficial for agriculture, forestry, and for the photosynthesis that is the basis of life on Earth.4. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that increasing CO2 levels have an enhancing effect on natural disasters. Quite the reverse, there are many indications that most CO2-reduction measures have a devastating effect on wildlife, land use and economic development.5. Energy policy must be based on scientific and economic realities. We argue strongly against a harmful and unrealistic “2050-carbon-neutral policy”. There is no climate emergency and therefore no cause for panic and alarm. If superior approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and transition. Our aim should always be reliable and affordable energy at all times.With respect to a well-thought-out future, we advise European leaders that science should aim at a significantly better understanding of the climate system and that politics should focus on minimizing damage by giving priority to effective adaptation strategies to extreme weather events.We also recommend that European leaders make a clear difference in their policy between the Earth’s environment and the Earth’s climate. Taking good care of our environment is a matter of good stewardship. Climate change, however, is primarily caused by a complex combination of natural phenomena we cannot control.1 Promotors of the Declaration Professor Guus Berkhout (The Netherlands) Mr Viv Forbes (Australia/New Zealand) Professor Jeffrey Foss (Canada) Professor Richard Lindzen (USA) Jim O’Brien (Republic of Ireland) Professor Alberto Prestininzi (Italy) Professor Fritz Vahrenholt (Germany) ............ (Belgium) ............. (France) ............. (Norway)The undersigned:Scientists and Professionals from Belgium1. Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp2. Henry A. Masson, Emeritus Professor Dynamic System Analysis and Data Mining,University of Antwerp 3. Ferdinand Meeus, Research Scientist, IPCC expert Reviewer AR6 4.Scientists and Professionals from Germany 1. Dietrich Bannert, Professor of Geology, University of Hannover 2. Hans Döhler, Professor of pharma sciences, University of Hannover 3. Werner Kirstein, Emeritus Professor of Climatology, University of Leipzig,Germany 4. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Professor of Operations Research (i.R.) HTW of Saarland,Saarbrücken, Germany 5. Fritz Vahrenholt, Professor (i.R.) am Institut für Technische und MakromolekulareChemie der Universität Hamburg, GermanyScientists and Professionals from Ireland 1. Jim O’Brien, Founder of the Irish Climate Science Forum2 Scientists and Professionals from Italy