Who you gonna believe, Al Gore or your lying thermometer?

Who you gonna believe, Al Gore or your lying thermometer? by Peter Burrows 9/14/19 – elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com 

Recently, CNN hosted a marathon seven-hour Town Hall discussion of climate change featuring ten Democrats running for president.  All of them are true believers in catastrophic climate change, and all of them propose draconian solutions to solve problems that are, so far, simply nonexistent.  (For one example, see “Zillow’s White House Croney,” 7/28/19, silvercityburro.com) 

The timing of this spectacle was propitious.  Less than a week before, on August 31, Michael Moore premiered his latest documentary, Planet of the Humans, which – surprisingly — dramatizes the futility and destructiveness of wind, solar and biomass as sources of energy. (See “Michael Moore gets unstuck on stupid,” 9/2/19, silvercityburro.com) 

Also, in the month before the CNN Town Hall, temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, showed there had been no warming in the continental U.S. since at least 2005.   Not surprisingly, this was not reported by CNN, or any network that I could find, and it certainly wasn’t mentioned by any of the Democrats in the CNN Town Hall. More troubling, this inconvenient data was deliberately ignored by the NOAA.    

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=hidden+noaa 

The NOAA, which was established in 1970 to be the nation’s “weatherman,” is now a bureaucracy of over 11,000 employees.  The NOAA monitors and keeps records of weather and climate data and it has expanded its job to encompass the entire world. At some point in its history, it took on the additional ask of predicting future climate.  These bureaucrats are go-getters.  

We’ve all seen stories proclaiming: “Hottest day (week-month-year) ever recorded.” Those stories originate with NOAA data. Skeptics note that “ever recorded” represents only the last 100 years or so and that the new temperature highs are usually measured in hundredths of degrees, but a far more serious objection is that these “records” are all from land-based thermometers.   

The problem with land-based thermometers is that their readings are subject to human influences that have nothing to do with climate. People create heat as a by-product of just about everything they do. More cars, more pavement, more buildings, more air conditioning, more factories, etc., all add heat to the local surroundings.  This creates an upward bias to temperature readings over time. Problems with land-based thermometers have been well known for many years.   

In response to those criticisms, in 2005 the NOAA set up a carefully positioned network of 114 thermometers spaced uniformly across the lower 48 states.  The intent was to have recorded temperatures that were not affected by urban development, etc.    

The problem is that the NOAA ignores the data from this new network, called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, USCRN, in favor of data from one of its old temperature networks, the Cooperative Observer Network, COOP.  (How they got COOP as an acronym, I don’t know. CON would have been more apt. Maybe they knew this?)   

Back in 2011, the GAO investigated a 1200 thermometer subset of the COOP and found so many siting problems that the NOAA discontinued using data from those thermometers in 2012. However, they continue to use readings from the remaining 7500 COOP thermometers, many of which suffer the same problems the GAO found in the smaller network.   

Why, you may ask, would the old problem-plagued network still be used when there is a new state-of-the-art network, the aforementioned USCRN?  A Federal bureaucrat would be shocked at the question. They must continue to use the old network because what are the 11,000 NOAA employees supposed to do if you start taking away their thermometers? (Sarcasm, libs, sarcasm.) 

A climate skeptic would not be shocked at the question. The NOAA continues to use the old COOP network because it shows temperatures are rising while the new network DOESN’T SHOW ANY TEMPERATURE RISE.  In fact, the new data show that the average U.S. temperature is actually cooler now than in 2005.    

This is more proof that all those “record high” stories we’ve seen in at least the last 14 years represent “fake news,” otherwise known as BS.  Ditto for stories about droughts, floods, tornadoes, etc., in the U.S. being made more frequent or more intense because of rising temperatures.  

This is no surprise to anyone who has closely followed the issue.  The NOAA press releases are never qualified by noting lower readings from the new network, nor do the press releases mention if the reported temperatures are supported by satellite temperature measurements, which they are not. (Surprise!)   

On the other hand, satellite instruments do show that the average global temperature has risen since 2005, but only by .15 degrees Celsius, which equates to +1.07C/1.9F per century, well below what the global warming models predict. Whether this temperature increase is due to humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is another question, as is the question as to why the continental U.S. is not showing any warming vs. the global warming shown by satellites. 

Regardless, the bottom line is that the facts do not justify the climate change hysteria so in vogue amongst the Democrats. To coin a phrase inspired by Al Gore, catastrophic climate change is a convenient untruth, an untruth convenient for those who are trying to panic us into voting for them.   

(Note to some of my younger readers: The title of this article is a play on an old gag-line usually attributed to the comedian Groucho Marx, who was popular 50-60 years ago. One version has his wife finding him in bed with another woman.  He denies everything and says to her, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”) 

Advertisements

Michael Moore gets unstuck on stupid

Michael Moore gets unstuck on stupid by Peter Burrows 9/2/19 – elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com –

Michael Moore’s new documentary, Planet of the Humans, is getting rave reviews. One headline hailed it as, “Possibly Most Bracing Environmental Documentary Ever Made.”  The review goes on to say that all other recent environmental documentaries, including Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, “pale in importance to Planet of the Humans.”

Another review said the film “is a low-budget but piercing examination of what the filmmakers say are the false promises of the environmental movement and why we’re still ‘addicted’ to fossil fuels.”  The review quotes the director of the film saying, “It was kind of crushing to discover the things I believed in weren’t real, and then to discover not only are solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us, it dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”

The director, a long-time Moore collaborator and big-time lib, concluded this about green energy: “It’s not going to save us. It’s actually going to kill us faster.”

KILL US FASTER!!

This is the sort of emotional hyperbole the left uses to criticize climate “deniers.” To see an iconic lib throw that same emotional BS at the renewable energy lemmings is very encouraging.  You see, the push for renewable energy is based on emotions, not facts. Moore’s documentary could get people to oppose renewable energy based on emotions AND facts.

As the director, Jeff Gibbs, said, “It’s up to people who actually share the same values to sometimes call each other out and bring out the uncomfortable truths. This is not a film by climate deniers, this is a film by people who really care about the environment.”

And therein lies its power.  The film has experts testifying on the realities of renewable energy, experts who would not have any credibility if the film were produced by the Koch brothers.  The film shows the destruction of the environment renewables cause, notes the few jobs they create, and, importantly, cites their “tiny effect on CO2.”

None of the reviews mentioned if the film cited the increased costs of renewable energy. None of the reviews mentioned if the film criticized the government for giving subsidies to promote renewables, although the film apparently criticizes the Koch brothers for taking the subsidies.

From the three reviews I read, there is nothing in the film that hasn’t been known for years.  The conclusion it reaches about wind and solar is identical to that reached by Michael Shellenberger, a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment,” who ends a recent speech saying, “Now that we know renewables can’t save the planet, are we going to keep letting them destroy it?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&t=113s

Shellenberger, and many others, are promoting nuclear power as the only viable “solution” to increased levels of CO2. I doubt very much if nuclear power is advocated in Planet of the Humans, which I’m looking forward to seeing.  Moore is still stuck on stupid on most issues, but he seems to have it right on renewables, so I’ll add a buck or two to his millions.

Besides, the reviews say his film accuses Al Gore of taking contributions from evildirtybastard corporations, making Gore a “paid consultant” to those who would destroy our planet.  Any film exposing Mr. Inconvenient Untruth is worth the price of admission, don’t cha think?

Add the words ‘narcan’ and ‘fentanyl’ to your vocabulary

Add the words ‘narcan’ and ‘fentanyl’ to your vocabulary – by Peter Burrows 8/20/19 elburropete@gmail.com   Blog: silvercityburro.com 

Synthetic heroin is becoming the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. Efforts to stop its spread have been pathetic. War on drugs? More like a pillow-fight on drugs.  

While drug overdose deaths recently dropped below an annual rate of 70,000 for the first time in two years, that doesn’t mean the war on drugs is starting to be won.  It just means the frontline casualties have gone down a bit. After all, OD deaths were “only” 36,000 in 2010.   

Still, the recent drop in deaths is a rare bit of good news in the war on drugs. Two years ago, the federal government began an aggressive program to treat overdoses with the drug naloxone, and it’s starting to pay off. Naloxone is easy to administer, works quickly and is standard carry for police and EMTs. In April of 2018, the Surgeon General issued an advisory that recommended even the general population carry naloxone.  

Naloxone is now available without a prescription in at least 45 states.  Walmart, for example, carries it at over 8,000 outlets, and you can watch brief You Tube videos on how to use it. It’s commonly called narcan, although Narcan is the brand name of just the nasal-spray treatment.  

It works against opioids such as heroin, oxycontin and, importantly, the synthetic opioid fentanyl. It does not work against cocaine or meth. Since 70 percent of overdose deaths are from opioids, Narcan is an indispensable life saver. It is a sad fact that being “narcanned” is a becoming a common experience for drug users, and that overdose remedies are now over-the counter products.  

Unfortunately, narcan will be needed more and more as use of the synthetic heroin fentanyl grows.  Fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. For the cost of a stamp, a few dozen doses can be mailed to your neighborhood drug dealer, which makes interdiction nearly impossible.  

Fentanyl is so potent that TOUCHING it can lead to a fatal overdose.  I read about an officer who threw a bag of powder into an evidence container and then passed out on his way to the station and had to be narcanned on the side of the road.  The powder was fentanyl.  

In fact, the war on drugs is becoming less a war on cocaine and heroin, which are organic drugs derived from plants, and more of a war on fentanyl and methamphetamines, which are synthetic drugs that are produced in labs, primarily in Mexico and China. Both are cheap and getting cheaper, proof that we aren’t hindering the supply very much.   

Fentanyl is the bigger problem. It has legitimate medical uses, e.g. it is frequently prescribed to treat chronic pain, but absent proper dosage control, it’s a killer.  An amount covering Lincoln’s beard on a penny will get you high, two beards will get you dead.  In fact, “drop dead” is one street name for fentanyl.   

It killed 48,000 people in 2017, up from 3,000 in 2010, a 16-fold increase in only seven years.  Without narcan, the death toll would have been greater, but that is small comfort in a drug war we are obviously losing. And it will get worse before it gets better.    

Drug dealers, not being stupid, now add inexpensive fentanyl to their heroin, meth and cocaine to increase the number of hits per kilo, in the process making those drugs even more dangerous. It is also the main ingredient in many counterfeit pills that look like prescription drugs, e.g. Oxycontin or Percocet.   

More and more, the unsuspecting street buyer, regardless of the drug, is staking his life on the fentanyl dosage skills of his dealer’s supplier. That is not a good idea.    

Both drug dealers and users know this, and some of them keep narcan kits handy.  Thus, to a certain extent, narcan encourages more drug use and MORE overdoses.  I read that addicts now have overdose parties where somebody with narcan is at the ready, sort of a “designated driver.”  

What a mess.   

We can expect, even hope, that over the next few years the drug suppliers will get much better at quality control.  If they can reduce accidental overdoses, they will do so. Dead customers are not good customers. This means that if the drug cartels act more like drug companies, deaths will be reduced.  

What does that tell us? It tells me that maybe we should figure out a way for addicts to get this poison from real drug companies. That would mean fewer accidental overdoses, but would still leave us with a drug mess, just less of a mess.   

The bad news is that fentanyl is a precursor of more troubles to come.  Chemists are creating fentanyl analogues that are breathtakingly potent —and dangerous.  For example, Carfentanil is a drug used to sedate elephants. It is 100 times stronger than fentanyl and only one grain, the size of a grain of salt, will kill you.   

It doesn’t take much imagination to realize the harm this could do if vaporized into the air ducts of an auditorium, sprinkled over a buffet table, etc.  It is so potent that probably even terrorists will be afraid to handle it, at least for now. That won’t last.  

There is no “civilized” way to combat synthetic drugs. A mandatory death penalty for being involved in the sale of meth or synthetic heroin would work, but it would face many legal obstacles.  As a start, I would suggest that selling these drugs be considered legally equivalent to assault with a deadly weapon. The next step would be to institute the death penalty as an optional penalty for assault with a deadly weapon.  

The final step is the steepest one: such a death penalty must be more than just a threat. It must be a near certainty for drug dealers, much less so for the armed robber. Drug dealers are killing us, and the only thing that will stop them is if we kill them in return.   

Texas arms teachers while Silver City hires unarmed school guards

Texas arms teachers while Silver City hires unarmed school guards by Peter Burrows 8/10/19  elburropete@gmail.com silvercityburro.com (Note: George Richards, a Las Cruces concealed carry instructor, is the expert referred to in this article. He can be reached at 575 373 5557.) 

Texas just passed a law removing the cap on the number of school employees who can carry firearms in the school districts that allow armed personnel. This common-sense move means kids in those Texas schools have a helluva lot more protection from gun-wielding maniacs than do kids in New Mexico schools, where, essentially, no guns are allowed on campus.  

Maybe that’s one reason the recent El Paso massacre was at a Walmart and not at a school. Maniacs are crazy, not stupid.  

Here in Silver City, the school district has just hired five UNARMED security guards at $30,900 each. This is better than no security guards, but not much better.  An expert in the field told me that a pair of eyes looking for trouble at all times can provide an early warning when trouble is spotted. Even then, a lot of damage can be done before deadly deterrence arrives on the scene.  And if the trouble isn’t spotted? 

That same expert told me that trying to skirt the law by requiring those unarmed guards to have weapons in their cars would open a legal can of worms. As soon as the guard grabs his weapon, he becomes a different category of guard and all sorts of liability ensues.  I’m not sure if that’s precisely how it works, but the point is that in New Mexico it is just as bad, maybe worse, for the good guys to have weapons on campus as it is for the bad guys.   

That doesn’t make any sense to me.    

I would bet that the $154,500 we will spend per year for five unarmed guards could arm and train at least 100 volunteer school personnel who would be real deterrents to mass shootings. Liberals think this would make our schools more dangerous, but they can’t back up that claim with any supporting facts.  

The Crime Prevention Research Center flatly states, “No student has ever gotten ahold of a teacher’s gun, nor has a teacher legally carrying a gun ever accidently shot someone.”  These are the big concerns of the gun control crowd, and they simply haven’t materialized. Proof positive is that insurance rates haven’t gone up where teachers are allowed to carry guns.  

Furthermore, The Crime Prevention Center looked at all of the school shootings in the U.S. from 2000 to 2018 and found that during that period “not one person had been wounded or killed from a shooting when armed teachers are around.”  Conversely, they found that while the average number of deaths between 2009 and 2019 has tragically doubled from the average of 2001 to 2008, the “increase has occurred entirely among schools that don’t let teachers carry guns.” (My emphasis.) 

The above facts are not from some statistically insignificant sample. Most New Mexicans would probably be surprised to know there are 20 states that allow qualified teachers and staff to carry guns on school property.  Three states, Utah, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, do not require any training beyond what is required for a concealed carry permit.   

Yes, it would be nice to have uniformed police officers at every school, but that is both expensive and not as effective as having a “militia” of nondescript school personnel.    

Zillow’s White House Crony

Zillow’s White House Crony by Peter Burrows 7/28/19 elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com

For over thirty years we’ve been hearing dire warnings about how Global Warming (always capitalize a religion) is going to wreak havoc with humanity and cause exponential increases in droughts, floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, crop failures, snow storms, starvation, swarms of locusts, and climate refugees — who will number in the tens of millions. (OK, I made up that bit about locusts.)

A key part of the Global Warming apocalypse is that the melting poles are causing sea levels to rapidly rise. New York City, Washington, D.C., Florida and many other coastal areas around the world will soon disappear beneath the waves.

That part about Florida caught my attention a few years ago. It was right after I had had a medical procedure that mostly old guys experience and it was an epiphany of sorts: Soon, I will be no more.

Coming to grips with this existential fact, I realized that I wanted to spend my last days somewhere warm, both because I think Silver City is too damn cold and also to get a little acclimated to my probable hereafter. Hence, my thoughts turned to Florida.

Why not, I thought, move to Florida, find a spot that still has a little beach left, then just lie down and float away, another casualty of Global Warming, albeit a willing casualty.  As an added bonus, I wouldn’t need to spend much on a place to live, maybe nothing at all.  Lots of abandoned beach homes down there, right?

With that in mind, I eagerly googled up the number one online realtor, Zillow, and looked for properties in Key Largo.  Bogie and Bacall, don’t cha’ know.  Well, was I in for a shock!  Those damn fools down there apparently hadn’t heard of Global Warming because not only were they not abandoning their homes. they were asking MORE for their properties than they had paid for them! A LOT more!

A place I really liked, right on the ocean with a sea-wall, was listed for $5.6 million. The owner had paid $2.4 million back in 1996, fully eight years after NASA’s James Hansen famously warned Congress about Global Warming.

Some people just don’t get it!

I mentioned this to my favorite Liberal, and she said anybody buying those Florida properties would be damned sorry, or something to that effect.  I could tell by the look on her face that she had no sympathy for such fools.

This all happened back in 2015 and I wrote about it my article, “Global Warming, where is thy sting?” You can find it at silvercityburro.com, 4/18/15.

Well, here it is over four years later and I’m still cold and Global Warming has proceeded apace. It must be hurting oceanfront properties by now, so back to Zillow I went.  Sigh. More of the same. A place I really liked at 9 E2nd Street, Key Largo, has an ocean view; 4B and 4Ba; asking $1,489,000, purchased for $625,000 in 2016.  Much of that increase is following extensive remodeling, and I note that the house is TWO stories, so a buyer can expect to move up as the water moves in.

I couldn’t find anything in the Keys selling on the cheap, much less being abandoned, so I looked on the other coast in the Tampa Bay area. Same story. A sweet number just listed at W Bay Way Dr. In Tampa is asking $2,650,000 and was purchased on 7/41/06 for $1,785,000.  Nice place: 4bd, 6ba, and 4,485 square feet. What a shame all that will soon be under water.

I thought maybe the rest of the world had more sense so I looked at oceanfront properties in Monaco, Hawaii, and Tahiti. Nope, nope, and nope.

I won’t bore you with the gory details, other than to note there is a really nice place on 4505 Kahulu Ave. in Honolulu that you can steal for only $30 million, and there’s an APARTMENT in Monaco with “a lovely view of the Mediterranean” that is only $24 million.

I guess I’ll have to come to grips with the unpleasant reality that I will not live long enough to benefit from the inevitable price collapse in Florida beach properties.  And I know who is to blame: Barrack Hussein Obama. Some of you are thinking, “Are you off your meds again, Burro?”

Not at all. I very clearly remember what Obama said in his victory speech in November of 2008, and I should have believed him. He said his election “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” He could have added, “And, yea, the Florida realtors will continue to prosper and old climate deniers will wait in vain.”

It’s only Cosmic Justice, folks. After all, I didn’t vote for him.

Islam: Refuge for Pedophiles?

Islam: Refuge for Pedophiles? by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 7/17/19 

Nothing says a Jewish boy from Brooklyn can’t become a Muslim, and that is what I would recommend Jeffrey Epstein do, ASAP.  Epstein, in case you’ve missed it, is a very rich, big-shot Democrat who has just been charged with sex trafficking.   

It probably involves minor girls, which would jive with Epstein’s record. Back in 2008, he managed to avoid conviction on federal charges involving at least 40 teenage girls, some as young as 14, by pleading guilty to state charges in a deal that required him to register as a sex offender and spend 13 months in jail.  

That little slap on the wrist was arranged by then-Miami attorney Alexander Acosta, who has just resigned as Trump’s Labor Secretary in the wake of the new charges against Epstein. Whether that’s fair to Acosta or not, I don’t know. Neither do I know if Epstein’s punishment back in 2008 was the best that prosecutors could do.   

It is rumored that Epstein has compromising photos of some of his powerful friends, which might explain the wrist slap. I sincerely hope that is not the case. That is a nonpartisan hope. We have too many problems to be distracted by tabloid sensations, especially those involving ex-presidents.  

You’re probably thinking, “OK, Burro, what has all this got to do with Epstein becoming a Muslim?”  

Elementary, my dear Watson. Since Muslims are allowed to marry girls as young as nine, Epstein broke none of ALLAH’s laws. He was simply courting the young ladies. The Koran, the forever word of Allah, in verse 65.4 clearly allows prepubescent marriage, and Verse 33.21 allows Muslim men to marry girls as young as six and to begin having sex with them when they are nine.  

Epstein isn’t out of the Islamic woods though, because Allah’s punishment for out-of-wedlock fornication is to be flogged “with a hundred lashes” and that would be for each girl.  (Forty girls?!) Furthermore, Verse 24:2 in the Koran goes on to say, “And let not tenderness for them (those being lashed) deter you,” which is Allah’s way of commanding the lasher, “Give him a good ass whuppin’, boy.”   

However, Epstein could avoid the four thousand or so lashes by referring to Verse 24:13, which says four witnesses are needed to prove a charge of fornication.  The most cited book of Islamic law, The Reliance of the Travellor, expands on this Koranic verse in section o24.9 on page 693, which says four MALE witnesses must testify “that they saw the offender insert the head of his penis into her vagina.” 

One is struck by both the explicitness of the law as well as the near impossibility of getting four guys to admit they were watching something like that. OMG, as the kids would tweet.  Note that Islamic law punishes the act, regardless of age, while Western law focuses on the age, not the act. Thus, Epstein the Muslim would skate, while Epstein the infidel goes to jail.   

The only question is if Epstein’s conversion to Islam would protect him from the Infidel “crimes” he committed before he became a Muslim.  Does the First Amendment to the Constitution protect Epstein only AFTER he becomes a Muslim? Does the Constitution protect him at all? 

Those are questions I would like to see addressed, and that is why I recommended Epstein convert to Islam, ASAP. He could plead not guilty to all the charges and cite the First Amendment’s protection of religion as his defense.  

He can probably count on support from the ACLU, especially the ACLU of New Mexico, which once had a Muslim on its board of directors.  In fact, I think the national ACLU has a Muslim or two on its board right now, which means they could support his religious right to be a pedophile all the way to the Supreme Court.  

You’re thinking, “The ACLU is not going to do that. What kind of an idiot are you, Burro??!!” 

Just an idiot who wants to see to what extent the First Amendment will be used to protect the inherent criminality of the religion of Islam.  Epstein-as-Muslim is only a metaphor, but an apt one. And don’t count on the ACLU to do the morally correct thing when it comes to Islam.  The ACLU is dedicated to being politically correct, which means Islam cannot be criticized.  

Coal Follies

Coal Follies by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com 7/7/19 

New Mexicans are going to pay a huge price for shutting down the coal-fired San Juan generating plant and the coal mines that supply it.  Hundreds will lose their jobs and our electricity bills are going to go through the roof.  While this is going on, the world-wide use of coal to generate electricity will be INCREASING dramatically.  

Why is New Mexico going one way, the world another? Because the poor people of the world know that to escape poverty, they need electricity, the cheaper the better. The relatively rich people of New Mexico have lived so long with cheap electricity that they have forgotten that elementary economic fact. They will relearn it as expensive renewable-electricity replaces cheap coal-electricity.   

Some of the environmentalists who rule New Mexico know that renewables will cost more, but they could care less. They see coal as the number one cause of global warming –- catastrophic global warming — so shutting down the coal-fired San Juan generating plant is doing God’s Work. If it takes a little dukin’ and jivin’ to get the public to go along, so be it. It’s for their own good.    

Really? I wonder if the public would buy the con if they knew the facts about world-wide coal use. China, for example, gives lots of lip service to cutting carbon dioxide emissions while building “a massive cohort of hundreds of new coal-fired plants,” so many that the added capacity “nearly matches the entire capacity of the existing US fleet of coal stations: 266GW.”  

http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-building-secret-tsunami-new-coal-power-plant/ 

Furthermore, China is busy building dozens of new coal-fired generating plants OUTSIDE of China, especially in Pakistan and Indonesia.  The alleged cost effectiveness of renewables has apparently gone unnoticed in Pakistan, where wind and solar “account for only 10 percent” of the new electricity. Probably too cloudy and not windy enough in Pakistan.  Right.      

https://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-blackened-by-coal-01312019115712.html  

India is another country ostensibly supporting carbon reduction policies while building lots of new coal-fired plants. India has 36,158 gigawatts of generating capacity under construction and another 57,800 GW in the planning stages, which together will increase India’s coal-fired electric generating capacity by over 40 percent.  

https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/ 

The Times of India last January 22, headlined: “52 coal mines opened in 5 years to fuel power drive,” noting that the new mines had added 77 million metric tonnes to India’s annual coal production, an increase of 113% to 164 million tonnes.  That compares to New Mexico’s annual coal production of 13, 844,000 short tons (https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=NM) which equals 12,559,000 metric tonnes 

To put this in perspective, New Mexico’s environmentalists would have us believe that we are making a meaningful contribution to the war on global warming by curtailing our use of coal while India, just the nation of India alone, in the last five years has increased coal production by over 6X the TOTAL New Mexico production. India coal production is now over 13X what New Mexico produced last year, and India isn’t through expanding both its production and use of coal.   

India and China aren’t the only nations increasing the use of coal generation. Worldwide, the megawatts of capacity under construction and in the planning stage will add over 15% to world coal-generating capacity. https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/ 

Question: If New Mexicans knew that shutting San Juan was going to cost both a lot of jobs and lot of money at the same time the rest of the world was building more San Juans, HUNDREDS more San Juans, do you think they would have gone along with it? I would hope not, but this is New Mexico, land of Insanity.