Follow by Email

Saturday, October 03, 2015

NJ OFFERS MARGATE $29,000 for it's ENTIRE BEACH ! Gov. Christie calls the entire town SELFISH !

Gov. Chris "Doughboy" Christie vs.

Margate's mascot "LUCY the Elephant"

   It's turning into quite a week for Margate. Yesterday, the State of NJ  offered Margate $29,000 for the rights to build a city wide beach Project on it's beaches. This offer comes 3 yrs. after Margate has held two elections to decide on whether it should join the Project. In both elections the voters essentially decided they didn't want to join. Nevertheless, the State of NJ insists and is now preparing  to file condemnation in attempt to take what Margate refuses to hand over voluntarily. On top of this, the State also has to make offers to the nine private property owners that must also be given some kind of compensation for their property rights involving sections of the beach in Margate. Maybe this explains why the Gov. was public-ally calling Margate a town of selfish ingrates the other day on Nat'l TV and radio?  The use of the word selfish to describe a group of taxpayers turning down a $20 mil. offer to build a Fed. project is kind of odd under the circumstances. I'd use the words prudent , self reliant even  thoughtfully respectful. Imagine, if every other city and town in America acted this way. Maybe, the Federal Gov't wouldn't be buried Trillions of $$ in debt.  


   So what lies ahead for Margate and the State?  It appears the next stop for this multi-year drama is NJ State Court, where Margate has to make it's case that we don't need to be part of the Federal and State Beach Project. After that will be the court cases involving the nine "private" riparian beach claims that also need to be taken. This isn't over to as they say in this case the Fat man sings. ( not shouts and bullies).

Thursday, October 01, 2015

State of Emergency Declared in N.J.

Why Hurricane Joaquin Is So Hard To Forecast

The odds are that Hurricane Joaquin, now lingering 175 miles east-northeast of the Bahamas, will hit somewhere along the U.S. coastline some time in the next five days, but there’s no guarantee.
The path of this storm is more difficult to forecast than that of most hurricanes. The National Hurricane Center forecasts the storm to make landfall along the North Carolina coast on Sunday, but there’s a wide “cone of uncertainty” (in weather forecasting parlance) around that projection.
Why is Joaquin playing tricks with forecasters? Forecasts rely on models, and the models on this one are all over the place. The late-morning run of the Global Forecast System (GFS) model has the storm slamming into the coastline of southern North Carolina overnight Saturday and into Sunday:
The spread of the GFS ensembles (models re-run with slightly different initial conditions because we can’t measure initial conditions perfectly) include a number of scenarios where Joaquin veers out east, farther into the Atlantic Ocean, and never makes landfall.
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Euro), which correctly predicted Hurricane Sandy’s path, has Joaquin staying out at sea as well.
But the majority of global and hurricane models have the storm hitting the southeast U.S. coast late this weekend or early next week.
Indeed, there are good reasons to expect the storm to hit the U.S. We have high pressure blocking the storm’s path over the northwest Atlantic Ocean (see the solid red line on the map below from New York Metro Weather), according to meteorologist John Homenuk.
That high pressure could push the storm into the coast. Without it, Joaquin could “re-curve out to sea,” according to forecaster Ian Livingston of the Capital Weather Gang. He said most storms that have made it this far north have gone back out to sea rather than making landfall.
Both Homenuk and Livingston also noted an incoming area of low pressure (red arrow on the map above) coming out of the southeast U.S. that could help draw the storm into the coastline.
But here’s the problem: The hurricane models don’t necessarily have a good grip on either the “blocking” (that high pressure preventing the storm from turning back to sea) or the “trough” (the low pressure drawing the storm toward the coastline). Homenuk told me that the models can “struggle with the intricate details of this blocking.” They aren’t used to seeing high pressure this strong in the Atlantic this time of year, and minor changes in blocking can make a major difference in the track of a storm. Livingston said the models that show Joaquin coming into the coast, such as the GFS, have the storm “sufficiently captured by the incoming trough.” That means they predict that the low pressure pulling it in to shore will prevail. Model outcomes such as the Euro, on the other hand, have the storm too far south for the trough to drive it back into the coastline.
The safest bet for now is to keep an eye on the National Hurricane Center’s forecasts.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015


English: Ocean City, NJ, November 17, 2009 -- ...
 Ocean City, NJ, November 17, 2009 -- Damaged dunes from Tropical Depression Ida and nor’easter in Ocean City. Elissa Jun/FEMA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Ocean City northern beaches Sept. 28th 2015

    This is a picture of a recently replenished beach in the northern streets of Ocean City, NJ.  The one above it is from 2009 from the same beach. Tens of millions of  tax dollars were spent to fill this beach and build a berm in front of the boardwalk in this area. The cliff in the berm is the result of just five days of persistent northeast winds ( no storm.) This is not an unusual situation.  The facts are these kinds of situations are quite normal for engineered beaches in the northeastern US.  Another little known fact is that these types of beaches have a well documented history of eroding 2X to 12X's  faster then a naturally created beach.  This particular stretch of beach in northern O.C. NJ happens to be one of the most filled beaches on EARTH! Hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been poured onto this area over the course of the last 3 decades. The result is clear to see. YOU the tax payer will pay to try and maintain a beach here forever! You will fail and as a result you will be told that failure is success. Sound familiar? Yes, this beach is too big to fail just like a few banks and defense Corps. By the way there are 500 other too big to fail beaches being "managed" by the A.C.O.E. today and the costs are in the billions. 


   The Federal Gov't ( the rational part anyway) not Congress, is predicting over the course of the next 50 yrs. sea level rise in this area could exceed 3 feet. The costs to maintain our beaches in this time period is going to sky rocket and the scene above will be repeated time and time again as things get stormier ( the other predication for this time period.)  Beach erosion will just get worse. Maybe, it's time to start preparing a plan B?

Beach Replenishment Doesn't Work

   The simple truth is beach replenishment doesn't work in the long run.  As the sea rises the barrier Islands in normal circumstances would simply roll back in response. They can't do that now with hundreds of thousands of buildings, roads, sewers etc. sitting on top of them. So, they will sink. Eventually, the sand to replenish these beaches will run out or the will and the $$ will run out. In any event , eventually these Projects will end. Then what?

WHAT - F.E.M.A. and North AC

F.E.M.A. is already paying millions of home owners billions of dollars to raise their homes in flood prone areas of the coast. They know what's coming and going up and back are in their evaluation the only REAL options in this situation. Another option will be to abandon areas that have already been largely cleared ( like the northern streets of AC (north of REVEL.) This area needs to be made into a beach park by moving the boardwalk back along  Oriental ave from REVEL to New Hampshire ave. A total of 20 homes need to be taken through Eminent Domain to do this.
If this park is created it will be an immediate attraction for AC and will save the State and Feds. millions going forward having to pour sand in front of the boardwalk in this area, as they do presently. Will they do it? NO, of course not. Instead, the idiots that run everything around here will try and build even more and larger building 10 ft. from a rising ocean. They'll claim they have to to create jobs or some other insane reason.  

Friday, September 25, 2015


Jersey Shore Eyed for Offshore Wind Farms

In the first step toward building large wind farms off the coast of New Jersey, the U.S. Department of Interior hasannounced that it will auction 344,000 acres of open ocean off the coast of Atlantic City next month for future offshore wind development.
The auction is taking place as part of the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan. It plays into the federal government’s goal to see 20,000 megawatts of new renewable power development on federally-controlled lands and waters by 2020 as a way to help wean the country away from coal, a major driver of climate change.
The Sheringham Shoal Offshore Wind Farm in the United Kingdom. There are no operating offshore wind farms in the U.S. today.
Credit: Statkraft/flickr
To meet that goal, the Interior Department has been orchestrating a frenzy of offshore wind leasing off the coasts ofseveral states, including Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts and Virginia. So far, that leasing has yielded one project, the Block Island Wind Farm, which began construction — “steel in the water” in industry parlance — this summer off the coast of Rhode Island. It is slated to become the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. when it is completed.
Offshore wind farms are commonplace in Europe, where more than 2,300 wind turbines twirl off the coasts of 11 countries, with many more on the way. The New Jersey auction is the United States’ next step in emulating Europe’s success — an attempt to harness some of the 4,000 gigawatts of wind power generation potential that exists in the U.S. within 50 miles of the shorelines on both coasts.
If wind farms off the Jersey Shore are fully developed, they could produce 3,400 megawatts of power — enough to light up 1.2 million homes, according to the Interior Department. The wind development area being leased is in shallow water beginning about seven miles off the shoreline.
So far, 13 wind power companies are vying for the leases, set to be auctioned off Nov. 9.
Philadelphia-based Sea Breeze Energy is one of those companies, and it sees more promise for future wind development off the coast of New Jersey than other places.
“It’s got very good physical characteristics in terms of wind speed, water depth, distance to shore,” Sea Breeze Energy President Dan Renshaw said. “It’s much easier to develop an offshore wind farm off the coast of New Jersey than other sites.”
This Bureau of Ocean Energy Management map shows the offshore wind areas being leased on November 9 off the coast of New Jersey.
Credit: BOEM
It’s also easier for a wind farm to connect to the state’s power grid than in other places, he said.
“We’d definitely be interested in a large-scale project, but you’re forced to deal with the issue that there aren’t any (offshore) wind farms in the U.S. yet,” Renshaw said. “Financing would be relatively difficult.”
Even with financing, it could be a long time before the companies that successfully bid on those leases actually start construction on new wind turbines.
Tracey Moriarty, spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which is the Interior Department agency in charge of offshore wind leasing, said the development process works like this: A company has a year to submit a plan showing how it will gauge how much wind power can be generated at the sites where it plans to build turbines. Once that plan is approved, the company has four and a half years to create a construction plan for the wind farm and then another 25 to build and operate it.
“We are probably years away from seeing steel in the water offshore New Jersey,” she said.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015


                                                                               The SUN at Equinox

Fall arrived today @ 4:22 Am on Absecon Island!  It's a glorious Sept. day today, one of the best times of the year here. Sadly, I 've only seen one Monarch butterfly migrating south so far this season. Folks, please plant milkweed (the Monarch's  primary food)  in your yards so we help this species recover from all the over use of the pesticide Roundup.


Global Divestment Movement 'Catches Fire' with $2.6 Trillion in Assets Shifted

Demand for fossil-free investment products is increasing as scores of individual and institutional investors move their money away from the dirty energy system driving the climate crisis
(Photograph: Les Stone/Corbis/with overlay)
The global movement demanding that institutions, individuals, and various funds divest from the fossil fuel industry and invest in renewable energy and climate solutions has exploded, growing 50-fold in just one year and topping $2.6 trillion, according to a new analysis released Tuesday.
"This movement has struck a chord with people across the world who care about climate change, and convinced some of the largest and most influential institutions in the world to begin pulling their money out of climate destruction."
—May Boeve,
Since the campaign began in earnest less than three years ago, the report shows, more than 400 institutions and over 2,000 individuals have pledged to divest from companies that derive profits from coal, oil, or gas.
Presented just months ahead UN climate talks in Paris and conducted by financial researchers at Arabella Advisors on behalf of the 'Divest-Invest' campaign—an effort driven by a coalition of climate action and public advocacy groups—the findings of the analysis (pdf) reveal enormous strides over a relatively brief period for the idea of transitioning investments as part of the fight against human-driven global warming.
"If these numbers tell us anything, it’s that the divestment movement is catching fire," said May Boeve, executive director of, one of the groups most responsible for the international divestment push. "Since starting on the campuses of a few colleges in the U.S., this movement has struck a chord with people across the world who care about climate change, and convinced some of the largest and most influential institutions in the world to begin pulling their money out of climate destruction. That makes me hopeful for our future, and it’s sending a clear message to world leaders as they head into Paris: It’s time for them to follow suit, and divest our governments from fossil fuel companies too."
untitled-22.jpg(Credit: Arabella Advisors)
Thomas Van Dyck, managing director of the SRI Wealth Management Group, said the new level of consciousness among individuals and institutional investors is palpable. He said the findings of the Arabella report "underscores what I see every day as a financial advisor—that the demand for fossil-free investment products is increasing." But it's not just altruism, Van Dyck added, as the shift is also pragmatic for those concerned about what both scientific and economic studies are saying about the future of the fossil fuel market. "More and more investors are reducing their carbon risk today and diversifying their portfolios with the goal to harness the upside in the sustainable clean growth industries of the future," he said.
"Climate change hits the poor first and worst. It is a racial and economic justice issue that must be addressed with solutions like the Divest-Invest movement to empower these communities, eliminate health disparities and drive the shift to a clean energy economy."
—Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., Hip Hop Caucus
Though it may be only wealthier individuals who are in a position to hold such investment, a majority of the funds divested so far, the report makes clear, come from shared funds representing pensions, religious organizations, or school endowments. And as explained by Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. of the Hip-Hop Caucus, a social justice group representing the concerns of minority and marginalized communities, while not everyone is in the same financial position to make such choices, all people will benefit as this shift away from dirty fossil fuels continues.
"This shift in investment flows is especially critical for underserved communities and people living in poverty, who are disproportionately affected by the negative impacts of climate change," he said. "Climate change hits the poor first and worst. It is a racial and economic justice issue that must be addressed with solutions like the Divest-Invest movement to empower these communities, eliminate health disparities and drive the shift to a clean energy economy."
Key findings and trends covered in the report show:
  • Pledges have spread to sectors not traditionally associated with divestment, including pension funds and private companies. In 2014, foundations, universities, faith-based organizations, NGOs, and other mission-driven organizations led the movement. Today, large pension funds and private-sector actors such as insurance companies hold over 95 percent of the total combined assets of those committed to divest.
  • Climate risk to investment portfolios is helping drive the exponential growth of divestment. Reports by Citigroup analysts, HSBC, Mercer, the International Energy Agency, Bank of England, Carbon Tracker Initiative, and others have offered evidence of a significant, quantifiable risk to portfolios exposed to fossil fuel assets in a carbon constrained world. The leaders of several of the largest institutions to divest in the past year have cited climate risk to investment portfolios as a key factor in their decisions.
  • While historically focused in the United States, the divestment movement now spans the globe. In 2014, 78 percent of divesting institutions were US-based. Today, 57 percent are US-based. Institutions that have chosen to divest represent more than 646 million individuals around the world.
  • Thanks to increasing commitments to invest and a proliferation of fossil free products, more capital is flowing toward climate solutions. Globally, investment in clean energy reached $310 billion in 2014. Among those pledging to divest, many are also committing to invest in climate solutions: those institutions and individuals that have pledged to both divest and invest in clean energy collectively hold $785 billion in assets.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015


One-two punch of rising seas, bigger storms may greatly magnify US East coast floods

New study quantifies synergy of 2 climate hazards

September 21, 2015
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Many studies predict that future sea-level rise along the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts will increase flooding. Others suggest that the human-caused warming driving this rise will also boost the intensity and frequency of big coastal storms. Now, a new study quantifies how they could interact to produce alarming spikes in the combined height and duration of flooding. It projects that coastal flooding could possibly shoot up several hundredfold by 2100, from the Northeast to Texas.


Water temperatures, which influence sea level, are expected to rise sharply in the 21st century along the eastern United States. Redder areas on the map show projected temperatures at the higher end of the scale.
Credit: Little et al., Nature Climate Change, 2015
Many studies predict that future sea-level rise along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts will increase flooding. Others suggest that the human-caused warming driving this rise will also boost the intensity and frequency of big coastal storms. Up to now, though, these two hazards have been assessed mostly in isolation from each other. Now, a new study quantifies how they could interact to produce alarming spikes in the combined height and duration of flooding. It projects that coastal flooding could possibly shoot up several hundredfold by 2100, from the Northeast to Texas. The study appears this week in the journal Nature Climate Change.
"When you look at hazards separately, it's bad enough, but when you consider the joint effects of two hazards together, you can get some surprises," said Radley Horton, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Earth Institute and study coauthor. "Sometimes, 1 plus 1 can equal 3."
Over the past century, the East Coast has seen sea-level rise far above the 8-inch global average--up to a foot in much of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, including New York City. Global rise is being driven mainly by melting of ice and expansion of seawater as the ocean warms. In this region, sinking land and currents that chronically drive water coastward have worsened matters. Most projections call for a further 2- to 4-foot rise by 2100; some go as high as 6 feet.
At the same time, separate studies suggest that the intensity of the biggest storms generated in the North Atlantic may increase, because warmer waters contain more energy. Projections of this phenomenon are somewhat less certain, but scientists are taking them with increasing seriousness.
The new study shows how the two factors may work together. The authors analyzed 15 climate models at five locations: Atlantic City, N.J.; Charleston, S.C.; Key West, Fla.; Pensacola, Fla.; and Galveston, Tex. They not only considered both factors, but the chances that they would be correlated--in other words, the probability that they could act together in time to produce more than the sum of their parts. Five models simulated both high local sea-level rises and increases in the strongest storms.
Based on this, the authors make two projections for the 21st century: one if the world greatly reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, and one if the current trajectory continues. Even the reduced-emissions calculations suggest a 4- to 75-fold increase in the flood index--that is, the combined heights and durations of expected floods--across the five locations. With business as usual, the flood index might go up 35 to 350 times. Furthermore, the study does not account for any sea-level rise caused by melting of glaciers and ice sheets--only water expansion--so that could add to the hazard.
"It's an aggregate number over a big area--not a specific prediction for any one place," said lead author Christopher Little of Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a company that performs weather and climate research, and related risk assessments. "But these projections help lay the groundwork for more specific research that will be valuable for adapting to climate change." The paper adds to the scientific basis for ongoing risk assessments such as those of the New York City Panel on Climate Change, to which both Little and Horton have contributed.

Sunday, September 13, 2015


Genocide Logo
Genocide Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

New Haven — BEFORE he fired the shot, the Einsatzgruppe commander lifted the Jewish child in the air and said, “You must die so that we can live.” As the killing proceeded, other Germans rationalized the murder of Jewish children in the same way: them or us.
Today we think of the Nazi Final Solution as some dark apex of high technology. It was in fact the killing of human beings at close range during a war for resources. The war that brought Jews under German control was fought because Hitler believed that Germany needed more land and food to survive and maintain its standard of living — and that Jews, and their ideas, posed a threat to his violent expansionist program.
The Holocaust may seem a distant horror whose lessons have already been learned. But sadly, the anxieties of our own era could once again give rise to scapegoats and imagined enemies, while contemporary environmental stresses could encourage new variations on Hitler’s ideas, especially in countries anxious about feeding their growing populations or maintaining a rising standard of living.


In Bangladesh, millions of people have been displaced by floods and the rising sea level.CreditKadir van Lohuizen/NOOR, for The New York Times

The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. In Hitler’s “Second Book,” which was composed in 1928 and not published until after his death, he insisted that hunger would outstrip crop improvements and that all “the scientific methods of land management” had already failed. No conceivable improvement would allow Germans to be fed “from their own land and territory,” he claimed. Hitler specifically — and wrongly — denied that irrigation, hybrids and fertilizers could change the relationship between people and land.
The pursuit of peace and plenty through science, he claimed in “Mein Kampf,” was a Jewish plot to distract Germans from the necessity of war. “It is always the Jew,” argued Hitler, “who seeks and succeeds in implanting such lethal ways of thinking.”
As exotic as it sounds, the concept of Lebensraum is less distant from our own ways of thinking than we believe. Germany was blockaded during World War I, dependent on imports of agricultural commodities and faced real uncertainties about its food supply. Hitler transformed these fears into a vision of absolute conquest for total security. Lebensraum linked a war of extermination to the improvement of lifestyle. The chief Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, could therefore define the purpose of a war of extermination as “a big breakfast, a big lunch and a big dinner.” He conflated lifestyle with life.
To expand Germany’s Lebensraum, Hitler aimed to seize Ukraine from the Soviet Union, starve 30 million Eastern Europeans and transfer the food to Germany. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the campaign had two major aims: the control of fertile Ukrainian soil and the destruction of Jews living there. It was this invasion that placed defenseless Jewish children at the mercy of the murderous Einsatzgruppen.
Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering.
The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted.
In Sudan, drought drove Arabs into the lands of African pastoralists in 2003. The Sudanese government sided with the Arabs and pursued a policy of eliminating the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur peoples in Darfur and surrounding regions.
Climate change has also brought uncertainties about food supply back to the center of great power politics. China today, like Germany before the war, is an industrial power incapable of feeding its population from its own territory, and is thus dependent on unpredictable international markets.
This could make China’s population susceptible to a revival of ideas like Lebensraum. The Chinese government must balance a not-so-distant history of starving its own population with today’s promise of ever-increasing prosperity — all while confronting increasingly unfavorable environmental conditions. The danger is not that the Chinese might actually starve to death in the near future, any more than Germans would have during the 1930s. The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler’s Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living.


In Sudan, drought led to conflict and the displacement of many civilians.CreditLynsey Addario for The New York Times

How might such a scenario unfold? China is already leasing a tenth of Ukraine’s arable soil, and buying up food whenever global supplies tighten. During the drought of 2010, Chinese panic buying helped bring bread riots and revolution to the Middle East. The Chinese leadership already regards Africa as a long-term source of food. Although many Africans themselves still go hungry, their continent holds about half of the world’s untilled arable land. Like China, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea are interested in Sudan’s fertile regions — and they have been joined by Japan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in efforts to buy or lease land throughout Africa.
Nations in need of land would likely begin with tactfully negotiated leases or purchases; but under conditions of stress or acute need, such agrarian export zones could become fortified colonies, requiring or attracting violence.

Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.
The full consequences of climate change may reach America only decades after warming wreaks havoc in other regions. And by then it will be too late for climate science and energy technology to make any difference. Indeed, by the time the door is open to the demagogy of ecological panic in the United States, Americans will have spent years spreading climate disaster around the world.
THE European Union, by contrast, takes global warming very seriously, but its existence is under threat. As Africa and the Middle East continue to warm and wars rage, economic migrants and war refugees are making perilous journeys to flee to Europe. In response, European populists have called for the strict enforcement of national borders and the end of the union. Many of these populist parties are supported by Russia, which is openly pursuing a divide-and-conquer policy with the aim of bringing about European disintegration.
Russia’s 2014 intervention in Ukraine has already shattered the peaceful order that Europeans had come to take for granted. The Kremlin, which is economically dependent on the export of hydrocarbons to Europe, is now seeking to make gas deals with individual European states one by one in order to weaken European unity and expand its own influence. Meanwhile, President Vladimir V. Putin waxes nostalgic for the 1930s, while Russian nationalists blame gays, cosmopolitans and Jews for antiwar sentiment. None of this bodes well for Europe’s future — or Russia’s.
When mass killing is on the way, it won’t announce itself in the language we are familiar with. The Nazi scenario of 1941 will not reappear in precisely the same form, but several of its causal elements have already begun to assemble.
It is not difficult to imagine ethnic mass murder in Africa, which has already happened; or the triumph of a violent totalitarian strain of Islamism in the parched Middle East; or a Chinese play for resources in Africa or Russia or Eastern Europe that involves removing the people already living there; or a growing global ecological panic if America abandons climate science or the European Union falls apart.
Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?
Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.