RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/08/are-greens-overplaying-their-hand/

The Green movement has a long history of rubbing people the wrong way.  In some cases, it was perhaps for the public good, like starting campaigns to stop littering and save whales.  In other cases, it was just plain patronizing, like telling parents to ditch disposable diapers and keep their thermostats set to 65 degrees in winter.

These days, however, the eco-crowd has taken everything to a whole new level of busybody.

The “climate crisis” is the purported justification cited as to why we all need to change our behaviors – and there can be no deviation. Citizens are expected to acquiesce to their whims simply because they shout “the world will end in five years”, as Greta Thunberg did in 2018. In many respects, Green extremists feel the public should submit to the same way they bowed to two-year COVID masking and lockdown diktats.

But their list of demands has gotten overbearing.  So much so, in fact, that one must believe they will soon overplay their hand and face considerable public backlash. Indeed, they already have in many instances, but it’s worth taking a look at just a few of their recent irksome moves that have made news. 

Ditch gas stoves, water heaters and furnaces – In some cases, like gas stoves, Greens want them banned outright. In other cases, like water heaters and furnaces, they want the appliances regulated under new federal rules for nearly impossible 95% efficiency. Many electric replacements will require expensive rewiring of homes and neighborhoods, and heat pumps that don’t work well in frigid weather.

Ban wood-burning pizza ovens – Politicians in the Big Apple want to force popular restaurants and pizzerias to install outrageously expensive “pollution” controls systems to reduce their “excessive carbon footprint” and reduce air pollution. Environmentalists don’t seem to care this is enormously unpopular with average New Yorkers. They seem intent to push their agenda or the common Joe, even if data suggests each oven would have to bake pizzas 24/7 for nearly 850 years to equal the annual carbon dioxide emissions from the private jets that Biden Climate Emissary John Kerry uses to avoid commercial airlines.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/08/why-is-tesla-the-only-ev-maker-getting-sued-for-false-advertising/

Three California residents last week filed a lawsuit against Tesla for what they claim is false advertising over the car’s range. But why stop at Tesla? And why just sue over false claims about range when every other claim about EVs is also a lie?

The lawsuit comes in the wake of a Reuters report contending that Tesla had been goosing the range displayed on its dashboard and created a “diversion team” to deal with all the customer complaints about faulty batteries.

The filing claims that “Had Tesla honestly advertised its electric vehicle ranges, consumers either would not have purchased Tesla model vehicles, or else would have paid substantially less for them.”

But this isn’t new news. There have been several reports over the years about the wildly inflated EV range claims.

A little over a year ago, Forbes published an article detailing how the advertised range of EVs was often way off.

“I’ve been road testing electric cars regularly for more than two years now, and not once has a battery-only vehicle met the claimed capacity for its battery,” wrote senior contributor Neil Winton. “The average shortfall is close to 20%.”

Tesla actually did better in his tests than some of the other EVs.

A report from Car & Driver last August found that only three cars it tested did better than the official EPA range estimate. Tesla’s Model S is supposed to go 348 miles on a charge but only made it 280 miles. Ford’s electric F-150 came up 70 miles short of its reported 300-mile range.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/tom-harris/2023/08/05/canceling-skeptical-scientists-is-the-real-climate-crisis-n1716434

“There is no real climate crisis.”

That statement, as well as others against the mainstream climate change narrative of impending doom, led to the cancellation of a speech that was to be given by Nobel Prize laureate Dr. John Clauser to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The censorship has been covered in media worldwide and, besides giving the IMF a huge black eye, is leading many to wonder what has gone wrong with climate science that such a prominent expert would be canceled merely for disagreeing with a scientific hypothesis. Let’s dig into this important news story.

Dr. Clauser is an experimental and theoretical physicist and was the joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the foundations of quantum mechanics in the 1970s. He is now on the board of directors at the CO2 Coalition based in Arlington, Va. Dr. William Happer, chair of the board at the CO2 Coalition, said that “His [Dr. Clauser’s] studies of the science of climate provide strong evidence that there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.”

Dr. Clauser was scheduled to speak to the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office last week under the title: “Let’s talk — How much can we trust IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] climate predictions?” Because the answer Dr. Clauser was obviously going to give was “not much” and because of his other public statements criticizing the models relied upon by the IPCC, someone inside the IMF must have hit the roof. The CO2 coalition reported:

According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”

In 2021, Dr. Clauser criticized granting of the Nobel Prize for the development of computer models that predicted global warming. These climate models have been shown to be inaccurate and do not take into account the significant feedback of clouds in the climate system.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/what_nasa_and_the_european_space_agency_are_admitting_but_the_media_are_failing_to_report_about_our_current_heat_wave.html

The current heat wave is being relentlessly blamed on increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there is a much more plausible explanation, one that is virtually endorsed by two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.  It turns out that levels of water vapor in the atmosphere have dramatically increased over the last year and a half, and water vapor is well recognized as a greenhouse gas, whose heightened presence leads to higher temperatures, a mechanism that dwarfs any effect CO2 may have.

So why has atmospheric water vapor increased so dramatically?  Because of a historic, gigantic volcanic eruption last year that I — probably along with you — had never heard of.  The mass media ignored it because it took place 490 feet underwater in the South Pacific.  Don’t take it from me; take it from NASA (and please do follow the link to see time-lapse satellite imagery of the underwater eruption and subsequent plume of gases and water injected into the atmosphere):

When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere — enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. He led a new study examining the amount of water vapor that the Tonga volcano injected into the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between about 8 and 33 miles (12 and 53 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-the-world-on-fire-global-warming-burn-record-low-713ad3a6?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

One of the most common tropes in our increasingly alarmist climate debate is that global warming has set the world on fire. But it hasn’t. For more than two decades, satellites have recorded fires across the planet’s surface. The data are unequivocal: Since the early 2000s, when 3% of the world’s land caught fire, the area burned annually has trended downward.

In 2022, the last year for which there are complete data, the world hit a new record-low of 2.2% burned area. Yet you’ll struggle to find that reported anywhere.

Instead, the media acts as if the world is ablaze. In late 2021, the New York Times employed more than 40 staff on a project called “Postcards from a World on Fire,” headed by a photorealistic animation of the world in flames. Its explicit goal was to convince readers of the climate crisis’ immediacy through a series of stories of climate-change-related devastation across the world, including the 2019-20 wildfires in Australia.

This summer, the focus has been on Canada’s wildfires, the smoke from which covered large parts of the Northeastern U.S. Both the Canadian prime minister and the White House have blamed climate change.

Yet the latest report by the United Nations’ climate panel doesn’t attribute the area burned globally by wildfires to climate change. Instead, it vaguely suggests the weather conditions that promote wildfires are becoming more common in some places. Still, the report finds that the change in these weather conditions won’t be detectable above the natural noise even by the end of the century.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2023/07/dark-green-lunacy-as-a-cardinal-virtue/

“We are not dealing with rational people. Explain until the cows come home that achieving net zero is impossible. Explain that wind, solar and batteries cannot replace a coal power station. Marshall your data, your facts. It will be to no avail. The inmates are running the show.”

John Clauser is an American physicist and the 2022 (joint) Nobel Prize winner. As we’ve heard, he was cancelled from addressing the IMF about “climate change.” Well, that’s understandable. I mean, he’s not a qualified climate scientist or anything. He’s not in the same league as, say, Greta Thunberg or Al Gore, John Kerry, António Guterres or Tim ‘dams won’t fill’ Flannery. Apparently, he knows a thing or two about quantum entanglement. This is where two particles interreact and separate but then, like identical twins, behave as though they are one, doing exactly the same things no matter how distant apart; apropos their direction of spin. Strange business.

Stranger still are climate-change ministers mirroring sub-atomic life; interacting at United Nations COP meetings before going home and spinning as one. Spruiking net zero, with the same cunning plans to get there. To wit, taxing emissions, banning the sale of ICE cars, and ordering by proxy thousands of turbine blades, solar panels and batteries from China. Might this similarity have piqued Clauser’s interest in climate science? Perhaps not.

Clauser has recently been elected to serve on the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition. Best to go to the source itself for reliable information on the Coalition; hence the link I’ve provided. Because, according to Wikipedia, “it spreads misinformation about climate change.” Misinformation, hmm? More like disinformation, if you ask me. Don’t let them off the hook. The Coalition sets out deliberately, with nothing less than malice aforethought towards the IPCC, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What perfidy is that?

Back to Clauser. Maybe he knows a little more about climate science than you would think. More than does your average quantum physicist; if you can describe quantum physicists as average. Anyway he has a theory. In a nutshell, he believes that cumulous clouds keep the earth’s temperature fairly stable. He reckons that when sunlight reaches the earth it evaporates sea water – covering two-thirds of the earth’s surface – producing cumulous clouds which reflect back 90 percent of the sunlight which hits them. It’s akin to a thermostat controlling the temperature. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation, the more cumulous clouds, the more sunlight reflected back. Viola! He further reckons that the radiative heat transfer rate associated with atmospheric CO2 is “nearly two orders of magnitude smaller than the effective stabilisation of the input-power provided by the cloud-based thermostat.” Thus he believes that the effect of CO2 is diddly squat, to put it in precise scientific language. If I remember rightly, Richard Lindzen also refers to clouds reflecting back sunlight. It seems worthwhile investigating. That is, if you had an interest in discovering the truth and weren’t as mad as a hatter.

If you experienced unprecedented delays during air travel this summer, the airlines likely blamed it on the weather.  You might have been surprised, for bad weather wasn’t reported in the news.  But here is what should surprise and shock you even more.  The real reason – a shortage of pilots and air traffic controllers (ATCs) – is linked to the Great Reset, the agenda to control people and restrict freedom conceived by the global elite and being implemented through leftist groups and their sympathizers.

It is now well known that Klaus Schwab, chief of the elitist World Economic Forum (WEF), set the Great Reset in motion during the pandemic, calling it an opportunity to “reflect, reimagine, and reset the world.” The COVID lockdown also connects to the story of the recent flight delays, because it was during the pandemic that travel restrictions were imposed worldwide and pilots and ATCs were laid off.  At London’s Heathrow, alone, for example, traffic plunged more than 75% – from 80 million passengers daily to about one million.  The ostensible reason for limiting travel was to curb contagion and virus mutation.  But a sinister agenda was afoot.

The travel restrictions, quarantines, vaccine passports, social distancing, the lockdown itself, and other measures were not so much for disease control as for imposing the dystopian New World Order.  COVID was a smokescreen.  In the name of a recovery plan, radical steps were initiated to restructure the world economy and usher in an extreme environmentalist and statist framework of governance as the new norm

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/07/21/youll-have-blackouts-and-you-will-love-them/

The old joke in which one fellow asks what the socialists used for lighting before candles and the other fellow answers “electricity” could use some updating. Substitute “socialists” for “U.S. Democrats.” But it won’t be just the Democrats using candles, it’s going to be all of us.

When the power goes out, most of us just have to wait until it’s restored to get back to our normal lives. In the meantime, as we wander through a dark house flipping useless switches out of habit, we make sure we don’t open the refrigerator and we put off anything we had planned that requires us to burn electricity. The more-prepared among us, though, buy fossil-fuel-powered generators to avoid interruptions

Their future, though, is in doubt. The Biden administration wants those generators to go the way of the incandescent light bulb.

“Just months after a Biden-appointed regulator teased a ban on gas stoves, the administration is working to enact a rule that would prohibit the manufacturing of nearly all portable gas generators on the U.S. market,” the Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this week.

This proposed rule would limit the amount of carbon monoxide a product can release, establishing a benchmark beyond the reach of all but a few current generators. The Free Beacon says the Consumer Product Safety Commission admits “that 95% of portable gas generators on the market cannot comply with its new standard.”

Should the rule become “law,” industry officials expect a shortage of generators will follow, as manufacturers would have only have six months to develop a compliant design. Under normal conditions, that would take years, according to the Portable Generator Manufacturers’ Association.

While some homeowners use standby generators, which have more permanence about them, to provide power when the lights go out, portables are used as well, with “far more people” choosing them because of price. What the cost-conscious consumers didn’t know when they made their purchases is that one day they would be punished for their choice. But those who have standby generators shouldn’t feel too smug. The Democrats will eventually come after those, too.