RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/08/lesson-america-green-policies-crush-german-economy/

Germany’s gross domestic product has been falling since the third quarter of 2022, causing fears of the first 2-yearlong recession since the early 2000s. German farmers are openly protesting new climate regulations that would raise the price of diesel fuel, vital for tractors and farm machinery. This discontent is mirrored by the general public, which is opposed to higher energy costs that drag down the economy. Recent polls show a significant shift in public opinion that’s increasingly opposed to the coalition government.

Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate, where invariably one party secures a ruling majority, multiple German parties must form a coalition to reach the required 50%+1 majority threshold.

Currently, the Green Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Free Democratic Party comprise this coalition. The latest polls show all these parties polling far below their 2021 election results while the more right-leaning parties, such as the Christian Democratic Union and the Alternative for Germany, are surging in popularity.

The recent economic slowdown has resulted in widespread political discontent, and the core of the slowdown has been disastrous energy policy.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2024/03/unlike-warmists-numbers-dont-lie/

There is no ‘climate emergency’, just a man-made political weapon used to scare and indoctrinate children, pollute the minds of the ill-informed and gullible and allow politicians and aspiring social engineers to pursue their not-so-hidden agendas. A new study charting CO2 level and Sydney temperatures makes the case.

A new study, conducted by lead author Ian McNaughton, formerly senior scientist at the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and John McRobert seeks to ascertain whether there is a meaningful relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and global temperatures. The study, Temperature Measurements versus Population Growth & Carbon Dioxide Concentrations, completed in December 2023, examines the contentious claim, often made by climate change scientists, that the increase in temperatures of Planet Earth is determined by the increasing levels of carbon dioxide concentrations and other “green-house” gases.  

Controversy involving climate change continues to be widespread throughout the world.  There is no argument that the world’s climate is changing – always has, always will. The controversy centres on whether Carbon Dioxide (CO2) generated – actually recycled – by human activity is the cause of a more rapid change in climate that would not have occurred without the presence of humans, notably since  the Industrial Revolution commencing in the late 1700s.

For decades, the scientific debate about the threat of rising global temperatures from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has depended on estimation, the use of anomalies rather than actual and complex computer modelling of key variables.  The complexity of these calculations and reliability of the result are seen in the widely variable (and always above actual outcomes) predictive models.  The rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and rising surface temperatures as used by these calculations indicate a strong positive correlation, and modelling extrapolation of this relationship into the future shows alarming, exaggerated increases in global temperatures leading to widespread concern about ‘global warming’. Not unexpectedly, this has created a demand by the public for urgent action by governments to significantly reduce the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at a global level.

https://pjmedia.com/john-stossel/2024/03/06/the-renewable-scam-n4927051

“We’re building a clean energy future,” says President Joe Biden.

Who is “we”? 

Well, you pay for it.

He and his “green” cronies do most of the building. 

Lately, they’re pouring more of your money into “renewable energy.” They promise to give us “carbon-free power” from the sun and wind.

My new video illustrates some problems with that, using scenes from a new documentary series called “Juice: Power, Politics and the Grid.” 

Political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. notes, “It’s quite intuitive for people to understand that there’s a lot of power in solar energy. We feel the wind. The idea that you can get something for nothing, people find enormously appealing.”

Especially in California, where politicians now require all new homes to have solar panels, all new cars sold in 2035 to be zero-emission, and all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/defacing-the-constitution-should-land-you-in-prison/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=

Among this past week’s brainless and woke happenings (but I repeat myself), one event in particular stuck out. Two “climate activists” decided that desecrating the nation’s most sacred document, the U.S. Constitution, was the best way to garner support for their cause.

These two men — who look like malnourished vegans paying out-of-pocket for a Ph.D. in Peace Studies — dumped reddish-pink powder over themselves and the Constitution’s display case on Wednesday afternoon.

Why the reddish-pink powder? Who knows. (It probably symbolizes the blood of an endangered wombat, or something.) What is certain, however, is that the particulate substance has been hard to remove.

Subsequent analysis revealed that the powder dumped on the case was a mixture of pigment powder and cornstarch. The resulting substance was so fine that an industrial vacuum could hardly pick it up, nor could the powdered pigment be cleaned with water because it would just turn into paint.

While none of the substance penetrated the bulletproof case, the stunt still proved a headache for the Archives staff to clean and forced the National Archives to stay closed for days — a major letdown for all of the families visiting the capital with the express purpose of making a pilgrimage to the text’s temple.

The pasty duo enacted their stunt unhindered by the “security guards” at the National Archives. Nearly four minutes passed before the clods were stopped.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-electric-vehicle-mandate-american-fuel-and-petrochemical-manufacturers-ads-fcc-climate-power-578876e5?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

If President Biden’s electric-vehicle mandate is as popular as progressives claim, why are they trying to censor critics who want to inform the public about the mandate’s costs?

That’s the story this week, after the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) launched ads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio and Montana to educate Americans about the Administration’s back-door EV mandate. Mr. Biden is “rushing to ban new gas-powered cars” and wants “to force you into an electric vehicle,” one ad says.

The Biden team doth protest. “There is no EV mandate,” a Biden campaign official declared. No? The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards that would effectively require that EVs make up two-thirds of auto maker sales by 2032. The standards will “accelerate the transition to electric vehicles,” EPA said.

EPA’s proposed emissions rules are so stringent that auto makers will be able to comply only by producing an increasing number of “zero-emission vehicles” or by buying regulatory credits from EV manufacturers like Tesla.

. Americans shopping for a new car will have no choice but to buy an EV or pay a fortune for the few gas-powered cars still available.

Yet Mr. Biden and his allies don’t want voters to know that banning gas-powered cars is their end game. That’s why the progressive umbrella group Climate Power on Tuesday shot off a missive to broadcasters demanding that they pull the AFPM ads—or else. These “advertisements include obvious lies aimed at deceiving the public and must be pulled from the air immediately,” Climate Power chief operating officer Jill Shesol wrote. But who’s actually trying to deceive the public?

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/02/13/our-crazy-cousins-north-of-the-border/

If there ever were a sign that Canada has gone cuckoo, it has to be a bill introduced in Parliament that would censor speech about fossil fuel. No, we’re not joking, though we hope the bill’s author is. We fear, however, he isn’t.

One Charlie Angus, a New Democratic Party member of the House of Commons from Timmins–James Bay in Ontario, has brought before that chamber Bill C-372. It clearly states that “it is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations.”

Under the legislation, it is further “prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel … i​​n a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy; or … by using terms, expressions, logos, symbols or illustrations that are prohibited by the regulations.”

Does “nuts” adequately describe the thinking behind this bill? It is most certainly outrageous.

If we read the Canadian version of English correctly, merely pointing out the indisputable fact that civilization would break down without fossil fuels would be a lawbreaking offense. So would arguing that vehicles with internal combustion engines are better for the environment than trendy electric vehicles, or pointing out that natural gas is a cheaper, more reliable source of energy that wind and solar.

The punishment depends on which provisions are violated, with the most punitive corrective measures being $1.5 million fines and two-year prison terms.

Not all Canadians are crazy, of course. Yet the effete, shallow yet odious Justin Trudeau is in his third term as prime minister, so there is an abundance of poor thinking among the electorate.

ttps://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=90d2677a69

The last day of trial, yesterday, was devoted to jury instructions and closing arguments. Unfortunately, I had to miss the opening argument from Mann’s counsel John Williams. But I was then able to listen to almost the entire argument of Simberg’s counsel Victoria Weatherford, the entire argument by Mark Steyn on his own behalf, and the entire final rebuttal from Mr. Williams.

My overall comment on the closings of Ms. Weatherford and Mr. Steyn is that they were straightforward reviews of the evidence, or lack thereof, as it applied to each element of the claims, as those had been outlined by the judge in the jury instructions. Because Mann had presented little to know relevant evidence, the closings were quite devastating. Ms. Weatherford’s approach was more an item-by-item review of how plaintiff had failed to prove each element, while Steyn focused more on a few particularly noteworthy issues; but both were well within norms for this type of argument. By contrast, Williams’s rebuttal was almost entirely off point and/or improper. He drew repeated (and correct) objections, several of them sustained, ultimately forcing the judge to re-read to the jury the entire instruction as to the elements and burdens of proof for defamation in order to correct an incorrect statement of the law made by Mr. Williams.

In general, I have great faith in juries. And in this case, where my view is that the evidence strongly favors the defense, it should be an easy decision. However, given the highly charged politics of the subject matter, I do not have confidence in how the jury will come out.

The Jury Instructions

The instructions had been negotiated between the plaintiff and defendants, and mostly came from standard forms. There may have been some objections that one side or the other had preserved, but that was not mentioned publicly. Although I am not an expert in defamation law, the instructions seemed to me to be a fair summary of the law, with the exception that I was surprised that the phrase “actual malice” was not used. However, the instructions did use the words that I understand to be the operative definition of that “actual malice.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/d-c-jury-awards-1m-in-damages-to-suppress-climate-denialism/

It’s hard to believe, but this Mann case has been wending through the courts for over a decade. It’s the Jarndyce case of the conservative vs. environmentalist movement whose purpose was to silence dissent.

That was explicitly the point all along.

The two also had a heated exchange over a private email Mann wrote in 2012, in which he said it was his “hope” that through the lawsuit he could “ruin this pathetic excuse for a human being,” referring to Steyn.

Back in 2012, this whole thing seemed like a ridiculous joke. And back then it was. But with enough money and lawyers, the case kept going because it also tracked the descent of the American Left into lawless totalitarianism which abused the legal system in order to silence political opponents.

The judicial wrangle began in 2012, when climatologist Michael E. Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University and climate-change activist, sued National Review and pundits Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, claiming that they had libeled him in a series of blog posts. On National Review’s website, Steyn commented on an article by Simberg, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Simberg likened Mann’s research on global warming to Penn State’s cover-up in the case of Jerry Sandusky, Penn State’s former assistant football coach and a convicted child molester. Simberg called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” except that instead of molesting children, Mann had “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” Though Steyn distanced himself from the Sandusky analogy, he noted that Mann was the scientist behind the controversial “hockey-stick” graph, which purports to depict a sharp rise in global temperatures in recent years. Steyn called the graph “fraudulent.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/02/09/the-invasive-species-that-is-renewable-energy/

The ruling class’ obsession with building a carbon dioxide-free world has blinded it to material facts. The Al Gores and Gavin Newsoms and John Kerrys of the West believe they only have to bark orders and seize other people’s money and their green dreams will be realized. When are they going to understand their wishes are not everyone else’s command?

There are many examples of the ruling class’ failure to recognize its limitations in regard to energy. The electric vehicle backlash comes to mind. So do the many green “investments” that have turned out to be financial holes of a different color.

For this commentary, though, we’re focusing on the breakdown of the renewable infrastructure buildout. The hard truth is that people don’t want wind and solar farms overtaking their communities and chewing up rural land. The resistance is so forceful that a number of counties have banned the projects inside their borders.

“Across America, clean energy plants are being banned faster than they’re being built,” says the USA Today headline from last week.

After the obligatory nonsense about how green energy is necessary because humans are setting the planet on fire, which is found daily across the hysterical mainstream media, the reporters note that “at least 15% of counties in the U.S. have effectively halted new utility-scale wind, solar, or both.” Through its nationwide analysis, USA Today learned that “limits come through outright bans, moratoriums, construction impediments and other conditions that make green energy difficult to build.” 

And it’s not just local governments. Three states, ​​Connecticut, Tennessee and Vermont, have “implemented near-statewide restrictions,” according to USA Today.