RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2025/04/12/the-climate-crisis-con-game/

The technical term is “confidence game.” A crook gains the confidence of a victim (the “mark”) and preys upon their naivety, greed, and/or fear. Ultimately, the duped mark gives their money and/or property to the crook willingly.

Consider this real-world example provided in Connie Fletcher’s 1991 book, What Cops Know: Today’s Police Tell the Inside Story of Their Work on America’s Streets, wherein an anonymous Chicago Police Department (CPD) detective reminisces about a con game he redressed:

“One of the superintendents of the Chicago Police Department—his aunt was taken for $15,000… She was a recent widow, Italian. And during this con, they sent her back to Italy to dig up her husband’s body and take a button off his vest. International phone calls were made between Chicago and Palermo, Italy, continuing the con on this woman, warning her that she must do these things in order to keep her three grandchildren safe. It was five thousand dollars for each grandchild.”

“When I went to the [lead con artist, Louis]… I said, ‘Louis, you cost these people [fifteen thousand] dollars.’ He said, ‘I was taking a curse off their children.’ ‘Louis, come on.’ ‘Listen, are those children safe today?’ ‘Yeah, they’re safe.’ ‘Then it’s off. The curse has been taken off them.’ I said, ‘Why did you charge them [fifteen thousand] dollars?’ He said, ‘It was to take the curse off.’”

While this seems a rather involved scam, boiled down to its essence, it aligns with the experience of another CPD detective: “The best con is the simplest con.” At its stony heart, the con preys upon a grandmother’s love and fears for her grandchildren to extort money from her.

Viewed in its proper light, then, what to make of the Left’s “climate crisis?”

Despite the lack of any remote consensus regarding the alarmists’ proclamations of an impending climate apocalypse, what to make of the leftist “experts” and politicians who implore a concerned public to trust the science—i.e., the selectively chosen science that purports to support their alarmist position and deepens the “mark’s” fears for their offspring and/or planet?

What to make of the left’s incessant warnings of impending environmental doom despite the failure of past dire prognostications to materialize?

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-epa-electric-vehicle-mandate-tailpipe-emissions-rule

In his March 4 address to a joint session of Congress, President Donald Trump celebrated terminating Joe Biden’s “insane electric vehicle mandate.” A year ago, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency had finalized a rule, nominally about tailpipe emissions, that would have required 30 percent to 56 percent of all new light-duty consumer cars sold in the United States to be electric vehicles (EVs). Trump announced his intention to undo Biden’s EV overreach in his first week in office, as part of his executive order entitled “Unleashing American Energy.”

Biden’s rule would have brought chaos to the automotive industry, caused significant economic harm to millions of Americans, and put U.S. national security at risk. Repealing it will level the playing field in the EV market in ways that will benefit American consumers. According to Kelley Blue Book, the cheapest gasoline car available in America in 2025, the Nissan Versa, costs $18,300. The cheapest EV, the Nissan Leaf, costs $29,280—a staggering 60 percent more expensive.

The logistics of owning an EV are also complicated and time-consuming. EV chargers need to be installed at homes and apartment complexes, and charging a car can take more than 12 hours, compared with the less than five minutes it takes to fill up a tank of gas. The Leaf EV can travel 149 miles on a full charge; the Versa can go more than 375 miles on a full tank of gas, over 150 percent farther.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/26/challenging-the-climate-crisis-narrative/

According to the United Nations, “Climate change is a global emergency that goes beyond national borders.” From the World Economic Forum, “Urgent global action must be taken to reduce emissions and safeguard human health from the multi-pronged negative impacts of climate change globally.”

From every multinational institution in the world, we hear the same message. From the World Bank, “The world is battling a perfect storm of climate, conflict, economic, and nature crises.” From the World Health Organization, “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat.”

A major problem with all this unanimity over this “emergency” is the fact that for at least half of all people living in Western nations in 2025, the UN, WEF, WHO, and World Bank have no credibility. We don’t want to “own nothing and be happy” as our middle class is crushed. We don’t want the only politically acceptable way to maintain national economic growth to rely on population replacement. And with only the slightest numeracy, we see apocalyptic proclamations as lacking substance.

For example, while 250,000 “additional deaths per year” is tragic, worldwide estimates of total deaths are not quite 70 million per year. These “additional deaths” constitute a 0.36 percent increase over that baseline, just over one-third of one percent. Not even a rounding error.

Similarly, an alarmist prediction from NASA is that “Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.” Let’s unpack that a bit. A billion tons is a gigaton, equivalent in volume to one cubic kilometer. So Antarctica is losing 150 cubic kilometers of ice per year. But Antarctica has an estimated total ice mass of 30 million cubic kilometers. Which means Antarctica is losing about one twenty-thousandth of one percent of its total ice mass per year. That is well below the accuracy of measurement. It is an estimate, and the conclusion it suggests is of no significance.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/03/24/the-global-warming-scare-hits-rock-bottom/

Our friend Steven Hayward, late of the great Power Line blog, university professor and incisive thinker, wrote a compelling essay last week about “The Nadir of the Climate Change Movement.” If anyone should know about the state of global warming hysteria, it would be Hayward. Here’s how he begins his argument:

The prevailing winds are blowing not toward more windmills but toward common sense on energy.

It is possible that the Trump administration is going to deal the death blows to the long-running climate change hysteria and government hostility to fossil fuels, not just in the United States but around the globe.

The Trump administration has moved well beyond merely supporting increased oil and natural gas production. It has also launched steps to dismantle the foundations of anti-energy climate policy, in particular, a proposed reversal of the so-called ‘endangerment finding’ that gave the EPA jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gases, which were never explicitly included in any of the various Clean Air Acts passed over the last 50 years. Trump’s EPA is also proposing to revise the EPA’s flawed ‘social cost of carbon’ analysis, which is used to justify costly green energy schemes.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/03/every_dollar_spent_on_solar_energy_is_wasted.html

Solar electricity has big problems. Solar is intermittent. It stops working if clouds obscure the sun. It does not work at night. Solar works much better in the summer than in the winter. Solar is peaky. Electricity delivery peaks in the middle of the day and is weaker in the early morning or late afternoon.

Solar electricity is very expensive compared to electricity generated by natural gas or coal. Unsubsidized solar electricity costs about $150 per megawatt hour. Using natural gas, one can generate electricity for as little as $20 per megawatt hour — over seven times less. The high cost of solar is hidden by an extensive system of subsidies.

The intermittent delivery of electricity could be smoothed if it were possible to store the electricity for use when solar is not working. But it’s not possible. Bridging the times and seasons when solar is not working by means of storage is not remotely possible because the amount of storage needed would cost ten or even a hundred times more than the solar farms generating the electricity.

There is a demand for electricity storage. Storage can solve the peakiness problem that plagues solar. Because solar output surges in the middle of the day It will often overtax the ability of the local electrical grid to accept the electricity. The solution is time-shiftng batteries that store excessive midday power and release it later in the day or in the early evening. New solar plants in solar-heavy states are equipped with time-shifting batteries. Time-shifting batteries increase the cost of solar electricity by about a third.

The U.S. is spending about $50 billion per year on new solar electricity plants. The money comes from government subsidies and increased electricity rates. New solar plants with a capacity, or peak output, of 27 terrawatts were built in 2023. The solar plants are backed up by fossil-fuel plants capable of stepping in when solar is not working. If existing solar plants were razed, the electric grid would continue to work smoothly using the fossil-fuel plants that would otherwise be on backup duty for solar.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/19/revive-nuclear-energy-in-america/

he United States used to be the undisputed leader in nuclear power and still has more operating reactors than any other nation, with 94 currently in service. But in the last 35 years, only one new nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S.—Plant Vogtle in Georgia, which only recently began commercial operations.

Meanwhile, 25 nuclear reactors are under construction in China, seven in India, four each in Turkey, Egypt, and Russia, and two each in South Korea, Bangladesh, Japan, the UK, and Ukraine. The nations of Argentina, Brazil, France, Iran, and Slovakia are all building one plant at present.

When it comes to nuclear energy, the world is leaving the USA behind, and despite a recent return to sanity with the incoming Trump administration, conventional wisdom in the US is that nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous. Both are incorrect.

In California, where insanity retains a firm grip on energy policy, one might think nuclear power would nonetheless be getting serious consideration. After all, nuclear energy doesn’t generate greenhouse gases, which is the official explanation for every imaginable mishap in the Golden State, from wildfires to alleged gender inequality. Is California serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions? If so, then maybe if the myths of high costs and excessive risk could be debunked, California could embrace nuclear energy. It isn’t as if there isn’t precedent.

California was once home to six nuclear power plants, generating a total of 5.8 gigawatts. Three of them, Humboldt Bay, Vallecitos, and Santa Susana, were small-scale, generating barely 100 megawatts in total. But San Onofre, with three reactors that could have been retrofitted, took its 2.6 gigawatts offline in 2012. The other big plant was Rancho Seco in the Sacramento Valley, generating 913 megawatts until it was taken offline in 1989. Now, instead of building more nuclear power plants, California’s last operating reactors at Diablo Canyon are scheduled for shutdown. In the face of hyperbolic opposition, PG&E has applied to renew its license for another 20 years. This final surviving nuclear power plant generates 2 gigawatts of baseload electricity. California’s grid has the capacity to absorb at least ten times this much continuous, nonstop power.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2025-3-16-energy-fantasy-versus-reality-in-woke-land-part-iii

JP Morgan Chase — that’s the largest bank in the country. It has been headed for almost 20 years by celebrity CEO Jamie Dimon. For much of the 20 years, Chase and Dimon have been known for their fealty to woke orthodoxies, at least in their official pronouncements. For example, here is a Forbes piece from October 2020 citing Dimon on the subject of “systemic racism.” (Pithy quote: “Systemic racism is a tragic part of America’s history. . . . It’s long past time that society addresses racial inequities in a more tangible, meaningful way.”)

The fealty to woke orthodoxies has in the past extended in particular to the subject of “climate change.” In April 2021 JPM put out a big announcement of plans to facilitate investment of some $2.5 trillion in what they called “climate action and sustainable development.” In October 2021, JPM joined the so-called Net Zero Banking Alliance, then being organized by the UN (led by Mark Carney), promising to starve fossil fuels of investment capital in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

But meanwhile, over at J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management, they have a guy named Michael Cembalest, who currently has the title Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy. For some 15 years, Cembalest has put out an annual Report called the Annual Energy Paper. I have covered a couple of Cembalest’s prior reports, here for 2021, and here for 2022. The titles of both those posts included the words “Fantasy Versus Reality In Woke-Land.” Cembalest is just out with the 2025 version of his Annual Energy Paper, so consider this to be Part III of this series.

These Reports by Cembalest are far from perfect. At a basic level, the Reports accept the ideas that there is a real energy transition going on, that it is somehow important, and that use of fossil fuels must eventually be eliminated. I don’t know if Cembalest really believes those things himself, or if accepting them for purposes of your public reports is the price of holding a highly-paid job at JPM. Either way, while I consider the failure to question those ideas to be a major flaw of these Reports, that failure does not prevent Cembalest from taking a serious and realistic look at many aspects of the supposed energy transition that are completely failing.