RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/08/global_warming_is_the_greatest_scientific_fraud_in_history.html

Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a new book titled Global Warming: The Great Deception — The Triumph of Dollars and Politics over Science and Why You Should Care.  Published on Amazon.com on January 4, 2022.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

—Albert Einstein

In 1912, amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered the “missing link” between ape and man, known as “The Piltdown Man.”  He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England.  Dawson submitted the find to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of geology at the Natural History Museum.  Smith Woodward made a reconstruction of skull fragments, and the archaeologists hypothesized that the find indicated evidence of a human ancestor living 500,000 years ago.  They announced their discovery at a Geological Society meeting in 1912.  For the most part, their story was accepted as fact.  However, subsequent chemical testing showed that the skull and jaw fragments actually came from two different species, a human and an ape.

The conclusion: Piltdown Man was an audacious fake and sophisticated scientific fraud.  Forty-one years elapsed between the discovery of the “Piltdown Man” and the determination that it was a fraud.

In 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC).  In its seminal report in 1990, the U.N. IPCC stated that “at the then current rate of world emissions of CO2, the global mean temperature would likely increase by 1°C by 2025.”  This statement formed the basis for the hypothesis that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming resulted from the increased concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s lower atmosphere resulting from man-made activities.  Central to the hypothesis was that the temperature of the lower troposphere would increase as the concentration of CO2 in the troposphere increased.  Therefore, in its 1990 report, the U.N. IPCC established a direct linkage between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the lower troposphere.

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=3677406bfa

My last post on Tuesday reported on the Soho Forum climate change debate that had taken place the previous day. Debater Andrew Dessler, arguing in favor of rapid reductions in human greenhouse gas emissions by the method of vastly increasing electricity production from wind and solar generators, had heavily relied on the assertion that wind and solar are now the cheapest ways to generate electricity. An important slide in his presentation showed comparative costs of generation from various sources, with wind and solar clearly shown as least expensive. At the bottom of the slide, the acronym “LCOE” was legible.

LCOE stands for Levelized Cost of Electricity. I first encountered this term a couple of years ago, and thought that I should get on top of it to understand its significance. It took me about a half hour to figure out that this metric was completely inapplicable and invalid for purposes of comparing the costs of using dispatchable versus non-dispatchable generators as the predominant sources to power an electrical grid that works. The reasons are not complicated, but do take some minutes of thought if the matter has not previously been explained to you. In Tuesday’s post, I asked as to Dessler’s reliance on this LCOE metric:

[I]s he aware of this [inapplicability of LCOE] and therefore intentionally trying to deceive the audience? Or, alternatively, is he innumerate, and does not understand how this works quantitatively?

Some commenters on the post were quite harsh in their judgments of Dessler. They argued for the inference of intentional deception, on the basis that no one claiming expertise in this field could really be so obtuse as to think LCOE was a valid metric for the purpose for which Dessler was using it.

So today I thought to look at how others go about comparing the costs of generation of electricity from wind and solar versus dispatchable sources like fossil fuels or nuclear. I can’t say that I was surprised to learn that LCOE is everywhere as the metric of choice for the comparison. Moreover, it is almost impossible to find any discussion of why LCOE is completely misleading when comparing the cost of a grid powered predominantly by dispatchable sources to the cost of a grid powered predominantly by intermittent wind and solar sources backed up by storage.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/16/green-fascists-are-destroying-the-world/

Earlier this summer, the CO2 Coalition was banished from LinkedIn. The CO2 Coalition, with only three full-time employees and an annual budget of under $1 million, had committed the unpardonable sin of sharing contrarian perspectives on climate science. Its work, produced by a network of volunteers that includes dozens of distinguished scientists, offers indispensable balance on a topic that requires honest debate now more than ever.

Among the many comments that followed LinkedIn’s decision, the mentality of the climate crisis mob came through loud and clear. If “the science is settled,” then any contrary perspective is dangerous and must be silenced. A typical comment: “Why does LinkedIn allow so much Climate Disinformation to persist throughout its platform?” Brigades of these content wardens continuously log complaints with LinkedIn against climate skeptics. The impeccable work of Bjorn Lomborg is one of their next targets.

This is not the environmentalism of previous generations, and this new zealotry does not negate or diminish the common sense concern for the environment that most reasonable people share. But this new breed of intolerant, fanatical environmentalism, manifested in the movement to avert a “climate crisis,” is perhaps the most virulent and dangerous expression of fascism in America today. If left unchecked, this fascistic climate change movement will destroy freedom and prosperity while it destroys the planet it purportedly wants to save.

Ideological and Economic Fascism Combined

This is not a frivolous accusation because, in this case, the shoe fits. There are two types of fascism. One is based on ideology and manipulates popular emotions, and the other is based on economics and appeals to elitist greed. The climate crisis movement has found a way to combine both.

Ideological fascism requires a tribal, us versus them mentality, and the climate crisis movement provides this. The climate warriors are the good guys, and the “deniers” are dangerous heretics who must be crushed. They portray the “climate emergency” as a crisis of existential dimensions, which must be resolved by any means necessary. 

As with any fascistic movement, green propaganda is hyperbolic, primal, and terrifying: rising seas, flooding, super fires, extreme weather, burning heat—and anyone who says otherwise is the enemy. The time for discussion has passed. And with every big storm or super fire, the potential for more militancy grows.

Economic fascism is variously defined, but the climate movement in the United States fits every credible definition, as it affects big business and big government. Some call it socialism with a capitalist veneer. That would certainly apply, as the industrialized Western nations are suddenly required to atone for causing the climate crisis by transferring wealth to the developing world, and the privileged American middle class must similarly atone by giving up their homes for apartments, their automobiles for buses and trains, their meat for insects, and submit to rationing of energy and water.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/11/bill-gates-funded-scientist-claims-candy-is-healthier-than-meat/

A nutrition scientist who will soon be advising a White House conference on nutrition released a study last year claiming that candy such as Reese’s is actually healthier for people to eat than meat such as beef.

As reported by The Daily Caller, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian is a cardiologist and dean at the Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. He has written over 450 publications on the subject and is the co-chair of the “Informing the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health” task force. Mozaffarian had previously demanded that the White House hold another such conference, after the last one was hosted in 1969; the event will take place in September.

Mozaffarian is perhaps most well-known for his own “Food Compass” that he released in 2021, which claims to objectively rate thousands of foods and beverages on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher ratings corresponding to higher nutritional value.

Some have pointed out the numerous clear inconsistencies in the scale, which included giving the candy Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups a score of 30, compared to just 26 for ground beef. The sugary cereal Lucky Charms has a score of 69, while grilled chicken is given a rating of 61. And while school lunch pepperoni pizza is rated with a 48, an egg fried with cooking spray is given only 41.

Also noteworthy is Mozaffarian’s financial connection to billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates; the scientist has received over $6 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, spanning across four different projects. Noticeably, the Gates’ insistence that everyone eat artificial meat is reflected in Mozaffarian’s Food Compass, with artificial meat consistently given high ratings ranging from 31 to 69.

https://dianebederman.com/jiminy-cricket-may-have-to-go-into-hiding/

News Alert: Jiminy Cricket may have to go into hiding. He has been heard expressing surprise, shock and astonishment that his fellow crickets are now being bred for food in first world countries. Who knew?

Why would we need to turn to crickets for food?

The WEF under the leadership of Klaus Schwab is promoting crickets as a major source of protein as he and his colleagues – leaders of the West; including my hero Justin Trudeau, start to take down farming and demand reductions in livestock – seems they belch dangerous gasses that are destroying our climate.

It all kicked off in June as Dutch farmers protested over their government’s proposals to slash emissions of damaging pollutants, a plan that will likely force cultivators to cut their livestock herds or stop work altogether.

And the attacks on farmers spread across Europe into New Zealand and on to Canada and the USA. Bet you haven’t heard a word from main stream media!

In Canada, Our Dear Leader, Justin Trudeau is one of many leaders concerned about the dangers of…get ready for it… fertilizer. This despite the fact that 72% of farmers said that crop yields and food production will plummet should the Trudeau government’s 30% fertilizer emission targets be implemented.

More reason for crickets.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/climate_alarmism_descending_upon_the_lower_levels_of_government.html

Everyone knows about the disastrous Green New Deal that is being foisted upon us by our federal rulers in D.C. However, few New Yorkers realize that our state is way ahead of the game when it comes to destroying modern life as part of the climate change hoax. We have our own version of the GND known as the Climate Leadership and Communities Protection Act (CLCPA).

Since the Dems have held the legislature and governor’s seat, some of the most destructive programs and regulations have been imposed to stop the use of fossil fuels in our homes, cars and every facet of our lives without regard for the consequences.

In 2019, New York lawmakers approved one of the most aggressive climate policies in the world, requiring net zero emissions for all sectors of the state’s economy by mid-century. The CLCPA  requires New York to acquire all of its electricity from carbon-free energy sources by 2040 and then reach net zero emissions by 2050. In fact, we are one of the few states in the U.S. (if not the only one) with legally binding emissions reduction targets that meet goals set by the Paris climate agreement.

As the Empire Center think tank explained, New York can increase its use of renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it cannot do so cheaply while maintaining grid reliability.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tilting-at-climate-windmills-chuck-schumer-joe-manchin-tax-climate-bill-bjorn-lomborg-11659993292?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

Nearly all of Washington—Democrats, the press, lobbyists—is taking a victory lap with Senate passage of the Schumer-Manchin tax, climate and drug price control bill. The climate lobby is especially thrilled, claiming a historic victory that will reduce temperatures, hold back the rising sea, and save the planet.

Or, maybe not. Our contributor Bjorn Lomborg looked at the Rhodium Group estimate for CO2 emissions reductions from Schumer-Manchin policies. He then plugged them into the United Nations climate model to measure the impact on global temperature by 2100. He finds the bill will reduce the estimated global temperature rise at the end of this century by all of 0.028 degrees Fahrenheit in the optimistic case. In the pessimistic case, the temperature difference will be 0.0009 degrees Fahrenheit.

In other words, the climate provisions in this ballyhooed legislation will have no notable impact on the climate.

This isn’t surprising. No matter what the U.S. does to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, it will be dwarfed by what the rest of the world does. China, India and Africa aren’t about to stop burning fossil fuels as they develop, and China is sprinting ahead to build huge new coal capacity despite its pledge to start reducing emissions after 2030.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-8-6-net-zero-is-not-just-for-carbon-emissions-now-its-nitrogen

In recent months the insane world-wide campaign against the emission of carbon into the atmosphere has not been going all that well for the zealots. Among other things, the Ukraine war has highlighted the fact that wind and solar electricity generators can’t really work on their own to power a modern economy. That has left places like Germany and the UK that built the most of them facing soaring energy prices and dependence on natural gas from Russia for backup. Those countries and others are in the process of being forced by reality to at least slow down on their march toward Net Zero as to carbon emissions.

But meanwhile, there’s another campaign for Net Zero that until recently has been flying mostly under the radar. That is the campaign against nitrogen. Nitrogen is the stuff that makes up about 80% of the atmosphere and you never even notice it’s there. It’s also essential for plant growth, but for that purpose needs to be combined with hydrogen. Farmers can give crops the nitrogen they need through animal manure, which is an excellent source, or through commercial fertilizer, which is made by taking nitrogen from the air and combining it with hydrogen from natural gas. Really, who could be against this?

The answer is that the usual environmental zealots, in coordination of course with the UN, have embarked on a war against nitrogen. Or maybe it’s a war on all agriculture, with nitrogen just being the excuse. You be the judge.

The war on nitrogen suddenly leapt into international public consciousness back about last December, when the country of Sri Lanka suddenly found itself facing an unanticipated famine. How did that happen?

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-8-3-miners-explore-amazon-basin-to-support-green-energy-new-york-times-horrified

The front page of today’s New York Times features a big article clearly intended to get the readers riled up about the latest environmental horror that must be stopped. The headline is “The Illegal Airstrips Bringing Toxic Mining to Brazil’s Indigenous Land.” Subheadline: “The Times identified hundreds of airstrips that bring criminal mining operations to the most remote corners of the Amazon.”

Wow, this is bad. The airstrips are “illegal.” The mining is “toxic,” and not only toxic but also “criminal.” And it’s all happening in the most pristine place left in the whole world, the “remote corners of the Amazon,” much of it inhabited by the most innocent of all innocent indigenous people, the Yanomami.

So what is driving this big rush of miners into these remote regions? Could so-called “green energy” — with its vast demands for raw materials like nickel, manganese, aluminum and iron — have anything to do with it? If so, you won’t learn anything about that from the Times.

The obvious purpose of this lengthy Times piece is to get you outraged about the criminal mining wildcatters now said to be swarming the Amazon jungle. The piece starts with research conducted by the Times, using satellite photographs, that has identified a large number of airstrips — close to 1300 of them — that have been carved into the Amazon jungle, and that are now being used to bring in supplies to support the development of new mines.