RUTHFULLY YOURS

‘https://issuesinsights.com/2024/11/14/how-can-we-trust-the-science-when-we-cant-trust-the-data/

Climate change is the challenge of our lifetimes,” we in the energy-hungry West often hear when lectured by leftist government officials and their allies pushing the “Net-Zero” religion. But what happens if much of the vital data behind the climate-change threat are made up?

Turns out, quite a lot of it is. At least that’s what the Daily Sceptic, a British-based science watchdog, claims. It recently detailed the allegations made by an independent journalist showing that 103 of the 302 supposed “weather stations” that provide data for both the United Kingdom government’s and academic scientists’ climate change forecasts don’t exist or produce actual data.

That’s right. Instead of data, the government manufactures “estimates,” as journalist Ray Sanders found.

If so, that means all of the science based on the falsified data is null and void. That includes the British government’s frequent dire predictions of massive global heating that will soon make life on planet Earth unbearable.

Still, that’s just the UK, right? Wrong.

If you live in the U.S., you’ve been hectored by big-government leftists for years to “trust the science.” But the U.S. government has its own problems with our temperature data.

The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) was set up to provide accurate temperature numbers to policymakers, meteorologists, and scientists.

Unfortunately, as in Britain, the U.S. is shutting down many of its weather stations, making apples-to-apples data comparisons statistically impossible. The data go back 100 years.

“They (weather stations) are physically gone — but still report data — like magic,” according to Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist. “NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30% of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.”

But it’s not only about data.

This revelation comes as COP29, the awkward acronym for the United Nation’s 29th annual conference on climate change, gets underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, with literally dozens of CO2-spewing government and private jets flying an anticipated 50,000 people thousands of miles for the occasion.

“Carbon for me, but not for thee,” could be the motto of the Climato-crats in attendance.

According to U.N. Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell, on Tuesday of this week Britain agreed to “a new target of cutting emissions 81% by 2035, for its new NDC.” That’s up from an already unreachable 78% before.

In case you’re wondering, “NDC” is United Nation-ese for ‘”Nationally Developed Contribution.” But it just as well could be called NBB, for “National Bankruptcy for Britain.” Because what the government has planned is nothing short of taking Britain’s development back decades.

This is how the British Independent news site describes what must happen due to Britain’s pledge at the U.N. meeting:

The CCC (Climate Change Committee) said electricity will need to be zero carbon by 2035, with a phaseout of gas power that does not have technology to capture and store its carbon emissions, and renewables – in particular offshore wind – generating 70% of power.

It also said sales of natural gas boilers need to be phased out by 2033 with the majority of homes switching to heat pumps that run on electricity.

Sales of new petrol and diesel cars, motorbikes and vans, including plug-in hybrids, must be phased out by 2032, with most new sales ended by 2030.

People should also be encouraged to reduce their meat and dairy consumption by 20% by 2030, which will free up land for restoring peatland so it absorbs carbon and to plant trees.

And cuts to demand for other carbon intensive activities will also be needed, including slower growth in flights, reductions in car travel, and cutting waste and boosting recycling, the advisers said.

Sound like the kind of place where you want to live? Eat less? Stop traveling? Buy only electric vehicles? It’s basically a climate police state, which is precisely what Britain’s far-left government intends.

And no, it doesn’t end there. The sacrifices go on and on, with no offsetting gains for the economy, and it’s happening across Europe, with shockingly predictable results.

In “Europe Is Pricing Itself Out Of Existence,” Macro Strategy Partnership economist Andrew Lees argues that the EU has “traded growth for ideology,” with renewable energy costing five times what conventional energy sources cost.

In short, as it strains under the burden of the “Net-Zero” movement, the EU is going backward as it kills off economic growth, forces factories to shut down and lay off workers, and raises the cost of living for already-strapped, highly-taxed EU citizens.

Our friends at The Committee to Unleash Prosperity said it best in their headline: “Green Energy Has Decimated Europe.” That’s no exaggeration.

And it’s a high price to pay for a climate theory based on iffy, if not outright fraudulent, data.

The move to Net-Zero globally, which is what COP29 represents, will be absurdly expensive and put a major dent in economies around the world. Estimates range from $1.5 trillion a year (Goldman Sachs) to $3.5 trillion a year (McKinsey) to a stunning $5 trillion a year (Global Financial Markets Association).

It ain’t peanuts.

And that doesn’t include the trillions of dollars less-developed nations want as reparations for the “damage” (it used to be called “development”) global warming supposedly causes them. This year’s COP29 “features the demand that developed countries fork over billions, if not trillions, more dollars to the Global South, ostensibly to help it adjust to climate change,” notes Heather Mac Donald in City Journal.

With shrinking economies and a collapsing industrial base in many nations, and cratering demographics around the world, how will nations pay for this? They won’t. They can’t. They will be bankrupt, which is the global warming movement’s real goal.

Given that it’s all based on somewhat spurious readings of temperature data both past and present, the trillions of dollars spent doesn’t seem like a prudent investment. No, it looks more like the biggest gamble ever. Do you “trust the science?”