RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-fails-the-cost-benefit-test-paris-climate-accord-cop28-748ae52d?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

World leaders are gathering in Dubai for another climate conference, which will no doubt yield heady promises along the lines of the 2015 Paris climate agreement to keep the global temperature’s rise “well below” 2 degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees. But they’d be wiser not to. New research shows how extravagant climate promises are far more wasteful than useful.

A new special issue of the journal Climate Change Economics contains two ground-breaking economic analyses of policies to hold global temperatures to 1.5 degrees and its practical political interpretation, mandates to reach net zero, usually by 2050. Though more than 130 countries, including most of the globe’s big emitters, have passed or are considering laws mandating net-zero carbon emissions, there’s been no comprehensive cost-benefit evaluation of that policy—until now.

One of the Climate Change Economics papers is authored by Richard Tol, one of the world’s most-cited climate economists. He calculates the benefits of climate policy using a meta-analysis of 39 papers with 61 published estimates of total climate change damage in economic terms. Across all this, Mr. Tol finds that if the world meets its 1.5 degree promise, it would prevent a less than 0.5% loss in annual global domestic product by 2050 and a 3.1% loss by 2100.

If that sounds underwhelming, blame one-sided reporting on climate issues. While headlines tend to focus on stories of violent climate catastrophes and modeled worst case scenarios, the data reveal a far less frightening picture. Despite a drumbeat of stories this summer about rising heat deaths, higher temperatures also prevent cold deaths, and so far in much greater number. Globally, the result has been fewer overall temperature-related fatalities. Writ large, the damage the world experiences each year from climate-related disasters is shrinking, both as expressed in fraction of GDP and lives lost.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/12/01/save-the-salmon-kill-the-humans/

A leaked Biden administration document is “a strong sign” that the U.S. will consider breaching four Snake River dams to promote salmon populations on the river. Normally, we wouldn’t care, but the push to tear down these (and other) dams exposes the rank hypocrisy of the “climate change” zealots.

Those four dams are hydroelectric stations. In other words, they are sources of clean, carbon-free energy. According to the non-profit NW Energy Coalition, they produce about 1,000 megawatts of power throughout the year, but that can climb to 2,200 MW during peak energy demand.

So, where’s that energy to replace that loss supposed to come from? Coal plants?

Well, that’s what this leaked document was about. The Biden administration says it’s willing to spend $1 billion to find new “clean energy” sources to replace what the dams produce today.

“The draft agreement says the government will help plan and pay for tribes in the Pacific Northwest to develop enough clean energy resources to serve as replacement power for the lower Snake River dams,” reports ABC News.

There’s also $5 million for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to “identify the best ways to meet the region’s energy resource needs and clean energy goals while accounting for breaching of the dams and the loss of their hydropower,” according to the Lewis County Chronicle.

Think about the insanity of all this.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/11/30/five-reasons-why-climate-skepticism-and-dissent-are-important/

Today a blithering throng of nascent tyrants, fevered zealots, useless office-holders, hypocrites and ignoble grifters will gather to kick off 28th United Nations Conference of the Parties in the grand pursuit of “global transformative climate action.” For nearly two weeks they will rail and prattle endlessly about how important it is to end fossil fuel use, nag those they slander as “deniers,” tell new lies, restate old lies, hold themselves up as saviors, dine sumptuously – then board jets, many of them privately owned, that burn oceans of hydrocarbon-based aviation fuel to return home.

The legacy media, naturally, will go gleefully along for the ride. They will employ the usual terminology – emergency, crisis, apocalypse, warmest, hottest, wettest, driest, melting, temperature records, accelerating change – that is intended to both frighten the public and boost their green cred that is earned by showing just how much one really cares about the climate.

While this spectacle grinds on, it can’t be forgotten that the global warming narrative should not be taken as indisputable fact. Here are five reasons that we can’t blindly trust and follow the political left’s climate line:

As we recently mentioned in regard to the political left, which is now almost entirely radicalized, the issue it is raging about at any given moment is not the real issue. It is “only an occasion,” says David Horowitz, once a member of the New Left, “to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.” The constant screeching over man-made global warming is simply a pathway to accumulating ever-greater political power and control.
Science, real science, not politicized, self-serving Tony Fauci science, demands skepticism and dissent. Minds should never be closed off to the possibilities that are beyond current scientific findings and theories. Science can never evolve or grow if today’s accepted truths are not challenged tomorrow. The “politically motivated manufacture of scientific consensus corrupts the scientific process and leads to poor policy decisions,” says Judith Curry, former professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and now president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network. “Consensus enforcement,” she continues, “interferes with the self-correcting nature of science via skepticism, which is a foundation of the scientific process.”