RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-tiny-park-sacfrifice-climate-gods-wagner-battery-park-city-new-york-sea-level-crisis-manhattan-trees-nature-destruction-11661974838?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

New York

The bulldozers will come for downtown Manhattan’s Robert F. Wagner Park as soon as next week. In the name of climate change “resiliency,” local authorities have ordered the 3.5-acre park overlooking the Statue of Liberty to be razed and raised, lest it flood from “rising seas” or “storm surges” projected several decades down the road.

Contractors hired by the state-appointed Battery Park City Authority will bring in chain saws for the park’s 112 mature trees. They’ll use shovels to rip up grass where local children now play. They’ll use jackhammers and pickaxes on the park’s benches, walkways and pavilion. Two years and $221 million later, the Authority assures us, there’ll be a new park, albeit with less green space, more commercial space from which to extract rents, and new and improved trees. (They’ll resist salt water, supposedly.)

All this effort will be made for a park that suffered no serious damage during 2012’s superstorm Sandy, the worst storm in New York’s history. Battery Park City was the only neighborhood in Manhattan south of 39th Street that kept its lights on during and after the storm.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/08/climate-change-forecasts-larry-elder/

“‘The trouble with almost all environmental problems,’ says Paul R. Ehrlich, the population biologist, ‘is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. … We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.'” — The New York Times, 1969.

“No real action has been taken to save the environment, (Ehrlich) maintains. And it does need saving. Ehrlich predicts that the oceans will be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade.” — Redlands Daily Facts, 1970.

“Scientist Predicts a New Ice Age by 21st Century: Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century. … If the current rate of increase in electric power generation continues, the demands for cooling water will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States. … By the next century ‘the consumption of oxygen in combustion processes, world-wide, will surpass all of the processes which return oxygen to the atmosphere.'” — The Boston Globe, 1970

“The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. … ‘In the next 50 years,’ the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. If sustained ‘over several years’ –‘five to 10,’ he estimated — ‘such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!’ — Washington Post, Times Herald, 1971.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2022/08/how-the-elites-will-keep-their-lights-on/

What would it take to end our nation’s climate madness? I used to think a few cold showers and the gas running out while the soufflé was in the oven would be enough to induce our Green-washed ruling class to take a more sceptical attitude to “renewable energy”. Now I wonder. These are the people, unassailable in towering banks or parliamentary offices, who run the country, who influence things, make them happen. Right now what they are making happen is the certainty of power shortages as a result of their quasi-superstitious fear of conventional energy generation.

This class determines its political projects and the rest of us pay for them through taxes or surcharges. They may occasionally burble about “the welfare of all Australians” but in effect, they are not interested in us lesser mortals and don’t care if our lives are a struggle, as they’ve shown by pursuing the policies that have given us shamefully rising power prices we scrimp to pay but the nobs can easily afford, and if themselves “renewables” investors, make money out of.

But once their own comfortable existence is even remotely discommoded, they demand that something be done. We saw this in Melbourne when the depredations of youthful ethnic gangs in poorer suburbs were met by lofty ruling-class denials that any gangs existed except in the “racist” minds of the householders complaining. When the gangs struck out into the districts inhabited by the people who run things, all of a sudden it turned out that, yes, they were real, they were a social problem and the police snapped into action like magic.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/08/are-green-pet-projects-delaying-the-next

Biden’s latest green boondoggle funnels money to known energy losers, while curbing the technologies that could prove truly transformative.

Joe Biden’s latest spending binge doubles down on decades of failed government policies, propping up the wind and solar industries while entirely ignoring vast areas ripe for potential energy breakthroughs.

Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act pledged to invest $369 billion in so-called “green” energy sources such as wind and solar power over the next decade, giving a windfall of cash to energy types favored by environmentalists. The IRA aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

America already poured almost $450 billion, even more than the amount provided by Biden’s legislation, into “green” energy between 2010 and 2019. Yet solar and wind power provided only 1.5 and 3.4 percent, respectively, of the energy produced in the U.S. in 2021, according to the Energy Information Administration. The use of solar and wind power has either temporarily increased carbon dioxide emissions or, at best, been responsible for about 1 percent of the decline in emissions, a process much more attributable to the switch from coal power to natural gas.

Pumping vast sums of money into solar and wind isn’t a new phenomenon. In fact, it has been going on for almost half a century, as government favoritism towards these technologies goes right back to the origins of the technologies. (In 1974, an economical solar-power device was the object that drove the plot in the then-near-future James Bond movie The Man with the Golden Gun.) The solar-energy backers were wrong, and their boondoggle has cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Today, solar and wind power get, respectively, 250 and 160 times the subsidies per unit of energy generated that nuclear-fission power does, according to Forbes.

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.