RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/05/lancing-the-lancets-global-warming-pustule/
“With respect, The Lancet should study more science and economics, however unfashionable, and peddle less totalitarian politics, however fashionable and profitable – and deadly.”

The Lancet, once a respected medico-scientific journal and now just another me-too mouthpiece for theusual suspects, ran an editorial this week on climate change – on which subject it has neither expertise nor a missio canonica to pronounce. Here is a letter to the editor in response:

Sir, – Your notion of a “climate crisis” (editorial, December 2), though fashionable among the classe politique, is misplaced. That notion sprang from an elementary error of physics perpetrated in the 1980s by climate scientists who had borrowed feedback formulism from control theory, another branch of physics, without quite understanding it. Interdisciplinary compartmentalization delayed its identification until now.

After correcting the error, anthropogenic global warming will be only one-third of current midrange projections, well within natural variability and net-beneficial to life and health. CO2 fertilization (for CO2 is plant food) has assisted in steadily increasing crop yields – this year’s global harvest has set yet another record – and in improving drought resistance (Hao et al., 2014) and greening the planet.

Your suggestion that warmer worldwide weather has caused net loss of life, particularly among the world’s fast-declining population of poor people, is fashionable but misplaced. Cold is a bigger killer than warmth. Research conducted three years ago for the European Commission found that, for this reason, even if there were 5.4 C° global warming from 2020-2080, there would be 100,000 more Europeans than with no warming at all.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/12/17/the-folly-of-renewable-energy/

If you judge by the images used to illustrate reports about energy, the world now runs mainly on wind and solar power. It comes as a shock to look up the numbers. In 2019 wind and solar between them supplied just 1.5 percent of the world’s energy consumption. Hydro supplied 2.6 percent, nuclear 1.7 percent, and all the rest — 94 percent — came from burning things: coal, oil, gas, wood, and biofuels.

As Mark Twain might say, reports of an energy transition away from combustion as a source of energy are greatly exaggerated. True, carbon-dioxide emissions are rising more slowly than energy consumption, but that is mainly because gas is displacing coal. The rise of renewables has so far not even compensated for the recent decline of nuclear — a decline renewables have contributed to causing because intermittent renewable energy hits the profitability of nuclear power hardest. Nuclear cannot be easily switched on and off.

So the thermodynamic explanation of the world economy remains the same as it has since the industrial revolution liberated us from reliance mainly on the (renewable) muscles of people, horses, and oxen or the vagaries of (renewable) trade winds. We use the heat of flames to do useful things, such as move stuff around, light and heat our homes, manufacture goods, grow crops with tractors, power the Internet.

The main change in recent years has been that energy is increasingly centrally planned. Instead of a market deciding between fuels, the government picks favorites to subsidize, and then subsidizes the old ones, too, when it finds it has poisoned the market against them. Throughout the Western world energy markets are coerced. The development pipeline, corporate rhetoric, and fuel-market shares are all determined by policy.

This has some perverse consequences. Lobbied by firms such as General Electric, Sylvania, and Philips, governments all over the world forced consumers to give up incandescent light bulbs in favor of expensive compact fluorescent bulbs, ostensibly to save energy. All this achieved was a delay in the voluntary replacement of both by a much more efficient, safe, and reliable form of lighting: LEDs.

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2020/12/01/prince-harry-makes-climate-plea-

Prince Harry admits his world view has changed since parenthood, urging humans to care more  and be “like raindrops” which “relieve the parched ground” to tackle climate change.

The Duke of Sussex, 36, who lives with his family on a $14.65-million estate in California, spoke of his passion for nature and Africa during a television exchange to feature in an upcoming documentary, continuing his love of offering advice on climate matters that peaked 12 months ago with his enthusiastic endorsement of Greta Thunberg, as Breitbart News reported.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/21/the-green-end-game-runs-through-biden/

Environmentalist policies are likely to produce is an increasingly static and hierarchical society. But we may not have to choose between a better economy and a better environment.

With the election of Joe Biden, the environmental movement has now established suzerainty over global economics. Gone is not only the troublesome Donald Trump but also the Canadian skeptic Steven Harper. Outside of those dismissed as far-Right, there is virtually no serious debate about how to address climate change in the United States or Western Europe outside the parameters suggested by mainstream green groups.

In reality, though, few electorates anywhere are ready for extreme policies such as the Green New Deal, which, as its widely acknowledged architect, Saikat Chakrabarti, has acknowledged, is really a redder, more openly anti-capitalist version of the Great Depression-era original.

Yet getting hysterical about the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a waste of emotional energy. The environmental movement’s real power derives from those who occupy “the commanding heights” of our society—at the corporate, media, and academic realms. Though arguably not holding views as economically ludicrous as AOC’s, mainstream corporate greens are far more likely to successfully impose their version of environmental justice on the rest of us.

A Finer Shade of Green

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/11/10/a-trump-legacy-that-deserves-to-last-he-withdrew-us-from-the-paris-climate-scam/

It’s still unclear if Donald Trump will remain in the White House come Jan. 21, 2021. But if he doesn’t, at least he pulled America out of the United Nations’ Paris Climate Agreement. It’s an international con, far more harmful than helpful.

The day after the election, the U.S. formally withdrew from the 2015 pact that was sold to the world as a means to shut down global warming. In September 2016, when this country officially joined the agreement, President Barack Obama said it “will ultimately prove to be a turning point for our planet,” and called it an “enduring framework,” the “full implementation” of which “will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change, and pave the way for more progress in the coming years.”

Meaningless words, but a fine opportunity for virtue signaling. And a great moment for the climate alarmists who, as we’ve said before, are more interested in controlling “every aspect of our lives than they are preventing slight planetary warming.”

The timing of America’s withdrawal virtually coincided with a finding of science that showed just how hollow the agreement is. Recent research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has “determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated,” the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow reported in late October.

“In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming,” David Wojick, a civil engineer who has a doctorate in the philosophy of science and mathematical logic, wrote for CFACT.