RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-scientific-roundup-11567551770

Perhaps you’ve read that science should rule when determining environmental standards. So why aren’t progressives cheering an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring that the chemical glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer?

In an extraordinary intervention, the EPA recently said it will no longer approve product labels that claim glyphosate is carcinogenic to humans. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the popular weed killer. The herbicide has been on the U.S. market since 1974, and the scientific consensus is that it isn’t carcinogenic in humans.

The letter is a rebuke to California, which in 2015 said it would add glyphosate to its official list of carcinogens under the state’s 1986 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65. California cited the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s finding that glyphosate “probably” causes cancer.

This is the U.N. outfit that has warned against cancer from pickled vegetables, caffeine and working the night shift. California’s move has inspired a flood of lawsuits against Roundup-maker Monsanto, including a $2 billion jury judgment (reduced to $86 million by a judge) in May for a California couple claiming glyphosate caused their cancer.

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

As you all know, the game plan of climate activists is to restrict and ultimately ban the use of carbon-based fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas. Don’t worry, those will all be replaced in due course with perfectly clean and free “renewables.” You won’t even notice that it is happening! At least until your price of electricity triples or you can’t heat your house any more.

I’ve long said that the politics of energy will change significantly when people start to get hit with reality in the form of soaring prices or shortages. An early example of the latter is starting to take shape here in New York.

In recent years, jurisdictions have competed with one another with promises to get higher and higher percentages of energy from “renewables,” and lower and lower percentages from fossil fuels, by earlier and earlier dates. For example, California claims to be “leading the nation toward a 100 percent clean energy future and addressing climate change.” California’s SB 350, enacted into law in 2015, directs the state to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. But New York was not about to cede “climate leadership” to those rubes on the West coast. As reported here on July 6, New York’s legislature had just passed the “Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.” Its goals: to get 70% of electricity from “renewables” by 2030, followed by reduction of all carbon emissions — not just from the electricity sector — by 85% below 1990 levels by 2050. Take that, California!

And then there’s the question of where to start, because after all, you have to start somewhere. And you can’t really expect to be taken seriously in your claim to be replacing fossil fuels if you just keep adding and adding to your fossil fuel infrastructure and capacity. Back in 2014 Governor Cuomo got the ball rolling by banning “fracking” for natural gas in the state. But of course, they “frack” in a big way right next door in Pennsylvania, and it’s just a hop, skip and a jump by pipeline to bring that gas over here.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-famine-of-fact-at-u-n-climate-panel-11567201352

Global crop production sets new records virtually every year. That didn’t stop the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from publishing an alarmist report Aug. 8 that suggests global warming has devastated crop production and threatens food shortages.

“Climate change . . . has adversely impacted food security and terrestrial ecosystems as well as contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions,” the report asserts. “Warming compounded by drying has caused yield declines in parts of Southern Europe. Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in drylands, particularly those in Africa, and high mountain regions of Asia and South America.”

At the same time, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that new records were set for global corn, wheat and rice production five years running through 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. How is that possible?

The IPCC report parses words and engages in semantic tricks to give readers a false impression of declining global crop production. Note the reference to declining yields in “parts” of Southern Europe. The report doesn’t mention that yields are increasing in Southern Europe as a whole. What sense does it make to blame declining yields in a small portion of the world on global warming without crediting global warming for global gains?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_next_revolution_the_green_new_deal.html

The Green New Deal is all the rage on the Left. Psychopaths who hide their lust to dominate others claim that this is for the “salvation of the planet.” They present themselves as benign saviors to mask their tyrannical intentions. The Green New Deal isn’t about combating “climate change.” It is about finalizing total control over societies and, of course, the earth.

Proponents of green communism are now fearmongering about the danger of ancient diseases that we’re not prepared to deal with. These petty tyrants who blush and gush at the prospects of enslavement while speaking of liberty and equality are hoping to scare people into surrendering their self-reliance and self-rule. For that is the true intent of presenting the apocalyptic scenario of species extinction. If the green communists can scare people into believing the apocalypse is nigh, the frightened, they hope, will foolishly turn to the government to save them.

Of course, this enslavement to the state is not even to a national one. It would be to a transnational statist supraorganism. Our enslavement would be to a global collective of managers, or, if we lived in the 1920s, we would rightly call it a global soviet.

Since “globalism” (in its corporatist-managerial form) is on the backslide, the global communists who know no loyalty to nation, tribe, or family, need to switch the flagship of global domination from the oft-derided corporate-tech alliance to the more superficially benign transnational environmental lobby. Many people have grown skeptical of globalization by corporations and Silicon Valley startups. Most people, however, are ignorant of the dangerous intent of green communism and its lust to destroy whomever it regards are deplorables while also enslaving all other peoples and nations to its dictatorial soviet.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-coming-climate-change-propaganda-tsunami/

Batten down the hatches! Yet another tsunami of global warming and “clean energy” propaganda is approaching!

On September 23, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres will host the 2019 Climate Action Summit at UN headquarters. Guterres is calling on all leaders to come to New York City with “concrete, realistic plans” to increase their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction pledges “in line with reducing GHG emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade, and to net zero emissions by 2050.”

The goal is to “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C”, lessen sea level rise, reduce extreme weather, and other impossible objectives. The UN warns:

[T]he last four years were the four hottest on record, and winter temperatures in the Arctic have risen by 3°C since 1990. Sea levels are rising, coral reefs are dying, and we are starting to see the life-threatening impact of climate change on health, through air pollution, heatwaves and risks to food security.”

This is all either nonsense or irrelevant (for example, sea level has been rising, at times much faster than today, for the past 15,000 years). But this won’t stop civil society, businesses, organizations, youth and other representatives from the public at large from joining heads of states and government from UN member states at the summit in demanding that we make “massive movements in the real economy in support of the [climate change] agenda,” to quote from the summit website. Currently sailing across the Atlantic on her way to address the conference is 16-year old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg in what she erroneously dubs a “zero-carbon” yacht. Thunberg is being brought in to help the U.S. climate delusion movement and to recruit more well-meaning but naive children into its ranks. 

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/08/the-tear-stained-flogs-of-climate-science/

“Uncontrollable weeping, depression, wee hours angst, kiddie stories that can only be read by the cognoscenti as portents of global doom — such is the lot of elite climateers. Yet they struggle on in their misery, alerting a dying and heedless world to the peril only they can see and, of course, their dire need for more grants and funding.”

Climate scientists of the apocalyptic persuasion are melting faster than Greenland ice sheets.  They sob, they rage, they suffer from what shrinks now call “environmental melancholia” or “pre-traumatic stress disorder” — mental anguish about stuff that hasn’t happened. They just can’t understand why the public – i.e. the befuddled Australian electorate – laughs off  computer-generated scenarios of the end of civilisation and, maybe, the end of the human species.

The doyen of Australia’s rising catastrophists, Dr Joelle Gergis, disclosed to August’s edition of The Monthly how she sobs about the climate peril during her kerosene-fuelled air travel.[1] Then she switches to “volcanically-explosive rage” because the hoi polloi don’t want to pay for windmill electricity fantasies.

Environmental scientist Dr Katharine Wilkinson is quoted by Mother Jones (circ. 200,000):  “For some, it’s anger or rage. For me, it’s deep grief… There is no way for me not to have a broken heart most days.”  At a recent panel discussion, she  blurted, “I have no child and I have one dog, and thank God he’ll be dead in 10 years.”

Senior weepniks include Yvo de Boer, former Executive Secretary of the UN group controlling the IPCC. Running the Bali UN climate summit, he had to be led off the podium in tears after losing a procedural motion  “as he worked round the clock to get a deal to protect the Earth from warming.”

The scientists’ pals in the media have got infected too: “Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist turned journalist, has written about his own efforts to contend with climate-change–induced depression:  ‘It’s only getting worse. I confess: I need help.”