RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2023/04/10/from-global-warming-to-global-cooling-to-global-warming-n2621739

Here is an interesting quote: 

“Snows are less frequent and less deep.  They often do not lie below the mountains more than one, two, or three days and very rarely a week.  They are remembered to be formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance.  The elderly inform me that the earth used to be covered with snow about three months every year.  The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do now.  [This] change…in the spring of the year is very fatal to fruits…I remember that when I was a small boy, say 60 years ago, snows were frequent and deep in every winter.” 

That was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1799, before fossil fuels dominated the energy industry, and when the earth’s population was far smaller than it is today.  From all indications, there was indeed notable warming in the 18th century from the previous “Little Ice Age” period.  

But let’s move ahead to the 20th century.  The weather changes, of course, and Paul Ehrlich, who was always wrong about everything he ever said, told us in 1969, “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”   Twenty years passed, no blue steam, people were still on the earth.  I guess we were lucky.  And Ehrlich was rich.

Global cooling was the craze then.  Here are a few representative quotes from the 1970s:

Boston Globe (1970): “Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century”

LA Times (Oct. 24, 1971): “New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder” 

Brown Science Dept. to the White House (1972): “Deep concern with the future of the world…falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/baseball-home-runs-blamed-on-global-warming/

Americans, at least liberal ones, lost the right to make fun of Lysenkoism, phrenology and every bit of stupid pseudoscience some years back. Ever since, “the science” has become someone’s idea of an absurd routine, part Peter Sellers and part South Park, in which the goal is to say completely absurd things with a straight face.

At the current rate of descent into absurdity, it takes the occasional new low to even get any attention.

Climate change is making major league sluggers into even hotter hitters, sending an extra 50 or so home runs a year over the fences, a new study found.

It’s basic physics.

When air heats up, molecules move faster and away from each other, making the air less dense. Baseballs launched off a bat go farther through thinner air because there’s less resistance to slow the ball.

That also probably explains the four-minute mile. We think it’s a lesson about self-confidence, but actually the only reason Roger Bannister was able to do it and so many after him was because of global warming. He was able to run faster because the air was thinner due to global warming. It’s basic physics.

Also, Alex Ovechkin’s NHL record is probably best explained by global warming. As the ice melts due to global warming, goals become easier to score. It’s basic physics.

The latest research also shows that Michael Jordan’s entire career was due to global warming. It’s just basic physics. As the global warming particles penetrate the basketball, it becomes lighter. So do basketball shoes. The event horizon around the hoop is then hyperaccelerated through the 12th dimension every time someone uses a disposable plastic plate.

The good news is that all sorts of records can now be broken as long as we just keep driving gas cars and feeding environmental consultants to packs of hungry wolves.

It’s basic physics.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/tornadoes_climate_change_and_the_media.html

After the recent devasting tornadoes in the Midwest and South, some media outlets scrambled to try to link the weather events to climate change, when in fact there is no hard data to support this. In fact, tornado data refute claims that tornadoes are increasing in number, range, or severity. However, Salon, Axios, and the Washington Post among others ran articles suggesting climate change is expanding the length of tornado season and area over which tornadoes commonly form, as well as adding ingredients to the atmosphere to make more and bigger tornadoes.

The Salon article, “How climate change made the Mississippi tornadoes more likely,” (actually a reprint from Grist) claimed, “That added ingredient of more heat and moisture is going to be the big thing that will influence what happens and we can expect potentially worse tornado outbreaks,” said William Gallus, a professor of meteorology at Iowa State University.  

Axios piled on with “What we know about how climate change affects tornado outbreaks,” which claims, “We also have expectations that the number of severe thunderstorms (hail, wind, tornado) will probably increase in the U.S.”

The Washington Post article, “Here’s what we know about how climate change is influencing tornadoes,” asserts, “Average global temperatures have risen more than 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s, and the impact is clear: Warmer air provides more energy for storms to develop and intensify, and holds more moisture, which can also fuel storms. Warm, moist air is a key ingredient for developing severe tornadic storms.”

These claims of increased storms due to more heat and moisture are misleading at best and demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how weather fronts collide to form tornadoes. As Climate at a Glance: Tornadoes points out: “Tornadoes typically form when very cold, dry air clashes with warm, humid air. Climate change warms the Arctic more than the tropics and subtropics, resulting in less of a clash between cold Arctic air masses and warm Gulf of Mexico air masses. As a result, fewer and less violent tornadoes are occurring today than in previous periods, despite media claims that tornadoes are getting more frequent, stronger, or both.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/04/05/why-we-need-an-independent-global-climate-temperature-database/

Ever since the beginning of the global warming debate, now labeled “climate change,” there has been one immutable yet little-known fact: All of the temperature data stations used to make determinations about the state of Earth’s temperature are controlled by governments.

In June 1988, when Dr. James Hansen, then-director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, went before  the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to say that, “global warming has begun,” he was using temperature data collected by governments worldwide from a weather station network that was never intended to detect a “global warming signal.”

In fact, Dr. Hansen had to develop novel statistical techniques to tease that global warming signal out of the data. The problem is, these weather station networks were never designed to detect such a signal in the first place. They were actually designed for weather forecast verification, to determine if forecasts issued by agencies such as the U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) were accurate. If you make temperature and precipitation forecasts for a location, and there is no feedback of the actual temperatures reached and the rainfall recorded, then it is impossible to improve the skill of forecasting.

The original network of weather stations, called the Cooperative Observer Program (COOP), was established in 1891 to formalize an ad hoc weather observation network operated by the U.S. Army Signal Service since 1873. It was only later that the COOP network began to be used for climate because climate observations require at least 30 years of data from weather stations before a baseline “normal climate” for a location can be established. Once the Cooperative Observer Program was established in the United States, other countries soon followed, and duplicated how the U.S. network was set up on a global scale.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/04/how-climate-alarmism-killed-real-environmentalism/

The environmentalist movement is a political weapon. It unites the most powerful special interests in the world behind an agenda that will further centralize power and wealth, eliminate any hope of financial independence for the vast majority of people, and transition previously free and independent nations into managed, sham democracies that have lost their sovereign agency.

The overwhelming theme of environmentalism today, designed to obscure its true agenda, is the alleged “climate crisis.”

Americans may or may not eventually muster the impertinence to successfully challenge the political power grab masquerading as environmentalism today. But either way, its centerpiece, the “climate crisis,” is responsible for devastating harm both to what was once a legitimate environmentalist movement, as well as to the environment itself.

Policies ostensibly designed to manage the planet’s climate are taking attention and resources away from genuine environmental threats. At the same time, a growing percentage of people are recognizing the fraudulent essence of the “climate crisis” agenda and, as a result, are becoming indifferent to legitimate environmental concerns.

This is a tragedy. While crooked billionaires bleat incessantly about how “the planet has a fever” and grasp additional billions for their cronies in the businesses of renewable energy and “carbon credits,” we fail to address truly important environmental problems. Compared to “overheating oceans” and “burning continents,” however, these problems lack sex appeal.

Here are just a few of the environmental disasters in progress that nobody talks about either because they’re making too much money pushing the climate change scam, or because they’re thoroughly disgusted with the climate change scam and disregard all environmentalist concerns.

1) Loss of Insect Population: By some estimates, and for reasons we don’t yet adequately understand, the total insect mass on Earth is dropping by an estimated 2.5 percent per year, faster than any other endangered species. This is an existential threat. Insects pollinate many vital food crops. They play a critical role in consuming decomposing animals and plants. They are an essential link in the food chain, the glue that connects microorganisms to smaller predators. Wind turbine blades are a mass killer of insects. Whatever else is killing insects, it won’t stop because we banned fossil fuels.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/04/05/the-climate-madness-of-2023/

Yet again, the society of climate alarmists tell us we have little time left to address global warming. It’s a sign of desperation. What else can the merchants of madness do when we’re now closing in on nine years of a warming pause?

Last month the New York Times published an article that we swear we have read before.

“Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade, and nations will need to make an immediate and drastic shift away from fossil fuels to prevent the planet from overheating dangerously beyond that level,” the Times’ climate scribe wrote, citing a “major new report” issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC paper reveals that “there is still one last chance to shift course.” But it will – naturally – “​​require industrialized nations to join together immediately to slash greenhouse gases roughly in half by 2030 and then stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere altogether by the early 2050s.”

How many other times have we heard that we were either approaching our last chance to save ourselves from global warming, or that our opportunity to do what is “right” had already passed us by? So many deadlines, so many “now or nevers,” have come and gone that it’s almost impossible to track them all.

The climate cranks are like the doomsday cultists who have the end of the world marked on their calendars and when it doesn’t arrive they say, “whoops, my math was bad. Let me recalculate and I’ll get back to you with new date.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/04/17/life-after-climate-change/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=top-of-nav&utm_content=hero-module

The global discussion about climate change has become quite hysterical. Some 60 percent of people living in the rich world think it is likely to bring an end to humanity. This is not only untrue; it is also harmful, because fear makes people embrace bad policies and ignore many other urgent challenges facing the world. Consider, for example, how the World Health Organization declared climate change the defining public-health issue of the 21st century in 2014, but perhaps should have been more focused on pandemics, like Covid. Or take the World Economic Forum participants who in January 2020 found the greatest policy risk of the next ten years to be climate-action failure — ignoring the rapid spread of Covid. Or consider how development institutions increasingly focus on helping poor countries with climate-change responses, often at the expense of other things those countries urgently need, such as growth and development, stronger health-care systems, better education, and a more plentiful energy supply.

Climate change is a real and man-made phenomenon, and it will have negative impacts overall. That’s a fact, and it is one that we hear a lot. The “catastrophe narrative,” however, is drowning out many other relevant facts about climate change — for example, that 98 percent fewer people are dying from climate-related disasters today than did a century ago, and that net-zero-emission policies are eye-wateringly costly. The following are eight charts that I think more people should see, to understand that the climate-change data are very different from what we hear in the commonplace narrative.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/03/28/evs-are-the-yugo-of-the-21st-century/

Way back in the mid-1980s, communist Yugoslavia exported the Yugo, a compact car that sold for around $4,000. It was so poorly made that bumping into a pole at 5 mph could total it.

Fast forward to today, and a new class of cars has a similar problem. A minor accident can cause a total loss, even if the car’s been driven only a few miles. The only difference is that these cars aren’t cheap imports from some godforsaken socialist state. These are state-of-art electric vehicles that come with an average sticker price of $55,000.

Why are insurance companies totaling low-mileage EVs that have been in a fender bender? For the same reason you could total a new Yugo when backing out of a parking spot. The cost of repair is exorbitant.

As Reuters reported recently, “For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents,” which means the only viable option is to replace the battery, which represents about half the cost of the car.

A replacement battery for a $44,000 Tesla Model 3 can cost up to $20,000.

One expert told Reuters that Tesla’s Model Y has “zero repairability” because its battery is built into the structure of the car.

As a result, drivers are finding that even a minor accident ends up with their shiny new EVs being hauled away to the junkyard.

Reuters’ search of EV salvage sales in the U.S. and Europe found a large number of low-mileage EVs made by Tesla, Nissan, Hyundai, and others being scrapped.