RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/11/scientific_facts_rarely_appear_at_climate_change_conferences.html

Politicians, bureaucrats, the UN, and a bunch of rich people had another climate change gabfest in Egypt that ended recently. These people flew in hundreds of private jets for a conference where they pretended that they could control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever and pretended they cared about their carbon footprint.

Instead of presenting scientific facts, they base their policies on inaccurate and easily manipulated computer models. Facts would be inconvenient when they are trying to scare eight billion people into submission.

In 1989, the UN predicted we only had ten years left to save the planet from the existential threat of climate change. In 2022, 33 years later, their newest dire prediction is that we still have around ten years left. No matter how far off previous predictions have been, the new predictions are more threatening. They have to figure out a way to confiscate massive amounts of money from the people for their radical green agenda.

Here are some facts they don’t talk about:

That extreme cold has hit the South Pole this month.
That the South Pole had record cold temperatures in the six-month winter of 2020-2021
That 2022 was a relatively mild hurricane period, just like the ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit.
That we had extreme cold weather in the U.S this month along with record snow in the Northeast.
That the Arctic icecaps have been expanding the last ten years, contrary to predictions that the ice would be gone by now.
That the coral reef off Australia is growing with a vengeance
That wildfires were down 80% from the last five-year average.
After 150 years of exponential growth of crude oil and coal use, and rapid growth in the population and all the other components we are told cause warming, the dire predictions have all been false.
The temperature is only up one to two degrees after a Little Ice Age ended in 1860 and the Earth now has a temperature similar to over 1,000 years ago in the Medieval Warming Period.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/magic-cars/

Politicians praise electric cars. If everyone buys them, they say, solar and wind power will replace our need for oil.

But that’s absurd.

Here is the rest of my list of “inconvenient facts” about electric cars.

“The future of the auto industry is electric,” says President Joe Biden. He assumes a vast improvement in batteries. Better batteries are crucial because both power plants and cars need to store lots of electric power.

But here’s inconvenient fact 3: Batteries are lousy at storing large amounts of energy.

“Batteries leak, and they don’t hold a lot,” says physicist Mark Mills.

Mills thinks electric cars are great but explains that “oil begins with a huge advantage: 5,000% more energy in it per pound. Electric car batteries weigh 1,000 pounds. Those 1,000 pounds replace just 80 pounds of gasoline.”

But future batteries will be better, I point out.

“Engineers are really good at making things better,” Mills responds, “but they can’t make them better than the laws of physics permit.”

That’s inconvenient fact 4. Miracle batteries powerful enough to replace fossil fuels are a fantasy.

“Because nature is not nice to humans,” explains Mills, “we store energy for when it’s cold or really hot. People who imagine an energy transition want to build windmills and solar panels and store all that energy in batteries. But if you do the arithmetic, you find you’d need to build about a hundred trillion dollars’ worth of batteries to store the same amount of energy that Europe has in storage now for this winter. It would take the world’s battery factories 400 years to manufacture that many batteries.”

Politicians don’t mention that when they promise every car will be electric. They also don’t mention that the electric grid is limited.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/there-will-be-no-climate-amnesty/

“Let them eat cake,” famously attributed to Marie Antoinette by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, has become universal shorthand for a monarch’s total disregard for her famished citizens stealing and wreaking havoc in the streets to survive. World leaders are making the same faux pas this week at their opulent stay in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, for COP27, the United Nations’ climate change conference.

While they eat the best food in the world and enjoy luxurious tourism opportunities, they will leave the conference telling billions of people that the only way to combat the “climate crisis” is to stop eating meat, stop production of fossil fuel-based fertilizer, and, well, stop eating entirely. The Malthusian climate cult isn’t about saving the world — it’s all about depopulation.

When the world gets tired of the lies and energy poverty, will those leaders want a “climate amnesty,” like the pandemic amnesty now desperately sought by U.S. leaders who shut down schools? Probably. But they don’t deserve it.

There are nearly eight billion people who will be affected by the COP27 convention. Of those, 800 million people still live in dire poverty without access to any electricity. 3.3 billion people have access to less electricity than the average American refrigerator. While the 30,000 globalist elites bend the knee to the false god of the net-zero agenda, billions face hunger and lack of fuel needed to keep warm this winter. This scarcity is driven by the decarbonization agenda that has permeated the political elite class around the world.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/democracy-dies-in-climate-panic/

The United Nations is one of the most sacred political cows in the liberal media. This is especially true when they convene the global elites on the perils of “climate change.” The latest confab in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, began with the usual appeal to fear and panic from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, formerly known as the Socialist Party prime minister of Portugal.

“Our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible,” Guterres warned. “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” If that AC/DC song echo wasn’t strong enough, he added, “It is either a climate solidarity pact, or a collective suicide pact.”

Journalists consider anyone who questions this my-way-or-hell viewpoint as not only a “denier” of science but an enemy of the people. Their standard practice is to sound like U.N. publicists.

NPR’s comically titled newscast “All Things Considered” ran a U.N.-boosting story on Nov. 7 that they headlined “U.N. climate conference opens with alarming warnings about the global climate.” There was no dissent allowed from the “highway to climate hell” talk.

Anchor Elissa Nadworny helpfully asked reporter Ruth Sherlock what the U.N. hoped to accomplish. Sherlock touted “developing” countries demanding “loss and damage” money, insisting “wealthier countries that are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide emissions should pay reparations to emerge economies.”

Conservatives are calling this the “Sharm el-Sheikh-down.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-war-on-nitrous-oxide-threatens-global-food-supply/

An extremely dangerous trend in public policy is growing around the world: demanding reduced emissions, mainly from agriculture, of nitrous oxide (N2O) because it contributes to global warming. Indeed, we’re told, every molecule of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere has 230 times the warming potential of every molecule of carbon dioxide-and governments all over the world concluded long ago, rightly or wrongly, that we must cut carbon dioxide emissions to reduce global warming. Clearly, then, it is even more important that we cut nitrous oxide emissions.

What’s dangerous about this? Nitrous oxide is a critical input of agricultural production. Reducing its use will seriously reduce food production, harming the world’s poor. But, if global warming is even more dangerous than reduced food production (which it is not, but for the moment we’ll assume it is for the sake of argument), surely, we must go ahead and take this step. Life is full of tradeoffs, after all.

Not so fast. Things aren’t quite that simple.

I want to begin with a thought experiment. Imagine that you have two cans of paint, A and B. Like all paint, their content is a mixture of clear liquid, through which light passes unimpeded, plus some color pigment. The concentration of the pigment determines how intense the color is, that is, how much light it absorbs so it doesn’t pass through the clear liquid. In can A, 230 out of every 1,000 molecules of paint are pigment. In can B, 1 out of every 1,000 molecules is pigment. It follows obviously that a coating of paint from can A will absorb 230 times as much light as a coating of the same thickness of paint from can B.

Now imagine that you apply 10 coats of paint from can A to a sheet of clear glass, and 23 coats of paint from can B to another sheet of clear glass. Which will block more sunlight? The sheet with paint from can A, because 230 times 10 is more than 23 times 1. Now imagine that instead you apply 10 coats of paint from can A to a sheet of glass, and 30,000 coats of paint from can B to another sheet. Now which will block more sunlight? Obviously, the sheet with paint from can B, because 30,000 times 1-30,000-is 13 times more than 230 times 10-2,300.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/11/14/the-abcs-of-g-r-e-e-n/

The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) is currently underway in Egypt. With American visionaries such as Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and John Kerry featured speakers, how could anything go wrong?

Once again, it is frustrating to hear politicians and activists advocating astoundingly wasteful, mostly ineffective, and sometimes destructive “green” policies and programs. Thereby, we lose the opportunity to fund initiatives that could make a difference, as resources are squandered on you-can’t-get-there-from-here virtue-signaling.

The Basics

Unlike most other greenhouse gases (GHGs), once emitted, carbon dioxide (CO2) remains in the atmosphere for 300-1,000 years, because the sun does not break down CO2 as it does more complex molecules. The concentration of the gas in the atmosphere thus steadily increases because emissions are greater now than what is finally dissipating from the pre-industrial periods. By cherry picking arguments or models or citing predictions that did or did not come to pass, we can debate endlessly the impact of the accumulation of CO2 on today’s climate, but it is undeniable that humans are a major contributor to the buildup. That leaves us with two feasible options to slow the accumulation: limiting emissions or capturing and sequestering the gas (more on that later).  

It is irrelevant where the CO2 originates, because there is plenty of time for it to disperse widely. The U.S. emits about 13% and the European Union about 7% of the world’s total – and overall, “the West” accounts for 25% – so any globally effective mitigation policies must be economically sensible for the other 75%. Until such measures are found, we are fighting a losing battle. A September Wall Street Journal editorial put it succinctly:

“Anything the U.S. does to reduce emissions won’t matter much to global temperatures. U.S. cuts will be swamped by the increases in India, Africa and especially China. Look no further than China’s boom in new coal-fired electricity.”

Focusing self-destructive restrictions and initiatives only on the West is, therefore, an exercise in masochism and undermining its nations’ geopolitical security, by depriving them of plentiful energy and economic prosperity.

The Fallacy Of Electric Vehicles