RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-desire-for-power-hiding-behind-health-and-clim

There is a threat of creeping totalitarianism in western societies that comes from health and climate activists. Who (except unfeeling monsters) could possibly be against the saving of human life or the preservation of the planet from future catastrophe? Often the two strands of redemptive enthusiasm go together: after all, environmental degradation is hardly good for health.

Since almost all human activities have health or environmental consequences, especially bad ones, it follows that those who want to preserve either human health or the environment, or both, have an almost infinitely expansible justification for interfering in our lives, indeed they have it to the nth degree.

These days, much medical research that is published in the general medical journals such as the Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine is epidemiological rather than experimental. It finds associations between factor a (shall we say, the consumption of bananas) and illness x (shall we say, Alzheimer’s disease).

Once an association is found that is unlikely to have arisen by chance (unlikely, that is, but not impossible), an hypothesis is put forward as to why the eating of bananas should conduce to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Before long, the statistical association and its alleged explanation leaks out into the press or social media, and people start to be afraid of bananas. The more enthusiastic and less sceptical of the epidemiologists begin to call for banana controls: anti-banana propaganda, extra taxes on bananas, no bananas on sale within a hundred yards of anywhere there might be a child, and so on.

And of course, a reduction in the demand for bananas will assist those tropical countries large parts of which are given over to environmentally-degrading banana monoculture. Banana republics are not called bananas republics for nothing.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-formally-exits-paris-accord-a-global-pact-aiming-at-climate-change_3565268.html

BERLIN—The United States on Wednesday formally left the Paris Agreement, fulfilling an old promise by President Donald Trump. The global pact was forged five years ago aimed at curbing the potential threat of climate change.

The move, announced by President Donald Trump and triggered by his administration a year ago, has no immediate impact on international efforts to curb the threat.

There are 189 countries that remain committed to the 2015 Paris accord, which aims to keep the increase in average temperatures worldwide below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), ideally no more than 1.5C (2.7 F).

Many scientists claim that any rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius could have a devastating impact on large parts of the world, raising sea levels, stoking tropical storms, and worsening droughts and floods.

The Paris accord requires countries to set their own voluntary targets for reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The only binding requirement is that nations have to accurately report on their efforts.

The United States and China are the world’s largest emitters of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and its contribution to cutting emissions is seen as important, but it is not alone in the effort.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has said he favors signing the United States back up to the Paris accord if he turns out the winner for the 2020 presidential election

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/10/08/climate-change-is-here-its-going-to-get-cooler-says-nasa/

Climate researcher Michael Mann said last week that if President Donald Trump is reelected, it’s “game over for the climate.” It’s the same alarmism we’ve been hearing for decades, all of it empty. But the alarmists won’t stop telling us we’re about to set the sky on fire. Even if NASA has said record cold might be on the way.

The sun, it seems, has been powering down.

“We see a cooling trend,” Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center said two years ago, a remark largely ignored but still relevant. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

Like the humans it keeps alive, our star goes through phases, usually about 11 years, over the course of its life. Right now we’re in what NASA calls solar cycle 25, emerging last December from a solar minimum that fell between solar cycles 24 and 25.

“It is important to remember solar activity never stops; it changes form as the pendulum swings,” says Lika Guhathakurta, solar scientist at NASA’s Heliophysics Division.

But climate alarmism continues to grow exponentially. It’s more shrill today than it’s ever been.

For the record, global temperatures dropped from 2016 through late 2019. We don’t know about any unprecedented cooling in the last two years. But maybe the climatistas need to consider that solar activity affects our climate. The Little Ice Age, in which Europe and North America experienced brutally cold winters and mild summers, coincided with the Maunder (solar) Minimum of 1645 to 1720. They don’t want to deny science, do they?

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-10-5-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-

It has been more than a year since I last added a post to this series. The previous post in the series, Part XXVI, appeared on August 20, 2019. For all of the prior twenty-six posts, go to this composite link.

There are two reasons for a new post at this time. The first is that there is some new work out from a guy named Tony Heller. The new work can be found at Heller’s website here, with a date of October 1. Heller also indicates that he intends to continue to add to and supplement this work. Heller is an independent researcher who particularly focuses on the subject of this series: alterations to past officially-reported government climate data to create an impression of warming that did not exist in the data as originally reported. Heller is quite skilled at going through reams of government climate data, and turning those data into useful graphs to demonstrate his points. However, in the past I have sometimes been frustrated with Heller’s work for not including sufficient links to enable a reader to verify that his assertions about data alteration are correct. Thankfully, in the current piece, Heller has corrected that issue, and provides the links so that you can see for yourself that the government has changed the data it previously reported in order to artificially enhance the apparent warming trend.

The second reason for a new post at this time is that President Trump has — finally! — hired two climate skeptics into positions of authority over the bureaucracy that compiles, and later alters, the climate data. On September 12, Trump named David Legates to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Observation and Prediction. And on September 21, Trump named Ryan Maue as Chief Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is the main bureaucracy where the principal climate data are compiled, and is a part of the Department of Commerce. (Another agency, NASA, is also involved in these efforts.). Both Legates and Maue have been known as people who refuse to accept much of official climate orthodoxy. It is completely bizarre that these appointments would only occur less than two months before the election that could turn Trump out of office, but there you go.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/09/the_real_cost_of_wind_and_solar.html

The entire renewable electricity industry is actually a government boondoggle

The main problem with either wind or solar is that they generate electricity erratically, depending on the wind or sunshine. In contrast, a fossil-fuel plant can generate electricity predictably upon request. Blackouts are very expensive for society, so grid operators and designers go to a lot of trouble to make sure that blackouts are rare. The electrical grid should have spare capacity sufficient to meet the largest demand peaks even when some plants are out of commission.  Plants in spinning reserve status stand by ready to take over if a plant trips (breaks down). Injecting erratic electricity into the grid means that other plants have to seesaw output to balance the ups and downs of wind or solar.

Adding wind or solar to a grid does not mean that existing fossil fuel plants can be retired. Often, neither wind nor solar is working and at those times a full complement of fossil fuel plants, or sometimes nuclear or hydro plants, must be available. Both wind and solar have pronounced seasonality. During low output times, as for summer wind, the fossil-fuel plants are carrying more of the load. Of course, solar stops working as the sun sets.

Wind behaves erratically hour to hour. Even though the Texas 18,000-megawatt system has thousands of turbines spread over a wide area, the net output is erratic changing by thousands of megawatts in a single hour. These shifts must be balanced by fossil-fuel plants slewing their output up and down to compensate and keep load matched to generation.