Climate Hypocrisy
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Climate Activists Seek to Save the Planet by Cutting, Burying Trees
In an interview with NY Times reporter David Gelles, Mr. Gates responded dismissively to the idea that planting more trees can reverse adverse climate effects.
"That's complete nonsense ... I mean, are we the science people, or are we the idiots?" Mr. Gates asked rhetorically
Critics are quick to point out holes in the logic surrounding the claimed benefits of culling trees and burying them.
"This is a spectacularly bad and counter-productive idea," Chad Hanson, a research ecologist and co-founder of the John Muir Project, told The Epoch Times.
He says existing trees and forests are "by far, our best and most effective means" to reduce any "excess of carbon in our atmosphere."
Additionally, selective culling poses a risk to old-growth trees, which research indicates capture vastly more atmospheric carbon than their younger counterparts.
Living trees store a massive amount of atmospheric carbon. One estimate puts the CO2 storage value of U.S. forests and grasslands at 866 million metric tons per year. For perspective, that equates to the annual emissions from 50 million gasoline- or diesel-fueled vehicles.
Meat-Producing Giant Tyson Foods is Now Investing in Insect Protein
It appears that those insect-based ingredients will be heading into food for animals.
However, it is just another instance of the continuing push to force insects into the human food supply by “sustainability” advocates.
Utilities Have Been Lying to us About Gas Stoves Since the 1970s
Earlier this year, an investigation from DeSmog showed that the industry understood the hazards of gas appliances as far back as the 1970s and concealed what they knew from the public. The new documents fill in the details of how gas utilities and trade groups obscured the science around those health risks in an attempt to sell more gas stoves and avoid regulations—tactics still in use today.
The investigation comes amid a culture war over gas stoves. Towns across the country have passed bans on natural gas hookups in new buildings, and the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission is looking into their health hazards. The commission has said it doesn’t plan on banning gas stoves entirely after the mention of the idea sparked a backlash last December. That same month, a peer-reviewed study found that nearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States were linked to using gas stoves. But the American Gas Association, the industry’s main lobbying group, argued that those findings were “not substantiated by sound science” and that even discussing a link to asthma was “reckless.”
It’s a strategy that goes back as far back as 1972, according to the most recent investigation. That year, the gas industry got advice from Richard Darrow, who helped manufacture controversy around the health effects of smoking as the lead for tobacco accounts at the public relations firm Hill + Knowlton. At an American Gas Association conference, Darrow told utilities they needed to respond to claims that gas appliances were polluting homes and shape the narrative around the issue before critics got the chance. Scientists were starting to discover that exposure to nitrogen dioxide—a pollutant emitted by gas stoves—was linked to respiratory illnesses. So Darrow advised utilities to “mount the massive, consistent, long-range public relations programs necessary to cope with the problems.”
The American Gas Association also hired researchers to conduct studies that appeared to be independent. They included Ralph Mitchell of Battelle Laboratories, who had also been funded by Philip Morris and the Cigar Research Council. In 1974, Mitchell’s team, using a controversial analysis technique, examined the literature on gas stoves and said they found no significant evidence that the stoves caused respiratory illness. In 1981, a paper funded by the Gas Research Institute and conducted by the consulting firm Arthur D. Little—also affiliated with Big Tobacco—surveyed the research and concluded that the evidence was “incomplete and conflicting.”
GOP senators, Manchin introduce bill blocking EPA’s electric vehicle mandates
The Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act (CARS), which was introduced Thursday, is a companion to a House bill introduced in July by Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich. If passed, the legislation would strike down an ambitious EPA proposal introduced in April that would require as much as 67% of new sedans, crossovers and light trucks to be electric by 2032.
Additionally, the rules would require 50% of new buses and garbage trucks, 35% of new short-haul freight trucks and 25% of new long-haul freight trucks to be electric by 2032.
The CARS Act, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., would also prohibit regulations that mandate the use of a specific technology or limit the availability of new vehicles based on their engine type, according to Fox News.
ANOTHER NAIL IN THE GLOBAL WARMING COFFIN
Statistics Norway, the government agency that produces official statistics for that country, released a report last month titled “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” The report concludes:
The report looks at the last 400,000+ years of Earth’s climate history:
[clip]
There is much more in the report, although it is not very long. It criticizes the models on which climate alarmism is based; there is nothing alarming in the observational record:
This is another interesting point about the models:
Most of this is not new. The fact that the Earth’s climate has changed many times over the millennia for reasons that are not understood, and that the Earth’s climate history is replete with periods that were warmer than what we are experiencing now, has long been known. What is noteworthy, I think, is that a government agency is willing to say out loud what skeptics have been saying for years.
The Norwegians’ defection is important because climate alarmism can survive only if it is deemed an official “consensus,” so that people who point out inconsistent facts can be censored. Once the purported consensus is punctured, it rapidly becomes clear that the Climate Emperor is unclothed. Western governments (not, of course, China, India or the third world) have rushed to embrace the “consensus” because the supposed climate crisis is an endless excuse for extending government power over everything, from the largest power plant to your gas stove. And governments like power.
But the Europeans, in particular, are having second thoughts. The de-industrialization of Germany has been shocking, and millions of Europeans are wondering how, exactly, that continent will retain its prosperity when energy is so expensive that nothing can be manufactured there, and everything that Europeans do is vastly more costly than at present, with zero incremental production to balance the increased costs, and frequent non-existence, of inefficient energy.
Which is why I think last month’s Norwegian report is one more nail in the coffin of climate hysteria.
Attachments
Just Stop Oil Activists Find Out It's Not a Good Thing to Try to Block a Bus
The activists were holding a sign that said, "No prison ships." It isn't a prison, it's free room and board for people. But hey, why let reality get in the way?
The bus went right up to where they were sitting on the road and then began slowly nudging forward, as the activists screamed and freaked out. Maybe it's not a good idea to stand in the middle of the road when a bus is trying to come through. But these folks don't seem to have learned that lesson yet, and that's why so many people in the U.K. are upset with them.
The activists later claimed that the government risked trying to kill them by the actions of the bus driver.
Looks like in this case, bringing in illegal aliens trumps the eco characters.
But this protest shows how leftist protests tend to all be connected. The Just Stop Oil folks argued that "governments plan for new oil and gas is going to lead to more people being displaced from their homes." So they were even trying to blame illegal immigration on fossil fuels, which is a neat trick.
The Incandescent Ban and the Lie of LED Efficiency
This is where things get complicated. For incandescent bulbs, wattage is what mattered. More watts meant more visibility. For LEDs, things are different. Lumens measure the brightness but Kelvin (a temperature scale) determines how “warm” or “cool” the light appears. There is an in-depth piece by Tom Scocca in New York Magazine’s website The Strategist which describes this very well.
The summary is that LED light bulbs, though usually bright in terms of “lumens,” often do not always illuminate colors well. Scocca points out:
He then highlights that so-called experts often downplay the importance of the CRI index, but provide no substitute measure for color-rendering.
So lumens alone is not brightness—at least not the way you and I talk about brightness. But that isn’t the only problem.
Net Zero’s Dirty Secret: Child Labor in Congo’s Mines
There are many dirty little secrets of “net zero” goals, but perhaps the worst one is the massive child labor in Congo’s mines. Children are enslaved and overworked so that self-righteous leftists can drive Teslas.
The “climate crisis” is a total scam, as is “green energy,” which is actually toxic for the environment. The batteries in electric vehicles (EVs) are also very toxic to make and dispose of. In fact, “Driving Electric” stated in 2020 that cobalt is necessary for all EV and plug-in hybrid car batteries. “Around 60% of the world’s cobalt comes from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where the metal is sometimes dug out by hand in unregulated conditions, often by child labourers,” the website admitted. According to “Ethical Consumer” in 2022, the percentage is even higher: “70% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo.” Unfortunately, child labor is a massive problem in the Congo.
In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), child labor is involved in Congo’s cobalt ore, copper, diamond, gold, tantalum ore, tin ore, and tungsten ore mining. From the DOL:
The Great 'Green Energy Transition' That Wasn't
One of the textbook marketing flops of all time was the Ford Edsel sedan, which was heralded as the hot new car in the late 1950s. All the automotive experts and Ford executives said it was a can't-miss. Henry Ford (the car was named after his son) guaranteed hundreds of thousands of sales.
But one big thing went wrong: Nobody ever bothered to ask car buyers what they thought of the new car. As it turned out, they hated it. So instead of sales of 400,000, Americans bought 10,000, and the model was embarrassingly discontinued.
The obvious lesson for the industry: You can't bribe Americans to buy cars they don't want. Given the all-in approach to electric vehicles at Ford and General Motors, it's clear that Detroit never got the message.
Last week, Honda and GM announced an end to their two-year collaboration in building a platform for lower-cost EVs. Honda execs said it was too hard.
Amazingly, less than 10% of all new car sales over the last two years were EVs. This is despite the fact that the U.S. government is writing a $7,500 check to people for buying an EV, and some states are kicking in $5,000 more. The Texas Policy Foundation calculates that all-in EV subsidies can reach $40,000 per vehicle. It would practically be cheaper for the government to purchase a new gas vehicle for every American car buyer.
Energy expert Robert Bryce estimates that Ford has lost $62,000 for each EV it has rolled off the assembly line. That's hardly a road to profitability.
The Climate is Indeed Changing – Grab a Warm Jacket
By Brian C. Joondeph
Climate change scolds insist that the Earth is heating up and will be uninhabitable in just a few years. For decades, climate “scientists” have predicted doomsday apocalypse scenarios a decade away, none of which thus far have come to pass.
Failed past predictions should question the credibility of any future predictions, but there is no accountability for a string of failed prognostications over the decades.
What climate scientists conveniently ignore is the cyclic nature of climate.
The Climate4you website explains clearly:
From time to time the planet has been affected by millions of years with relatively cold climate, each such period leading to a long succession of glacial and interglacial periods. During the last couple of millions of years, planet Earth has been in such a cold stage. The last (until now) ice age ended around 11,600 years ago, and we are for the time living in a so-called interglacial period, until the next ice age will begin some time into the future.
Climate4you screenshot of Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from Antarctica. // Per creator, freely available for download
The Earth’s temperature falls, then rises, then falls again, in a regular pattern. These cycles occurred long before humans roamed the planet, driving SUVs and having backyard barbecues.
Climate “scientists” only look at the far-right side of the graph, the portion that resembles a hockey stick, ignoring all that came before, the rhythmic and consistent rise and fall of global temperatures.
A simple question for the scientists would be what is the “normal” temperature? There is no absolute normal as the temperate waxes and wanes on a time scale far longer than man’s influence.
Based on the above graph, “normal” is far cooler than temperatures today. An eyeball estimate is that we are now 6 degrees C, or 11 degrees F warmer than the average over the last half million years. Stock up on sweaters!
Where is the analysis of why this pattern is regular and predictable, based not on a few decades of measurement but instead a half a million years?
Obviously, there are forces beyond human activity, such as solar activity, changes in the Earth’s orbit, altered tilting of the Earth’s axis, or activity far beneath the Earth in the yet unexplored molten core.
Instead the media and climate scientists follow the Congressional bartender who warns that climate will “destroy the planet” in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.
And that was four years ago. What may destroy the planet is her political party and the neocons pushing World War 3 in Ukraine and the Middle East, not her doomsday climate apocalypse.
Instead, we are facing, based on the graph, a long period of global cooling and another ice age. In fact, humans today are enjoying an interglacial period of relative warmth that typically lasts for 10-15,000 years, preceded by and followed by a 100,000-year glacial period where it will get quite cold.
Another graph from Climate4you shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet,
A horror story for climate zealots
By Nick Lopez
John Carpenter was a pretty amazing filmmaker in his early years. He took three pumpkins, a bag of leaves, a poorly tuned piano, a half-in-the-bag lead actor, bad lighting, and an awful script and turned all that into a cinematic masterpiece.
Halloween isn’t a cinematic masterpiece like Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Linden is...but for what John Carpenter was working with, he achieved an impressive financial and visual result.
But as creepy as John Carpenter’s Halloween was, the story...was dumb.
So much of the modern “horror” genre is dumb. Zombies and vampires and serial killers who don’t die — it’s all been done over and over again.
Most folks don’t think of Jack London when it comes to the authors of frightening stories, but you should. Because Jack London wrote one of the most unsettling and frightening stories ever told. It’s called “To Build a Fire.”
He is a man who has forgotten how to be afraid of the cold. He doesn’t imagine just how many degrees of frost he is facing.
Everything he does is a mistake. Every time he tries to make things better, they get worse. And it all was 100% preventable.
As I read “To Build a Fire” again this fall, I realized that this work might as well be a metaphor for Joe Biden’s energy policies.
Newsom Says Homeless Camp Pallet Fire Was Caused By Climate Change
babylonbee.com
Newsom Says Homeless Camp Pallet Fire Was Caused By Climate Change
LOS ANGELES, CA — In the wake of the devastating fire that resulted in the closing of the 10 freeway, California Governor Gavin Newsom revealed investigators found evidence that the blaze was caused by climate change.
babylonbee.com
Nuclear war in the US would wipe out 300 MILLION: New models reveal the 'devastating' impact of radioactive fallout from an attack on America's missile launch facilities
- New predictions account for wind-carrying nuclear fallout
- In a worst-case scenario, 300 million people would die from radiation
- READ MORE: Doctor shares morbid guide for surviving a nuclear fallout
About 300 million people in the United States would be put at risk of death from exposure to radioactive fallout in the four days following a nuclear attack, according to a new report that models the possible effects of such a grim event.
If the US is attacked with nuclear weapons, an adversary would most likely concentrate all fire on the country's intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch facilities (silos).
Any retaliatory attack from the US would come from these silos, located in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming - and taking them out would be an enemy's first priority.
The New Nuclear Age
The U.S. is beginning an ambitious, controversial reinvention of its nuclear arsenal. The project comes with incalculable costs and unfathomable risks