Climate or Control?
Dear readers,
I’ve gathered the below information from various sources. Consider these aspects of climate-related issues, including scientific debates, policy implications, and potential consequences of extreme environmental policies.
#1
In 2022, NOAA reported that 148 people died from heat-related issues in the United States. Worldwide, however, cold weather continues to kill more people every year than heat does. Cold is responsible for 4.6 million excess deaths around the globe each year, according to the Breakthrough Institute. Heat is responsible for about 500,000 deaths worldwide.
#2
Electric vehicles have been touted as a major solution to climate issues. Have you heard of the VMT tax? Electric vehicles don't buy gas, so they pay no fuel tax. That means a way must be found to collect more of citizens' money in other ways. A 'Vehicle Mileage Tax' would likely be in addition to the fuel tax, thus double-dipping from those of us who do not drive EVs. And, oh yes, collecting it means using GPS tracking to know how much to charge who. Tracking also means people who are not driving according to ideologues' mandates can be controlled, cancelled, and punished including by additional fees. (Think of a sin tax.) Read more here. (7/3/2023
#3
There Is No Climate Emergency: Over 1,600 Scientists Sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ Declaration
Over 1,600 scientists, including 321 from the United States, have signed a declaration (pdf) dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth, contrary to the popular alarmist narrative. They argue that there is no climate emergency and advocate for more scientific and less political approaches to climate science and policy.
“There is no climate emergency,” the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August. “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”
#4
Here are some dangers of the Green New Deal:
o degraded early warning radar system, limits to search-and-rescue missions due to radar interference, and problems with airport radar
o deaths of critically endangered North Atlantic right whales, the decimation of the fishing industry and the leaking of toxic chemicals into our waters
o interference with training grounds for the Navy and Air Force
o warnings from the Pentagon about the nation’s defensive radar systems; blinding ourselves to these national security threats
o degraded capabilities/interference of another kind of radar, high frequency (HF) including search-and-rescue missions and oil spill response
o radar air traffic controllers rely upon HF; concern to flight safety, homeland security, national defense, and protection of life and property from weather events
WSJ (op-ed) points out, “National defense appears to have been a fifth or sixth thought for Interior, which is in charge of offshore wind leases in federal waters.”
“The political pressure to implement offshore wind has been intense,” says Robert Henneke, General Counsel at Texas Public Policy Foundation. “The Interior Department’s ‘Smart from the Start’ program fast-tracks offshore wind development, improperly granting permissions allowing foreign-owned energy companies to move forward despite the harms to our safety, our domestic industries and our environment.” TPPF is suing over a planned wind farm in nearby Rhode Island.
Read more at The Dangerous Key to Biden’s Green New Deal Goals. (7/31/2023)
#5
'We Are Totally Awash in Pseudoscience': Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist on Climate Agenda
2022 Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser has expressed skepticism about climate change policies and their effects. He argues that climate change is not a crisis and that natural processes like cloud formation have a significant impact on temperature regulation. He has also criticized the use of consensus as a basis for climate science.
His speech scheduled for July 25, suddenly 'postponed' by the IMF, John Clauser speaks out. "I am, I guess, what you would call a 'climate change denialist,'" Mr. Clauser said in this interview. Mr. Clauser had stated during a previous speech at Quantum Korea 2023 that “climate change is not a crisis.”
Today, the 80-year-old scientist is up against a taboo that has slowly but surely become one of the biggest in science and politics.
He said climate is a self-regulating process and that more clouds form when temperatures rise, resulting in a compensatory cooling effect. Although he agrees that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he argued that the gas's effect on global warming is swamped by the natural cloud cycle.
Asked why there would be a need to censor, alter, and cherry-pick data to support the global warming narrative, Mr. Lindzen said “Because it’s a hoax.”
Money:
The World Bank announced in September 2022 that it paid out a record $31.7 billion that fiscal year to help countries address climate change, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year. And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight climate change over the next decade, including $362 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.
Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies would be profitable.
Research grants which have paid out $458 million since 2014.
#6
In addition, Climate Experts Criticize Alarmist Rhetoric Over Summer Temperatures, pointing out variations in temperature across different regions. They emphasize the importance of long-term temperature accuracy and the need for scientific rigor in climate research.
Myron Ebell, director and senior fellow at the Center for Energy and Environment, said that while June and July were hot in many locations, other places experienced below-average temperatures. Los Angeles, for example, experienced its 10th coolest June on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the director of the Earth System Science Center, said that for long-term temperature accuracy, rural stations with at least 100 years of records are best to follow.
"For the conterminous U.S. as a whole, the last 10 years have produced only an average number of records. The 1930s are still champs [for producing the most 100-plus temperature days in a year]."
In 1991, Mr. Christy and Mr. Spencer were awarded NASA's medal for exceptional scientific achievement for their work. And in 1996, they received a special award from the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature ... fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."
Mr. Christy said that recent global satellite readings measured the hottest July in 45 years by about a quarter of a degree. He said an "early and strong El Niño" was a "major factor" in the increase. And the eruption of Hunga Tonga in 2022 sent water vapor into the stratosphere, which could be adding to the extra warming.
"It is hot in some places and not in others," Mr. Christy said. “Globally, the temperatures continue to creep upward—but note that the 19th century was one of the coldest in the last 10,000 years, so we would expect Mother Nature to bounce back from that, aided a bit by the extra greenhouse gasses whose rise fundamentally indicates more and more people are experiencing longer and better lives."
In general, since 1979, the Earth's temperature has been increasing at a steady rate of 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit every 10 years, according to global satellite data, Mr. Spencer said on his website.
#7
Here are just a few of the most outrageous policies the radical Greens are promoting right now.
Banning gas stoves: Yep, California is already leading on this one. The excuse – “NATURAL” gas is a danger to the NATURAL environment. So homeowners, restaurants, hotels, anyone trying to cook their food, will have to surrender their gas stoves to government regulations. Pizza just might be forced into the history books!
Restrictions on Ice Cubes: You see, it takes energy to make ice cubes…so the drive is on to end our unsustainable use of ice cubes. Scientific American magazine says it takes a lot of water and energy to make Manhattans and margaritas. Could we do with less ice? The time has come for “climate-friendly” cocktails!
Canceling fireworks: This past July 4th the city of Los Angeles canceled several fireworks shows after a radical green NGO group filed a lawsuit claiming some fireworks displays violated the Clean Air Act by discharging plastic pollutants into the water. Isn’t it ironic that no such problem had ever been detected in over 240 previous years of Independence Day celebrations!
Banning short-haul airline flights: It’s much easier to control populations if you can keep everybody in place and monitor their every move. You say you just want to fly over a couple of states and visit mom? Well, not so fast. Several European nations, including France and Germany, are already banning short-haul flights of under 2 hours “to cut carbon emissions.” The fact is these flight controls will have little, if any, impact on climate -- but they do serve as a symbolic gesture you can make to show your fidelity to fighting the “climate crisis.”
Blocking out the sun: This is the latest idiocy to come out of the over-active mind of Bill Gates. He says, to slow global warming, we must put a layer into the atmosphere to block out the sun. There is no science to back up this scheme. And anyone who knows anything about the environment knows that every living thing on Earth needs the sun to thrive and grow. But hey – grant money drives the science!
Climate change policies have been used to restrict home appliances such as ceiling fans, gas stoves, gas generators, as well as incandescent light bulbs.
These progressive Green forces, coupled with the global powers like Klaus Schwab and his Great Reset, the Green New Deal, and as I have warned for decades - Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, are determined to reorganize human society – into their ideals.
Proponents of the global warming narrative often state that it's “settled science” and that nearly all scientists agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.
#8
Consensus Science and the Peer Review
Michael Crichton explained it best when he said: “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for US
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren't based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.
“All of the models grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”
But Mr. Happer argued that consensus isn't science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus. It doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true; if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong. And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”
By contrast, the scientists presented a table that indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s than today.
(The tables are in the referenced article.)
[Critics argue that these radical policies may not have a significant impact on climate but can have far-reaching consequences on daily life and the environment.]
As always, do your own research; make up your own mind.
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results.
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, https://ellenleyrer.substack.com.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!
Have a topic you want to know more about?
The Climate Crisis is total manipulation to get everyone to give control to the World Economic Forum and we can all be one nation under the WEF by Grand Master Klaus Schwab.