What do you do when not enough people die to suit your religion? Distort the axis and hope no one notices.

Welcome to government-science, where one of top journals in the world uses graphic design tricks for political convenience. In this graph from the paper, 10 excess deaths from the heat looks “bigger” than 50 excess deaths from cold. Isn’t the whole point of a graph so we can compare the bars “at a glance”?

Björn Lomborg corrected this with chart on right. Doesn’t that tell a different story?

Thanks to Patrick Moore @EcoSenseNow:

The journal “Lancet” published the chart on left with unequal X-Axis* to downplay fact that cold causes 10X more deaths than heat in Europe. …This is disgraceful for a supposedly scientific journal.

Björn Lomborg‘s version shows us exactly how important heat deaths are. It’s no small thing. The news outlets are filled with heatwave porn trying to scare people about normal weather, while politicians try to justify spending billions to “cool” the world. These graphs hide the crime — increasing the cost of energy will kill far more than mythical cooling could ever save.

This is symbolic of the state of Science today: distorted by government funding until the point of it disappears.

‘Hippy’ has come to mean many things, and most people think of it as a harmless, ‘peace and love’ movement, or simply a way of dressing. In reality, my experience of hippies is one of angry doomers, and the flowery visage is a marketing ploy perpetuated by some of the most intolerant and controlling people I have ever known.

That’s the clincher. The beliefs held by my fellow hippies were at odds with their image. Today, we can see it more obviously - activists who preach peace but are the most rage-filled and violent of us all. They exist in every movement that is fighting for something good, yet they seldom represent what is good.

The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that [think tank fellow Rand] Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”[...] //

Steyn, who the Associated Press reported represented himself, released a statement via Melissa Howes, his manager, "that he would be appealing the $1 million award in punitive damages, saying it would have to face 'due process scrutiny.'”

His statement continued:

We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,.And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages. //

LaserTSV
4 hours ago edited
Why was the case filed in DC and not Pennsylvania? I am totally confused by all of this. Isn't $1M a small amount of money for court cases? I am thinking the legal bills for both parties was larger than $1M??? Will Steyn end up paying more than $1M to appeal this? //

Keith
21 minutes ago
What a complete travesty of justice, Mann couldn't even get another "climate scientist" to testify on his behalf.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
The only action needed to solve climate change is is a carbon tax.

There's a lot that's wrong here, with the first thing being that carbon itself is comparable to various vices. People can choose to not drink. They can't choose to not eat food, whose production releases carbon emissions. There's also that whole "breathing" thing to consider. Something like travel is also more of a necessity than not in the modern world.

Regardless, Musk couches his idea for a carbon tax in a populist message of not imposing draconian laws on farmers and air-conditioner usage. Okay, but who does he think would be affected by a carbon tax? For example, ranchers that create large amounts of carbon emissions raising cattle would be on the hook. Further, even if one makes the argument that a carbon tax would mostly impact large companies, guess what they'll do to their prices? And guess who will then pay that price increase. //

brookie
2 hours ago
CO2 is the gas of life.

DavidW
2 hours ago
I think Al Gore and John Kerry support carbon taxes. That disqualifies the concept immediately!!!

I have my doubts about the sustainability of “cellular agriculture.” //

…For Sanah Baig, USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, these aims align well with the Biden administration’s own “bold goals” plan to reduce global methane emissions from food and agriculture by 30 percent within the decade. //

And, even if you removed all the cows in the United States and Europe, that wouldn’t touch the millions of methane-generating cud chewers in Africa.

James Hall @hallaboutafrica
·
Who says Africa doesn't contribute to global warming? Of all animals, the (um, how to put this?) biggest emitter of methane gas is the hippopotamus. The largest hippo ever weighed was 10,000 pounds (4536kg), and all are constantly passing gas.
9:41 AM · Sep 7, 2019 //

TargaGTS | January 23, 2024 at 7:59 am
I’m far more concerned with the nutritional value of these products than I am their ‘carbon footprint’…or ANY food’s carbon footprint. What is inescapable is MEAT is an essential element for the developing human brain. Adolescents need ample access to complex proteins that are only available in – you guess it – actual meat. There’s a reason why cultures that developed farming and animal husbandry developed at a much faster pace than cultures that did not. ANIMAL PROTEIN is the reason. //

WestRock | January 23, 2024 at 8:56 am
We’ve seen what happens when things are grown in labs – think Covid. And we know what happens when governments, NGOs and otherwise bad actors influence industries (and media and finance). Once our food becomes manufactured to a standard and controlled think how easily a drug or other agent of harm or control could be inserted into that food supply. No thanks.

Climate change is big news these days, from melting mountain glaciers to warming seas. But is the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere leading to a crisis?

That was the question at the core of a recent Oxford-style debate called Intelligence Squared U.S. The series is based on the Intelligence Squared program that began in London in 2002. Three experts argue in favor of a motion; three others argue against it.

In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

• FOR: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott
• AGAINST: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville

“The elevated costs associated with EVs persisted. Efforts to wrestle it down proved to be more challenging.” //

Because of low demand and high repair costs, Hertz Global Holdings Inc. will sell 20,000 electric vehicles (EV), one-third of its EV fleet. //

Hertz and everyone else had to know this would not work. You mean you couldn’t tell no one wanted to rent EVs?

Go woke, and you waste a ton of money:

Hertz will record a non-cash charge in its fourth-quarter results of about $245 million related to incremental net depreciation expense. //

Corky M | January 13, 2024 at 9:50 am
Recent article by younger fellow discussed how after 7 years his Tesla S had lost 32 percent of it’s range. What was more amazing to me was that he said he would still purchase another one.

Oh, and a 7 year old internal combustion engine vehicle is likely to get the same miles per gallon today as it did when new.

The long-term damage to the economy demanded by the “must go all electric” crowd will just increase. Electrification of everything to save the planet is a canard for being able to completely control humanity.

Nada mas.

Gopher 5 hours ago

The easy answer... There is NOT enough electric generation (or power grid capacity) available to replace the power used by gasoline vehicles.

1 gallon of gas = 33.7kWh of power.

The US uses 134,830,000,000 (yes, 134 Billion) gallons of gasoline/year.

4,543,770,000,000. 4.543 Trillion kWh of electricity.

In 2018 we used 3,900,875,000,000 or 3.900 Trillion kWh of electricity.

In other words we need the ability to generate well over TWICE as much electricity (8.4 Trillion kwh) as we currently generate just to stay even.

Add the range and power of semi's and locomotives and ships fueled by diesel and we are WAY, WAY short on our electric generation needs.

HAWLEY: Let's talk a little bit about who's really benefiting from this administration's climate agenda, and from these draconian electric vehicle mandates. So, Mr. Turk, you've already alluded to this. I know you know the answers to these questions. Currently, one nation accounts for 60 percent of the world's electric vehicle production. That nation is?

TURK: China

HAWLEY: One nation accounts for 76 percent of the world's lithium battery production. That nation is?

TURK: China

HAWLEY: Yet, your administration, the president's administration, the mandates that you put in place require that two-thirds of our new vehicle sales in just the next eight years be electric vehicles. Your policies are driving us and our supply chains into the hands of our greatest geo-strategic enemy, enriching them, enriching their government ....

So, Mr. Turk, why is it good for the American worker that we force our supply chains to a country that is our greatest rival and adversary, and why is it good for the American consumer? //

Meanwhile, China remains the world's largest emitter of carbon emissions, and they aren't slowing down anytime soon. Think about how insane that dynamic is. We are knee-capping Americans for "climate change" to enrich China, which is continuing to build coal-fired power plants like they are pop-up houses. If the Biden administration was purposely trying to sabotage the United States, what would it be doing differently? //

anon-608f
5 hours ago
The EV mandates have nothing to with environmental conservation and everything to do with limiting citizens freedom of travel. The globalist elites intent is to depopulate the world in accordance with their ideology and new religion.
They learned all they needed from the Soviet Union and the Holodomor- disarm a population, make them politically unsavory, restrict their ability to communicate with the outside world, restrict their ability to flee, then starve them out of existence.
Make no mistake, Whites are first in their sights but no one is safe...only temporarily useful.

As US dams age, removal is always an option—and it can be done well. //

Wending its way from the Olympic Mountains to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington’s Elwha River is now free. For about century, the Elwha and Gilnes Canyon Dams corralled these waters. Both have since been removed, and the restoration of the watershed has started.

The dam-removal project was the largest to date in the US—though it won’t hold that position for long. The Klamath River dam removal project has begun, with four of its six dams—J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate—set to be scuppered by the end of the year, and the drawdown started this week. (In fact, Copco No. 2 is already gone.)

Once the project is complete, the Klamath will run from Oregon to northwestern California largely unimpeded, allowing sediment, organic matter, and its restive waters to flow freely downriver while fish like salmon, trout, and other migratory species leap and wriggle their way upstream to spawn. //

The Dark Ars Praefectus
7y
10,623
org said:
That's too absolutist. Many small dams can only generate a few hundreds of kW or low double digit MW. That's a drop in the bucket for power generation but their local impact can be huge. I guess I mean you have to do case by case analysis to see when it's worth it.

Using the article as an example, the four dams being removed from the Klamath are John C Boyle (90 MW), Copco 1 (20 MW), Copco 2 (27 MW), and Iron Gate (18 MW). The four produced 686,000 MWh annually, or about 50.5% of their nameplate capacity. //

QuantifiableQuoll Ars Centurion
7y
272
greendave said:
Would have liked to see a discussion of the cost of these removals (reportedly $40-60 million for the two on The Elwha River, and $350 million overall for restoration). Those numbers seem exorbitant and make it hard to imagine that we'll be able to afford much removal/restoration in the long term.
The only reason PacificCorp, owner of the dams, agreed to the removal of the Klamath dams is because it was cost prohibitive to keep them in place. They needed mandatory upgrades and were already not competitive in a power generation market full of windmills/turbines/whatever and newer dams.

Source https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2023/klamath-river-dam-removal/

Dr. Matthew Wielicki: “There’s a disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in the mainstream media is….and what certain ‘activist scientists’ have been pushing.” Other scientists share his concerns. //

Occasionally we are asked why Legal Insurrection features so much science among the articles featuring court cases, legal analysis, and updates on our push-back against Critical Race Theory and Diversity-Equity-Inclusion in education.

While there are many reasons, perhaps the chief one is that true science is being twisted to support political narratives that are destructive, both to our nation and to humanity. For example, the Twitter Files shed light on the degree to which good information from epidemiologists and physicians was suppressed during the covid pandemic. //

Wielicki was born in Poland while it was still under communist rule, so he has a deep appreciation for freedom of speech and personal liberty. His parents worked at California State University- Fresno at a time when professors and students were allowed to have different opinions about the issues of the day.

Another believer in freedom in science is Roger A. Pielke Jr., who recently prepared an exceptional column on ten principles for effective use of math in policy research.

It was his eighth entry on torturing data that caught my eye. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/against-mathiness-part-2

I don’t know who said it, but there is an old adage that says if you torture data enough, it will confess. Simple methods, shared data, easily replicable, with clear meaning are always going to be preferable in policy settings to complex methods, unavailable data, impossibility of replication with unclear meaning. //

The hard sciences are canaries in the coal mine. If their data-driven conclusions, which should be experimentally reproducible, can be manipulated and massaged to promote ideological and/or political narratives resulting in elite policy objectives that affect us all, then no science (especially, it goes without saying, the social sciences) can be trusted.

If our leaders and our media want us to trust The Science™, then The Science™ must be trustworthy. Results must be replicated, data should be offered freely, and methodology must make sense.

Ultimately, though, I will leave the final word on the leftist march through the institutions—here, of science—to climatologist Judith Curry who confirms the climate “crisis” is manufactured. https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/amp/

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”

“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.

She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”

…“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.

The president of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) seems like an odd man for the job of creating more climate hysteria and trying to end our use of fossil fuels before we have fully developed the technologies to replace them.

His name is Sultan Al Jaber, and he’s the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company, Adnoc, which “many observers see as a serious conflict of interest.” You think? //

Al Jaber responded to badgering questions from an interviewer :

I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C…

Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves. //

I don’t think [you] will be able to help solve the climate problem by pointing fingers or contributing to the polarisation and the divide that is already happening in the world. Show me the solutions. Stop the pointing of fingers. Stop it. //

A phase-down and a phase-out of fossil fuel in my view is inevitable. That is essential. But we need to be real serious and pragmatic about it. //

Blue State Deplorable
a month ago

As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is not in peril. This is good news. I believe there is no climate crisis. The alleged atmospheric CO2 and methane have a negligible effect on the climate.

• Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Laureate for Physics //

Mackey
a month ago
Climate alarmists say we must stop using fossil fuels and adopt 100% wind and solar today or the world as we know it will cease to exist in 10 years.

If we adopt 100% renewable energy today and phase out fossil fuels the world as we know it will cease to exist in 5 years. //

Random Commenter
a month ago
I got a good laugh out of this.

For a very interesting and somewhat new take on global warming, I suggest doing an internet search on:

Paper by William Wijngaarden (York University, Toronto) and William Happer (Princeton); Carbon dioxide saturation effect
A world-class radiation physicist (Happer) finds that the possible effects of H2O and CO2 are saturated, in other words, adding more of them won't heat the planet. //

Why is this nuclear fission disrespect from Cipher important enough for such a long post?

Cipher’s “About” page includes this self-description “Cipher covers the technological innovations we need to combat climate change and transform our global energy systems.” The publication’s executive editor is @AmyAHarder Cipher is sponsored by Breakthrough Energy.

Cipher’s fission “coverage” slows global progress in combating climate change. Fission is an incredibly powerful natural reaction that serves as an easily controlled heat source for the most productive, cleanest and safest power plants on Earth. It will play an increasingly important role in addressing energy sufficiency for all, energy abundance for most, energy security and energy cleanliness.

Of course nuclear is a “controversial topic.” People have been carefully taught to fear fission. They have rarely been taught much about the technological details of the power plants. Publications like Cipher that point to accidents almost never mention the statistical evidence accumulated over >6 decades that shows nuclear fission is one of our safest forms of energy production.

It’s logical to have some trepidation and concerns about the unknown, especially when fear messaging has been so prevalent.

There is also the competitive factor. Nuclear energy production takes markets away from all other power sources. No business likes to lose sales and revenues. All businesses strive to beat their competition. Talking trash and going negative are frequently used techniques.

But journalists shouldn’t pick sides.

Cipher should adhere to its mission of covering [all of] “the technological innovations we need to combat climate change” and the rest of our energy challenges.

Do Dubai delegates propose to reduce supply or demand? //

After two weeks of negotiation, the United Nations climate conference in Dubai agreed last week to “transition away” from fossil fuels. Left unanswered is whether governments are supposed to do that by reducing supply, reducing demand or both. A lot rides on the answer, but neither would affect the climate much.

The Center For Alternative Technologies in the UK delves into embedded carbon in residential storage batteries. It says the carbon footprint of current lithium ion batteries is around 100 kg of carbon dioxide per KWH of battery capacity when manufactured in factories that use fossil fuels. When renewable energy is used for the manufacturing, this is reduced to about 60 kg of CO2 per kWh.

U.S. Special Envoy John Kerry announced that America was joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which means the Biden Administration commits to building no new coal plants and phasing out existing plants. No date was given for when the existing plants would have to go, but other Biden regulatory actions and international commitments already in the works had meant no coal by 2035.

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF
·
John Kerry demands the end of coal plants.

Here's what Kerry won't tell you:

• Coal is inexpensive, abundant, and reliable
• Solar manufacturing plants run on coal
• Wind manufacturing plants run on coal
• EV battery factories are powered by coal

Facts matter.

9:33 AM · Dec 4, 2023 //

But it gets worse, as Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) point out. While the Biden team is pushing for this radical agenda that would limit and harm the U.S., Kerry gave China a pass by locking them into the status of a "developing country" according to the Paris Agreement, which Kerry helped to negotiate.

“China is bent on global domination. It is the world’s second largest economy and largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It is America’s chief economic and geopolitical rival. It exploits forced labor. It manipulates global markets. It steals our technology. It is building hypersonic missiles and a blue-water navy,” the senators wrote. “It should not get special treatment in international climate agreements. There should be no more free rides for China. That should be non-negotiable.”

China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week. The report by energy data organizations Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air finds the country quadrupled the amount of new coal power approvals in 2022 compared to 2021. //

China is the world's biggest emitter of fossil fuels and has pledged for its emissions to peak by 2030. But there are questions over how high that peak will get and how soon that peak will come, says Champenois.

If hypocrisy caused global warming, we would rival the temperatures on our sister planet, Venus, at this point. //

DD Denslow 🇬🇧 @wolsned
·
COP28 is about to take place in one of the hottest places at this time of year, Dubai.

70,000 attendees, 1000s of private jets, and a few motorcades for the richest most carbon hungry individuals on Earth, to tell the poorest people they are destroying the planet.

Priceless.
12:23 PM · Nov 28, 2023 //

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF
·
COP28 Climate Summit:

Americans must reduce meat consumption.

COP27 Climate Summit:

Global elites dine on a gourmet selection of meats.
10:47 AM · Nov 28, 2023 //

UnCivilServant | December 1, 2023 at 2:02 pm
You know, if I were an unscrupulous Oil-producing nation in the region with all of these anti-fossil fuel nutters packed together in one convenient location… //

randian | December 1, 2023 at 10:46 pm

If hypocrisy caused global warming, we would rival the temperatures on our sister planet, Venus, at this point.

Amusingly, CO2 is not why Venus is hot, protestations by the climate cult notwithstanding. Venus is hot because its surface pressure is 92 bar, and anybody who has studied basic chemistry knows gases under pressure in a constant volume increase in temperature in rough proportion to pressure.

For the first time ever, a commercial plane flew across the Atlantic Ocean without using fossil fuels.

Virgin Atlantic said the test flight Tuesday from London to New York was powered only by sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, a broad category of jet fuel that creates fewer carbon emissions than standard kerosene blends. The fuel on this flight was made from waste fats and plant sugars and emits 70% less carbon than petroleum-based jet fuel, according to a press release. //

Sustainable aviation fuels are a broad category that includes biofuels made from raw materials such as corn, animal fat, algae, municipal trash and sewage. By definition, they must emit at least 50% less carbon than petroleum-based jet fuel, according to federal guidelines.

But all of these fuels still produce some emissions. SAF, on its own, will not get the airline industry to zero carbon emissions.

To do that, the industry will have to develop new technologies that will allow planes to run on electric batteries, liquid hydrogen or some other as-yet-unproven fuel source. ///

Novel, but not very sustainable -- imagine how much "stuff" (sugar and fat) that takes to manufacture, compared to the equivalent volume of petroleum/crude oil...

Just because you can doesn't mean you should! I don't think it will scale well. Another case of diverting food for fuel. Humans can't eat petroleum, even though engines can be made to consume both.

Other than the United Nations' despicable treatment of Israel, there's nothing the world body is more hypocritical about than climate change — purported anthropomorphic (human-caused) climate change ("global warming"), to be precise. For the latest example, we need to look no further than the U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres.

Call it bad timing.

Guterres hysterically backed a complete fossil fuel “phaseout” on Thursday, just before jetting off to the two-week COP 28 climate conference in oil-rich Dubai — where he will undoubtedly gnash his teeth with upwards of 70,000 other climate fanatics. //

Look, I'm no Al Gore, John Kerry, or Leo DiCaprio [sarc], but Guterres and like-minded climate alarmists are now calling for the complete elimination of the use of fossil fuels on the planet — for the sake of 1.5 degrees. Just me, or does it strike you as more than a bit of overkill? //

anon-a755
11 hours ago
I have a friend who lives in a part of Utah where the summer temperature averages near 110 F. He said, "I rather live with 112 degrees with air conditioning than in 110 degrees without it." You can bet your last nickel the climate snobs will always, always have their air conditioning. //

Blue State Deplorable
10 hours ago
As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is not in peril. This is good news. I believe there is no climate crisis. The alleged atmospheric CO2 and methane have a negligible effect on the climate.

• Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Laureate for Physics