United States electricity prices are rising rapidly, up 18.1 percent over the last two years. Renewable-energy advocates claim that wind and solar installations produce cheaper electricity than traditional power plants, but power prices are rising as more wind and solar is added to the grid. In fact, electricity prices are soaring in leading wind-energy states.

Over a 12-year period, from 2008 to 2020, U.S. average electricity prices rose only 8 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This was much lower than the inflation rate of 20 percent over the same period. But power prices rose 5 percent from 2020 to 2021 and an additional 12.5 percent last year. Most of this rise was due to rising U.S. inflation, but the share of electricity generated from wind also rose, from 8.4 percent in 2020 to 10.2 percent in 2022.

Headlines announce that electricity generated from renewables is lower cost. Scientific American stated in 2017, “Wind Energy is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It’s Getting Cheaper.” In October 2020, Bloomberg announced that “Wind and Solar Are the Cheapest Power Source in Most Places.”

It is true that the cost of building U.S. wind and solar generating facilities has come down. Wind construction costs are down about 20 percent since 2013, and solar construction costs have fallen more than 50 percent, both approaching the costs for natural gas power plants. But construction costs are only part of the cost of electricity generation.

Electricity prices in states with the highest penetration of wind systems are rising faster than the national average. U.S. average electricity prices rose 27 percent from 2008 to 2022. But in eight of the top 12 wind states, power prices rose between 33 and 73 percent over the 14-year period. Prices rose in Iowa (36%), Kansas (54%), Illinois (33%), Colorado (37%), California (73%), Minnesota (53%), Nebraska (37%) and Washington (35%), which are the number 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 leading states in terms of electricity generated from wind, respectively. Price increases were lower than average in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota and New Mexico, the other four leading wind states. The data shows that deployments of wind systems produce higher electricity prices.

In Europe, the nations with the most wind and solar capacity deployed, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, experience the highest residential electricity prices. Residents of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania, where few renewables are deployed, pay half as much per kilowatt-hour as the leading renewable countries. Denmark and Germany have deployed over 1,600 watts per person of wind and solar, the highest density in Europe. Electricity prices for Denmark (29 eurocents per kilowatt-hour) and Germany (32 eurocents/kW-hr) are the highest in Europe, and two-and-a-half times the prices in the U.S., where renewable penetration remains lower. In Europe, like the United States, wind (and solar) deployments raise electricity prices.

Wind systems increase electricity prices in three ways. First, wind intermittency raises power prices. Wind system electricity output can vary between full-rated output to near zero within a period of only a few hours. Wind systems typically produce between 25 percent and 40 percent of rated output. In 2020, U.S. power plant utilization levels were nuclear (92.5%), natural gas (56.6%), hydroelectric (41.5%), coal (40.2%), wind (35.4%) and solar photovoltaic (24.9%).

The intermittency of wind and solar means that, if always-on electricity is to be supplied, reliable coal, natural gas and nuclear generators must be maintained as wind and solar systems are added to the power grid. Power system operators know that up to 90 percent of the capacity of traditional generators must remain operational to prevent system blackouts. Therefore, addition of renewables boosts both the capacity and the number of needed systems, raising the cost of electricity.

Second, backup coal and natural gas systems must be run at lower utilization rates as operators push for higher percentages of renewable output. The low utilization levels for coal and natural gas systems in 2020 mentioned above are because these systems are scaled back in favor of wind and solar output. Backup systems are not able to operate profitably at low utilization levels, raising system costs and electricity prices.

Third, wind (and solar) systems require more and longer transmission power lines than traditional power plants. Coal, gas and nuclear plants are located near population centers and tend to be large-capacity plants. These plants can be connected to the grid with relatively short, high-capacity transmission lines. Wind systems tend to be located in remote areas, such as on ridge lines, often far from cities. Wind and solar are spread out over wide areas and require 100 times the land of traditional plants. Longer transmission systems over wide areas need to be deployed for wind and solar, raising system costs and electricity prices.

As more wind systems are added to the power grid, residents should prepare for soaring electricity prices.

“Since 2000, the world has spent more than $5 trillion on green energy. More than 300,000 wind turbines have been erected, millions of solar arrays were installed, more than 25 million electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were cut down to produce biomass fuel, and about three percent of agricultural land is now used to produce biofuel for vehicles.”

We are in the midst of history’s greatest wealth transfer. Government subsidized wind systems, solar arrays, and electric vehicles overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy members of society and rich nations. The poor and middle class pay for green energy programs with higher taxes and higher electricity and energy costs. Developing nations suffer environmental damage to deliver mined materials needed for renewables in rich nations.

Since 2000, the world has spent more than $5 trillion on green energy. More than 300,000 wind turbines have been erected, millions of solar arrays were installed, more than 25 million electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were cut down to produce biomass fuel, and about three percent of agricultural land is now used to produce biofuel for vehicles. The world spends about $1 trillion per year on green energy. Government subsidies run about $200 billion annually, with more than $1 trillion in subsidies spent over the last 20 years.

World leaders obsess over the need for a renewable energy transition to save the planet from human-caused global warming. Governments deliver an endless river of cash to promote adoption of green energy. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided $370 billion in subsidies and loans for renewables and EVs. But renewable subsidies and mandates overwhelmingly favor the rich members of society at the expense of the poor.

Wind systems receive production tax credits, property tax exemptions, and sometimes receive payments even when not generating electricity. Landowners receive as much as $8,000 per turbine each year from leases for wind systems on their land. Lease income can be quite high for a landowner with many turbines. In England, ordinary taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of pounds per year in taxes that are funneled as subsidies to wind companies and wealthy land owners.

In the U.S., 39 states currently have net metering laws. Net metering provides a credit for electricity generated by rooftop solar systems that is fed back into the grid. Solar generators typically get credits at the retail electricity rate, about 14 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is a subsidized rate, which is more than double the roughly five cents per kilowatt-hour earned by power plants. Apartment residents and homeowners that cannot afford to install rooftop solar pay higher electricity bills to subsidize homes that receive net metering credits. Rooftop solar owners also receive federal and state tax incentives, another wealth transfer from ordinary citizens.

U.S. federal subsidies of up to $7,500 for each electric car purchased, along with additional state subsidies, directly benefit EV buyers. The average price of an EV in the U.S. last year was $66,000, which is out of reach for most drivers. A 2021 University of Chicago study found that California EV owners only drive 5,300 miles per year, less than half the mileage for a typical car. Most electric cars in the U.S. are second cars for the rich.

A mid-size electric car needs a battery that weighs about a 1,000 pounds to provide acceptable driving range. Because of battery weight, EVs tend to be about 50 percent heavier than gasoline cars, which causes increased road damage. But EVs don’t pay the road tax included in the price of every gallon of gasoline. EVs should pay higher road taxes than traditional cars, but today this cost is borne by everyday gasoline car drivers.

Renewable systems require huge amounts of special metals. Electric car batteries need cobalt, nickel, and lithium to achieve high energy density and performance. Magnets in wind turbines require rare earth metals, such as neodymium and dysprosium. Large quantities of copper are essential for EV engines, batteries, wind and solar arrays, and electricity transmission systems to connect to remote wind and solar sites. According to the International Energy Agency, an EV requires about six times the special metals of a gasoline or diesel car. A wind array requires more than ten times the metals of a natural gas power plant on a delivered-electricity basis. The majority of these metals are mined in developing countries.

Almost 70 percent of cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indonesia produces more than 30 percent of the world’s nickel. Chile produces 28 percent of the copper. China produces 60 percent of the rare earth metals. These nations struggle with serious air and water pollution from mining operations. Workers in mines also suffer from poor working conditions and the use of forced labor and child labor practices. But apparently no cost is too great so that rich people in developed nations can drive a Tesla.

To top it off, the European Union recently approved a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The CBAM will tax goods coming from poor nations which aren’t manufactured using low-carbon processes. CBAM revenues will be a great source of funds for Europe’s green energy programs that benefit the wealthy.

In January, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington proposed a wealth tax on billionaires. It’s interesting to note that all seven of these states mandate and heavily subsidize wind and solar arrays and electric vehicles, which transfer wealth from poor and middle-class residents to those same billionaires.

This article was originally published at MasterResource.org

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently announced that indoor gas stoves emitted harmful pollution. Several studies claim that the use of gas can cause respiratory illness. The CPSC is considering restrictions on gas stoves, including possible bans in new residential construction. But attacks on gas stoves are based on questionable science and are largely driven by concerns not related to health.

The CPSC has reportedly been considering actions on gas stoves since October. Richard Trumpka, Jr., a CPSC commissioner, stated “This is a hidden hazard. Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” Two recent studies figure prominently in agency concerns. The first, published in January last year by Eric Lebel and others, found that gas stoves and ovens emit hazardous levels of methane and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). The second, published in December last year by Talor Gruenwald and others, estimated that 12.7 percent of childhood asthma cases in the US were due to gas stove use.

Nitrous oxide (NO) is produced at combustion temperatures above 1,600^oC by breaking down nitrogen molecules in air. Modern stove burner flames reach temperatures above 1,600^oC, producing NO. The nitrous oxide then combines with oxygen to form nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant. But the amount of NO₂ generated by stoves is very small, only parts per billion (ppb) levels.

The Lebel study measured nitrogen dioxide levels of 100 ppb in kitchens, but this was after sealing the room in plastic—an unrealistic artificial condition. Other studies find NO₂ levels to be as high as 34 ppb after several hours of stove and oven use. This level is below the 53 ppb limit of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA states that, for NO₂ levels below 50 ppb, “No health impacts are expected for air quality in this range.” Most studies do not find hazardous levels of NO₂ from stove use.

Nevertheless, the Gruenwald study claims that nitrogen dioxide from gas stoves is linked to asthma in children. It used statistical analysis to find an association between stoves and childhood asthma in the U.S. But the study itself states that it reviewed 27 other studies connected to gas stoves and none reported “associations between gas stove use and childhood asthma.” In addition, the Centers for Disease Control reports that asthma attacks and asthma hospitalizations for US children have been declining since 2001, while U.S. natural gas consumption rose 38 percent over the same period.

Could it be that health concerns about gas stoves are a proxy for a larger issue? For more than a decade, environmentalists have promoted “electrification” of homes. Historically, the term “electrification” meant extending the electrical grid to rural areas and homes without electricity. But the renewable energy movement redefined electrification to mean electrify everything. As they see it, electrification of homes means replacement of gas stoves, furnaces, water heaters, and even propane grills with electric appliances. They say this is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and solve the problem of human-caused climate change.

Talor Gruenwald, the lead author of the study on childhood asthma in the U.S., is employed by the Rocky Mountain Institute, which also funded the study. For three decades, the institute has been working on programs to counter global warming. Eric Lebel is a researcher at Stanford University, with articles on methane emissions from oil and gas wells, gas water heaters, and gas stoves. His goal appears to be to counter global warming through electrification of homes by claiming harmful health effects from gas appliances.

Netherlands and the United Kingdom now urge their residents to replace gas appliances with electric appliances and heat pumps as part of programs to reach net-zero emissions. These policies were adopted even though 92 percent of homes in Netherlands use gas heat and 78 percent of homes in the U.K. use gas. The Netherlands aims to disconnect gas lines from eight million homes by 2050.

An electrification battle rages in the United States. Cities in seven states—California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—have established bans on gas appliances in new construction. But in opposition, 19 other states recently enacted laws preventing local governments from banning natural gas and propane, or “impairing a consumer’s ability to choose a utility service.” Another four states have proposed legislation that would prohibit bans by local governments.

Residents pay significantly more in utility bills with electric appliances. For example, in 2020 the average price of residential natural gas in California was $13.64 per million British Thermal Units (BTU). For a new 95-percent-efficiency natural-gas furnace or water heater, this translates to a cost of just over $14 per million Btu. California’s 2020 residential electricity price was 20.51 cents per kWh, or a cost of $60.11 per million Btu. California residents can pay over four times as much to operate electric stoves, water heaters, or electric baseboard heat, compared to gas appliances.

Banning gas stoves will raise homeowner costs and reduce choices, without a tangible improvement in health.

This article was originally published in Washington Examiner.

You don’t have to be a climate scientist to know the ringleaders of the “climate change” bandwagon don’t truly believe the narrative they’re selling.

And it’s not just because they jet around the world in private jets to lecture you about your car and your hamburgers.

In fact, if the people at the top bought into the notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are really “pollution” producing a “climate crisis,” they would be doing exactly the opposite of what they’re actually doing.

Examining climate policy and communist China proves the point.

Consider the UN Paris Agreement. Negotiated at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in 2015, the global deal calls on national governments to make their own national pledges about what they force on their populations to combat the alleged “climate crisis.”

Under the deal, the Obama administration unilaterally pledged to slash CO2 emissions in the United States by more than 25 percent by 2025. This was to be imposed on Americans through executive orders and federal regulations to avoid involving Congress. Other Western governments made similar promises.

The Chinese communist regime, by contrast, was already emitting far more CO2 than the United States and now spews more than the entire Western world combined by far—and yet it pledged only to keep increasing its emissions for the next 15 years. Seriously.

In its submission to the UN (pdf), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) agreed “to achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030.”

In other words, the regime proudly announced to the world that its CO2 output would continue to grow for at least 15 years, at which point nobody will even remember the Paris pledges.

When I asked members of the Chinese delegation for comment at the UN summit, instead of responding, they sent one of their minions to follow me around the conference and take pictures of me, something I promptly reported to UN security and the French police.

It’s a good thing for the CCP that nobody will remember its promises by 2030, because virtually every analyst who has looked at the regime’s coal-fired power-plant construction binge has acknowledged there’s no way its emissions will “peak” by 2030. Communist promises have never been worth the paper they’re printed on anyway, as history has shown.

The CCP wasn’t kidding about increasing its emissions, though: Beijing is currently bringing more coal-fired power plants online just between now and 2025 than the United States has in total.

According to Global Energy Monitor’s February 2021 briefing (pdf), the CCP built more than three times as much coal-power capacity as the rest of the world combined in 2020. And it already has about half of all the world’s coal power capacity, according to Global Energy Monitor’s “Boom and Bust 2020: Tracking the Global Coal Plant Pipeline.”

Already, China emits more than twice as much CO2 as the United States, according to data from the Global Carbon Project. Its emissions are rising meteorically even as U.S. emissions and emissions from other Western nations continue to plunge.

In 2021, Americans released about 5 billion tons of CO2, while China released about 11.5 billion. If current trends continue, the CCP may release more CO2 than the rest of the world combined in the not-too-distant future.

Think about this. If one was truly concerned about CO2 emissions producing “climate hell,” as world leaders claimed at the latest UN “climate” summit in Egypt that I attended, they would be panicking, not celebrating.

Moving Production

Again, all of the production being moved out of the West and into China will result in vastly more CO2 entering the atmosphere than if that production had remained in the United States, Canada, or Europe.

And yet, Western governments, tax-funded climate activists, UN leaders, and their media allies all celebrated and continue to celebrate the Paris Agreement and subsequent follow-ups as a huge success in saving the climate. Perhaps Donald Trump was on to something when, in 2012, he wrote on Twitter,

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

That’s exactly what happened, of course, as electricity rates got pushed higher and higher over time. In 1975, electricity was averaging around 3 cents per kilowatt hour, helping U.S. industry remain competitive globally. By 2010, thanks in part to Obama’s policies, it had tripled. And by 2021, it was approaching 15 cents.

For perspective, electricity prices in China are about half that.

There are many reasons for the shifting of production from the United States to China—many of them directly related to U.S. policy—but one key factor has been the cost of energy.

Yet higher energy prices were openly touted as a policy objective by Obama. As he made clear in a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, “under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Later that year, he expressed similar sentiments as gas prices soared to around $4, saying only that he would have “preferred” a “gradual adjustment” instead.

Faced with higher labor costs and a tougher regulatory environment, American companies and entrepreneurs were already struggling to keep production in the United States amid a rigged global trading regime benefiting the CCP at America’s expense.

Soaring energy costs in many cases pushed firms over the edge, forcing them to shift production to China or shut down in the face of Chinese competition.

Again, if you truly believe CO2 is pollution, the worst possible outcome of “climate” negotiations would be to transfer even more production to China, where CO2 emissions per unit of economic production are massively higher.

But this is precisely the result of the much-celebrated UN “climate” process.

The shift into so-called “renewable energy” being engineered by the Biden administration and federal policymakers has been and will continue to be a huge boon to the CCP, too—and not just because it will force prices higher while making the U.S. energy grid more unstable.

Almost 80 percent of solar cells produced in 2019 were made in China, according to Bloomberg data (pdf). The CCP dominates production in the wind sector and battery industries as well. It also controls the supply chain for rare-earth materials needed to produce all of these “green energy” products.

The U.S. government, for its part, is offering massive subsidies to these CCP-dominated industrial sectors while forcing Americans into dependence on them through regulations, mandates, subsidies, and other policies. How this is supposed to help the environment is never made clear.

For some perspective on the economic carnage inflicted on America by Obama’s Paris scheme, which he claimed was an “executive agreement” and thus not subject to Senate ratification as required by the Constitution, the Heritage Foundation crunched the numbers in a 2016 study.

Among other findings, the conservative-leaning think tank said Obama’s Paris pledges would increase electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually while vaporizing almost half a million jobs, including around 200,000 in manufacturing.

That damage translates to about $20,000 in lost income for American families by 2035 and a reduction in GDP of over $2.5 trillion.

Who Benefits?

Who benefits from all this? Certainly not the “climate.” Again, shipping U.S. industry to China will result in more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. And in any case, based on the UN’s own debunked “models,” complete elimination of all U.S. CO2 emissions would result in virtually no reduction in global temperatures.

According to a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy Journal, even if all the significant pledges made in Paris were fulfilled, global temperatures would be just 0.05 degrees C (0.086 degrees F) cooler by 2100—a statistically insignificant rounding error.

The big winner, of course, was the CCP, which has been laughing all the way to the bank as it absorbs the factories, jobs, and wealth production that U.S. and other Western authorities are shutting down to “save the climate.”

This appears to be deliberate, as statements by leading officials in the Obama administration and the UN have made clear.

Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren openly advocated a de-industrialization of the United States in his 1973 book “Human Ecology.”

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology.”

Then consider seemingly bizarre comments made by then-UN Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres.

Speaking to Bloomberg a few months after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed his unsettling admiration for the CCP, Figueres claimed that the regime in Beijing—overseeing about one third of global CO2 output—was “doing it right” on climate policy.

In separate comments while pushing for major climate policies, Figueres also suggested the goal of “climate” policy was really economic transformation.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said on Feb. 4, 2015.

Five years before those comments, one of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s top officials, Ottmar Edenhofer, revealed a similar agenda in comments to Germany’s NZZ Online.

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” he said. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Wealth redistribution? Changing the economic model of the world? De-developing the United States? And here Americans are being told this is about “saving the climate.”

Remember, too, that when Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement, climate alarmists from around the world declared that Beijing was the new global “leader” of the effort to save the climate—the same regime that oversees the most CO2 emissions, is building coal plants faster than they can be counted, and that promised to keep increasing CO2 emissions until 2030.

If this is really about saving the climate from CO2, how can the CCP be the new leader? It’s beyond absurd.

Despite all this, the Biden administration continues to intensify “cooperation” on “climate action” and the Paris Agreement with Beijing, no doubt causing amusement and joy among members of the CCP’s Politburo.

It’s not just China that benefits. In fact, congressional researchers discovered that state-backed Russian energy interests were funding U.S. “green” groups opposed to U.S. energy via a shell company in Bermuda called Klein Ltd.

The regime in Venezuela, too, is laughing all the way to the bank as the Biden administration sabotages U.S. energy and begs the Maduro dictatorship to send oil to America.

To be clear, I don’t begrudge the CO2 emissions of China or anyone else. In fact, many scientists have told me that more of this “gas of life” would be enormously beneficial for the planet and humanity.

Retired Princeton physics professor Dr. William Happer, who served as Trump’s climate adviser, told me years ago at a climate conference we both spoke at that the planet needed more CO2 and that plants were designed to live in an atmosphere with quite a bit more CO2 than the planet currently has.

Plus, human emissions of CO2 make up a fraction of 1 percent of all the so-called “greenhouse gases” present naturally in the atmosphere.

To summarize, if one truly believes that CO2 is bad for the climate, shipping U.S. production and industry to China is the worst possible way to deal with it. Logically, then, the policymakers behind this must have an ulterior motive.

Of course, the CCP loves the Paris deal: They do nothing but build more coal plants to power the industries and factories fleeing America for China as the U.S. government forces the United States to commit economic suicide.

This isn’t just an economic or “climate” issue, either. As the United States is “de-developed,” the economic destruction produces a major threat to national security. A strong military can’t be funded without a strong economy, obviously.

It’s time for lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives to shut down the administration’s “climate” policies that do nothing but expand CCP CO2 emissions and harm the United States.

In the face of escalating indoctrination and fear-mongering about alleged man-made global warming in government schools around the world, more than seven in 10 children now say they are afraid of “climate change” and environmental issues. Climate alarmists said the results showed the need for even more climate propaganda in schools — yes, seriously.

The controversial survey of 1,000 children, commissioned by a British “eco-grocery” company known for reusing milk bottles, found that the impact “climate change” would have on animal was the top concern among one fourth of children polled. Other concerns among the brainwashed youngsters included “plastic pollution” and “rising temperatures.”

More than one third of the children said their schools or teachers were their primary inspiration, according to an outfit called “Generation Alpha” cited in news reports about the survey. Almost half, though, looked to population-control fanatic David Attenborough with the British government’s propaganda machine, BBC, as their inspiration and educator. Families took the spot for less than one fourth.

The company that commissioned the survey said it proves more brainwashing is needed. “The results show that environmental challenges are having a prominent effect on the children of today, proving that it’s never been more important to educate communities on the actions they can take to protect our planet,” said Simon Mellin, founder and CEO of the “eco-grocery” outfit behind the poll.

While that survey focused on children on the other side of the Atlantic, it is just as bad in the United States, if not worse. “Climate change” is a key component of the “Next Generation Science Standards” developed by the same quacks behind Common Core — pseudo-science standards that never once mention the scientific method. Six years ago, the National Center for Science Education revealed that about 3 in 4 “science” teachers in American government schools teach “climate change,” too.

The new survey results confirm other studies showing that children are suffering from being bombarded with doom and gloom prophecies about global warming. In fact, they are experiencing something researchers dubbed “eco-anxiety.” It is characterized by “negative” emotions such as “anger, sadness, guilt, and hopelessness,” according to a peer-reviewed study from this summer calling for more research on the trend.

The growing terror surrounding alleged man-made global warming comes as government schools also terrorize children about the supposed risks of everything from COVID to school shootings. This endless barrage of fearmongering has produced a generation of American youngsters who are losing their minds, literally, with the CDC finding that 44 per cent of teenagers say they feel “persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness.”

The use of fear to accomplish political objectives has long been understood by tyrants. In fact, former National Socialist leader Hermann Goering — Adolf Hitler’s right-hand man — famously explained after the war that it is easy to make a population do the bidding of leaders: “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”

Just replace “being attacked” with “having their climate destroyed by climate deniers, Americans, and capitalists,” and replace pacifists for “climate deniers,” and presto! Dealing with the people and things “exposing the country to danger” now requires all sorts of extreme “solutions” including giving up individual rights, limiting national sovereignty, and crushing prosperity. There is a reason former NASA senior climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer refers to vicious alarmists as “global warming Nazis.”  

As schools terrorize children with climate propaganda, they are then stepping in and using tactics such as “mindfulness” — a religious and spiritual practice tied to Buddhism — to supposedly help them cope. Social-Emotional Learning, or SEL, is also a big part of what passes for education today, with children propagandized to adopt New Age spirituality and far-left political views under the guise of teaching regulation and control of emotions.

Children should be playing and learning. They should not be subjected to an endless barrage of cultish propaganda paid by taxpayers aimed at transforming society under the guise of stopping the climate from changing — something that has happened since the Earth was created and presumably will continue as long as it exists. This child abuse must end. Only parents can make it stop.

This article was originally published at FreedomProject.com.

For the first time in its decades-long history, the United Nations “climate change” summit included a “Children and Youth” area packed with indoctrinated youngsters demanding that governments take “climate action” and dispense “climate justice.”

The children we spoke to, all of whom admitted to being “taught” about the importance of alleged man-made global warming and activism in their schools, knew very little about the science, the enormous cost of the “solutions,” or even who paid for them to fly in from around the world.

But they were all sure that time was running out for governments and the UN to supposedly save the world from the gas exhaled by every living person. Human emissions carbon dioxide, known as the “gas of life” to serious scientists, is said by the UN’s scientists to be responsible for everything from warming and hurricanes to droughts and floods.

The children we spoke to, regurgitating discredited talking points given to them by adults seeking to exploit them for the “cause,” were fully onboard. But ironically, the UN-backed propaganda machine spreading climate disinformation ran into major trouble when its previous celebrity child propagandist, Greta Thunberg, turned against the summit.

Blasting the UN summit as a scam so “people in power” could engage in “greenwashing, lying and cheating,” the Swedish girl exploited for years by the UN and the world media refused to even attend. She also lambasted the UN for hosting its event “in a tourist paradise” in “a country that violates many basic human rights.”

The children and youth area, one of the largest in its section of the summit, featured coloring books, free coffee, and white European handlers shuffling African children in front of media cameras to parrot their climate lines. It was a grotesque spectacle of child exploitation for dangerous political goals—goals that the children were too young to truly understand. Some children were younger than 12.

Propaganda organs masquerading as news agencies sounded almost like parodies of themselves in promoting the narrative, claiming the children “traveled from around the world to demand adult leaders take action to protect their futures.” No mention was made of how children “traveled from around the world” or where the money came from.

“They may be small, but their voices have been some of the loudest in the climate action movement,” the Reuters propagandist wrote, highlighting the story of an 11-year old who chased a British politician around demanding the release of some jailed climate activists.

The “children and youth” component of the UN climate summit, which has been widely touted by governments and the UN itself, was only made possible by the sort of public-school indoctrination covered in The Newman Report last week. Instead of brainwashing children with global warming propaganda, children should be taught to think for themselves. The future is literally at stake.

This article was originally published by Freedom Project Media.

As “climate” dignitaries and world leaders prepare to converge on the Egyptian resort town of Sharm-El-Sheikh in mid November to solve the alleged “climate crisis,” the biggest issues to be decided will involve money — lots of it. Specifically, the questions to be resolved surround how much money governments must extract from the struggling middle classes of the “developed” world to bribe “developing country” governments and kleptocrats into keeping their populations in perpetual poverty and bondage. As “climate” becomes the new COVID, though, freedom is in danger, too.

Under the guise of what is called “loss and damage,” taxpayers in advanced nations such as the United States are expected to pay massive reparations to Third World governments. Relying on the increasingly dubious hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic global warming, the argument is that advanced economies emitted more carbon dioxide as they became prosperous over the last century, and as such, they must compensate poorer, undeveloped nations for alleged climate damages. Everything from storms to droughts is being blamed on Western CO2 emissions. Those advanced economies get no credit for inventing the technologies that make the modern world possible.

The World Economic Forum, the fascistic and globalist Big Business alliance behind the Great Reset agenda, is publicly arguing that “climate reparations” must be “top of the agenda at COP27.” And governments of the world are taking note. Globalists and the Third World regimes demanding more money are calling for trillions of dollars in “reparations” for everything from floods to droughts. “By 2050, the economic cost of loss and damage in developing countries is estimated to be between $1-1.8 trillion,” WEF “expert” and propagandist Abhinav Chugh wrote on the increasingly controversial organization’s website.

A group of largely corrupt governments styling itself the “Alliance of Small Island States” (AOSIS) is demanding that taxpayers in wealthier countries hand over huge sums for a “response fund” that will help “climate victims recover from the loss and damage caused by present and future climate shocks,” according to the WEF. This “Alliance” will be backed by the largest group of governments and dictatorships within the UN system. Known as the G77 + China, the alliance represents about two thirds of the UN’s member governments. And it is openly seeking to turn the UN into an “emblem of global sovereignty.”

Speaking at the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, which basically serves as Deep State headquarters in the United States, Biden administration “climate” Czar John Kerry indicated a willingness to fork over huge sums of American tax dollars to the UN and its member governments, though he did not offer a specific figure. “We’re very concerned about the impacts of climate on all of these countries,” Special Climate Envoy Kerry explained at the globalist institution, pointing to nations dealing with natural disasters while pretending that these were caused by Americans’ SUVs and power plants.

Former Obama Secretary of State Kerry, who famously flew on a private jet to pick up his “climate” award in Iceland, did caution that there are political realities that must be considered, too. In particular, the prospect of a GOP takeover of Congress next month might mean that all of the administration’s promises are dead on arrival. “We’re all determined to come up with progress, but something real that we can begin to define for everybody,” Kerry added. “You’ve got to make things happen that can work, that can be functional in your own political system.”

While Republicans in Congress may be able to limit the amount that can be extracted from U.S. taxpayers, Kerry made clear that he wants the mega-banks to help, too. “For every $1 invested in low-carbon energy supply, $1.10 is invested in fossil fuels,” Kerry complained, a barely veiled swipe at investors and banks that continue financing critical companies and industries that the UN and the globalist establishment want to destroy. “The math and the science unequivocally make clear, we cannot hit our targets unless we dramatically change that ratio.”

Attorneys general from 19 states are currently investigating the mega-banks for their ties to UN “climate” schemes. That has caused several to scale back their scheming. But while American banks get cold feet about colluding with the UN to destroy America’s energy infrastructure, UN boss António Guterres offered another idea. The well-known socialist who led a global alliance of socialist and communist parties (many with the blood of millions on their hands) recently proposed a massive tax on oil and gas companies to fund the “reparations” slush fund. After all, bankrolling the ongoing controlled demolition of freedom, prosperity, and civilization is expensive.

As Europeans face the prospect of energy blackouts, food shortages, and industrial collapse amid severe energy shortages, tone-deaf European Union bigwigs are promising to double down on the policies that led to the escalating crisis. Other EU policy items on the agenda include implementing “climate action in the agricultural sector,” which is code for stepping up the war on small- and medium-sized farms to pave the way for a fascistic farming sector dominated by mega-corporations in bed with Big Government. Also on the list of EU goals was “address the gender dimension,” without elaboration.

One of the key figures helping to lead the EU delegation, Czech Minister of the Environment Anna Hubáčková, promised that the increasingly totalitarian superstate would further undermine the prosperity of the peoples it rules under the guise of saving the climate. “All eyes will be on us in Sharm El-Sheikh,” she said. “The EU has always been at the forefront of climate action and we will continue to lead by example. Protecting our planet for future generations requires a strong common global action. I am glad the EU has proved today that it is serious in its ambitions.”

Numerous European governments have already pledged to seize enormous sums from their people to shower on Third World regimes. For instance, following floods in Pakistan — a region that has dealt with floods for millennia — Danish authorities vowed to hand over almost $15 million in tax money for “loss and damage” schemes. The German government has also publicly expressed support for putting climate “reparations” at the top of the agenda for the COP27 in Egypt. Ironically, it is sending an environmental extremist, former Greenpeace boss Jennifer Morgan, as its “climate envoy.”

The Communist Chinese regime, meanwhile, is laughing all the way to the bank. As it builds more coal-fired power plants to ensure cheap and reliable energy for the factories and industries fleeing America and Europe to set up shop in China, the dictatorship in Beijing is calling on Western nations to continue committing economic suicide. The regime, which has very close ties with the World Economic Forum and its chief Klaus Schwab, vowed to continue increasing its CO2 emissions until at least 2030. China already releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other nation.

As much as the climate-industrial complex tries to make its victory appear inevitable, there are growing signs that it is in trouble. With Europe facing catastrophic energy shortages due to self-imposed “green” policies such as shutting down power plants, European voters are becoming increasingly skeptical. In Sweden, known worldwide as perhaps the leading proponent of climate hysteria, the new right-wing government just axed its 35-year-old “Environment and Climate” Ministry, sparking howls of protests from alarmists. In the United Kingdom, the pressure to resume exploration and use of hydrocarbon energy is growing rapidly, too, as the prospect of deadly blackouts ahead of winter becomes more acute.

Meanwhile, taxpayer-funded rent-a-mob activists deployed by the climate-industrial complex to provide the appearance of public support for the agenda are expressing concerns about whether they will be allowed to make a spectacle of themselves in Egypt. Considering the nature of the Egyptian government and restrictions placed on public demonstrations in the highly controlled town of Sharm-El-Sheik, there is a very real chance that the usual “climate” antics will at the very least be toned down.

As the evidence underpinning the pseudo-scientific catastrophism continues to be exposed as fraudulent, the hysteria is getting louder and louder. At this point, the global predatory class, including the UN and the Biden administration, are simply working to silence all those who expose the facts using internet censorship and other totalitarian tactics. How the COP27 will turn out remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Middle-class taxpayers across the developed world better hang on to their wallets, because the predatory elites are scheming to loot them blind.

This article was originally published at TheNewAmerican.com.

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”

But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.

Calling the blaming of CO2 by the IPCC “premature,” the climate scientists and solar physicists argued in the new paper that the UN IPCC’s conclusions blaming human emissions were based on “narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total irradiance.”

Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.

“Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview.

“In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added.

The implications, from a policy perspective, are enormous, especially in this field where trillions of dollars are at stake and a dramatic re-organization of the global economy is being proposed.

Paper Examines Sun Vs. CO2

Using publicly available data sets from the U.S. government and other sources, it is easy to explain all of the warming observed in recent decades using nothing but changes in solar energy arriving on Earth, according to the new paper.

Indeed, while it agrees that using the data sets chosen by the UN would imply humans are largely to blame, the study includes multiples graphs showing that simply choosing different data sets not used by the UN upends the IPCC’s conclusion.

If confirmed, the study, published in the international scientific journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA) by experts from over a dozen countries, would represent a devastating blow to the UN IPCC and its conclusion that man’s emissions of CO2 are the sole or even primary driver of warming.

While the paper calls for further research to resolve differences between conflicting data sets and studies, the authors show conclusively that, depending on the data sets being used, it is entirely possible that most or even all of the warming has nothing to do with man.

Using 16 different estimates on the amount of solar energy, dubbed “Total Solar Irradiance,” the review compares that data with over 25 estimates of temperatures in the Northern hemisphere stretching back to the 1800s.

When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions.

And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.

The UN IPCC reports, including the recently released 6th Assessment Report, have consistently blamed human activities such as the emission of so-called “greenhouse gases” for the observed changes. Many studies in the scientific literature have agreed with the UN IPCC position.

However, the new study, titled “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate,” cites dozens of other studies that have pointed to the sun—not human activity—as the primary driver of climate changes.

According to the study authors, these dissenting scientific views have been deliberately suppressed by the IPCC and have not been reflected in the UN IPCC reports, for reasons that have not been adequately explained.

A spokesman for the IPCC denied wrongdoing by the UN body in comments to The Epoch Times and said the new study had been accepted for publication after the deadline for consideration.

The paper in RAA agrees that the planet has warmed somewhat since the late 19th century, when reliable data collection began in the northern hemisphere.

However, in another challenge to the UN’s influential report, even the temperature data sets used by the IPCC are subjected to criticism in the new paper and others.

Among other concerns, the study highlighted apparent flaws in the approach used by the IPCC for estimating global temperature changes using data from both urban and rural locations.

According to the study’s authors, including urban data sets results in an artificial upward skewing of temperatures due to the well-known “urban heat island” effect that must be taken into account.

Basically, cities tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and structures, so temperature stations that had cities grow up around them will show artificial temperature increases caused by the urbanization rather than global warming.

The IPCC has rejected those concerns, arguing that urbanization only played a very minor role in the estimate temperature increase.

Why the Apparent Bias?

Asked why these views have been ignored and even suppressed, lead study author Connolly suggested “confirmation bias” was at work. This is when individuals only consider information that supports their bias, something Connolly said affects all scientists.

While this may be at work in the IPCC’s selection of data sets and studies to consider and include, it is hard to know for sure, he said, expressing concern that the UN IPCC was only considering data sets and studies that “support the chosen narrative.”

“Whether they were deliberately doing it or whether it was simply confirmation bias is difficult to say, but it is clear that data sets are being selected that support the IPCC view while data contradicting it have been excluded,” added Connolly, who has a doctorate in Computational Chemistry and is affiliated with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES).

Connolly also said that the IPCC ignored key recent papers contradicting its conclusions, even denying that any such new papers existed despite leading IPCC scientists having cited those same papers in their own work.

For instance, a related 2015 paper published in the prestigious Earth-Science Reviews journal titled “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century” was cited favorably by IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Panmao Zhai of China. That paper argued, among other points, that the urban heat effect is not being properly addressed.

And yet, in the latest IPCC Assessment Report, the UN body claims that “No recent literature has emerged” that would cause an altering of its conclusion that the urbanization issue explains less than 10 percent of the apparent rise in global land temperatures.

Asked why the 2015 study in a major journal cited by one of its own leaders, among other key papers, was not mentioned in its latest report, a spokesman for the IPCC told The Epoch Times after consulting with IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Panmao that “decisions on citations are up to the chapter team authors not the co-chairs.”

A spokesman for the UN body told The Epoch Times that he asked Panmao for an answer but that any potential response would not likely be forthcoming prior to publication.

In another case, the IPCC misrepresented a 2019 study that Connolly was involved in on snow cover, falsely implying that it showed less snow in all four seasons. In reality, the study showed more snow cover in fall and winter and that current climate models get all four seasons wrong.

Part of the problem is that the IPCC is mandated to find a scientific consensus, according to Connolly.

“This may have seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but where the scientific community has dissenting opinions, trying to force a premature consensus unfortunately hinders scientific progress—it is unhelpful and leads to an unjustified confidence in the conclusions,” Connolly told The Epoch Times in an interview.

Attempting to explain the absence of various published scientific viewpoints in the UN’s reports, the study cited researchers and papers to suggest that “scientific results that might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.”

Systemic Bias … or Deliberate Fraud?

Another study author, Willie Soon, Ph.D. echoed those concerns and argued that ignoring the sun’s activity is the equivalent of ignoring the elephant in the room.

Blasting the IPCC as “cartoon science rather than science,” the astrophysicist from CERES essentially accuses the UN body of deliberate fraud.

“I think the latest IPCC report will continue to mislead most of the unsuspecting public on how their works will be a fair and objective review of all relevant scientific works published over the past 8 years,” he told The Epoch Times in one of a series of interviews on the subject.

Soon, who has been researching the relationship between the sun and the Earth’s climate at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for three decades, blasted the IPCC’s “Summary For Policymakers” (SPM) as well.

“It is no wonder that the draft SPM report has sold everyone yet another blatant untruth, that it is all about the CO2 that has driven all the temperature change on Earth, while they continue to hide the fact that our new and comprehensive research paper concludes that all these conclusions are not only premature but factually misleading and confusing,” he said.

“Our scientific review shows that the changes in the Sun’s irradiance are a plausible and important factor that can explain most of the observed changes in the thermometer data,” added Soon. “So now why is IPCC still playing this childish hide-and-seek game while thinking that we can all be permanently hoodwinked by their one-trick agenda?”

Soon said he hopes the systematic review of the relationship between the sun and the climate can help the scientific community return to a “more realistic approach” to understanding changes in the planet’s climate systems.

“It is time for this abuse of science by the IPCC to be stopped,” he concluded.

Incidentally, Soon believes global temperatures may decline in the coming decades, also due to changes in solar activity.

What is Climate Change?

Study co-author Professor László Szarka, a geophysicist and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, told The Epoch Times that the new review represented a “crucial milestone” in restoring the scientific definition of “climate change.”

Asserting that the definition has become distorted over the last 30 years, Szarka argued that the scientific community must remember that science is not based on authority or consensus, but on the pursuit of truth.

“The definition of climate change was distorted in 1992 in a way that is incompatible with science,” the geophysicist explained, pointing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its exclusion of natural causes from the definition of climate change.

In reality, the term climate change used to—and must again—include not just changes wrought by man, but also natural changes in temperature, rainfall, wind patterns, and other factors that occur over decades or longer time periods.

“The obscuration of the classical definition of climate change has paved the way for any change in the climate to be attributed and accounted to anthropogenic emission,” Szarka explained to The Epoch Times in highlighting the significance of the study.

But it does not have to be that way. He suggested that even non-scientist laymen could and should work to discover the truth.

“Regular people are able to decide who is fishing in troubled waters, if they systematically ask politicians, decision makers, and journalists what they mean by the term climate change,” he said.

Outside Opinions

Even some UN IPCC reviewers have expressed skepticism of the dominant narrative and support for the work of Soon and others.

When contacted by The Epoch Times, accredited UN IPCC reviewer Howard Brady, Ph.D. of Australia praised the work of Soon and other authors behind the study as “probably the best around.”

Acknowledging a lack of expertise regarding the sun specifically, Brady slammed the IPCC and its models.

Among other concerns, he noted that they “still predict more storms even though they are declining,” and “they still report accelerating sea level [rise] when that does not exist.”

Over the years, numerous IPCC scientists have dissented from the views advanced by their colleagues.

For instance, the late Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, who served as an IPCC reviewer on sea-level, frequently accused the UN body of getting it wrong—most likely for political rather than scientific reasons.

Another outside expert contacted by The Epoch Times for insight into the new study and the latest IPCC report also expressed major concerns.

Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, noted that “the IPCC report indicates high confidence in model simulations while at the same time noting in the main body of the report how the models poorly represent the real atmosphere.”

The IPCC claims its models accurately portray the impact of all the forces that affect the climate and that nothing else could have caused the warming over the last 40 years except human emissions, he explained.

“This indicates a bit of hubris and lack of imagination,” said Christy, who also serves as the director of the Earth System Science Center.

Acknowledging that he had not had time to read the new paper or carefully review the latest IPCC report, the world-renowned climatologist told The Epoch Times that the UN’s models cannot even reproduce the natural variations of the last 150 years, such as the natural warming during the first half of the 20th century.

“They also overdo the warming of the last 40 years, again, not matching the real world,” he said.

“So, if they can’t reproduce natural variations with sufficient skill and they overheat the atmosphere over the last 40 years, how are they then endowed with the ability to tell us ‘why’ changes are happening with such ‘unequivocal’ confidence?” he asked.

Dr. Christy was blunt in his conclusions, saying “the models certainly don’t agree with each other regarding the future.”

That limits their results “to the realm of speculative hypotheses, not policy-determining tools.”

Response from NASA and IPCC

When contacted about the new paper, Gavin Schmidt, who serves as acting senior advisor on climate at NASA and the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was also blunt.

“This is total nonsense that no one sensible should waste any time on,” he told The Epoch Times.

He did not respond to a follow-up request for specific errors of fact or reasoning in the new RAA paper.

However, even Schmidt, a leading proponent of the man-made warming hypothesis, has conceded that the IPCC’s models have been inaccurate.

“You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong,” Schmidt was quoted as saying by the journal Science.

By contrast, IPCC Communications chief Jonathan Lynn told The Epoch Times that the UN body remained very confident in its conclusions.

Asked about the new paper and its authors’ assertions that the IPCC was inaccurately blaming human emissions, Lynn responded: “The IPCC doesn’t seek to blame anyone or anything for anything. We do try to attribute climate change to explain its causes.”

Pointing to Chapter 3 of the new IPCC report, Lynn echoed the UN body’s assessment that the more than 14,000 papers it examined demonstrate that warming has been driven by human emissions.

“The new 2021 paper may well challenge the underlying IPCC conclusion that CO2 and human emissions are behind the warming of recent decades,” Lynn added in a follow-up statement to The Epoch Times. “But if it is included in the next assessment, it’s unlikely to completely overturn that conclusion which is based on thousands of other pieces of research.”

The next IPCC assessment is expected more than five years from now.

One of the authors of the new IPCC report, Jim Kossin, celebrated that people were “starting to get scared” about climate changes due to the body’s findings.

“I think that’ll help to change people’s attitudes,” he said. “And hopefully that’ll affect the way they vote.”

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times.

Written by Vijay Jayaraj

Newly inaugurated President Joe Biden is moving forward with his Clean Energy Agenda.  At the heart of the proposed energy transition plans is the assumption that wind and solar offer cleaner and greener energy than fossil fuels, thus saving the world from a potential climate disaster.

Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, tweeted on January 20, 2021, “The Senate Democratic majority will take up bold legislation to defeat the climate crisis by investing in clean infrastructure and manufacturing.  It will create millions of good jobs for Americans, regardless of zip code.”

Biden announced earlier this month that he is planning to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on his first day in office.  Welcoming the move, Bernie Sanders tweeted, “I’m delighted that Joe Biden will cancel the Keystone permit[.] … With all of the [sic] major crises facing America, we must never lose sight of the most existential threat facing our planet: climate change.”

So the general idea is that fossil fuels are driving climate change and big oil projects like the Keystone pipeline must be abandoned.  They expect renewables to substitute for fossil fuel and call them “clean and green.”

But is that the reality?

There is a dark secret that neither the Biden administration nor the mainstream media are willing to discuss or acknowledge.  That is the fact that renewable power generating technologies like wind and solar depend on fossil fuels.

Grid Reality: Renewables Useless without Fossil Fuels

Solar panels cannot produce power at night or under significant cloud cover.  Likewise, wind turbines cannot produce power when there is no wind, and even those in the wind hotspots (where there is higher potential to generate energy because of optimum wind speed) are efficient only during certain seasons.

The wind and solar industries plan to compensate for these drawbacks by using backup power.  But the currently available backup solutions — including batteries, open-cycle natural gas (or diesel) turbines, hydroelectric units — are incapable of supporting wind and solar in a large-scale grid network.  So fossil fuel plants — and nuclear plants — remain the only reliable backup solutions to maintain grid supply when large wind and solar networks fail to generate electricity.

A classic example of this renewable inefficiency and unreliability was observed earlier this month in Germany, where the 110 gigawatts of installed capacity of renewables completely failed to meet energy demand.

Besides being unable to meet demand, the generation was highly intermittent, and unpredictably so, thus exerting excess pressure on fossil fuel plants to meet demand.

When neither wind nor solar is operational, the impact of volatility in power generation will be passed on to customers, resulting in blackouts and increased cost of power.

We Do Not Need a Repeat of California

Such was the case during the recent California fires when Governor Gavin Newsom acknowledged that renewable energy was responsible for the blackouts in the state.

“We cannot sacrifice reliability as we move on,” he said.  “We failed to predict and plan these shortages.  And that’s simply unacceptable.”

The equation is quite simple in California: 36% of California’s power comes from renewables, and when they fail — during fires, heat waves, and every night — the state switches on the natural gas (fossil fuel) plants to meet the demand.

But even natural gas plants are being closed, and the state ends up importing electricity from neighbors that rely on fossil fuels to provide it.

As of now, the states that are called “leaders in renewable tech” depend on fossil fuel to save them from blackouts.

But if the entire country follows California’s example, shutting down fossil fuel plants, there will be unprecedented blackouts when wind and solar fail, because there will be no neighbors from whom to import the electricity.

Renewables simply cannot deliver the power needed at an affordable price.  But blind faith that they can has proved disastrous in California and Germany, both of which are paying the price for their ardent embrace of renewables.

Biden’s Clean Energy Plan and his administration’s talk of “saving the planet” and developing “clean tech” to generate jobs may sound morally appealing.  It’s really just pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) called out the International Red Cross for releasing what it calls a “grossly misleading” report on climate change. The Red Cross report claims the number of climate and weather-related disasters have increased by 35% since 1990, when a UN report released in October shows climate-related disasters have declined by 15 percent in the last 20 years.

In a press release, GWPF Director Dr. Benny Peiser called on the Red Cross to “withdraw its report or face accusations of using unethical practices to mislead the public.” GWPF is a London-based climate policy think tank.

According to Peiser, “The Red Cross’s own report documents a pronounced-decline in climate and weather-related disasters since that time, so they have grossly misled the public.”

The Red Cross report titled, “World Disasters Report 2020: Come Heat or High Water,” stated, “The number of climate and weather-related disasters has been increasing since the 1960s, and has risen almost 35 percent since the 1990s.”

“The authors of the Red Cross report have used the EM-DAT dataset which shows a significant decline in climate-related disasters since 2000,” said Peise. “It is generally acknowledged that the dataset is unreliable before 2000.” An EM-DAT is an emergency events database

The October UN report titled, “Human Cost of Disasters: An Overview of The Last 20 Years,” the GWPF referenced was criticized on Twitter by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist and professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Pielke tweeted, “It will be interesting to watch the up-is-down reporting on the new UN report on disasters. The graph below is from data in the report (Figure 5, p. 10). It shows that “climate-related” disasters have declined by 15 percent over the past 20 years (2000-2019).”

Pielke also cited a 2007 Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and EM-DAT Annual Report which stated a “major contributor to the increase in disasters occurrence over the last decades is the constantly diffusion and accuracy of disaster related information.”

The press release includes a chart from Our World in Data which shows the global annual death rate from natural disasters has decreased over the last 100 years from a high of nearly 28 per 100,000 people in the 1920s to less than 2 per 100,000 in the 2010s. According to the GWPF release, “Any credible assessment of the link between global warming and natural disasters should also highlight the remarkable decline in the number of people dying from climate disasters, showing a sharp and continuing decline in the last 100 years, despite the rise in global temperatures.”

Pieser called the report “another intercontinental shambles.”

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

More than a million Californians suffered power blackouts last Friday evening. When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available, California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand. The California grid is the worst in the nation, with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability.

At 6:30 p.m. on Friday, Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s biggest utility, began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand. Southern California Edison also denied power to homes, beginning just before 7 p.m. Shutoffs impacted a rotating group of up to 2 million customers until 11 p.m.

The California Independent System Operator declared a Stage Three Electrical Emergency, the first such emergency since 2001. Spot electricity prices soared to more than $1,000 per megawatt-hour, more than 10 times the usual price.

In 2018, 19% of California’s electricity came from rooftop and utility-scale solar installations, the highest percentage in the nation. But by 6:30 p.m. each day, that solar output approaches zero. The state lacks enough reliable electricity generation capacity to run everyone’s air conditioner during hot summer evenings.

California has the least reliable electrical power system in the United States. It isn’t even close. According to data by Eaton Corporation, the Golden State leads the U.S. in power outages every year, with more than twice as many as any other state over the last decade.

The causes of power outages can be divided into four major groups. In order of importance, these are weather or downed trees, faulty equipment or human errors, unknowns, and vehicle accidents. California suffered the largest number of outages in each category in each year for 2014 through 2017.

For more than a decade, California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants. Recently, the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming.

In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 established California’s Emissions Performance Standard, an effort to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Since 2007, 11 in-state, coal-fired plants have been closed as a result, with an additional three converted to biomass fuel. California also slashed imports of electricity generated from coal plants. The Argus Cogen plant in Trona is the last remaining coal-fired plant.

California nuclear plants, though not emitters of greenhouse gases, are also being phased out. The second and third units of the San Onofre nuclear generating plant near Los Angeles ceased operation in 2013. The Diablo Canyon plant, the last nuclear plant in California, is scheduled for closure in 2025.

Driven by state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, gas-fired plants are also being shuttered. Natural gas generating capacity has fallen by more than 10% since 2013, with additional reductions planned.

Following the blackouts last Friday night, blackouts resumed at 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. Power officials blamed the loss of 1,000 megawatts of wind power on the wind subsiding and the unexpected shutdown of a 470-megawatt power plant. It’s clear that the state does not have enough reliable baseload power as backup for intermittent wind and solar energy.

The problem of California’s poor electric reliability will likely get worse. On Sept. 10, 2018, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to obtain 100% of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. Replacement of coal, nuclear, and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue to erode grid reliability.

As part of global warming efforts, officials want all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves and furnaces to electric models. More than 30 California cities have enacted bans on gas appliances, including the major cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Almost 10% of the state population now lives in an area covered by restrictions against gas appliances in new residential construction.

California also wants residents to transition from gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks to plug-in electric models. So, when those blackouts occur in the future, not only will your lights and air conditioners fail, but you won’t be able to cook your food or drive your car either.

California sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming. There is no evidence that state efforts will have the slightest effect on global temperatures, but they will be great for candle and flashlight sales.

This article was originally published in Washington Examiner.

Written by Dr. Roy Spencer

While 2020 will be at or near record-warmth globally, this is not something we should be particularly alarmed about.

With COVID-19 and demonstrations taking center stage in news coverage, it is easy to forget that we are all dying from climate change, anyway … or so we have been told. The recent claim at cbsnews.com that 2020 will likely be the warmest year on record (globally) leads one to ask: So what?

The “warmest year” is typically only hundredths of a degree warmer than the previous record-warm year. Global warming has proceeded at an average rate that is probably too small to be observable by humans in our lifetimes. This is because the seasonal (40, 60, 100 degrees and more) and day-to-day (20, 30, 50 degrees and more) changes in weather to which we are accustomed swamp the signal of long-term climate change. The signal is so small that questions continue to be raised regarding how well our global network of thermometers, designed to measure large weather changes, can reliably sense such small climate changes. It does not help that most thermometers are sited near spurious sources of heat that have gradually increased over time as population and infrastructure have also increased.

That is why extreme weather events have been re-branded as an indicator of climate change, and “global warming” as a term has fallen into disuse, despite the fact that there is little convincing evidence that extreme weather has worsened on a global basis. Instead, any number of regions can experience more severe weather, but they are offset by other regions with less severe weather. More severe weather makes the news. Less severe weather does not.

The recent claim of the first 100 deg. F temperature reading above the Arctic Circle in Siberia is incorrect; it was 100 deg. F in Ft. Yukon, Alaska way back in 1915. The town in Siberia measuring 100 deg. F (Verkhoyansk) is notable for its exceedingly cold winters and hot summers, holding the Guinness World Record for the largest observed seasonal temperature swing: an astonishing 189 deg. F.

Nevertheless, there still appears to have been 1 to 2 deg F average warming of the globe in the last 50-100 years. What is the cause? While increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning is a leading potential culprit, the possibility of a natural cause for some of the warming cannot be ruled out. In fact, the alarmist UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) implies as much when it claims only that more than half—not all—of the warming since the 1950s has been human-caused.

The fact is that science cannot say with any level of confidence just how much of the warming could be natural versus human-caused. It is scientifically inarguable that the warming of the deep oceans in recent decades equates to a global average energy imbalance of only 1 part in about 250 of the natural energy flows, and we do not know any of those natural energy flows in the climate system to that level of accuracy. That puts human-caused climate change more in the realm of faith than you have been led to believe. Climate modelers simply assume that the warming is human-caused, and so adjust their computer models accordingly.

I am not overly concerned about the fate of my grandchildren or their children even if the gradual warming trend continues. I am more worried about current ill-advised energy policy responses to the warming, which inevitably reduce global prosperity and increase poverty.

Read more from Dr. Spencer:

Is Global Warming Harming Great Lakes and Minnesota?

This article first appeared at Townhall.com.

Giving taxpayers and parents a sense of just what their money is being spent on, the University of Illinois declared a “climate emergency” ahead of the recent United Nations COP25 “climate” summit in Spain. About 200 other universities and organizations around the world made similar declarations by signing on to the letter.

In the so-called “Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Accord,” signed by U of I President Timothy Killeen, signatories recognized the alleged “need” for “a drastic societal shift to combat the growing threat of climate change.” As part of that, the university vowed to ensure that the “young minds shaped” by its professors were “equipped” with the “knowledge” they would need to respond to this supposed “threat.”

To “step up to the challenge,” the university committed to supporting a three-point plan. This includes spending more money on “climate change research” and going “carbon neutral by 2030 or 2050 at the latest.” It also involves stepping up the climate indoctrination, described in the document as “increasing the delivery of environmental and sustainability education across curriculum, campus and community outreach programs.”

“We all need to work together to nurture a habitable planet for future generations and to play our part in building a greener and cleaner future for all,” the letter states. “We call on governments and other education institutions to join us in declaring a Climate Emergency and back this up with actions that will help create a better future for both people and our planet.”

The “SDG Accord,” named after the UN’s highly controversial Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, was signed by radical groups from around the world, including organs of mass-murdering Communist Party dictatorships that jumped on the “climate” bandwagon to extort Western taxpayers. Multiple governments and other organizations have also declared a “climate emergency.”

At the UN COP25, under the guise of stopping the supposed “climate emergency,” policies ranging from drastic population reduction and enforced lower living standards to imposing global taxes and “global governance” were all openly promoted. One prominent professor in Denmark even suggested the UN could use “peacekeeping” troops to enforce its climate mandates.

Ironically, when the European pseudo-Parliament was debating the measure to declare a “climate emergency,” German Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) were extremely uneasy. That is because National Socialist (Nazi) dictator Adolf Hitler also declared an “emergency” (Norstand, in German) to usurp all sorts of totalitarian powers under the guise of dealing with the supposed “emergency.”

Countless scientists, though, have ridiculed the notion of a “climate emergency.” Internationally renowned Princeton University physicist Dr. William Happer, who most recently served as climate advisor to President Donald Trump, warned in Madrid that the alarmist movement was a “bizarre environmental cult” that had manufactured a phony “climate emergency” to unleash its policies.

Speaking of Nazi emergencies, former senior NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, who now serves as a senior research scientist at the University of Alabama, blasted extremist peddlers of the man-made global-warming hypothesis as “global-warming Nazis.” Among the main reasons he chose the term is that the policies they advocate would kill far more people than Hitler’s National Socialists ever did.

The University of Illinois is no stranger to climate hysteria. In September, hundreds of high-school and college students gathered on campus to protest against alleged man-made “climate” changes, which they believe are caused by the gas they exhale (CO2). Professors are offering a great deal of “support” for their efforts, organizers of the demonstration said.

Speaking to the tax-funded Illinois Public Media talk show known as “The 21^st,” students involved in putting together the climate march offered insight into the sort of dangerous and misleading propaganda they are being spoon-fed at their tax-funded university. And it was not pretty.

“I kind of figured out the polar bears aren’t dying because I’m leaving the lights on at night,” said U of I “Students for Environmental Concerns” campus President Abbi Pstrzroch. “They’re dying because climate change is very systematic and it’s deeply rooted in greed and corruption.”

Of course, in the real world, polar bears are not actually dying at all — they are thriving in an incredible way. In fact, according to leading polar bear expert Dr. Susan Crockford, a Ph.D. in zoology at the University of Victoria, polar bear numbers have actually exploded, with populations quadrupling just since the late 1960s when the “global cooling” scare was getting underway.

After complaining about the “eco-anxiety” that young people supposedly suffer from due to alleged man-made warming, Pstrzroch revealed what has long been very clear to observers: the “climate” movement has less to do with changes in climate, and more to do with imposing left-wing progressive changes on society.

The goals of the climate marchers, Pstrzroch said, include: “respect for indigenous lands, climate justice, sustainable agriculture, protection and restoration of biodiversity, as well as a Green New Deal mainly focusing on legislative with fossil fuels.” The proposed “Green New Deal” called for banning airplanes and “farting cows,” paying people who do not want to work, and many other absurdities.

Despite the U of I joining hundreds of other institutions around the world in declaring a “climate” emergency, the UN COP25 summit in Madrid did not succeed in advancing the extreme policies sought by the alarmist movement. That is mostly because President Trump stood in the way and quit showering billions of U.S. tax dollars on the schemes.

However, with public schools and left-wing universities such as those in Illinois flagrantly indoctrinating students into climate alarmism and progressive ideology, advocates of a planetary “climate” regime remain hopeful. It will be up to grassroots Americans to defend truth and freedom.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

When I came to faith as a 16-year-old, drug-using, hippie rock drummer, I was told that Jesus was returning very soon. The end of the world was near. Very near. Today, there is a new religious narrative, especially among young people, with a new “end of the world” scenario. But this one is depressing and grim, with nothing redemptive about it.

I’m talking about the new religion of manmade global warning.

It has it unique gods (like Mother Earth).

It deifies the created world (with seminarians confessing to plants in a chapel service).

It has its high priests and religious leaders (the climate change gurus and radical environmentalists).

It has its patron saints (like Sweden’s Greta Thunberg).

And it has its own doomsday scenario: The end of the world is near. Very near.

To be clear, I do not have the credentials to comment on scientific questions related to global warming.

But I do have the credentials to comment on the effect that environmental activists are having on our culture, especially the younger generation.

An Australian website offers counsel to help people (especially young people) deal with stress and anxiety related to climate change. It notes that, “There are lots of reasons why young people might feel stressed about climate change.”

These reasons include: 1) They feel like planning for the future is hopeless. 2) They are angry that the people around them aren’t doing anything to help. 3) They are frustrated that there’s nothing they can do now to change things. 4) They are worried about whether it’s responsible to have children. 5) They feel like everything is out of their control.

A May 2 headline on Science News for Students states, “Climate change poses mental health risks to children and teens.”

And a September 19 article on Conversation.com warned that, “Ignoring young people’s climate change fears is a recipe for anxiety.”

In fact, as far back as 2016, the American Psychological Association (APA) claimed that, “Climate change is threatening mental health. A federal report that tapped psychologists’ expertise outlines the ways climate change affects us all.”

But herein lies the rub. It is not “climate change” that is “threatening mental health.” It is the apocalyptic way it is being reported that is threatening mental health.

After all, when I was told in 1971 that Jesus was coming back soon, it was an exciting prospect. The end of the age is fast approaching and we will be with the Lord forever! This world is falling apart, but God will come to redeem us!

But there is no such hope in today’s gloom and doom climate change reporting. Instead, it produces fear and provokes frustration, especially for young people: “Our world is being destroyed, and you’re not doing anything about it! Don’t you care?”

To quote Greta Thunberg directly,

“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. . . . We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth – how dare you!”

But there’s a reason for her fears.

An October, 2018 headline proclaimed: “We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN.”

Six months later, in March, 2019, the UN website echoed these sentiments:

“Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting. Ambition, Urgency Needed to Address Global Emergency, Secretary-General Says.”

No wonder teenaged Greta and her generation are up in arms. No wonder they are so stressed. No wonder they are angry. “It is your policies and your greed and your selfishness that have stolen our future!”

As reported on September 26,

“Around climate-change protests, tears linger. Youthful activists cite all-too depressing science and develop angst. They grieve for a future they worry they’ll never have.

“Many young climate activists say they feel hopeless and overwhelmed. . . . ‘It’s really hard to grow up on a planet full of ifs,’ said This is Zero Hour co-founder Jamie Margolin, a 17-year-old from Seattle, who is finding hard to buckle down and apply to colleges. ‘There’s always been a sense that everything beautiful in this world is temporary for my generation.’”

How very, very sad – but not because it’s all true.

Instead, as John Nolte pointed out,

“For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

“In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.”

Consequently, he asks, “Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for ‘experts’ who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?”

So, young people are being stressed about something that may never happen. They are growing up waiting for the shoe to drop, not being able to enjoy because of fear for tomorrow.

The innocence of youth is being robbed from them, and everyone is to blame. Yet an article on the Teaching Tolerance website urges that, “Teachers’ Silence on Climate Change Violates Students’ Rights.”

I would urge instead that there needs to be a lot of soul searching and circumspection, from our children’s educators to the popular media. Are you sure the information you are sharing is accurate? Are you positive the fears you are instilling are warranted? Are you certain that you are not playing with the emotions of impressionable young people?

From my perspective (and leaning into my areas of expertise), I would rather say this: It’s true that this world will not endure forever. One day, Jesus will return and make a new heaven and earth. So, live your life here with passion, in expectation of His return, making every moment count. That way, whether you live to be 100 or if He comes back in 10 years, your life will be full and blessed.

I challenge a climate change religionist to come up with a better message than that.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Last month, 74 US medical and public health groups released a “U.S. Call to Action,” declaring climate change a “true public health emergency” that can be solved by “urgent action.” The statement calls for a transition away from hydrocarbon energy and a move to a low-carbon economy. But actual weather and health trends don’t support either the alarm or the demanded actions.

The statement was endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Physicians. These and other organizations pronounced climate change the “greatest public health challenge of the 21^st century.”

The statement proclaims that “extreme heat, powerful storms and floods, year-round wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related events” are caused by “fossil fuel combustion,” which is said to be the “primary driver of climate-change.” They go on to say that we can solve these problems by transitioning away from hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, and toward renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Last month, the majority of the continental U.S. was caught in a heat wave. About 85 percent of the population experienced daily high temperatures of over 90 degrees Fahrenheit and more than half saw temperatures of over 95^oF. But these temperatures were far below state record high temperatures of past decades.

History shows that the warmest U.S. decade on record was the 1930s, long before industry emitted significant amounts of carbon dioxide. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 23 of the 50 state record high temperatures were recorded during the 1930s. Thirty-six of the 50 state record highs occurred prior to 1960.

Last month, temperatures in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania peaked at about 100 degrees Fahrenheit. But these temperatures were far below the state record highs, which were Iowa (118^oF in 1934), Illinois (117^oF in 1954), Indiana (116^oF in 1936), Ohio (113^oF in 1934), and Pennsylvania (111^oF in 1936).

This year has also been a year of floods in the Mississippi River valley. Unfortunately, our medical professionals now parrot the idea that floods and droughts are more extreme than in past years. But NOAA has very good records over the last century for the portion of the continental US that is either very wet or very dry, using a metric called the Palmer Drought Index. The index shows no significant trend of increasing drought or flood over recent decades.

“Powerful storms” are listed by the health statement as one of the results of human-caused global warming. Hurricane Barry dropped up to 15 inches of rain on parts of Louisiana earlier this month. The storm was said to be stronger from human emissions.

But there is no evidence that storms are getting either stronger or more frequent. Nine of the 13 strongest hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in the historical record came ashore prior to 1965. Both the number of hurricanes and the number of strong hurricanes making U.S. landfall has been flat to declining since 1900.  NOAA data also shows that the number of strong tornadoes has been declining since the 1970s.

Last year’s forest fire disasters in California were blamed on human-caused global warming. Health professionals now appear to believe that wildfires are “year-round” and caused by emissions from our industry and vehicles.

But recent Congressional testimony by Dr. Judith Curry disputes this conclusion. Dr. Curry provided evidence that the U.S. area burned by fires prior 1930 was at least as large as today. She also cited a study that showed that the percent of U.S. sites reporting fires was much larger prior to 1900, before fire-suppression techniques were used.

In fact, rather than being a health crisis, much evidence shows that moderately warmer temperatures are good for people. The U.S. influenza season is approximately November through March every year, during the cold months. The influenza season in the Southern Hemisphere is during the southern winter months. More people get sick during periods of cold temperature than during hot temperatures.

Many peer-reviewed studies show that more people die during winter months than summer months. The late Dr. William Keating studied temperature-related deaths for people aged 65 to 74 in six European countries. He found that deaths related to cold temperatures were nine times greater than those related to hot temperatures. Evidence shows that if Earth warms, temperature-related deaths will likely decrease overall.

The climate alarm from health professionals defies common sense. According to data from NOAA, NASA, and the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia University in the UK, average global surface temperatures have warmed only one degree Celsius in 135 years, since 1880.

Average temperatures in Norfolk, Virginia are 5.8^oC warmer than in Chicago, Illinois. Average temperatures in Miami, Florida are more than 15^oC warmer than Chicago.  Is everyone dying from the heat in Norfolk and Miami?

And why do most U.S. senior citizens retire to Florida, Texas, and Arizona, rather than North Dakota, Maine, and Alaska? Don’t they know our medical professionals say that warm climates are dangerous?

The belief that changing light bulbs, driving electric cars, and erecting wind turbines can improve human health is as medieval as the belief that bloodletting can cure disease.

Originally published in NewsBlaze.