Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Sid Belzberg]

[Bob Gillanders]

Good. morning Bob A.

This news items caught my attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1NH...channel=Forbes

Climate change skeptics have long advocated they would instead focus on clean water and clean air.
But it would seem from this latest pronouncement from Orange Donald that enough cash can sidestep any and all environmental protections.

This would be consistent with his promises to cut regulations, abolish the EPA, and "Drill Baby Drill".
But it violates his promises to MAGA base to protect clean water and air.

I guess we'll see in 2025 which promises he will honour. Promises made to his billionaire friends or the MAGA base?

[Bob Armstrong]

Rising Global Temperature (Perhaps for many reasons)

"Copernicus: Second-warmest November globally confirms expectation for 2024 as warmest year."



https://climate.copernicus.eu/copern...4-warmest-year

Can we just stick our heads in the sand?

We don't control weather or climate........what we do control is Man's contribution to the rising temperature.

BUT - will the cure be worst than the disease?

How do CT'ers answer these questions?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change

Nelson Guedes Post on his Fb Acct.- 24/11/27



Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

I researched the source of information from this post and found it is based on this article https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac2774 that rehashes
a long-ago debunked and fraudulent paper on "consensus" by the same authors/SCAMMERS, including the lead author John Cook.
They misattributed thousands of papers in 2013 to scientific papers concurring with the concept of human-caused climate change, but when independent authors tried to reproduce this work, they found that this was a sham, and it is remarkable that they say they used the same methodology in the above article.I covered this in detail some time ago in the below post; It's a pity that apparently you don't have the attention span to read posts other than your own.
The next time your scientifically illiterate colleague on Facebook https://www.nelsonguedes.com/ wants to quote "statistics", he should learn how to
do scientific due diligence.

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...427#post231427
The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings from government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists find themselves so often appealing to an imagined and (as we shall see) imaginary “consensus” is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. “Consensus,” here, is a crutch for lame science.

What, then, is the origin of the “97% consensus” notion? Is it backed up with research and data?
The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was a 2004 paper cited by Al Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, An Inconvenient Truth. (Gore attended natural science class at Harvard, but got a D grade for it.) The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favored by the IPCC: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning.

The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global warming.

Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”

The primary paper that is often trotted out in support of the notion of “97% consensus” was written by John Cook and his merry band of climate extremists. Published in 2013, it is the most widely referenced work on the subject of climate consensus and has been downloaded more than 1.3 million times.

Cook runs a climate website that is a smorgasbord of climate fear rhetoric, specializing in attacks—often personal and spiteful in tone—on all who have proven effective in leading others to stray from the dogma of impending climate doom.

The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 – 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate change. As Cook’s paper said,

“We analysed a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [climate change], published over a 21-year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).”

The paper concluded,

“Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. … Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

The paper asserted—falsely, as it turned out—that 97% of the papers the reviewers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of the warming of the last 150 years.

When one looks at the data, one finds that 7,930 of the papers took no position at all on the subject and were arbitrarily excluded from the count on this ground. If we simply add back all of the papers reviewed, the 97% claimed by Cook and his co-authors falls to 32.6%.

A closer look at the paper reveals that the so-called “97%” included three categories of endorsement of human-caused climate change (Figure 1). Only the first category amounted to an explicit statement that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. The second and third categories would include most skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic warming, including the scientists of the CO2 Coalition, who accept that increasing CO2 is probably causing some, probably modest, amount of warming; an amount that is likely rendered insignificant by natural causes of warmer weather. Only by casting a wide net could Cook conclude that there is any type of “consensus.”


Figure 1 – Categories of endorsement – Cook 2013

Agnotology is defined as “the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” This is how David Legates and his co-authors (2015) describe the Cook paper and similar attempts falsely to promote the notion of broad scientific consensus surrounding the subject of a looming, man-made, climate apocalypse.

They reviewed the actual papers used by Cook and found that only 0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts and 1.6% of the smaller sample that excluded those papers expressing no opinion endorsed man-made global warming as they defined it. Remarkably, they found that Cook and his assistants had themselves marked only 64 papers—or 0.5% of the 11,944 they said they had reviewed—as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made (Figure 2). Yet they stated, both in the paper itself and subsequently, that they had found a “97% consensus” explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man-made.

[Bob Armstrong]

Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change

Nelson Guedes Post on his Fb Acct.- 24/11/27



Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Weather Extremes & Negative Climate Change (Whatever the cause, it IS happening)

I. Americas - New York City, State of New York, USA

"NYC issues first drought warning in 22 years, pauses aqueduct repairs to bring in more water.

New York City on Monday issued its first drought warning in 22 years after months of little rain -- and will restart the flow of drinking water from an out-of-service aqueduct as supplies run low.

Dry conditions across the Northeast have been blamed for hundreds of brush fires. They had already prompted New York City and state officials to implement water-conservation protocols when Mayor Eric Adams upgraded the drought warning and temporarily halted a $2 billion aqueduct repair project that had stopped drinking water from flowing from some reservoirs in the Catskill region."

Associated Press - 24/11/18
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-...t-newtab-en-us

II. Americas - Northeast States

"Residents of the Northeast United States are not accustomed to worrying about drought. Indeed, the Gulf Stream reliably dumps moisture on the region — except when it doesn’t.

Lately the Northeast, along with large swaths of the rest of the country, has been afflicted by unusually dry conditions; parts of some states, including Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, have even reached “severe drought” status. And when long stretches of dry weather combine with heat and wind, you also have to worry about wildfires.

In a guest essay published on Monday, the author and journalist John Vaillant, who grew up in Massachusetts, describes the baffling transformation of the region this fall into a place battling hundreds of wildfires, some of them thousands of acres in size, with no end in sight. While brush fires in the fall are common in the region, what’s different this year is that there are far more than usual, and bigger ones than usual, and some are proving unusually difficult to fight."

The New York Times - Opinion Today Newsletter - 24/11/19
https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist - contributed to by human activity)

As per Google's "perplexity" sevrice, you are not reporting anything close to record levels or anything particularly remarkable, Of course you were stupid eonough to believe legacy Main Stream Media as they reported fraudulent polls for months and still do. Legacy Main stream Media lies WHAT A RADICAL IDEA!

In the United States what year was the hottest day in California history recorded since thermometer temperatures were used?

The hottest temperature ever recorded in California since reliable thermometer measurements began was 134°F (56.7°C), which occurred on July 10, 1913 at Furnace Creek in Death Valley
5
6
. This temperature also stands as the world record for the highest reliably measured air temperature on Earth.Some key points about this record:

• It was recorded at Greenland Ranch (now called Furnace Creek) in Death Valley, California
  
  .
• The date was July 10, 1913
  
  .
• This 134°F (56.7°C) reading is recognized by the World Meteorological Organization as the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth
• Death Valley consistently experiences extremely high temperatures, holding many heat records

While there have been other very hot days recorded in California since then, none have surpassed this 1913 record. For example:

• On July 9, 2021, Death Valley reached 130°F (54.4°C), which was one of the highest reliably recorded temperatures in recent years
  3
  .
• The highest temperature recorded in Los Angeles was 113°F (45°C) on September 27, 2010
  7
  .

So in summary, 1913 remains the year when California (and the world) experienced its hottest reliably measured temperature of 134°F, a record that has stood for over a century.


What Year was the largest wildifire in USA and in what state?

Based on the search results provided, the largest wildfire in U.S. history occurred in 1910, known as the Great Fire of 1910. This fire burned approximately 3 million acres across Idaho and Montana
2
4
.Key points about the Great Fire of 1910:

1. It is also known as the "Big Burn" or "Big Blowup."
2. The fire affected areas in western Montana and northern Idaho.
3. It burned around 3 million acres (approximately 1.2 million hectares) of land.
4. The fire occurred over just two days, from August 20-21, 1910
   .

It's worth noting that wildfire size estimates from historical events can be less precise than modern measurements. However, based on the available information, the Great Fire of 1910 remains recognized as the largest single wildfire event in U.S. history.



What Year in the USA was the most destructive Tornado?
Sources
Deadliest Tornadoes in History - America's Worst vs World's Wors


Answer
Based on the information provided in the search results, the most destructive tornado in US history occurred on March 18, 1925. This tornado is known as the Tri-State Tornado, and it holds several records:

1. Deadliest single tornado in US history: It claimed 695 lives (though some sources report 689)
   
   .
2. Longest path length: The tornado traveled 219 miles (352 km) across Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana
3. Longest duration: It lasted about 3.5 hours
   
   .
4. Fastest forward speed: It moved at an average speed of 62 mph, with peak speeds reaching 73 mph
   
   .
5. Estimated wind speeds: Possibly in excess of 300 mph
   
   .
6. Destruction: The tornado destroyed approximately 15,000 homes and devastated numerous towns along its path

This F5 tornado (on the Fujita Scale) remains unparalleled in US history in terms of its destructive power, path length, and fatalities. It caused widespread devastation across three states and left an indelible mark on American weather history



What year was the most destructive flood in US history?

Answer
Based on the information provided in the search results, the most destructive flood in US history in terms of overall impact and damage was the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. Here are the key points about this flood:

1. It was the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States
2. The flood inundated 27,000 square miles (70,000 km²) of land, with depths up to 30 feet in some areas
   
   .
3. It lasted for several months in early 1927
   
   .
4. The estimated cost of damage ranged from $246 million to $1 billion at the time, which would be equivalent to $4.2–$17.3 billion in 2023 dollars
5. About 500 people died, and over 630,000 people were directly affected
6. It displaced more than 200,000 African Americans from their homes along the Lower Mississippi River
   
   .
7. The flood broke levees along the river in at least 145 places
   
   .
8. It left more than 700,000 people homeless

While there have been other significant floods in US history, such as the Great Flood of 1993

, the 1927 Mississippi Flood stands out as the most destructive in terms of its overall impact, area affected, and long-term consequence


Baaed on thermometer based data what year was the coldest day in US history?
Sources

Answer
Based on the search results provided, the coldest temperature ever recorded in the United States using thermometer-based data was -80 degrees Fahrenheit (-62.2°C) on January 23, 1971, at Prospect Creek, Alaska

.For the contiguous United States (excluding Alaska), the coldest temperature ever recorded was -70 degrees Fahrenheit (-56.7°C) on January 20, 1954, at Rogers Pass, Montana


What year was the singe most devasting drought in United States history and in New York State

Answer
Based on the information provided in the search results, there isn't a single clear-cut answer for the most devastating drought year in United States history or New York State specifically. However, we can identify some significant drought events:For the United States overall:

1. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s, particularly 1930-1936, is often considered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history, affecting large areas of the central United States
   
   .
2. The medieval megadroughts from around 800 to 1400 AD were extremely severe and long-lasting, particularly in the American Southwest
3. The drought of 1988 affected 36% of the United States and caused an estimated $39 billion in damages.

Czech Climate Conference Rejects Emergency

In November 2024, the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) organized a two-day climate conference in Prague, which resulted in a declaration stating that there is no climate emergency. The conference, attended by prominent scientists and researchers, concluded that:

1. The modest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity, and foreseeable future increases will likely also prove beneficial.

2. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.

3. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.

4. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual.

The conference also criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its methodology and conclusions, stating that it:

1. Fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol.

2. Draws conclusions that are dishonest.

3. Should be forthwith dismantled.”

“Additionally, the conference emphasized that even if all nations were to move directly to net-zero emissions by 2050, the world would only be about 0.1°C cooler than with no emissions reduction. The estimated global cost of achieving net-zero emissions would be approximately $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ global annual GDP.

This declaration reflects the views of Clintel, a group founded by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok, which aims to generate knowledge and understanding of climate change and its effects on policy. The organization has published the World Climate Declaration, signed by over 1950 scientists and experts worldwide, stating that “there is no climate emergency”.

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy

So, according to this group, the trillions of taxpayers’ money spent for higher energy bills from renewables is based on lies. All those materials and rare earth metals and minerals – wasted and instead of t-shirt, all our electricity bills are four times what they should be!

The spending of three trillion bucks a year for 25 years will not result in any significant change in global average tempartures!!!

[Bob Armstrong]

Weather Extremes & Negative Climate Change (Whatever the cause, it IS happening)

I. Americas - New York City, State of New York, USA

"NYC issues first drought warning in 22 years, pauses aqueduct repairs to bring in more water.

New York City on Monday issued its first drought warning in 22 years after months of little rain -- and will restart the flow of drinking water from an out-of-service aqueduct as supplies run low.

Dry conditions across the Northeast have been blamed for hundreds of brush fires. They had already prompted New York City and state officials to implement water-conservation protocols when Mayor Eric Adams upgraded the drought warning and temporarily halted a $2 billion aqueduct repair project that had stopped drinking water from flowing from some reservoirs in the Catskill region."

Associated Press - 24/11/18
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-...t-newtab-en-us

II. Americas - Northeast States

"Residents of the Northeast United States are not accustomed to worrying about drought. Indeed, the Gulf Stream reliably dumps moisture on the region — except when it doesn’t.

Lately the Northeast, along with large swaths of the rest of the country, has been afflicted by unusually dry conditions; parts of some states, including Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, have even reached “severe drought” status. And when long stretches of dry weather combine with heat and wind, you also have to worry about wildfires.

In a guest essay published on Monday, the author and journalist John Vaillant, who grew up in Massachusetts, describes the baffling transformation of the region this fall into a place battling hundreds of wildfires, some of them thousands of acres in size, with no end in sight. While brush fires in the fall are common in the region, what’s different this year is that there are far more than usual, and bigger ones than usual, and some are proving unusually difficult to fight."

The New York Times - Opinion Today Newsletter - 24/11/19
https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist - contributed to by human activity)

[Sid Belzberg]

IMHO - this issue is one humanity better not get wrong........

I don't think there is no problem; I don't think that there is nothing to solve.

Follow the money......amazing that oil is now trading at its peak.......do $$ have anything to do with the "there is only natural process" proponents?

Bob A

Follow the money......amazing that oil is now trading at its peak.......do $$ have anything to do with the "there is only natural process" proponents?

[Bob Armstrong]

IMHO - this issue is one humanity better not get wrong........

I don't think there is no problem; I don't think that there is nothing to solve.

Follow the money......amazing that oil is now trading at its peak.......do $$ have anything to do with the "there is only natural process" proponents?

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Chris Wright is eminently qualified with a BSc in Engineering from MIT and a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from Berkley. His position "of no climate emergency" is supported by massive empirical data .......

and the opposite camp is supported by massive empirical data as well.

If the climate emergency is real, Trump will no doubt speed up the process. We'll see.

[Sid Belzberg]

I am glad to see you have concerns over EPA pick Zeldin.

I see Trump has picked Chris Wright as Energy Secretary who has said there is "no climate crisis".
That certainly gives me concern, but you must be very happy, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUG7..._channel=MSNBC


Anyway, while Trump is expected to shutdown all further progress toward battling the climate crisis, do you think he will take it one step further and destroy windmills and solar panels to gain favour with his fossil fuels friends. Just speculating here. Might it be better to accept the progress made so far by alternatives to fossil fuels and give citizen a choice?

Unlike Zeldin, Chris Wright is eminently qualified with a BSc in Engineering from MIT and a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from Berkley. His position "of no climate emergency" is supported by massive empirical data that certainly shows that CO2, Nitrogen gasses and Methane do not fit into it.


"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,
I found the interview insightful and the former EPA director being inrterviwed to be very impressive.. While I’ve seen several of Trump’s picks as questionable, such as Marco Rubio for Secretary of State—who, in my opinion, is a poor choice due to his hawkish views—Lee Zeldin’s selection for EPA head raises concerns as well. Zeldin doesn’t have the scientific background necessary for such a critical role. This position, in my view, should focus on reducing pollution and investing in reliable energy alternatives like nuclear fission and fusion, which are viable clean energy sources.

I am glad to see you have concerns over EPA pick Zeldin.

I see Trump has picked Chris Wright as Energy Secretary who has said there is "no climate crisis".
That certainly gives me concern, but you must be very happy, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUG7..._channel=MSNBC


Anyway, while Trump is expected to shutdown all further progress toward battling the climate crisis, do you think he will take it one step further and destroy windmills and solar panels to gain favour with his fossil fuels friends. Just speculating here. Might it be better to accept the progress made so far by alternatives to fossil fuels and give citizen a choice?

[Sid Belzberg]

No matter how much you hyperventilate and foam at the mouth .... you cannot win this fight. You completely fail to fathom the economics that I've pointed out to you.

You need to learn that $$$ overrides everything. And the $$$ losses from climate change are increasing at an exponential rate. That guarantees that you lose.

Stop talking nonsense, get lost, you stupid troll.

[Pargat Perrer]

Not when that "change in behavior" murders people based on a "tiny sliver of a chance" of working especially when it has no chance of working.



Of course, you have no problem with that. Please after you.

Since you want to quote the MSN Bill gates owned propaganda News Network, maybe it is time you learned who Bil, Gates is.
https://plandemic.com/the-real-bill/




Here is what happened to the Genocidal WEF leftist Government of Sri Lanka with Pargault Bonhamperrer's dream of "changing human behavior." The dream of a Nitrogen fertilizer ban was implemented.


With Country Facing Crisis, World Economic Forum Deletes Post on Making Sri Lanka 'Rich by 2025'


Rebecca Downs | July 13, 2022 11:30 AM
AP Photo/Eranga JayawardenaLast weekend, the Sri Lanka president and prime minister resigned in wake of protesters storming their residences, and the president has since fled the country. It was an instance of so-called "green" policies gone terribly wrong, as Bob Barr laid out in a column for Townhall, which involved a catastrophic fertilizer ban.

As an editorial from National Review on Tuesday that highlighted the "Collapse of Sri Lanka Is a Failure of Leftism," pointed out, what happened "are the real-world consequences of government central planning."

"Sri Lanka, under the leadership of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, decided in April 2021 to become the world’s first all-organic country," the editors wrote. "The government banned the use of chemical fertilizers and banned their importation. The move was pitched as creating a self-reliant economy on the island nation and hailed as a great experiment in green policy-making."

With such an embarrassing failure that Sri Lanka turned out to be, it looks like the World Economic Forum (WEF) is trying to cover its tracks. Tucker Carlson, who discussed the turmoil on his Monday night episode of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," shared that the WEF appears to have deleted an article dated August 29, 2018 from Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, "This is how I will make my country rich by 2025."
Recommended


Former Fox News Reporter Takes a Blow Torch to Dem's Pathetic Defense of Hunter BidenMatt Vespa
As of Wednesday morning, the link is still broken, but archives show the link was working as recently as Monday morning.

There is only the briefest of mentions about the policies that drove the Sri Lankan people to revolt, with added emphasis:
We have also played a constructive role in promoting international and regional initiatives in many areas, ranging from the environment and climate change to maritime security and migration. It is our commitment to use the strategic potential of the country, including its vibrant maritime connectivity, for enhancing friendly cooperation with all partners while reaping the economic benefits for all our peoples.



Stunningly, on Monday, amidst the turmoil in Sri Lanka, WEF published a piece on how "Transitioning to green energy is key to both tackling climate change and creating sustainable economies. Here's why." Recommended reading includes a piece from June 20 about "Why the global energy transition must be just and equitable."

The World Bank has a page up on "Vision 2025: Sri Lanka’s Path to Prosperity," from October 17, 2017. There is no mention of buzz words such as "environment" or "climate change" or "green."


"Anti-government protesters angry over power blackouts, shortages of basic goods and rising prices have long demanded that [President Gotabaya] Rajapaksa steps down," the explainer reads at one point. It fails to delve into why such blackouts occurred though, which are already coming to the United States, especially in the case of deeply liberal California, which Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought to turn into a progressive oasis of sorts but has really become more of a wasteland.




What you call "facts" are little more than cherry-picked economic effects that have much to do with government policies and little to do with climate science. Your insistence that costs are driven by climate disasters alone is laughable given the actual drivers of inflation, including reckless government spending on inefficient “solutions” like solar panels and wind farms while neglecting effective, energy sources like nuclear energy. If you want to discuss “wallets,” look no further than the failed policies that add enormous costs without solving the root issues.

1. Inflation and Government Spending: Rising insurance costs, property damage, and food prices are heavily influenced by misguided policies and overreliance on unproven climate “solutions.” Countries implementing radical environmental restrictions without alternatives—like Sri Lanka’s disastrous nitrogen fertilizer ban—prove that ideology-driven policies create far greater harm than the problems they supposedly address. Blaming climate alone for inflation is either grossly misinformed or willfully ignorantAs Spencer wrote in a column last month about these coming blackouts:
   Across America, millions of citizens facing forecasts of "above-average season temperatures" are at elevated risk of "forced outages for generation and some bulk power system equipment." That means, as the NERC assessment explains, "elevated or high risk of energy shortfalls this summer." Those grim findings on the crisis that looks set to plunge Americans into darkness during the hottest summer months have already been confirmed by power officials in Texas and California, another mismanaged jurisdiction where Golden State residents have been told they'll face "blackouts every summer for another four years."
   
   Californians, plus millions more Americans who find themselves in the elevated risk zone — nearly everyone living west of the Mississippi River — face energy emergencies during what NERC calls "extreme conditions" such as droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires. Americans in the high risk zone — including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and portions of Michigan, Illinois, Arkansas, and Louisiana — face power disruptions during both extreme conditions as well as normal summer conditions. That is, pretty much any time that summer temperatures put a strain on the power grids on which millions of Americans rely.
   
   
   
   Biden's apparent solution, as seen in his executive orders and dubious use of the Defense Production Act, is to continue down his leftist-inspired "transition" away from reliable fossil fuels to falsely named "green" energy. But NERC's report also contains warnings that such policies and energy sources have already jeopardized America's electrical grid and led to the foreboding predictions for that came true.
2. Misplaced Focus on Human-Produced CO₂: You rant about fossil fuels and human-emitted CO₂ as if they’re the sole cause of all climate issues, yet you ignore that human emissions make up a tiny fraction of atmospheric greenhouse gases. This unscientific fixation disregards the roles of oceans, volcanic activity, and natural carbon sinks, which play much larger roles in the climate system. There’s no reproducible evidence supporting CO₂ as the primary climate “control knob,” despite your obsession with it.
3. Real Solutions vs. Alarmist Spending: You push for drastic measures based on ideology rather than fact, ignoring reliable, proven technologies that would genuinely lower emissions without wrecking the economy. Nuclear energy, carbon and technological innovative fusion are real solutions, not the ineffective policies you cling to.
   Continuing to pour money into inefficient, unreliable energy sources while banning necessary agricultural resources will result in exactly what we’ve seen in Sri Lanka: economic collapse and human suffering.
4. Fearmongering and No Empirical Evidence: You conflate economic hardships with climate change to push a doomsday narrative that ignores the data. Repeating buzzwords like “collapsing bridges” and “massive wildfires” without showing causation by human CO₂ emissions is not science—it’s fearmongering. If you had any concrete, peer-reviewed evidence that a minor fraction of human-emitted CO₂ is the primary cause of these disasters, you would present it. But you don’t, because that evidence doesn’t exist.

Get lost you very very Nasty Troll.

No matter how much you hyperventilate and foam at the mouth .... you cannot win this fight. You completely fail to fathom the economics that I've pointed out to you.

You need to learn that $$$ overrides everything. And the $$$ losses from climate change are increasing at an exponential rate. That guarantees that you lose.

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Bob,
I found the interview insightful and the former EPA director being inrterviwed to be very impressive.. While I’ve seen several of Trump’s picks as questionable, such as Marco Rubio for Secretary of State—who, in my opinion, is a poor choice due to his hawkish views—Lee Zeldin’s selection for EPA head raises concerns as well. Zeldin doesn’t have the scientific background necessary for such a critical role. This position, in my view, should focus on reducing pollution and investing in reliable energy alternatives like nuclear fission and fusion, which are viable clean energy sources.

Regardless of debates around CO₂, methane, and nitrogen emissions and their impact on the climate, the primary concern remains pollution. On a positive note, RFK Jr. has a long-standing commitment to clean water and plans to tackle toxic contaminants like fluoride. He also emphasizes the dangers of non-organic foods treated with glyphosate, which harms cellular mitochondria, impairing cells' ability to produce energy efficiently. This damage pushes cells toward glycolysis—a process that encourages cancerous growth due to glycolysis being a better promoter of uncontrolled growth. Monsanto has already faced billions in fines due to health damages from products like Roundup, which have been linked to cancers such as multiple myeloma.

Hopefully, RFK Jr. can guide Zeldin towards prioritizing these vital environmental and health initiatives among other needed health initiatives.