Remember all those times the climate cultists yammered about permanent droughts? And then a few years later things went back to normal or got all floody? The doomsday cult now has a solution

‘Flash droughts’: How climate change increases the risk of these short-lived but devastating events

Transcript: (WT note: this comes from an audio recording)

In 2012, spring in the Midwest warmed up early. Corn farmers planted their crops ahead of schedule, and the growing season looked promising.

But then in May and June, almost no rain fell. The extremely dry conditions stunted plant growth and devastated crop yields.

Ford: “By the time we got to mid-July, it was a really dire situation. … So that’s just a matter of maybe six weeks or so where we go from, ‘Yeah, everything’s good,’ to ‘We’re really in trouble.’”

Trent Ford, the Illinois state climatologist, says what happened in 2012 is called a flash drought.

It’s when a lack of rain, paired with hot temperatures that boost evaporation from soils, creates drought conditions that intensify quickly.

As the climate warms, flash droughts are growing more common in many areas – even in places like the Midwest that are also seeing more heavy downpours.

So, just short term droughts that come on quickly and then go away

Ford: “And then we’ve also had some recent flash droughts in the southeast U.S., parts of Tennessee, Carolinas. … That area, of course, is very heavily vegetated, and when it dries out, it creates a lot of fuel for wildfires.”

So although flash droughts may be shorter-lived than the prolonged droughts that plague the Western U.S. and other very dry regions, they can cause major damage.

Will this notion of flash droughts catch on in the Credentialed Media as a doomsday talking point, replacing permanent drought? Time will tell.

It’s kinda hard to be Concerned (theoretically) about climate doom when there are so many more important issues, which is why the cult typically polls low when matched against real world issues. It is much harder when the Powers That Be who are pushing the scam are also increasing those problems

‘There are bigger issues in the world today than global warming’

They may not have known it but the five men and five women sitting around the table in a slightly soulless hotel meeting room off the A41 had been carefully chosen.

All were swing voters but critically none had extreme views in either direction on the subject that they were there to discuss: climate change.

The Times gathered this focus group in Watford — and another in the West Midlands — with the research firm Public First to replicate a project first carried out by The Times in 2021.

The question we wanted to answer was: Have the views of swing voters towards global warming and the government’s plans to tackle the issue changed in the intervening period.

It is a question that has increasing political pertinence as the longstanding cross-party consensus on net zero is fraying and the next election is likely to be fought with two major parties — the Conservatives and Reform — arguing against large parts of the net zero agenda.

Four years ago we found the public convinced of the need for action to tackle climate change, prepared to do their bit (up to a point) but worried about the cost. But what about now?

Yeah, now

I wish they had a link to the previous article so we could compare and contrast, but, I can’t find it

But then Khuram, 35, broke the consensus.

“I think there’s bigger issues right now going on in the world, in our own lives,” he said bluntly. “Maybe we look for our kids or grandkids or whatever, but I think really, if there’s people starving today, it’s probably worth spending money on that.”

He added: “There’s more going on in my daily life. If the weather’s good outside I think great, at least the weather’s good today.”

It was as if the dam of what was politically acceptable to say among strangers had burst.

How many of these people are seeing rising crime and their nation taken over by immigrants, especially Islamists? Not happy about arrests for Mean Tweets?

“It’s not a top priority,” said Thomas, 40. “What annoys me with it is a bit like Covid, where the government said, this is what you’ve got to do and they sort of did their own thing.

“So even with climate change, they’re happy to go on their private jets and get where they need to. It’s a little bit hypocritical.” Others agreed.

I’m always happy when people wake up and notice this

It’s not a huge change, but, it is a change away from the climate cult. And they teach this hard in the UK. Their media and politicians go hard on it. The cult is dying.

We could have avoided this, but, no, your ancestor worked in a coal mine and you refuse to give your money and freedom to government

Scientists find a surprising reason why people are eating more sugar

Ice creams, frozen desserts and super-chilled sodas take on a new appeal in sticky summer heat. As climate change drives hotter temperatures, Americans are consuming more and more of them, new research finds, with worrying health consequences.

There is plenty of evidence climate change will shape food availability and quality, leading to shortages, price increases and even affecting nutritional value, said Pan He, a study author and a lecturer in environmental science and sustainability at Cardiff University. But far less is known about its effects on what we choose to eat and drink, she told CNN.

The researchers scoured US household food purchasing data between 2004 to 2019 allowing them to track the same families over a long time. They then compared purchasing decisions with regional weather data, including temperature and humidity.

As temperatures ticked up, people consumed more sugar, mostly in the form of sugar-sweetened drinks such as soda and juice, according to the study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

For every 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, added sugar consumption in US households increased by 0.7 grams per person per day, the researchers found, with a marked escalation as temperatures hit between 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit.

Got that? It gets warm so people drink more cold drinks and have sweets like ice cream. Big news there, eh? We can solve this if you would just buy and EV, or, better yet, take the bus

Exactly how climate change will affect humanity’s eating habits, and the potential consequences on health and inequality, still remain unclear, He said, with much more research needed across different parts of the world.

So, the entire article based on a study was….meaningless? Because they really do not know anything? Huh.

What could possibly go wrong?

U.K. to Fund ‘Small-Scale’ Outdoor Geoengineering Tests

A British science agency will provide 57 million pounds, or about $75 million, for researchers to examine ideas for artificially cooling the planet — including outdoor experiments to determine whether any of those ideas could actually work.

The announcement, by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, or ARIA, is among the largest single infusions of money to date toward research into “solar geoengineering”: the notion of injecting particles into the air to deflect some of the sun’s radiation back into space with the goal of reducing the Earth’s temperature.

The government initiative is focused on testing several types of solar geoengineering. Those approaches could include injecting aerosols, such as sulfur dioxide, into the stratosphere or shooting sea-salt aerosols into low-lying marine clouds to reflect more sunlight away from the Earth.

Frank Keutsch, a geoengineering researcher at Harvard, said that as far as he knew, it was the first time that a government has called for proposals for outdoor experiments.

So, what happens if they test these, and actually mess up the climate? Because it is primarily driven by water vapor and the big nuclear furnace at the center of the solar system. But, hey, it’s a wonderful way to burn taxpayer money for usually no results.

There was, believe it or not, a time when the NY Times was the most respected newspaper in the country, and one of the most respected in the world. Now? We get this insanity

Good grief, this is a real article https://t.co/HDnRMbICjo

— William Teach2 🏴‍☠️ #refuseresist (@WTeach2) September 12, 2024

It’s real

Lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over climate change are piling up. Legislators and activists are pushing prosecutors to pursue criminal charges. Children are suing governments, arguing that their right to a healthy environment is being trampled on.

Welcome to the new universe of climate litigation, where the courts have become one of the most important battlegrounds in the fight over the greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet.

Of course, most of those who are suing are themselves using vast amounts of petroleum. Anyhow, lots of blah blah blah till

There are growing calls for prosecutors to consider criminal charges related to climate change.

This year, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, both Democrats, called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate oil companies for what they called a “decades-long disinformation campaign” about the effects of fossil fuels.

In a recent paper in The Harvard Environmental Law Review, David Arkush, of the advocacy group Public Citizen, and Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University, argued that in the United States, fossil fuel companies could be charged with types of homicide short of first-degree murder based on claims of deception about climate change.