Now that it’s starting to get warm again, the stories about the climate scam messing with people’s mental health start to become more prevalent. Is it real? In a way. The grand high poobahs of the Cult of Climastrology constantly trot out prognostications of utter doom. They teach the Coming Doom in schools. Warmists read about doom online. They buy into it, and start spreading fables of doom coming Soon. And there they have created artificial mental health problems

Between anger and sadness: How the climate crisis has become a mental health crisis

What Phoenix Heberling remembers most about the tornado is the screaming. She was 2, living in a trailer park in rural Indiana, and her father and some friends were having a party when he got a phone call.

Get out now, a tornado is headed straight for you.

In a frantic scramble, the adults ran outside. The world was eerily silent. Some of them scattered and the rest piled into a car, including Phoenix and her father. To this day, the adults’ faces stick with her. A woman clawed at her cheeks in terror, tears streaming down her face. Others screamed and cried frantically: I don’t want to die, I don’t want to die. (snip)

“You’re so young that you don’t have words to define what that feeling of ‘we’re about to die’ is,” Heberling said. “You only know if you felt it, that death looming over you. That pure terror. Knowing that whatever was happening, it was beyond anything I could define or ever know. It was just so powerful.” (snip)

At 27, the experience remains stamped in Heberling’s mind. In hindsight, she thinks it influenced her anxiety and depression in the face of the climate crisis, another force that to many feels profoundly intractable and terrifyingly destructive.

But this one is primarily human-caused.

Surveys have found that 47% of Americans aged 18 to 34 feel that stress related to climate change impacts their daily lives. That number is even higher for teens, at 57%. Climate anxiety is increasingly being seen as a public health issue, especially for young people and children.

So, wait, are they trying to say that experience with a tornado, something that has happened forever, is actually human caused climate crisis? Or not? It’s not particularly clear, which is exactly the point, because weak minded, indoctrinated climate cultists will immediately link the “climate crisis” with what happened to Heberling 25 years ago.

There’s good reason to be anxious, experts say. In 2018, scientists warned world leaders they needed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The world is not on track to reach that goal.

As a result, scientists say extreme heat, wildfires and other disasters will likely become more frequent and destructive. Rising sea levels, civil unrest and food shortages could displace billions by 2050 if human-caused greenhouse gas emissions aren’t severely cut.

Is it any wonder these Warmists are having mental issues when all they hear about is doom?

“I think younger people are generally more affected because they know they’re going to see these changes actualized in their lifetime,” said Collin Hagood, a therapist in Flagstaff who has seen the issue come up with his clients.

“It’s an anticipatory grief,” Hagood said. “I think it’s really important that we all are part of this conversation, being open about it, being expressive about it, trying to connect with one another and most importantly connect to nature so we can recognize why this is such a big deal.”

Or, bear with me here, it could be because they’ve been indoctrinated into this, hence losing their minds.

Anyhow, the continuation of Doom continues on in this very long screed. Have at it for a laugh. And, yes, people giving themselves what they think are mental health issues over a completely fake issue is funny.

Unsurprisingly, no media members took photos of John Kerry landing his private jet nor disembarking. That would be bad optics, but, how did he get to England? He surely didn’t use a sailing ship, and hyper climate cult outlet the BBC won’t mention it

Climate change: Kerry urges top polluters to cut emissions now

US climate change envoy John Kerry has urged the world’s top 20 polluters which create 81% of emissions between them to reduce CO2 immediately.

He was speaking after meeting Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other senior UK figures in London to plan two upcoming international climate summits.

He praised the UK for phasing out coal, and for its “ambitious” climate goals.

But he told BBC Newsnight that the UK – along with other major nations – must deliver their proposed emissions cuts.

“China, the US, Russia, India, the EU, Korea, Japan and others all have to be part of this effort,” he said. “Twenty countries. Eighty one percent of the emissions.”

Brits have been burning peat moss and wood to supplement the loss of power from doing away with coal (I’ll note again, I’m not a fan of coal) and having to rely on unreliable solar and wind, particularly when it is cold. UK power costs have skyrocketed over the past 15 years as the nation, or at least the nations leaders, joined the climate cult.

Asked during the interview whether the UK should be planning a controversial new coal mine in Cumbria, he replied: “The marketplace has made a decision that coal is not the future.

In this case the marketplace he refers to is The Government.

On Tuesday, climate diplomacy sees him in Paris and Brussels for talks with European leaders, who have been praised for their recent target to cut emissions 55% on 1990 levels.

Did he take a pure electric vehicle, a bus, or a train to Paris and Brussels? Or hop back in the fossil fueled private jet for quick trips to those two cities?

Leaders are wrestling with gloomy news from China, whose recent five-year plan takes tiny steps to decarbonisation.

But they will be heartened by President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package agreed by the Senate, which will support “green” economic growth.

Wait, I thought the $1.9 trillion was about COVID relief? No?

Yes, climate hypocrisy matters, especially when it’s a major league bigwig telling people they will be forced to comply.

See, before fossil fueled vehicles there was no such thing as heat and humidity at the same time. Surely, there was no issue with this during the Global Climate Optimum, the Roman Warm Period, etc, right?

Global Warming’s Deadly Combination: Heat and Humidity

Here’s one more reason the world should aim to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a goal of the international Paris Agreement: It will help keep the tropics from becoming a deadly hothouse.

A study published Monday suggests that sharply cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to stay below that limit, which is equivalent to about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of warming since 1900, will help the tropics avoid episodes of high heat and high humidity — known as extreme wet-bulb temperature, or TW — that go beyond the limits of human survival.

“An important problem of climate research is what a global warming target means for local extreme weather events,” said Yi Zhang, a graduate student in geosciences at Princeton University and the study’s lead author. “This work addresses such a problem for extreme TW.”

The study is in line with other recent research showing that high heat and humidity are potentially one of the deadliest consequences of global warming.

“We know that climate change is making extreme heat and humidity more common,” said Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who was not involved in the study. “And both of those things reduce our ability to live in a given climate.”

I thought it was making extreme cold and snow more common? Have these people actually been to the tropics? They’re already rather hot and humid. And humanity did just fine during previous warm periods which were actually much warmer than this one, and the didn’t have the luxury of air conditioning (which the climate cult wants to do away with for Other People, or at least force Other People to keep their AC at a much warmer level), or refrigerators (which the climate cult want to make way more expensive by changing the refrigerants), nor modern housing.

Work or exercise generates heat, and the body has to dissipate it. If the air temperature is higher than body temperature, the main source of cooling is through evaporation of sweat. But if the humidity reaches a point where sweat cannot evaporate, “essentially the body will gain heat,” said Dr. Kenny, who was not involved in the new study.

That stresses the cardiovascular system. “The strain that the heart is facing becomes progressively greater, especially if there’s successive days of heat exposure,” he said.

Kinda like always. Scientific studies mostly do not “suggest”, the offer proof. But, climate studies from the cult are about prognostication. Nothing more, nothing less, all about governmental power increases.

See, I blame you quite often for your choice to cause the Earth to eat a tasty burger instead of having lettuce (raised organically without GMO’s, of course), beans, and water, or a plant based burger, which is pretty much the same thing, right? Along comes Frank Bruni, who wastes his opinion column with this

Is the Burger Nearing Extinction?
Meat has more competition — and less justification — than ever before.

I liked my patties thin and then I liked them thick. There was the Cheddar period, followed by the Roquefort interregnum. Sesame-seed buns gave way to English muffins as ketchup traded places with special sauce or even, God help me, guacamole, which really was overkill.

But no matter its cradle or condiment, the hamburger was with me for the long haul — I was sure of that.

Until now.

A few days ago I tripped across news that McDonald’s was testing a vegetable-based patty, coming soon to a griddle near you. The McPlant burger, they’re calling it — a McOxymoron if ever I’ve heard one. And McDonald’s is late to the game. Burger King has been selling a meatless Impossible Whopper since 2019. Dunkin’ has been serving a Beyond Sausage Breakfast Sandwich for nearly as long. (snip through other nasty meatless options)

This is the future: not a meatless one — not anytime soon — but one with less meat. I’m now sure of that. It’s the inevitable consequence of alarm over climate change, to which livestock farming contributes significantly. (Gates’s meatless musings were in the context of his new book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.”)

When does the NY Times ban burgers at their giant building which has a massive carbon footprint?

Nature’s Fynd, which has attracted almost $160 million in funding, belongs to the third track: fermentation-derived proteins made from microorganisms, like fungi, that can be coaxed in a meaty, cheesy, creamy or milky direction. This track is arguably the most exciting — in terms of affordability, versatility, environmental gentleness and untapped possibility. There are microbes out there just waiting to feed us.

This opinion piece is actually looking more like an advertisement for Nature’s Fynd, because it spends a lot of time on the company.

Last month, Nature’s Fynd unveiled a direct-order breakfast combo of faux-sausage patties and a mock cream cheese for $14.99 and quickly sold out. It’s restocking and expects to have those products plus others — maybe the yogurt, maybe meatballs — on store shelves later this year. If all goes well, it will expand from there. A burger can’t be too far off.

Wait, what? $14.99? I can get a Big Breakfast (no pancakes) with a chocolate milk at McDonald’s or head to Bonjangle’s for a steak biscuit with egg, fries, and sweet tea, both under $5 before tax. This “eco-friendly” stuff looks expensive.

But given the long love affair that many humans, including this one, have had with animal meat, is there really a chance that these substitutes can make all that much headway in the near future? Thomas Jonas, the chief executive of Nature’s Fynd, said that a conspicuous change in America’s beverage-scape suggests so.

“Ten or 15 years ago, if you were looking at soy milk or almond milk, you were looking at something that was considered to be for health stores and tree-huggers and hippies, right?” he said. Now, both take up considerable space in every supermarket I visit, and there’s nary a coffee shop without one or the other. Nobody, Jonas argued, would have predicted that.

Both soy and almond, especially the latter, use immense amounts of water to produce their product. They’re fads. And, per the tenets of the Cult of Climastrology, bad for climate change. These people are all nuts. They’re aren’t eating or drinking this stuff because they like it but because their cult tells them to.

His big tree ring study leading to the “hockey stick” was a bunch of mule fritters, so, sure, let’s listen to him again as he fear mongers

Humans, not nature, are the cause of changes in Atlantic hurricane cycles, new study finds

It’s well known in science that for more than a century hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean has oscillated between active and inactive periods, each lasting a few decades. For the past couple of decades, meteorologists and climate scientists have believed that this ebb and flow was due to a natural warming and cooling cycle built into the climate system called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO.

The term was coined in the year 2000 by world-renowned climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and author of the new book “The New Climate War.” The concept of the AMO has become ubiquitous in explanations and forecasts of active or inactive hurricane seasons.

The image below, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shows how hurricane activity seems to flow in roughly 60-year waves — active for around 30 years when the Atlantic in its warm phase and inactive for around 30 years when in the cool phase.

But today, in a newly released paper in the journal Science, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation may have been dealt a deadly blow — by the very man who named it. Mann now concludes the AMO is very likely an artifact of climate change, driven by “human forcing” from rising carbon emissions in the modern era and “natural forcing” due to massive volcanic eruptions in pre-industrial times.

It’s just very convenient that Mann, along with the rest of the Cult of Climastrology, can say “see, back then it was all nature but now it’s Your Fault,” eh?

The finding — which is bound to generate significant controversy and pushback from the weather and climate communities due to how broadly accepted the concept of the AMO has become — may very well shake the foundations of understanding of what has been driving historical hurricane cycles.

Simply put, if true, this discovery means that during the 20th century and beyond, humans — not natural variability — have been the main driving force in the up-and-down cycles of hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean.

I wonder how many faulty premises and data points will be in this study? Meh, it matters little to the Cult, because this now gives them an excuse to call for more taxes and government Authority.

It’s always great when people who aren’t anywhere close to being experts, or even amateurs, in a field like to tell the experts how to do their jobs

How farmers could fight climate change (and make a profit)

Agriculture has never been a principal focus of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. But farm emissions — which make up about 10% of the U.S. total — are coming under increasing scrutiny as Democrats take the reins of agricultural policy and farmers themselves awaken to the threats of climate change. One strategy in particular is getting attention this year: encouraging farmers to view emissions reduction and carbon sequestration as potential sources of income.

The idea is fairly straightforward. Farmers would take steps to reduce their carbon output, such as reducing tillage to avoid releasing soil carbon, planting cover crops to hold carbon in the soil, applying manure treatments and “digesters” to limit emissions of methane, and using nitrogen fertilizer more precisely to lower nitrous-oxide emissions. In return, they could sell credits to companies looking to reduce their own climate footprint. Private markets for such credits are already springing up, and Congress took measures to encourage similar exchanges in the 2008 Farm Bill.

So, Democrats are going to use government force to “encourage” farmers to not use their fields to grow food, and to use older, less safe processes like spraying shit instead of modern treatments on the growing food. And the farmers will somehow make money by selling credits on these mythical private markets for credits, which are really backed by and mandated by Government.

But much about this concept has yet to be worked out, notably the basic question of how to measure the climate value of various farming practices. Here the U.S. Department of Agriculture could help. A Senate bill introduced last year would direct the USDA to create standards for measuring the effectiveness of climate-protection measures on farms, certify people to help farmers take such measurements and verify their value, and work with the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor private carbon-credit markets.

More government interference and control of the agriculture sector. Which means cost increases for food. All for a mythical problem.

Such exchanges could go a long way toward encouraging farmers to reduce emissions and sequester carbon. But they won’t work unless regulators can ensure that they’ll actually bring substantial climate benefits. The danger is that a carbon-credit system might instead mainly enable airlines, investment funds, energy firms, agribusinesses and other companies to excuse their own greenhouse-gas emissions by purchasing inexpensive and largely meaningless offsets.

It won’t make a difference in the climate at all. It will make farmers, who are independent spirits, resist like heck.

By setting standards for measurement and verification, and monitoring the private markets, the USDA can maximize the potential of “carbon farming.” It can also extend the benefits beyond the big operations, which can most easily demonstrate emissions reductions, to smaller farms — by helping them participate in collective efforts. If such measurements proved reliable, the Biden administration’s proposal to create a government “carbon bank” — which would buy credits from farmers for a guaranteed price per ton — might act as a powerful incentive for farmers big and small.

Sure sounds less like a private market and more like government dominance, eh?

That said, carbon trading does hold significant promise for limiting emissions on the farm — so long as it’s based on verifiable practices that will allow markets to accurately value the credits. The first step is to get the right data.

I suggest that would start implementing these types of carbon trading schemes on credentialed news outlets, print, TV, and even Internet, let’s see if they’re good with trading schemes when they apply to their own industry. No? They’d be mad? Huh.

This begs the question: will the LA Times give up their own use of fossil fueled vehicles to gather and disseminate the news? Will the members of the editorial board declare they have each given up their own fossil fueled vehicles? Perhaps the paper can mandate that employees do not own fossil fueled vehicles? It would be fun to see how the whole of greater LA County runs without fossil fuel vehicles

Editorial: To save the planet from climate change, gas guzzlers have to die

The numbers paint a daunting picture. In 2019, consumers worldwide bought 64 million new personal cars and 27 million new commercial motor vehicles, a paltry 2.1 million of which were electric-powered. Climate scientists tell us that we have less than a decade to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions — including those from internal combustion engines — if we have any hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming.

Yet manufacturers are still making, and consumers are still buying, overwhelming numbers of vehicles that will, on average, continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere for a dozen years after they first leave the lot. That means new cars bought this year will still be on the road well into the 2030s — long after the point when we should have slashed emissions.

Like we said, a daunting picture.

Manufacturers are still making because consumers are still buying. Consider that the local Honda dealers has 152 regular Accords and 38 Accord Hybrids in stock at the moment (I know they are we low on EXL inventory, with a lot on order). An EXL regular Accord is $32,440. The comparable hybrid is $33,885. The difference in costs is not that much with hybrids these days, but, people still prefer the horsepower of a regular. It’s those who drive a lot or really want the fuel economy (30 city/38 highway vs 48/48). The difference between a Civic and an Insight (really, almost the same car) and a CRV and CRV Hybrid are similar monetarily. It’s simply a choice. And way more will choose the non-hybrid. The thing is, all these hybrids, including Prius’ and plugins, still run primarily on gas, with an electric motor assist. So, they would have to go. Most people have zero interest in a straight plugin. The rollout of the Honda Clarity was such a disaster than they only sell them on the west coast, not even the NE states that had been selling them.

The only straight plugin really selling well is the Tesla, and not many can afford a vehicle in the upper $30k’s.

What will it take to throttle back the gas burners and expand exponentially the number of vehicles that run on electric batteries, hydrogen fuel cells or other non-fossil energy sources? Political will, strong government thumbs on the scale to favor zero-emission vehicles over gas burners (an all-out ban on their production and sale is likely too radical for the world, but it would certainly help), and increased spending on developing and producing clean energy sources, battery technologies and charging capabilities.

In other words, it will take Government flexing their authoritarian muscle. That’s not democracy, as the Dems like to put it, nor is that what takes place in a Constitutional Republic. But, hey, it’s easy for elites who make lots of money to demand these changes which will utterly hose the middle and lower classes.

Still, ending reliance on fossil fuel to power engines will be crucial, and among the most challenging tasks given how deeply insinuated such vehicles have become in global commerce and transit systems, from the personal vehicles we use to fetch groceries to the vessels that move products around the world to the airplanes that take a few hours to shuttle people to places that used to take days or weeks to reach by train or ship.

So, by gas guzzlers the LATEB seems to be also including planes and sea going vessels. I suppose this would include pleasure craft such as SeaDoos and small ski boats. This would hit Leonardo DiCarpio hard, as no more big pleasure yachts. Would this ground high flying Warmists like John Travolta and Harrison Ford? What would be the hit on California, which imports and exports huge amounts of goods via their ports on fossil fueled ships. How many would be out of a job? Warmists just think this stuff can happen without major economic disruption and pain. Because they’re nuts and cultists.

Wait, aren’t apprenticeships typically unpaid positions? It’s 2021, not the Middle Ages

Boost pandemic recovery with 250,000 green apprenticeships, Friends of the Earth urges

A vast skills pipeline of 250,000 green apprenticeships leading to full-time jobs across the burgeoning low carbon economy could address both climate breakdown and the post-Covid crisis in youth unemployment, research released today by Friends of the Earth contends.

Carried out by analyst firm Transition Economics on behalf of the green campaign group, the study sets out how a major skills push backed by £10.6bn of government funding to cover wage subsidies and training schemes across the UK could create much-needed jobs in renewable energy, woodland creation, and peatland restoration.

The training could be delivered at a network of national and regional ‘Centres of Excellence for Zero Carbon Skills’ at further education colleges, while diversity measures such as bursaries of £1,500 could help promote participation in green apprenticeships among disadvantaged groups including Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities, women, and disabled people, it argues.

Researchers also identified the regions with the greatest potential for green apprenticeship creation. Among combined authority and metro mayor areas, London leads the pack with an estimated potential for over 44,200 green apprenticeships, while West Midlands comes second with 19,400, followed by Greater Manchester with just over 14,000.

But against its estimates for green apprenticeship potential, the report also highlights the current bleak employment outlook for young people in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. If all young people currently without a job remain unemployed for a year, it could result in £39bn in lost wages in the UK over the next two decades, it warns.

That’s around 15 billion U.S. dollars to train people for jobs that barely exist to replace jobs that COVID lockdown killed off. With wage subsidies, because the jobs really aren’t worth all that much on the market (apparently, green jobs are like working at a fast food spot). Especially since they are apparently lots of manual labor jobs, and how many of these youngsters, especially from the cities, are willing to work these types of low skill jobs in the countryside? And, of course, they have to put the racial elements into their little scheme. Why do Leftists always think that “minorities” cannot do anything without the Helpful Hand Of Government? Isn’t that rather racist?

Why does Government have to create these so-called jobs? If there was a call for them the private sector would have created them already.

Perhaps the UK, which was one of the worst nations when it came to lockdowns, could reopen their economy and the jobs could come back.

And reports today suggested tomorrow’s Budget is expected to include a £57m green jobs and skills package for Scotland, in part designed to help workers in the oil industry become skilled in working on cleaner technologies.

What if they don’t want to? What if they like working in the oil industry, and like the money? If the government has to spend lots to subsidize green jobs, perhaps they don’t pay that well.

BTW, if you don’t think the climate crisis (scam) isn’t about far left politics, look at this article and see how they write about it.