The cult is really looking for things to fearmonger over (the question mark in the headline is not mine. Not sure why it is there)

How Climate Change Is Quietly Damaging Your Skin?

When we think about climate change, images of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather often come to mind. But there’s a more personal—and often overlooked—dimension to this global issue: your skin. Yes, the largest organ of your body is silently bearing the brunt of a changing climate. From increased UV radiation to humidity fluctuations, climate change is influencing skin health in subtle but significant ways.

Global temperatures have steadily climbed over the past century, and with them, heat-related skin issues are on the rise. Prolonged exposure to higher temperatures can exacerbate conditions like:

• Heat rashes and hives: Sweat ducts can become blocked, leading to irritation and inflammation.
• Rosacea and eczema: These conditions are often aggravated by environmental stressors like heat and pollution.
• Acne flare-ups: Increased sweating can clog pores and worsen breakouts, especially in humid climates.

Yes, you’re sweating because of 1.7F increase in global temperatures since 1850. You can really notice.

As the ozone layer thins, more ultraviolet (UV) rays are reaching the Earth’s surface. This intensification of UV exposure accelerates:

Obviously, it’s all about Trump in this astroturfed suit, which, sad to say, I missed earlier in the year

The Youth Activists Suing Trump Are Fighting Climate Change and Authoritarianism

Does the United States Constitution guard against executive abuses of power that deprive children and youth of their fundamental rights to life and liberty?

That was the fundamental question Julia Olson, an attorney and the founder of Our Children’s Trust, posed to Judge Dana Christensen this week during a two-day hearing in a federal courthouse in Missoula, Montana.

The case, Lighthiser v. Trump, began in May when 22 young climate activists, aged 7 to 25, filed a lawsuit in the District of Montana asking the court to declare three Trump administration executive orders unconstitutional and prevent their implementation. The plaintiffs say the orders show the Trump administration’s intention to increase fossil fuel development, block renewable energy, and terminate congressionally mandated climate change science and research—all “under the false claim of an energy emergency, while the true emergency is that our fossil fuel-based energy system is polluting the air, water, lands, and climate on which Plaintiffs’ lives, liberties, and personal security depend.”

In some ways, Lighthiser v. Trump is the logical next step for OCT and the U.S. climate litigation movement, which aims to compel the government to take meaningful action to address the climate crisis—or prohibit it from making the crisis worse—through the judiciary. The lawsuit follows two of OCT’s recent wins, Held v. Montana and Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, and “further builds American constitutional jurisprudence on fossil fuel activities infringing the fundamental rights of youth,” according to the nonprofit law firm.

Sadly, the government lawyers never asked “have you youts given up your own use of fossil fuels and made your lives carbon neutral?” But, in fact, the Chief Executive does have the authority to put out those EOs, in the same way Biden apparently had authority to go the other way.

In other ways, Lighthiser is unlike anything that has come before. For one, this week’s hearing marked the first time a U.S. federal court heard live testimony in a constitutional climate change case. And, as Mat dos Santos, one of the OCT attorneys representing the plaintiffs, told me, “Lighthiser goes beyond the traditional climate cases that Our Children’s Trust is famous for, because it’s really a case about our democracy and whether this president has the power to act on his own initiative without any regard for how that power was supposed to be divided up amongst the other branches of government.”

Yeah, and it is all about force every American to comply with the insane, doomsday beliefs of the cult, while very few actually practice what they preach. They couldn’t really convince people to act in practice via 35 years of scaremongering. They couldn’t get as much legislation passed as they wanted. So, now they sue. If this makes it to the Supreme Court the cult will lose.

We know which way the Democrats will vote on this: will all the Republicans in Congress vote for it, or, will a few get squishy?

Congresswoman Hageman Introduces Legislation to Protect the American Taxpayer from Climate Change Reparations

Today, Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (WY-AL), alongside Congressman Tom Tiffany (WI-07), introduced legislation protecting the American taxpayer from attempts by international courts to impose climate change reparations on the U.S.

In July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN), issued an advisory opinion contending that international climate change treaties are binding on UN member states, and that breaching these agreements is an “international wrongful act.” According to the ICJ, countries that produce or consume fossil fuels could be subject to orders demanding they cease all “climate change” activities and pay full reparations to harmed nations.

Reps. Hageman and Tiffany’s bill would block the use of federal funds to pay a demand for reparations issued by any international bodies or courts for alleged violations of international law.

“The UN’s war on affordable and reliable energy is well known. This is just another effort to push forward with radical policies that have no basis in fact or science. Pursuant to the ICJ theory, every single country in the world would be subject to paying reparations, as every single country consumes fossil fuels. Yet, we know that such an outcome isn’t the UN’s intent. This is just another effort to force America to prop up the economies of failed states and impoverished nations. American citizens are not going to be forced to pay reparations based on vague, speculative claims about so-called climate damage,” said Rep. Hageman. “This bill protects both U.S. sovereignty and Congress’s constitutional authority. It guards against financial risks born of international lawsuits or opinions built on unproven assumptions.”

If other nations want to pay, have at it. It’s very sketchy as to if the US is even subject to the ruling by the ICJ, which is also non binding because it was just an advisory opinion. It makes the lawyers happy, though.

But, what if a Democrat wins in 2028? That wacko could start directing US money to the scam. This law could stop that.

If they were still respectable they would note the effect on the climate from things like land use, urban heat island effect, natural processes, and, oh yeah, the big ball of nuclear fire at the center of the solar system. But, no, they cannot even use the proper term which would be anthropogenic global warming. ‘Climate change’ replaced AGW in order to Blamestorm pretty much everything, including snow and cold weather

Climate change ‘beyond scientific dispute,’ National Academies report says

One of the United States’ most respected scientific bodies rejected claims from Trump administration officials that rising temperatures posed little danger, saying on Wednesday the scientific evidence of climate change was “beyond scientific dispute” and that impacts on the nation are worsening.

The conclusion from the the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine differs starkly from a draft report issued by the Energy Department in July, in which a panel of scientists known for their contrarian views argued that the risks of climate change have been overblown.

The nonprofit National Academies advise the government on scientific issues.

In sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s report, NASEM’s 135-page review of climate science says that our understanding of climate science has only improved since EPA in 2009 formally declared greenhouse gases a threat to human health and welfare.

That includes long-term observations that “confirm unequivocally” that human emissions are warming the planet, that climate change is already harming the health and welfare of U.S. citizens and that the severity of climate change increases “with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted.”

Reads more like blathering from a doomsday cult with skin in the game to keep the money train rolling

“Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved and new threats have been identified,” the report concluded. “These new threats and the areas of remaining uncertainty are under intensive investigation by the scientific community. The United States faces a future in which climate-induced harm continues to worsen and today’s extremes become tomorrow’s norms.”

I have a recommendation: everyone at the National Academies should immediately give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral. No one is allowed to travel to Brazil for COP30. The Academies should forgo all use of fossil fuels, AC, heating, and more at it’s offices, ban meat. And tell everyone who believes this report to do the same.