C3

Scientific Empirical Evidence Under Attack: The Uniparty Embraces Falsehoods

It is simply no longer debatable that most Democrat politicians, and quite a few Republicans, have chosen to turn their backs on scientific factual evidence, and instead, they now embrace falsehoods that support a wide variety of Uniparty establishment political narratives and desires.

Many such falsehoods are solely in the realm of politics, such as the past laughable beliefs that Trump is a Russian agent or that the Jan. 6 protest-riot on Capitol Hill was an "armed insurrection," both of which have been thoroughly debunked.

Those types of political untruths and smears can do much damage, but even potentially more damaging over the long run are science falsehoods that are spread, which completely undermine the bedrock foundation of science—empirical evidence. The end result is the permanent 'Idiocracy' governance.

This loss of faith in bedrock facts not only terminally harms the scientific method, but it also makes a hash of policymaking necessary to establish a sound foundation of solutions for any given societal issue.

For example, the irresponsible narrative that climate change is an 'existential threat' to humanity is not based on any known empirical scientific evidence. Even the UN's own head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who is in the best position to know, states that the hyped existential threat is not credible.

There are no actual facts that support the insidious propaganda of climate doomism.

Another current example of the ruling establishment's belief, and ignorance, is that all of America's energy needs can be met with free and abundant solar and wind renewable sources. But as major industrial nations have discovered, solar and wind are literally unable to provide the requisite baseload of reliable 24/7/365 dispatchable electricity.

Since both solar and wind are intermittent energy sources, they are not abundant when most needed.

And as far as being 'free' energy, nothing could be further from the factual evidence of the U.S., UK, and German power markets. Solar and wind require massive taxpayer subsidies, and in return, taxpayers are hit with ever-increasing electricity rates.

Our final illustration of a global disdain for accepted scientific facts is the swift creation of the "COVID Cult" by Uniparty politicians seeking to exert total micromanagement of citizens' lives. This anti-democratic cult required a complete rejection of all scientific information about pandemic illnesses and validated health preventive measures.

Completely lacking in empirical support were the following authoritarian measures: prohibiting economic activity; implementing statewide lockdowns; closing all schools; limiting social interactions between people; mandating mask use; imposing a 6-foot social distance; and requiring mass vaccinations during a pandemic using a new technology dubbed a "vaccine" that had not been thoroughly tested in compliance with long-established guidelines.

The government elites who embraced the COVID frenzy utterly ignored all of our civilization's prior experience, research, and policy knowledge on infectious diseases.

Moreover, despite all the subsequent policy failures, big-government politicians continued to deny the convincing scientific evidence that COVID-19 was a treatable viral infection with a mortality risk similar to that of influenza.

These examples beg the question as to why so many Democrats and Republicans ignore the empirical realities in favor of propagandist narratives and shoddy cultist "science."

Regardless of which issue, be it COVID-19, energy, or climate change, the fundamental driving force behind the Uniparty's concerted attack on science and empirical evidence is simply the desire for increased control over the government by the ruling elites and increased micromanagement capabilities for the unelected bureaucrats—both of which are in direct opposition to our democratic preferences and ideals.

This posting and video were inspired by this excellent 'Tablet' article.

Global Warming Narrative Unravels: Atmospheric CO2 Level Changes Do Not Cause Atmosphere Temperature Changes

Based on satellite empirical evidence over the last 30 years, the simple answer is 'No', the lower troposphere temperature changes are not correlated with changes in atmospheric CO₂  levels.

This first chart presents the moving 12-month changes for both the UAH satellite lower troposphere (LT) and NOAA's atmospheric CO₂ levels (ppm).

A quick first glance at the plotted data suggests there may be a decent match between CO₂ changes and LT temperature changes. But that is not the case at all, as the statistical correlation between the two is abysmally low, with an R-squared of almost zero +0.0854.

The second chart is more revealing of the lack of
correlation between the two variables. It plots the moving 2-year average of both the LT temperature changes and CO₂ level changes.

The 2-year simple averaging of the data variables provides a better view of any relationship between LT temperature changes and changes in CO₂ levels, as well as providing visual clues as to why the lack of correlation exists.

It is clear on the second chart that the linear trends of the two variables are moving in opposite directions over time.

While atmospheric CO2 changes are monotonously increasing with a positive trend—i.e., an upward slope—over 30 years, the changes in LT temperatures show a steady negative (downward slope) trend in magnitude.

The R² between the 2-year averages of the two variables is even lower at a meager +0.0382.

In addition, a closer visual comparison of the two-year averages suggests that more often than not, significant temperature increases/decreases precede significant respective changes in atmospheric CO₂ levels, and that is the complete opposite of the "consensus" narrative.

A fair and objective assessment of this empirical evidence indicates that warming in the atmosphere is more likely to be influenced by other factors with multiple times greater impact than the trace gas CO₂ from human emissions.

The most recent research by scientists is seriously challenging the belief that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming on land and in the atmosphere. This study and this one are the most recent examples of scientific research challenging the CO₂ orthodoxy.

Additional global, regional & historical temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and chart plot. Source for lower troposphere temperature data. Source for CO2 data.

U.S. Climate 'Existential Threat' Still AWOL

NOAA's gold-standard USCRN climate monitoring system has been updated with latest data through November 2023, and there is a surprise in the context of the "hottest" year narrative being pushed by legacy media.

The adjacent chart of monthly maximum temperatures reveals that the U.S. lower 48 states have been on a very slight cooling trend since September 2014. That's a total of 3,348 days (9 years and 2 months) of non-warming, even with the past several months of warmer temperatures and despite the large U.S. CO2 emissions.

As a result, 2023 max temperatures pale in comparison to those experienced in 2015 and 2016. Even the 1930s had higher maximum temperatures.

In addition, and literally, CO2 levels have had zero impact (R² = 0.0001) on maximum temperatures over the last 9+ years.

Over the last 25 years, the maximum temperature warming trend has been rather mild, at a per-year rate of +0.0007°C. If that long-term maximum temperature rate continues, the U.S. will have warmed by an unnoticeable +0.2°C by 2050.

That implies a typical hot 90F degree summer day in Chicago currently would be a 90.36F degree day in 2050. And a bitterly cold winter day of 0.0F degree would still be a bitter cold day in Chicago at 0.36F.

Obviously, we are not facing an "existential threat" or a "climate crisis."

Finally, by 2050, new energy technologies and efficiencies will exist, such as better utilization of geothermal energy sources, much improved battery technology for grid storage, more efficient transmission of electricity over the grid, advanced nuclear energy solutions, and so on. Current innovation research by the year 2050 will alleviate both the real and imagined concerns about the impact on the climate and civilization of human CO2 emissions.

Additional global, regional & historical temperature charts. Notes: Excel used for all calculations and chart plot. Source for maximum temperature data. Source for CO2 data.

A Brief Review: Causes of The EU Energy Crisis

2022 was a catastrophic year for energy in Europe, with skyrocketing household energy bills, closed industrial plants, bankrupt firms, and exorbitant costs for electricity and natural gas for both individuals and businesses. The ruling elites of Europe have taught us that relying solely on imported natural gas, wind, and solar energy is a costly and dangerous energy strategy. You cannot increase the wind and solar power in the event of a low-wind year, a harsh winter, an embargo, or a conflict.

European nations have been increasingly reliant on a mix of sporadic solar and wind energy as well as natural gas throughout the past 20 years due to the closure of conventional power plants and legislation supporting renewable energy. Thirty in Germany and thirty-four in the United Kingdom were among the more than a hundred nuclear facilities that had shuttered or were slated to close. Twenty-three countries declared they would phase out coal at the same time. By 2021, natural gas, wind, and solar energy accounted for 48% of Germany's electricity production, and 63%, 64%, and 78% of the electricity used in Italy, the UK, and the Netherlands.

An increasing amount of the energy on the continent came from imports. By the year 2000, Europe was producing 44% of its petroleum and 56% of its natural gas. However, rather than employing hydraulic fracturing to increase oil and gas production, the area decided to invest in solar and wind power. By 2021, only 37% of Europe's natural gas and 25% of its petroleum were produced domestically. Furthermore, a significant dependency was generated by growing imports from Russia.

The European Commission published a research in 2017 that found 49 European shale formations having either natural gas or oil, with significant shale potential found in Bulgaria, France, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. But instead of breaking any of these fields, Europe decided to rely on sporadic imports of natural gas, solar energy, and wind power.

Europe had a 20–30% decrease in wind-generated electricity in 2021 compared to historical averages. In order to make up for the decrease in wind power, utilities burnt gas to provide energy. Natural gas reserves were abnormally low by year's end, and gas prices were rising.

In 2019 and 2020, the average price of natural gas in Europe was between 13 and 18 euros per megawatt-hour (€/MWh). As the economy began to recover and wind power generation decreased in 2021, prices skyrocketed to 80 €/MWh by December of that same year. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, electricity prices also experienced a significant surge, increasing by a factor of six by the end of 2021.

Numerous energy supply companies went bankrupt due to the crisis. Thirteen UK natural gas companies, providing service to two million people, have ceased operations by February 2022. These companies were compelled by price controls to sell gas for less than their wholesale buying price. Due to the conflict in Ukraine, Russian gas giant Gazprom had to stop supplying gas, forcing Uniper SE, the biggest natural gas supplier in Germany, to purchase gas at outrageous costs.

Energy-intensive sectors were severely hit by high energy prices. Ammonia, which is required to generate urea and fertilizer containing ammonium nitrate, can only be produced with natural gas. In 2022, over 50% of Europe's output of ammonia and 33% of its nitrogen fertilizer was discontinued. Producers of metals were hammered, and half of Europe's output of zinc and aluminum had to shut down. Europe seems to be entering a new phase of deindustrialization as a result of energy policies.

While some countries are retreating from green initiatives, Net Zero and the shift to renewable energy are nevertheless supported by European elites and politicians. Gas prices have dropped to around 30 €/MWh, still double the price of 2020, and electricity prices are still almost triple that of 2020.

Notes: Above summary and brief video is based on this excellent article.