The Latest Madness: Coffee Is Contributing To Climate Change thumbnail

The Latest Madness: Coffee Is Contributing To Climate Change

By The Geller Report

Researchers Claim Coffee Is Contributing To Climate Change

By Anthony Scott, Gateway Pundit, January 19, 2023:

First red meat, then gas stoves, and now coffee.

Researchers from Canada are currently analyzing coffee’s “contribution to climate change”.

The new analysis was published by researchers from the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in a piece titled “Here’s how your cup of coffee contributes to climate change”

In their analysis researchers concluded “Limiting your contribution to climate change requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception. Choosing a mode of coffee preparation that emits less GHGs (greenhouse gases) and moderating your consumption are part of the solution.”

I’ll give up my extra coffee when the elites give up their private jets and coastal mansions — which were supposed to be submerged in rising tides ten years ago. https://t.co/AYp6kOcXQf

— wdwpro (@wdwpro1) January 19, 2023

In their study, the researchers compared the climate impact of traditional filter coffee, Encapsulated filter coffee, Brewed coffee (French Press) and Soluble coffee (instant coffee).

The study concluded traditional coffee has the highest carbon footprint.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEET:

The Elite Want To Cut The Carbon Footprint of Coffee pic.twitter.com/O6IArEMs7K

— The Triune Times (@TriuneTimes) January 19, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Leading Imam Says Drought Has Come Because Women Aren’t Wearing Hijab thumbnail

Islamic Republic of Iran: Leading Imam Says Drought Has Come Because Women Aren’t Wearing Hijab

By Jihad Watch

This kind of magical thinking lends itself to fanaticism. If one assumes that Allah is withholding rain because women aren’t wearing hijab (which must also be why it never, ever rains in non-Muslim countries), then one may also assume that one suffers any misfortune or setback in life because of disobedience to Allah. Someone who thinks that way will become ever more vigilant in his observance of Islam, and of course the pinnacle of observance of Islam is jihad.

A hadith has a Muslim asking Muhammad: “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” Muhammad replied, “I do not find such a deed.” (Bukhari 4.52.44)

Iran Imam Says Less Rain Result Of Women Without Hijab

Iran International, January 13, 2023 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

The Supreme Leader’s representative in the city of Karaj says the reason for low precipitation in the country is a lack of hijab observance of hijab, after many women took off their veils following months of protests.

Mohammad-Mehdi Hosseini Hamedani, the Friday prayer imam of the city, reiterated that observance of hijab should be enforced strictly in society.

Describing anyone who unveils in public as an enemy, he emphasized that all such people must be confronted by the state. “It is not possible to imagine that we are living in an Islamic country when we enter some institutions, shopping malls, pharmacies, etc.!” he said, calling on the authorities to warn shops and malls that serve women who have removed their hijab and close them down if warnings did not suffice.

This is not the first time that the Islamic Republic’s hardliners are linking Islamic rituals to drought or natural disasters….

Prosecutor General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri in 2019 said, “The judicial system does not allow women to unveil in public, because it causes natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes in the country.”…

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED TWEET:

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM UPDATE: John Kerry Says to Stop Climate Change We Need “Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money” https://t.co/qhb16qx8Lk

— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) January 17, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

WEF Promotes Scientist Behind False “Billions Will Die” From Climate Change Claim

German-Egyptian Scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad: Islam Was Born With The Seed Of Civil War And Has Failed To Come Up With A Plan For Coexistence

Biden’s Taliban: Face Coverings Now Required Even for Mannequins

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Unhinged in Davos: Kerry Likens Self to ‘Extraterrestrial’ Here to ‘Save the Planet’ thumbnail

Unhinged in Davos: Kerry Likens Self to ‘Extraterrestrial’ Here to ‘Save the Planet’

By Marc Morano

Gore blames ‘climate change’ for Xenophobia.


Watch: John Kerry Says WEF Davos Elite Are Like ‘Extraterrestrials’ Here to ‘Save the Planet’ – Touts himself as one of a ‘select group of human beings’

John Kerry at the World Economic Forum:

“And when you stop and think about it, it’s pretty extraordinary that we select group of human beings…are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet. I mean, it’s so almost extraterrestrial to think about quote ‘saving the planet.’ If you said that to most people, most people they think you’re just a crazy tree-hugging lefty, liberal, you know, do-gooder or whatever, and, and there’s no relationship. But really, that’s where we are.”

Marc Morano comment:

“Kerry and the World Economic Forum, the UN, and Al Gore all seem to believe they are the chosen ones to save the planet. But, Kerry actually said something we can all agree with when he noted, ‘most people they think you’re just a crazy tree-hugging lefty, liberal’. Yes, Kerry is correct, most people do think that.

We have heard this type of elitism before. See: Klaus Schwab At 2022 WEF: ‘The Future Is Built By Us, By A Powerful Community As You Here In This Room’Klaus Schwab Opens the 2023 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting with a Call to “Master the Future”

Morano: “The Great Reset crowd assembling in Davos genuinely believe themselves to be above the rest of humanity and are able to own multiple mansions and fly private jets while spewing ‘saving the planet’ rhetoric or even picking up environmental awards.

Kerry may be on to something! Kerry’s friend and fellow climate activist Al Gore was born nearly nine months after the Roswell, New Mexico incident, so there may be a linkage to Extraterrestrials! The Roswell incident was on July 8, 1947. Al Gore was born on March 31, 1948.”

Flashback 2015: Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets – The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled “Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis.”

Flashback: Activists compare climate change to alien attack: Former Calif Gov. Jerry Brown: ‘This is almost like we’re suffering an attack from Mars’ & MSNBC’s Joy Reid: If ‘aliens…come & attack us, it’s going to be because we destroyed the planet’

Flashback: UN IPCC Chief Pachauri okes about sending climate skeptics to outer space — ‘When leaders are unable to deal with reality, they just get the critics sent somewhere else’

Money, including philanthropic capital, is key to tackling climate crisis, John Kerry, Al Gore tell World Economic Forum – “The lesson I’ve learned in the last years … is money, money, money,” Kerry said during a panel discussion. “One of the keys to this is philanthropy and public money. But there is no way we can win this battle without partnerships [with the private sector].”

‘Enough already! Enough!’ Watch: Al Gore at WEF Davos rants ‘we need desperately to scale down anti-climate finance’

©2023 Marc Morano – Climate Depot. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: CAUGHT HIM! Rebel News pummels Pfizer CEO with questions at World Economic Forum

The Climate Money Monster Cabal may be starting to unravel… Vanguard flees GFANZ thumbnail

The Climate Money Monster Cabal may be starting to unravel… Vanguard flees GFANZ

By Joanne Nova

Only a week after Ron de Santis pulled $2 billion in Florida funds from BlackRock, Vanguard, the second biggest asset manager in the world, has abruptly pulled out of GFANZ.

Vanguard has $7 trillion in assets under management, and GFANZ is a conglomerate cabal of bankers insurers and asset managers that has snowballed into a 550 member cabal with a jawdropping, obscene, 150 trillion in assets. Together, for a moment, they almost created the illusion of a One World Government by Bankers. After all, the GDP of the United States of America is only $23 trillion. So when an organization with six times the pulling power tells the world to go Net Zero, which company, which government would say “No”? Well, Ron de Santis did — and 18 other US states are working on it too.

The key weakness to the $150,000 billion dollar GFANZ monster is — as I said last week — that it’s an illusion. They are wielding other people’s money — using their clients own pension funds to indirectly punish their own clients, and the good guys […]

Good News: The best hope of unwinding the unholy alliance between Big-Money and Big-Government comes from the US States and they are starting to sink their teeth in.

BlackRock is the defacto Global Climate Police — but disguised as a monster investment fund. The way to break it is to expose that its primary interest is not in making money for its clients but as a Woke political tool.

BlackRock are able to intimidate most of the world with $10 trillion dollars in assets. They are effectively the third biggest “country” in the world by GDP. But it’s an illusion. They are wielding other people’s money — using their clients own pension funds to indirectly punish their own clients. And once those clients figure it out and pull their funds, BlackRock will become an empty shell. Couldn’t happen to a nicer company…

It’s a scam where BlackRock target legal corporations in states that voted to use fossil fuels to effectively undo what the voters wanted. A few months ago, 19 States in the USA started asking BlackRock and the US SEC some hot and hard legal questions. West Virginia announced they would boycott firms that boycott fossil fuels, and […]

*****
This article was published by CFACT and is reproduced with permission.

The Real Cause of Climate Change thumbnail

The Real Cause of Climate Change

By Bud Hancock

Can there possibly be one human who has not by now heard those fear-inducing, horrific words, “Climate Change”? Just in case you  have not heard that term, it is the same as the one previously used by the fear-mongers: “Global Warming”.

The whole uproar over changes in our global climate have caused a serious divide between those who are certain that unless we “do something immediately” to “save the planet” and those who completely deny any climate change is occurring. The doom-speakers demand we all act quickly or we are all going to die as a result of the catastrophic events they say are coming on the earth. The deniers seem to be content to remain unaware of any changes in the climate or the reason for those changes (hint: it AIN’T about carbon emissions).

Personally, I have been more amused than worried about the effects of “global warming/climate change”. After nearly eighty years of life on this planet, and having lived in several areas of the US, as well as visiting several foreign countries from near the arctic circle to the equator, I can assure you  that, indeed the climate is changing; in fact it is changing on a daily basis. News reports, especially in the past several years offer concrete proof that the weather is getting more and more topsy-turvy and totally unpredictable.

A Little History

When our recorded history began, the earth was in a condition that no human has ever witnessed. But God, the creator of all things, wanted that condition to be known so that He could prove to all mankind that His true nature is to provide a perfect, peaceful, comfortable and productive environment for his prized creation: the human race.

God’s word does not provide many details of the means He used to bring about what is called a “chaotic void”, or the words “Tohu va bohu” in the Hebrew (Genesis 1:2 KJV). The English translation of “tohu va bohu” is “without form” (tohu/chaotic) and “void” (bohu/empty). This is the description of the earth when, in God’s perfect timing, He moved upon the scene and began the recreation/renovation of the earth we now inhabit.

Even though we are not told the details of the catastrophic event that produced “tohu va bohu”, we know that a massive amount of water that was previously gathered into specific places was allowed to cover the earth and bring utter destruction to anything that had previously been living on the earth’s surface.

However, we do know that Satan (Lucifer), one of God’s highest creations, full of splendor, beauty and even ‘music’, before pride brought him down, was responsible for the destruction that caused the ‘tohu va bohu’ condition of the earth due to his rebellion and foolish attempt to elevate his throne (on earth) above that of God.

After the flood that eliminated all beings on earth prior to the recreation of Genesis 1:1-3, God decided to make a being, “in His image” and “after His likeness”. That creature was named Adam, and he had the same genetic bodily characteristics (shape and fashion) of God. The Hebrew words used as image in Genesis 1:26, tselem (Strong’s 6754, pronounced tseh’-lem) and likeness, dmuwth, (Strong’s 1823, pronounced dem-ooth’) both indicate  something that has or is, a  shade, a phantom, a resemblance, hence a representative figure of the original. If man was created perfect (uncorrupted) as God declared, then the genetic structure of Adam was also as perfect and as uncorrupted as was God’s.

God’s Perfect Man Becomes Corrupted

After the sin of Adam, the curse placed upon humanity, the earth and the ‘serpent’ allowed that ‘the seed of the woman’ (Eve) would bruise the head of the serpent (Satan); God already had His plan of redemption ready for the time when it was needed. That plan required a sacrifice, a perfect human specimen that would be capable of satisfying God’s righteous demand for a perfect, undefiled and uncorrupted sacrifice. That sacrifice would need to be descended from the lineage of man ‘through a woman’ and would come through the womb of Eve’s direct descendants , a virgin we now know as Mary (Eve’s seed).

However, the corruption of humanity had already taken its toll on the human race with death having entered the picture and for the most part, the life expectancy of men having gradually decreased.

Obviously, God’s plan to redeem the human race was sometime into the future and when that time came, everything had to be as God had said it would be.

As Adam and Eve began to reproduce, multiplying the human race, a serious problem for the future of mankind was introduced by Satan and those fallen angels who, alongside Lucifer, rebelled against God and followed Lucifer in his future war against God.

Some of those sinful fallen angels ‘looked upon the daughters of men’, saw their physical beauty and chose them to marry and had intercourse with them, thus producing the giants spoken of in Genesis 6:4, who then reproduced and created a race of giants that were NOT of the pure DNA that Adam had received from God. The obvious intent of Satan was to corrupt the DNA of all men and thus deny God the means of introducing the promised Redeemer into the earth.

Having seen the condition of man, so totally depraved and wallowing in sin and disobedience, with mankind being so wicked and corrupted, God made the decision to wipe everything away and start over. The record of the condition of humanity when God made His decision shows just how successful Satan had been in his quest to destroy humanity and defeat God.

God’s Planned Destruction of Corrupted Mankind

As corrupted as all of mankind was, God still found in one man the pure lineage needed to produce His Messiah. Noah, the ninth generation of sons from Adam was described as being a ‘just man and perfect in his generations’. The word perfect is the English translation of the Hebrew word tamiym (Strong’s 8549, pronounced taw-meem’) and it is translated as without blemish (bodily), upright and undefiled; this is the same description of the Jewish animal sacrifices that God required to be ‘bodily perfect and without spot or blemish’.

We are told in Genesis 6:8 that Noah ‘found grace’ in the eyes of the Lord. The word ‘found’ is the English translation of the Hebrew word ‘matsa’ (Strong’s 4672, pronounced maw-tsaw’) and it means ‘to attain’, or to arrive at, to reach as a goal. God declared Noah to be “a just man, and perfect in his generations” indicating that, 1) it was God who was searching for the person needed to carry on the uncorrupted DNA of the original Adam, and 2) Noah himself, through his life as a devout God-seeker, a man who had kept himself  pure in ‘his generations’ with uncorrupted DNA, was counted worthy of God’s consideration.

Noah was descended from a lineage of men whose DNA had not been corrupted by mixing with that of the fallen angels, making him a candidate to continue the line from whom the Messiah would come. That lineage was as follows: Seth, Enos, Cainaan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech. Even though the fathers of each of these men had “other sons and daughters”, their names are mentioned first because they were the specific persons who would carry on the pure lineage through uncorrupted DNA. This info can be found in Genesis 5.

God’s Plan: The ARK of Safety

God then spoke to the man Noah and informed him of the coming destruction of all flesh and gave him the plan that was formulated before the foundation of the world, the plan to construct a shelter that would withstand the coming destruction and save eight souls alive, besides a selection of all clean animals.

So, What About Climate Change?

In Ecclesiastes 1:9, Solomon, the writer of Ecclesiastes declared: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Those who constantly run to and fro proclaiming the dangers of burning ‘fossil fuels’ (not to mention the absurdity of ‘cow flatulence’) that release copious amounts of carbon into the atmosphere resulting in the threatened destruction of the planet due to ‘climate change’ (formerly global-warming’), want us to believe that what we are seeing now with the changes in the global temperatures, massive storms in diverse areas and all manner of strange weather phenomena, none of which I deny, has never been seen before in the history of man.

However, we know from the record in Genesis that this is not true. When God recreated  the earth, it was perfect. There were no recorded strange weather phenomena mentioned from the recreation to the Flood of Noah.

So, what caused the sudden change that resulted in the flood and the destruction of all flesh save the eight souls and the animals that were saved along with them?

Genesis 6:5-7, “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repented me that I have made them’.”

The absolute depravity of mankind, who disobeyed God and refused to live according to His dictates, had brought the entirety of mankind to a place where God saw no value in them any longer and His creation no longer brought Him joy or pleasure. The answer was to destroy them all with a massive change of climate with “all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11 KJV) to cover the earth and wipe out all of those beings that were not safe in the ark.

We know that God directed the catastrophic weather event that flooded the entire earth and destroyed all flesh except those that were saved on the ark. And there are now those whose shallow knowledge of God has prompted them to claim that God was cruel to do so, but, they would be wrong.  Just as it was an act of God’s grace and mercy that drove the man from the Garden of Eden wherein was the tree of Life that, had it been accessed by man in his sinful state, it would have allowed mankind to live forever in that depraved fallen state, so was His decision to destroy all corrupted humans to save alive the ones who would go on to produce the body of Messiah.

Even though there are many in Christian circles who have fallen for the ‘Climate Change narrative’ that says man’s physical actions, burning carbon based fuels and other actions in the way he relates to the planet have caused the damage we see from the weather now being experienced, there is a far more reasonable explanation and it totally aligns with God’s word.

Just as the first earth which became ‘tohu va bohu’ as a result of Lucifer’s rebellion and sin against God, the same thing occurred in the centuries  leading up to the time of Noah where “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” (Genesis 6:5-6 KJV). This heart condition of God moved Him to make a decision that would allow the race of man to continue living until the Messiah could be introduced into the earth.

The time from Adam’s creation to the time of the flood of Noah has been estimated to be around 1650 years and during that time it is also estimated that approximately 500 million people had been born on the earth. Sadly, of that large number of souls, there were only a few that had remained uncorrupted in God’s eyes. Had God not mercifully sent the flood, there would have been none that remained capable of producing a saviour worthy to become the perfect sacrifice demanded by God’s righteousness.

Conclusion

Jesus’ disciples questioned Him about the “signs of His coming, and the end of the world” (Greek ‘aion’ or English ‘age’, meaning a period of time, NOT the end of the world or the earth as they will both continue forever), Jesus was speaking of the end of the Church age which takes place at the rapture when Jesus appears in the clouds to call His body home to be forever with Him.

In answer to their question, Jesus said: As the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be”. We know from scripture that in the days just before the flood came, all mankind had entered a period of total depravity and corrupted itself through sin, rebellion and utter disobedience against God. The mixing of DNA from fallen angels and human women had nearly corrupted the human DNA causing bodily impurity.

We are now living in the days mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24. Just as wickedness was rampant in the days of Noah, today, with the increase in human knowledge leading to the attempt to clone a human being, DNA alterations aided by Artificial Intelligence and the constant introduction of more and more potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals that cause sometime irreparable damage to the human body, mutations that evil scientists are using to introduce ‘hybrid beings’ that are neither human nor  robot but a mixture of the two, the similarities between the ‘Days of Noah’ and our current time are startling and eye-opening.

The world is now being deceived by certain groups, e.g., the WEF, the CDC, the WHO and others who are trying to play God and utterly corrupt the current human DNA and allow the earth to be controlled by inhuman or transhuman monsters. The timing of the events that ‘imitate’ the times of Noah indicate that we are in the days leading up to “the coming of the Lord”.

Paul told Timothy, in 2 Timothy 3:12-13, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” Every day we read of persecution against Christians around the world, and that will soon be coming to the US as well to all who choose to live Godly in Christ Jesus.

The deception the world is receiving is the absolute lie that some actions of evil men will create a perfect utopia on earth instead of bringing the destruction God has planned for all evil.

Unfortunately, some Christians are also accepting the deception and allowing themselves to be drawn into satanic behavior and religious apostasy instead of “living Godly in Christ Jesus”.

After Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives exited the ark, Noah built an altar and, of the clean animals he saved, He offered sacrifices to God. God then made a covenant with Noah promising that He would not ever again destroy the earth by a flood of water.

But just as man’s sin and rebellion caused the weather disasters recorded in God’s word in Genesis, the strange and unusual weather we are now witnessing is also a direct result of the increase of sin and rebellion against God and His word. We don’t know just how bad these weather events will become, but we know one thing for certain, the time leading up to the seven year period known as Daniel’s seventieth week, aka the Tribulation Period will bring destruction, devastation and loss of human life that has never been witnessed in human history.

Burt, DO NOT FEAR! As in the days of Noah God has a plan and neither man, nor Satan nor his demonic minions  have the power to stop that plan. Yes, evil will continue to become more evil and the catastrophic weather events will also continue and will cause men’s hearts to fear and fail, but we know that all who have entered into the “Ark of God’s Provision” will not only live, but will live eternally with God!

Blessings! And Maranatha!

©Bud Hancock. All rights reserved.

If I Wanted To Reshape The World To Have Fewer People → thumbnail

If I Wanted To Reshape The World To Have Fewer People →

By Vlad Tepes Blog

It occurs to me that our failings in the past decades all have one thing in common. We consistently and with a flawless record, fail to think as big as the people creating the problems facing us. That is to say, when we oppose a line of effort against us, we always treat the problem or issue as presented. When in fact it’s larger, and part of a much bigger planed assault on ourselves.

Take Global Warming.

There are a few layers of opposition. Those who know the science is fabricated and argue the science and try and get people to understand that Global Warming by man’s actions simply isn’t a real thing. That has nearly no chance of succeeding, but its one level of activism people can do.

Then, there are those who think Global Warming is a dialectic device to take control of especially Western industrial man using control of CO2 production as a means of ending productivity, or at least being in full control of it. One may notice that no alternatives to create of energy, such as nuclear or other means can be allowed. Only the problem of CO2 must remain in the forefront as a means to shape the future. Even when there are multiple ways to create the needed energy without producing it. Bad solutions, like electric cars are encouraged. Sorry, not bad solutions, things that kinda sorta look like solutions but actually make no difference or add to the problem and create new ones.

But a real psychopath might take it to the next level.

Imagine being so committed to the idea that the world has too many people on it that you needed to embark on a serious plan to reduce the world’s population.

Imagine that you had convinced enough people that the world was warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary, to the point that no one would interfere with a plan to geo-engineer the atmosphere to block out solar radiation for a time that would significantly cool the Earth.

Imagine that you had managed to get millions of people from warm parts of the Earth to move to cooler parts, even though it would multiply their carbon footprint by a factor of FOUR and the resources needed for life are far greater for each individual in say, Canada than in Namibia.

Imagine that the people doing the geo-engineering to “solve Global Warming” know damn well it isn’t happening. They would also then know that a warmer Earth means more food and more plant life and more animal life. Especially if the level of CO2 goes up a few more parts per billion.

So what would happen to the available food supply if the temperature of the Earth’s most productive growing regions fell by a few degrees?

RELATED VIDEO: Frederik Jansen on the Frankfurter Schule – The Laughland Report

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column published by   is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Here Is The Climate Cult’s True Agenda thumbnail

Here Is The Climate Cult’s True Agenda

By The Daily Caller

With the Biden administration’s latest bid to ban gas stoves, many Americans might be asking themselves where they came up with this one. As usual, climate change is one of the culprits – despite Snopes telling you otherwise. This campaign comes as businesses argue it would annihilate the restaurant industry and drive up consumer prices. But that might be exactly the point.

Climate alarmism is calculated to achieve a series of goals that for too long have been considered the domain of “conspiracy theorists.” It’s easy to dismiss them as craziness when we’re treated to spectacles of activists gluing their nipples to pavement or defacing priceless works of Western art.

But ignore the theater and look at a blueprint for climate goals: the C40 2019 report titled “The Future Of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World.”

C40 defines itself as an alliance of “mayors and [their] cities … taking ambitious, collaborative and urgent climate action that aligns with science-backed targets.” It includes New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles – you know – the usual suspects. The World Economic Forum (WEF) gives it a platform, so you know it’s going to be good.

The report says people must reduce consumption to “mitigate climate change.” So far, no problem. After all, in consumerist America, the amount of polluting junk that ends up in landfills boggles the mind. But that’s not what C40 has in mind.

Instead, C40 calls for phasing out all meat and dairy consumption by the year 2030. Fortunately, the WEF has a solution: Eat the bugs. It’s more eco-friendly than raising livestock for meat and milk.

Now on to air travel. The C40 project calls for citizens to only take “1 short haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every three years per person.” That means you get one ~1,000-mile flight – a little more than a flight between Chicago and New York City. No more international travel for you.

As for cars, the goal is a grand total of zero private vehicles. For clothing, you get a total of three new clothing items per year, all by 2030.

Now, skeptics will say there is no way anyone will sign on to this. And they would be correct. That is where the coercive hands of government, “philanthropy” and the private sector combine to screw you over.

Americans can look to Europe for what the Biden administration is planning here. France has already banned short-haul domestic flights within the country. In the Netherlands, the government has moved to close nearly 12,000 family farms and cut the livestock capacity of roughly another 18,000. And if a buyout doesn’t work, the Dutch government has indicated it will expropriate the properties.

In America, such measures are already under consideration. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, for all his incompetence in handling the various air crises, appears a willing player in this climate power grab, floating a mileage tax allegedly to help pay for infrastructure. However, anyone paying attention will realize that taxing mileage will disincentivize car ownership and aid towards the goal of zero private vehicles. When AOC talks about cow farts, she may sound stupid, but she is unwittingly pushing the same agenda as in the Netherlands.

And if people resist, there’s always the corporations ready to cut you off. Mastercard is already pioneering such an experiment with a “carbon limit” credit card (which is voluntary for now) that cuts your purchases off if you exceed your monthly limit. And the calculation tool is available to other banks, too. It’s not just Mastercard. Look at the list of the WEF’s partners and see how many brands you recognize that are involved in this “Great Reset.” This is how the C40 goals will be enforced. You will comply or be cut off from the financial system.

And if you think that’s bad, just wait until the Federal Reserve rolls out central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) to control and block any transaction you make. Sound like something out of Communist China? That’s because it is. It’s exactly how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) social credit system is designed.

Yet, none of the climate alarmists follow these suggestions. When John Kerry visits Davos, Switzerland, for the WEF summit, he will be flying ~4,000 miles, likely on a gas-guzzling private jet. Davos attendees certainly won’t be eating the bugs. Despite touting a meatless menu, there will still be the option of steaks at expensive Swiss restaurants. And if and when global emissions regulations do kick in, they will always have the option of buying carbon credits to increase their allowances.

And the worst part is that none of this is a “conspiracy theory.” It’s all documented and suggests these guys have nothing but contempt for you. Just look at what they say vs. what they do. Jill Biden gets to use a gas stove, but you don’t. Ted Turner gets to have five children, but you only get one. Bill Gates gets a massive yacht, Kerry gets his private jet and Al Gore gets his mansion, but you get to fly once every three years, live in a pod and eat the bugs.

Pay no attention to the crazy climate activists. They are simply a cover for this agenda which certainly seems hellbent on making sure you own nothing and are happy.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.

AUTHOR

MICHELE GAMA SOSA

Michele Gama Sosa is an opinion editor for the Daily Caller and a historian by training.

RELATED TWEET:

The face of pure evil pic.twitter.com/7U6QQAbHzT

— ThēPrìcklyThìstle (@TheeThistle) January 13, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Media Blackout Over Islamic Terror Attack At Vegas Solar Power Plant thumbnail

Media Blackout Over Islamic Terror Attack At Vegas Solar Power Plant

By The Geller Report

A Muslim is facing terror-related charges after police said he rammed his car through a gate at a solar plant outside Las Vegas and set his car on fire, disabling the huge facility, the 8 News Now Investigators have learned. Nothing to see here. No media coverage – even though it was a SOLAR plant.

Las Vegas Metro police responded to the solar plant on U.S. 93 north of the Las Vegas Motor Speedway, sources told the 8 News Now Investigators. Employees at the plant said they found a car smoldering in a generator pit. The Mega Solar Array facility provides energy to MGM properties but is run by a company called Invenergy.

The driver, later identified as Mohammad Mesmarian, 34, is accused of ramming through a fence and setting the car on fire. The car is registered out of Idaho, documents said.

Mesmarian faces charges of committing an act of terrorism, arson, destroying or injuring real or personal property…..

Media Blackout Over Terror Incident At Vegas Power Plant

by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Jan 07, 2023:

The US power grid is under attack as extremists shoot, sabotage, and vandalize electrical equipment at power stations. One of the highest-profile attacks was when two men used guns to paralyze a substation in Washington state on Christmas Day, leaving thousands without electricity. The incident made national news, but strangely enough, another attack last week on the Las Vegas power grid went unnoticed by the national press.

Mohammad Mesmarian, 34, rammed his car through the gate of a solar power generation plant outside Las Vegas on Wednesday and set his car on fire, intending to damage a massive transformer, 8 News Now reported.

“Employees at the plant said they found a car smoldering in a generator pit,” 8 News Now said, adding the Mega Solar Array facility provides power to 13 properties on the Las Vegas Strip, all belonging to MGM Resorts.

Investigators believe Mesmarian “siphoned gasoline from his car to put on wires at the transformer,” 8 News Now said, citing documents from investigators.

“Mesmarian clarified he burned the Toyota Camry,” police said. “Mesmarian said he burned the vehicle at a Tesla solar plant and did it ‘for the future.’”

Here’s security camera footage of Mesmarian lighting his car on fire next to a giant transformer.

The US power grid is under attack as extremists shoot, sabotage, and vandalize electrical equipment at power stations. One of the highest-profile attacks was when two men used guns to paralyze a substation in Washington state on Christmas Day, leaving thousands without electricity. The incident made national news, but strangely enough, another attack last week on the Las Vegas power grid went unnoticed by the national press.

Mohammad Mesmarian, 34, rammed his car through the gate of a solar power generation plant outside Las Vegas on Wednesday and set his car on fire, intending to damage a massive transformer, 8 News Now reported.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Regime Gives ‘Temporary’ Amnesty to Thousands of Somalis Living in U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: The Great Reset and The Green Fraud thumbnail

VIDEOS: The Great Reset and The Green Fraud

By Jamie Glazov

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano discusses The Great Reset and The Green Fraud, exposing The global elites’ pernicious agenda.


Please watch our 10-Part Series on The Hidden Agenda Behind the “Pandemic”

[1] Dr. Paul Alexander: Presidential Takedown – How Anthony Fauci, the CDC, NIH, and the WHO conspired to overthrow President Trump.

[2] Dr. Paul Alexander: Zero Covid and Tiananmen Square 2.0?

[3] Leo Hohmann: The “Next” Pandemic – How do the G20 leaders know it’s coming?

[4] Leo Hohmann: ‘SMART Cities’ Converting into Concentration Camps.

[5] Naomi Wolf: The Vax’s War on Human Intimacy and Survival – The injection’s assault on human love.

[6] Dr. Naomi Wolf: The Vax’s Crippling of Human Sexual Organs – How Medical experts are exposing the globalists’ vicious assault on human reproduction.

[7] Leo Hohmann: The Biggest Propaganda Operation in Human History – How the Biden admin recruited ‘trusted messengers’ everywhere to pressure Americans to get injected with the experimental vax.

[8] Patrick Wood: The Globalists’ Take-down of Humanity Via Technocracy – A harrowing glimpse at the global elitists’ plan to rip the world apart and rule it. 

[9] Dr. Vladimir Zelenko: The Globalists’ Transhumanist Agenda.

[10] Dr. Carrie Madej: Horror – Covid ‘Vaccine’ Vials Under the Microscope.

Subscribe to JamieGlazov.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This Glazov Gang column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Washington Post Now Claims Climate Is ‘Not Warming’ But It’s ‘WORSE For the Planet!’ thumbnail

Washington Post Now Claims Climate Is ‘Not Warming’ But It’s ‘WORSE For the Planet!’

By The Geller Report

So here we how, thirty years of this manure and it’s never mind, but wait, it’s worse than that!

They shit on you with impunity. They are destroying everything we value in our civilization with this insulting, contemptuous lie.

A new climate reality: Less warming, but worse impacts on the planet

The most severe climate change scenarios now appear less likely, but extremes are nonetheless poised to overwhelm societies, scientists say

By Scott Dance, Washington Post, January 6, 2023:

In the not-so-distant past, scientists predicted that global temperatures would surge dramatically throughout this century, assuming that humans would rely heavily on fossil fuels for decades. But they are revising their forecasts as they track both signs of progress and unexpected hazards.

Accelerating solar and wind energy adoption means global warming probably will not reach the extremes once feared, climate scientists say. At the same time, recent heat, storms and ecological disasters prove, they say, that climate change impacts could be more severe than predicted even with less warming.

Researchers are increasingly worried about the degree to which even less-than-extreme increases in global temperatures will intensify heat and storms, irreversibly destabilize natural systems and overwhelm even highly developed societies. Extremes considered virtually impossible not long ago are already occurring.

Scientists pointed to recent signs of societies’ fragility: drought contributing to the Arab Spring uprisings; California narrowly avoiding widespread blackouts amid record-high temperatures; heat waves killing tens of thousands of people each year, including in Europe, the planet’s most developed continent.

It’s an indication that — even with successful efforts to reduce emissions and limit global warming — these dramatic swings could devastate many stable societies sooner, and more often, than previously expected.

“We see already that extremes are bringing about catastrophe,” said Claudia Tebaldi, an earth scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash. “The question is: How are we going to possibly adapt and lower the risk by turning the dial of what we can control?”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Settled Science and the Politics of Knowledge thumbnail

Settled Science and the Politics of Knowledge

By Adam Ellwanger

Climate catastrophe keeps getting delayed, yet our doom remains imminent.

Over the last decade, “The Science is Settled” has been a major refrain of American life. As so many critics have noted, this phrase is not an empirical statement. People who challenge the “settled” state of science explain that science is a process of discovery and not a conclusion. They aren’t wrong, but they unfortunately assume that “the science is settled” is meant in good faith. It’s not. The slogan is a form of rhetorical bullying. Its singular purpose is to create an illusion of certitude in order to preempt any meaningful debate about the natural world, public policy, and the role of scientific knowledge in democratic deliberation.

“The Science,” we are told, is “settled” about many topics, but global climate change is the one where the science is most settled. The Earth is getting dangerously hot (and cold), and if we don’t take decisive action immediately, civilization as we know it may end. But as the years pass with no “comprehensive” action taken to fight climate change, the moment of civilizational collapse is quietly moved down the line, in increments of a few years at a time. The climate apocalypse is always just close enough that we should all be terrified, and just far enough away that we still have time to get serious and implement the sweeping (leftist) reforms that could save us. Convenient, isn’t it?

Nevertheless just because the logic is ludicrous doesn’t mean that the science isn’t settled. There is, in fact, a broad consensus of scientific experts on climate change. A popularly-cited statistic is that 97 percent of experts believe global climate change is manmade and that it presents a considerable threat. The unstated premise of “The Science is Settled” is that if there is a large consensus, then the consensus view must be right. Fortunately, though, there are ways to measure experts’ degree of certitude when it comes to the consensus on climate change. This is because the scientists can’t resist the urge to prophesy. The implementation of the Left’s broad climate policies depends on conveying the urgency of the problem, which requires that “the Science” depict the hell that awaits us if we opt for inaction.

Scientists would be horrified at my use of the term “prophesy.” They call their predictions “projections.” It’s true that there is a small difference: prophets have more skin in the game. After all, a prophet is discredited when his predictions don’t come to pass. By calling their prophecies “projections,” scientists get to be wrong without undermining their credibility. When they (wrongly) prophesied that there would no longer be glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020, they were simply extrapolating from the best data available at the time, which was fed into models. Strange though that when it comes to climate change, the “best data available at the time” always leads to projections that we realize (after the fact) overestimated the effects (rather than underestimating them). This tendency toward hyperbole begs the question: just how much certitude is required for the science to be “settled”?

The Prophecy of “NCA4”

By law, the U.S. Global Change Research Program must provide a “National Climate Assessment” report to Congress “no less than every four years.” As empirical documents, these reports naturally quantify the level of confidence that the experts have in the accuracy of their prophecies. The last report (referred to as “NCA4”) was submitted in early 2019, which means that we are due for NCA5 later this year. Indubitably, NCA5 will receive significant media attention since its covert purpose is to draw attention to (and therefore advance) the climate agenda. Thus climate reports are decidedly rhetorical documents despite experts’ insistence that science has no interest in rhetoric.

NCA5 will allow us to assess the accuracy of the prophecies foretold in NCA4, and we’ll also learn whether the apocalypse is unfolding on schedule. But in preparation for the new report, we not only have a duty to revisit the “projections” of NCA4, we must refresh our memories on just how much confidence experts had in those projections to begin with. The answer, it seems, is “not much.”

NCA4 was full of dire predictions. For example, the report warned, “Many millions of Americans live in coastal areas threatened by sea level rise; in all but the very lowest sea level rise projections, retreat will become an unavoidable option in some areas” (emphasis added). Note the certainty of the phrasing: “will become.” Although the quote explicitly acknowledges that some “projections” don’t foresee the U.S. coast being inundated, the writers make sure to emphasize that these (allegedly flawed) projections don’t undermine the “scientific consensus.” But then what of the curious assertion that “retreat will become an unavoidable option”? Here we see the rhetorical sleight of hand: by definition something that is “unavoidable” is not an “option.” And if retreat will be an “option,” then the hypothetical flooding would necessarily be negligible.

Elsewhere, though, the report stresses that there is no uncertainty about these matters at all: “Across the United States, many regions and sectors are already experiencing the direct effects of climate change. For these communities, climate impacts—from extreme storms made worse by sea-level rise, to longer-lasting and more extreme heat waves, to increased numbers of wildfires and floods—are an immediate threat, not a far-off possibility.”

Oddly, the bold prophecy quoted above comes after an admission: “The world we live in is a web of natural, built, and social systems—from global climate and regional climate; to the electric grid; to water management systems […]; to managed and unmanaged forests; and to financial and economic systems. Climate effects many of these systems individually, but they also affect one another, and often in ways that are hard to predict. […] A key factor in assessing risk […] is that it is hard to quantify and predict all the ways in which climate-related stressors might lead to severe or widespread consequences.”

Even the oft-repeated platitude that climate change causes more severe storms (an idea routinely touted as “settled science”) is cast in doubt: “Some storm types such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and winter storms are also exhibiting changes that have been linked to climate change, although the current state of the science does not yet permit detailed understanding.”

“Projection” and the Confidence Game

What, then, are we to think? How reliable are these (often contradictory) prophecies? Fortunately, the report gives some guidance. The writers say that the reliability of each “projection” is determined by two metrics: “confidence” and “likelihood.” The former is a qualitative measure of how confident researchers are in a given conclusion; the latter is a quantitative assessment of the statistical probability that the prophecy will come to pass.

When it comes to “confidence,” the report classifies its predictions with one of four descriptors: low, medium, high, or very high confidence. When you hear someone say that they have “high confidence” in a particular outcome, you probably think that means “almost certain.” But when readers peruse the fine print that explains how the report defines these terms, they find that only “moderate evidence” and “some consistency” in research findings is required in order to designate a “high confidence” prediction. Not only that, but “high confidence” projections are ones where “methods vary” in the supporting research “and/or documentation [is] limited.” Finally, the report says that its “high confidence” conclusions are drawn from a “medium consensus.”

In short, then, the definitional threshold for “high confidence” only seems to require a modicum of evidence. By design, readers of the report would miss this little trick unless they read the fine print in the preliminary materials of the report. And on the off-chance that a journalist was aware of the shockingly-low level of certitude required for such “high confidence,” most reporters wouldn’t mention it. After all, that would undermine the entire rhetorical purpose of the document. So much for the measure of “confidence.”

How do we fare on the scale of “likelihood”? Here the report offers five descriptors: “very likely” (defined as “≥ 9 in 10” chance), “likely” (defined as “≥ 2 in 3” chance), “as likely as not” (“1 in 2”), “unlikely” (“≤ 1 in 3”), and “very unlikely” (“≤ 1 in 10”). Of course, this scale is completely useless as the deliberative weight of these measures wholly depends on the case in question.

If a bag held nine red slips of paper and one green one and you told me that if I draw the green one wearing a blindfold that I will win a million dollars, I would see “1 in 10” as surprisingly good odds. I wouldn’t call winning the million a “very unlikely” outcome (as the report’s metric would). In the same vein, if you told me that a horse had a 66 percent chance of winning the race, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a “likely” outcome (as the report would), and I certainly wouldn’t place a large bet on it. After all, “experts” often make “very likely” predictions with a 99 percent chance of happening—only to get it wrong. Let’s assume, though, that scientists’ estimates of likelihood are accurate when it comes to climate change. Is a 70 percent chance of catastrophe a high enough likelihood to justify costly, sweeping reforms that would fundamentally change the nation’s way of life?

With all its inconsistencies and misdirection, the authors of the report still find ways to congratulate themselves: “climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly within the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations.” Older readers might find this praise strange given that the expert narrative as recently as the late 1970s was that we were entering a new ice age. Has the reliability of their prophecies improved since then? It doesn’t look like it. Some who are inclined to climate alarmism will be tempted to think that I am cherry-picking. Maybe I’ve just chosen isolated, egregious passages from NCA4? Maybe other climate reports don’t play these rhetorical tricks? Readers who harbor these doubts can read my much longer analysis that demonstrates the same tendencies in reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Resisting Scientific Clerisy

The NCA5 will be just as thick with prophecies, masquerading as “projections” that never seem to come true. It will surely warn us that the global threat is even more dire than it was when NCA4 was published, but it will also silently move doomsday a few more years down the road to give us time to pass the preferred legislation. Who knows? Perhaps the climate apocalypse really is “the day after tomorrow.” But the deep, dark secret of climate science is that it will always be the day after tomorrow. That’s because when it does arrive, there will be no more research funding to be had for climate research. Worse, all hope for passing a “Green New Deal” would be extinguished. Those things can’t happen, so the charade rolls on.

*****
This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Why Banning Gas Stoves Is Not a Serious Way to Fight Climate Change thumbnail

Why Banning Gas Stoves Is Not a Serious Way to Fight Climate Change

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

In July, in an effort to combat global warming, Berkeley, California, became the first city in the United States to prohibit natural gas in new buildings, including residential homes.

“We need to tackle climate change every way that we can,” said Berkeley City Councilwoman Kate Harrison, who led the effort.

Other cities, including Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Jose, are developing their own policies in what appears to be the latest trend to save the planet. But does banning gas for heating and cooking in residential developments make sense?

Lawmakers and environmental activists often overlook important issues.

Assuming that people will continue to cook their meals at home and that exotic solutions such as sun-powered grills are exercised by a tiny fraction of the population, people will still need devices that heat their pots and pans for cooking.

On a gas stove, you burn natural gas to heat the water for your tea. In the case of an electric stove, you burn natural gas (or coal, oil, or biomass) in a power plant to heat water that turns turbines that produce electricity that heats the stove that heats the water for your tea. Simple physics reminds us that as energy passes from one state of matter to another, energy loss is inevitable. Burning gas to make electricity is only about 40 percent efficient, on average.

The environmental effect of switching from gas stoves to electric stoves depends largely on how the electricity is produced. If your electricity comes from renewable sources, there is greater potential for shrinking your carbon footprint. If your electricity comes from coal-powered plants that don‘t capture carbon dioxide, then switching could be worse for the environment since coal produces more carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas.

In 2018, about 17 percent of electricity produced came from renewables, with 35 percent coming from natural gas, 27 percent coming from coal, and 19 percent coming from nuclear.

Given current U.S. electricity production, if you banned natural gas stoves across the country, only two out of ten would be powered by renewable energy—the remaining eight would be powered by electricity generated from coal (three), nuclear (two), and natural gas (three).

California produces about 44 percent of its electricity from renewables, so swapping natural gas for electricity makes more sense there than, say, Florida, where renewables generate just three percent of the state’s electricity.

There are other problems, however. Take peak demand. Electric heating usually uses a lot of energy—to such an extent that British grid operators need to predict when a major soccer match ends so that they can ramp up production at tea time, when millions of Brits plug in electric kettles. (This is less of a problem today because of on-demand streaming.)

What this means is that even if electricity from renewables increased substantially, due to the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, you might end up in a situation where gas-powered electricity production plants are working overtime during peak demand. This is an issue that electric grid operators face on a daily basis.

While cooking is far from the main consumer of electricity, a mass switch from cooking on gas to cooking on electricity could add stress to the system. Moreover, if bans extend from cooking on gas to heating homes with gas, the problems would likely be even more severe.

Of course, in some cases, especially where natural gas infrastructure is not in place, cooking with electricity from the grid might make more sense than expensive new investments in natural gas pipelines. But if operational pipelines are already there, banning gas is a poor use of resources.

To be sure, these issues are not unsolvable. Smart grids, better planning and forecasting, more efficient methods to store and release electric power (think giant batteries or hydroaccumulation plants), superior electric stoves, and better technology in general might solve some or all of these problems. But banning gas-powered stoves before this better technology has arrived is similar to banning horses before cars had been invented.

Some say bans on cooking with natural gas is a symbolic gesture. Indeed. But it is the worst kind of symbol—one designed to make people feel good rather than do good. An outright blanket ban on natural gas in homes, especially if extended throughout the country, would make little environmental sense—and no economic sense.

Frankly, such ill-conceived gestures undermine the good faith efforts of those seeking to pass sound environmental policy.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner. 

AUTHOR

Zilvinas Silenas

Zilvinas Silenas is the president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Now The Left is Trying to Blame All Post-Vax Sudden Deaths On—Climate Change thumbnail

Now The Left is Trying to Blame All Post-Vax Sudden Deaths On—Climate Change

By The Geller Report

Now that it is impossible to escape the horrible post-vaccine phenomena of  young adults are dying suddenly, the left is blaming, wait for it — climate change. If that doesn’t tell you just how stupid they think we are and what malarkey the whole climate hoax is.

“Scientists Studying Temperature at Which Humans Spontaneously Die With Increasing Urgency.”

July 7, 2021

Died suddenly = climate changehttps://t.co/Hcz6zyZN3K https://t.co/RnfHWXHpfH

— annakres77 (@annakres77) January 9, 2023

More young healthy people died today. White House says it’s from Climate Change. Can’t make this shit up.

— ULTRA MAGA LIBERAL SLAYER 🇺🇸 (@democratslie69) January 9, 2023

#diedsuddenly must be Climate change ?! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/yQaK4LhjDh

— Andrew Turek (@TurekAndrew) January 2, 2023

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEETS:

Biden Administration To Consider Banning Gas Stoves Over Concerns From EPA And WHO https://t.co/pQKqEDHHE6

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) January 10, 2023

Breaking: Adam Schiff and Pelosi call for an immediate criminal investigation into Trump over the events unfurling in Brazil. pic.twitter.com/BVW7Iiou0f

— Merissa Hansen🇺🇸 (@merissahansen17) January 8, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

Harvard Med Research on mRNA Vax Spike Protein Undermines Fact-Checkers, COVID Censorship

Thrice Vaxxed Young Television Reporter Sparks Vaccine Fears After Collapsing Live On Air

“Physician Misinformation Bill” Goes Into Effect as Law in California, Prevents Doctors From Speaking Freely, Could Lose Their Medical License

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gov. Newsom Claims State That Bans Cars and Speech Offers ‘Freedom For All’ thumbnail

Gov. Newsom Claims State That Bans Cars and Speech Offers ‘Freedom For All’

By Jihad Watch

You can do anything in California except open a business, walk down the street, or buy a home.


Gov. Gavin Newsom, the democratic choice of the enlightened ballot harvesters of California, desperately wants to be president. Despite pledging not to run against Biden, he’s continuing to posture by announcing an “anti-Jan 6” march (whatever the hell that is) for his inauguration. The one-party governor of one of the most corrupt states in America then spent his speech ranting about Republicans in other states.

California’s unelected governor wants to reframe freedom to mean mandatory masks and car bans. Not to mention state censorship of online speech.

Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom.

Gavin Newsom triumphantly marched toward California’s statehouse to deliver an inaugural speech that celebrated California’s freedoms and the state’s resistance to forces that “want to take the nation backward.”

“More than any people, in any place, California has bridged the historical expanse between freedom for some, and freedom for all,” he said under cloudy but dry skies for the first time in days.

“Freedom is our essence, our brand name – the abiding idea that right here anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything.”

Except work freelance, drive a truck, buy a car, get disposable utensils, buy a fur coat, install a gas stove or any of the tens of thousands of things that the Democrat one-party system has banned in some or all of the state.

You can do anything in California except open a business, walk down the street, gas up your car or buy a home. It’s the land of dreams, the hotel you check into and then escape through the back window.

California is so incredibly free that, like North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, everyone is running away.

Gov. Newsom has the unique honor of presiding over a population loss every year in office.

“California’s population continues to dwindle. The state’s population declined by 114,000 people from about 39,143,000 in 2021 to 39,029,000 in 2020, new estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau show. It marks the third straight year that California has reported a loss.”

While Texas and Florida, the states he’s attacking, are gaining people, the only folks California is gaining are coming illegally over the border.

That and sex predators.

Unlike other states, Newsom said, California safeguards freedoms like “the freedom for teachers to teach, freedom from litmus tests about their political party or the person they love.”

California safeguards the right of teachers to “love” the kids of their choice. Republican teachers however get fired.

“They make it harder to vote and easier to buy illegal guns. They silence speech, fire teachers, kidnap migrants, subjugate women, attack the Special Olympics, and even demonize Mickey Mouse,” he said about conservative leaders like DeSantis. “All camouflaged under a hijacking of the word ‘freedom.’”

Whereas in California, Mickey Mouse can expose himself to children. Freedom!

In California, public school teachers, whose insane salaries are subsidized by property taxes no new residents can afford to pay unless they’re millionaires, can groom 9-year-olds. Freedom!

In California, vagrants and junkies have a right to camp in front of your home, but you have to wait 3 years to get a permit to have any work done. Freedom!

In California, a race riot is a civil right while trying to defend yourself against them is a crime. Freedom!

In California, shoplifting is legal, but opening a business isn’t. Freedom!

Wait, why is everyone fleeing the land of the fee and the home of the slave? Wait for the reparations. Stay for the car ban. Or the mandatory ethnic studies. And the race riots. And the tax hikes.

Big population drops in L.A., San Francisco transform state – Los Angeles Times

Why are you leaving the home of freedom? Why?

Do you have something against systemic racism, child abuse, mentally ill vagrants smoking crack, high taxes, and no legal rights whatsoever, you reactionary bigot. You’re taking the nation “backward”.

And California is going backward. Instead of, Go West, Young Man, it’s now Go East.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How Green Investors Pay the Media to Promote ‘Climate Change’ thumbnail

How Green Investors Pay the Media to Promote ‘Climate Change’

By Jihad Watch

A logo for The Associated Press is seen at its headquarters in New York on Tuesday, April 26, 2016. AP’s earnings rose 30 percent last year as the news cooperative recorded a huge tax gain and cut costs to help offset a revenue downturn reflecting the long-running financial woes plaguing newspapers and other media. (AP Photo/Hiro Komae)

AP takes millions from groups leveraged in green investments to promote the need for green investments.


The Associated Press revealed last year that it had scored $8 million to promote claims of global warming. The AP impartially described this massive conflict of interest as an illustration of “how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new funding source for journalism”.

“This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story,” its executive editor claimed. That is no doubt true. And an incredibly damaging admission.

The philanthropic quid-pro-quo saw five organizations fund the AP’s dedicated team of “more than two dozen journalists” to cover “climate issues” that the wire service would then plant in papers around the country to terrify Americans into supporting ‘green’ taxes and subsidies.

The Associated Press did not bother to explain to its readers or the newspapers that run its stories why these organizations were impelled to throw millions at it except sheer benevolence.

Nor did it explain why they might be particularly interested in convincing Americans that the climate sky is falling and that our economy must be dismantled and ‘greened’: raising energy prices and putting millions out of work. The paragon service of journalism did not even bother explaining to its readers what one of the five, Quadrivium, was beyond a Latin word.

Quadrivium is the pet project of James Murdoch and his wife, the ‘black sheep’ of Clan Murdoch, who left the family business in a huff “due to disagreements over certain editorial content published by the Company’s news outlets“. Quadrivium seeks to reach “a majority of the public” to generate “urgent action” on the bipartisan passage of a US climate strategy.”

The proposed template is the “carbon rebate plan” which would tax Americans through their carbon use and then promise to pay some of the money back to them. The plan comes from the Climate Leadership Council whose board includes Kathryn Murdoch: James’s wife.

CLC’s partners include major banks, JP Morgan, Santander and Goldman Sachs, energy companies, BP, Shell and Conoco, who believe that the proposal will be good for them.

The AP has helpfully promoted the CLC’s carbon tax plan in puff pieces like “Carbon tax plan worthy of bipartisan support”. Its editorial board described the CLC as a “group of venerable Republicans” and claims that taxing Americans for the benefit of special interests would be “a quintessentially conservative plan”. That was a strange new respect from the AP which has relentlessly tried to associate Republicans and conservatives with Nazis.

The “venerable Republicans” currently on CLC’s board include not only Kathryn Murdoch, but also a former Goldman Sachs executive focusing on climate finance, a board member of the Brown Advisory Sustainable Investing Advisory Board and a founding managing partner of “Qiming Venture Partners: one of China’s premier VC firms” that was an early investor in TikTok.

That is what ESG looks like underneath the Gen Z activists being paid to scream in the streets even as the AP is being paid to scream more respectably in stories planted in local papers.

Serious journalism would ask questions or at least mention some of this in passing. The AP instead acts as a mouthpiece without even enough lingering self-respect to disclose any of that.

James Murdoch has put a lot of  money into green projects. His foundation joined a consortium of investors piling into BlackRock’s $250 million climate fund. He’s also on the board of directors of Tesla, and a potential candidate to succeed Musk, and the EV car company’s business model depends on a government subsidized climate panic.

Lupa Systems, Murdoch’s venture capital fund, also has some investments in environmental startups. The AP might have mentioned this to its readers before writing an article congratulating itself for taking cash to promote Murdoch’s views. But it’s not just Murdoch.

The Rockefeller Foundation, which is another of the Big 5 funding AP’s climate propaganda, put $500 million into green energy abroad. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, another of the AP’s climate sugar daddies, has numerous climate initiatives, and these include the Climate Finance Fund. The Foundation refuses to invest in companies that drill for gas or oil.

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, set up by the eccentric tycoon as a tax shelter, was quickly hijacked after his death. Delaware, where it was incorporated, appointed a board that sold off Hughes Aircraft to GM. But HMMI’s original emphasis on medical research has more recently declined into wokeness. Last year, HMMI announced a $2 billion investment to increase “diversity” in science. HMI appears to be a major investor in Kreido Biofuels,

And finally there’s the fifth of the AP’s big five climate funders: the Walton Family Foundation.

The foundation of the Walmart heirs has four board members. Lukas Walton, Sam Walton’s grandson, also serves as its Environment Program Committee Chair. Lukas’ $4 billion Builders Version organization directs 90% of its investments into ESG. S2G Ventures, its capital fund, declares that its mission is “investing in a humane and healthy planet.” It has an extensive portfolio of ‘green’ companies including Bluestar Energy Capital, a green energy investment company, Common Energy, a solar power company, Electric Hydrogen, and Carbon America which focuses on carbon capture.

Those investments seem likely to do better if Mr. and Mrs. America, or at least the CEOs and financiers who take the media seriously, keep reading about the threat of “climate change”.

The AP is taking money from organizations heavily leveraged in green investments to promote the need for green investments. And it fails to disclose the financial interests that its funders have in promoting global warming hysteria.

The closest that it gets to addressing the inherent conflict of interest comes when Brian Carovillano, AP’s vice president for grants, concedes that, “this is a mutually beneficial arrangement.”

The AP’s benefit is obvious. What’s the benefit to the donors?

Instead of answering that question, the AP story simply notes that Brian Carovillano had to “get used to the idea that funders weren’t just being generous; they had their own goals to achieve.”

The AP echoes Carovillano’s insistence that the money comes “without strings attached; the funders have no influence on the stories that are done”. Except that the whole point of the grant is for the service to produce stories on the topic that the funders are interested in. Since the AP is not about to report that there are more polar bears than at any time since the 1960s or that climate doomers keep changing the date when everyone will die every few years, the content is predictable. The AP would like to benefit from repeat business from these massive foundations, so it’s going to produce the kinds of stories that will bring more money flowing its way.

That’s the way to maintain the “mutually beneficial arrangement” aimed at helping the Associated Press pay the bills while helping its generous donors fulfill their “goals”.

In recent years, Democrats and the media have targeted conservative groups like the Heartland Institute claiming that they act as “fronts” for oil companies. The AP promoted documents stolen from the Heartland Institute about its funders and has spent years running hit pieces on Heartland without revealing that the wire service is a paid shill for green special interests.

The AP’s arrangement sheds light on the media’s financial agenda in promoting green programs that would destroy the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans. While the media has its biases, these are not wholly organic. The ability of special interests to capture the media at the source by targeting wire services like the AP shows how what we read about the environment is being manipulated by networks of special interests with billions at stake.

The next time you see an AP story about “climate change”, you know who’s paying for it.

Democrats have proposed an investigation of Heartland and the oil companies. It may be time for an investigation of the AP and the financial interests funding its global warming propaganda.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: A Foul Wind Blows Through Idaho thumbnail

VIDEO: A Foul Wind Blows Through Idaho

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

You may have heard about the countless wind energy projects being forced on communities across the United States in the name of Biden’s radical climate agenda.

One such project is called the Lava Ridge wind project. Once completed, it would be located in Idaho’s unique and majestic Magic Valley, the same region that is home to such treasures as Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve.

Local citizens are up in arms over this ill-conceived project. They are rightly concerned it will worsen water shortages in the area and wouldn’t even supply power to Idahoans but rather ship the electricity down to Nevada and California.

CFACT’s Gabriella Hoffman decided to investigate this situation and documented her findings in a new video that is part of the Committee’s Conservation Nation YouTube series.

Watch the video.

The Lava Ridge project could encompass 400 massive turbines, all taller than the Space Needle and the Washington Monument, covering an area of 73,000 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM is set to release their Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Lava Ridge project on January 13, 2023.

“If we’re going to allow giant corporations to put wind farms on Idaho so they can ship power to California, there’s no end to it,” said Brian Olmstead, a member of the Idaho Water Resource Board. “We’ve got public lands everywhere and they’re all beautiful – there’s not one of them anywhere that I know of that’s ugly enough to put a bunch of 600-foot spinning, flashing, strobing windmills out there.”

We must spread the word about the threat these monstrous wind turbines pose to our environment, our water, and our communities!

For nature and people too.

RELATED VIDEO: Morano on Tucker: Name blackouts after politicians pushing “Green energy”

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EPIC WOKE FAILURE: NYC’s Electric Garbage Trucks Die In The Cold, Plunge City Into Chaos thumbnail

EPIC WOKE FAILURE: NYC’s Electric Garbage Trucks Die In The Cold, Plunge City Into Chaos

By The Geller Report

And they’re not powerful enough to plow snow. The great harm the left is doing to our cities, infrastructure is …..deliberate

As I have often said, the law of unintended consequences are always on our side.

Snow go for NYC’s electric garbage trucks that can’t handle winter weather

By Sophia Chang, Dec 27, 2022:

Don’t count on seeing electric garbage trucks plowing snow from city streets any time soon.

Dumb liberals and their idiotic solutions. https://t.co/hOnHJpNB1Q

— Conservative (@LeftistBasher) December 28, 2022

The city Department of Sanitation’s goals to become carbon neutral are clashing with the limits of electric-powered vehicles.

The department aims to switch all 6,000 vehicles in its fleet from gas to electric as part of the state’s goal to reduce emissions by 2040. But city officials say they haven’t found electric garbage trucks that are powerful enough to plow snow.

The department has ordered seven electric rear loader garbage trucks, custom-made by Mack and costing more than $523,000 each, with delivery slated for the spring. Used for curbside trash collection, the department’s current rear loader truck fleet runs on diesel and is outfitted with plows to clear streets during snow season.

But officials say previous electric trucks tested by sanitation have not lasted longer than four hours plowing snow before running out of power, and the new electric trucks will be used for trash collection but not plowing snow.

“We found that they could not plow the snow effectively – they basically conked out after four hours. We need them to go 12 hours,” Sanitation Commissioner Jessica Tisch told the City Council last month. “Given the current state of the technology, I don’t see today a path forward to fully electrifying the rear loader portion of the fleet by 2040.

“We can’t really make significant progress in converting our rear loader fleet until the snow challenges are addressed,” she added.

Some other snowy cities don’t use garbage trucks for snow removal. In Denver, municipal snow clearing is done by smaller light-duty trucks equipped with plows, and some residential streets may not get plowed by the city at all.

But New York City’s commitment to plowing each street puts the sanitation department’s 2,100 collection trucks to work each winter, clearing the equivalent of 19,000 miles of street lanes. The service is one of the mayor’s most important duties. Mayors Bill de Blasio and Michael Bloomberg both faced withering criticism while in office for slow snow removal.

The department’s goal of fully electrifying its fleet goes beyond technological challenges presented by the vehicles themselves. It also requires building charging stations and other infrastructure, Tisch said.

Keep reading……

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Switzerland looking to ban electric cars to save energy

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

As Other Automakers Push EVs, This Luxury Brand Drove Laps Around Them In 2022 thumbnail

As Other Automakers Push EVs, This Luxury Brand Drove Laps Around Them In 2022

By The Daily Caller

While electric vehicle (EV) startups that once seemed promising saw their stock prices plummet far faster than the rest of the market, Ferrari managed to stay ahead of other automakers as the industry retracted, and is poised to post the smallest decline amongst major automakers in 2022, CNBC reported Wednesday.

The FactSet Automotive Index, a measure of the economic health of the auto industry, is down nearly 39% year-to-date at time of writing, whereas Ferrari’s stock is only down about 19% trading at roughly $210 per share, according to Google Finance. With just a few days left in the year, Ferrari was well ahead of traditional automakers such as General Motors and Ford, who were each down more than 45% this year, and left EV-focused startups in the dust, according to CNBC.

EV startups RivianLucid and Canoo all posted losses of more than 80% year-to-date, while competitor Nikola saw shares fall nearly 78%, according to Google Finance. Other mainstream brands, such as Dodge-maker Stellantis, and Toyota saw declines of nearly 30% year-to-date, weathering 2022 without the production and liquidity issues that startups struggled with this year, according to CNBC.

The dynamic developments of the #FerrariRoma are focused on delivering superior pleasure behind the wheel, in every condition. #DrivingFerrari #Ferrari pic.twitter.com/jiLuATZTg9

— Ferrari (@Ferrari) December 26, 2022

Tesla, perhaps the most high-profile EV maker in the U.S., is down roughly 70% year-to-date, losing nearly 20% in the week ending Dec. 23 after CEO Elon Musk spooked investors by selling around $3.5 billion worth of shares. While some investors are concerned that Musk is spending too much time managing Twitter, the social media platform he acquired in October, Musk blames heightened interest rates set by the Federal Reserve to combat inflation for weakening the stock market.

Elevated interest rates have also made car loans more expensive, helping push demand for new vehicles down as 2023 approaches, S&P Global Mobility reported. To spur demand, companies may be forced to cut prices, hurting profits and further damaging their value in the eyes of shareholders.

Ferrari, meanwhile, expects demand will continue to be strong, including for its first-ever SUV, the Purosangue, which will be launched next year, CNBC reported. Although the car starts at $400,000 in the U.S. — well above Ferrari’s average selling price of $322,000 — the company was forced to pause new orders after it received orders for two years’ worth of production.

“[Ferrari’s] focus on the unique quality and performance of its vehicles is unwavering, and has driven a track record of resilient financial performance, as well as significant intangible brand value and a true luxury status,” wrote John Murphy, a Bank of America securities analyst in a Dec. 13 note to investors, according to CNBC. Murphy recommended that investors buy Ferrari, estimating that the stock would be fairly valued at $285 per share.

Ferrari is set to produce its first EV in 2025, and anticipates 40% of its cars will be fully electric by 2030, while 80% will be electrified in some capacity by the same time, according to Forbes. Despite this, Ferrari still intends to improve upon its combustion engine models.

“I believe that the internal combustion engine has a lot to give,” CEO Bendetto Vigna told investors in June, Forbes reported.

Ferrari did not immediately respond to a Daily Caller News Foundation request for comment.

AUTHOR

JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Automakers Could Be Forced To Cut Prices — And Profits — In 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Thirsty Arizona Could Soon Look to the Mexican Coast for Answers thumbnail

Thirsty Arizona Could Soon Look to the Mexican Coast for Answers

By Cameron Arcand

Arizona officials have taken some of the first steps to bring seawater from the Mexican coast to the faucets of Phoenix, even if lawmakers want a more deliberative process.

Arizona’s Joint Legislative Water Committee held a public meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority’s push to create a desalination plant amid the state’s water crisis.

Before the meeting, the WIFA board met and discussed a request from the Israeli company IDE Technologies for financing the project on the Sea of Cortez.

According to ABC 15, the proposal seeks to build a large desalination plant – which removes the salt from seawater in an energy-intensive process – and move that water to the Central Arizona Project Canal for consumption. Multiple sources report WIFA approved their staff to begin conversations with IDE.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the legislative committee said their concern does not have much to do with the project itself but rather the process.

‘I know that my comments may be stern, it comes from not in judgment of this project, but in judgment of the process and the lack of transparency,” Sen. Lisa Otondo, D-Yuma, said.

The hearing comes after there was expressed concern that there would not be enough opportunity for public input and questions from legislators.

“The Legislature has learned of a rushed movement by the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority to provide preliminary approval of a large expenditure of taxpayer dollars on a desalination plant proposal without an appropriate opportunity for public discussion and comment,” Kim Quintero, senate Republican director of communications, said in an email statement last week.

“There is certainly value in the mentioned proposal, but we are concerned about the process of this approval,” she added.

According to the Arizona Capitol Times, the project also needs the green light from the federal government. The outlet’s assistant editor, Wayne Schutsky, tweeted Tuesday that the plant would be entirely private, but WIFA would buy water under the current proposal, as they are being asked to contribute $750 million.

*****

This article was published by The Center Square – Arizona and is reproduced with permission.

UK Close to Blackout, While 12% of Germany GDP Pays for Energy Crisis thumbnail

UK Close to Blackout, While 12% of Germany GDP Pays for Energy Crisis

By Joanne Nova

Last Monday in Great Britain the entire steel industry shut down because the wind stopped and wholesale prices reached £2,586 a megawatt-hour. As winter cranks up, British factories are getting ready to shutdown, as the threat of small, medium and blockbuster blackouts loom. In the fifth largest economy in the world, thousands of people are using communal warm spaces because they can’t afford electricity any longer, and the largest North Sea gas producer has decided not to drill for more gas just when the country needs it. The government has slapped a new tax on it, thus achieving the exact opposite of what the government aimed for.

Meanwhile over in Germany one eighth of the entire national economy is now consumed with paying for the energy crisis of 2022. They tried to hold back the seas in 2100 but forgot to secure their own electricity a year in advance.

These are very expensive experiments. They aren’t telling you this but UK is close to nationwide blackouts.

*****

This article was published by CFACT and is reproduced with permission.