Climate Hustlers & Media use Scare Tactics to Sell Green Agenda

“It’s not your imagination: Sacramento is getting hotter, data shows.” the Sacramento Bee headline cautioned Friday. They also say, “The six warmest years in California have all happened in the past decade, according to NOAA.”

Is this just a little misleading? Quite.

The Sacramento region is experiencing a heat wave, which is expected nearly every summer since temperatures were recorded. Media are hyping that Sunday was the hottest in Sacramento history, but they ignore that it is normal to have triple digit temperatures every July in Sacramento. So we reached 109. We do every summer.

As the Globe reported Friday, “Now that Summer has finally arrived in California, many of these shameless green agenda forecasters are warning of a ‘dangerously hot’ summer.”

And we went back decades to show the temperatures using NOAA data.

In July 1973, Sacramento’s hottest day was 107 degrees; 1983 was 104 °F; 1993 was 106 °F; 2013 was 109 °F, and so on. The highest temperature recorded in Sacramento, California in 1920 was 108 °F – before air conditioning.

As the Globe reported last summer, between 1972 and 1992, over 20 years, every summer in Sacramento was in the triple digits, and there were four summers that had days hotter than 110 degrees.

The highest temperature recorded in Sacramento, California in 1877 was 103 °F which happened on Jul 12.

The Sacramento Bee claims “the six warmest years in California have all happened in the past decade, according to NOAA,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Alex Epstein, who is an energy expert and not a climate pimp, says the amount of warming that has occurred is about 2°F in 100 years. And he says 2°F  increase in temperatures would not challenge a grid fueled by fossil fuels and other reliable, resilient fuel sources.

Epstein is also the author of the New York Times bestseller The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future.

As Epstein notes, heat waves are not unprecedented: “An extreme heat wave and high electricity demand in summer are not unexpected for grid planners.”

“Around the world, countries use fossil fuels to deliver reliable electricity under heat and cold extremes beyond what we face in the US,” Epstein says.

It seems incongruous that so many Democrats would be so enthusiastic and even forceful about the green energy agenda given that they too are paying a premium for alternative energy and suffer under rolling blackouts and energy shortages.

Headlines such as this one explain why:

“Biden pushes green energy agenda after campaign donations from green industry.”

And sure enough, less than a month into his presidency, Biden shut down work on the Keystone XL pipeline and banned future gas and oil leases on federal lands, ending U.S. energy independence and ensuring an energy crunch.

The concept of “public service” went out the window with the Clinton administration. Politicians today have become pass-throughs for donors – in both directions – to the government, and from the government into green energy projects.

Here is why: The green industry is heavily reliant on government-awarded funds.

And that explains why no amount of common sense or even science is used in America’s current energy focus.

Epstein blows apart the Green Agenda’s claims:

Myth: Fossil fuels are making electricity unreliable via “extreme weather”—so we need to use solar and wind.

Truth: Fossil fuels can provide reliable electricity even under the most speculative extremes—whereas unreliable solar and wind alone can’t provide it under any conditions.

The latest attempt to pretend that fossil fuels are causing electricity problems that can only be solved by solar and wind is to dishonestly fixate on the moments during a heatwave when solar and wind happen to produce electricity and ignore (the many more) moments they don’t.⁴

Myth: Solar and wind are helping save our grid from extreme heat caused by fossil-fueled climate change.

Truth: Preferences for solar and wind have made our grid embarrassingly vulnerable to heat waves—and cold snaps—that a fossil-fueled grid could easily manage. (emphasis Alex Epstein’s)

• Bloomberg: “Green-power sources contributed about a third of total output Wednesday.”This is blatant cherry-picking: taking an unusually good day of sunlight and wind and pretending it can be generalized. Also, the unreliable output was 100% dependent on fossil-fueled life support.
• Even during the period of unusually high solar and wind that Bloomberg cherry-picked to claim “Air Conditioners Keep Humming on Renewable Power,” solar and wind at times provided < 20% of Texas electricity. Of course, that portion of the time didn’t make the Bloomberg story.

Epstein laments that Texas and California bought into the green agenda with unreliable wind and solar, sacrificing energy independence as both states are rich in oil and gas. And both states experience rolling blackouts during weather events.

California is rich in natural resources which once powered the state: natural gas deposits in the Monterey Shale formation; geothermal energy, abundant rivers and waterways such as the San Joaquin River Delta and hydroelectric dams; the Pacific coastline; 85 million acres of wildlands with 17 million of those used as commercial timberland; and mines and mineral resources.

Environmentalists have no special love for electric cars – they just want everyone out of cars. So if they can make electricity so expensive that people can’t afford to drive electric cars, well then good.

And this is done by California’s politicians and political appointees by limiting energy sources rather than using an all-of-the-above approach to energy production in California: Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar and wind.

If all we are allowed to use is renewable energy for electricity production – a deliberate energy shortage – statewide shortages and rolling blackouts inevitably become the new California normal. We are being conditioned to accept this as normal by some very evil leaders.

As Epstein explains:

“Fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 100 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—~1°C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher than today’s.”

“Fossil fuels have actually made us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.”

As for the claim by Green Agenda hustlers that “extreme heat” and man-caused CO2 emissions are causing more warming, Epstein refutes that:

What’s your plan to keep warming under the 1.5°C that scientists say is necessary?

The goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to limit warming to 1.5°C since the 1800s—~0.5°C from today—in a world where far more people die of cold than of heat—is genocidal pseudoscience.

Apparently Democrats don’t want the people to be safe against heat and drought with low-cost energy.

Take a look at Alex Epstein’s “How to Answer Loaded Climate Questions” – thoughtful answers, including when you are accused of being a climate denier.