patrick.net

AP Busted for depending on a source that manufactures plant-based pet food - but not mentioning that in the article.

rocketjoe79 says

Go back and read the book by Michael Crichton "State of Fear", a readable novel debunking Climate Change from 2014. Still valid today.

From 2004, but a great book.

I take back what I said about Global Warming. Green measures are not only designed to fail, they are designed to pollute, toxify, poison and blow up on command. I retract my previous position that they were only designed to fail.

MolotovCocktail says

Nero Newscum is the new Pied Piper (with bizarre zombie Edmund Muskie) of the International Globalist Communist Feudalism Movement known as 'Global Warming'.

Enlist the stupids to agree with virtue signaling that they should become fertilizer because of a massive guilt trip that they consume resources. All of the Globalist crimes are described as Global Warming phenomena (problem, reaction, solution).

The psychopaths don't have guilt trips. They indoctrinate guilt in the susceptible and weaponize it. They get the stupid sheeples to yoga waltz into their crematoriums.

With military high level HAARP and DEW, they can turn any city into WWII Dresden in a matter of days. We are in the era of undeclared space wars disguised as weather.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/12/supply-boom-in-cheaper-renewables-will-seal-end-of-fossil-fuel-era-says-iea

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-outlook-2025-free-dataset

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025

Ice Age Catastrophism iz back in biz, bitches!



https://youtu.be/NQSBn50o_8M?si=ALToN7RPSBtzpkc6

https://x.com/RonDeSantis/status/1991989205086736781

MolotovCocktail says

A couple of thoughts:
1. CO2 is not warming anything because the Earth is not emitting heat energy at the frequency that CO2 absorbs - about 18 microns.
2. CO2 is the gas of life. Without CO2 there is no photosynthesis, no plants, no animals and this is a dead planet.

The_Deplorable says

CO2 is not warming anything because the Earth is not emitting heat energy at the frequency that CO2 absorbs - about 18 microns.

If the Earth is retaining the heat that CO2 absorbs, wouldn't that mean the planet is warming? Even so, CO2 is such a trace element that even if it absorbed heat it would have a negligible effect on global temperatures. Besides, "18 microns" is a wavelength, not a frequency.

Water vapor is one to two orders of magnitude more potent than CO2 as far as warming is concerned.

I think globohomo is harping on CO2 so that plant growth can be starved and thereby kill off 90% of the population.

stereotomy says

I think globohomo is harping on CO2 so that plant growth can be starved and thereby kill off 90% of the population.

I think it is more about power. Controlling CO2 means controlling all transportation, energy, and almost any other useful activity.

HeadSet says

"Besides, "18 microns" is a wavelength, not a frequency."

Frequency and wavelength are related - They have an inverse relationship.

HeadSet says

"If the Earth is retaining the heat that CO2 absorbs, wouldn't that mean the planet is warming?"

No. CO2 does not absorb any heat and therefore the Earth is not retaining any heat. Given that
the Earth Temperature is about 59°F then the Earth is radiating unimpeded into space at 10 microns.

PROOF: During the Paleozoic, Earth experienced an Ice Age for 40 million years at a CO2
level of 4,200 ppm. And that high amount of CO2 did not prevent the Ice Age from happening.
Therefore CO2 is not warming anything.

The_Deplorable says

HeadSet says

"Besides, "18 microns" is a wavelength, not a frequency."

Frequency and wavelength are related - They have an inverse relationship.

Of course they do, but still do not mix up the terms.

The_Deplorable says

HeadSet says

"If the Earth is retaining the heat that CO2 absorbs, wouldn't that mean the planet is warming?"

No. CO2 does not absorb any heat and therefore the Earth is not retaining any heat. Given that
the Earth Temperature is about 59°F then the Earth is radiating unimpeded into space at 10 microns.

PROOF: During the Paleozoic, Earth experienced an Ice Age for 40 million years at a CO2
level of 4,200 ppm. And that high amount of CO2 did not prevent the Ice Age from happening.
Therefore CO2 is not warming anything.

We agree here. I misread your original post.

MolotovCocktail says

I read Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist when it came out in 2001. It was the beginning of my recovery from being a standard-issue Democrat.

https://open.substack.com/pub/energybadboys/p/shocking-betrayal-why-progressives

https://principia-scientific.com/nsidc-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-is-rapidly-expanding/

https://principia-scientific.com/retracted-paper-still-being-used-to-fuel-climate-propaganda/

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/22/trump-offshore-wind-cvow-dominion.html

Green is Globalist KommieKunt shit to make you feel guilty for being alive so they can deprive, herd and kill you with your cooperation.

All Green measures are designed to fail, and they know it. Suckers.

Yes, the article is over 21 years old but the author and his pals have already cashed the checks.

GUEST OPINION: Court saw through attack on stoves, science

When the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) filed a federal lawsuit last year challenging Colorado’s new gas stove labeling law, it exposed a troubling pattern of how climate advocacy can morph into scientific misinformation to achieve policy goals through fear rather than facts.

At the heart of the court dispute is House Bill 25-1161, which requires retailers to affix yellow warning labels to gas stoves sold in Colorado. The labels must direct consumers to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment website, which lists serious health conditions — including asthma, heart disease, and even leukemia — allegedly linked to gas stove use.

The Gazette file If this gas stove fails, the owner would have to replace it with an electric one, according to proposed legislation.
There is just one problem: the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence shows no such connection exists.

So if the science does not support health warnings on gas stoves, why did Colorado pass this law? The answer lies in the legislative record, which reveals that HB25-1161 was never really about consumer health — it was about climate policy and demonizing fossil fuels. State Sen. Katie Wallace, a co-sponsor of the bill, made this explicit during committee testimony: “Gas appliances contribute to climate change and must be part of the conversation as we look to combat that existential crisis.”

This strategy did not emerge from nowhere. In 2022, the Harvard Environmental Law Review published an essay that laid out the blueprint. Rather than debating climate policy on its merits, environmental activists could sidestep that conversation by frightening consumers about their kitchen appliances. The article was refreshingly candid about this tactical shift: “The fossil gas industry has made consumer attachment to gas stoves the centerpiece of its anti-electrification messaging. To counter and overcome this strategy, building electrification advocates must tell their own story about gas stoves, and it is hard to imagine any narrative more salient than the reality of an everyday kitchen appliance that is literally poisoning our children in their own homes.”

Never mind that the science does not support the “poisoning our children” narrative. The goal was to create a compelling story that would advance decarbonization policies.

Beyond the scientific dishonesty, Colorado’s law raises serious First Amendment concerns. It forces manufacturers and retailers to speak a government-mandated message with which they fundamentally disagree — that gas stoves pose health risks when the scientific evidence does not support that claim.

The Supreme Court has been clear that the government cannot “compel a person to speak its own preferred messages.” Compelled disclosures are constitutional only when they are “purely factual and uncontroversial.” Courts have consistently held that disclosures not rooted in scientific consensus are neither purely factual nor uncontroversial.

The gas stove controversy is a case study in how political objectives can corrupt the scientific process. When activists decided that health fears were a more effective tool than climate arguments for achieving their electrification goals, they cherry-picked studies, exaggerated findings, and manufactured a crisis that does not exist. This should concern everyone, regardless of their views on climate policy. Once we accept that the government can compel speech based on politically convenient falsehoods rather than scientific consensus, we have crossed a dangerous line. Today it is gas stoves. Tomorrow it could be any product that happens to conflict with the prevailing political agenda.

Science works through rigorous testing, peer review, and building consensus over time. It does not work through advocacy groups shopping for favorable studies, media sensationalism, or government mandates that force companies to parrot misleading claims.

On Dec. 19, 2025, U.S. District Judge S. Kato Crews in a thoughtful and measured opinion, granted a preliminary injunction barring the state and its agencies from enforcing this ill-conceived law. Judge Crews found that House Bill 25-1161 “likely violates Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights” by compelling speech that is scientifically controversial and unsupported by consensus evidence.

AHAC hired Dr. Stacey Benson, Ph.D., a respected epidemiologist, and toxicologist with 20 years’ experience. She systematically dismantled the state’s claims through two detailed expert declarations. She conducted the “gold standard” analysis — an exhaustive review using the Bradford Hill Criteria, the framework epidemiologists have employed since the 1960s to assess causation. She examined three major meta-analyses and 69 individual studies encompassing 122 effect estimates across respiratory symptoms and diseases. Dr. Benson testified there is “no scientific consensus that using gas stoves for home cooking is associated with or causes any health impacts.”

Colorado enlisted Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado as an intervenor, which retained two experts to rebut Dr. Benson. Dr. Michael Johnson opined that gas stoves create “elevated indoor pollutant concentrations,” but Judge Crews noted that Johnson did “not connect the ‘elevated indoor pollutant concentrations’ to concrete health impacts.”

Dr. Jennifer L. Peel, a professor at Colorado State University, went way beyond the science and argued there is “broad scientific consensus” that pollutants from gas cooking are “linked to adverse health effects.” But Judge Crews found, at most, this meant there was a “robust scientific debate” and therefore the required disclosure was objectively controversial and a constitutional violation.

Colorado’s gas stove law is not science-based regulation — it is activism wearing a lab coat. Judge Crews saw through it, and his preliminary injunction represents an important victory for both free speech and scientific integrity.

https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/01/18/guest-opinion-court-saw-through-attack-on-stoves-science/