British agency criticized after telling millions of citizens not to heat their homes at night to reduce emissions



British bureaucrats, much like those in the United States and other Western countries, appear keen on further compromising citizens' quality of life in hopes of arresting ever-changing weather patterns, which some alarmists continue to fearfully and dogmatically refer to as "climate change."

While many so-called "green" initiatives aimed at sweeping the proverbial waves back into the sea have gone relatively unchallenged in recent years, the U.K. appears to have gone too far with one of its agency's latest recommendations.

The U.K.'s Climate Change Committee, an independent statutory body established under the 2008 Climate Change Act and tasked with hectoring the nation over emissions targets, has urged millions of families not to heat their homes at night, reported the Telegraph.

In its "Sixth Carbon Budget" paper advising Parliament on the "volume of greenhouse gases the UK can emit during the period 2033-2037," the CCC, which sets legally binding limits, implored households with electric-powered heating systems, including heat pumps, to shut off their radiators in the evening.

"There is significant potential to deliver emissions savings, just by changing the way we use our homes," said the report. "It is possible to pre-heat ahead of peak times. This enables access to cheaper tariffs which reflect the reduced costs associated with producing power off-peak and reducing requirements for network reinforcement to manage peak loads."

The Telegraph reported that the CCC has further insisted that, as of 2033, all newly built homes should be constructed to accommodate pre-heating.

A spokesman for the CCC stressed that "[s]mart heating of homes like this also makes the best possible use of the grid and supports greater use of cheap renewable generation."

What to some might come off as coercive social engineering, the CCC simply calls "behaviour change."

Similar proposals, which in practice look like wartime rationing, have been advanced and executed in Gov. Gavin Newsom's California. However, in the case of California, the Independent System Operator had to call upon consumers to ration power because the state's shift to renewable energy has left it with an unstable power grid and sporadic blackouts.

While advertised as a way to save households money, the proposal that Britons "pre-heat" their homes earlier in the day then watch their breaths at night has been met with significant criticism, not the least because Chris Stark, the agency's climate czar, uses a gas boiler, meaning he might get to enjoy the warmth the CCC otherwise seeks to deny his countrymen.

Homes with gas heating appear to be exempt from the CCC's recommendation, but the U.K. has plans to ban those alternatives in the coming years — meaning everyone, including Stark, might soon feel the evening chill.

Andrew Montford, the director of Net Zero Watch — a group that monitors the government's extremist climate polices — told the Telegraph, "The grid is already creaking, and daft ideas like this show just how much worse it will become. ... It's clear that renewables are a disaster in the making. We now need political leaders with the courage to admit it."

British lawmaker Craig Mackinlay, the chair of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said, "This latest advice to freeze ourselves on cold evenings merely shows the truth that the dream of plentiful and cheap renewable energy is a sham. ... I came into politics to improve all aspects of my constituents' lives, not make them colder and poorer."

The push to limit emissions and freeze out Westerners is predicated largely upon a sense that the world is confronted with an climate "emergency."

Despite the repeated suggestion that the science is settled, an international coalition of thousands of scientists, including a handful of Nobel laureates, just penned a declaration stressing, "There is no climate emergency."

Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, and Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American engineer who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973, have joined over 1,600 other scientists and professionals in stressing the following points:

  • "Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming";
  • "Warming is far slower than predicted";
  • "Climate policy relies on inadequate models";
  • "CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. ... More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the earth";
  • "Global warming has not increased natural disasters"; and
  • "Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities."

The declaration further states that "[c]limate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Is it safe to go outside?': New York Times scorched for 'fear-mongering' article about summer weather 'perils' that recommends face masks



The New York Times is being torched for publishing an article asking if it "safe to go outside" during "this cruel summer." Reactions online roasted the liberal news outlet for pushing "fear-mongering" content.

In its "Health" section, the New Times published an article titled: "Is It Safe to Go Outside? How to Navigate This Cruel Summer."

The article's sub-headline reads: "Heat, flooding and wildfire smoke have made for treacherous conditions. Use this guide to determine when it’s safe to head out and when you should stay home."

The article is written by Alisha Haridasani Gupta – a reporter "focused on women’s health, health inequities and trends in functional medicine and wellness."

The article sounds the alarm about this year's "summer of weather extremes in the United States, in which going outside can be riddled with perils." The NYT cites flooding in the Northeast, heatwaves across the country, and smoke from wildfires in Canada.

The NYT writer advises people to watch for flood warnings and check air quality levels before going outside.

The Times urges people, "If you must be outdoors, consider wearing an N95 mask to help reduce your exposure to toxins, Dr. Balbus said."

The New York Times tells readers, "A heat index of 103 degrees Fahrenheit and above is dangerous; you’re likely to experience heat cramps and heat exhaustion, and heat stroke is possible if you’re outside for a prolonged period or doing something strenuous, according to the National Weather Service."

The Times warns that "extreme heat leads to hundreds of fatalities a year in the U.S."

Despite warnings about heat-related deaths, studies show that more fatalities are caused by cold weather.

A 2021 study published in The Lancet Planetary Health found that for every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database stated: "During 2006-2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death. About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both; and the remaining 6% were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning."

According to The Lancet, there were 1.7 million deaths worldwide deaths from extreme temperatures in 2019 – 356,000 were related to heat and the rest were caused by cold.

A 2020 study by researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago found that 94% of temperature-related deaths were because of cold weather.

The official Twitter account for New York Times Health posted the article on social media with the caption: "So you want to go outside — despite the heat, heavy rainfall and poor air quality affecting millions this summer. Here’s how to determine whether it’s safe to leave the house."

— (@)

Reactions to the guidance on Twitter scorched the New York Times over the article instilling fear in the heads of readers and recommending face masks.

BlazeTV host Lauren Chen: "Journalists have now reached levels of neuroticism previously thought to be impossible."

Professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University Jay Bhattacharya: "Anyone taking health advice or learning epidemiology from the @nytimes will be doomed to isolation and ignorance."

Mathematician and cultural critic James Lindsay: "It's definitely safe to go outside."

DeSantis campaign researcher Kyle Lamb: "They're already back to trying to normalize lockdowns and masking for things like weather and air quality. They're desperate for control."

Public health expert Pradheep J. Shanker: "I'm not sure there is a bigger conveyor of scientific misinformation in the country right now than @NYTScience."

Writer Tom Goodwin: "The news reads very much like covid times these days. Monetizing existential dread and fear as a business model."

Lawyer Julie Hamill: "YES - it is safe to go outside. Stop fear mongering. You are enabling agoraphobia and extremely unhealthy life decisions."

College professor Wilfred Reilly: "The elite is very consciously domesticating the citizenry."

Political consultant Noah Pollak: "Liberal neurotics are desperate to find another excuse to lock themselves in their apartments."

Attorney Laura Powell: "Why has there been a concerted effort by the government and its propaganda arms to scare people into remaining in their homes? What purpose does this serve? It certainly doesn’t promote public health, as they pretend."

Writer Jennifer Sey: "Free floating fear and anxiety in search of a reason. And wanting everyone else to be as anxious as you are so it’s normal."

School social worker Justin Spiro: "The inevitable next step after years of COVID fear-mongering. The New York Times incredulously implies that leaving the house is dangerous due to the horror of... summer weather! Could you imagine such a headline in 2019?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Man dies in tragic, failed attempt to rescue dying stepson from scorching heat along southwest Texas trail



A father and stepson died Friday at Big Bend National Park in southwest Texas under extreme heat conditions, the National Park Service reported.

Officials say a 31-year-old father and his two stepsons from Florida, ages 14 and 21, were hiking along Big Bend National Park's Marufo Vega Trail in extreme heat with temperatures of 119° F.

The 14-year-old boy fell ill along the trail, losing consciousness. The 21-year-old stepson attempted to carry his brother back to the trailhead as the father hiked back to the vehicle to find help, NPS says.

Big Bend National Park's Communications Center received a call for emergency assistance along the Marufo Vega Trail around 6:00 p.m.

Around 7:30 p.m., a team of park rangers and U.S. Border Patrol agents arrived at the scene and located the 14-year-old. The boy was deceased along the trail.

Roughly a half hour later, authorities located the father. The father's vehicle had crashed over the embankment at Boquillas Overlook. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Below is a photograph of Boquillas Overlook.


The NPS describes the Marufo Vega Trail with panoramic views of the Rio Grande as "potentially deadly from April through September" due to high temperatures, lack of shade, and lack of potable water.

The trail "winds through extremely rugged dessert and rocky cliffs within the hottest part of Big Bend National Park." The strenuous trail is particularly dangerous in the heat of summer.

NPS says Big Bend is experiencing extreme heat with daily highs of 110°-119° at low elevations and along the Rio Grande.

There is no cell coverage in the area, NPS notes on its trip planning website for the trail. They advise visitors to share their expected return times with someone else before heading out.

The tragic incident remains under investigation, NPS said, adding in the press release that there were no further details at this time.

The names of the victims and the surviving stepson were not immediately released.

TheBlaze has reached out to the NPS requesting an update.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

First stoves then incandescent light bulbs — now, the Biden administration is coming after Americans' gas furnaces



The Biden administration appears eager to control precisely how Americans illuminate their homes, cook their food, and warm their families.

Whereas a ban on incandescent light bulbs is imminent and the implementation of a possible gas stove ban remains uncertain, a rule regulating gas furnaces is reportedly forthcoming.

The Biden administration is expected to soon finalize its diktat requiring homeowners to install energy-efficient furnaces, reported Fox News Digital.

The Department of Energy detailed the rule in a June 13, 2022, statement, claiming adoption would save consumers billions annually on their energy bills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 373 million metric tons over 30 years — alleged reductions critics have suggested are based upon faulty assumptions.

Under the rule, "non-weatherized gas furnaces and those used in mobile homes would be required to achieve an annual fuel utilization efficiency of 95%."

To hit this ultra-utilization efficiency standard, nearly all of the gas used by the furnaces must be converted into heat.

Unlike a less expensive conventional furnace where exhaust gases are vented outdoors, condenser furnaces the Biden administration seeks to foist on some of the population have secondary heat exchangers that capture the heat from the exhaust.

According to Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, this standard, set to go into effect in 2029, "would effectively outlaw non-condensing furnaces and condensing alternatives would be the only ones available."

The current market standard for annual fuel utilization efficiency among available furnaces is reportedly 80%.

Under the proposed regulation, between 40% and 60% of furnaces on the market would be verboten.

Biden's DOE secretary, Jennifer Granholm, claimed at the time of the proposed rule's announcement, "By updating energy standards for many carbon-emitting appliances, such as home furnaces, the Biden Administration is working to save consumers money."

Granholm's claim of consumer savings has not convinced critics, some of whom have noted the coercive measure would not be cost-effective for everybody.

Lieberman, among the rule's critics, told Reason, "The only thing these standards do is force the ultraefficient choice on everyone, even though one size does not fit all. ... These efficiency standards tend to raise the upfront costs of an appliance, and you may or may not earn it back in energy savings."

The increased cost and hassle of having to keep up with the Biden administration's green ambitions would be compounded for homeowners whose homes and the venting systems therein are not compatible with condensing furnaces, suggested Lieberman.

Richard Meyer, the vice president of energy markets, analysis, and standards at the American Gas Association, agrees this is a problem.

Meyer suggested to Fox News Digital that consumers are "going to have to, in many cases, install new equipment to exhaust gas out of their home. These higher efficiency units, or so-called condensing units — a lot of consumers have them in their home, but a lot of consumers don't. So, this rule would require additional retrofits for a lot of consumers. And those retrofits can be extremely cost prohibitive."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute stressed in October that while the Energy and Policy Conservation Act of 1975 authorizes the DOE to "set and periodically consider amending energy and water conservation standards for most home appliances, including furnaces ... the statute contains a number of provisions protecting consumers from excessively stringent standards that may do more harm than good."

"A forced shift towards condensing furnaces would disproportionately burden lower- income homeowners who tend to have older and more space-constrained houses – the kinds most likely to need a non-condensing furnace," said the CEI.

Such lower-income homeowners might accordingly be forced to "make a switch, not to a condensing natural gas furnace but to an electric furnace, with higher operating costs as well as other potential disadvantages."

"Every home is different, every homeowner is different and people are best off having a wide range of choices," underscored Lieberman. "They can work with their contractor to make the best decision for their home and their circumstances."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How To Survive For Three Days With No Water Or Power On $200

Thanks to experience with numerous hurricanes, we were prepared for the Texas power outage and no one slept in the cold at our house. When you are prepared, three days is not that bad.