Thanks, Pookie.

Any first responder employment should require staff to maintain peak physical fitness or look for another job.

Tired of these out-of-shape lazy people being unable to perform the very basic, fundamentals of their job due to weight problems.

Also, they deserve some jail time for doing this!

https://conservativeus.com/video-this-is-criminal-look-at-these-lazy-emt-wokies-in-new-york-helping-a-stroke-victim/

The Guardian is Confused, 1.5°C of Warming is Not Catastrophic
 
By
Linnea Lueken
May 20, 2024
 

A recent article at The Guardian, “Brutal heatwaves and submerged cities: what a 3C world would look like,” claims that 1.5°C of warming, while not the end of the world, still will have many catastrophic effects on the planet, including the death of tropical corals, intense storms, and ice sheet collapse. This is false. There is no evidence that 1.5°C will have any of these effects, this is mere fearmongering.

The article is somewhat confused in its presentation, claiming at once that passing the 1.5°C limit will lead to “catastrophic heatwaves, floods, and storms,” while also saying it is not a “cliff-edge leading to a significant change in climate damage.” Catastrophe certainly sounds like “significant change,” and later comments further confuse the point. It’s important to note that, according to the E.U.’s climate and weather agency Copernicus, the average annual temperature has already exceeded 1.48°C the pre-industrial benchmark. Also, data from the longest continuously running temperature network indicates that Europe has already exceeded a 2.0℃ temperature rise with no appreciable negative climate impacts.

In an interactive graphic in the center of the article, the 1.5°C warming “benchmark” is claimed to be the point at which “heatwaves and storms intensify, tropical corals die off and tipping points for ice sheet collapse and permafrost thawing may be triggered.”

There are no citations or sources given for these claims. Luckily, Climate Realism has dug into the available data in previous posts on all of the mentioned subjects.

https://climaterealism.com/2024/05/the-guardian-is-confused-1-5c-of-warming-is-not-catastrophic/

EVs are the most expensive vehicles to operate over 1,000 miles, according to iSeeCars
Worries about range and charging, along with a higher purchase price likely played a role

CHRIS TEAGUE
May 2nd 2024 at 3:05PM
 

It’s no secret that charging an electric vehicle is often less expensive than fueling a gas car, but many don’t think about the higher purchase prices. A recent iSeeCars study showed that people tend to drive EVs much less, making their cost per mile much higher than that of internal combustion vehicles.

iSeeCars’ research looked at the costs to operate various fuel types between November 2022 and April 2023, finding that EV owners not only drove far fewer miles than gas owners, but their average costs to operate those vehicles over 1,000 miles were much higher. People drove EVs an average of 10,256 miles during that period, seeing costs of $5,108 per 1,000 miles. In contrast, owners drove gas vehicles 12,813 miles, averaging $3,123 over the same distance. The costs per 1,000 miles for other fuel types in the study include:

Hybrids: $3,056
Gas Cars: $3,123
Plug-In Hybrids: $4,351
EVs: $5,108

EV owners may worry about range and spotty charging infrastructure, which could contribute to the smaller number of miles driven. The higher purchase price of each vehicle is spread over fewer miles, making them significantly more expensive to drive. iSeeCars’ study found an average EV price of $52,387, compared to the $40,009 gas buyers paid.

https://www.autoblog.com/article/evs-are-the-most-expensive-vehicles-to-operate-over-1000-miles-according-to-iseecars/