Climate Change Extremists Leave NYC Stuck With Power Shortage 68%

By Derek VanBuskirk0%

7/2/2026, 7:54:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 228 hits. Analysis detected 2,063 faulty-reasoning hits from 687 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.6% and a BS Rank of 68% (6,692 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.40% of the article peer group.

Following the prioritization of net-zero emissions, New York City’s Democratic Socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, faces backlash after calling on residents to set their air conditioners to 78 degrees Fahrenheit and limit electricity use to fight off a heat wave. 
Mamdani’s post Wednesday told New York’s 8 million residents that the power grid had been working overtime before asking locals to turn up their AC, turn off lights and electronics that are not being used, and unplug what they can. 
(RELATED: ‘Egregious’: Two People Charged In Alleged Multi-Million Dollar Healthcare Fraud Scheme) 
“A stable grid means the AC stays on, and lives are saved,” Mamdani said. 
“Let’s ease demand  and get through the heat  together.” 
However, the reason the grid may be working overtime is the state’s passage of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act in 2020, which established a net-zero target by 2050. 
The framework for the bill, and the entity that gave it sufficient momentum to get it past the legislative finish line, was New York Renews, a coalition of over 300 member organizations that seeks “to advance climate justice and indigenous sovereignty.” 
The group has pushed for the creation of a carbon tax and fights to ensure that the 2020 act “centers equity, justice, and the priorities originally set out in the law that we passed.” 
To reach the target  an 85 percent reduction in emissions and a 15 percent offset of emissions  the state must strive for an interim target by 2030 by reaching a 70 percent renewable electricity mandate and 100 percent zero-emissions electric generation by 2040. 
A meteorologist with more than 40 years of experience in the air quality industry, Roger Caiazza reported in April that the state’s reliance on wind and solar “make it impossible to achieve the aspirational renewable mandates and continue to provide safe and adequate electricity.” 
Caiazza argued that “Electric systems must be built around reliability during peak demand,” such as a city simultaneously blasting its AC during a heat wave, but believes that the act’s need for weather-reliant renewable energy may be an issue because “the conditions that characterize the highest loads also have the weakest expected wind resource availability.” 
Although solar power reaches its peak over the summer as wind power reaches its valley, Caiazza said the two resources “could change so quickly that operators would not be able to adjust other generating units to compensate.” 
Perhaps this is what leads a mayor who has previously called for the “warmth of collectivism” to require all government buildings to set the AC to 78 and turn off or dim lights during the city’s “electricity demand.” 
However, this problem could extend further than a plea from a mayor and the required reduction of power use in city buildings, as the city may soon see a mandate requiring every building across the Big Apple to be all-electric, meaning a sudden collapse of the power grid could result in the inability to use a stove or hot water as natural gas is exchanged for wind- and solar-based energy. 
This comes after the 2nd U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the state could move forward with its “All-Electric Buildings Act,” according to Spectrum News 1. 
Many Republicans began pushing back against Mamdani’s request, with both Republican Arkansas Gov. 
Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Republican Texas Rep. 
Brandon Gill pointing out what they described as the socialist hypocrisy of Mamdani’s claim. 
However, Republican New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino gave a more direct response, telling New Yorkers to “live your life normally” and that if the grid does collapse, “make them explain why we don’t have power generation capacity sufficient to our needs as a city.” 
“Do not acquiesce or normalize any of this. 
Nothing socialists say can be taken in good faith,” Paladino said, adding that, like Europe, they want to take away AC permanently by “regulating it out of existence.” 
(RELATED: Deputy Mayor Of Paris Lashes Out At Americans For AC After Europeans Get Jealous While Visiting For World Cup) 
“Just say no,” Paladino concluded. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Derek VanBuskirk: 4.2%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Derek VanBuskirk: 9.4%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 12.2%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion12.2%This article: 7.3%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.9%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias18.2%This article: 15.1%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.5%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.3%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias5.7%This article: 5.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem7.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.6%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.7%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority23.6%This article: 10.9%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma10.9%This article: 14.3%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.2%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope14.3%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.7%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 4.7%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring4.7%This article: 1.9%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon1.9%This article: 3.5%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.6%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion3.5%This article: 2.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 9.9%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.7%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.9%This article: 2.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.0%This article: 10.9%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof10.9%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 4.1%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman4.1%This article: 21.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 4.4%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.5%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity5.5%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 5.6%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote31.4%This article: 0.7%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.7%This article: 33.2%Derek VanBuskirk: 8.5%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice33.2%This article: 15.6%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.6%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination15.6%This article: 10.6%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias10.6%This article: 1.9%Derek VanBuskirk: 6.8%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

687 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers44%attributed speech386writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 14 words • 100.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Caiazza • 44 words • 100.0% coverageRoger Caiazza • 55 words • 100.0% coverageRoger Caiazza • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 70 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageBrandon Gill • 14 words • 100.0% coverageVickie Paladino • 45 words • 100.0% coverageVickie Paladino • 8 words • 100.0% coverageVickie Paladino • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageVickie Paladino • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Vickie Paladino

100%flagged-word coverage
86 attributed words29% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Indoctrination+57.6 ptsWriter: 9.8%Vickie Paladino: 67.4%67.4%Biased Writer Voice-15.6 ptsWriter: 48.2%Vickie Paladino: 32.6%32.6%Politically Left Leaning B-18.9 ptsWriter: 18.9%Vickie Paladino: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-16.3 ptsWriter: 16.3%Vickie Paladino: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+5.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Vickie Paladino: 5.8%5.8%Politically Right Leaning -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Vickie Paladino: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.