An Open Letter to Mark Ruffalo – one of the most outspoken, over pampered and least educated of the bunch. Him, Deniro, Springsteen and Rosie are the leading TDS tards. This guy is also lying a lot. It’s too bad as I like the Avengers, just not in real life
Confessions of a Recovering Liberal White Woman – Worse than Karens, they are mentally ill and are oug to hurt families, the country and ultimately themselves. How do we rid our lives from these creatures.
Trump cut funding to the UN from $17 Billion to $2 Billion. They don’t deserve $2 from us. We have to sit and listen to them trash the USA, while dining on steak, lobster and champagne paid for by US taxpayers. The cabinet spots are held by representatives from despotic or terrorist countries. Yes, the same ones chanting death to the USA and Israel and that the USA is the Great Satan.
The UN Climate Scam is a slush fund for a problem they can’t solve with every penny from every citizen of the world, yet they continue to perpetrate this hoax because it is a bank for them to live large, while the middle class struggles from paycheck to paycheck.
Sure, it started with Al Gore’s lies about Florida being underwater by now and the Artic being ice-free, but has been co-opted by the UN because enough undereducated people have bought into it.
Now This:
Our long national nightmare of UN bureaucracies exploiting global warming as pretext for forever-increasing taxation, spending, redistribution, and control over Americans is winding down at last.
On January 7, President Trump issued a presidential order withdrawing the U.S. from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). America is also breaking free from a stinking pile of bureaucracies determined to be wasteful, ineffective, and harmful international organizations by the U.S. Department of State.
CFACT has been there for the entire wild ride. CFACT was there when the beast was born in 1992 at the UN’s Rio Earth Summit. We were there in 1997 when the UN adopted the Kyoto Protocol. We were there in 2009 for COP15 in Copenhagen, where the UN threw in everything it had, yet failed. CFACT was there in 2015 when Obama dropped America’s defenses and dragged us into the UN’s disastrous Paris Climate Agreement.
CFACT served as your eyes, ears, and voice at the most severe climate policy flashpoints and the seemingly interminable UN climate conferences in between and since.
For over three decades, CFACT has worked tirelessly to debunk climate exaggerations on everything from weather to sea level to polar bears. (The polar bears, by the way, took no notice of the scare, feasted on fish and seals, and thrived the entire time.)
CFACT laid out the cold hard facts on climate “solutions” such as intermittent, inefficient wind turbines, solar panels, and short-range electric vehicles that solved nothing, while enriching a well-connected few.
When climate computer models projected a warmer planet than real-world measurements revealed, CFACT called them on it and made sure you knew.
Never again dare we permit ruinously expensive public policy be made while evading genuine, clear-eyed cost-benefit analysis.
Marc Morano, editor of CFACT’s Climate Depot, said that President Trump “unleashed a long overdue POLITICAL CLIMATE EARTHQUAKE, by formally withdrawing the USA from the UN climate scam! Our long national nightmare began 36 years ago when President George H.W. Bush got the USA into this whole UN climate mess by signing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, aka, the Rio Earth Summit treaty. This treaty has served as the underlying basis for all of the climate nonsense foisted on the U.S. these many years.”
Marc compared Trump’s withdrawals on Fox and Friends to Jenga blocks. “Trump has pulled out the base of the blocks, and it’s collapsing,” moving the U.S. beyond climate policy “yin-yang.”
Team Climate, as you may have surmised, is apoplectic:
“By withdrawing from the IPCC, UNFCCC, and the other vital international partnerships, the Trump Administration is undoing decades of hard-won diplomacy, attempting to undermine climate science, and sowing distrust around the world.” – Al Gore
“This is a colossal own goal for the United States. It will hurt their economy and their citizens. The science is clear: Climate change is a threat multiplier that affects every aspect of society, from health to security to prosperity.” – Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC.
“As they take a machete to international laws, Trump’s withdrawal from dozens of conventions, treaties, & organizations should surprise no one. It’s a direct assault on global climate action.” – Friends of the Earth
“The U.S. will miss out on the global clean energy boom, costing jobs and economic growth.” – Ani Dasgupta,World Resources Institute CEO.
“Letting this lawless move stand could shut the U.S. out of climate diplomacy forever.” – Jean Su, Center for Biological Diversity
“This withdrawal from the UNFCCC and other bodies is a betrayal of future generations. President Trump claims these organizations promote ‘radical climate policies,’ but they’re essential for survival.” – 350
“The United States’ withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will harm decades of progress on the climate crisis, threaten American jobs, and reduce economic opportunities as other countries increasingly look elsewhere for clean energy technologies and climate solutions.” – National Wildlife Federation
Nothing could be a greater tell of the true nature of the feckless, shameless climate campaign than that domestic and international Socialists adopted it as their own. The hard-Left crowd has never been right about anything, yet the harm they have done over the years can be measured in abandoned freedoms, squandered prosperity, human suffering, and countless lost lives.
Let us never again let anyone near the levers of power who expects us to believe that Marxist control of the means of production is an effective means for fine-tuning the thermostat of the Earth.
Though this is a momentous day, don’t expect Team Climate to graciously accept defeat and depart the field.
The media is not through amplifying the extreme pronouncements of global warming pressure groups without vetting.
The climate Left is already lying in wait for the chance to reverse President Trump’s reforms.
However, it took a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate to ratify America’s membership in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It only took a bold presidential action to withdraw. A future president will need a fresh two-thirds vote to drag America back in. That is a tall order indeed.
We should withdraw from the UN. They are as feckless as the League of Nations at preventing war, their real reason for existence. In the eloquent words of Snoop Dogg, Fuck ’em.
History Will Not Be Kind to Gender-Affirming Wokesters – They will study Bud Light and the rest of the loser marketing moves for decades on things not to do. It was some of the most cringe worthy actions by people I’ve been forced to go through.
Europeans and TDS-sufferers in hysterics after Steve Miller’s wife tweets a red, white, and blue Greenland. They are losing their minds, which I find quite entertaining. My wife’s Scandinavian family hates his ass, so this is making me enjoy it even more. They are a bunch of whiners anyway. The Greenlanders say the Americans treat them better.
Trump Pulls US Out Of Notoriously ‘Alarmist’ UN Climate Change Panel – We’ve wasted too much time and money on this hoax. Look what AI did to the Clmate scare as soon as it made more money than grifting for climate handouts and politicians making each others wallets fatter
Temu Radar failed Venezuela – They had the best radar China has, with anti-stealth capability, yet in 3 hours, it was over and they never saw it coming. Bejing better reconsider the World Dominance thing.
I had to work in the sustainability industry for IBM. It opened my eyes to the lie that was Global Warming. The Analysts I worked for worshipped at the alter of carbon and climate scares, but always came open handed at budget time. I saw the whole sham first hand.
Now This:
The End Of The Gaia Worship Climate Religion
It has been a long, lucrative ride. Predicting the eco-apocalypse has always been a profitable business, spawning subsidies, salaries, consulting fees, air miles, best-sellers and research grants. Different themes took turns as the scare du jour: overpopulation, oil spills, pollution, desertification, mass extinction, acid rain, the ozone layer, nuclear winter, falling sperm counts. Each faded as the evidence became more equivocal, the public grew bored or, in some cases, the problem was resolved by a change in the law or practice.
But no scare grew as big or lasted as long as global warming. I first wrote a doom-laden article for the Economist about carbon dioxide emissions trapping heat in the air in 1987, nearly 40 years ago. I soon realized the effect was real but the alarm was overdone, that feedback effects were exaggerated in the models. The greenhouse effect was likely to be a moderate inconvenience rather than an existential threat. For this blasphemy I was abused, canceled, blacklisted, called a “denier” and generally deemed evil. In 2010, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal I debated Gates, who poured scorn on my argument that global warming was not likely to be a catastrophe – so it is welcome to see him come round to my view.
The activists who took over the climate debate, often with minimal understanding of climate science, competed for attention by painting ever more catastrophic pictures of future global warming. They changed the name to “climate change” so they could blame it for blizzards as well as heat waves. Then they inflated the language to “climate emergency” and “climate crisis,” even as projections of future warming came down.
“I’m talking about the slaughter, death and starvation of six billion people this century. That’s what the science predicts,” said Roger Hallam, founder of Extinction Rebellion in 2019, though the science says no such thing. “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years,” tweeted Greta Thunberg in 2018. Five years later she deleted her tweet and shortly after that decided that Palestine was a more promising way of staying in the limelight.
Scientists knew that pronouncements like this were nonsense but they turned a blind eye because the alarm kept the grant money coming. Journalists always love exaggeration.
We may be reaching peak Blair’s Law here: “Coined by Australian journalist, Tim Blair as ‘the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force.’” QED:
I somehow was blessed with an innate ability for pattern recognition. I can see disparate things happening, put them together, and know what a good opportunity is. I didn’t know it until things fell into place for me, and I thought everyone saw what I did, but I was wrong.
Here are a couple of examples. I’ll be as matter-of-fact as I can.
I chose a career in personal computers when I didn’t know what to do. They couldn’t do anything, except for VisiCalc, but I saw it as my future before they introduced the IBM PC. The head of a major company said he saw a demand for about 5 of them, and why would you want one on your desk. I made a career out of it. People thought I was chasing my tail at the time.
I had things in life I wanted to do, and knew that if I wanted to retire by 55, I’d have to start before 30. I finally left at 53, and people at IBM were still living paycheck to paycheck up in NY. I refused two job offers to move there to live where the cost of living was 30% less. Money is made 2 ways: make more and spend less. I did both. Plus, I didn’t have to live in NY.
It was clear to me that COVID was a hoax from the beginning, and I refused the jab when the sheep were lining up for it. Once I saw that the Government was forcing an untried and untested treatment they called a vaccine, I knew not to take it. I had studied gene editing and knew it was untested and untrustworthy. My whole family and all my friends thought I was nuts. They couldn’t wait to get it and thought I was risking my life by not getting it. They all got Covid anyway.
My Son in Law, who has patents and is a chip designer said I was smart, so why didn’t I get it? I’m not a lemming, that’s why. It was clear to me that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were the cure. They tried so hard to ban (and got the media to promote that it was bad) it that I knew to research it and found it to be the cure. I never regretted not getting jabbed, and the rest of the family now wishes they had made my decision. They rushed to get it because they were told that it was “safe and effective”. I called BS. We don’t talk about it because they hate me being right on that one. Thanksgiving is next week, and it will come up like Trump.
I never doubted that Trump would beat Hillary when Scott Adams talked about his ability to use persuasion techniques. I was an island on that one also. I was less certain in 2020, as the evidence of rigging and judicial interference was too overwhelming. Anybody could have called the 2024 election, so I don’t take any credit.
I worked in sustainability for IBM around 2009, but I knew Climate change was a scam when they worried about the hole in the Ozone layer in the late 1990’s. I knew it was a lie from the start, and we found out this week from none other than Bill Gates that it isn’t true, but rather a power grab. I read yesterday that the Ozone hole was mysteriously closing. Again, I was on an island calling BS.
I also have spatial Awareness that I got from my father. I can see how things fit together. It’s as clear as day when others are just arranging objects. Between that and pattern recognition, some things are clear to me as to their truth or the path I should take.
Ursula von der Leyen Wants More Money – Why is the EU the only one that believes in the Global Warming Hoax anymore? Didn’t they used to lead the world for centuries?
Key Ocean Current Faltering, Raising Risk Of “Ice Age”-Like Cooling – So when global warming doesn’t bring enough money, now it’s a cooling problem, like the 1970 “New Ice Age”. It was always about the money, not the environment (except for the sheep and the lemmings).
Lawmakers Cashed $20K Each During Record Shutdown – Think they care about their constituencies? They care about their bank account and TV time. Cut their careers as politicians and have them work for us again. I’m looking at you Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell.
Covid Crime
(WATCH) Covid Crimes – PPP money fraud still going on and will for a long time. Taxpayers got hosed on the whole hoax. It was a disease that 99% of the people survived, jabbed or unjabbed but the politicians got rich and didn’t obey the rules they made everyone else obey.
Encoding Photonic Qubits – it’s a good discussion of how things work in that world. At one point, the world thought the telephone was too complicated, yet now it is ubiquitous. I don’t see it being on anyone’s phone in the near future, but we’ll be using this technology, even if in the background and we don’t know that we are.
What to Know About Obamacare Rates for 2026 – Costs are going up for everyone, quality of service will go down for many. It was a lie from the beginning to move us to Socialized healthcare, a failure every time.
Britain In the Balance – Like a monstrous experiment in social engineering, the profoundly anti-patriotic immigration policy of New Labour has brought about demographic changes that, right from the outset, were intended to be irreversible.
Historical Icons They’re Removing From Our Kids’ Education, we’ll be doomed to repeat history. The difference is one side is armed with about a trillion rounds of ammo, the other doesn’t know which bathroom to use and hires drug addled stooges to do their killing. Antifa just destroys their own towns.
The Fifth Column Trying To Destroy America From Within
The Leaked Playbook for Silencing America – power-grabbing money-grubbers who are trying to rule instead of govern. These people must be stopped, or many will really suffer, not social media suffer.
Danish Commercial Warns White Citizens About Breeding With Other Whites – Doesn’t anyone learn from history? I’m sure there is either a joke or they are just finding a way to dumb down the nation faster than it already is. You have a population of New Danes already; they are called Muslims. Do you know what the average Muslim IQ is? Good luck with that one. Besides, blondes have more fun. No telling what you get when your face is covered by a blanket.
Analysis: ‘The Catholic Church’s Climate Hell’ – They went through this with Luther. It shows people don’t learn from history. You are supposed to worship the Creator, not the creation. Why do they keep straying from Sola Scriptura?
“Toxic Femininity” Will “Not End Civilization” – Megan McArdle – Maybe not, but it caused wokeness and has set us back way more than the much hyped Toxic Masculinity. One built the world that we enjoy, and the other is trying to tear it down (hint, that one is not the men). They are just mean girls who didn’t get their way, or ones who are so overcome by emotion, they can’t function properly.
The Great Military Feminization – don’t send a girl to do a man’s job. War is not emotion or pretty. It has two primary purposes: blow things up and kill people. If your opponent knows you can do that, most times you won’t get attacked
Larry Summers: The Day the Logic Died… – in other words, it was the feminists who started woke and ruined not only our lives, but everything it touched. Look at Star Wars, Marvel, Dating, declining marriage rates, cat ladies….
Muslim and Migrant Fatigue – We are witnessing a Mexicanization of France,” Sanchet said, by which he meant significant parts of the country are falling under the de facto control of drug gangs and cartels.
President Trump’s Smithsonian Review Will Save American History – despite the Antifa asshats taking down statues, like that’s going to change anything other than their butt hurt feelings. They wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the people in our history. They’d be living in mud huts eating bugs cooked over dung fires.
UN
UN Punts on Shipping Carbon Tax – we should just stop wasting the taxpayers money on this farcical organization. They don’t do anything but hate Americans and Jews. Maybe they are all Muslims….it’s the same thing.
Disney Jacks Up Its Prices on Tickets and Extras — Fed Up Americans REACT – I grew up next to Disney. It ruined our town and our lives. It’s not that great and certainly not worth the money. It’s also not the happiest place on earth as they claim. It’s hot, (used to have) long lines, expensive and not worth it. Occasionally, there is a Waffle House type fight. That’s the best attraction left.
In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Donald Trump claimed that “the UN has such tremendous potential” but was not using it. What did this mean? The UN officially is a member’s organization, a meeting place for diplomacy. Did Trump want to go beyond this and see a UN as a powerful organization operating on its own? The UN has grown into a massive bureaucracy, with over 130,000 people. Secretary-General António Guterres speaks for the UN as if it were the prototype for a world government. Autonomous UN agencies like the International Criminal Court, World Trade Organization, and International Seabed Authority already behave as if they are global governing bodies able to act against national states. As a nationalist, Trump could not have been calling for the UN to further expand to fulfill its ‘potential.”
The UN is a sanctuary for third-ratestaffers and pseudo-intellectuals from around the world on the lam from reality. A giant, well-funded faculty lounge. Trump mentioned how the UN is “creating new problems for us to solve.” By supporting mass migration, “the United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders… every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders.” And on the climate issue, “I’m telling you that if you don’t get away from the ‘green energy’ scam, your country is going to fail.”
Still worried about the seas rising there Timbo? Read this:
It’s all too predictable: A jet-setting celebrity or politician wades ceremoniously into hip-deep surf for a carefully choreographed photo op, while proclaiming that human-driven sea-level rise will soon swallow an island nation. Of course, the water is deeper than the video’s pseudoscience, which is as shallow as the theatrics.
The scientific truth is simple: Sea levels are rising, but the rate of rise has not accelerated. A new peer-reviewed study confirms what many other studies have already shown – that the steady rise of oceans is a centuries-long process, not a runaway crisis triggered by modern emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
For the past 12,000 years, during our current warm epoch known as the Holocene, sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically.
For instance, during the 600-year Little Ice Age, which ended in the mid-19th century, sea levels dropped quite significantly. The natural warming that began in the late 1600s got to a point around 1800 where loss of glacial ice in the summer began to exceed winter accumulation and glaciers began to shrink and seas to rise. By 1850, full-on glacial retreat was underway.
Thus, the current period of gradual sea-level increase began between 1800-1860, preceding any significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions by many decades. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2025 critical review on carbon dioxide and climate change confirms this historical perspective.
“There is no good, sufficient or convincing evidence that global sea level rise is accelerating –there is only hypothesis and speculation. Computation is not evidence and unless the results can be practically viewed and measured in the physical world, such results must not be presented as such,” notes Kip Hansen, researcher and former U.S. Coast Guard captain.
He turned out to be a troll in my timeline. The post was how the sea was rising and would swallow up miles of land around the world. The only thing that got swallowed were the global warming lies by the enviroweenies. My response was that history will prove that AGW and the Climate hoax they worship was wrong.
Here goes:
What the globalist corporate media once smeared as “conspiracy theory” and branded “misinformation” has turned out to be true: the climate crisis was merely an imaginary problem and an informational war on the minds of the taxpayer.
Why all the propaganda? Give Democrats cover for a massive heist of the U.S. Treasury, laundering taxpayer dollars through mysterious NGOs via the Green New Deal Inflation Reduction Act into radical leftist NGOs and politically connected green companies. It was never about saving the planet, as it turns out.
Between 2019, when socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the Green New Deal (which ultimately failed), and President Biden’s passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, the globalists, their corporate media outlets, and dark-money-funded NGOs unleashed a propaganda blitz by flooding the airwaves with record levels of “climate crisis” stories and left millions of folks with climate anxieties.
As soon as the heist was over … those climate crisis headlines, according to Bloomberg data this month, quite literally evaporated.
AI took us from micromanaging light bulbs to Microsoft re-starting 3 Mile Island because they need the power to run their engine. It’s like the made up climate crisis never happened.
Now, companies (and China) are racing to get their hands on as much power-generating capacity.
Data center demand is rising at a break neck speed, with little signs of slowing.
As the electricity consumption of AI rises, by 2028, a projected 12% of U.S. electricity demand could be driven from data centers. Beyond America, countries are pouring billions into AI sovereignty efforts which require data center facilities running 24/7 to power them.
Here is the share of each region’s total power demand that is driven by center centers:
As we can see, America’s data center demand leads globally, at 8.9% of total power consumption.
In Virginia, data centers account for 26% of the state’s total power consumption—or nearly triple the national average. This year, the state’s leading utility firm expects to connect 15 new data centers given surging demand.
As big tech ramps up AI spending, a significant share is being funnelled into massive data centers along with the energy sources that power them. In particular, demand for nuclear is expanding at the fastest rate in decades.
By comparison, data centers comprise 4.8% of the total power share in the European Union and 2.3% in China.
Oh for Pete’s sake, can’t you just leave us alone? These people couldn’t pour water out of a boot if there were instructions on the sole.
A team of researchers in California drew notoriety last year with an aborted experiment on a retired aircraft carrier that sought to test a machine for creating clouds.
But behind the scenes, they were planning a much larger and potentially riskier study of salt-water-spraying equipment that could eventually be used to dim the sun’s rays — a multimillion-dollar project aimed at producing clouds over a stretch of ocean larger than Puerto Rico.
The details outlined in funding requests, emails, texts and other records obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News raise new questions about a secretive billionaire-backed initiative that oversaw last year’s brief solar geoengineering experiment on the San Francisco Bay.
They also offer a rare glimpse into the vast scope of research aimed at finding ways to counter the Earth’s warming, work that has often occurred outside public view. Such research is drawing increased interest at a time when efforts to address the root cause of climate change — burning fossil fuels — are facing setbacks in the U.S. and Europe. But the notion of human tinkering with the weather and climate has drawn a political backlash and generated conspiracy theories, adding to the challenges of mounting even small-scale tests.
n brief, the Trump administration is seeking to free the American people from the shackles of the cult of climate alarmism. Zeldin’s tactic is not to argue the science, which is unsettled, but to challenge the EPA’s authority to classify GHGs as “pollutants” and then, in turn, regulate them as such.
Is climate change primarily caused by mankind? According to much of the scientific establishment, the answer to that question is an unequivocal, yes. Indeed, this view that mankind is responsible for climate change, or as it was previously called, global warming, has become climate dogma.
But as much as politicians, activists, and others claim it is “settled science,” the fact is that it is anything but settled. There remain critical questions and unknowns regarding climate science, as evidenced by repeated instances of climate change projections being proven erroneous.
Climate change has been a constant reality on planet Earth since its beginning, and its causes are not fully known or understood, despite the hubris surrounding the issue. The Earth’s climate is a complex system that scientists are still trying to understand.
Therefore, when a substance such as carbon dioxide — a naturally occurring gas that is an essential component for life on this planet — is labeled a “pollutant,” it’s understandable that some would object.
Of course, the reason carbon dioxide has been classified as such is that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased as a result of mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. Scientists link higher saturation levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with greater heat-trapping effects, concluding that mankind is responsible for global warming, which they warn will have massive negative impacts on the planet should it continue unchecked. That, in a nutshell, is the “science” of anthropogenic climate change.
It is based upon this understanding, this doctrinaire belief, that lawmakers have established laws and regulations to limit fossil fuel-based carbon dioxide emissions. This has been expanded to other human activity that contributes to “greenhouse gases” (GHGs), which include methane gas (also a naturally occurring substance) and other gases.
In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the Environmental Protection Agency could regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled 5-4 that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant,’” meaning the “EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases.” Tellingly, the Court noted that “policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment.” Instead, the Court said that the EPA had the authority to determine whether GHGs “cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.” This has been referred to as the EPA’s endangerment finding.
The focus in the case was the EPA’s authority to regulate vehicle emissions, but the ruling has been applied much more broadly to effectively encompass any industry that produces GHG emissions.
Of course, the auto industry has been most directly impacted by the Court’s ruling, as the EPA introduced a slew of regulations that have significantly increased the cost of cars. Furthermore, the Biden administration sought to use the EPA’s GHG regulatory power to effectively force automakers into adopting and scaling up production of electric vehicles with the eventual goal of eliminating gas-powered cars entirely. Included in Joe Biden’s erroneously named Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022, was a clause that specifically classified carbon dioxide and other GHGs as “pollutants” regulated by the EPA.
Now, President Donald Trump is pursuing a pro-growth, pro-energy agenda, and his administration has been working to eliminate many of the hurdles to economic growth that the Democrat administrations of both Barack Obama and Biden put in place.
With Trump successfully securing favorable trade deals across the globe, one of the biggest industries that will benefit from these deals is the American auto industry. And the last thing the auto industry needs is GHG emission regulations that hamper growth.
Thus, in March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin rolled out a deregulation agenda wherein he promised to drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”
The Trump administration just dealt another blow to the anti-energy, anti-prosperity agenda pursued by the Biden administration underpinned by the man-made “climate change” hypothesis. Under the proposed repeal of previous “climate” regulations on energy production announced this month, many of the power plants targeted for destruction could remain open, and CO2 would no longer be considered dangerous “pollution.” Naturally, that has the “climate” movement screaming bloody murder.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the effect of the so-called greenhouse gases coming from U.S. energy production using hydrocarbons (or “fossil fuels”) is so small as to be negligible. The agency also pointed out that the CO2 from power plants is not actually hurting people’s health, contrary to the demonstrably false claims of previous administrations. The latest announcement is part of a suite of two dozen “climate” decrees being eliminated by the administration.
Under the plan, coal and hydrocarbons could continue to provide power for U.S. consumers and businesses. “Rest assured President Trump is the biggest supporter of clean, beautiful coal,” EPA chief Lee Zeldin announced at the agency’s headquarters. “EPA is helping pave the way for American energy dominance because energy development underpins economic development, which in turn strengthens national security.”
The EPA regulatory changes, explained in a proposed rule released this month, would “repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants,” the agency explained. “The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.”
British solar farms have been paid to switch off for the first time as sunny days prompt a surge of clean power that could overwhelm the grid.
The National Energy System Operator (Neso), which manages the UK’s power grids and is overseen by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has issued switch-off orders to solar facilities this year, new research reveals.
Operators are paid to switch off when these orders are issued, with the extra cost added to consumer and business energy bills.
The solar operators claiming compensation are understood to include some of the UK’s biggest energy suppliers, such as EDF Renewables and Octopus Energy.
Such “constraint payments” are already common with wind farms because so many have been built in areas such as northern Scotland or offshore, areas without grid capacity to carry the power they generate.
So far this year, constraint payments have cost consumers £650m, according to the Wasted Wind website. The cost is added to energy bills.
Overall “balancing payments” could hit £8bn a year by 2030 without massive grid upgrades, according to Neso estimates. Such upgrades would also be extremely costly, with consumers liable.
Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.
Let’s see, Abortion, crime, overspending the budget, all the gay shit and pervert stuff, trannies, the global warming lies, cheating to win elections, I can’t imagine that they’d be less proud. They are for more crime and are being stopped. Plus, we stopped slavery in 1865. You can’t blame that anymore. They think they want socialism, but don’t understand the history or ramifications
As we prepare to note the 249th anniversary of our country, getting ready for the great celebration next year of America’s 250th, Gallup serves up sobering data.
Per polling just released by Gallup, only 58% of Americans now say they are “extremely proud” or “very proud” to be an American.
When Gallup first asked this question in 2001, 87% said they were “extremely proud” or “very proud” to be American.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Digging deeper, we see that most of this precipitous drop in pride in our country is attributable to those identifying as Democrats.
In 2001, 90% of Republicans said they were “extremely proud” or “very proud” to be an American. In 2025, 92% of Republicans say they are “extremely proud” or very “proud.”
In 2001, 87% of Democrats said they were either “extremely” or “very” proud. But in 2025, only 36% of Democrats say they are “extremely” or “very” proud of their country.
story
If you hate the country, leave. Just try to find a better place. Africa, ha. Europe, soon to be the muslim capital of world.
As well it should. I don’t know if Covid and the jab or the Climate scam was the biggest hoax of our lifetime. Both will prove them to be Government lies to launder money (most likely).
From New York to California, state renewable electrical power dreams are collapsing. Power demands soar, while the federal government cuts funding and support for wind, solar, and grid batteries. Renewables cannot provide enough power to support the artificial intelligence revolution. The Net Zero electricity transition is failing in the United States.
For the last two decades, state governments have embraced policies aimed at replacing coal and natural gas power plants with renewable sources. Twenty-three states enacted laws or executive orders to move to 100% Net Zero electricity by 2050. Onshore and offshore wind, utility-scale and rooftop solar, and grid-scale batteries were heavily promoted by states and most federal administrations.
The New York State Climate Action Scoping Plan of 2022 called for 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% by 2040. But 49.7% of the state’s electricity came from gas in 2024, up from 47.7% in 2023. A January executive order issued by President Trump halted federal leases for construction of offshore wind systems. New York, nine other east coast states, and California were counting on offshore wind in efforts to get to 100% renewable electricity, but new offshore wind projects are now halted.
I should (can’t) overlook their Muslim problem and that they are being invaded and don’t know it, but to buy into this climate nonsense and spend waste that much money on it baffles one with an IQ of 3 digits.
We looked at the new Spending Review, which has allocated £45.1 billion to Mad Miliband’s DESNZ to spend in the next four years.
I thought I would also try to put some costings on other Government expenditure which is devoted to the pursuit of Net Zero.
£2.6 billion over Phase 2 (2026/27 to 2029/30) for decarbonising transport
£2.3 billion for local transport “improvements”, including cycle lanes and bus lanes, again over Phase 2
£2.7 billion a year for sustainable farming and nature recovery.
The Renewable Heat Incentive at £1.3 billion a year.
In addition there is international climate aid, which will be funded out of the Official Development Assistance budget. This has been running at over £3 billion a year for this year and last.
Then there is revenue foregone by the refusal to make EV drivers pay their proper share of car tax. Fuel duties currently bring around £24 billion a year. Currently there are about 1.5 million BEVs on the road, 5% of the total; so the Treasury is already losing about £1 billion in revenue. By 2030, the number of electric cars could potentially rise to 7 million, leaving a blackhole of £5 million a year.
There are many other costs incurred which are simply impossible to quantify or remain hidden from public view. For instance:
The Affordable Homes Programme, which includes funding for energy efficient homes
Local Government Funding, some of which is channelled to decarbonisation initiative
Electric ambulances
£15.6 billion for local transport in cities
Decarbonisation of public buildings, paid for through the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme
General Motors has abandoned a plan to pump $300 million into electric-vehicle motor production at its upstate New York plant and will instead invest $888 million to make the latest V-8 engines https://t.co/A2yg4NWRow
The REF’s new report on green energy subsidies noted that renewables subsidies are now costing £25.8 bn per year – or over £900 per household annually – about one third of which, £280, will hit the average domestic electricity bill directly.
For a long time, part of the gaslighting around the cost of Net Zero has been focus people’s attention over the impact on their energy bills.
However, as John Constable pointed out, only about a third of the cost hits the public directly via their electricity bills, because only a third of electricity is consumed by domestic users.
The other two thirds is used by industry and commerce, transport and the public sector.
But that does not mean that the public at large don’t end up footing the entire bill one way or another.
Higher electricity costs for industry and commerce mean higher prices in the shops. And higher electricity costs in the public sector mean higher taxes or poorer public services.
At the worst, businesses may shut or move their production abroad, leaving us all worse off.
Miliband and co would love you to think you are only paying a hundred quid or so for Net Zero. People would be horrified to learn that the price is nearer a thousand quid a year.
And that cost is of course just for starters. When we all have to buy expensive EVs and heat pumps we don’t want, we will be much worse off.
The recent massive blackout across Spain, Portugal, France, and Belgium has sparked new debates about the state of Europe’s energy infrastructure, especially as these countries have moved toward renewable energy.
On Monday, Spain and Portugal experienced a massive power outage. Spain lost about 60 percent of its electricity within about five seconds. France and Belgium were also hit, and everybody experienced some level of disruption to their transportation, communication, and overall daily life.
At first, rumors spread that the blackout was caused by some “rare cosmic phenomenon.” But that was quickly ruled out.
The rare atmospheric phenomena causing power outages across Europe has a name
Investigations have also ruled out cyberattacks and weather-related events. The early findings suggest that a sudden loss in solar power in southwestern Spain is what triggered everything.
Watch:
MASSIVE BLACKOUT IN EUROPE ⚡
Major outages hit Spain, Portugal, France, and Belgium.
Airports, subways, and communication networks down.
Spain is one of Europe’s leaders in renewable energy, with over 75% of its electricity coming from renewable sources at the time of the outage.
Net Zero isn’t reality, but that’s exactly what Spain is pushing.
This is truly bananas: all of Europe appears to have been seconds away a continent-wide blackout.
The grid frequency across continental Europe plunged to 49.85 hertz — just a hair above the red-line collapse threshold.
The normal operating frequency for Europe’s power grid is 50.00 Hz, kept with an extremely tight margin of ±0.1 Hz. Anything outside ±0.2 Hz triggers major emergency actions.
If the frequency had fallen just another 0.3 Hz — below 49.5 Hz — Europe could have suffered a system-wide cascading blackout.
At that threshold, automatic protective relays disconnect major power plants, and collapse accelerates.
And it’s disturbingly easy to imagine multiple scenarios where that could have occurred…
Renewables don’t risk blackouts, said the media. But they did and they do. The physics are simple. And now, as blackouts in Spain strand people in elevators, jam traffic, and ground flights, it’s clear that too little “inertia” due to excess solar resulted in system collapse.
Notice I didn’t say climate because global warming is a lie, a money laundering tool that is losing steam (see what I did there?)
Anyway, from Watts Up With That, why warming up is better than cooling.
Here in England this spring, there was dry, sunny weather through most of March, followed by gentle showers in April. And here is the opening couplet of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Tales of Caunterbury, written more than six centuries ago in 1387:
From the medieval climate optimum to the modern climate optimum, the weather in these islands has changed scarcely at all. The drought of March, the sweet April showers, the birdsong day and night, the bursting forth of primroses, bluebells, daffodils and other spring flowers, all are today just as Chaucer described them in the Middle Ages.
The wine-dark sea
One can even go back to Homer, in the 8th Century BC, who talked of the Mediterranean as “the wine-dark sea”. And here am I, almost three millennia later, recently recovered from a long illness caused by defective medication with no active ingredient in it, having climbed to the 1230ft summit of the Akamas peninsula in Cyprus, doing a Canute and challenging the wine-dark sea not to rise. The sea was wine-dark in Homer’s time. It is still wine-dark today.
Where, then, are the drastic changes in climate and consequent catastrophes and cataclysms so luridly predicted by the climate Communists? Where are the mass extinctions? Why is the climate much as it was in the Middle Ages? Why are ten times as many dying of cold as of heat? Why are crop yields at record highs? Why is the planet greening so fast?
Cold, not heat, is the real killer
Silvio Canto Jr., at the splendid American Thinker blog, reminds us that “Earth Day” began on Lenin’s birthday, 22 April. He sets out some examples of the half-witted predictions made by the totalitarian far Left in the early 1970s, when the “green holy day” started:
Paul Ehrlich, in a 1969 essay entitled Eco-Catastrophe!, wrote: “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born. By [1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
In April 1970 he wrote in Mademoiselle: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years”.
In the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, he sketched out his most alarmist scenario, telling readers that between 1980 and 1989 some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in what he called the “Great Die-Off.”
In the May 1970 issue of Audubon, he wrote that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” He said that Americans born since 1946 now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years.
That year he predicted that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone”. He predicted that 200,000 Americans would die by 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
Five years later he predicted that “Since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [i.e., by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
Kenneth Watt, an ecologist, said: “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ’er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I’m very sorry, there isn’t any.’” Global oil production in 2024, at about 95 million barrels per day, was double the global oil output of 48 million barrels per day at the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.
He gave a speech predicting a pending Ice Age: “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”
He also told Time that “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Barry Commoner, a Washington University biologist, wrote in the Earth Day issue of Environment: “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
He also predicted that decaying organic pollutants would consume all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, suffocating freshwater fish.
George Wald, a Harvard biologist, estimated that “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
The New York Times, on its editorial page the day after the first Earth Day, wrote: “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, wrote in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, wrote in 1970: “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, the Near East and Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” The prediction of famine in South America has come to pass only in Venezuela and only due to socialism, not due to environmental reasons.
Life Magazine reported in January 1970: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution … by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”
Harrison Brown, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000, while lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
Senator Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
None of these lurid fantasies, mere pretexts for totalitarian control measures, has materialized.
While I have been ill, I have been quietly working on our team’s climatological research. For an update on our result, now published as an extended abstract after peer review, search YouTube for “Tom Nelson Monckton”.
I have also had long and detailed conversations with two Fellows of the Royal Society, who are justifiably concerned at the Society’s propensity to promulgate only the official narrative on questions such as global warming and are preparing to do something about it.
We have already notched up a useful initial victory. Several Communist Fellows had decided that now that Elon Musk is for some reason no longer a hero of the Left they should call a meeting of the Royal Society to strip him of his Fellowship.
Many Americans believe the Biden administration brought four of the worst years we have encountered in the past half century, if not longer, for the nation and the American spirit. The purpose of presenting here the most damaging actions of those four years is to recall how we allowed ourselves to go off the rails for that time, and the effects wrought, so as to not repeat them or anything similar in our future.
These five failings are presented in the order of significance regarding harm to America: financial, psychological, and social effects.
1. COVID Mandates. Many books will be written to document all the mistakes made in addressing COVID, but the focus here is on specific government mandates and actions to support their positions, at the overt cost of freedom. Here we must trust in your memory all the events the government created to lead to virtual panic in the citizenry and shutdown of the economy in overreaction to a virus that primarily threatened the elderly and those with multiple co-morbidities — an estimated 1% of the population.
Some of us were stunned at the startling overreach of government mandates, mask wearing, social distancing, vaccination, and enforcing compliance potentially with termination of employment or even arrest. Tens of millions of Americans were displaced by government shutdown orders, including massive job losses due to shuttering, relocations, and school closures.
Yet the resulting economic devastation is routinely blamed on the virus itself, instead of the government’s heavy-handed response. Hopefully, we, the citizenry, learned a number of lessons from this nightmarish experience.
2. Mass Unvetted Migration. We do not know the exact numbers, a reflection of how chaotic the inflow from an estimated one hundred countries was. Eight million migrants, according to CBP data and independent estimates, entered illegally during 2021–2024, unfettered, virtually welcomed, during the Biden administration. No country in modern history has allowed that level of mass migration.
It is interesting that questions regarding the reason behind the Biden administration’s policy seem never to be asked. The disruption is massive, broaching all social spheres from education to public welfare, healthcare, and crime. But beyond those quantifiable impacts lies the problem that these illegal immigrants demonstrate no evident desire to adopt American civic values, language, or have any intention to assimilate or to have pride in becoming an American. Instead, we compound our multicultural divisiveness issues in a now overflowing “salad bowel” approach instead of the historically effective “melting pot.
3. Multiple Trillion Dollar Government Spending Programs. When Democratic leaders pretended they wanted to put Biden on their imaginary Democratic Mount Rushmore, the reason was all the additional government spending he got the Democrat Congress to pass. As Ted Kennedy said, “The answer is more money. Now, what is the question?”
Between Trump’s COVID relief and Biden’s “American Rescue Plan” programs, intended to clumsily correct the government shutdown of the economy, the givebacks cost $4.1 trillion dollars. This, like the other programs, was effectively a wealth transfer from taxpayers along with a permanent increase to the national debt.
Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act claimed $1.2 trillion in funding, including $550 billion in new spending. Have there been any notable actual infrastructure programs? Biden’s plan to pay for it was 87,000 new IRS agents to enforce compliance with the vast tax code, mostly directed at small businesses.
Biden’s “American Families Plan” cost $1.8 trillion. This is also almost entirely new welfare programs and again, a wealth transfer from taxpayers to non-taxpayers in the administration’s move toward “crib to grave” socialism.
The ironically named “Inflation Reduction Act,” called for $891 billion in total spending — including $783 billion on green energy, and three more years of Affordable Care Act subsidies, that is, more welfare.
Together, these come to about $8 trillion dollars of new government expenditures in its endless quest to expand its reach at the expense of those 50% of families that pay taxes.
If even one of these programs had resulted in tangible benefits to the public good — like real infrastructure — we might forgive the cost. But instead, all we have is debt.
4. The New Treatment of Crime and Justice. This is a manifestation of the “social justice” movement, precipitated from the George Floyd death in Minneapolis in 2020. In the ensuing riots and “mostly peaceful” protests in 140 cities, there was an excess of unpunished crimes. These riots resulted in at least 25–30 deaths, caused over $2 billion in property damage, and were followed by widespread prosecutorial leniency in the name of “social justice.” They also triggered the “defund the police” movement and in some jurisdictions the apparent end of prosecuting many crimes, such as shoplifting.
Another turn involved lawfare against political opponents originating with district attorneys aided by the Department of Justice. Efforts in particular were focused on preventing a Trump second term by means of the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, unconstitutional exorbitant fines for fabricated offenses, and the effort in numerous states to take him off ballot for the next Presidency.
Now we have a dilemma the Supreme Court must address: setting a boundary on the jurisdiction of any single district court judge, of which there are 677. Can one halt the efforts of the Executive branch in executing Executive branch functions? SCOTUS must quickly fix this.
5. The Biden Administration Executive Order to Focus on DEI. It was with immense pride that Biden announced that a newly invented diversity, equity, and inclusion policy would be the central effort of all his 440-plus executive agencies.
This policy embraced fringe social fads, centered on identity politics as some sort of moral high ground, and was favored over meritocracy. To enforce the policy, many agencies adopted de facto standards that discriminated against white men, prompting numerous lawsuits, including one filed by air traffic controller applicants overtly rejected due to their race and gender.
This policy, and the focus on pronouns, identity language, and fringe gender ideologies, became a cultural flashpoint, alienating the broader public from a government meant to serve all.
Nuclear scientist Digby Macdonald said that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the primary driver of global temperature changes.
In a recent episode of EpochTV’s Bay Area Innovators program, Macdonald said that temperature rises first, followed by CO2.
He pointed to the example of a carbonated drink and how a rise in temperature will cause the drink to release its CO2 faster, causing it to go flat.
“That’s the very reason why you put your beer in a refrigerator,” he said. “If you want the fizzy drink to be tangy … you put it in the refrigerator so the CO2 remains in the drink.”
Macdonald said one of the reasons for the change in climate is the Milankovitch cycle—the regular variations in the elliptical path the earth travels around the sun.
He said that cycle changes every 100,000 years and an ice age occurs when it’s the most elliptical because the earth is receiving a lot less solar radiation and heat.
This cycle, combined with the earth’s wobble and sunspot activity, are the drivers of climate, he said.
“There’s nothing that you and I can do about that,” Macdonald said. “That’s okay, because if we rely upon the historical record, we go through these maxima and minima.”
He said during the Roman period it was one of the maxima, in which temperatures were about two to four degrees higher than now, and there was a large advance in civilization.
Here we go again, exposing the truth about one of the biggest scams the government has come up with to launder money since war.
(1) We are in a climate crisis
We may as well begin with the most controversial environmentalist claim, that our planet is at imminent risk of catastrophic climate change. The problem with this claim is two-fold. First, there remains vigorous—if suppressed—debate over whether the data actually supports this claim. There is ample evidence that average global temperatures are not rapidly increasing, if they are even increasing at all. There is also strong evidence that extreme weather events are not increasing but rather that our ability to detect them has improved and that population increases have led more people to live in places that are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather. Second, even if there is some truth to the claims of climate catastrophists, it is not possible to precipitously transform our entire energy infrastructure. The technology isn’t ready, the funding isn’t available, and most nations will not participate. Adaptation is our only rational course of action.
(2) There are too many people
Based on extrapolations back in 1970, this may have appeared to be the case because populations worldwide at that time were rapidly growing. But today, in almost every nation, the inverse is now true: birthrates are well below replacement levels. Even in those nations that continue to experience rapid population growth, the rate of growth is following the same pattern of decline. The United Nations now estimates the total global population to top out at around 10 billion people, after which it is projected to decline. This means the rapid population growth we’ve seen over the past two centuries, where the global population octupled from 1 billion in 1804 to over 8 billion by 2024, is over. There is not one trend anywhere on earth that contradicts this pattern. Humanity faces a future of too few people, not too many.
(3) We are running out of “fossil” fuel
While this is technically correct, the situation is nowhere close to what was famously predicted in 1956 by American geologist M. Hubbert, who claimed oil production in the U.S. would peak by 1970 and then slide into permanent decline. In the U.S. and around the world, new technologies and new discoveries have put total reserves of oil, along with natural gas and coal, at record highs despite increasing demand. According to the authoritative Statistical Review on Global Energy, based on current consumption, proven reserves could supply oil for 61 years, natural gas for 50, and coal for 208. This grossly understates the big picture, however, because proven and recoverable reserves are being expanded all the time. “Unproven” reserves, waiting to be discovered, will easily double the amount of time left. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to research new sources of energy. But we have a century or more to sort this out.
(4) Biofuel is renewable and sustainable
Nothing could be further from the truth. Biofuel will never supply more than a small fraction of our energy requirements, and attempts to scale it beyond a niche product have produced catastrophic results. Just to use California as an example, the current yield of ethanol from a corn crop stands at not quite 500 gallons per acre. Californians consumed 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline in 2023. Since ethanol has 33 percent less energy per gallon than conventional gasoline, that means replacing gasoline with carbon-neutral ethanol would require 20.3 billion gallons of ethanol production, which in turn would require 63,400 square miles of irrigated farmland and over 120 million acre-feet of water per crop. To put this in perspective, California’s entire expanse of irrigated farmland only totals around 14,000 square miles, and California’s entire agricultural sector only consumes around 30 million acre-feet of water per year. Worldwide, biofuel crops already consume an estimated 500,000 square miles while only offsetting 2 percent of the global consumption of transportation fuel.
(5) Offshore wind energy is renewable and sustainable
Absolutely not. Wind turbine blades, on land or offshore, routinely kill raptors, condors, and other magnificent endangered birds, along with bats and insects. Offshore, there are additional harmful impacts. Electromagnetic fields from undersea cables produce birth deformities in marine life and produce magnetic fields that disrupt the orientation abilities of some fish. Their low-frequency operational noise disrupts sounds made by fish for mating, spawning, and navigating. The turbines “increase sea surface temperatures and alter upper-ocean hydrodynamics in ways scientists do not yet understand” and “whip up sea sediment and generate highly turbid wakes that are 30-150 meters wide and several kilometers in length, having a major impact on primary production by phytoplankton, which are the base of marine food chains.” California’s official plan is to install 25,000 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity in floating wind farms 20 miles offshore. At 10 megawatts each, California’s treasured marine ecosystem will be disrupted by the presence of somewhere between 2,500 floating wind turbines, each one nearly 1,000 feet high. They will need 7,500 tethering cables descending 4,000 feet to the seafloor, along with 2,500 high-voltage cables. Expect ratepayers and taxpayers to subsidize a project that could cost $300 billion or more to build systems that may only have a lifespan of 10-20 years.
(6) Renewables are renewable
No. They’re not. Renewables most in favor with environmentalists are solar and wind farms with battery farms to store the intermittently generated electricity. Just the consumption of natural resources to build these renewables is hardly sustainable. For example, using data from the International Energy Agency, geopolitical writer Peter Ziehan calculated the mineral requirements for power generation, comparing renewables to natural gas in terms of kilograms of minerals per megawatt of capacity. Offshore wind: 16,000 kg/MW, onshore wind: 10,000 kg/MW, solar photovoltaic: 7,000 kg/MW, and natural gas: 2,000 kg/MW. Compounding this disparity is the fact that natural gas power plants can operate for 60 years or more, whereas solar installations are operable for 30 years at most, and wind turbines substantially less than that, depending on where they’re situated. As for EVs, Ziehan calculated kilograms of minerals per vehicle, with EVs requiring over 200 kg/vehicle, compared to conventional cars at only 35 kg/vehicle. It’s easy enough to see what this means. Replacing conventional energy with “renewables” has ignited an expansion of worldwide mining in nations with minimal environmental protections.
(7) Renewables can replace fossil fuels
Not anytime soon. Worldwide, in 2022, 82 percent of global energy was still derived from fossil fuels. For everyone on earth to consume half as much energy per capita as Americans, global energy production will have to double. Based on those two cold facts, fossil fuels are going to be around for a very long time. Even these statistics understate the challenge. In 2023, most of the non-fossil fuel energy produced was from either nuclear (4.0 percent) or hydroelectric (6.8 percent) sources, leaving only 7.5 percent from allegedly renewable sources. And of the remaining 7.5 percent “renewables,” two-thirds of it was biofuel production, which should not be considered renewable or, at the very least, must be considered already at maximum capacity. That leaves only about 2.5 percent of worldwide energy production coming from renewables, if you want to call them that, primarily wind, solar, and geothermal sources.
(8) New housing must be confined to the footprint of existing cities
This is not true for California, nor for the United States, and not even worldwide. Nonetheless, urban containment has been enforced in California ever since we stopped investing in expanding our energy, water, and transportation infrastructure, resulting in 94 percent of the population living on only 5 percent of the land. But urban containment isn’t necessary to ensure enough farm production. Even India, the most densely populated large nation on earth, where there are 2,700 people per square mile of farmland, is a net food exporter. In California, the alleged need for urban containment is truly ridiculous. Building new homes for ten million new California residents on quarter-acre lots, with four-person households, and allocating an equivalent amount for schools, parks, roads, and retail and commercial areas would only consume 1,953 square miles. This would only increase California’s urban footprint from 7,800 to 9,700 square miles, i.e., from 5.0 percent to 6.2 percent of all land in the state. The global trend is people voluntarily migrating to cities at the same time as the global population is expected to begin to decline within a few decades. There will be plenty of room for farms and wilderness even if cities are permitted to expand. Keeping cities bottled up is misanthropic and misguided, creating artificially high home prices and unwanted overcrowding.
(9) Mass transit is necessary to achieve sustainability
It’s hard to imagine a claim more at odds with reality. Mass transit works in extremely dense urban areas where most jobs are located in a central core. With rare exceptions, such as Manhattan, most metropolitan areas no longer have this hub-and-spoke model, which renders economically viable mass transit extremely difficult. Then there are the challenges introduced during the COVID pandemic, which drove millions of riders out of mass transit to either commute in private cars or work from home. Ridership never recovered. An additional barrier to the readoption of mass transit is the fact that most cities are unwilling to police and remove disruptive individuals from the buses and trains, rendering their systems too dangerous for potential passengers to consider. Finally, along with now-mature work-from-home technology that is only going to improve, we have innovations just around the corner that will enable smart cars to convoy at higher speeds, increasing the capacity of existing roads, as well as a revolution in passenger drones that will take additional pressure off roads. Why would someone ride mass transit when they can relax while their own smart vehicle drives them point-to-point with no interruptions? And why should taxpayers subsidize mass transit?
(10) Wilderness areas are sacred
This mantra has caused more harm than good to the wilderness. Litigation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act has severely restricted, if not put a complete stop to, logging on public land, although the current White House administration is trying to change that. Since then, over the past 40 years, because fires were suppressed and logging didn’t remove new growth, our forests have become overgrown, resulting in catastrophic fires. Similarly, ESA litigation and environmentalist-inspired regulations put a stop to dredging in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which was the only way to maintain deep, cool channels favored by salmon ever since the construction of levees in the 1800s caused silt deposits to accumulate in what remained of their migration routes. It is important to protect truly endangered species, but environmentalists often create bigger problems. Poverty in Africa could be alleviated if environmental restrictions on energy development were lifted. But as it is, in desperate poverty, Africans are cutting down their forests for firewood, hunting wild game for food, and poaching dwindling herds of elephants, rhinos, lions, and other precious and endangered species for sale to international smugglers. How we manage our wilderness must be revisited with a reality-based emphasis on results, not ideology. Moreover, an encouraging fact is that while total forest cover in the world was in decline for many centuries, over the past 40 years, it has been increasing. This is the result of several factors: reforestation efforts, migration to urban areas, which depopulates forest regions; huge improvements in agricultural productivity, which takes farmland out of production, allowing for forests to reclaim the land; and maybe even slightly elevated atmospheric CO₂, which is plant food.
The ideals of environmentalism ought to inspire everyone, but the policies promulgated in the name of environmentalism are all too often actually hurting the environment. Examples are the mad rush to develop renewables and the power of the “climate crisis” narrative to deter rational cost/benefit analysis of environmentalist policies. The impact of misguided environmentalism is not merely the fate of wildlife and wilderness or the health of global ecosystems. It is also economic and, in practice, has led to profound transfers of wealth as entrenched special interests thrive on escalating regulations that only the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals can navigate. Worldwide, entire industrial sectors are consolidated, costing nations the resilience and affordability that a diverse and competitive economy can deliver. Environmentalism, as it is practiced in the 21st century, is an arm of globalism, with shades of paternalism and colonialism that often overshadow its virtues.
I’d argue that the Covid jab is close, as was the Covid cover story, but nevertheless
I had to work in sustainability at IBM. I knew it was a load of shit from premise to people. It was a money laundering scheme from the getgo as well as a religion for those who don’t want to believe in God.
The Paris Climate Accord is not much of a deal anymore, in large part because it’s hard to fix the climate if nothing stops China. In other words, we finally came to terms with the reality that China and India are polluting the air a lot more than the Western countries who couldn’t wait to sign it.
The language has changed, too. You may remember when we called it global warming. Everything now is “climate change,” a convenient way of blaming everything on the climate.
Last, but not least, what killed the climate change cult is all of those predictions that turned out to be false. How many times can you get it wrong? I guess a million if you are making predictions about warming and cooling. Let’s remember some of the biggest hits:
1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley, a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995. Wrong.
2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and professor at the University of California, Davis, warned that “there won’t be any more crude oil,” that “none of our land will be usable” for agriculture, and the world would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. False.
3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. Extremely false.
4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that “world population will outrun food supplies” and “the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine” by the year 2000. Didn’t happen.
5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted the coming of a “new ice age” within 50 years. Incorrect.
As I recall, the one about the coming ice age made the cover of Newsweek or Time. It had me wondering if they would have to cancel baseball or force every city to build a dome stadium.
Check out more hits:
6) In 1975, Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. Erroneous.
7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years, which wouldn’t even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992. False.
8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change. Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a “Siberian” climate. Extremely false.
As it turned out, Britain never got a Siberian winter, but they do have a lot of immigrants who hate everything about the country. They didn’t run out of water in the Maldives, either, but a lot of people are going there for vacation. Maybe they drink bottled water in all of those fancy resorts.
And we round out the list with two more:
9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions. Didn’t happen.
10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022. Nope.
Well, New York City did not go underwater, but it’s a horrible place to live as more people bail out from high taxes. And V.P. Gore and Greta will likely not live to see the end of ice on the Arctic Ocean. We also have not yet lived to see a Gore presidency, which was the best part of the story.
So yes, there is something in the air, because climate talk is not what it used to be. I guess that’s what shutting down power plants and making bad predictions will do to a movement.
What looked like the Green Movement’s unstoppable momentum has stalled out recently, as Americans rethink the costs of some of the more draconian proposals to rid the world of industrial carbon dioxide. As skepticism grows, the movement to slash CO2 at all costs also may be nearing an end, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.
Americans have become increasingly wary of the “net zero” and other modern-day green movements after so many of their doom-filled prophecies of imminent environmental disaster failed to come true.
In its national online poll taken Mar. 26-28, I&I/TIPP asked 1,452 poll respondents the following opening question: “Which of the following best describes your view of the current climate change movement?”
Those taking the poll, which has a +/-2.6 percentage point margin of error, were asked to choose from six possible answers:
The first answer was that the climate-change movement “is a necessary response to a serious global crisis.” It garnered 39% support, more than any other single response.
However, taken together, the remaining five responses portray a broad range of skepticism of the green movement among the rest of those who took the poll.
Within this group, 16% said “It has gone too far and is driven more by politics than science,” while 20% agreed: “I’m concerned about the environment but skeptical of climate alarmism.” Another 5% said “I used to support it but now question its motives and impact,” and 11% noted “I don’t believe climate change is a significant issue.” The remaining 9% said they were not sure.
Because the real polluters are on the other side of the world
95% of all plastic in the world’s seas and oceans comes from 10 rivers, 2 of which are in Africa and the rest are in Asia. The great lie of modern environmentalism is that anything we do in the West will make a difference as long as Asia and Africa continue to pollute like this. https://t.co/KZOlUMY60Hpic.twitter.com/nr966mEgla
China, India and Africa. They are causing the problem. Stop trashing the US as the only reason we have pollution. They just want to soak the US to pay.
Big companies and non-profit groups have begun purging or rewriting references to climate change on their websites, mirroring similar action by US government departments in response to the policies of Donald Trump.
Financial Times analysis shows that statements on climate change from leading corporations including Walmart and Kraft Heinz have been deleted or rewritten over the past year at the same time as a Republican backlash against green action has intensified and companies have begun rolling back their net zero targets.
…
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned companies were at risk of “committing brand self-sabotage by erasing and diluting references to climate on their websites”.
…
Charities also told the FT they were rejigging their websites, with one US non-profit group that operates internationally saying they had scrubbed whole pages about climate change online, partly in a bid to help shore up US grants.
The full article is worth reading, it contains a substantial list of companies and charities which have turned their backs on climate action.
Interestingly some of them apparently started purging online climate content before the November election, possibly in anticipation of a Trump victory.
Obviously if a radical climate activist is elected to the White House all the statements of climate commitment will be dusted off and restored. But in my opinion this shows how little corporations and charities genuinely care about climate change, and the fundamental weakness of the climate movement.
story
They’ve gone along with the crowd when they had to. Now, they don’t want to look stupid because the evidence screams that it is just money laundering and a bunch of lies, just like DEI
The latest deadline for countries to submit plans for slashing the greenhouse gas emissions fuelling climate change has passed. Only 15 countries met it – less than 8% of the 194 parties currently signed up to the Paris agreement, which obliges countries to submit new proposals for eliminating emissions every five years.
Known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, these plans outline how each country intends to help limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, or at most 2°C. This might include cutting emissions by generating more energy from wind and solar, or adapting to a heating world by restoring wetlands as protection against more severe floods and wildfires.
Each new NDC should outline more stringent emissions cuts than the last. It should also show how each country seeks to mitigate climate change over the following ten years. This system is designed to progressively strengthen (or “ratchet up”) global efforts to combat climate change.
Bulldozing the Amazon rainforest is a fitting way to mark 30 years of failure, of annual gabfests that have released colossal amounts of carbon dioxide from the mouths of the well-meaning, and burned tonnes of aviation fuel to get them there, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions not one bit.
…
Energy scientist, Vaclav Smil puts the total cost of achieving net zero by 2050 at $US444 trillion, or $US17 trillion a year for 25 years, “requiring affluent economies to spend 20 to 25 per cent of their annual GDP on the transition”.
…
So net zero by 2050 won’t happen and the increase in global temperature will not be limited to the 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels that was agreed as preferred at Paris in 2015 – nowhere near it.
It would be a waste of money for something that nobody really wanted, an idea that wouldn’t work, and something that is not necessary except to the globalist Marxists who are trying to run everybody’s business, but should fukc off.
If ever a story perfectly encapsulated the hypocrisy of elitists who want to enslave and impoverish the planet in the name of the global warming hoax, this is it:
A new four-lane highway cutting through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest is being built for the COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian city of Belém.
It aims to ease traffic to the city, which will host more than 50,000 people – including world leaders – at the conference in November.
Cutting down rainforest is particularly bad from the viewpoint of the climate ideology that will be espoused at the summit:
The Amazon plays a vital role in absorbing carbon for the world and providing biodiversity, and many say this deforestation contradicts the very purpose of a climate summit.
Not at all. The purpose of a climate summit is to engage in virtue signaling while angling to achieve more power over the Little People. John Kerry never misses one, thanks to private jets always being at hand for him.
What a bunch of hypocrites. I can’t believe they expect us to believe their climate scares to get more money. Go Elon and DOGE, cut their legs out from under them by eliminating their grifting.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions was going to save the planet at no cost. Turns out it’s an economy wrecker, which is more feature than bug for many a climate alarmist.
Kallum Pickering, chief economist at Peel Hunt, a London-based investment bank, took on the claim of Labour Party British Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who said that pursuing net zero greenhouse gas emissions didn’t require a deceleration of economic growth. What he found was “sad to say,” but he stands by the facts.
“The result of the UK’s decarbonization efforts appears to be weak economic growth, stalling living standards, high energy prices and deindustrialization – without denting rising global emissions,” he wrote last week in the Telegraph.
“Net zero is strangling our economy,” says the headline over Pickering’s column, because “limiting available electricity has stifled productivity.”
On the Peel Hunt website, Pickering explained that data from 189 countries indicated there is “a strong positive correlation between living standards and energy consumption – showing a clear link between falling energy capacity and weak productivity in the UK.” He notes that “the decline in UK electricity supply, which started in 2006, coincided with the start of structural weakness in productivity growth.”
Bluntly put, without cheap and reliable energy, which is what we get from fossil fuels, an economy turns sclerotic. Which is why the political left works so feverishly to end gas and oil. As we have said so many times before, the agenda behind cutting greenhouse gases is in actuality an assault on capitalism, which, as the legendary Milton Friedman famously said, is the only economic system that has enabled the masses to escape from “grinding poverty.”
Trump’s EPA has started the process to rescind the EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 and other alleged greenhouse gasses. It would remake our nation and shake a Western civilization already being pummeled by green madness. These regulations, both here and abroad, have been stalking horses for socialism and vehicles for fraud. graft, and funding left-wing actors on a scale unseen in human history.
Until 2007, the US resisted the claim that CO2 was a pollutant that could be regulated to adjust the world’s climate. That year, five activist Supreme Court Justices donned white lab coats of climate scientists in Massachusetts v. EPA to hold that the Clean Air Act was written so broadly that it gave the EPA, created simply to clean up pollution, almost unlimited authority to regulate carbon dioxide, an essential, albeit minute, part of our atmosphere.
This judicial overreach mattered because even a super-majority of congressional Democrats had rejected a law that would have authorized the EPA to regulate CO2. Armed with this Supreme Court ruling, Obama’s EPA acted unilaterally in 2009 to declare CO2 a pollutant it could regulate. How’s that for spitting in the face of Art. 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, which holds that the power to legislate is vested solely in Congress?
Climate science is little more than modern Lysenkoism. It has been subject to decades of gatekeeping in universities, grant-making entities, the UN, and science journals, all working together to suppress any challenges to “the anthropogenic climate change consensus.” All too often, “climate modeling has transformed from a scientific tool into a mechanism for manufacturing hysteria.”
Many climate studies rely on questionable peer review as ostensible proof of their reliability rather than reproducing the studies.
Notably, there has been no increase in the number or severity of weather-related disasters for decades. The actual trendline, according to Roger Pielke, Jr., is completely flat.
[T]he completely false notion that global weather and climate disasters have increased and will continue to increase is commonly reported in the legacy media, buoyed by the promotion of false information by organizations that include the United Nations. In 2020 the U.N. claimed falsely of a “staggering rise in climate-related disasters over the last twenty years.”
I still can’t believe people fall for this. They can’t predict the weather next week let alone years from now. They can predict a scare to raise and hustle money thought, what it really is about.
Renewables don’t risk blackouts, said the media. But they did and they do. The physics are simple. And now, as blackouts in Spain strand people in elevators, jam traffic, and ground flights, it’s clear that too little “inertia” due to excess solar resulted in system collapse.
2. Mass Unvetted Migration. We do not know the exact numbers, a reflection of how chaotic the inflow from an estimated one hundred countries was. Eight million migrants, according to CBP data and independent estimates, entered illegally during 2021–2024, unfettered, virtually welcomed, during the Biden administration. No country in modern history has allowed that level of mass migration.
Delusions of Adequacy 
