Tag: climategate

It’s Official: The Climate Scam Was a Scam All Along

It’s nice when something you knew was a fraud all along turns out to be a fraud, but it’s even nicer when the people perpetrating the fraud admit it was a fraud all along.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios,” science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr wrote late last week, and in what he called “big news,” the new framework “eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades.”

So the oceans aren’t about to boil off or freeze over or whatever the current scare story is?

Exactly: “The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.”

This is important because the IPCC’s changes resulted in “an update to the Science Based Targets initiative’s rules eliminates the need for steep emission cuts by 2030,” Trellis reported on Friday. In other words, even the people committed to radically reduced carbon emissions now say we don’t need to radically reduce carbon emissions to save the world or whatever.

Without getting too technical — you can read Pielke’s full report for that, should you feel the need to go shoulder-deep in the weeds — the upshot is that the previous frameworks lacked “any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios.” Now, however, “the new HIGH scenario is exploratory — a thought experiment, not a projection.”

My guess is that the IPCC still includes the non-scientific, scary-sounding “HIGH scenario” because otherwise the money might dry up.

Pielke added that “users of climate models and model output based on legacy scenarios will now face decisions about if and how they’d like to realign with the latest scientific understandings versus continuing to rely on outdated research.”

We’ll see how that works out. 

The new IPCC framework actually dates back to 2021, but is only now becoming “news” because a bunch of slow-moving pieces have finally lined up. That’s just how science works.

But Pielke’s analysis is a week old, and the only way I learned about it was thanks to a Toby Young post on X — he’s editor-in-chief of the UK’s Daily Sceptic — that PJ Media’s own Charlie Martin found.

Why, it’s almost as though the mainstream media doesn’t want to cover stories like this one.

But for once, I don’t digress.

Keep reading

Carbon Neutral, Speech Negative: Amsterdam Bans Ads Featuring Meat & Fossil Fuels

In “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about how censorship often becomes an insatiable appetite once countries go down the road of speech regulation. There is no better example than the Dutch and their recent ban on public ads for meat and fossil fuels. Activists have imposed similar limitations on advertising for products in the United States, from alcohol to tobacco. However, the Dutch law reflects how this tendency can metastasize into shielding citizens from unhealthy choices or influences.

It appears that Dutch painters such as Pieter Aertsen (with his work A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms, above) were promoting harmful imagery in their work. As for Rembrandt’s “Slaughtered Ox,” the Dutch master is now little more than a climate change denier.

Starting on May 1, the ban on such images became part of Amsterdam’s push to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. While purportedly neutral on carbon, it is manifestly negative on free speech.

As with other anti-free speech measures in Europe, this push again came from the left. The GreenLeft Party’s Anneke Veenhoff explained “I mean, if you want to be leading in climate policies and you rent out your walls to exactly the opposite, then what are you doing?”

The answer is engaging in free speech.

This is, of course, commercial speech, which is often subject to a lower level of protection. However, this shows the danger of using the differential standard to target products or industries viewed as unhealthy or ill-advised for consumers.

In Amsterdam, the ban will cover industries such as airlines, including KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, one of the largest employers and revenue generators in the country.

Notably, activists compare this to cigarette advertising bans, confirming the very slippery slope danger that those companies raised when they were targeted.

Hannah Prins, a paralegal at Advocates for the Future, is quoted as saying, “I don’t think it’s normal to see murdered animals on billboards. So I think it’s very good that that’s going to change.”

Other Dutch cities are now following suit, including Haarlem, Utrecht, and Nijmegen.

Of course, prostitutes still advertise live in Amsterdam and marijuana is a major industry for tourists.

If you want drugs, there are ample choices.

However, if you want a steak, you will have to rely on word-of-mouth directions.

Keep reading

IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are “Implausible”

Activist climate scientists, journalists and Net Zero-obsessed politicians are in shock following an official admission from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a set of key assumptions promoting a climate ‘crisis’ since 2011 are “implausible”.

The notorious set of always-improbable RCP8.5 ‘pathway’ assumptions which fed into computer models trying to measure an unmeasurable climate are no more. Since around 2011, these ‘business as usual’ assumptions have produced outlandish claims of future climate catastrophe which have been lapped up by lap dog journalists and politicians. The influential writer Roger Pielke Jr. called RCP8.5’s demise, “the most significant development in climate research in decades”.

Others might observe that we have not heard the last of RCP8.5. Its gross misuse is likely to be given a starring, central role when the history of the Great Climate and Net Zero Scam comes to be written.

Pielke lays it out clearly what has happened:

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

He goes on to note that tens of thousands of research papers have been and continue to be published using these scenarios. In addition, a similar number of media headlines have “amplified their findings”, while governments and international organisations have built these implausible scenarios into policy and regulation.

Keep reading

Miliband Bans Tumble Dryers in Net Zero Drive

The sale of traditional tumble dryers is to be stamped out in a Net Zero drive that will push consumers toward more expensive heat pump machines that take longer to dry clothes. The Telegraph has the story.

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, is introducing new laws that will phase out the sale of condenser tumble dryers and promote heat-pump alternatives to help cut carbon emissions.

The move, condemned as a “mad” form of “Soviet control” by the Tories and Reform, will align Britain more closely with the European Union which has already implemented similar rules.

Traditional dryers use a heating element to warm air, which passes through your clothes and removes moisture. That moisture is then condensed into water and collected in a reservoir, before being drained away.

A heat-pump dryer uses a closed-loop system that recycles warm air and runs at a lower temperature – around 50°C instead of the standard 70-75°C.

Heat-pump dryers cost £40 more to buy on average than traditional dryers, with premium heat-pump machines costing as much as £1,650.

They can take as much as half an hour longer to dry clothes, with users on consumer forums complaining that they are spending far longer drying multiple loads for their families.

While the Government believes the more modern and cheaper-to-run heat-pump dryers will save consumers in the long run, critics say they can fail in very cold conditions. Others have raised concerns about how much noise they make, complaining about a droning hum akin to the sound of an air-conditioning unit.

Advocates say they do less damage to clothes over time, but some users have complained their clothes feel cold and as if they are still damp after the lower-temperature drying cycles finish.

On top of this, certain models have been affected by technical faults that have caused the machines to burst into flames.

Plans for a de facto sales ban were quietly confirmed in documents published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on a Sunday earlier this month, with new regulations published on Friday.

The department has already instigated bans on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, as well as on gas boilers in new homes and has mandated solar panels to be installed on all new properties.

Richard Tice, Reform UK’s Business, Trade and Energy Secretary, described the latest move as ludicrous.

“Mad Miliband’s latest Net Zero push to get rid of the traditional tumble dryer and force a more expensive alternative is utter madness. This new ludicrous move will not only push bills even higher in the short term, but it will also take longer to dry clothes and come with a huge fire risk.

“At a time when families are struggling with household costs, Labour is choosing to focus on tone-deaf green ideologies rather than listening to what the public wants.

“Reform UK will scrap the failing and disastrous Net Zero agenda and focus on bringing energy bills down.”

Keep reading

Political Theatre – Solve Energy Crisis by Eliminating Fossil Fuels

Over 50 nations are gathering in Colombia to map out a future without oil, gas, and coal, all while the world is in the middle of an energy crisis driven by war, supply disruptions, and rising demand that cannot even be met today. The same governments pretending they can eliminate fossil fuels are quietly scrambling behind the curtain to secure more of them just to keep the lights on.

This is what happens when policy is driven by ideology instead of reality. I have warned repeatedly that there is no viable alternative capable of replacing fossil fuels at scale. This is not an opinion. It is a simple matter of physics and infrastructure. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload power. They are intermittent, unreliable, and require storage systems that do not exist at the level needed to sustain a modern industrial economy. Yet politicians stand up and pretend we can simply flip a switch and transition the entire world economy to renewables as if energy were some optional luxury.

What makes this entire agenda even more dangerous is that they are no longer speaking in vague terms, they are openly stating the objective. Ursula von der Leyen declared that “the global fossil fuel crisis must be a game-changer… let’s earn the clean ticket to heaven,” which is not economic policy, it is ideological rhetoric detached from reality. John Kerry has pushed that leaders must accelerate the “transition away from fossil fuels” or face catastrophe, while Ed Miliband continues to insist Net Zero is essential to eliminate dependence on traditional energy altogether. Then you have Ro Khanna advocating ending fossil fuel subsidies and halting new permits, which in practical terms means cutting supply before any viable replacement exists.

Yet even within their own ranks the cracks are showing. Tony Blair bluntly admitted that any strategy centered on phasing out fossil fuels in the near term is “doomed to fail.” They are publicly advancing an agenda that even insiders know cannot function in the real world.

What they refuse to admit is that every single modern economy depends on fossil fuels at its core. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, electricity, all of it. You cannot remove that foundation without collapsing the structure built on top of it. Even now, as they hold conferences and make declarations, countries are reverting to coal because when crisis strikes, theory disappears and survival takes over. That is the reality they will never say out loud.

Keep reading

“You Don’t Have the Right to Say Climate Change is a Hoax!”- Purple-Haired Democrat LOSES IT as Lee Zeldin Schools Her on Two Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Congress’s purple-haired congresswoman had a near-complete meltdown after EPA administrator Lee Zeldin completely embarrassed her during an an exchange on ‘climate change’ and the law.

On Monday, Zeldin testified before the House Appropriations Committee regarding President Trump’s 2027 budget request. As The Washington Examiner notes, the proposed budget would cut the agency’s budget in half if approved by Congress.

During the hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) angrily attacked Zeldin for “appeasing polluters” and ignoring Americans under “the false flag of economic growth.”

Zeldin responded by explaining that he’s following the law, pointing out that it says nothing about fighting climate change.

Then, he asked DeLauro if she was familiar with the Loper Bright Supreme Court case.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a landmark Supreme Court case in 2024 which overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies.

The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has long been a source of contention. It granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, effectively allowing unelected bureaucrats to make laws through their regulatory actions.

However, by a 6-3 majority, SCOTUS declared that such power is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of democratic governance.

DeLauro had no clue what Zeldin was talking about and went berserk:

“You do not, excuse, you don’t have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it’s a hoax!” she yelled at the EPA Administrator.

The exchange got even worse for DeLauro when Zeldin exposed her for not knowing about another landmark Supreme Court decision: West Virginia Vs. EPA.

In this 2022 case, The Court determined by a 6-3 margin that Congress did not authorize the EPA to compel existing power plants to combat climate change using the Clean Air Act, thereby curbing the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from them.

All DeLauro could do was yell at Zeldin and finally snapped completely by saying, “I don’t have to listen to this BS!”

Keep reading

Republicans Open New Front In Growing Battle Against “Climate Lawfare”

Republicans in Congress are taking action to shield U.S. energy producers from “Climate lawfare,” the relentless barrage of frivolous lawsuits orchestrated by radical environmental activists.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced S.4340, a bill that would bar frivolous lawsuits from green activist groups seeking damages, injunctions, or other relief for harms allegedly caused by the end use of energy products. Senators Ted Budd (R- NC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Mike Lee (R-UT) are cosponsoring the legislation. The House companion bill, H.R. 8330, was introduced yesterday by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY). The bill would also void any energy penalty law and preempts any states’ attempts to regulate interstate and global emissions.

“Radical environmental groups have waged a coordinated campaign to weaponize our judicial system against American energy producers, including many in Texas,” Cruz said in a statement. “They’re using meritless lawsuits to bankrupt our energy industry, kill good paying jobs, and drive up the cost of electricity and gasoline for hardworking families. I am proud to lead this bill to stop that abuse to protect American jobs, lower energy costs, and defend American energy dominance.”

“Energy security is national security, and we will not self-sabotage our critical industries with a cascade of costly lawsuits and extreme penalties that jeopardize American drilling. America’s energy producers should be protected from the dangerous legal precedent that would be set by the retroactive punishment of lawful activity,” Hageman said.

The bill has already won applause by energy groups aligned with President Donald Trump’s pro-growth agenda.

“Green left activists have always gone to extraordinary lengths to impose their anti-energy agenda on Americans. Filing sweeping lawsuits against oil and gas companies in an attempt to force policy outcomes they have failed to achieve in the legislative and administrative arenas is some of their most egregious work yet,” American Energy Alliance president Tom Pyle said. “This kind of politically motivated litigation threatens not only energy stability, security, and affordability but also the integrity of our legal system.”

Keep reading

Obama-Appointed Judge Denise J. Casper Blocks Trump Administration’s Efforts to Stop ‘Green New Scam’

A federal judge in Boston issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of several federal policies affecting wind and solar energy development, siding with industry groups that argued the measures unlawfully delayed projects across the country.

Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration could not enforce a series of permitting requirements and related policies that renewable energy advocates said had stalled or canceled projects nationwide. Casper concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims that agencies including the Department of the Interior adopted unlawful procedures that created bottlenecks in the approval process.

The ruling applies to members of nine advocacy organizations and trade groups, including RENEW Northeast and the Alliance for Clean Energy New York. Those groups had challenged a policy requiring multiple levels of approval from senior political appointees for nearly every step in the permitting process for wind and solar projects. The judge found that the administration had not adequately justified the additional review structure.

The decision represents one of several recent judicial setbacks for President Donald Trump’s administration as it seeks to reshape federal energy policy. The administration has emphasized expanding fossil fuel production, promoting oil, coal, and natural gas output while reducing support for renewable energy sources. On Monday, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act and signed memorandums aimed at increasing domestic energy production, citing national defense concerns.

According to court filings, the challenged Department of the Interior memorandum implemented directives aimed at eliminating what the administration called “preferences” for “expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar.” The policy required nearly every step in the permitting process for wind and solar projects to receive approval from three senior political appointees, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The judge also blocked the Department’s “adoption of an interpretation of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that ​imposes stricter standards for offshore wind projects,” Reuters reported. Plaintiffs argued the policy created a bottleneck that ground permitting to a halt and was adopted without explanation for why it was needed, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Casper agreed with those arguments, stating that the directives cited by the administration did not sufficiently justify the added review process or the stricter standards applied to renewable energy projects. Her order blocks enforcement of those policies while the case proceeds.

Keep reading

Wes Moore’s ‘Climate Study’ Bankrolled by Left-Wing Rockefeller Fund As Left Looks To Force Oil Companies To Pay Damages for Climate Change

Democratic Maryland governor Wes Moore announced late last year he would commission a climate “study” aimed at assessing “the undue burden Marylanders are paying for extreme weather events” so that fossil fuel companies can be coerced into paying some sort of climate reparations. Moore didn’t mention it, but the left-wing, climate-obsessed Rockefeller Family Fund chipped in $30,000 for the study, raising questions about the study’s impartiality, the Free Beacon‘s Thomas Catenacci reports. We aren’t holding our breath for the results.

The RFF—established in 1967 by the liberal great-grandchildren of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller—says oil companies (the source of their generational wealth) “advance a business model that accelerates the climate crisis” and that the Maryland study is intended to make those companies pay up. The RFF said in a December press release that the study would “lay the groundwork for a Maryland climate superfund bill, which would require fossil fuel companies to pay for a portion of the state’s climate adaptation costs identified through the study”—which is a weird thing to say before the study is actually conducted and the findings presumably unknown—but did not disclose its role in funding the research.

Blue states like New York and Vermont have already passed “climate superfund” laws, which stipulate that oil companies helped cause extreme weather events like floods and wildfires and have to pay damages to compensate for them. Both states are facing lawsuits from the Trump administration arguing that the laws illegally usurp federal emissions regulations.

The move comes as the RFF—which sits on more than $200 million in total assets, according to its latest tax filing—also supports lawsuits seeking to compel oil companies to pay damages by holding them responsible for climate change. “Such suits have largely been unsuccessful, including in Maryland, where the state’s Supreme Court recently dismissed three lawsuits from Democratic-led jurisdictions that accused the likes of BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron of causing costly weather events,” Catenacci writes. “The RFF-backed study, then, could be the first step toward securing payouts from oil companies through the legislative process rather than the judicial one.”

Keep reading

Joe Rogan Destroys Bernie’s Climate Change Fairy Tale with One Simple Graph

Sen. Bernie Sanders and podcast host Joe Rogan discussed climate change, energy policy, and the role of financial interests during a recent exchange, presenting differing views on how the issue should be understood and addressed.

Sanders emphasized the urgency of confronting climate change, citing temperature trends and the potential for economic changes tied to energy policy.

He said the issue should be addressed as part of broader national priorities.

“You got to deal with this climate change issue. And I know that, you know, there are some people think climate change is a hoax. It ain’t a hoax. I think the last 10 years have been the warmest on record, and we can’t create millions of good paying jobs transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency to solar to wind and other sustainable energies.”

Sanders framed the discussion around what he described as the need to move toward alternative energy sources while also focusing on job creation tied to those industries.

Rogan responded by describing climate change as a complex issue and raised questions about long-term climate data. He referenced a Washington Post article examining climate patterns over an extended period.

“I think the climate change issue is very complicated. And I think Did you see the Washington Post piece that they wrote where they did this long term view? First of all, the reality is that the Earth’s temperature has never been static, right? We both agree on that. It’s always been up and down. There’s been ice ages and heat waves. And then the Washington Post looked at it. What was the time period that they looked at that? Essentially, they found that we’re in a cooling period that the earth over the past X amount of years. And this was like a very inconvenient discovery, but they had to report the data, and kudos to them for doing that.”

Rogan continued by referring to scientific efforts to track long-term climate patterns.

Keep reading