Tag: climategate

BBC Reporter Shows How To Spread Extreme Climate Alarm

A gleeful, self-satisfied Mr Punch was often heard to remark: “That’s the way to do it.” Today we examine how Mark Poynting, one of the BBC’s top doom-mongering Net Zero activists, uses the trusted ‘scientists say’ message to turn a centennial sea level rise of around 30 cm into prose stating: “The world could see hugely damaging sea-level rises of several metres or more over the coming centuries”. Added fear is inserted into the mix with the warning that the disappearing act will occur, “even if the ambitious target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is met, scientists have warned”.

Poynting and the BBC are essentially telling a worldwide audience that coastal land and beyond across the world could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea rise if the global temperature is three-tenths of a degree centigrade higher. This message properly belongs on a doomsday sandwich board walker, not least because the rise in temperature is almost within the margin of error of constantly-adjusted and unnaturally-heated global temperature datasets.

Extrapolating computer modelled data rigged with improbable ‘pathways’ that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change more or less dismiss as ‘low confidence’ – that’s the way to do it.

The BBC story is based on the recent compilation and interpretation of material from a group led by Geography Professor Chris Stokes. This provides just the sort of findings that are catnip to the BBC. At one point the authors seem to think that humans can control the amount of ice on both Greenland and Antarctica, arguing that the global mean temperature should be reduced with further work “urgently required to more precisely determine a ‘safe limit’ for ice sheets“. Given the catastrophic consequences of a rapid collapse of one or more ice sheets, the authors state, “we conclude that adopting the precautionary principle is imperative and that a global mean temperature cooler than present is required to keep ice sheets broadly in equilibrium”.

That’s the way to do it. Poynting could have informed his gaslit readers that overall ice loss in Antarctica is minimal with suggestions of an annual 100 gigatonnes reduction equivalent to 0.00041% of the total mass – well within the margin of error. At current rates of melting on a continent that has seen no overall warming for at least 70 years, it would take around 300,000 years for all the ice to disappear. And this assumes no intervening glaciations, a new ice age, or just more accurate measurements. Instead he reports the comments of the Stokes crew that the “major concern is that melting could accelerate further beyond ‘tipping points’ due to warming caused by humans”. That’s the way to do it – talk about ‘tipping points’ that never occur and then cover yourself by adding “though it’s not clear exactly how these mechanisms work and where the thresholds sit”.

Instead of “not exactly clear”, try, “haven’t got a clue”. But it is “precautionary” to remove hydrocarbons from modern use and drive humanity back to the dark ages – just in case the model inventions do occur.

Keep reading

Buckling under to the Green New Deal

In an earlier article for American Thinker, I wrote about the Conservative Climate Caucus in Congress, providing proof that bad ideas can flourish on both sides of the political divide. I concluded the article by warning readers that it was important to eliminate all vestiges of the Green New Deal and stop subsidy-seeking companies from manipulating the political environment to enrich themselves at the expense of the public.

To my dismay, the forces arrayed against this happening have prevailed. With Trump’s electoral victory and the Republican’s success in winning the Senate and House, I would have thought that there was a chance of rolling back the Green New Deal. I was wrong. Alex Epstein writes about it in his substack of May 19th, describing how Republicans got roped into a deal that keeps the IRA (a.k.a. Green New Deal) intact. The details that he describes are rather involved but the upshot is that the Republicans folded like a house of cards when they came under pressure from the wind and solar lobbies.

I have written at length about the value proposition of renewables; what I mean by value proposition is the negative value that renewables add to the energy sector. They increase cost and decrease reliability, but continue to be pushed by green crusaders and subsidy-seeking companies (read Baptists and Bootleggers) who have powerful influence in government. Speaking out against them are myself and others like Alex Epstein, but it does not seem like a fair fight. The amount of money invested by parties in the status quo is so immense that they will not go quietly into the night. They are squeezing congressmen by telling them that their districts will lose federal funds, their constituents will lose jobs, and the planet will perish. It takes a strong principled man to stand up to that type of pressure.

I recall two times in recent memory when politicians buckled under such pressure. One was during the mortgage crisis of 2008 when Wall Street bankers and their friends at the Fed and Treasury painted a picture of an economic meltdown to Bush Jr. if he did not go along with the bailout. The other was in the early days of COVID when Fauci and company painted a picture of widespread death if Trump did not go along with the lockdowns. Saving the Green New Deal constitutes a third instance that is just as bad as the others.

Keep reading

There is no climate change crisis; there’s a crisis of corrupted politicians and institutions

Kooky tales about Antarctica abound – including the presence of UFOs, a lost civilisation and a passage to Earth’s interior. All are generally dismissed as absurd. Yet, some widely accepted claims about climate change and ice sheets at the planet’s southernmost end are equally far-fetched.

The world is told daily that rising CO2 levels are melting polar ice, shrinking crop yields and pushing humanity toward extinction. “Institute radical decarbonisation or we’re all dead!” is the cry of our enlightened overlords, as if swapping incandescent bulbs for LEDs and banning gas cars would spare us from their predicted apocalypse. They demand immediate economic hara-kiri to avoid weather predictions based on pseudoscience and outright deception.

Real-world data – from Brazil’s record harvests to the rebound of Antarctica’s ice – expose the climate crusade for the baseless hysteria that it is.

Brazil’s Agricultural Triumph

The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics projects cereals, legumes and oilseeds to reach more than 325 million metric tonnes of production this year, an 11% increase over 2024.

Production of soyabeans, another cornerstone crop of global food security, is expected to hit 161 million metric tonnes in Brazil, a 6% jump from the previous year, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service. Brazil’s National Supply Corporation forecasts total grain production to be more than 322 million metric tonnes, up over 8% from the prior harvest, as rice leads with an increase of nearly 10% in planted area.

What does this mean for you? These numbers are evidence of a thriving agricultural sector that feeds millions worldwide. Brazil’s success challenges dire warnings from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) of rising CO2 and temperatures disrupting agriculture.

Warmer climates and higher CO2 levels are enhancing plant growth, as warmth extends growing seasons and CO2 acts as a natural fertiliser, facts that are evident across the globe.

Antarctica’s ice rebound

Far south of Brazil, in the freezing landscape of Antarctica, another climate myth is derailed. A poster child of climate disaster forecasts, Antarctica is adding to its inventory of ice for the first time in decades. Recent data reveal that Antarctica’s ice sheet is growing. Between 2021 and 2023, Antarctic ice gained mass at a rate of approximately 108 metric gigatons per year, driven by anomalous precipitation accumulation.

This marks the first sustained ice growth in decades and should be headline news. The melting of polar ice has long been used to justify urgent policy interventions – from net-zero mandates to oil and gas restrictions to agricultural taxes. We were told rising CO₂ meant inevitable ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise. But when the ice grows instead of shrinks, the climate establishment barely flinches.

Why are the people most entrusted with global climate policy ignoring or dismissing data like this? And more importantly, why are policymakers doubling down on economically destructive climate agendas when the physical world is contradicting their models?

Some independent researchers, farmers and energy analysts have raised red flags about flawed assumptions underlying the climate narrative. But they are often silenced or labelled “deniers” – a term designed to shut down inquiry rather than invite discussion.

Record crops and growing ice sheets are empirical evidence that challenge climate orthodoxy. Ignoring this information is not only unscientific but also immoral.

Keep reading

Mile High Marxist Bernie Sanders Proves There Is No Climate Emergency

Give the devil his due: Senator Bernie Sanders never misses an opportunity to remind Americans about our planet’s supposed peril. In a 2023 MSNBC op-ed, he whined: “The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue. It is a matter of justice, of health, of economics, and of national security.” According to Sanders, climate change is a moral and existential threat demanding sweeping government intervention and dramatic changes in personal behavior.

Except, of course, when it comes to how he lives his own life.

Sanders’ recent “Fighting Oligarchy” tour paints a very different picture. While crisscrossing the country decrying the evils of capitalism, Sanders traveled by—you guessed it—private jet. According to a new analysis from Power The Future, the senator’s 16-stop tour spewed an estimated 62.15 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

To put in context, that’s more than the average American produces in five years.

In fact, Sanders’ emissions from just one tour equal the annual emissions from 15 gasoline-powered cars. It’s the carbon equivalent to driving a gas-powered SUV 150,000 miles, or more than 6 times around the Earth at the equator. And this from a man who wants to regulate what kind of stove you use in your kitchen.

When questioned about the blatant hypocrisy, Sanders didn’t offer contrition. He doubled down. “You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United… while 30,000 people are waiting?” he snapped at Bret Baier.

This isn’t the first time Sanders’ climate preaching has clashed with his jet-setting lifestyle. During the 2020 Democratic primary, his campaign shelled out over $1.2 million on private jet travel. Then, as now, the justification was the same: it’s okay when Bernie does it because his cause is righteous.

Let’s call this what it is: Mile High Marxism. Sanders flies high above the rest of us, belching carbon into the atmosphere while demanding working families pay more for energy and drive electric vehicles. He insists there’s a climate emergency but behaves like there’s no emergency at all.

The green movement is filled with elites just like Sanders—people who use the language of crisis to amass power while living above the consequences of their policies. They want to ban gas cars, restrict domestic energy production, and ration electricity, but they’ll never give up their jets, SUVs, or lakefront mansions. It’s not about saving the planet. It’s about control.

Consider this: if the planet were truly teetering on the edge of climate catastrophe, would the loudest alarmists be the least willing to change their own behavior? If climate change were the existential threat they claim, wouldn’t they at least attempt to lead by example? Instead, we get moral lectures from the tarmac.

Keep reading

Daily Mail Misses the Real Story About Long-Term Stable Antarctica Ice in Dumb Quip About Climate ‘Deniers’

A remarkably silly headline appeared last week in the Daily Mail stating: ‘Shocking Antarctica discovery sends climate change deniers into mass celebration.’ It appears that 100 gigatonnes of ice has been added to the Antarctica ice sheet in a 21-month period to December 2023. Quite how joy will be unconfined in the ranks of the ‘deniers’ over an increase, or decrease, of 0.00041% is not clear. The amount is an ice sheet rounding error and it would be scientifically accurate to refer to it as zero. Even if the figure was a loss, it would take nearly half a million years for all the ice in Antarctica to melt and that does not include any allowance for glacial periods or indeed a new ice age. Unsurprising, in the haste to stick ‘denier’ into the mix, a far more important finding about Antarctica ice was missed. A recent paper undergoing peer review has calculated that around 2,546 gt of ice has been added every year since 1960 to the surface on Antarctica. This would almost certainly have been enough to stabilise any natural losses and it is possible that the ice sheet has been stable or even growing slowly over this period.

The figures for Antarctica’s overall ice mass are difficult to calculate. They must include losses from ice calving and melting and they are thought to total around 2,000 gt a year. Driving ice accumulation in Antarctica is snowfall and there is some evidence that the area is receiving more precipitation than previously thought. The paper led by Dr Christiaan van Dalum of Utrecht University suggests heavy recent accumulations of ice in Antarctica that appear to outweigh any losses at the coast. There is said to be increased precipitation in the mountains of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula.

It is not always clear in scientific papers just what the authors are comparing. The Daily Mail story arises from a Chinese group whose work on the Antarctica ice sheet appears to concentrate on just four eastern glacial basins. The Chinese findings suggest little or no change while van Dalum points to increases over the entire continent even allowing for significant losses due to natural events. Nevertheless, the key to understanding climate change lies in the length of the observations. Drawing celebratory conclusions over less than two years’ supposed growth is junk science, possibly designed to boost clicks and impress potential advertisers. Assessing results over 60 years as the Dalum paper does offers greater understanding of the dynamics of polar ice.

Keep reading

Why has an eco-extremist been given a royal seal of approval?

King Charles has pulled off an impressive PR rehabilitation since his Coronation in 2023. The British public now hears little about the aristocratic indulgences he was famed for as a prince, from his insistence on wearing ironed shoelaces to his portable loo seat. Nor do we hear a great deal about the quixotic beliefs of this self-confessed eco-nut who used to hold conversations with his plants. But sometimes the mask slips.

This week’s announcement by the King’s Foundation was one such moment. Charles’s private charity, which he established in 1990 to advance his ‘philosophy of harmony’, has named 35 of its favourite ‘changemakers’ under the age of 35 to celebrate the charity’s 35th year. They were identified, we are told, after an ‘exhaustive search’ across the UK and selected on the basis of their ability to advocate for the ‘change we want to see in the world’.

Of course, the ‘we’ in that sentence probably means Charles. At the very least, his underlings will have chosen figures likely to chime with his sensibilities. As such, these choices offer an alarming insight into the curious priorities of the reigning monarch.

One of the ’changemakers’ is environmentalist Jack Harries, who was arrested in 2019 at an Extinction Rebellion (XR) protest. Harries, making what he presumably believed was a brave stand against the evils of the fossil-fuel industry, glued his hands to the door of a hotel that was hosting a petroleum conference.

Although XR has been edged aside recently by other eco-groups like Just Stop Oil and Youth Demand, it pioneered the use of disruptive stunts and street theatre to draw attention to its mad demands. Its members would often paint their faces white and dress in red cloaks, performing choreographed dances in public, incanting about the impending climate apocalypse.

Keep reading

Austria walks back support for EU’s 2040 climate target

Austria’s new government has declined to endorse the European Commission’s recommendation for a 90 percent cut in planet-warming emissions by 2040, depriving Brussels of an expected ally for the embattled target.

Vienna never explicitly agreed to support the target, but former Austrian Climate Minister Leonore Gewessler was among the first to welcome the EU executive’s suggestion for a 90 percent reduction in February 2024. Austria, she stressed, intended to slash national emissions to net-zero by 2040 in any case. 

Yet Gewessler’s Greens are no longer in power, and the new coalition government is taking a more cautious position. 

“It’s crucial that a 2040 climate target helps secure [Europe’s] competitiveness, including for green technologies, as well as food security and a just transition,” said a spokesperson for Austria’s agriculture and environment ministry when asked by POLITICO last week whether the government supports a 90 percent goal. 

“We now have to wait for the Commission’s concrete proposal, which we will examine in detail because the small print is also relevant for achieving the 2040 target,” they added. 

Keep reading

EPA slush fund for climate grifters

Democratic politicians and their allies have been in a lather for months over President Trump and his administration, especially Elon Musk and his “DOGE” operation. The reason? They are exposing their bureaucratic slush funds to the public, including a big one at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The discovery in February of billions of dollars of payments to enrich favored climate groups and causes reveals a sordid taxpayer-funded scheme. The administration’s efforts to stop this gravy train threaten the climate house of cards built up for decades.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, revealed that $20 billion of the $27 billion climate slush fund known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund was paid by the Biden administration to eight organizations. The purpose was for them to distribute to numerous other organizations for climate projects such as electric vehicle loans, solar panels, and much else in search of a climate crisis.

“This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight,” Zeldin said. In so doing, Zeldin described the scheme as “self-dealing and conflicts of interest, (and) unqualified recipients.”

Designated recipients of this massive taxpayer largess promptly sued in federal District Court. Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled in April that the EPA cannot freeze or claw back the funds under contract.

The administration immediately appealed the ruling by claiming the court has no jurisdiction and cannot overrule the executive branch’s authority to cancel a contract, which other courts have permitted involving other issues and agencies.

The following day, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals halted Chutkan’s order to disburse the funds to the climate groups to allow time for the case to be heard in full.

Government handouts to favored organizations, which distribute to other organizations, are like taxpayer cash flowing downstream as these ostensibly private entities act as bureaucracies to further a political agenda.

Great gig, if you can get it.

Keep reading

EPA chief Lee Zeldin to kill car feature ‘everyone hates’

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin hinted Monday that he’s preparing to roll back one car feature that every driver “hates.”

“Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy,” Zeldin tweeted Monday in a post that has since racked up more than 8 million views.

“EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.”

The feature kills internal combustion engines at red lights and has been touted by proponents for being able to conserve fuel and cut down on pollution.

Critics have questioned whether the feature can wear down the car’s battery or engine more quickly.

The “off-cycle CO2 reducing” tech has its origins in a federal rule proposed under President Barack Obama in 2012 — but didn’t take effect until new fuel economy standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions five years later.

Between 2012 and 2021, the number of vehicles produced with a stop-start feature due to the carbon credits surged from 1% to 45%.

Up to 65% of vehicles had the technology included in new models by 2023.

Keep reading

Inside The Dysfunctional Process Driving Biden’s ‘Clean Energy’ Frenzy

On Jan. 20, President Trump ordered a pause in federal leasing and permitting of offshore wind plants. In mid-April, he halted construction of the Empire Wind installation off the coast of Long Island, a relief to many in the local fishing and hospitality industries. He also ordered a leasing and permitting review of all 11 offshore wind projects approved during the Biden years.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said that Empire Wind’s approval “was rushed through by the prior administration without sufficient analysis or consultation among the relevant agencies as relates to the potential effects from the project.”

There was a lot of that going around. Offshore wind was a centerpiece of the Biden administration’s mad dash for “clean energy” and “net-zero” emissions. The administration acted as though it had this one shot — a limited window in which to throw up as many wind installations as it could. As it turns out, that was true enough. But in the meantime, there were toes to step on and corners to cut.

Just up the coast from Empire Wind is the South Fork Wind installation off Rhode Island. The Biden Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) folks didn’t exactly endear themselves to the locals. Protect the Public’s Trust obtained a letter sent to BOEM in November 2022 by a coalition of local townships, Indian tribes, historic preservation groups and others. “We have NEVER seen a more dysfunctional process,” it said.

As part of the permitting process, the Interior Department is required to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, to assess the effects of federal projects on historic properties, including those of cultural significance to Native Americans. Ocean Energy Management officials told attorneys for the locals they “don’t have time to comply with National Historic Preservation Act.” An appeal to the federal advisory council tasked with oversight of compliance with that act got them nowhere. As the letter to BOEM said, the “permitting review has become a theater of the absurd.”

Keep reading