Tag: climategate

Bloomberg-Backed Green Group Places Officials in State Agencies Tasked With Regulating Utilities, Permitting Pipelines

A Michael Bloomberg-backed fellowship program known for placing attorneys in state attorney general offices to spearhead climate litigation has quietly broadened its scope, sending staffers to work in state agencies that regulate the energy sector, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The New York University State Energy & Environmental Impact Center’s fellowship—which Bloomberg’s eponymous philanthropic nonprofit provided two seed grants worth $5.6 million in 2017—has long placed and paid the salaries of officials in at least 10 state attorney general offices nationwide. Over the past two years, internal emails obtained by the Free Beacon show, the program has expanded to state-level public service commissions, often-overlooked agencies that regulate utility companies and permit energy infrastructure like pipelines and power plants. The commissions also implement state renewable energy standards that force power providers to generate electricity through pricier green sources.

The center’s work in attorney general offices, where Bloomberg-funded fellows have participated in litigation accusing the fossil fuel industry of causing global warming, has prompted conflict-of-interest concerns over the use of private funding to drive public lawsuits. Its work in state regulatory agencies, on the other hand, is a new development—one that suggests the center and its funders seek to play a more active role pushing green energy development at the local level.

One other key function of the commissions that has emerged in recent years is their oversight and implementation of state renewable energy standards, which are mandates that force power companies to ensure green energy sources produce a set share of local electric generation. Climate activists have lobbied for such mandates, but in places like Delaware those policies have caused dramatic consumer price hikes.

The NYU impact center’s work in attorney general offices has been reported on and has faced criticism for blurring ethical lines—experts have warned the arrangement presents a conflict of interest since it involves the use of private funding to support government positions. Its work in state regulatory agencies, on the other hand, is a new development and suggests the center and its funders seek to play a more active role pushing green energy development at the local level.

“That presents fundamental conflicts of interest,” American Tort Reform Association president Sherman Joyce told the Free Beacon in an interview. “The notion of looking to outside entities to fund the structure and activities of the government is just wrong. These types of arrangements, I think, offend basic notions of the independence of government.”

The NYU impact center and Advanced Energy United, a green energy industry coalition cofounded by left-wing billionaire Tom Steyer, began recruiting state commissions to participate in the initiative in mid-2023, according to emails reviewed by the Free Beacon. The groups gauged the interest of New York’s Department of Public Service in July 2023, the Michigan Public Service Commission in August 2023, and Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in September 2023.

Keep reading

UN Calls for “Climate Misinformation” to be Criminalised

“False claims obstructing climate action” – like claiming the Spanish blackout was caused by renewables

Climate misinformation turning crisis into catastrophe, report says

False claims obstructing climate action, say researchers, amid calls for climate lies to be criminalised

Damian Carrington Environment editorThu 19 Jun 2025 21.00 AEST

Rampant climate misinformation is turning the crisis into a catastrophe, according to the authors of a new report.

…

The researchers found climate denialism has evolved into campaigns focused on discrediting solutions, such as the false claims that renewable energy caused the recent massive blackout in Spain.

…

Climate misinformation – the term used by the report for both deliberate and inadvertent falsehoods – is of increasing concern. Last Thursday, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, called for misinformation and greenwashing by the fossil fuel industry to be criminalised. On Saturday, Brazil, host of the upcoming Cop30 climate summit, will rally nations behind a separate UN initiative to crack down on climate misinformation.

Keep reading

Sunnova International just another EMBEZZLEMENT FRONT COMPANY as part of the Biden Regime’s FAKE GREEN movement – now BANKRUPT

Obama was the king of creating fake green companies, funding them with millions and billions of dollars, then watching them all magically go bankrupt as the money completely disappeared (went into the offshore accounts of all the executives involved). Biden was even worse, participating in these scams and schemes on a much higher financial level, running up trillions in unaccounted funds, while claiming to be supporting “climate science” and “climate change” initiatives. All big lies for embezzlement. Sunnova is just another pawn in the big “climate” game of racketeering and fraud.

  • Obama’s Green Energy Scams: The Obama administration funneled billions in taxpayer dollars into fake “green” companies like Solyndra, Abound Solar, and Fisker Automotive—only for them to collapse as executives pocketed the money. These ventures were never meant to succeed, just to launder funds to political allies.
  • Biden’s Bigger Fraud Scheme: The Biden Regime has taken green energy corruption to new heights, pushing trillions in unaccountable “climate” spending while companies like Sunnova and SunPower declare bankruptcy after executives siphon off subsidies. The entire “renewable energy” push is a front for embezzlement and control.
  • Sunnova’s Collapse Exposes the Scam: Sunnova Energy, propped up by federal loans and tax breaks, just filed for bankruptcy with up to $50 billion in liabilities—proving yet another “green” company was a taxpayer-funded Ponzi scheme. CEO John Berger and other insiders got rich while employees and customers were left holding the bag.
  • The Green Energy Grift Continues: From solar to EVs, the government’s “climate” agenda is a racket designed to bankrupt the middle class while elites profit. With more collapses coming, sites like ClimateAlarmism.news expose how these companies were never about the environment—just theft.

Keep reading

UK’s Net Zero agenda is right at the top of the tyranny scale

David Turver argues that the UK’s Net Zero agenda is a far-left, tyrannical project that attacks freedom and is comparable to fascist states.

“If we substitute ‘Net Zero’ for ‘the State’ in Mussolini’s famous quote, we get close to describing the totalitarian Net Zero agenda: ‘Everything within Net Zero, nothing outside Net Zero, nothing against Net Zero’,” he says.

He talks us through how he comes to the conclusion that those advocating for Net Zero dystopia are narcissistic, psychopathic Machiavellians.  “We have somehow allowed the very worst people to take charge of most of our lives,” Turver says.

Introduction

Some friends have asked me to write more articles on the political and sociological impact of Net Zero. In addition, another contact put forward the suggestion that Net Zero is an attack on freedom. That idea has been turning over in my mind and I have concluded he was right and, effectively, Net Zero is just a cloak for far-left tyranny.

The Political Compass

The Political Compass is a widely used tool to differentiate between different political ideas, philosophies and ideologies.

It is typically drawn with the x-axis representing left and right opinions along the economic dimension. The left represents a desire for the economy to be run by cooperative collective agency with substantial state intervention and the political right represents a desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organisations, otherwise known as free markets.

The y-axis represents the social dimension, with the top representing authoritarianism and the bottom representing libertarianism. For shorthand, we can shorten this to tyranny versus freedom.

Net Zero Is Far-Left Tyranny

We can characterise Net Zero along both axes of the political compass. Starting with energy policy, we can see that there are government-mandated subsidies for renewables which cost a fortune. Plus, intermittent renewables can bid low into the market and be dispatched onto the grid despite the full cost of renewables being much higher than the market clearing price. Then there are extra subsidies for the Capacity Market to provide backup to intermittent renewables. In addition, there are even more subsidies for industry to compensate them for the resulting high electricity prices. There are extra subsidies for biofuels, green gas, green hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. On top of that, Miliband’s plan for Clean Power by 2030 sounds like a Soviet-era five-year plan for tractor production.

The UK government and the Climate Change Committee are also intent on forcing landlords to install insulation measures, many of which have payback times measured in centuries. We also have subsidies for heat pumps and company EV drivers pay less tax than for petrol cars.

On the supply side, new drilling for both onshore and offshore oil and gas resources is effectively banned and the assets that remain are being taxed to oblivion with 78% marginal tax rates. Using gas to produce electricity attracts carbon taxes through the Emissions Trading Scheme, amounting to about 20% of wholesale prices.

All of this takes energy policy as far away from free markets as it is possible to imagine. Net Zero is a far-left project that would not have been out of place in the USSR.

Turning to the vertical axis, we can see that many of the proposed measures to achieve Net Zero can be described as tyrannical. First, the Climate Change Committee (“CCC”) is effectively beyond the control of Parliament and the people because, as former chair Lord Deben put it, Parliament has to seek the permission of the CCC to change the Carbon Budgets. To achieve the targets, the Government and their advisors want to interfere in our lives to an unprecedented extent. They are interfering in markets to mandate targets for heat pumps and EVs to change how we heat our homes and the type of car we drive. The Energy Act 2023 gives the authority for draconian powers to take control of EV chargers, batteries, home heating, washing machines, fridges and dishwashers. The Act even gives authority for powers of entry to check that our smart appliances are compliant. Now the Government is planning to force pension schemes to merge into mega-funds and force them to invest in clean energy projects.

The CCC has recommended that we cut our meat consumption by a third and cut the number of livestock by almost half. Of course, they also want us to eat “alternative proteins,” which is code for things like insects.

Some of the advisors to the Government are even more tyrannical. We have the Behavioural Insights Team (also known as the Nudge Unit) calling for the regulation of advertising and for TV drama and news to promote upbeat stories about Net Zero. They also want to influence the physical, social, economic and digital environment to alter what is offered to consumers and change perceptions of what is socially acceptable. They recommended that the Government intervene across vast swathes of the economy to align businesses, markets and institutions with Net Zero. These measures include a meat tax, making flights more expensive, defaulting us onto renewable energy tariffs and making heat pumps look cheaper than gas boilers.

The National Energy System Operator (“NESO”) is planning to halve per capita energy consumption. They also want to “optimise” demand by introducing penal charges at peak times through Time of Use Tariffs (“TOUTs”). In other words, consumers need to organise their lives around the grid rather than the grid being designed to meet the needs of its customers.

Keep reading

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

At the outset it is important to understand that carbon dioxide has two relevant properties, as a creator of food and oxygen, and as a greenhouse gas (GHG).

As to food and oxygen, carbon dioxide is essential to nearly all life on earth by creating food and oxygen by photosynthesis.  Further, it creates more food as its level in the atmosphere increases.  For example, doubling carbon dioxide from today’s approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%, and doing so would have a negligible effect on temperature.

As to carbon dioxide as a GHG, the United States and countries worldwide are vigorously pursuing rules and subsidies under the Net Zero Theory that carbon dioxide  and other GHG emissions must be reduced to Net Zero and the use of fossil fuels must be eliminated by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.  A key premise stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is  the “evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change,” where “main driver means responsible for more than 50% of the change.”[1]

The Biden Administration adopted over 100 rules and Congress has provided enormous subsidies promoting alternatives to fossil fuel premised on the Net Zero Theory. The EPA Endangerment Finding, for example, asserts “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.”[2]

On April 9, 2025 President Trump issued a “Memorandum on Directing Repeal of Unlawful Rules” and Fact Sheet stating “agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any [unlawful] regulation” under Supreme Court precedents, inter alia, where “the scientific and policy premises undergirding it had been shown to be wrong,” or “where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits.”[3]  We understand the Supreme Court has also ruled in the leading case State Farm[4] that an agency regulation is arbitrary, capricious and thus invalid where, inter alia:

  • “the agency has … entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem”
  • “the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.”

We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2  and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere.  In our scientific opinion, contrary to most media reporting and many people’s understanding, the “scientific premises undergirding” the Net Zero Theory, all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically false and “wrong,” and  violate these two State Farm mandates.

First, Scientific Evidence Ignored.  All the agency rules, publications and studies we have seen supporting the Endangerment Finding and other Biden Net Zero Theory rules ignored, as if it does not exist, the  robust and reliable scientific evidence that:

  • carbon dioxide, GHGs and fossil fuels will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather, detailed in Part III.
  • there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, America, and other countries if CO2, other GHGs are reduced to Net Zero and fossil fuels eliminated that will endanger public health and welfare, detailed in Part IV.

Second, Unscientific Evidence at the Foundation. Unscientific evidence is all we have seen underlying the Endangerment Finding and all the other Biden Net Zero rules, detailed in Part V.

Keep reading

ESG exposed: Financial elites push climate agenda while undermining investor trust

In a landmark lawsuit filed Monday in Tennessee, asset management titan BlackRock stands accused of violating consumer protection laws by peddling contradictory Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) strategies — one promising robust financial returns, the other a climate-focused overhaul of capitalism. The case, the first of its kind, underscores a growing backlash against ESG’s opaque metrics, which critics argue prioritize progressive activism over fiduciary duty. As ESG-related terminology fades from corporate earnings calls — dropping from 28,000 mentions in early 2022 to just 4,800 by mid-2024 — the movement faces a reckoning: Is it a legitimate risk-management tool or a Trojan horse for ideological control?

BlackRock’s double game: Profits vs. climate virtue

Tennessee’s lawsuit alleges BlackRock’s ESG pledges have “deprived consumers of the ability to make informed choices,” citing CEO Larry Fink’s 2022 letter declaring ESG would “reshape finance.” Yet internal documents reveal the firm’s continued investments in fossil fuels — $310 billion as of 2023 — while publicly pressuring companies to divest. Luke Lloyd, an investment strategist at Strategic Wealth Partners, bluntly summarized the contradiction: “ESG is driven by financial interests, not environmental concerns. It’s a marketing ploy.”

The fallout isn’t theoretical. Pension funds, reliant on steady returns, face heightened risk as ESG policies artificially depress energy stock values. As the International Energy Agency notes, global oil demand may still grow for decades — rendering BlackRock’s anti-fossil fuel posturing economically reckless.

The ESG backlash: Red states fight green tyranny

Conservative leaders are mobilizing against ESG’s encroachment. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis barred state pension funds from using ESG criteria, while Texas blacklisted 10 financial firms, including BlackRock, for “boycotting” fossil fuels. Blue states retaliated with a joint letter accusing critics of ignoring “climate threats,” but the financial data tells another story: ESG funds underperformed the S&P 500 by 4% in 2023, per Morningstar.

Even ESG insiders admit flaws. Tariq Fancy, BlackRock’s former sustainable investing chief, likened ESG to “wheatgrass for a cancer patient — a dangerous placebo.” His indictment aligns with Vivek Ramaswamy’s crusade against corporate “wokeism,” targeting firms like Disney for diversity audits he calls “political theater.”

From apartheid divestment to climate lockstep

ESG’s roots trace to 1980s anti-apartheid divestment and a 2004 UN report urging “stakeholder capitalism.” But today’s iteration, fueled by climate panic and social justice campaigns, has ballooned into a $35 trillion industry—despite lacking standardized metrics. The result? A system where ExxonMobil can rank higher on ESG indices than Tesla, sparking Elon Musk’s ire: “ESG is a scam.”

Keep reading

Urban NYS Dems want to limit how many cows dairy farms can own in latest green push — sparking upstate-downstate beef

This new cow law is total bull.

State lawmakers from the Big Apple want to limit the number of cows on dairy farms in their latest green push – a proposal that opponents argue would cripple the industry.

The legislation, whose backers include members of the Democratic Socialists of America, would prohibit new or expanding dairy farms from reaching or exceeding 700 cows, a measure supporters said would improve the environment and help smaller family farms across the Empire State.

But the proposed moo-ve has sparked an upstate-downstate beef between lawmakers from rural and urban districts — with even Gov. Kathy Hochul viewing the bill as “insane,” according to a source close to the Democratic leader.

“Let’s be clear: this bill makes no sense,” Sen. Mark Walczyk (R-Jefferson) said in a statement.

Keep reading

Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline

A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners.

The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026.

In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests.

Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. “The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it,” Glade tells Reason. “They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It’s very unethical.”

Several other landowners in the state share the Glades’ worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland.

Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice.

“This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow,” she said. Gaul said she didn’t accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project.

The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership.

“We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together,” she says.

Keep reading

‘The Agenda: their Vision, Your Future’: The digital prison that awaits us all

“The prophecies made in 1931 [in ‘Brave New World’] are coming true much sooner than I thought they would … The nightmare of total organisation … has emerged … and is now awaiting us, just around the next corner.”—Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 1958

‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ is a feature-length independent documentary produced by Mark Sharman; former UK broadcasting executive at ITV and Sky (formerly BSkyB).

In fiction and fact, there have always been people and organisations with ambitions to control the world. And now the oligarchs who pull the strings of finance and power finally have the tools to achieve their global objectives; omnipresent surveillance, artificial intelligence, digital currency and ultimately digital identities. The potential for social control of our lives and minds is alarmingly real.

The plan has been decades in the making and has seen infiltration of Governments, local councils, big business, civil society, the media and, crucially, education. A ceaseless push for a new reality, echoing Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, or George Orwell’s ‘1984’.

‘The Agenda: Their Vision, Your Future’ examines the digital prison which awaits us if we do not push back right now. How your food, energy, money, travel and even your access to the internet could be limited and controlled; how financial power is strangling democracy and how global institutions like the World Health Organisation are commandeered to champion ideological and fiscal objectives.

The centrepiece is man-made climate change and with it, the race to Net Zero. Both are encapsulated in the United Nations and its Agenda 2030. A force for good? Or “a blank cheque for totalitarian global control”?

The Agenda presents expert views from the UK, the USA and Europe.

Keep reading

To Outrun the Complacent Class

“The emails showed the world’s leading climatologists busily working to organize a research cartel. Peer review was a legitimate source of authority when the process supported their positions. It was compromised, if not malicious, when it offered critics of the orthodoxy a platform. The wish to crush dissenting views, in their minds, had become indistinguishable from the pursuit of truth.”  

– Martin Gurri

Over the last two decades, exafloods of Internet content have educated and entertained beyond imagination. Exponentially-growing communications bandwidth and data transparency empowered regular people, elevated previously unknown geniuses, and helped expose deep dysfunction among many existing “experts.” A tsunami of social media also generated psychedelic confusion, not least among the experts themselves, leading to, in Martin Gurri’s words, a “crisis of authority.”

Now, artificial intelligence is about to amplify this infowarp a million-fold, for good and ill, producing both unprecedented knowledge and wealth and new epistemic challenges. 

If you thought the battles over social media “misinformation” were intense, just wait for the A.I. era. 

Lots of failed experts are engaged in a tactical retreat, regrouping for the coming battles. They passively admit “mistakes were made” but dodge specific accountability and refuse to acknowledge those who got the big questions right. 

At the same time, they are busy establishing new gatekeepers, taboos, and approved voices. The very people who got so many giant questions so very wrong over the last two decades are attempting to build a new information fortress for the next 20 years.

Journalist Douglas Murray, who once backed free speech but also celebrated America’s forever-war disasters, is threatening misbehavers with excommunication. After a dismal recent appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, the prolific podcast guest warned against listening to the wrong podcasts. 

What the standards are in the new media — especially on podcasts — is still being worked out.

But there must be some.

Otherwise the new media will lead people into errors and evils far greater than the old media could ever dream of.

What a turn of events. In recent years, on varied topics from Covid to Ukraine, the highly imperfect and diverse new media demolished the lockstep old media. Years from now, we might conclude the new media helped save Western civilization. Murray himself owes much of his impressive influence to new media. But now, suddenly, if Joe Rogan and alternative outlets don’t bow to Murray and his friends, they might be more “evil” than the people who lied about Joe Biden’s health, the origin of the virus, Iraqi WMD, Russia collusion, climate apocalypse, and so much more.

But doesn’t Murray have a point? Don’t standards matter? 

Of course, standards matter. Credibility matters. Expertise, editorial judgment, and curation are all important – perhaps more so in an era of information overload. No single person can navigate the infowarp alone. We need trusted sources and guides. 

When Murray balks at defining any standards, however, his tsk-tsk-ing is exposed as an arbitrary threat. If you don’t toe the party line, he and his friends will smear you out of polite society. 

The question is not whether we value standards and expertise. Obviously we do. The question is: at what layers of the stack are these judgments made? 

Keep reading