Tag: climategate

Why Are We Ignoring The Most Powerful Climate Solution?

Everywhere I look, I see people talking about climate change. There’s no shortage of solutions being pushed—electric cars, lab-grown meat, carbon capture technology—but almost none of these address the root of the problem. Meanwhile, the most powerful solution, one that is already proven to work, is ignored: regenerative agriculture.

I am a regenerative farmer. I don’t just believe in the principles of rebuilding soil, restoring ecosystems, and managing land in a way that sequesters carbon—I live it. Every day, I see the results firsthand: healthier soil, stronger crops, increased biodiversity, and livestock that thrive without chemical inputs. I also see how the current system actively works against this approach, prioritizing profit-driven, industrial solutions over simple, nature-based ones.

So why is regenerative agriculture ignored while flashy, high-tech solutions dominate the conversation? The answer is simple: There’s no money in it for corporations.

Regenerative Farming Doesn’t Fit the Profit Model

Industrial agriculture is built on dependency—on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified seeds. It thrives on monocultures that strip the land of nutrients, requiring even more chemical intervention just to sustain itself. Companies make billions selling these inputs, and governments subsidize the entire system. Regenerative farming, on the other hand, restores soil naturally—through cover cropping, rotational grazing, and composting. When farmers build fertility through natural cycles instead of synthetic inputs, chemical companies lose customers.

This is why you don’t see billion-dollar ad campaigns promoting regenerative farming. There is no corporate giant profiting from farmers planting cover crops or integrating livestock with row crops. Instead, money flows to industries that keep farmers dependent on fertilizers, patented seeds, and ever-expanding government subsidies.

The Climate Narrative

The same forces that created our industrial food system also control the climate narrative. It’s a lot easier to sell wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars than it is to fundamentally change the way we farm. The entire renewable energy sector has been built into a multitrillion-dollar industry, with subsidies, government incentives, and global investment pouring into its expansion.

Meanwhile, regenerative agriculture—the one approach that could actively reverse environmental damage and sequester carbon on a massive scale—is barely mentioned. Why? Because it’s nearly impossible for big corporations to monetize regenerative agriculture the way they can monetize other industries.

When a company sells an electric vehicle, a solar farm, or a wind turbine, they make money. When a farmer plants diverse crops, rotates livestock, and stops using chemical fertilizers, no one gets rich—except the farmer and the community that benefits from healthier land and food.

If climate change were truly about reducing emissions and restoring balance to our ecosystems, regenerative agriculture would be front and center. Instead, it’s pushed to the margins because it doesn’t generate profits for those who control the narrative.

Keep reading

If Trump nixes this one government rule it could unravel the entire climate-change hoax

The Trump administration may soon throw out a major piece of junk science that has served as the philosophical underpinning for the government wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on the climate-change hoax. In essence, they’ve robbed us blind while claiming to save us from ourselves, and they based it all on a lie.

The Daily Mail reports that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is lobbying for the White House to discard the so-called “endangerment finding.” This is a 2009 bureaucratic rule theorizing that greenhouse gases, created by burning “fossil fuels,” lead to global warming and allegedly pose a threat to public health.

This allegedly scientific finding has served as the justification for government regulations limiting the emission of greenhouse gases since the Obama presidency.

Globalist billionaires like like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, and Larry Fink have all cashed in on what amounts to a public-private partnership between the governments of the world, scientists for hire, and the private-sector corporations that benefit from the new rules and regulations. Meanwhile, the Chinese, unburdened by all these new rules and regs, become the dominant industrial force in the world. And the media controllers also play their role. Type “climate change hoax” into your Google or DuckDuckGo search engine, and see what comes up. It’s quite revealing.

But now three anonymous sources who spoke with the Washington Post are saying that new EPA honcho Lee Zeldin wants to end this charade. He has reportedly recommended that President Trump repeal the endangerment finding, clearing the way for the complete undoing of countless climate regulations now in place throughout America.

Both the Obama and Biden Administrations used this 2009 ruling to impose new limits on the emissions produced by cars, factories, and power plants.

Keep reading

Trump Policy Will Embolden Developing World to Reject Climate Agenda

President Donald. J. Trump’s seismic shift in energy policy will be felt far beyond U.S. borders. His withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, expanding American oil and gas exports, terminating the Green New Deal and eliminating the prospect of carbon tariffs offers a lifeline todeveloping nations grappling with chronic energy poverty.

When the United States pivots sharply, other nations reassess their positions. Nowhere will a change in the dynamics of energy policy be more welcome than in developing nations whose imperative to increase access to energy conflicts with pressures to submit to Western climate lords’ anti-growth, anti-humanistic, and dystopian Paris climate agreement.

Many developing nations have long expressed frustration with the climate agenda’s constraints on their economic growth. India and China, for instance, have consistently maintained that they need flexibility to determine their own domestic energy mix, emphasizing that access toaffordable fossil fuels is crucial for lifting millions out of poverty.

Similarly, nations across Africa have argued that their development priorities must include utilizing their natural resources – including coal, oil and natural gas – to meet people’s basic needs. 

Take Nigeria, for example. With its significant natural gas reserves, the country has been caught between international pressure to limit the use of hydrocarbons and the urgent need to provide electricity to its growing population. International financial markets friendlier to fossil fuels could accelerate Nigeria’s plans to monetize its natural gas resources and expand domestic power generation.

As Yemi Osinbajo, a former Nigerian vice president, said, “Africans need more than just lights at home. We want abundant energy at scale so as to create industrial and commercial jobs. To participate fully in the global economy, we will need reliable, low-cost power.” 

Keep reading

EPA officials prepare to ditch fiction justifying Green New Deal

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to bury the unscientific idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Dropping this “endangerment finding” represents the beginning of the end for the great global warming hoax.

Under President Barack Obama, the agency in 2009 declared the molecule that enables plants to grow and humans to breathe an enemy of the planetary thermostat. This decree vested the EPA with authority to regulate CO2 as if it were a nasty substance equivalent to black soot, lead, radon or asbestos.

But the public never embraced any of the austerity measures peddled as a remedy for this supposed ailment. Consumers didn’t want to pay extra taxes on cars, nor did they endorse the abolition of affordable sources of electricity. Even Senate Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the Green New Deal.

The package of socialist measures designed to “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” flopped 57-0 in 2019 before being crushed 99-0 in the Senate two years later. Undeterred, President Joe Biden implemented the deal’s main provisions administratively. His Inflation Reduction Act allocated billions to the EPA for distribution to any organization claiming to have a “climate solution.”

Nonprofits signed up for cash rewards for spreading the global-warming gospel. A vast array of public subsidies was lavished on economically unsustainable energy projects. These endeavors had a remarkable tendency to be staffed by the friends and political allies of progressives.

Newly sworn-in EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pulled the plug on the scheme. “We will review every penny that has gone out the door. The days of irresponsibly shoveling boat loads of cash to far-left, activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” he said earlier this month.

In one instance, an individual who left a company to take a position at the EPA “tossed his former employer $5 billion of your tax dollars,” Mr. Zeldin wrote on X, referring to a large EPA grant the firm received.

Mr. Zeldin’s review discovered a $20 billion EPA slush fund the prior administration had moved into private financial institutions as officials sought to empty the agency piggy bank before President Trump’s team arrived. This dubious use of public resources has been referred to the agency’s inspector general.

Keep reading

Conflicts of Interest in Climate Science: A Systemic Blind Spot

The field of climate science has long been presented as an objective, data-driven discipline, immune to the biases and financial conflicts that plague other scientific domains. However, a recent preprint study by Jessica Weinkle et al, Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes, challenges this assumption, shedding light on an alarming lack of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in climate research, particularly in studies linking hurricanes to climate change​. She also has an excellent write up of the study on her Substack, Conflicted.

The study’s findings reveal a disturbing trend: not a single one of the 331 authors analyzed disclosed any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest​. Moreover, the research found that funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricane behavior​.

Keep reading

Here’s Why Capital is Fleeing Europe… And Why the Climate Scam is to Blame

We did promise it after Putin blew up his own pipeline supplying cheap energy to Europe, but the implosion of European auto companies is really something to behold. The effects of Capital flight in the industry are stark and widespread.

Consider this:

VW’s profits dropped by 64%. Audi’s profits dropped by 91%. BMW’s profits dropped by 84%. And Mercedes-Benz’s profits dropped by 54%.

German carmakers are in trouble. Their business model was based on two things: cheap Russian energy powering the German engineering coupled with sales in China subsidizing antiquated, overblown unions protecting their cost structure at home. The first pillar collapsed and the second is now under severe pressure.

China now builds its own decent cars. There’s no need for the Chinese to buy anything other than Chinese cars which accelerates capital flight.

Now, let me show you something else. The flow of trade, of course, is seen in the currency markets.

Keep reading

DOGE is pointing out hundreds of billions of ridiculous spending in current US spending – how long has this been going on via the climate scam and C19 scamdemic?

Ten years? Twenty years? Is Pocahontas with her net worth of 20 million from a 200,000 a year salary emblematic of the majority of House and Senate Congress critters and POTUS Administrations?

Hopefully, taxes and spending (and prices) will go down to close to pre-scamdemic levels – by around 15% or so – once the corruptions is exposed and removed, but somehow, all the money sent to fund drag queens shoving their junk in the faces of 5 year olds, the payments to grom recruits to DEI and all the taxes spent on sponsoring men into women’s locker rooms will cease – along with the climate freak shows that falsify the historical record.

Let’s start with the Federal spending on the C19 scamdemic.

From Brave AI:

“The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, was a $2.2 trillion stimulus bill aimed at providing emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CARES Act represented about 45% of all federal government expenditures in 2019, with the federal government spending $4.45 trillion that year.”

Let’s compare that to the “cases” diagnosed using the useless and inappropriate RT-PCR “test” that had no “virus” to benchmark against, and no “proof” of an inappropriate cycle threshold to “test” for “infection”.

Keep reading

‘Scientific Socialism’ Has Come to Pacific Palisades

“You can’t rebuild the same. We have to rebuild with science. We have to build with climate reality in mind,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom told CNN last week in an interview about rebuilding the burned-out Pacific Palisades. “We have to look at infrastructure or redundancy systems. Ingress, egress, as it relates to emergency management and planning materials.”

The interview seems to have flown under the radar, but when I caught it this morning, a bit belatedly, my alarm bells went off left and right.

Well, to be honest, they were all on the left.

Whatever happened to Newsom’s promise that he’d eliminate red tape and accelerate the rebuilding of one of L.A.’s nicest and most historic neighborhoods? The former homeowners of Pacific Palisades who were hoping to quickly rebuild from the ashes now understand to their very cores what Otter told Flounder in “Animal House”: “You f***ed up, you trusted us.“

Anyone dumb enough to believe Newsom’s promise to get people rebuilding within six or nine months… well, they probably voted for him. Gooder and harder, California.

What Newsom says needs to be done before lots can be cleared and construction begins looks to me like a huge, centralized process involving an awful lot of well-connected and high-priced “experts” empaneled to redesign Pacific Palisades according to “scientific” principles involving all the techno-babble Newsom went on about in that CNN sit-down. Instead of, you know, letting people build the homes they want in the kind of city they like. 

If the temporary council to name the permanent council has completed its initial studies on who should conduct the actual studies that will someday mandate a Scientifically Perfect Palisades in terms of those “infrastructure or redundancy systems, ingress, egress, as it relates to emergency management and planning materials” has finished finding a list of acceptable names in six months, I’d be shocked. 

If you think it’s expensive and time-consuming just to get permission to add a small deck on the back of a Pacific Palisades home (which it is), just wait until a panel of experts gets together to redesign the entire neighborhood from the ashes up.

None of this boondogglery (hey, I made up another new word!) comes as a surprise to Longtime Sharp VodkaPundit Readers™. It wasn’t even two weeks ago that I covered Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’s plan to rebuild the Palisades in her own image (shudder), led by philanthropist, “chief recovery officer,” and former LAPD commissioner Steve Soboroff. They’ll hire “an outside consultant to handle a significant rebuilding contract for areas devastated by this month’s Palisades fire,” as the Los Angeles Times put it, and Soboroff promised that “they’re going to represent you and make sure that everybody does exactly what they say they’re going to do.”

Keep reading

Top Skeptic of Climate Fanatics Spotlights Studies That Torpedo 5 Decades of Liberal Panic

When it comes to questions about “climate change,” bad news for the fanatics is good news for everyone else.

Good news about growing wealth, the availability of food, and actual human ingenuity in facing challenges tends to put a monkey wrench in globalist plans to wreck world economies to battle what amounts to a phantom menace.

And two studies about global development published by credible experts on the subject show just how good the news actually is.

In a commentary piece published in January by the New York Post, one of the world’s best-known skeptics of the “climate change” movement highlighted the studies that show how wrong the greenies really are.

In fact, the Post’s headline said it all: “Climate change fanatics want to bankrupt the entire world for little to no reward.”

Bjorn Lomborg is a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, another think tank based in Massachusetts.

He’s also an author, writing works such as 2001’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World,” 2023’s “Best Things First,” and 2024’s “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

He was named in 2004 as one of Time Magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people.

In short, he’s no piker when it comes to environmental controversies — and he’s a thorn in the side for “climate change” alarmists, whether they’re youthful ignoramuses like Sweden’s Greta Thunberg or nonagenarian veterans of mass scares like biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book “The Population Bomb” helped kick off liberal panic over the future of the planet that’s now in its sixth decade.

And the studies Lomborg spotlighted should make the “climate change” world very uneasy.

To summarize: The studies found that technological advances and human ingenuity are more than capable of handling the challenges of a changing climate caused by human industry. (Lomborg appears to accept the basic premise that humans are behind “climate change.” He’s just skeptical of the climate fanatics’ ideas to combat it.)

Keep reading

There Is Nothing Green About the ‘Green’ Agenda

Now that the Democrats have lost their lock grip on power, what’s a green activist to do? It’s almost comical how the climate left is trying to cloak their agenda in terms they think will melt in Republicans’ ears. For example, Jennifer Granholm, energy secretary in the Biden administration recently penned an opinion piece arguing that President Trump is playing right into Communist China’s evil hands by killing off America’s green economy.

Translation: The left is furious that Trump has halted the flow of billions of taxpayers’ dollars to subsidize electric vehicles that nobody wants and only the well-off can afford. The new president is killing the “green economy,” as Granholm puts it.

There is nothing green about the climate left’s solutions.

If the climate movement was truly sincere and intellectually honest in its desire to stop actions contributing to global environmental degradation, it would stand fast against solar panels and electric vehicles. There is nothing green about the climate left’s solutions.

There is nothing environmentally friendly about using enslaved children in the Congo to mine cobalt for lithium-ion rechargeable batteries used in EVs. They labor with crude tools and bare hands, breathing in cobalt’s toxic dust in cramped pits. Runoff infused with cobalt and other chemicals contaminate the water supply. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, green activists sit blithely unaware or unconcerned in the comfort of their own homes. They are saving the world, they smugly assure themselves, while children suffer in an environmental hellhole.

Keep reading