Tag: climategate

BIG WIN: Dairy Producer STOPS Using Bovaer After Boycott

I have some very big and very good news for you today.

One of the largest dairy producers in Norway has now STOPPED giving their cows the methane suppressant Bovaer.

This is a major development.

The two largest dairy producers in Norway, Tine and Q-Meieriene began using Bovaer already in 2023 to make their cows fart less and reduce climate emissions.

They began to sell this as ”climate milk” in the stores. However, this was not popular at all with consumers. So guess what happened?

The dairy producer Tine stopped selling their climate milk, and instead just put it together with the normal milk without telling anyone. So people are now getting milk from cows being fed a TOXIC chemical without even knowing.

Keep reading

As the madness of “Net Zero” accelerates, time has already run out for many of UK’s most vulnerable citizens

Not long ago, the UK’s Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) asked an interesting question: how has climate change affected the number of people who die from temperature-related effects in the UK?1

Their analysis opened with helpful speculation on scientific topics outside their area of competence: “Climate change is a substantial threat to human health in the UK…Heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods and severe storms – accepted to be linked to climate change – have increased globally in recent years. The Met Office found that the period 1991 to 2020 was 0.9 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, while the 10 warmest years recorded occurred since 2002…Mental health is a growing concern linked to climate change.”

Of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) have found no such link between human activities and the supposed climate threats they list2, the majority of Met Office weather stations from which the “10 warmest years” claim originate are discovered to produce “junk” and “super junk” data under international quality classification criteria3, and the mental health crisis is the consequence of institutions like the ONS peddling scientifically illiterate climate misinformation.

The results were horrifying – for climate catastrophists.

We found relatively little increase in deaths caused by warmer weather and a reduction in deaths caused by cold winters, leading to a net decrease in deaths.

Over the period 2001-2020, which was about 0.9 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1961 to 1990, 555,094 fewer people died from temperature effects.

Keep reading

Five Falsehoods About The Anti-ESG Movement

Proponents of ESG (environmental, social, and governance factors used in corporate decision-making) argue they are merely improving long-term decision-making.

Meanwhile, critics argue that ESG is in practice a Trojan horse for leftist agendas.

However, rather than debating critics, ESG proponents frequently resort to false narratives and ad hominem attacks.

The newly elected Trump administration should not be misled by these lies.

For example, this past July, an article titled Anti-ESG Proposals Surged in 2024 But Earned Less Support  attacked shareholder proposals critical of ESG, including many from my employer.

What follows are responses to five misrepresentations about the anti-ESG movement contained in that piece, which was authored by Heidi Welsh.

False Claim #1: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Motivated by Animus Toward LGBTQ People

Welsh claims that “LGBTQ antipathy” and “a strong animus against LGBTQ people cropped up” in our proposals. These are lies that may constitute actionable defamation because our concerns are not only legitimate, but pro-child.

For example, the Trevor Project still states the following on its website despite the underlying supporting research having been effectively debunked: “Medical affirming care can include [1] treatments that postpone physical changes [i.e. puberty blockers] as well as [2] treatments that lead to changes that would affirm one’s gender identity [i.e. surgery]” (citing WPATH, 2012).

Approaching this from another perspective, consider the following:

·        Is it loving to sow the seeds of gender dysphoria in young children by pushing on them the idea that they might have been born in the wrong body?

·        Is it loving to push on young children, at a time when they are highly vulnerable to suggestion, the idea that if they are anxious about their gender identity, then they should take puberty blockers or undergo life-altering sex-change surgery?

·        Is it loving to push these ideas on children behind the backs of their parents?

·        Is it loving to do these things when the alleged consensus around this “gender affirming care” is quite predictably crumbling before our very eyes?

One can quite reasonably — and without any “animus” — answer “no” to all these questions.

Keep reading

Greenland Surface Temperatures Fall For 20 Years In Further Blow To Climate-Alarm Narrative

Further evidence that surface temperatures across Greenland have been cooling for around 20 years has emerged with the recent publication of findings from a group of Thai scientists and mathematicians. Processing 31,464 satellite recording from 2000-2019 over the entire area, they found that the average temperature fell by 0.11°C. This is said to indicate a “non-significant change in LST [land surface temperature]”.

The latest evidence of actual cooling over a significant area of the Arctic will not be news in scientific circles since it backs up previous findings of recent temperature falls. But the information is of course kept out of the mainstream since it casts doubt on the key Net Zero scare about soaring sea levels caused by the catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

There are some crumbs of comfort for alarmists since the Thai authors found that the ice-free sub-regions of Greenland are warmer than the ice-covered sub regions. But perhaps not – the authors attributed it to “population density”. Urban heat yet again corrupting the temperature data, even in Greenland. The illustration below charts the temperature record for all areas of Greenland.

The World Economic Forum recently reported on a study that predicted a “total collapse” of the Greenland ice sheet within a few months. This suggestion is only slightly more ludicrous than the scares routinely published to induce mass psychosis in populations with the aim of promoting a collectivist command-and-control Net Zero solution. The recent farce around the COP in Baku showed the conspiracy operating in plain sight. Stop the developing word developing with hydrocarbons, then invent a number of fake scares such as island states disappearing beneath the waves. Everyone knows this and most of the other scares are false as scientists have shown on numerous occasions, but no matter. Invent some ridiculous composite figure – say $250 billion a year, or $1.3 billion by 2035 – then pretend your taxpayers can be rinsed even though the only country that could conceivably afford it is leaving the party in January.

All of this means that genuine attempts to explain the science around the climate changing are stuck in a ‘settled’ narrative hellhole. The corals can grow like topsy in record amounts on the Great Barrier Reef and the Arctic sea ice can show a small decade-long recovery. Meanwhile, mainstream media and politics prefer to take their cue from characters like  ‘Jim’ Dale, who points out of the window and attributes every puff of wind to a human cause.

Nowhere is this lack of scientific inquiry more evident than at the two Poles of the Earth. Antarctica has barely warmed during 70 years of detailed observations, while the situation in the Arctic, as we can see, is complex and open to many interpretations. The Thai mathematicians stick mainly to their statistics and find “no evidence of warming over ice-free and ice-covered areas”. But they do note earlier work by a group of Japanese scientists (Matsumura et al. 2021) that suggested the Central Pacific El Niño Southern Oscillation teleconnection played a “key role” in recent summer Arctic climate change.

Keep reading

Climate alarmists score an own goal: Bovaer’s major route of excretion is CO2

The drug Bovaer which is described as a feed additive for dairy cows to “reduce emissions” has been disclosed as consisting of three ingredients: silicon dioxide, propylene glycol and 3-nitrooxypropanol (“3-NOP”).

Writing for UK Column, Dr. Mike Williams takes a brief look at the studies done on 3-NOP to establish if it is “safe and effective.”

The European Food Safety Authority’s (“EFSA’s”) Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (“FEEDAP”) concludes that the genotoxicity potential of 3-NOP cannot be ruled out, indicating a potential to cause cancer, he writes.  3-NOP’s impact on humans is unknown as it remains untested.

3-NOP was found to induce chromosome damage and gene mutations and an increase in benign gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumours in studies on female rats.  Adverse effects on fertility and reproduction were also seen in rats, including severe reduction of spermatogenesis in males and failure to become pregnant in females at high doses.

Although studies show that 3-NOP does not transmit in dosed animals’ milk, the breakdown product of 3-NOP, 3-nitrooxypropionic acid (“NOPA”), was detected in cow’s plasma and milk, and is assumed to be responsible for testicular toxicity.

In a twist which shows climate alarmists’ plans to be self-defeating, the use of 3-NOP in cows also results in increased hydrogen emissions and the major route of excretion is as carbon dioxide (CO2).

Keep reading

Arla’s Bovaer food additive is not food, it is a drug

The UK Food Standards Agency is insisting Bovaer is “safe.”  A spokesman told MailOnline: “Milk from cows given Bovaer, a feed additive used to reduce methane emissions, is safe to drink.”

On Monday, The Standard said,  “On 26 November, Arla announced a new project that it hopes will cut the UK’s methane emissions.  Methane is a greenhouse gas and contributes to climate change … The initiative is part of Arla’s wider commitment to reduce the environmental impact of its dairy production. The organisation is aiming to reduce its CO2 emissions by 30 per cent by 2030.”

Using the excuse “to reduce methane emissions” and “CO2 emissions” and then tying it to Agenda 2030’s deadline of 2030, should raise an immediate red flag to anyone who has done even a little research in the last few years. 

There is no anthropogenic climate change crisis, and, as we mentioned in our article last week, methane is an important part of the biogenic carbon cycle.  As we all know from primary school lessons, carbon dioxide (CO2) is the elixir of life, supporting plants since the world began and making virtually all life on Earth possible.

The whole false anthropogenic climate change narrative should have disintegrated in 2009 when the Climategate emails were released.  But such is the determination, and money, of those who want to keep the UN’s agenda alive.

Keep reading

UK Pays Wind Farms $1.3 Billion To Shut Down When It’s Windy

Bloomberg reports UK Is Paying £1 Billion to Waste a Record Amount of Wind Power

Burgeoning capacity and blustery weather should have driven huge growth in output in 2024. But the grid can’t cope, forcing the operator to pay wind farms to turn off, a cost ultimately borne by consumers. It’s a situation that puts at risk plans to decarbonize the network by 2030 and makes it harder to cut bills.

Crucial to the net zero grid target is a massive build-out of renewable power, particularly from wind. Britain has boosted its offshore fleet by 50% in the past five years and is set to double it in the next five, Bloomberg data show.

But the grid hasn’t expanded at the same pace. As a result, the operator is increasingly paying wind farms, particularly those in Scotland, not to run. So far this year, the UK has spent more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) in “congestion costs” to turn off plants that can’t deliver electricity because of grid constraints, and switch on others.

Last month for example, when Storm Bert swept across the UK, some of its newest and biggest wind parks were still. Scotland’s £3 billion Seagreen project, owned by SSE Plc and TotalEnergies SE, was shut off. SSE’s Viking development on the Shetland Islands was also closed.

Wind vs Gas

UK generators usually sell output in advance on the wholesale market. But those transactions don’t take into account the physical limitations of balancing supply and demand in real time. To keep the lights on, the operator steps in, paying some plants to turn off and others that are closer to demand centers to fire up.

Often, this means shutting off a far-flung wind farm and starting up a gas-fed plant that’s closer to a city.

Keep reading

Bovaer: What is the cattle feed additive and why is it leading to shoppers pouring milk down the toilet?

Shoppers have threatened to boycott three major supermarkets over their participation in a new trial to add a methane-suppressing supplement into cow feed.

Arla Foods, which owns the UK’s biggest dairy co-operative, announced on 26 November it was going to start using the supplement.

The initiative is aimed at tackling climate-heating methane emissions produced by cows during digestion.

Arla said it will work alongside Aldi, Morrisons and Tesco to trial the use of the feed additive known as Bovaer across 30 British farms.

But the announcement has since been heavily criticised, with swathes of British shoppers threatening to boycott all three supermarkets and Arla brands, especially Lurpak butter.

Arla’s X post announcing the trial has been viewed more than five million times and gained 13,000 comments.

Videos on TikTok also showed some people throwing tubs of Lurpak in the bin, while others poured cartons of Arla Cravendale milk down the sink and down the toilet.

Keep reading

UN “Climate” Deal OKs “Carbon Markets”

“Commitments must quickly become cash.” Well, of course: cash talks, B.S. walks. No wait. it’s ‘B.S. talks and cash walks.” The South has been plundered for decades, and this is just another scam. They will get pennies on the dollar as kleptocrats along the way make the cash disappear into their own pockets. Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood

Posted By: Alex Newman via Liberty Sentinel

After two weeks of negotiations at the 29th annual United Nations “climate” summit, the UN and its member governments agreed to rules for a global “carbon market” led by the global body. The scheme will put a price on emissions of the gas of life, carbon dioxide (CO2), and allow carbon credits to be traded. UN bosses called it a “base to build on.”

The final deal, inked over the weekend, also saw Western governments pledge $1.3 trillion per year in “climate” wealth transfers by 2035. The money for Third World kleptocracies and climate profiteers will come from what remains of the middle class in the West. These reparations are to compensate for “loss and damage” supposedly caused by Western CO2, the UN claims.

Of that sum, about $300 billion annually will be in the form of grants and low-interest loans for “climate reparations,” starting immediately. That represents a tripling of previous pledges. The rest of the funding will come from government-backed “investments” and potential new international taxes on fuels or aviation in the years ahead.

Trading Emissions of CO2

The most important part of the deal involves the UN’s “carbon market” schemes. “This will be a game-changing tool to direct resources to the developing world and help us save up to $250 billion a year when implementing our climate plans,” explained COP29 boss Yalchin Rafiyev, deputy foreign minister for the Islamo-Marxist regime of Azerbaijan.

“When operational, these carbon markets will help countries implement their climate plans faster and cheaper, driving down emissions,” he continued. “We are a long way from halving emissions this decade. But wins on carbon markets here at COP29 will help us get back in that race.”

Deal a “Base on Which to Build”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, former leader of the Socialist International, also said the deal was a good start. “I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome — on both finance and mitigation — to meet the great challenge we face. But this agreement provides a base on which to build,” he said in a statement after the deal was signed.

“It must be honored in full and on time,” continued Guterres, touting “multilateralism” (better known to Americans as globalism). “Commitments must quickly become cash. All countries must come together to ensure the top-end of this new goal is met.… I appeal to governments to see this agreement as a foundation — and build on it.”

UN climate boss Simon Stiell emphasized that the agreement is merely the next step on the road to even more grandiose grabs for money and power. “This is no time for victory laps,” said Stiell. “We need to set our sights and redouble our efforts on the road to [COP30 in the Brazilian city of] Belém.”

In his final statement on the summit, Islamo-Marxist dictator Ilham Aliyev boasted of success. “I consider the ‘Baku breakthrough’ as a triumph of multilateralism,” he said, celebrating the confab’s approval of rules for the UN’s “carbon markets” and wealth redistribution. “The COP29 is a turning point in the climate diplomacy.”

Keep reading

How The Rush To Net Zero Is Accelerating Britain’s Industrial Decline

It’s Toytown basic economics that the price of any commodity or service is determined by the relationship between supply and demand. The less there is of anything, the higher its price will be, depending on the level of demand. The greater the level of supply the lower the price, and thus the greater the demand and usage.

Nothing could exemplify that better than energy. Restricting the supply of energy whether by design or circumstance, or even elevating the price artificially with taxes and levies, is bound to inhibit demand. And that diminishes the economy.

The Telegraph has published an article by Jonathan Leake on how Net Zero has accelerated Britain’s national decline:

For Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer, Net Zero is the route to clean energy, economic growth and turning the U.K. into a global green superpower.

Across the Atlantic, however, Britain’s drive for “decarbonisation” is increasingly seen as an economic experiment – one that risks tipping the U.K. from miniscule economic growth into full-scale decline.

Chris Wright, Donald Trump’s nominee for US energy secretary, has warned that Britain’s rush to ditch fossil fuels in favour of wind and solar power is causing higher prices, driving away energy-intensive businesses and contributing to Britain’s national decline.

“The U.K., although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry,” he wrote in a recent report. “The once world-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States.”

Leake doesn’t dispute the effects of climate change or “other consequences of greenhouse gas emissions”. His main point is that a key part of Net Zero policy is to reduce energy usage, but only in Britain. How much less?

To quote the Government’s advisory Climate Change Committee: “In our Balanced Net Zero Pathway, the U.K. economy becomes much more energy efficient, with total energy demand falling by around 33% in end-use sectors between now and 2050.”

Improved efficiency – delivering more output for the same amount of fuel, or less – could help to deliver a reduction in energy consumption. Yet huge advances would be necessary to yield a reduction in consumption of a third. Many observers believe the tail will wag the dog when it comes to this target, meaning the U.K. may be forced to curtail energy use in order to hit it.

For Wright and others, slashing energy consumption by a third and still expecting growth is heresy – an economic experiment no other country has achieved, or even attempted before.

Their view – one supported by most economists – is that access to energy has historically always been directly related to prosperity. The more energy we have, the richer we will become. And if we have less, we get poorer.

Keep reading