Tag: climategate

Florida Republican Lawmaker Introduces Legislation to BAN Weather Engineering Amid Rising Concerns Over Climate Manipulation

A Florida Republican Senator has introduced SB 56, a bill that aims to prohibit weather modification activities within the state.

Introduced by Senator Ileana Garcia, this legislation targets chemical and technological methods used to manipulate weather patterns, temperature, or sunlight intensity, effectively halting a controversial practice often linked to geoengineering.

What Does SB 56 Say?

The bill repeals existing provisions in Florida statutes related to weather modification.

It specifically prohibits the “injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of 36 a chemical, a chemical compound, a substance, or an apparatus 37 into the atmosphere within the borders of this state for the 38 express purpose of affecting the temperature, the weather, or 39 the intensity of sunlight.”

Violators could face stiff penalties, including fines of up to $10,000 and potential misdemeanor charges.

SB 56 is set to take effect on July 1, 2025, but it will likely encounter opposition from industry stakeholders and environmental scientists.

Florida is not the only state taking a stand against weather manipulation. Earlier this year, the Tennessee State Senate took a definitive stance against the controversial topic of “chemtrails” by passing SB 2691/HB 2063.

The bill, which aims to ban the intentional release of chemicals into the atmosphere for geoengineering purposes, was sponsored by Representative Monty Fritts (R-Kingston) and Senator Steve Southerland (R-Morristown) and won approval in the Senate on Monday, The Tennessean reported.

The legislation is predicated on the claim that “it is documented the federal government or other entities acting on the federal government’s behalf or at the federal government’s request may conduct geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere, and those activities may occur within the State of Tennessee.”

This new bill seeks to outlaw any such activities, stating that, “The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight is prohibited.”

In New Hampshire, two motivated House Representatives, Jason Gerhard, Merrimack – District 25, and Kelley Potenza, Strafford – District 19, have introduced “The Clean Atmosphere Preservation Act” NH House Bill (HB) 1700.

Keep reading

Global First: Denmark Starts Taxing Farm Animals’ Burps, Farts And Poop

Denmark, known for its inventive restaurants and elegant design studios, is about to become known for something more basic: the world’s first belch and manure tax.

That’s because there are five times as many pigs and cows in Denmark as there are people. Nearly two-thirds of its land is taken up by farming. And agriculture is becoming its largest share of climate pollution, putting lawmakers under intense public pressure to reduce it.

So now, Denmark’s unlikely coalition government, made up of three parties from across the political spectrum, has agreed to tax the planet-heating methane emissions that all those animals expel through their poop, farts and burps. The measure, under negotiation for years, was passed by the Danish Parliament this month, making it the only such climate levy on livestock in the world.

“I think it’s good,” said Rasmus Angelsnes, 31, who was shopping for dinner in Copenhagen one recent afternoon. “It’s kind of a nudge to make different choices, maybe more climate-friendly choices.”

Never mind that his shopping cart contained thick slices of pork belly, which he planned to cook that rainy evening with potatoes and parsley. “Comfort food,” he said sheepishly.

The tax is part of a larger package designed to clean up the country’s agricultural pollution and eventually restore some farmland to its natural form, like peat lands, which are exceptionally good at locking away planet-heating gases underground but were drained decades ago to grow crops.

Denmark’s quest is also part of a reckoning for many agricultural powerhouses, including the United States, as they face calls to clean up pollution from farms, while balancing the needs of politically powerful agricultural lobbies.

Globally, the food system accounts for a fourth of greenhouses gases, and reducing those emissions requires making tough choices on diets, jobs and industries. At the same time, farmers are vulnerable to the hazards of climate change, with punishing heat, droughts and floods exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels. That makes food a particularly vexing climate problem to take on.

No wonder that efforts to reduce agriculture’s climate emissions have faced stiff resistance, from Brussels to Delhi to Wellington, where the New Zealand government proposed a burp tax in 2022 only to have a later government scrap it.

Keep reading

UN’s Latest Climate Agenda Sparks Alarms Over Online Censorship

The United Nations (UN) is engaging in yet another effort that can easily slip into a tool for “bolstering” online censorship.

Earlier in the week the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change was launched during a G20 Summit.

This adds to a convoluted list of various UN-driven treaties, initiatives, and goals – and here the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has found a partner in Brazil’s authorities.

Those behind the document say it’s there to help combat climate change disinformation and take aim at social media in particular. If UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay is to be believed, this type of “disinformation” is “running rampant” on the internet.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who addressed the summit, also contributed to building the dramatic and alarmist narrative around both issues – climate, and “disinformation” – when he, in a social media post, complained about “coordinated disinformation campaigns impeding global progress on climate change.”

So far, the countries that have joined include Chile, Denmark, France, Morocco, Sweden, and the UK. They will collectively contribute to the UN raising $10–$15 million to fund “research and awareness campaigns” but also advocacy groups, and what’s referred to as communication strategies to help achieve the initiative’s goals.

While clearly treating the climate change theories as scientific fact, Azoulay stopped just short of referring to that as an existential threat – but did call it an “existential challenge.”

The UN official wants to see more than governments, scientists, etc., on board: the role of journalists is also highlighted here – in a rather strange way. Instead of reporting the news, journalists are envisaged as a kind of advocates themselves, “a critical link between science and society,” said Azoulay.

Keep reading

Early-twentieth-century cold bias in ocean surface temperature observations

The observed temperature record, which combines sea surface temperatures with near-surface air temperatures over land, is crucial for understanding climate variability and change1,2,3,4. However, early records of global mean surface temperature are uncertain owing to changes in measurement technology and practice, partial documentation5,6,7,8, and incomplete spatial coverage9. Here we show that existing estimates of ocean temperatures in the early twentieth century (1900–1930) are too cold, based on independent statistical reconstructions of the global mean surface temperature from either ocean or land data. The ocean-based reconstruction is on average about 0.26 °C colder than the land-based one, despite very high agreement in all other periods. The ocean cold anomaly is unforced, and internal variability in climate models cannot explain the observed land–ocean discrepancy. Several lines of evidence based on attribution, timescale analysis, coastal grid cells and palaeoclimate data support the argument of a substantial cold bias in the observed global sea-surface-temperature record in the early twentieth century. Although estimates of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century are not affected, correcting the ocean cold bias would result in a more modest early-twentieth-century warming trend10, a lower estimate of decadal-scale variability inferred from the instrumental record3, and better agreement between simulated and observed warming than existing datasets suggest2.

Keep reading

Fact Check: The Guardian’s article about extreme weather being due to “the climate crisis” is FALSE

On Monday, The Guardian published an article claiming that climate change is to blame for extreme weather – it is false and based on flawed “attribution studies” that lack rigorous peer review.

Attribution studies use climate models to simulate extreme weather events, but these models often reflect overheated worst-case scenarios rather than actual observations.

Empirical data does not support claims of worsening severe weather, with long-term trends for many extreme weather events remaining stable or declining, contradicting the narrative presented by The Guardian and other media outlets.

On Monday 18 November, The Guardian published an “explainer” piece titled ‘How do we know that the climate crisis is to blame for extreme weather?’ This is false. Actual data on extreme weather does not support their claim, and the claim is mostly based on flawed “attribution studies.”

The narrative that severe weather events are worsening due to climate change has become a mainstay in today’s media. However, a closer look at the data and the science behind these claims often reveals inconsistencies that should give us pause. Attribution studies, which are widely used to link specific extreme weather events to climate change, frequently lack rigorous peer review and are published hastily to garner headlines, raising significant concerns about their reliability.

Attribution studies work by using climate models to simulate two different worlds: one influenced by human-caused climate change and another without it. These models then assess the likelihood of extreme weather events in each world. Yet the validity of such studies is only as good as the models and assumptions underpinning them. This methodology is prone to overestimating risks because climate models are often reflecting overheated worst-case scenarios rather than actual observations.

Moreover, these studies are often published without proper peer review. Climate Realism has documented how media outlets run stories based on these model-driven studies, ignoring real-world data that often contradicts the alarming conclusions. For example, articles frequently cite reports that heatwaves, floods, or hurricanes are “worsening” without disclosing that these claims rely on theoretical simulations rather than measured evidence.

Empirical data does not support claims of worsening severe weather. In fact, the long-term trends for many extreme weather events have remained stable or even declined. According to Climate at a Glance, heatwaves in the United States were most severe in the 1930s, with temperatures and frequency outstripping recent records. The number of strong hurricanes making landfall in the United States has not increased either. The country even experienced a record 12-year lull in major hurricanes between 2005 and 2017.

Keep reading

‘A Little Dystopian’: Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates Bankrolling Methane Vaccine for Cattle

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is investing $9.4 million to develop a vaccine designed to reduce the number of methane-producing microbes in a cow’s stomach, Agriland reported.

The funding comes from his Bezos Earth Fund, a philanthropy he established with $10 billion in 2020. The fund intends to distribute all of its money by 2030, by funding projects to “fight climate change and protect nature.”

Researchers at the United Kingdom’s Pirbright Institute and Royal Veterinary College, and New Zealand’s AgResearch are among the groups receiving funding to research how a vaccine could reduce the methane emitted by cows as they digest and expel food through manure, flatulence and burping.

“Vaccines have proven to be an incredibly cost-effective way to deliver global health solutions,” said Bezos Earth Fund President and CEOAndrew Steer in a press release. “If we can apply this approach to vaccinate cattle and reduce emissions, the scalability and impact could be phenomenal.”

Although scientists have sporadically researched methane vaccines for over four decades, no vaccine yet exists. The project’s first goal is to show that such a vaccine is possible.

“This grant is a moonshot for proof-of-concept — risky bets like this are essential to tackling the climate crisis,” Steer said, according to Agriland.

The researchers will study how methanogens, or methane-producing microbes, colonize the digestive tract of calves and how their immune system responds to those methanogens.

Keep reading

With all the detrimental effects of wind farms, how on Earth are they being approved?

I recently returned from Wales where once pristine green hills are now littered with (often stationary) giant wind turbines, in the name of saving the planet. On a farm near Llangollen, I met with a group of locals who are deeply concerned about the rampant escalation of these ugly, noisy, lethal and futile installations.

Farmer Tim Smith explained the issues to me in detail which I hope I’ve covered adequately below so that you too can grasp what is at stake, and see that wind turbines are yet another big lie to support the biggest lie of all – climate change.

For communities, it’s incredibly difficult to challenge decisions made by developers or government officials. Once more, in the case of this area of outstanding natural beauty, it seems that the Government has prioritised corporate interests over the health, wellbeing and livelihoods of ordinary people. With increasingly more wind farms planned for the area, the group expressed feeling angry, frustrated and powerless to defend themselves from these metal monsters.

“The system is set up to protect big business, not the little guy,” Tim said.

Climate Change or Climate Hoax?

There is growing scepticism about the climate change narrative that drives many renewable energy policies. Living in the UK, there is no doubt the weather is doing strange things – it’s been a miserably cloudy and cold year with hardly any sunshine whatsoever. But is this climate change or part of a climate hoax?

Devastating floods in Spain as well as the fires in Greece have raised questions about whether these events were genuinely natural or potentially orchestrated. This possibility only reinforces the need to critically examine policies that push for widespread wind farm developments, which are so obviously visual and noise pollutants. So why are they allowed?

Wind Energy as a ‘Solution’ to Climate Change

Wind energy is presented as a solution to “climate change,” yet its long-term effects on health, ecosystems and local communities are devastating and these effects are completely overlooked.

Tim, who has started a UK branch of the international Motvind advocacy group to raise awareness of the dangers of the wind energy agenda, explained that once turbines are installed there is no oversight at all. One of the group’s most pressing concerns is the health risks associated with wind farm noise, particularly the low-frequency infrasound emitted by turbines. This sound, often imperceptible to the human ear, can lead to a range of health issues, including sleep disturbances, chronic stress, and even motion-sickness-like symptoms. Some members of the group had experienced these symptoms. According to Tim, developers have refused to release the records of the infrasound data relevant to their local installations. In addition to infrasound, the turbines make audible sounds that also lead to increased stress, can drive people mad, or cause them to relocate.

The current regulations, such as the ETSU R97 guidelines, do not adequately address these risks. Although independent reports have been prepared by the Independent Noise Working Group to protect the public, these are simply ignored by the government and corporations alike. Thus, communities living near wind farms are left vulnerable to these health effects, with no sufficient protections in place.

Keep reading

UK government to fund geoengineering experiments to cool the Earth

ARIA, the UK’s answer to ARPA, is an innovation lab that was the brainchild of Dominic Cummings, the former No. 10 adviser to Boris Johnson. Armed with £800 million, it is tasked with pursuing scientific research to unlock “breakthroughs at the edge of the possible.”

According to The Telegraph, ARIA is “a nondescript office tucked in a corner of the British Library” with big ambitions with projects that include engineering the climate, replacing physical labour with robots and merging human brains with computers to turn us into cyborgs.  It was established by an Act of Parliament in 2022 and is sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (“DSIT”).  The Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 exempts the agency from coming under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

ARIA said it was pursuing geoengineering research because “even under the most aggressive scenarios” of cutting greenhouse gasses, it may not be possible to reduce those emissions fast enough to prevent dangerous increases in global temperatures.

Without conducting physical tests of those strategies, the agency said, “there is no prospect of being able to make proper judgments” about whether any type of geoengineering is “feasible, scalable, and controllable.”

The agency, which is publicly funded but has a degree of independence from the British government, is soliciting proposals to be submitted before 9 December from researchers around the world and expects to announce the recipients in the first half of next year.

“This programme,” ARIA’s website states, “will explore whether approaches designed to delay, or avert, climate tipping points could be feasible scalable, and safe.”

As you can see for yourself in the video below presented by Programme Director Mark Symes, they are completely immersed in the climate change crisis scam, or at least completely dedicated to propagating the false narrative surrounding it.

Symes is an electrochemist, with a 15-year career developing sustainable fuels in the drive towards “net zero.”

Keep reading

Harris’ campaign blew $2.6M on private jets in final weeks of campaign

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign shelled out $2.6 million on private jet travel in the final, dying gasps of her presidential run — bringing her failed campaign’s total tally on the environmentally unfriendly mode of transportation to a staggering $12 million, records show.

As Harris’ team desperately shuttled across the nation to host rallies and coax voter turnout between Oct. 1 and Oct. 17, her campaign ponied up nearly $2.2 million to the south Florida-based company Private Jet Services Group, along with $430,000 to Arlington, Va.-based charter flight broker Advanced Aviation Team, according to Federal Election Commission data.

The reliance on private jets, which can be up to 14 times more polluting than commercial flights, flies in the face of her 2019 doom-saying that global warming is an “existential threat” to humanity, as well as calls on the campaign trail for Americans to reduce their carbon emissions to stop global warming. 

Keep reading

Scrutiny of World Bank intensifies over $24 billion in unaccounted climate funds

The World Bank has pledged over $100 billion to combat climate change, but a new report by Oxfam found that up to $41 billion of this spending is “effectively unaccounted for” due to poor record-keeping by the World Bank.

A World Bank insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested the figure for the missing money “could be twice or 10 times more.”

“All the figures are routinely made up,” the source said. “Nobody has a clue about who spends what.”

Oxfam’s report, titled ‘Climate Finance Unchecked’, was published on 17 October ahead of COP29 in Azerbaijan which is currently taking place, and during which climate finance is taking centre stage.

The report alleges that the World Bank’s current approach to tracking climate finance is flawed and makes it impossible to verify its expenditures and impact.  Specifically, the Bank’s accounting system, which tracks climate finance at the time of project approval rather than project completion, makes it difficult to verify how funds were spent.

Oxfam’s investigation revealed that obtaining even basic information on how the World Bank is using climate finance was painstaking and difficult.

“We had to sift through layers of complex and incomplete reports, and even then, the data was full of gaps and inconsistencies. The fact that this information is so hard to access and understand is alarming – it shouldn’t take a team of professional researchers to figure out how billions of dollars meant for climate action are being spent. This should be transparent and accessible to everyone, most importantly communities who are meant to benefit from climate finance,” Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington D.C. Office, said.

The World Bank’s centrality to climate finance makes its lack of transparency all the more troublesome, according to Oxfam, which argues that the bank’s claims of ambition are impossible to verify without more precise and transparent accounting methods. 

Oxfam estimates that the difference between budgeted and actual expenditures on climate finance amounts to tens of billions of dollars over six years. And the World Bank’s opacity in accounting methods has led to concerns about mismanagement, corruption and the potential diversion of funds away from their intended purpose.

Keep reading