Tag: climategate

‘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

Antarctica Sea Ice Has “Slowly Increased” Since 1979, Science Paper Finds

Sea ice around Antarctica has “slowly increased” since the start of continuous satellite recordings in 1979 with any changes caused by natural climate variation. In a paper published earlier this year, four environmental scientists further state that any sign that humans are responsible for any change is “inconclusive”. Not of course for mainstream media that have been crying wolf about the sea ice in Antarctica for decades to promote the Net Zero fantasy. Last year there was a reduced level of winter sea ice and this caused the Financial Times Science Editor Clive Cookson to exclaim that the entire area “faces a catastrophic cascade of extreme environmental events… that will affect climate around the world”.

Over the satellite record, the scientists note there was a “prolonged and gradual” expansion of sea ice to around 2014 followed by a short period of sudden decline from 2014-19. Growth was then resumed, although there was a temporary downturn around 2022. These variations, which can also be observed before 1979, were caused by a number of natural atmospheric and oceanic factors. All of this is known of course, with the EU weather service Copernicus admitting recently that sea ice extent as a whole “shows large year-to-year variability and no clear long-term trend since 1979”. At the other end of the Earth, Copernicus correctly states that the cyclical decline in Arctic sea ice “has levelled off since 2007”.

It must all be very bewildering for narrative-following journalists. Confusion no doubt reigned supreme in their unquestioning ranks when they chanced upon the comments last year of Dr. Walter Meier of the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre. He was in full activist mode when he claimed the 2023 winter sea ice dip was “so far outside anything we’ve seen, it’s almost mind blowing”. But not perhaps as confused as Dr. Meier himself who 10 years earlier was part of a scientific team that cracked open the secrets of early Nimbus photographic data. These revealed significant Antarctica sea ice variability in the 1960s, including a high in 1964, not seen again until 2014, and a low in 1966, similar to the recent dip. At the time, Dr. Meier commented that extreme ice highs and lows “are not that unusual”.

During the Great 2023 Antarctica Ice Scare, the BBC said that it showed a worrying new benchmark for the region “that once seemed resistant to global warming”. Still does, those striving for accuracy might note. Antarctica has hardly warmed in the last 70 years.

Keep reading

The UN, Green Fund, and NATO – Unqualified Audits = Fraud

According to the World Meteorology Organization, the world began in 1885 when temperatures first were recorded.   And based on those recordings, which have been radically altered since that time, this is representative of a disaster caused by mankind.  The global mean temperature rose by 1.5’ Celsius.  The goal is for global temperatures to only rise by 1.5’ Celsius… 

In addition, UN climate experts have claimed that global greenhouse gas emissions have ‘smashed all records’.  Records began in 1958.  Starting in the 1950s, scientists began drilling deep into the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland to extract tubes of ice called ice cores.  The data is compared to the last ice age wherein there were few to zero – trees, plant life, etc… This is their methodology which has all the scientific analysis of comparing cow farts to climate.   Elevated levels of CO2 from climate change may enable plants to benefit from the carbon fertilization effect and use less water to grow.

With a President Trump we are hopefully back to reality in regards to Climate Change, NATO and the UN.  Fire up the coal and eliminate the wildlife weapon – windmills.  Melt down the steel components and make appliances.

The left is weeping, threatening that a US agreement to give Russia a win would mean Comrade Rutte will expel the US out of NATO!  NATO spends $1.3 trillion on defense of which the US picks up $860 billion or 66%.  Their last audit was in 2021 and included 33 recommendations, including:  “Five NATO Reporting Entities (ACO, IS, NAHEMO, NAPMA and NCPS) were required to resubmit their financial statements to correct material errors in order to obtain unqualified audit opinion on financial statements.  Sum had to restate their financials multiple times.”

The bottom line audit of NATO declared the Financial Statements and Compliance were ‘unqualified’.  This is considered an Adverse Opinion. Out of 44 reporting entities, 2 were given a ‘qualified’ audit score which is consistent with the last 3 years. Total Assets amounted to roughly $3.2 billion.  Liabilities were predominantly “Deferred Revenue’ of $2.4 billion. Deferred revenue, also known as unearned revenue or deferred income, is money a company receives in advance for products or services that have not yet been delivered.  The accounting entry would debit Cash & Receivables and credit the liability – yet the financial statements reveal only $1.686 billion.  This is what auditors refer to as unqualified, ie fraud.

For the past three years, their spending was exactly equal to revenue.   In the accounting world that is RED FLAG!   Not possible.   Their ‘Other Expenses’ is thus likely a plug to falsely create this bizarre budget.

There have been no financial statements for 2022, 2023 or quarterlies for 2024.   Houston!  This is worse than the US government.  We need to get out of DODGE!  NATO is Ukraine in drag.

Keep reading

Why Trump is Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement (again)

It’s going to be at least four years of “Drill baby, drill!” as President-elect Donald Trump has said numerous times over the last few years.

With Trump’s election, the United States will now definitely withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump is seeking to overhaul energy and environmental policies, aiming to dismantle the Left’s climate agenda and eliminate programs that impede the country’s economic growth. While President Joe Biden’s negotiators will be at this week’s COP talks in Azerbaijan, nothing they agree to will be binding for the Trump administration.

In fact, Reuters is reporting that Trump’s transition team has already prepared executive orders and proclamations on withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and shrinking the size of some national monuments to allow more drilling and mining.

The new Trump administration will push for a major ramp up of oil and gas exploration within the US, roll back environmental protections as well as impose heavy tariffs on electric vehicles and solar panels coming from China.

Trump is also expected to end the pause on permitting new liquefied natural gas exports to big markets in Asia and Europe and revoke a waiver that allows California and other states to have tighter pollution standards, according to a New York Times report.

Trump is also reported to be under pressure to pull the US out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the first time if he becomes president.

While leaving the Paris Agreement would be legally straightforward, legal experts had previously been divided on whether Trump could withdraw the US from the UNFCCC without the approval of the US Senate and – if he did – how easy it would be for a future president to re-join.

However, given that the Senate is now in Republican hands, Trump could move forward on this should he so choose.

The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is an international treaty aimed at limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, with efforts to keep it under 1.5 degrees.

Democrats have made climate change and the goal of limiting global warning a new religion.

They claim Trump risks derailing American climate policy, as well as the global fight against climate change.

They have called his election a “crushing blow,” a “dark day for the climate,” and “the greatest civilizational and climatic setback on our planet.”

Democrats believe the Paris Climate Agreement represents a positive, collective global effort to address climate change.

As part of the Agreement, countries set nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fostering accountability and progress tracking. Developed nations pledge financial and technical support to help developing countries transition to greener economies and adapt to climate impacts, which can alleviate economic inequality.

The US has already committed billions in American taxpayer dollars to developing countries, a move many conservatives are upset about.

Keep reading

World Bank Missing $41 Billion in Climate Funds

A new report by Oxfam, “Climate Finance Unchecked,” has determined that the World Bank has $41 billion in unaccounted funds that were destined to fight climate change.

This figure represents 40% of all disbursed climate funds by the World Bank. Oxfam’s audit revealed that between 2017 and 2023, between $24 billion and $41 billion simply went unaccounted for and there is absolutely no record of where the money went. No one knows how the money was used as there is no paper trail revealing where the money went.

“The Bank is quick to brag about its climate finance billions —but these numbers are based on what it plans to spend, not on what it actually spends once a project gets rolling,” said Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington D.C. Office. “This is like asking your doctor to assess your diet only by looking at your grocery list, without ever checking what actually ends up in your fridge.”

The World Bank is a leader in climate finance, controlling 52% of the total flow from all multilateral banks combined. World Bank President Ajay Banga announced in December that the bank achieved 35% of its financing three years ahead of schedule. He then set a new target of 45% by 2025. The bank later said in September that it achieved 44% of climate financing to the tune of $42.6 billion. “We’re putting our ambition in overdrive,” Banga said.

Keep reading

A victory for energy and climate sanity

Now that President Donald Trump has easily defeated Vice President Kamala Harris, Americans who desire freedom of choice and are at their wits’ end with sky-high energy prices can breathe a massive sigh of relief. Moreover, the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of the never-ending climate alarmist narrative courtesy of the federal government can also rest easy.

In a few months, Trump will return to the Oval Office in one of the most spectacular comeback stories in American political history. As he has said on multiple occasions during the campaign, one of his first priorities will be addressing the energy cost crisis created by the Biden-Harris administration.

Since President Biden entered the White House in January 2021, his administration has declared war on American energy independence as well as the fossil fuel industry in general. From killing the Keystone XL pipeline to slow-walking leases for oil and gas exploration on federal lands, Biden has made it abundantly clear that he sides more with climate alarmists than ordinary, hard-working Americans.

On the other hand, Trump’s track record during his first term and what he has outlined that he will do in his second term tells us that he will embrace commonsense energy policies that puts Americans first, regardless of the propaganda spewed by climate radicals and those who benefit greatly from the scam that is known as the green energy transition.

Unlike Biden and Harris, Trump believes in American energy independence. More accurately, Trump is a strong supporter of American energy dominance. Although these terms sound similar, it is important to understand the difference between the two. When we talk about energy independence, we are basically describing a situation in which the United States does not need to import oil and other energy sources from countries like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. When we talk about energy dominance, we are describing a scenario in which the United States can supply energy to our allies across the world, especially in Europe.

By mid-2020, Trump had achieved American energy independence for the first time in decades. This is a key reason why gasoline prices, and energy prices in general, plummeted under Trump.

It is no great secret how Trump managed to turn the United States into a net energy exporter during his first term; he simply lifted the throttle off of U.S. energy producers. Trump allowed more fracking, opened up more federal lands for exploration, and reduced regulations that have hindered the industry for far too long.

Keep reading