Tag: climategate

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

Citizens Face $2,000 Energy Bill Increase as Dem Gov’s Green Energy Push Moves Forward: Report

One the country’s bluest regions is learning about the high cost of going green.

Customers of New York’s Consolidated Edison, the electric and gas utility that services New York City, is proposing a massive rate increase that would cost Big Apple customers paying utility bills almost $2,000 more a year than they did in 2020, the New York Post reported Thursday.

And the company blames energy mandates imposed by the New York state government, led by Gov. Kathy Hochul, for the hikes.

The proposed rates are being reviewed by the state Public Service Commission, the Post reported

And one former member of that commission told the newspaper the hikes are a sign that the state is headed in the wrong direction.

“We have to take a breath,” former Commission John Howard said, according to the Post.

“We’re not telling Mr. and Mrs. New York how much this transition to clean energy will cost them.”

The Post based its figures on customers using 600 kilowatt-hours per month — the average for New York state households, according to the electricity marketplace website Electricchoice.com.

Con Ed officials argued that New York City customers use less electricity than others in the state and claimed the Post’s figures were too high — that its proposal would amount to a hike of 15.7 percent, or about $46.42 to $289.41 per month, but there’s no denying that a rate increase is a rate increase.

And there’s no denying that New York’s Democratic-run state government has a mania for electricity mandates.

Keep reading

New Jersey Climate Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice: Court Rejects Baseless Claims Against Oil Giants Causing Climate Change

A New Jersey lawsuit accusing major oil companies of contributing to climate change has been dismissed.

The lawsuit, spearheaded by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin in 2022, targeted industry behemoths like ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute.

It alleged that their operations exacerbated climate-related damages across the state.

According to the lawsuit:

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have engaged in a decades-long campaign to discredit the science of global warming, conceal the dangers posed by their fossil fuel products, and misrepresent their efforts to combat climate change.

They claim that despite knowing about the adverse climate impacts of their products since the 1950s, Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers, the public, and decision-makers about these risks.

Defendants are alleged to have engaged in deceptive marketing practices, including promoting fossil fuel products as environmentally friendly or “clean,” while downplaying their role in contributing to climate change.

Plaintiffs contend that these deceptive campaigns have led to an increase in greenhouse gas pollution, resulting in sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and other climate change impacts that have affected New Jersey residents.

The decision, delivered on Wednesday by Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd, concluded that these legally operating companies could not be held accountable for global emissions.

The dismissal, rendered with prejudice, firmly shuts the door on any possibility of reopening the case.

Keep reading