Tag: climategate

Conspiracy theorists, you were right: The climate change agenda is the depopulation agenda, even though no one knows what the global population is

On Tuesday, The Guardian published an article that admits the climate agenda is the depopulation agenda.

What is also notable is the article boldly claims the global human population is increasing by 200,000 people a day.  The world’s population is a guesstimate, so how can they know it is increasing by that number?  The truth is they don’t.

It simply isn’t possible to be sure exactly how many people there are on the Earth at any one time.  If it is uncertain how many people there are, it is even less certain by how many people the population is increasing, if indeed it is increasing.

The Guardian was publicising a report by a group of “experts” who had written a declaration of a ‘Warning of a Climate Emergency’ in 2020 for “scientists” worldwide to sign.  Their recent report was designed to solicit additional signatories.

How did The Guardian’s journalist miss that the “expert’s” report was merely activism? The article was written by a 20-year environmental reporting veteran who won this year’s press award for his “agenda-setting journalism on the climate crisis.”  He didn’t overlook the activism; he was helping to set the agenda.

Keep reading

Ashley Moody, Rick Scott urge Donald Trump administration to block proposed international shipping tax

The International Maritime Organization is considering a tax to offset costs of ending carbon emissions from ships.

U.S. Sens. Ashley Moody and Rick Scott drafted a letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Donald Trump administration to continue efforts to block a proposal by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to implement global carbon pricing tax.

The IMO next month will consider adopting pricing increase charges for shipping for carbon emissions by the vessels. The proposal is designed to guide shipping companies toward zero emissions by 2050, if adopted.

“The proposal, which the IMO is taking up next month, would place an unfair burden on American citizens and businesses,” a news release from Moody’s Office said.

The memorandum sent by Moody and Scott to top Trump administration officials urges continued opposition to the IMO proposal.

“The current proposal presents a direct threat to American interests. The proposed framework would impose a binding, escalating global carbon tax on maritime shipping through a system of increasingly strict emissions tiers and rising levies,” the Moody-Scott letter stated.

The original proposal was drafted in April and the intent is to lower emissions of greenhouse gas by the global shipping industry in general. The taxes on shipping companies would, theoretically, use the revenue to support and augment energy transition to carbon-gas-free ships.

But the letter from the two Senators argues the proposed program would limit American autonomy.

“Despite this enormous financial impact, the United States has virtually no influence over the policy and will receive none of the tax revenue in return. This is taxation without representation and a direct threat to the United States’ economic security,” the letter stated.

Moody and Scott reminded administration officials that the U.S. has substantial sway in the shipping industry. Global ports based in Florida include hubs in South Florida, Tampa, The Panhandle, Jacksonville and Cape Canaveral among other notable nautical centers.

That kind of impact can be used to influence the IMO, they argued.

“The senators urged the administration to immediately apply trade leverage to block the IMO framework and note this as a historic opportunity to restore our nation’s influence in global maritime policy and rapidly reassert American maritime dominance,” Moody’s news release said.

Keep reading

House OKs GOP bill to deprioritize some renewable projects

The House on Thursday approved a Republican bill that seeks to deprioritize some renewable energy from getting onto the electric grid amid broader GOP attacks on green energy.

The legislation, which passed 216-206, allows “dispatchable” energy to be prioritized amid the long line of projects that seek to get plugged into the nation’s electric grid.

“Dispatchable” energy can refer to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It may also refer to some renewable energy projects if they come with battery storage that allows solar or wind power to be harnessed and deployed at a later date.

But renewable energy projects that lack battery storage could be bypassed under the legislation and held up for even longer than the already years-long wait to get through grid interconnection queues.

Sponsor Rep. Troy Balderson (R-Ohio) said in a press release when the bill was introduced that it would “protect our grid’s reliability and provide the power needed to meet America’s growing demand.”

However, Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.) said in a markup earlier this year that the bill would allow “fossil fuel projects to cut the line.”

“We shouldn’t be prioritizing ready-to-go projects just because they are clean energy,” he said. 

The bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate, where it would need at least seven Democrats to support it. 

Keep reading

Environmental Groups Are Suing To Silence Scientists Who Wrote a Report Questioning Climate Change Alarmism

In July, the Energy Department released a report challenging many of the mainstream narratives surrounding climate change. The report, which was authored by the Climate Working Group (CWG)—a team of five climate scientists and economists—was drafted to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy,” according to Energy Secretary Chris Wright. 

“To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report,” the energy secretary wrote in the report’s foreword. The publication has indeed opened up debate, garnering nearly 60,000 comments in the Federal Register. But it has also introduced a series of legal challenges against the agency and the CWG. 

On Thursday, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by two environmental groups—the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists—against the Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the CWG. 

The lawsuit argues that when forming the CWG, Wright and the Energy Department violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires federal advisory groups to provide meeting notices and meeting notes to the public, create an approved charter of the group’s mission, and “have a balanced membership in terms of ‘the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee,'” according to the the Congressional Research Service. 

Much of the lawsuit focuses on the viewpoint balance of the CWG, with the plaintiffs arguing that “all five authors are well known for holding ‘contrarian views on climate science that are out of step with the mainstream'” and “none of the members represents the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities…have unequivocally caused global warming.” To remedy the lawsuit, the environmental groups are demanding that the working group be disbanded, the report be vacated, and CWG members be prohibited from advising federal agencies until the defendants “comply with all requirements for the group to operate legally as an advisory committee.”

The Energy Department has refuted claims that it violated the FACA, arguing that the CWG is not an advisory group under the law because it was created to “exchange facts or information” with the Energy Department, not to “make recommendations on an identified governmental policy for which specified advice was being sought.” Additionally, the CWG was disbanded on September 3, in a letter sent from Wright to the group’s members, rendering “most of Plaintiffs’ claims…moot due to the CWG’s dissolution.” Even with the CWG officially being shut down, its members will continue to collaborate (outside of the federal government’s scope) and update the report, according to Bloomberg.

Keep reading

Funding for green groups soared after 2009 endangerment finding, nonprofit finds

Changes to the Environmental Protection Agency’s strict regulations on the automobile industry could cost nonprofit groups that reported a 267% funding bump in the years since the federal agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, a rule that provided a legal basis for the agency to regulate vehicle emissions and the energy industry through the Clean Air Act.

Democracy Restored, a nonprofit dedicated to showing how government works, reviewed the tax returns of more than 75 of the top nonprofit organizations focused on climate change. Funding for those 75 groups has increased significantly since 2009 with their bottom lines moving from about $3 billion to $8 billion, since the most recently available tax returns were made public, said Houston Keene, director of Democracy Restored.

Government grants to those same 75 organizations increased from $350 million in 2009 to nearly $1.4 billion in 2023, the most recent year for which records were available.

“The endangerment finding seems to have given a very big boost to these groups,” Keene told The Center Square.

In July, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed to rescind an Obama-era environmental finding, or endangerment finding, impacting the automobile industry. Trump’s EPA boss, Lee Zeldin, says the endangerment finding cost the industry $1 trillion in regulations. Trump’s EPA blames the 2009 Endangerment Finding for the Biden administration’s electric vehicle mandate, which aimed to reduce the production of gas-powered vehicles.

Zeldin’s EPA says that if the proposal is finalized, it will lead to the repeal of all “resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines,” resulting in consumer choice and affordability. The agency says that it will save over $54 billion a year.

In support of the proposal, the EPA cited new scientific data it says challenges “the assumptions behind the 2009 Endangerment Finding.” The EPA chief contends the Obama and Biden administrations used “warped science” to cram through new emission standards.

Other groups disagree. Former vice president and environmental activist Al Gore says the move ignores reality.

Keene said the groups are pushing policies out of touch with Americans.

“They’re pushing policies that the majority of Americans wouldn’t want to live under or even agree with at this point,” he told The Center Square.

Keene said that such spending needs to be carefully examined going forward.

Keep reading

Sick: Hockey Stick Climate Fraud Scientist Shares Tweet Calling Charlie Kirk ‘Head of Trump’s Hitler Youth’

In 2009, leaked documents in the “Climategate Scandal” revealed the climate change scam to be exactly what many suspected – a massive scam. The Gateway Pundit reported on this scandal extensively when the reports first broke.

Dr. Michael Mann, the scientist who co-authored the famous “hockey stick graph” of temperature trends, was implicated in the 2009 global warming email scandal.

In 2012, Mann sued the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute over their critique of his work regarding the climate change hoax.

In 2017, The Gateway Pundit reported Mann committed contempt of court in what was dubbed the “climate science trial of the century.”

Mann also called for censorship of scientists who disagree with him on global warming.

Following the assassination of TPUSA’s Charlie Kirk, Mann, who is a senior administrator at UPenn, went on a vile rampage against Kirk, including sharing a post that likened Kirk to a Nazi and his work with TPUSA was akin to the Hitler Youth.

Mann retweeted several posts that took issue with a piece by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein titled “Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way.”

Klein’s piece praised Kirk’s approach and commitment to free dialogue and expressed that they were “on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics,” despite their differences.

Mann, however, chose to amplify hateful rhetoric from the left.

One retweet called Kirk “the head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.”

In a post of his own, Mann degraded the tragedy by calling, “The white on white violence has gotten out of hand,” phrasing that would cause an uproar if any other races were used as examples.

Keep reading

California Dems Kill Bill Backed by Jay Leno That Would Have Exempted Classic Cars from Emissions Regulations

Not even classic car collector Jay Leno could convince California’s legislative Democrats to give an inch on what a critic called the state’s “regulatory hellscape.”

The Assembly Appropriations Committee blocked Republican Sen. Shannon Grove’s Senate Bill 712, informally known as Leno’s Law, from advancing, according to KABC-TV.

“SB 712, also known as “Leno’s Law,” offers a practical solution for owners of collector vehicles that have difficulty complying with the state’s smog check law,” according to a fact sheet issued by Grove.

“Leno’s Law is sponsored by renowned car enthusiast and television icon Jay Leno. The bill would exempt, on an ongoing basis, collector cars whose model year is 35 years or older from the state’s smog check law,” the fact sheet said.

“The bill would also exempt classic cars from the smog check program upon transfer of a vehicle. These classic cars are infrequently driven, carefully maintained, and make up only a fraction of cars on the road,” the fact sheet said.

“Exempting them from the biennial smog check would strengthen California’s ‘car culture’ by helping preserve these historical treasures,” the fact sheet said.

The fact sheet said forcing classic cars to meet current standards “is an overreach by the government.”

Keep reading

Climate Change Group Increasingly Partnering With Mainstream Media

The separation between advocacy and unbiased, independent journalism at a network news operation is being called into question by CBS News’s use of a climate change group as a “partner” in its reporting.

The network has disclosed in recent weeks in both on-air and online reports its coordination with Climate Central, a nonprofit that calls itself “policy-neutral,” though it clearly promotes the notion that mankind is headed for certain disaster because of human impact on the environment.

Fox Digital reported:

CBS News has cited Climate Central research dozens of times since 2021, according to Grabien transcripts. But it wasn’t until July that the network began consistently referring to “our partners at Climate Central” on air.

Last month, CBS News published a story about melting glaciers that also aired on “Sunday Morning.” Ben Tracy was the correspondent on the segment, with his byline at the top of the article. A disclaimer at the bottom read, “Story produced by Chris Spinder, in partnership with Climate Central. Editor: Chris Jolly.”

However, according to Fox’s story on the practice, Tracy and Spinder no longer work for CBS News, but for Climate Central. Only Jolly is a network staffer, according to his LinkedIn page.

Climate Central’s website promotes its “Partnership Journalism” program, which it says contributes “guidance” to reporting and presenting “joint features” about climate to news outlets.

CBS is not its only partner. Fox says Climate Central’s website explains the “Partnership Journalism” program like this:

A partner outlet contributes local reporting, including field reporting, photography and some editing for a story. We contribute data and charts plus a science reporter and an editor. For a text story, we help craft a feature in a way that puts climate change in appropriate and accurate context. For broadcast media, we provide story and interview suggestions and help develop and review scripts. Climate Central’s researchers assist with fact-checking.

The nonprofit’s website says it has garnered more than 50,000 mentions in more than 170 countries with “[a]rticles, stories, and segments using Climate Central content to communicate climate change impacts and solutions reach local audiences nearly every day.”

The organization has been busy for nearly two decades disseminating climate change examples and theories that now routinely show up everywhere from network reporting to comments by local weather forecasters.

Keep reading

Blockbuster sea level study may turn climate change orthodoxy on its head

Global sea levels have not continued to rise at the rates predicted by many scientists — and there is no evidence that climate change has contributed to any such acceleration, a new first-of-its-kind study has claimed.

The research found that the average sea level rise in 2020 was only around 1.5mm per year, or 6 inches per century, according to the paper’s authors, Dutch engineering consultant Hessel Voortman and independent researcher Rob de Vos.

“This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media,” Voortman told independent journalist Michael Shellenberger.

Voortman was shocked that no researcher before had performed an analysis of real-world local data.

“It is crazy that it had not been done. I started doing this research in 2021 by doing the literature review. ‘Who has done the comparison of the projections with the observations?’ And there were none,” he told Shellenberger.

Keep reading

Federal Court Vacates Injunction on $16B in EPA Climate Grants

A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated a lower court order requiring the Environmental Protection Agency and Citibank to continue funding $16 billion in climate-related grants, ruling that the grantees are unlikely to prevail in their lawsuit.

Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the panel, said the district court “abused its discretion” in issuing a preliminary injunction after five nonprofits sued the agency over its March 2025 decision to terminate the awards.

The court found that the groups’ claims were primarily contractual and must be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims, while their constitutional claim was without merit.

The case centers on grants awarded under the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. In August 2024, the EPA directed $20 billion to eight nonprofits through two new programs, the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator.

The plaintiffs include Climate United Fund, which was awarded nearly $7 billion; the Coalition for Green Capital, which received $5 billion; Power Forward Communities, $2 billion; Inclusiv, $1.9 billion; and the Justice Climate Fund, $940 million.

The grants were structured through Citibank, which was designated as the federal government’s financial agent to hold and release the funds under EPA’s direction. That arrangement later became central to the legal dispute.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama and who is often criticized by President Donald Trump, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EPA’s attempt to terminate several of the nonprofit agreements. Her order also prohibited Citibank from disbursing funds while the case was pending.

The grants had been targeted as part of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s campaign to claw back money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which Congress authorized under former President Joe Biden to launch pollution-reduction projects.

The EPA cited concerns about conflicts of interest and oversight in halting the program. The appeals court said the equities “strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund.”

Keep reading