Tag: climategate

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

Is climate change REALLY making people allergic to meat?

Ticks responsible for giving people a “meat allergy” are spreading further and wider because the planet is warming.

That’s the story, anyway.

The disease is called Alpha-Gal Syndrome, it is a condition where your body produces an immune response to galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose, a carbohydrate found in mammalian meat.

It was first noted in the mid-2000s, when cancer patients began to display symptoms of anaphylaxis after being treated with the monoclonal antibody drug Cetuximab.

Then, in the early 2010s, researchers found a correlation between increased alpha-gal antibody reaction and repeated tick bites.

Since then, the prevalence of alpha-gal has been increasing year-on-year, with the CDC now estimating almost 500,000 people suffer from this “meat allergy” in the US alone.

Why are these numbers increasing?

Because of climate change, apparently. You see, the warmer weather is causing the tick population to increase, so more people are being bitten, so more people become allergic to meat.

It’s all very…neat, don’t you think?

Myths built upon convenient myths, each reinforcing the other. Just as people “should” be eating less meat to (allegedly) help fight climate change, a disease emerges that forces people to eat less meat…because of climate change.

The reality – if we can even call it that – is that alpha gal is a “confounding condition”, that’s what this Guardian article calls it anyway…

Keep reading

Canadian Hikers Get the COVID-Style Tyranny Treatment

Canadian politicians are creating one bonfire after another of freedom and individual rights. COVID crackdowns established persecution precedents that politicians in some provinces refuse to allow to gather dust. Politicians are claiming the right to financially cripple anyone who makes a single misstep in violation of the latest idiotic decrees.

On August 5, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston decreed a $25,000 fine for anyone walking in the woods or otherwise violating a new prohibition that covered both government and private lands. The prohibition will continue until October. Houston declared, “Most wildfires are caused by human activity, so to reduce the risk, we’re keeping people out of the woods until conditions improve. I’m asking everyone to do the right thing—don’t light that campfire, stay out of the woods and protect our people and communities.”

Canadian politicians are exploiting wildfires the same way that former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau exploited COVID to lockdown the entire nation. One critic on X/Twitter scoffed that “the province needs 10 weeks of no walking in the woods to flatten the curve”—paralleling the “two weeks to flatten the curve” crapola that initially sanctified the most onerous COVID restrictions. During the pandemic, Nova Scotia heavily fined citizens caught walking their dogs or exercising in park.

The government failed to document how the environmental peril situation this year was fundamentally different than in previous years. Author Peter Clark observed, “Fears of arson or climate hysteria appear to be behind bans on fishing & hiking in Nova Scotia’s forests. Canada’s forest fires have fallen almost half in the last 40 years & seem unrelated to weather or climate.” At the same time that Nova Scotian politicians are treating every resident and visitor like an arsonist, Canadian governments have let actual arsonists go free with legal wrist slaps.

Canadians are denouncing the new decree as “climate confinement”—an ominous development in a nation whose politicians have long swooned over the World Economic Forum. According to Travel and Tour News, “Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has officially ended, the consequences of restrictive policies are still being felt. With domestic travel restrictions now in place due to wildfire risks, many Canadians feel that their freedom to explore their country has been drastically reduced.”

“They’ve turned the great outdoors into the Forbidden Forest,” scoffed one critic. A photography website warned: “Photographing in the Woods in Nova Scotia Is Currently Illegal.” The government decrees provoked a firestorm of opposition:

“How does hiking in the woods with my dogs come across as a fire hazard?”

“Please tell me the difference between a trail and an unpaved road.”

“I’m confused. We’re banned from the woods? Half of us live in the woods.”

Nova Scotia established a snitch line so people could report neighbors or hooligans who strolled in the woods, and it quickly received thousands/tens of thousands of complaints.

Keep reading

Latest Stories Freezing The Climate Crisis Hysteria

Folks across the eastern half of the U.S. have been wearing quarter zips, sweatshirts, and hoodies at night, with some even sparking up fireplaces and/or bonfires as the summer winds down, thanks to unseasonably cool air.

In some areas across the Lower 48 – mostly the eastern half – temperatures have been “record-breaking cold” and the coldest in a generation for some zip codes. 

Cool temps are producing optically displeasing headlines for the Democratic Party, which insists a “climate crisis” will destroy the world unless folks pay more taxes and ban cow farts. 

Latest reporting:

Another massive shot of “unseasonably cold air” is headed for the eastern half of the U.S. next week, as mentioned by meteorologist Ben Noll on X.

Keep reading

‘Ecological grief’: Ottawa rolls out new buzzword for latest cash grab

Blacklock’s Reporter has uncovered a new federal buzzword: “ecological grief.” According to a Department of Indigenous Services audit, climate change is apparently causing so much heartache in First Nations communities that Ottawa needs more cash for counselling.

Yes, grief counselling. For the weather.

The report claims climate change is disrupting hunting, fishing, and trapping, which it calls “critical pathways to mental health.” It even blames forest fires for creating “perpetual experiences of stress and ecological grief.”

Cabinet has already budgeted nearly $1.6 billion since 2021 for a “Mental Wellness Program.” But auditors found the money wasn’t enough, the demand keeps growing, and record-keeping was so sloppy they couldn’t even figure out where the cash went. Their own warning? Lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and a higher risk of total waste.

And still, the department’s answer is predictable: expect more funding.

Keep reading

What Climate Crisis? Weather Channel Reports “Record-Breaking Cold” For August 

It must be extraordinarily difficult for leftist corporate media outlets and woke government weather forecasters to admit “record-breaking cold temperatures” or “unseasonably cool air” across parts of the Lower 48 – in August of all months. 

August is the prime season when far-left climate NGOs and their political allies, amplified by their MSM propaganda megaphone, usually try to convince everyone of an alleged climate crisis….

But the narrative of imminent doom for planet Earth unless cow farts, gas stoves, 2-stroke weedwhackers, petrol-powered vehicles (MSM always forgets to talk about Bill Gates, Al Gore, and Democrats flying around in private jets) are banned. 

Keep reading

The New York Times Publishes False Energy And Climate Information And Refuses To Correct Its Errors

Articles addressing energy and climate topics in The New York Times (NYT) increasingly include Inaccurate data and false information. The problem is compounded by the paper’s failure to follow its own corrections policy when errors are called to its attention. 

Readers look to the NYT to deliver well-reasoned and fact-checked information and analysis in areas where they are not themselves experts. However, based on my professional focus on data and analysis of energy and related environmental issues over the past 45 years, which includes White House and Department of Energy senior positions in the Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump 45 administrations as well as work at leading universities and think tanks, NYT coverage of these subjects too often fails to live up to its own standards for accuracy and journalistic integrity. 

As a lifetime reader of the NYT, the frequency of errors and a refusal to fix them raises doubts regarding the accuracy of information presented on other topics. Whether or not the problem extends beyond energy and climate, the NYT readership clearly deserves better. 

Three recent NYT articles illustrate the problem: a July 22 article by Max Bearak, ostensibly reporting on remarks by UN Secretary-General Guterres’ on renewable energy; a May 26 article by Ivan Penn on competition between electric vehicles (EVs) and vehicles powered by internal combustion engine (ICEVs); and an April 23 column by David Wallace-Wells on the loss of cultural and political momentum for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These are considered in turn below, followed by some summary conclusions. 

  1. Max Bearak’s July 22 2025 article “U.S. Is Missing the Century’s ‘Greatest Economic Opportunity,’ U.N. Chief Says” (July 23 print edition).

The article opens with a review of UN Secretary-General Guterres’ remarks promoting renewable energy investment as both an economic opportunity and an environmental imperative. With deft mixing of quoted and unquoted words, Bearak reports that Guterres explicitly criticized the U.S. and other countries that follow its policies on fossil fuels. Though that may well be the Secretary-General opinion, that view is not borne out in the as-delivered transcript of his remarks.

The bulk of the article turns to a discussion of energy data and climate policy that attempts to explain why the current situation has arisen, noting that this material was “left unsaid” by Mr. Guterres. From this point forward the reporter’s own analysis seeks to establish that China, in contrast to the U.S., is constructively pursuing a green energy transition. Unfortunately, the article presents faulty and misleading data. 

In seeking to highlight China’s constructive role the article states “Over the past decade, China has gone from a largely coal-powered economy to one that is deploying more renewable energy than anywhere else.”  Growth in China’s production and deployment of a wide range of renewable energy technologies is indeed very impressive. However, data in the 2025 Statistical Review of Word Energy (a widely-respected source of energy data available online here), show that China is still largely powered by coal. In 2024 coal provided 58.1% of China’s total energy use (92.2 out of 158.9 exajoules), while in 2014 it accounted for 69.8% of China’s energy use (82.1 out of 117.6 exajoules). (FYI, 1 exajoule = 947.8 trillion British Thermal Units).Thus, coal still dominates in China’s energy mix, although coal use grew more slowly than total energy use over the past decade.   

Following its discussion of China’s renewable energy progress, the article turns to energy use and production the U.S. and other rich countries. It incorrectly states that “Relatively wealthy countries like the U.S., Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia are also the world’s biggest producers of fossil fuels.”   Data in the 2025 Statistical Review show that China’s total production of coal, oil, and natural gas totaled 112.3 exajoules in 2024, 32% higher than that of the second leading producer, the U.S., which totaled 85.0 exajoules. Indeed, China’s production of coal (94.5 exajoules) alone exceeds the total fossil fuel production of any other country. Moreover, the 2024 data is no anomaly; China has been by far the world’s largest fossil fuel producer in every year since 2005.        

Despite having contacted the NYT corrections team and the author to point out these errors, as well as the article’s mischaracterization of the temperature-related aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement, no corrections have been made to date. 

Keep reading

600b tons of carbon emissions and Arctic sea ice stays the same for 20 years

One third of all human emissions has had no effect on the Arctic

Since 2005, humans have emitted one third of all the emissions we’ve ever put out — some 600 billion tons of CO2. Yet the Arctic sea ice is the same as it was twenty years ago. And even though the modelers cling to the excuse that this is “consistent with simulated internal variability” there was not one model that forecast this would happen.

For twenty years arctic sea ice was the Posterchild of Panic, and on the verge of disappearing forever, while Antarctic sea ice was invisible. Now the sea ice at the South Pole is at “a climate tipping point”, and the northern sea-ice is just a surprise.

Even when sea ice does nothing, it’s dramatic:

As long as the buzzwords are there in the headlines, The Guardian readers may  not even realize the scientists were completely, utterly wrong, and all the hand-wringing and tears about the polar bears was just a fundraising publicity stunt.

Remember, bad news is due to man-made climate change, but good news is a natural variation, and it’s only temporary. The Prophets of Climate say disaster is just around the corner still.

The melting of sea ice in the Arctic has slowed dramatically in the past 20 years, scientists have reported, with no statistically significant decline in its extent since 2005.   …they said this was only a temporary reprieve and melting was highly likely to start again at about double the long-term rate at some point in the next five to 10 years.

It’s just how rampant Blob-media bias works, and the Blob-academics are fine with that.

Keep reading