Tag: climategate

Dissonance In The Green Valhalla: German Workers Break The Climate Silence

For the first time in years, a group of German industrial labor representatives has broken ranks. In an open letter to Chancellor Friedrich Merz, they fiercely criticize Berlin’s climate policy. Will their defiance ignite a firestorm—or vanish in the memory hole crafted by media gatekeepers?

I must admit: after years of bitter disappointment in the fight for rational energy discourse, I view initiatives like this with cautious pessimism. In Germany, climate policy has become the domain of a paternalistic triad—politics, media, and public compliance. The first casualty? Open debate. The air is thick with passive-aggressive apocalypse. Criticizing the Green Deal is a near-taboo. No historical precedent comes to mind where a nation, fully conscious, impales itself economically in slow motion.

Calm Before the Storm?

In the U.S., the climate machinery may be in retreat under Trump’s return. But in the EU, the climate cartel and its beneficiaries remain in full control – despite recession, deindustrialization, and public despair. Is this just the quiet before the reckoning?

Germany has paid the highest price in this climate crusade. Its forced transition to renewables, while banning nuclear energy, might still be hailed as “civilizational progress” in eco-parasitic enclaves like Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg or Cologne-Ehrenfeld. But out in the real world, where productive citizens, families, and businesses depend on affordable energy and mobility, the mood has soured. The party’s over. Pockets are empty. And the pressure’s building.

Now, at last, some are speaking up. A group of industrial works councils is calling on Chancellor Merz to halt the climate policy suicide run. Since COVID lockdowns, over 300,000 jobs in Germany’s industrial core have vanished. Energy-intensive production has become a fantasy—especially when competitors like the U.S. pay up to 75% less for electricity.

End of the Silence Cartel

The letter’s signatories include labor reps from LEAG, ArcelorMittal Eisenhüttenstadt, BASF Schwarzheide, the works council of Lausitz Energy, and the regional leadership of the IGBCE union. These are not outliers—they’re survivors of Germany’s failed “green transformation.”

ArcelorMittal recently scrapped its green steel plans—despite billions in offered subsidies. BASF is cutting 700 jobs in Ludwigshafen. The “green restructuring” of Germany’s economy now reads like an industrial obituary. Every day, another subsidized project collapses into the dustbin of central planning.

Their rebellion is the real headline: it takes courage to stand outside the climate orthodoxy and step into the light. Respect.

No More Consensus

These aren’t populists or corporate shills. These are works councils, long considered integrated into Germany’s consensus-driven labor model. By issuing a public letter, they’re committing open defiance. They’re aiming straight at the Green Deal—the administrative metastasis that has paralyzed Europe’s economic lifeblood.

The tone is striking: they describe “the worst economic crisis since WWII.” Over 100,000 industrial jobs lost—just this year. In truth, the total job losses since 2020 are triple that, according to Ernst & Young.

They call the energy transition a “failed operation on an open heart.” After 35 years of subsidizing wind and solar, grid stability hasn’t improved—yet grid costs are in the hundreds of billions. The high energy prices aren’t just socially unjust; they’re an existential threat to prosperity and civil peace.

The councils are calling for an industrial electricity price of €0.05/kWh, and for industry to be freed from surcharges and levies.

Keep reading

Kathy Hochul’s only slowing down the suffering from her green-energy lunacy

Gov. Kathy Hochul finally admits the state’s “climate” goals are impossible to meet for now, but she offers no reason to trust she won’t continue to pursue them to appease green extremists, at huge cost to regular New Yorkers, if she wins re-election next year.

The climate law demands the state achieve 100% zero-emission electricity by 2040, but it’s still burning as much carbon as ever; its faltering (but hugely expensive) alternative-energy gains aren’t even enough to keep up with expected increases in demand.

The gov is making the smallest possible concession to reality, while dodging as much blame as she can: “We cannot accomplish what those objectives were back in before I became governor in a time frame that’s not going to hurt ratepayers,” she announced this month. “So, we’re slowing things down.”

Mind you, she’s burning ever-more of your dollars (via taxes and utility bills) on costly offshore wind projects, still blocking new pipelines, still preventing new-home natural-gas hookups and making non-electric vehicles more expensive.

She’s simply admitting that it’s not remotely enough, even though it keeps driving New York electricity costs through the roof. (Even roofs with solar panels on top!)

Keep reading

Is This The Age Of Pretend?

There are certain absolutes in our lives, like what is up is up, and what is down is down, but not in today’s crazy environment of “pretend.”

We are told to pretend, by the lefty loons, that: (1) boys can be girls and girls can be boys (regardless what your DNA shows), and that biological males can compete against biological females in athletics: (2) we are witnessing a “peaceful protest,” when in the background of the reporter reporting on video, a business is being torched and burned to the ground; (3) the biggest threat to the United States is not Communist China, Russia or Iran, but man-made global climate change (President Biden actually said that); (4) the Keystone Pipeline is a threat to our environment, along with carbon fuels, but transporting oil by truck and rail is a far safer way to transport it, in spite of dangerous spills as a result of accidents that might not have occurred with a pipeline; (5) the invasion of illegal aliens that was coming across our southern border is not a crisis, but just a “challenge” and not a problem; (6) raising the minimum wage by government decree will not cause low-skilled workers to be unemployed as a result; also (7) spending trillions of dollars for infrastructure in a bill that spends just 10% on real infrastructure and the rest on climate change, is a necessary expenditure.

Do the progressives (a/k/a Democrats, globalists, Marxists/Socialists/Communists) really think that most of the citizens are stupid and naive? The answer is yes, they do. Just ask the Democrat voters of New York City, who just nominated an admitted Socialist/Communist /Anti-Semite, Zohran Mamdani, as their Mayoral candidate. If elected, he will drive the city into ruin with the policies he has espoused.

In this topsy-turvy world we live in, you must wonder how people in authority can be so wrong on practically everything that is political. A good example of that is during the four years of President Trump’s first term in office, and now in his second term in office, no matter what he says or does, the knee-jerk reaction of the Democrats and the news media is that it must be bad, even if it was good for the country. They want us to pretend that President Trump is evil and shouldn’t be listened to, because he is a dictator and a threat to our democracy.

Now that we had President Biden in office for four years, the Democrats and the news media want us to pretend that whatever Biden and his administration had done was peachy-keen and good for the country. No mention is made of the various crises that had come about at the southern border, the unrest in the Middle East, the pull-out from Afghanistan, the lack of many children not attending in-person schooling during the pandemic, and no real condemnation of the wild accusations by the Squad (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Jasmine Crockett and Ayanna Pressley, along with admitted Socialist Bernie Sanders) claiming that our democratic republic is a “systemic racist country.”

Keep reading

Politico Deeply Disappointed That Democrats Are ‘Retreating’ on Climate Change – Especially in California

The liberal outlet Politico is deeply disappointed that Democrats seem to be ‘retreating’ on the issue of climate change, especially in deep blue California.

This completely ignores the fact that over the last six months, we have seen leftists set electric vehicles and dealerships on fire, not to mention the car fires in the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. Politico realizes that people saw these things happen, don’t they?

How can anyone take the left seriously on their pet issue of climate change ever again? Their concerns obviously go right out the window the moment they want to start burning cars to make a political point.

From Politico:

Democrats retreat on climate: ‘It’s one of the more disappointing turnabouts’

SACRAMENTO, California — Donald Trump is coming for California’s signature climate policies — and so is California.

Stung by the party’s sweeping losses in November and desperate to win back working-class voters, the Democratic Party is in retreat on climate change. Nowhere is that retrenchment more jarring than in the nation’s most populous state, a longtime bastion of progressive politics on the environment.

In the past two weeks alone, California Democrats have retrenched on environmental reviews for construction projects, a cap on oil industry profits and clean fuel mandates. Elected officials are warning that ambitious laws and mandates are driving up the state’s onerous cost of living, echoing longstanding Republican arguments and frustrating some allies who say Democrats are capitulating to political pressure.

“California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.”

Keep reading

Media’s perverse focus on heat deaths is leading to wrongheaded climate policies

Across the United States and Europe, the media are warning of dangerously high temperatures.

“Extreme Heat Is Breaking America,” warns the New York Times. “Lethal heat is Europe’s new climate reality,” adds Politico.

It’s an annual routine: Expect to be inundated with alarming stories about heat domes, heat deaths and heat waves, pointing to the urgency of climate action.

But this narrative will tell you only a misleading fraction of the story.

The impacts of heat waves are stark and immediately visible, meaning they are photogenic and coverage is click-worthy.

Heat kills within just a few days of temperatures going up, because it swiftly alters the electrolytic balance in weaker, often older people.

These deaths are tragic and often preventable, and we hear about them every summer.

But the media seldom report on deaths from cold.

Cold kills slowly — often over months. In low temperatures, the body constricts peripheral blood vessels to conserve heat, raising blood pressure.

But deaths from cold far outnumber those from heat. The most comprehensive Lancet study shows that while heat kills nearly half a million people globally each year, cold kills more than 4.5 million — i.e., nine times more.

Yet, perversely, global media instead write nine times more stories about heat waves than cold waves.

We deserve to know which is the bigger threat.

We should know, for example, that the United States sees more than 80,000 deaths from cold each year, vastly outweighing its 8,000 heat deaths.

In Latin America and Europe, cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 4 to 1. In Africa, astonishingly, it’s 46 to 1.

Even in India — where the Western media have fixated on extreme heat this year — cold deaths outnumber those from heat 7 to 1.

Keep reading

Peter Thiel Warns: One-World Government A Greater Threat Than AI Or Climate Change

In a wide-ranging interview on the future and global existential risks, billionaire technology investor Peter Thiel raised alarms not only about familiar threats like nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence but also about what he sees as a more insidious danger: the rise of a one-world totalitarian state. Speaking to the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Thiel argued that the default political response to global crises—centralized, supranational governance—could plunge humanity into authoritarianism.

Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, shared his worries using examples from dystopian sci-fi stories. “There’s a risk of nuclear war, environmental disaster, bioweapons, and certain types of risks with AI,” Thiel explained to Douthat, suggesting that the push for global governance as a solution to these threats could culminate in a “bad singularity” – a one-world state that stifles freedom under the guise of safety.

Thiel critiqued what he described as a reflexive call for centralized control in times of peril.

“The default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance,” Thiel observed, pointing to proposals for a strengthened United Nations to control nuclear arsenals or global compute governance to regulate AI development, including measures to “log every single keystroke” to prevent dangerous programming. Such solutions, the investor warned, risk creating a surveillance state that sacrifices individual liberty for security.

Keep reading

EPA faces scientific backlash: Climate skeptics challenge 40-year consensus

On June 11, climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer delivered a 45-page critique to the EPA opposing proposed carbon capture regulations for power plants. Their blunt assertions—that climate policies rest on dubious science, wasted subsidies and a biased process—mark a critical moment in a decades-long debate. Their challenge reverberates with historical context: the first Senate hearing on global warming was in 1988, and is now widely criticized by skeptics as a setup. As the Biden administration accelerates climate regulations, Happer and Lindzen argue that trillions in subsidies and emission targets lack scientific grounding, urging a return to empirical rigor.

EPA’s carbon capture rules draw fire as “science-based” attack

The EPA’s May 2023 proposal mandates that coal- and gas-fired plants capture 90% of CO? emissions by 2038 or cease operations. Happer and Lindzen’s filing calls this a costly misstep, asserting that reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) has negligible climate impact and jeopardizes global food security. Their May 2025 paper, “Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming,” argues that CO?’s warming effect has been overstated due to flawed models and agenda-driven consensus. They emphasize a counterintuitive truth: higher atmospheric CO? levels could boost global crop yields by 40%, benefiting millions while producing “trivial” warming.

“Eliminating fossil fuels would be disastrous for the world’s poorest,” Lindzen warned. “Instead of taxing carbon, policymakers should trust markets and basic physics.”

The 1988 hearing that fueled the climate hubbub

The EPA’s current regulations trace their lineage to Congress’s 1988 hearings, a pivotal moment now scrutinized for manipulation. Led by Sen. Timothy Wirth (D-CO) and Sen. Al Gore (D-TN), the hearings coincided with Washington’s hottest recorded day—a deliberate scheduling choice, according to Wirth’s 2015 memoir. “We opened the windows overnight to ruin the room’s air conditioning,” Wirth disclosed, ensuring attendees were sweltering and receptive to climate alarmism.

Critics argue this marked a broader shift: replacing scientific debate with “consensus ideology.” The hearings excluded dissenting voices like former NOAA scientist Dr. Patrick Michaels, who was barred days before testifying despite years of Senate collaboration. Dr. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute called the proceedings “a press conference in disguise,” setting a pattern of “censored science” that persists today.

Keep reading

EU plans to add carbon credits to new climate goal, document shows

The European Commission is set to propose counting carbon credits bought from other countries towards the European Union’s 2040 climate target, a Commission document seen by Reuters showed.

The Commission is due to propose a legally binding EU climate target for 2040 on July 2.

The EU executive had initially planned a 90% net emissions cut, against 1990 levels, but in recent months has sought to make this goal more flexible, in response to pushback from governments including Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic, concerned about the cost.

An internal Commission summary of the upcoming proposal, seen by Reuters, said the EU would be able to use “high-quality international credits” from a U.N.-backed carbon credits market to meet 3% of the emissions cuts towards the 2040 goal.

The document said the credits would be phased in from 2036, and that additional EU legislation would later set out the origin and quality criteria that the credits must meet, and details of how they would be purchased.

The move would in effect ease the emissions cuts – and the investments required – from European industries needed to hit the 90% emissions-cutting target. For the share of the target met by credits, the EU would buy “credits” from projects that reduce CO2 emissions abroad – for example, forest restoration in Brazil – rather than reducing emissions in Europe.

Proponents say these credits are a crucial way to raise funds for CO2-cutting projects in developing nations. But recent scandals have shown some credit-generating projects did not deliver the climate benefits they claimed.

Keep reading

Eco-Hypocrites Take Hundreds Of Private Jets To Bezos Wedding

Around a hundred private jets carrying celebrities have descended on Italy to deliver eco-hypocrites including Leonardo DiCaprio, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates to the wedding of tech billionaire Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez.

Bezos is holding a three day event, yes three days, in Venice at a cost of somewhere in the region of $50-100 million.

While the exact same people lecture you about taking the occasional economy flight for a family getaway, they’re literally chartering their own carbon spewing flights just for themselves to attend a piss up.

Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez are getting married in Venice, and the three-day wedding celebration will bring in nearly 100 private jets and a guest list full of billionaires and celebrities, including Oprah and Leonardo DiCaprio, Mercury News reports.

Streets have been closed, boats rerouted, and security teams stationed across the city for the event, taking place from June 26-28. Now, people who live there — and plenty of others online — are calling the whole thing over-the-top and extremely out of touch.

Keep reading

1900 Scientists Say ‘Climate Change Not Caused By CO2’ – The Real Environment Movement Was Hijacked

Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.

Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.

However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.

Keep reading