正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

'Stop Lecturing Us': Guyana President Shuts Down BBC Journalist, Exposes West's Hypocrisy Guyanese President Mohammad Irfaan Ali had an heated exchange with a BBC journalist over climate change issue. The fiery exchange took place during BBC Hardtalk show, hosted by Stephen Sackur. Ali was questioned about Guyana's plans to... show more

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

190,908 subscribers

58,836 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

The Hidden Story of US Interest in Venezuela: An Economic Hit Job From 2000 to 2024, approximately 650,000 Venezuelans migrated to the US, which is far lower than the millions often claimed. But the real story is why they left. Our gov repeatedly claims the migration is due to authoritarian rule & mismanagement of state resources by Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) & Maduro (2013-Present). However, the numbers tell a different story. Between 2000-2016, only 34K Venezuelans migrated to the US. Migration surges which occurred between 2017-2024 (650K) align with aggressive US sanctions targeting Venezuela’s economy, banking & gov. These measures, shaped by oil & mineral corporations, banking elites & geopolitical interests, have destabilized Venezuela, fueling the very crisis our gov claims to address. Why does the US care so much about Venezuela? It’s all about the oil & minerals. US refineries need Venezuela’s thick/heavy crude oil to blend with lighter domestic oil from the Gulf to process effectively. As recently as August, the US imported Venezuelan oil. The goal is also control. Western companies like Chevron want exclusive rights to Venezuela’s vast reserves, ensuring none go to rivals like China. For over a century, the US has orchestrated coups and for the past 20 years, imposed over 900 sanctions to pressure Venezuela’s government by punishing its people into submission and pushing for regime change. Secondary sanctions on countries importing Venezuelan oil force Venezuela to smuggle its crude through third parties, who rebrand it to evade restrictions. Even now, US military presence in the Atlantic aims to block Venezuelan oil shipments, deepening poverty to pave the way for a puppet leader like Maria Machado, who promises to open Venezuela to global corporate interests. Venezuela is also rich in natural gas & minerals. Venezuela has large deposits of bauxite (for aluminum), iron ore, coal & gold (which our gov sanctioned in 2024). The country also has reserves of diamonds, nickel & coltan, as well as other minerals like copper, uranium, phosphates, zinc & various nonmetallic minerals such as kaolin, salt & marble. In fact, our famous global looter, Elon Musk, set his eyes on Venezuela’s untapped uranium deposits in the Roraima Basin for his SpaceX dreams to Mars. (See my article on this under the article tab) “Venezuela does not export natural gas to the global economy. The nation had more than 5.6 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves in 2021; in the Western Hemisphere, only the United States had more reserves.” What about the drug trafficking? US claims of Venezuelan drug trafficking also unravel under scrutiny. UN & DEA reports confirm Venezuela does not produce drugs. Colombia accounts for 84% of cocaine, with Peru & Bolivia supplying most of the rest. Only 5-10% of drugs transit through Venezuela. Drugs primarily transit via the Pacific Ocean, not the Atlantic where US forces are currently patrolling. The “Cartel de los Soles,” which the US labeled a terrorist group, does not exist. It’s a name our government created to justify accusations against Venezuela’s government. Economic Hit Job Despite the US narrative that mismanagement of Venezuela’s vast wealth is a Chavez & Maduro problem, it has been a problem for over 100-years & under the rule of every leader the US supported. For over a century, US policy has systematically destabilized Venezuela, driving poverty while pursuing control over its resources. The current narrative of fighting drug cartels is another attempt to squeeze Venezuela economically to force regime change. But who benefits from these efforts? Certainly not the increasingly poverty stricken Venezuelans & definitely not American taxpayers who pay for surges of migrants, border patrol & military actions against Venezuela. The beneficiaries are the global looters (oil & mineral companies, bankers and geopolitical actors). This is the same story as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran etc.

The Hidden Story of US Interest in Venezuela: An Economic Hit Job From 2000 to 2024, approximately 650,000 Venezuelans migrated to the US, which is far lower than the millions often claimed. But the real story is why they left. Our gov repeatedly claims the migration is due to authoritarian rule & mismanagement of state resources by Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) & Maduro (2013-Present). However, the numbers tell a different story. Between 2000-2016, only 34K Venezuelans migrated to the US. Migration surges which occurred between 2017-2024 (650K) align with aggressive US sanctions targeting Venezuela’s economy, banking & gov. These measures, shaped by oil & mineral corporations, banking elites & geopolitical interests, have destabilized Venezuela, fueling the very crisis our gov claims to address. Why does the US care so much about Venezuela? It’s all about the oil & minerals. US refineries need Venezuela’s thick/heavy crude oil to blend with lighter domestic oil from the Gulf to process effectively. As recently as August, the US imported Venezuelan oil. The goal is also control. Western companies like Chevron want exclusive rights to Venezuela’s vast reserves, ensuring none go to rivals like China. For over a century, the US has orchestrated coups and for the past 20 years, imposed over 900 sanctions to pressure Venezuela’s government by punishing its people into submission and pushing for regime change. Secondary sanctions on countries importing Venezuelan oil force Venezuela to smuggle its crude through third parties, who rebrand it to evade restrictions. Even now, US military presence in the Atlantic aims to block Venezuelan oil shipments, deepening poverty to pave the way for a puppet leader like Maria Machado, who promises to open Venezuela to global corporate interests. Venezuela is also rich in natural gas & minerals. Venezuela has large deposits of bauxite (for aluminum), iron ore, coal & gold (which our gov sanctioned in 2024). The country also has reserves of diamonds, nickel & coltan, as well as other minerals like copper, uranium, phosphates, zinc & various nonmetallic minerals such as kaolin, salt & marble. In fact, our famous global looter, Elon Musk, set his eyes on Venezuela’s untapped uranium deposits in the Roraima Basin for his SpaceX dreams to Mars. (See my article on this under the article tab) “Venezuela does not export natural gas to the global economy. The nation had more than 5.6 trillion cubic meters of proven natural gas reserves in 2021; in the Western Hemisphere, only the United States had more reserves.” What about the drug trafficking? US claims of Venezuelan drug trafficking also unravel under scrutiny. UN & DEA reports confirm Venezuela does not produce drugs. Colombia accounts for 84% of cocaine, with Peru & Bolivia supplying most of the rest. Only 5-10% of drugs transit through Venezuela. Drugs primarily transit via the Pacific Ocean, not the Atlantic where US forces are currently patrolling. The “Cartel de los Soles,” which the US labeled a terrorist group, does not exist. It’s a name our government created to justify accusations against Venezuela’s government. Economic Hit Job Despite the US narrative that mismanagement of Venezuela’s vast wealth is a Chavez & Maduro problem, it has been a problem for over 100-years & under the rule of every leader the US supported. For over a century, US policy has systematically destabilized Venezuela, driving poverty while pursuing control over its resources. The current narrative of fighting drug cartels is another attempt to squeeze Venezuela economically to force regime change. But who benefits from these efforts? Certainly not the increasingly poverty stricken Venezuelans & definitely not American taxpayers who pay for surges of migrants, border patrol & military actions against Venezuela. The beneficiaries are the global looters (oil & mineral companies, bankers and geopolitical actors). This is the same story as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran etc.

GenXGirl

94,820 次观看 • 10 个月前

$The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. North America — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. — The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. — The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. — In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions. — In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity. — Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year. — NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it. — PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment. — Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold. — LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed. — Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles. Australia — Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval. — Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds. Africa — Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure. — The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects. — The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.” — At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit. As a result: — TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing. — The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists. Europe — France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals. — The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations. — Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources. — CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2. — Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024. These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive.$

The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. North America — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. — The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. — The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. — In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions. — In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity. — Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year. — NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it. — PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment. — Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold. — LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed. — Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles. Australia — Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval. — Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds. Africa — Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure. — The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects. — The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.” — At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit. As a result: — TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing. — The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists. Europe — France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals. — The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations. — Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources. — CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2. — Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024. These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive.

Michael Shellenberger

622,431 次观看 • 3 个月前

MAHAMA ANNOUNCES HISTORIC FIRST DELIVERY OF GHANAIAN CRUDE TO LOCAL REFINERY President Outlines Bold Value-Addition Agenda at Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM — President John Dramani Mahama has announced a landmark breakthrough in Ghana’s energy and industrial transformation agenda, revealing that Ghana will, for the first time in years, begin refining its own crude oil locally as part of a comprehensive strategy to drive industrialization, create jobs, strengthen local manufacturing, and retain greater value within the national economy. Addressing hundreds of Ghanaians, investors, professionals and business leaders at the Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London, President Mahama outlined his administration’s vision for transforming Ghana from an exporter of raw materials into a modern industrial economy powered by value addition and local production. Speaking passionately about the future of Ghana’s energy sector, President Mahama disclosed that the government is aggressively expanding offshore oil and gas production while simultaneously ensuring that the country develops the capacity to process more of its natural resources domestically. According to the President, Ghana has secured major upstream investments, including a fresh commitment of approximately US$1.5 billion from ENI in the Offshore Cape Three Points (OCTP) Field to increase the production of both oil and natural gas. However, he stressed that increased production alone is not enough. “We are about to make history again. We did it during my first term, but after we left office it did not continue. In June, we will deliver a parcel of Ghanaian crude from our own oil fields to a refinery in Ghana for processing,” President Mahama announced to loud applause from the audience. The announcement is being viewed as a defining moment in Ghana’s petroleum industry and a significant step toward reducing the country’s dependence on imported refined petroleum products. For decades, Ghana has exported crude oil while importing refined fuels and petroleum products at considerable cost. President Mahama argued that such a model effectively exports jobs, technology, industrial growth, and economic opportunities to other countries. “Normally we produce the oil and export it. Then we import finished petroleum products or import crude again to refine. That cycle must change,” he stated. He explained that local refining will enable Ghana to capture more value from its natural resources, retain foreign exchange, strengthen local supply chains, stimulate industrial growth, and create thousands of direct and indirect jobs for Ghanaians. The President emphasized that the refining initiative forms part of a broader national industrial strategy aimed at building a fully integrated petroleum value chain encompassing extraction, refining, storage, petrochemicals, distribution, manufacturing and exports. Beyond oil and gas, President Mahama called for a national commitment to value addition across every productive sector of the economy. Using Ghana’s mineral sector as an example, he noted that the country continues to export raw gold, manganese, bauxite and other minerals for processing abroad, only to import higher-value finished products at a premium. “When we export raw materials and somebody else processes them, we create jobs in their economy instead of our own. The finished products are then exported back to us. That model cannot deliver sustainable prosperity,” he said. The President stressed that Ghana’s future economic success depends on deliberately moving up the value chain through investments in manufacturing, agro-processing, mineral beneficiation, fertilizer production, petrochemicals, food processing and strategic industrial parks. Economic analysts believe the strategy could significantly reposition Ghana as a leading industrial hub in West Africa while accelerating job creation, technology transfer and export growth.

MAHAMA ANNOUNCES HISTORIC FIRST DELIVERY OF GHANAIAN CRUDE TO LOCAL REFINERY President Outlines Bold Value-Addition Agenda at Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM — President John Dramani Mahama has announced a landmark breakthrough in Ghana’s energy and industrial transformation agenda, revealing that Ghana will, for the first time in years, begin refining its own crude oil locally as part of a comprehensive strategy to drive industrialization, create jobs, strengthen local manufacturing, and retain greater value within the national economy. Addressing hundreds of Ghanaians, investors, professionals and business leaders at the Ghana Diaspora Town Hall Meeting in London, President Mahama outlined his administration’s vision for transforming Ghana from an exporter of raw materials into a modern industrial economy powered by value addition and local production. Speaking passionately about the future of Ghana’s energy sector, President Mahama disclosed that the government is aggressively expanding offshore oil and gas production while simultaneously ensuring that the country develops the capacity to process more of its natural resources domestically. According to the President, Ghana has secured major upstream investments, including a fresh commitment of approximately US$1.5 billion from ENI in the Offshore Cape Three Points (OCTP) Field to increase the production of both oil and natural gas. However, he stressed that increased production alone is not enough. “We are about to make history again. We did it during my first term, but after we left office it did not continue. In June, we will deliver a parcel of Ghanaian crude from our own oil fields to a refinery in Ghana for processing,” President Mahama announced to loud applause from the audience. The announcement is being viewed as a defining moment in Ghana’s petroleum industry and a significant step toward reducing the country’s dependence on imported refined petroleum products. For decades, Ghana has exported crude oil while importing refined fuels and petroleum products at considerable cost. President Mahama argued that such a model effectively exports jobs, technology, industrial growth, and economic opportunities to other countries. “Normally we produce the oil and export it. Then we import finished petroleum products or import crude again to refine. That cycle must change,” he stated. He explained that local refining will enable Ghana to capture more value from its natural resources, retain foreign exchange, strengthen local supply chains, stimulate industrial growth, and create thousands of direct and indirect jobs for Ghanaians. The President emphasized that the refining initiative forms part of a broader national industrial strategy aimed at building a fully integrated petroleum value chain encompassing extraction, refining, storage, petrochemicals, distribution, manufacturing and exports. Beyond oil and gas, President Mahama called for a national commitment to value addition across every productive sector of the economy. Using Ghana’s mineral sector as an example, he noted that the country continues to export raw gold, manganese, bauxite and other minerals for processing abroad, only to import higher-value finished products at a premium. “When we export raw materials and somebody else processes them, we create jobs in their economy instead of our own. The finished products are then exported back to us. That model cannot deliver sustainable prosperity,” he said. The President stressed that Ghana’s future economic success depends on deliberately moving up the value chain through investments in manufacturing, agro-processing, mineral beneficiation, fertilizer production, petrochemicals, food processing and strategic industrial parks. Economic analysts believe the strategy could significantly reposition Ghana as a leading industrial hub in West Africa while accelerating job creation, technology transfer and export growth.

KALYJAY

19,211 次观看 • 1 个月前

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Michael Shellenberger

114,237 次观看 • 8 个月前

Meet Ali Bongo, the Gabonese dictator who rigged an election 2 days ago and gave himself 64%, and was toppled by the military today. He is under house arrest after years of running a corrupt family dictatorship underpinned by a ruthless mafia. He has ruled Gabon for 14 years after taking over from his father Omar Bongo who ruled Gabon for 42 years. His family has ruled Gabon for a total of 56 years. Gabon has manganese, diamonds, gold, uranium, oil, gas and more, but its people are extremely poor. Crude oil accounts for about 96% of the country’s total exports to the United States. Elections are rigged, public funds are ruthlessly looted, the country’s natural resources are plundered and the constitution is regularly changed to suit the Bongos. Gabon is the leading producer of metal in Africa and it is the sixth biggest world producer of manganese. It produces more than 3 million metric tons of manganese a year. It also exports Veneer Sheets, Manganese Ore and Crude Petroleum to France. Corruption is massive in its mining and oil industries. Ali Bongo personally controls over US$1 billion worth of assets which are hidden overseas. He is the richest man in Gabon. The Bongo family has routinely changed the constitution to underpin its corrupt rule. A third of Gabonese citizens live below the poverty line. Unemployment is over 37%. His father was close to 5 French presidents from Charles de Gaulle to Jacques Chirac. France has condemned the military removal of the dictator after he rigged the elections over the weekend. The Guardian reported that France, whose companies were happily extracting Gabon's oil, guaranteed security to the Bongo family by maintaining a military base in Libreville that still exists today. Bongo’s regime tortures opponents and treats critics in a very inhuman way. The regime runs horrible jails with harsh and life-threatening conditions. It has political prisoners and the judiciary is captured. Ali Bongo suffered a stroke years ago but he remained in power although he is incapacitated. He has Europeans working for him in his team including a British man from Manchester who is a Government minister. His name is Prof. Lee White CBE, yesterday he was defending the switching off of the Internet on his Twitter handle. Like all terrible dictators who don't care about their people, Ali Bongo's father died in a luxurious hospital in Spain whilst his people were living in poverty and the country had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. In France he lived a super rich life style with 39 luxurious properties, 70 bank accounts and cars worth over US$2 million. He even bank rolled the Presidential campaign for French President Jacques Chirac whilst his people were living in abject proverty. He gave money to different French political parties both from the right and left of French politics. The second wife of his son who has been deposed was featured on VHS television channel trying to buy a home worth US$25 million in Malibu. Coups are not a great thing at all, so I hope that the military will restore civilian rule through a free, fair and credible election which puts a final end to the Bongo family grip on this resource rich country after decades of looting, plunder and dictatorship.

Meet Ali Bongo, the Gabonese dictator who rigged an election 2 days ago and gave himself 64%, and was toppled by the military today. He is under house arrest after years of running a corrupt family dictatorship underpinned by a ruthless mafia. He has ruled Gabon for 14 years after taking over from his father Omar Bongo who ruled Gabon for 42 years. His family has ruled Gabon for a total of 56 years. Gabon has manganese, diamonds, gold, uranium, oil, gas and more, but its people are extremely poor. Crude oil accounts for about 96% of the country’s total exports to the United States. Elections are rigged, public funds are ruthlessly looted, the country’s natural resources are plundered and the constitution is regularly changed to suit the Bongos. Gabon is the leading producer of metal in Africa and it is the sixth biggest world producer of manganese. It produces more than 3 million metric tons of manganese a year. It also exports Veneer Sheets, Manganese Ore and Crude Petroleum to France. Corruption is massive in its mining and oil industries. Ali Bongo personally controls over US$1 billion worth of assets which are hidden overseas. He is the richest man in Gabon. The Bongo family has routinely changed the constitution to underpin its corrupt rule. A third of Gabonese citizens live below the poverty line. Unemployment is over 37%. His father was close to 5 French presidents from Charles de Gaulle to Jacques Chirac. France has condemned the military removal of the dictator after he rigged the elections over the weekend. The Guardian reported that France, whose companies were happily extracting Gabon's oil, guaranteed security to the Bongo family by maintaining a military base in Libreville that still exists today. Bongo’s regime tortures opponents and treats critics in a very inhuman way. The regime runs horrible jails with harsh and life-threatening conditions. It has political prisoners and the judiciary is captured. Ali Bongo suffered a stroke years ago but he remained in power although he is incapacitated. He has Europeans working for him in his team including a British man from Manchester who is a Government minister. His name is Prof. Lee White CBE, yesterday he was defending the switching off of the Internet on his Twitter handle. Like all terrible dictators who don't care about their people, Ali Bongo's father died in a luxurious hospital in Spain whilst his people were living in poverty and the country had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. In France he lived a super rich life style with 39 luxurious properties, 70 bank accounts and cars worth over US$2 million. He even bank rolled the Presidential campaign for French President Jacques Chirac whilst his people were living in abject proverty. He gave money to different French political parties both from the right and left of French politics. The second wife of his son who has been deposed was featured on VHS television channel trying to buy a home worth US$25 million in Malibu. Coups are not a great thing at all, so I hope that the military will restore civilian rule through a free, fair and credible election which puts a final end to the Bongo family grip on this resource rich country after decades of looting, plunder and dictatorship.

Hopewell Chin’ono

215,856 次观看 • 2 年前

$Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!$

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!

Michael Shellenberger

51,140 次观看 • 1 年前

BREAKING: Gary Lineker to Leave BBC After 26 Years Gary Lineker is set to leave the BBC after this season’s final Match of the Day, with his last appearance scheduled for May 25, 2025. An official announcement is expected Monday. Lineker, a former England international footballer turned broadcaster, has hosted Match of the Day—the UK’s flagship football highlights show—since 1999. He is also the BBC’s highest-paid presenter. His departure means he will no longer lead coverage of the 2026 World Cup or the FA Cup, despite prior plans. The decision comes after controversy over a recent social media post in which Lineker shared material critical of Zionism that included a rat illustration—an image historically associated with antisemitic propaganda. He apologized “unreservedly,” saying he was unaware of the image’s connotations and “would never knowingly share anything antisemitic.” BBC executives reportedly found his position “unsustainable” after the incident. Lineker has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s war on Gaza, publicly stating in an April 2025 BBC interview that the “mass murder of thousands of children” in Gaza was not a neutral event—and that it “warrants an opinion.” “If you’re silent on these issues, you’re almost complicit,” he added. The BBC’s treatment of Lineker reflects a broader pattern of censoring voices and coverage that is critical of Israel—especially reporting on the genocide in Gaza. The BBC removed the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone from its iPlayer platform after revealing that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. The film focused on the experiences of children under Israeli bombardment. Days later, the BBC delayed the scheduled broadcast of a second film, Gaza: Medics Under Fire, which documents Israeli attacks on Gaza’s hospitals and healthcare infrastructure. British journalist owenjones84 investigated the anti-Palestinian bias at the heart of the BBC for Drop Site. His report is based on interviews with 13 current and former BBC staffers who allege that senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers. You can read Owen’s full report at the link in the reply.

BREAKING: Gary Lineker to Leave BBC After 26 Years Gary Lineker is set to leave the BBC after this season’s final Match of the Day, with his last appearance scheduled for May 25, 2025. An official announcement is expected Monday. Lineker, a former England international footballer turned broadcaster, has hosted Match of the Day—the UK’s flagship football highlights show—since 1999. He is also the BBC’s highest-paid presenter. His departure means he will no longer lead coverage of the 2026 World Cup or the FA Cup, despite prior plans. The decision comes after controversy over a recent social media post in which Lineker shared material critical of Zionism that included a rat illustration—an image historically associated with antisemitic propaganda. He apologized “unreservedly,” saying he was unaware of the image’s connotations and “would never knowingly share anything antisemitic.” BBC executives reportedly found his position “unsustainable” after the incident. Lineker has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s war on Gaza, publicly stating in an April 2025 BBC interview that the “mass murder of thousands of children” in Gaza was not a neutral event—and that it “warrants an opinion.” “If you’re silent on these issues, you’re almost complicit,” he added. The BBC’s treatment of Lineker reflects a broader pattern of censoring voices and coverage that is critical of Israel—especially reporting on the genocide in Gaza. The BBC removed the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone from its iPlayer platform after revealing that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. The film focused on the experiences of children under Israeli bombardment. Days later, the BBC delayed the scheduled broadcast of a second film, Gaza: Medics Under Fire, which documents Israeli attacks on Gaza’s hospitals and healthcare infrastructure. British journalist owenjones84 investigated the anti-Palestinian bias at the heart of the BBC for Drop Site. His report is based on interviews with 13 current and former BBC staffers who allege that senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers. You can read Owen’s full report at the link in the reply.

Drop Site

396,711 次观看 • 1 年前

Trump mocks NATO allies for 'funding the war against themselves' with Russian energy purchases | Caitlin McFall, Fox News Hungary, Slovakia, France, Belgium and Spain remain Europe's top importers of Russian energy products President Donald Trump on Tuesday once again called on all European partners in the NATO alliance to cut dependence on Russian oil. In his lengthy address to the United Nations General Assembly, Trump accused NATO allies of "funding the war against themselves." "Who the hell ever heard of that one?" Trump mocked. "China and India are the primary funders of the ongoing war by continuing to purchase Russian oil," he said. "But inexcusably, even NATO countries have not cut off much Russian energy and Russian energy products, which, as you know, I found out about two weeks ago, and I wasn't happy." European nations have drastically cut their reliance on Moscow’s oil following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, though they have not cut it off entirely. Hungary, Slovakia, France, Belgium and Spain remain Europe’s top importers of Russian energy. While Hungary and Slovakia continue to purchase Russian oil, France is the second-largest European purchaser of Russian energy and continues to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG has largely bypassed EU sanctions and Paris' continued import of Russian energy is down to pre-exsisting "take or pay" contracts that run through the early 2030s that require France to either continue to import the energy or face penalties. Trump earlier this month took issue with European nations that continue to purchase Russian oil, but on Tuesday he adjusted his comments to include all Russian energy imports – notably a shift that came one day after France broke with the U.S. over the issue of Palestinian statehood. "In the event that Russia is not ready to make a deal to end the war, then the United States is fully prepared to impose a very strong round of powerful tariffs, which would stop the bloodshed, I believe, very quickly," Trump said. "But for those tariffs to be effective, European nations, all of you are gathered here right now, would have to join us in adopting the exact same measures." "You're much closer to the city. We have an ocean in between. You're right there, and Europe has to step it up," he added. "They have to immediately cease all energy purchases from Russia, otherwise, we're all wasting a lot of time." Trump said he will speak with Euroepan leaders about the issue while at the UN this week.

Trump mocks NATO allies for 'funding the war against themselves' with Russian energy purchases | Caitlin McFall, Fox News Hungary, Slovakia, France, Belgium and Spain remain Europe's top importers of Russian energy products President Donald Trump on Tuesday once again called on all European partners in the NATO alliance to cut dependence on Russian oil. In his lengthy address to the United Nations General Assembly, Trump accused NATO allies of "funding the war against themselves." "Who the hell ever heard of that one?" Trump mocked. "China and India are the primary funders of the ongoing war by continuing to purchase Russian oil," he said. "But inexcusably, even NATO countries have not cut off much Russian energy and Russian energy products, which, as you know, I found out about two weeks ago, and I wasn't happy." European nations have drastically cut their reliance on Moscow’s oil following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, though they have not cut it off entirely. Hungary, Slovakia, France, Belgium and Spain remain Europe’s top importers of Russian energy. While Hungary and Slovakia continue to purchase Russian oil, France is the second-largest European purchaser of Russian energy and continues to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG has largely bypassed EU sanctions and Paris' continued import of Russian energy is down to pre-exsisting "take or pay" contracts that run through the early 2030s that require France to either continue to import the energy or face penalties. Trump earlier this month took issue with European nations that continue to purchase Russian oil, but on Tuesday he adjusted his comments to include all Russian energy imports – notably a shift that came one day after France broke with the U.S. over the issue of Palestinian statehood. "In the event that Russia is not ready to make a deal to end the war, then the United States is fully prepared to impose a very strong round of powerful tariffs, which would stop the bloodshed, I believe, very quickly," Trump said. "But for those tariffs to be effective, European nations, all of you are gathered here right now, would have to join us in adopting the exact same measures." "You're much closer to the city. We have an ocean in between. You're right there, and Europe has to step it up," he added. "They have to immediately cease all energy purchases from Russia, otherwise, we're all wasting a lot of time." Trump said he will speak with Euroepan leaders about the issue while at the UN this week.

Owen Gregorian

60,910 次观看 • 9 个月前

$It’s outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. “You have to admire the chutzpah,” wrote one columnist. “Donald Trump describing the BBC as ‘corrupt’ while threatening to take legal action….The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so it’s safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.” But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias, which concluded that the BBC had “spliced together two clips” to create “the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.” Americans might think this story doesn’t concern them because it’s about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBC’s longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescott’s independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBC’s CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. “The Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,” writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescott’s report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trump’s speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. “It may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,” he noted, “because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.” Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trump’s remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. “Mr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,” he notes. And yet “the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.” Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBC’s fact-checking program, “BBC Verify.” One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as “misinformation” and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, said, “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,” shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBC’s first “disinformation” reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its “Social Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.” Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,” notes Prescott. “The central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” Adds Prescott, “the entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.” Another example of the BBC’s bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. “In March 2024,” writes Prescott, “there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.” Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didn’t cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced “a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,” celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the women’s category, and published an article last year headlined, “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” Wrote the reporter, “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBC’s former chief writer, says she was “forced out” in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. “My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,” he writes. “Indeed, I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.” All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. “BBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,” writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. “The problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when there’s so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it – just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBC’s output is in doubt…” What, then, explains the BBC’s fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!$

It’s outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. “You have to admire the chutzpah,” wrote one columnist. “Donald Trump describing the BBC as ‘corrupt’ while threatening to take legal action….The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so it’s safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.” But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias, which concluded that the BBC had “spliced together two clips” to create “the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.” Americans might think this story doesn’t concern them because it’s about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBC’s longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescott’s independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBC’s CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. “The Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,” writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescott’s report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trump’s speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. “It may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,” he noted, “because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.” Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trump’s remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. “Mr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,” he notes. And yet “the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.” Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBC’s fact-checking program, “BBC Verify.” One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as “misinformation” and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, said, “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,” shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBC’s first “disinformation” reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its “Social Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.” Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,” notes Prescott. “The central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” Adds Prescott, “the entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.” Another example of the BBC’s bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. “In March 2024,” writes Prescott, “there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.” Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didn’t cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced “a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,” celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the women’s category, and published an article last year headlined, “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” Wrote the reporter, “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBC’s former chief writer, says she was “forced out” in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. “My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,” he writes. “Indeed, I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.” All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. “BBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,” writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. “The problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when there’s so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it – just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBC’s output is in doubt…” What, then, explains the BBC’s fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

43,703 次观看 • 8 个月前

Putin: “If Russia and Europe united, our GDP would beat the US—but Washington tore us apart. Now Europe pays 30% more for gas… and loses its future.” Putin's Vision: The Untapped Potential of a Russo-European Alliance Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent assertion that a united Russia and Europe could surpass the United States in GDP, thwarted by Washington's interference, resonates deeply in an era of geopolitical fragmentation. He poignantly highlights how Europe now grapples with inflated energy costs—paying significantly more for gas—and risks squandering its economic future. From a positive perspective, Putin's viewpoint isn't mere rhetoric; it's a call for pragmatic cooperation that could redefine global power dynamics, fostering prosperity over conflict. Consider the economic arithmetic. Projections for 2026 place the U.S. GDP at around $31.8 trillion, a formidable figure driven by tech innovation and consumer spending. Yet, Europe's collective output, including major players like Germany ($5.3 trillion) and Russia ($2.5 trillion), could approach or exceed $31.4 trillion if integrated effectively. This isn't fantasy; it's grounded in complementary strengths. Russia's vast natural resources—oil, gas, and minerals—pair seamlessly with Europe's advanced manufacturing, renewable tech, and financial hubs. A unified market would streamline supply chains, reduce dependencies on distant suppliers, and amplify bargaining power on the world stage. Imagine joint ventures in energy transition, where Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) supports Europe's green goals without the premiums of transatlantic imports. Putin rightly blames Washington for this missed opportunity. U.S. policies, from NATO expansions to sanctions post-2014 and intensified after 2022's Ukraine conflict, have engineered a divide-and-conquer strategy. By promoting anti-Russian narratives and pushing Europe toward American LNG, the U.S. has not only secured its energy exports but also weakened potential rivals. Europe's shift away from affordable Russian pipeline gas has been disastrous. Pre-invasion, Russia supplied about 40% of EU gas; now, it's down to 6%, forcing reliance on costlier U.S. and Qatari alternatives. Household natural gas prices in the EU surged 79% between 2021 and 2025, far exceeding Putin's cited 30% hike, with electricity costs up 30%. This "energy blackmail," as some observers term it, burdens households and industries, accelerating deindustrialization in energy-intensive sectors like chemicals and steel. Europe's "loss of future" is evident in this dependency trap. High energy costs erode competitiveness, stifling growth and innovation. Germany's economy, once Europe's engine, faces stagnation amid these pressures. Meanwhile, Russia pivots eastward, redirecting gas to Asia, where demand is booming. Putin envisions a multipolar world where Eurasia thrives independently, free from U.S. hegemony. By reconciling, Europe could reclaim sovereignty, lower costs, and co-lead in global challenges like climate change and AI. Critics decry this as revisionism, but Putin's perspective champions mutual benefit over zero-sum games. Dialogue, not division, could heal old wounds, boosting GDPs and securing peace. In 2026, with global tensions rising—from Middle East conflicts to trade wars—embracing this unity isn't just positive; it's essential for a resilient future.

Putin: “If Russia and Europe united, our GDP would beat the US—but Washington tore us apart. Now Europe pays 30% more for gas… and loses its future.” Putin's Vision: The Untapped Potential of a Russo-European Alliance Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent assertion that a united Russia and Europe could surpass the United States in GDP, thwarted by Washington's interference, resonates deeply in an era of geopolitical fragmentation. He poignantly highlights how Europe now grapples with inflated energy costs—paying significantly more for gas—and risks squandering its economic future. From a positive perspective, Putin's viewpoint isn't mere rhetoric; it's a call for pragmatic cooperation that could redefine global power dynamics, fostering prosperity over conflict. Consider the economic arithmetic. Projections for 2026 place the U.S. GDP at around $31.8 trillion, a formidable figure driven by tech innovation and consumer spending. Yet, Europe's collective output, including major players like Germany ($5.3 trillion) and Russia ($2.5 trillion), could approach or exceed $31.4 trillion if integrated effectively. This isn't fantasy; it's grounded in complementary strengths. Russia's vast natural resources—oil, gas, and minerals—pair seamlessly with Europe's advanced manufacturing, renewable tech, and financial hubs. A unified market would streamline supply chains, reduce dependencies on distant suppliers, and amplify bargaining power on the world stage. Imagine joint ventures in energy transition, where Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) supports Europe's green goals without the premiums of transatlantic imports. Putin rightly blames Washington for this missed opportunity. U.S. policies, from NATO expansions to sanctions post-2014 and intensified after 2022's Ukraine conflict, have engineered a divide-and-conquer strategy. By promoting anti-Russian narratives and pushing Europe toward American LNG, the U.S. has not only secured its energy exports but also weakened potential rivals. Europe's shift away from affordable Russian pipeline gas has been disastrous. Pre-invasion, Russia supplied about 40% of EU gas; now, it's down to 6%, forcing reliance on costlier U.S. and Qatari alternatives. Household natural gas prices in the EU surged 79% between 2021 and 2025, far exceeding Putin's cited 30% hike, with electricity costs up 30%. This "energy blackmail," as some observers term it, burdens households and industries, accelerating deindustrialization in energy-intensive sectors like chemicals and steel. Europe's "loss of future" is evident in this dependency trap. High energy costs erode competitiveness, stifling growth and innovation. Germany's economy, once Europe's engine, faces stagnation amid these pressures. Meanwhile, Russia pivots eastward, redirecting gas to Asia, where demand is booming. Putin envisions a multipolar world where Eurasia thrives independently, free from U.S. hegemony. By reconciling, Europe could reclaim sovereignty, lower costs, and co-lead in global challenges like climate change and AI. Critics decry this as revisionism, but Putin's perspective champions mutual benefit over zero-sum games. Dialogue, not division, could heal old wounds, boosting GDPs and securing peace. In 2026, with global tensions rising—from Middle East conflicts to trade wars—embracing this unity isn't just positive; it's essential for a resilient future.

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪

14,052 次观看 • 4 个月前

This is an insightful clip into the demise of world powers. One word - Debt. They say the pen is mightier than the sword but unsecured credit I.e. debt is even more powerful. It was no coincidence that World War One broke out the year after the newly created U.S. Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The world’s most powerful banks led by the Rothschilds had now got themselves a military, soon to become the most powerful in the world, to protect their newly acquired right to print money out of thin air with no obligation to back the money with an underlying asset. (Initially the government did back it with gold, but the gold standard was dropped in 1971) Rothschilds proxy in the U.S., JP Morgan, lent money to both Britain and France early in the war, when they started losing JP Morgan lobbied US politicians to get the US, who at the time were isolationists, into the war so that JP Morgan could recoup their money. The Lusitania was sunk to get the American people to agree to going to war. The Treaty of Versailles made Germany incur strict reparations that bankrupted them and led to the Second World War. The Second World War saw Britain, despite helping win the war incur enormous reparations. The upside of these world wars is that the wealth of the old world was transferred to the new world backed by the U.S. which now had the most powerful military to defend the private banks printing press. (Note France had lost its significant wealth after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo hence why Germany and Britain were milked.) The 21st century has seen a repeat of the 20th century in that the world’s superpower, the U.S. has been slowly drained of its wealth by deep state bankers who are using the U.S. military to defend the banks right to charge interest on printed money. We’ve seen it in Iraq, Libya and Syria where the U.S. has had to stop their leaders from not using the U.S. dollar in exchange for oil. We’ve seen it in Ukraine where the former democratically elected Ukraine President was stopped from allowing Ukraines gas pipelines to be used to transport gas from Russia to Germany. And of course we saw it in 1953 where Britain and the U.S. stopped Iran from controlling its own oil. All of these wars are facilitated by the intelligence agencies who are the most dangerous bureaucrats of all. It’s no coincidence the first head of the CIA was a corporate lawyer/banker Allen Dulles. That’s why this war with Iran is so dangerous- it risks bankrupting the U.S. and making the Chinese yen the world’s reserve currency and will ultimately enslave Western countries to a new world order.

This is an insightful clip into the demise of world powers. One word - Debt. They say the pen is mightier than the sword but unsecured credit I.e. debt is even more powerful. It was no coincidence that World War One broke out the year after the newly created U.S. Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The world’s most powerful banks led by the Rothschilds had now got themselves a military, soon to become the most powerful in the world, to protect their newly acquired right to print money out of thin air with no obligation to back the money with an underlying asset. (Initially the government did back it with gold, but the gold standard was dropped in 1971) Rothschilds proxy in the U.S., JP Morgan, lent money to both Britain and France early in the war, when they started losing JP Morgan lobbied US politicians to get the US, who at the time were isolationists, into the war so that JP Morgan could recoup their money. The Lusitania was sunk to get the American people to agree to going to war. The Treaty of Versailles made Germany incur strict reparations that bankrupted them and led to the Second World War. The Second World War saw Britain, despite helping win the war incur enormous reparations. The upside of these world wars is that the wealth of the old world was transferred to the new world backed by the U.S. which now had the most powerful military to defend the private banks printing press. (Note France had lost its significant wealth after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo hence why Germany and Britain were milked.) The 21st century has seen a repeat of the 20th century in that the world’s superpower, the U.S. has been slowly drained of its wealth by deep state bankers who are using the U.S. military to defend the banks right to charge interest on printed money. We’ve seen it in Iraq, Libya and Syria where the U.S. has had to stop their leaders from not using the U.S. dollar in exchange for oil. We’ve seen it in Ukraine where the former democratically elected Ukraine President was stopped from allowing Ukraines gas pipelines to be used to transport gas from Russia to Germany. And of course we saw it in 1953 where Britain and the U.S. stopped Iran from controlling its own oil. All of these wars are facilitated by the intelligence agencies who are the most dangerous bureaucrats of all. It’s no coincidence the first head of the CIA was a corporate lawyer/banker Allen Dulles. That’s why this war with Iran is so dangerous- it risks bankrupting the U.S. and making the Chinese yen the world’s reserve currency and will ultimately enslave Western countries to a new world order.

Gerard Rennick

17,550 次观看 • 3 个月前

Say what you may about him, but in many ways he feels like the first President of planet Earth. No President in the world has had bigger balls. America has been the world’s number one superpower since before I was born, yet for decades it rarely acted like it. While the world watched, Russia and China steadily expanded their influence, exporting their brand of authoritarian politics across Africa. And far too many African leaders hungry for power and willing to sacrifice their own people to keep it welcomed that influence with open arms. This has only led to atrocities in Africa, like the massacre that took place in Tanzania just 3 months ago. This man, DONALD J TRUMP is single handedly freeing oppressed people from dictators all over the world. “He is just doing it for oil” blah blah blah. We don’t care why he is doing it, what matters is that millions of people are getting help to remove their dictators from power. And yes, the stupid oil did nothing for the people of Venezuela, they are poor and desperate, so yeah they would choose their freedom over the oil. Same for the people of Iran, the stupid oil did nothing for the people, even electricity is a problem in Iran. So while the people who oppose Trump are screaming about oil the populations he is freeing from dictators couldn’t care less if America takes the oil, they just want their freedom and not to get shot by their government when they demand their rights. America is the world’s number one superpower, and with that power comes a responsibility, the responsibility to stand with people who are living under oppression. Yes, I understand the argument that America often acts out of its own interests. That may very well be true. But for the people who are trapped under brutal regimes, the debate about motives means very little. What matters to them is the result, the chance to live without fear, to wake up in a country where their own government is not their greatest threat. And most importantly, with every nation he helps free, he is also creating a new American ally. Nations that experience freedom after years of oppression don’t forget the hand that helped them. They become loyal partners, willing to work with America and share their resources in return. So I ask American critics of President Trump, WHAT’S MORE AMERICA FIRST THAN THAT???

Mange Kimambi 🇹🇿🇺🇸

21,859 次观看 • 4 个月前

🗞️ Trump declares war “won,” regime change successful, new “gift”from Iran, Saudi Arabia “fighting with us.” President Donald Trump spoke from the Oval Office on Tuesday, laying out his view of the war with Iran, ongoing negotiations, and regional backing. Here are the key takeaways: 1. Claims war is effectively over, regime change has been successful Trump repeatedly insisted the conflict has already been decided, saying: “I don’t like to say this… but we’ve won this, because this war has been won.” He dismissed reports of continued fighting and Iranian attacks as driven by “fake news” and suggested a political transformation in Iran is coming, adding that the U.S. has secured “some form of regime change, very serious regime change.” He argued Iran’s military has been effectively neutralized, claiming it has “no navy… no air force… no nothing,” allowing U.S. aircraft to operate freely over Tehran. 2. Touts “present” tied to oil, claims nuclear concession Trump described what he framed as a major concession from Iran, saying: “They gave us a present… a very big present… worth a tremendous amount of money… a very significant prize.” He indicated the “gift” is tied to oil and gas, linked to developments around the Strait of Hormuz, and said talks are ongoing with senior U.S. officials involved. He also claimed Iran has “agreed they will never have a nuclear weapon.” Iran had already agreed to that concession before the war began. 3. Emphasizes Gulf support for war Trump highlighted backing from regional allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, saying of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman: “He’s a warrior… he’s fighting with us.” He acknowledged that Gulf states have been hit during the conflict, noting: “Qatar took a hit, pretty bad hit… UAE has been hit so hard,” while arguing that despite this, U.S. partners in the region have remained supportive, saying they have been “pretty good.” The remarks came as reports, including from the New York Times today, say Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been pressing Trump to continue the war on Iran.

🗞️ Trump declares war “won,” regime change successful, new “gift”from Iran, Saudi Arabia “fighting with us.” President Donald Trump spoke from the Oval Office on Tuesday, laying out his view of the war with Iran, ongoing negotiations, and regional backing. Here are the key takeaways: 1. Claims war is effectively over, regime change has been successful Trump repeatedly insisted the conflict has already been decided, saying: “I don’t like to say this… but we’ve won this, because this war has been won.” He dismissed reports of continued fighting and Iranian attacks as driven by “fake news” and suggested a political transformation in Iran is coming, adding that the U.S. has secured “some form of regime change, very serious regime change.” He argued Iran’s military has been effectively neutralized, claiming it has “no navy… no air force… no nothing,” allowing U.S. aircraft to operate freely over Tehran. 2. Touts “present” tied to oil, claims nuclear concession Trump described what he framed as a major concession from Iran, saying: “They gave us a present… a very big present… worth a tremendous amount of money… a very significant prize.” He indicated the “gift” is tied to oil and gas, linked to developments around the Strait of Hormuz, and said talks are ongoing with senior U.S. officials involved. He also claimed Iran has “agreed they will never have a nuclear weapon.” Iran had already agreed to that concession before the war began. 3. Emphasizes Gulf support for war Trump highlighted backing from regional allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, saying of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman: “He’s a warrior… he’s fighting with us.” He acknowledged that Gulf states have been hit during the conflict, noting: “Qatar took a hit, pretty bad hit… UAE has been hit so hard,” while arguing that despite this, U.S. partners in the region have remained supportive, saying they have been “pretty good.” The remarks came as reports, including from the New York Times today, say Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been pressing Trump to continue the war on Iran.

Drop Site

366,689 次观看 • 3 个月前

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

54,805 次观看 • 1 个月前