Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🔥𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞? — 𝐃𝐫. 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐔𝐧𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐚𝐦𝐞 Renowned climatologist Dr. Judith Curry pulls back the curtain on the climate establishment’s addiction to alarmism: Extreme emissions scenarios are like crack cocaine for climate scientists. Without them, the models don’t deliver the drama. Even the UN... has quietly dropped these implausible predictions (like a 600% rise in coal use) — but the climate-industrial complex keeps pushing them. Why? Because fear sells. Dr. Curry exposes how exaggerated models fuel media hysteria, political control, and billion-dollar climate agendas — all while silencing legitimate scientific scrutiny. 🌍 This isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about preserving a narrative. 🎥 Full interview in the reply — don’t miss it. Judith Curry James Melville 🚜 Bjorn Lomborgshow more

Freedom Research

4,039 subscribers

19,319 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji Haberler & Politika

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

🌍 CLIMATE ALARMISM EXPOSED Dr. William Happer, a renowned physicist and emeritus professor at Princeton University, dismantles climate fearmongering in an exclusive interview with Freedom Research. “It’s dangerous to make policy on lies,” he warns. A thread on CO₂, flawed models, and the politicised agenda behind climate alarmism.🧵 (Link to the full interview in the reply and the last post) 1/ CO₂ is NOT the enemy “Carbon dioxide is the basis of life on Earth. Life would die without it.” Levels have been much higher in the past, and life thrived. The demonization of CO₂ is a fabricated scare story. Bjorn Lomborg James Melville 🚜 Patrick Moore SpaceWeatherNews Chris Martz Alex Epstein

🌍 CLIMATE ALARMISM EXPOSED Dr. William Happer, a renowned physicist and emeritus professor at Princeton University, dismantles climate fearmongering in an exclusive interview with Freedom Research. “It’s dangerous to make policy on lies,” he warns. A thread on CO₂, flawed models, and the politicised agenda behind climate alarmism.🧵 (Link to the full interview in the reply and the last post) 1/ CO₂ is NOT the enemy “Carbon dioxide is the basis of life on Earth. Life would die without it.” Levels have been much higher in the past, and life thrived. The demonization of CO₂ is a fabricated scare story. Bjorn Lomborg James Melville 🚜 Patrick Moore SpaceWeatherNews Chris Martz Alex Epstein

Freedom Research

20,891 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨“𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐬?” — 𝐃𝐫. 𝐑𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 Dr. Richard Lindzen, a distinguished atmospheric physicist and longtime professor at MIT, delivers a reality check to Net Zero fantasies: You can claim 110% renewables, but what happens when the wind doesn’t blow? The sun doesn’t shine? Your 100% vanishes. And what replaces it? Fossil fuels are now forced to operate inefficiently. He exposes the bizarre logic driving European climate policy and warns: nations are being asked to sacrifice themselves for symbolic gestures that do nothing for the planet. This isn’t about saving the Earth but submission to ideology over science. (Link to full interview is in the reply.) James Melville 🚜 Bjorn Lomborg Chris Martz

🚨“𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐬?” — 𝐃𝐫. 𝐑𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 Dr. Richard Lindzen, a distinguished atmospheric physicist and longtime professor at MIT, delivers a reality check to Net Zero fantasies: You can claim 110% renewables, but what happens when the wind doesn’t blow? The sun doesn’t shine? Your 100% vanishes. And what replaces it? Fossil fuels are now forced to operate inefficiently. He exposes the bizarre logic driving European climate policy and warns: nations are being asked to sacrifice themselves for symbolic gestures that do nothing for the planet. This isn’t about saving the Earth but submission to ideology over science. (Link to full interview is in the reply.) James Melville 🚜 Bjorn Lomborg Chris Martz

Freedom Research

18,644 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 TRUMP EXPOSES THE CLIMATE SCAM — AGAIN President Trump has dropped one of his clearest warnings yet: “The whole thing is a hoax… they called it global warming, then it got cold. Now they call it climate change because they can’t lose that way.” He’s right — and he didn’t hold back: “The UK is one of the worst in the world. They believe this nonsense — this fiction.” China sells the wind turbines… but doesn’t use them. “They sell to the suckers. They use oil, gas and coal.” Trump just confirmed what millions already know: The climate agenda isn’t about saving the planet — it’s about taxing you more, controlling your freedoms, and handing power to global institutions. Once again, President Trump says what leaders in Europe are too afraid to admit.

🚨 TRUMP EXPOSES THE CLIMATE SCAM — AGAIN President Trump has dropped one of his clearest warnings yet: “The whole thing is a hoax… they called it global warming, then it got cold. Now they call it climate change because they can’t lose that way.” He’s right — and he didn’t hold back: “The UK is one of the worst in the world. They believe this nonsense — this fiction.” China sells the wind turbines… but doesn’t use them. “They sell to the suckers. They use oil, gas and coal.” Trump just confirmed what millions already know: The climate agenda isn’t about saving the planet — it’s about taxing you more, controlling your freedoms, and handing power to global institutions. Once again, President Trump says what leaders in Europe are too afraid to admit.

Jim Ferguson

616,850 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Bill Gates Finally Admits What We Knew All Along: Climate Hysteria Was Overblown" For years, Bill Gates was the ultimate climate alarmist—pushing net-zero fantasies, warning of apocalyptic warming, and pressuring governments and corporations to treat CO₂ like a global emergency. His foundation funneled billions into green tech, while his rhetoric fueled panic: 1.5°C or doom. But now, in a stunning memo, even Gates is walking it back. His new message? The “doomsday scenario” was exaggerated. The obsession with near-term emissions targets? A distraction. The idea that climate change is the single greatest threat to humanity? A misplaced priority. Gates is finally acknowledging what skeptics have said for years: The climate movement’s extreme focus on emissions has come at the cost of real human needs. While activists demanded trillions for unproven green schemes, poverty, disease, and energy access—actual, immediate crises—were sidelined. Now, with aid budgets collapsing, Gates is saying what should have been obvious: We can’t let climate dogma override common sense. He’s right. The Paris Accord’s 1.5°C target was always unrealistic—a political fantasy, not a scientific necessity. The net-zero pledges from corporations (including Microsoft) were performative, not practical. And the idea that the world’s poor should sacrifice development for Western climate guilt? A moral failure. Gates still believes in some climate action—but his shift is a tacit admission that the movement went too far. The real question: How many trillions were wasted on fearmongering before even a tech billionaire had to admit the emperor had no clothes? The climate industrial complex won’t like this. But the truth is undeniable: The panic was never about science. It was about control. And now, one of its biggest architects is quietly backing away.

Bill Gates Finally Admits What We Knew All Along: Climate Hysteria Was Overblown" For years, Bill Gates was the ultimate climate alarmist—pushing net-zero fantasies, warning of apocalyptic warming, and pressuring governments and corporations to treat CO₂ like a global emergency. His foundation funneled billions into green tech, while his rhetoric fueled panic: 1.5°C or doom. But now, in a stunning memo, even Gates is walking it back. His new message? The “doomsday scenario” was exaggerated. The obsession with near-term emissions targets? A distraction. The idea that climate change is the single greatest threat to humanity? A misplaced priority. Gates is finally acknowledging what skeptics have said for years: The climate movement’s extreme focus on emissions has come at the cost of real human needs. While activists demanded trillions for unproven green schemes, poverty, disease, and energy access—actual, immediate crises—were sidelined. Now, with aid budgets collapsing, Gates is saying what should have been obvious: We can’t let climate dogma override common sense. He’s right. The Paris Accord’s 1.5°C target was always unrealistic—a political fantasy, not a scientific necessity. The net-zero pledges from corporations (including Microsoft) were performative, not practical. And the idea that the world’s poor should sacrifice development for Western climate guilt? A moral failure. Gates still believes in some climate action—but his shift is a tacit admission that the movement went too far. The real question: How many trillions were wasted on fearmongering before even a tech billionaire had to admit the emperor had no clothes? The climate industrial complex won’t like this. But the truth is undeniable: The panic was never about science. It was about control. And now, one of its biggest architects is quietly backing away.

Camus

28,356 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

Michael Shellenberger

66,361 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:

Chris Martz

112,060 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

$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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Dr. Michael Yeadon Exposes the Foundational Lie of Climate Alarmism What if everything you’ve been told about climate change is not just exaggerated, but a deliberate, orchestrated lie? Former Pfizer VP & Chief Scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon delivers a stunning, evidence-based takedown of the climate change narrative that will make you question everything. He begins by tracing the origins. “If you do nothing else, have a look at the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission,” Dr. Yeadon states. “Honestly, things like climate change and pandemic diseases were decided to be used by people concerned about population... They decided at the same time to frighten you with diseases and changes to climate. It's the same group of people at the same time. And after that, there was a diaspora of propaganda.” But what about the science? Dr. Yeadon, an expert in parsing complex data, did his own research. “I found at least three or four people who've spent longer in atmospheric science than I've spent in pharma R&D. And there is no question that there is no significant change to the climate since pre-industrial times.” He dismantles the core data itself. “Where do you think they got the temperature data from when there were virtually no thermometers? They weren't calibrated. No one checked the records. This idea that they know it's 1.5 degrees warmer? It's a lie.” Then, he goes for the jugular: the alleged link between CO2 and temperature. “There is no connection between CO2 in the air and the temperature of the surface... We don't live in a greenhouse. A greenhouse is a closed system. Our atmosphere is open; energy radiates back into space.” The proof? Ice core data. “What several independent groups all show is that changes in temperature ALWAYS preceded change in atmospheric CO2. CO2 moves in response to temperature. Warm water holds less CO2. Everyone knows a warm fizzy drink goes flat. It’s basic science.” His conclusion is unequivocal: “When the Earth warms due to changes in solar output or orbital cycles, the CO2 movement takes place afterwards. All of this fear-mongering about burning fossil fuels adding CO2 and changing the climate? It is a lie. They're lying to you to frighten you and to get you to accept restrictions on your life.” This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a call for intellectual honesty from a renowned scientist. It’s time to stop being frightened by a crisis that doesn’t exist. Share if you’re ready to question the narrative. Follow for more unflinching analysis from world-class experts.

Dr. Michael Yeadon Exposes the Foundational Lie of Climate Alarmism What if everything you’ve been told about climate change is not just exaggerated, but a deliberate, orchestrated lie? Former Pfizer VP & Chief Scientist Dr. Michael Yeadon delivers a stunning, evidence-based takedown of the climate change narrative that will make you question everything. He begins by tracing the origins. “If you do nothing else, have a look at the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission,” Dr. Yeadon states. “Honestly, things like climate change and pandemic diseases were decided to be used by people concerned about population... They decided at the same time to frighten you with diseases and changes to climate. It's the same group of people at the same time. And after that, there was a diaspora of propaganda.” But what about the science? Dr. Yeadon, an expert in parsing complex data, did his own research. “I found at least three or four people who've spent longer in atmospheric science than I've spent in pharma R&D. And there is no question that there is no significant change to the climate since pre-industrial times.” He dismantles the core data itself. “Where do you think they got the temperature data from when there were virtually no thermometers? They weren't calibrated. No one checked the records. This idea that they know it's 1.5 degrees warmer? It's a lie.” Then, he goes for the jugular: the alleged link between CO2 and temperature. “There is no connection between CO2 in the air and the temperature of the surface... We don't live in a greenhouse. A greenhouse is a closed system. Our atmosphere is open; energy radiates back into space.” The proof? Ice core data. “What several independent groups all show is that changes in temperature ALWAYS preceded change in atmospheric CO2. CO2 moves in response to temperature. Warm water holds less CO2. Everyone knows a warm fizzy drink goes flat. It’s basic science.” His conclusion is unequivocal: “When the Earth warms due to changes in solar output or orbital cycles, the CO2 movement takes place afterwards. All of this fear-mongering about burning fossil fuels adding CO2 and changing the climate? It is a lie. They're lying to you to frighten you and to get you to accept restrictions on your life.” This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a call for intellectual honesty from a renowned scientist. It’s time to stop being frightened by a crisis that doesn’t exist. Share if you’re ready to question the narrative. Follow for more unflinching analysis from world-class experts.

Camus

20,811 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

🔥 The scam no one wants to touch... Everyone’s mad about coal & gas exports — fair enough. But where’s that same energy when it comes to the green energy scam? 💸 In 2024 alone: → $1 BILLION in hidden charges to run wind farms → 72% of those wind farms? Foreign-owned → Another $659 MILLION lost to solar “green” charges We don’t even own the infrastructure. We import the turbines. We import the panels. Mostly from China, who burn our coal to make them. We send them $10B in coal. We get $3B in “green tech” back. That’s a 70% shortfall. While Aussies struggle with rising power bills, the profits are heading overseas. This isn’t climate leadership. It’s economic betrayal. And let’s be real... It’s “cool” to bash fossil fuels. It’s not cool to call out the green energy scam. And it’s definitely not cool to talk about the unchecked migration crisis putting pressure on our housing, hospitals, and jobs. But I don’t give a f*ck what’s cool. I care about putting Australians first. About keeping our power affordable. About calling out a system that’s failing us — while pretending to save the planet. 🛑 Open every coal & gas plant 🛑 Ditch the green energy scam 🛑 Put Australians first It’s not political. It’s just common sense.

🔥 The scam no one wants to touch... Everyone’s mad about coal & gas exports — fair enough. But where’s that same energy when it comes to the green energy scam? 💸 In 2024 alone: → $1 BILLION in hidden charges to run wind farms → 72% of those wind farms? Foreign-owned → Another $659 MILLION lost to solar “green” charges We don’t even own the infrastructure. We import the turbines. We import the panels. Mostly from China, who burn our coal to make them. We send them $10B in coal. We get $3B in “green tech” back. That’s a 70% shortfall. While Aussies struggle with rising power bills, the profits are heading overseas. This isn’t climate leadership. It’s economic betrayal. And let’s be real... It’s “cool” to bash fossil fuels. It’s not cool to call out the green energy scam. And it’s definitely not cool to talk about the unchecked migration crisis putting pressure on our housing, hospitals, and jobs. But I don’t give a f*ck what’s cool. I care about putting Australians first. About keeping our power affordable. About calling out a system that’s failing us — while pretending to save the planet. 🛑 Open every coal & gas plant 🛑 Ditch the green energy scam 🛑 Put Australians first It’s not political. It’s just common sense.

2 Worlds Collide Podcast

23,593 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Part 2: My Influences That Made Me Question the Climate Alarmism Narrative Today I want to share some of the influences that helped me wake up to the fact that the climate movement is pushing an alarmist narrative that’s doing more harm than good. Right now, most young people in the U.S.—the most prosperous civilization in history—are walking around with the belief that the world is ending and they won’t live to old age. That fear is one of my biggest motivators for speaking out. In 2019, I read Apocalypse Never by Michael Michael Shellenberger (former green activist like me) and it completely shifted my thinking. He broke down the false urgency of the “we have ten years left” narrative and exposed how misguided many activist targets are, like banning single-use plastics, which actually have a lower carbon footprint than the alternatives. And most of the plastic waste isn’t even coming from developed countries. Then I found Steve Koonin, who served in the Obama administration. He doesn't deny climate change, he just challenges the idea that science is settled when it comes to climate projections. He helped me see that we simply don’t know what we don’t know, and that the certainty the media and activists project isn’t backed by reality. Even from my own life (I'm 35 now) I've watched many of the scary predictions I grew up with fail to materialize. I remember watching An Inconvenient Truth in high school and thinking we were doomed by the time I hit 26. Clearly, that didn’t happen. Science is imperfect. People are biased. And many scientists are incentivized to push the most extreme version of the story just to get published. That context changed everything for me. Maybe it'll do the same for you.

Part 2: My Influences That Made Me Question the Climate Alarmism Narrative Today I want to share some of the influences that helped me wake up to the fact that the climate movement is pushing an alarmist narrative that’s doing more harm than good. Right now, most young people in the U.S.—the most prosperous civilization in history—are walking around with the belief that the world is ending and they won’t live to old age. That fear is one of my biggest motivators for speaking out. In 2019, I read Apocalypse Never by Michael Michael Shellenberger (former green activist like me) and it completely shifted my thinking. He broke down the false urgency of the “we have ten years left” narrative and exposed how misguided many activist targets are, like banning single-use plastics, which actually have a lower carbon footprint than the alternatives. And most of the plastic waste isn’t even coming from developed countries. Then I found Steve Koonin, who served in the Obama administration. He doesn't deny climate change, he just challenges the idea that science is settled when it comes to climate projections. He helped me see that we simply don’t know what we don’t know, and that the certainty the media and activists project isn’t backed by reality. Even from my own life (I'm 35 now) I've watched many of the scary predictions I grew up with fail to materialize. I remember watching An Inconvenient Truth in high school and thinking we were doomed by the time I hit 26. Clearly, that didn’t happen. Science is imperfect. People are biased. And many scientists are incentivized to push the most extreme version of the story just to get published. That context changed everything for me. Maybe it'll do the same for you.

Lucy Biggers

78,024 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

There’s another heatwave coming in the next 10 days. I hope im wrong but I think we’re fucked. People are too stupid and the whole media is just unable to tell the truth. We literally are seeing temperature and rainfall records falling all over the planet constantly and it’s barely making a dent in peoples consciousness. There should be millions protesting in the street day in day out until global governments change. But there is no urgency from the useless deadly media who literally think they know more than scientists who’ve studied it for decades. The public only cares about superficial celebrity nonsense, lifestyle guff and money, even people on the left generally are not very engaged with this issue whereas the right often deny it’s even happening. Only 10% of MPs across the board attended a briefing on climate change by the chief scientist in the UK several years ago. Politicians don’t understand and don’t care, just like the public don’t. Most people won’t even tweet or discuss it let alone watch a documentary. Someone asked me recently why I focus more on climate change than gay stuff now. It’s because climate change is the biggest threat to gay people that’s ever existed. Because it’s the biggest threat to all people that has ever existed. We are talking about the total breakdown of the food system, of law and order and eventually, as David Attenborough says, the collapse of civilisation itself. Mass death, in other words, and with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - we put 100 million tons of it out every single day - it can’t return to normal for thousands of years. The media has turned us into idiots and completely failed to convey scientists warnings about how serious and imminent climate breakdown is. It’s not decades away. It’s here. It’s now. Extreme suffering and violence are incoming. Video: Monmouth, UK, earlier this year. Scientist Prof Hayley Fowler, video below this tweet, warned last year that the UK could now see 2/3 of years worth of rain, triple what Monmouth experienced, to fall within a day or two, enough to wash homes and cars away and to completely flood the tube system in London if it happened there. No reporting in the media at all.

There’s another heatwave coming in the next 10 days. I hope im wrong but I think we’re fucked. People are too stupid and the whole media is just unable to tell the truth. We literally are seeing temperature and rainfall records falling all over the planet constantly and it’s barely making a dent in peoples consciousness. There should be millions protesting in the street day in day out until global governments change. But there is no urgency from the useless deadly media who literally think they know more than scientists who’ve studied it for decades. The public only cares about superficial celebrity nonsense, lifestyle guff and money, even people on the left generally are not very engaged with this issue whereas the right often deny it’s even happening. Only 10% of MPs across the board attended a briefing on climate change by the chief scientist in the UK several years ago. Politicians don’t understand and don’t care, just like the public don’t. Most people won’t even tweet or discuss it let alone watch a documentary. Someone asked me recently why I focus more on climate change than gay stuff now. It’s because climate change is the biggest threat to gay people that’s ever existed. Because it’s the biggest threat to all people that has ever existed. We are talking about the total breakdown of the food system, of law and order and eventually, as David Attenborough says, the collapse of civilisation itself. Mass death, in other words, and with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - we put 100 million tons of it out every single day - it can’t return to normal for thousands of years. The media has turned us into idiots and completely failed to convey scientists warnings about how serious and imminent climate breakdown is. It’s not decades away. It’s here. It’s now. Extreme suffering and violence are incoming. Video: Monmouth, UK, earlier this year. Scientist Prof Hayley Fowler, video below this tweet, warned last year that the UK could now see 2/3 of years worth of rain, triple what Monmouth experienced, to fall within a day or two, enough to wash homes and cars away and to completely flood the tube system in London if it happened there. No reporting in the media at all.

Matthew Todd 🌏🔥

226,778 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Joe Rogan Destroys the Climate Change Narrative in Under 3 Minutes “This idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullsh*t. It’s not true.” Rogan’s guest, Mel Gibson, was shocked to learn that Earth’s climate has always been changing—even long before humans existed. Rogan talked about data from millions of years ago that show Earth’s temperature has gone up and down naturally over time. “There’s no static temperature of Earth ever,” he said. “There’s never been a time where it keeps the same temperature, and then humans came along and ruined everything. That is just not real.” So why all the fear-mongering? It turns out that there are a lot of financial and political benefits to scaring the sh*t out of people. “The problem with anything is that once a narrative gets established and then there’s a profit attached to the solution to that narrative. Yes. And that’s green energy and green energy bills and there’s businesses that are wrapped around there. “And then there’s also this fear that they love to pump into people about climate change that, you know, they terrify the sh*t out of young people that we’re going to destroy the world and climate change. You must act now. And then you become beholden to the political party that it’s espousing these ideas and then your enemy is the deniers of this science, even though you don’t even understand the science,” Rogan explained.

Joe Rogan Destroys the Climate Change Narrative in Under 3 Minutes “This idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullsht. It’s not true.” Rogan’s guest, Mel Gibson, was shocked to learn that Earth’s climate has always been changing—even long before humans existed. Rogan talked about data from millions of years ago that show Earth’s temperature has gone up and down naturally over time. “There’s no static temperature of Earth ever,” he said. “There’s never been a time where it keeps the same temperature, and then humans came along and ruined everything. That is just not real.” So why all the fear-mongering? It turns out that there are a lot of financial and political benefits to scaring the sht out of people. “The problem with anything is that once a narrative gets established and then there’s a profit attached to the solution to that narrative. Yes. And that’s green energy and green energy bills and there’s businesses that are wrapped around there. “And then there’s also this fear that they love to pump into people about climate change that, you know, they terrify the sh*t out of young people that we’re going to destroy the world and climate change. You must act now. And then you become beholden to the political party that it’s espousing these ideas and then your enemy is the deniers of this science, even though you don’t even understand the science,” Rogan explained.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

928,994 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

lol This is a crock of crap. Climate “scientists” cannot get their climate models to produce accurate hindcasts of 20th century global mean surface temperature (GMST) observations without having precursory knowledge of 20th century observations to calibrate them to. That's curve fitting, not science. These models also run on circular reasoning. When global climate models (GCMs) are input with the supposedly “established physics” you mentioned, the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere are not balanced, which causes the models to drift into unrealistic climate states (either too hot or too cold, but usually running too hot). Rather than doing real science to try figuring out why the best physics we have don't yield correct values, scientists simply assume that fluxes were balanced before the Industrial Revolution. They then adjust any uncertain parameters (e.g., clouds and aerosol) to force energy fluxes to balance. It is then assumed that there are no natural pathways that can cause energy imbalance, so modelers input CO₂ forcing, the climate system warms, and they say, “See!? CO₂ caused the warming.” While it may prove that there is at least some effects from CO₂, all else being equal, it in no way, shape or form proves that all of the observed warming is due to CO₂. They assumed it was at the outset, then forced their GCMs to produce that result. That's circular logic, not science. We also know model outputs are just statistical curve fitting because while the GMST response to a forcing has one value, the range of uncertainty in the aerosol contribution to GMST change since 1850 is 1°C. If you take the median of the CMIP6 models shown in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6 WG1, the uncertainty is a whopping 125%. If you don’t know that vital piece of information about aerosol forcing, you cannot have any confidence whatsoever in anything else. Arguing with me about this is not going to go well for you, I'm afraid. If you need an explainer that isn't so jargon-filled, Dr. Roy Spencer has a good one in the video below from a presentation he gave on March 3, 2021.

lol This is a crock of crap. Climate “scientists” cannot get their climate models to produce accurate hindcasts of 20th century global mean surface temperature (GMST) observations without having precursory knowledge of 20th century observations to calibrate them to. That's curve fitting, not science. These models also run on circular reasoning. When global climate models (GCMs) are input with the supposedly “established physics” you mentioned, the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere are not balanced, which causes the models to drift into unrealistic climate states (either too hot or too cold, but usually running too hot). Rather than doing real science to try figuring out why the best physics we have don't yield correct values, scientists simply assume that fluxes were balanced before the Industrial Revolution. They then adjust any uncertain parameters (e.g., clouds and aerosol) to force energy fluxes to balance. It is then assumed that there are no natural pathways that can cause energy imbalance, so modelers input CO₂ forcing, the climate system warms, and they say, “See!? CO₂ caused the warming.” While it may prove that there is at least some effects from CO₂, all else being equal, it in no way, shape or form proves that all of the observed warming is due to CO₂. They assumed it was at the outset, then forced their GCMs to produce that result. That's circular logic, not science. We also know model outputs are just statistical curve fitting because while the GMST response to a forcing has one value, the range of uncertainty in the aerosol contribution to GMST change since 1850 is 1°C. If you take the median of the CMIP6 models shown in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6 WG1, the uncertainty is a whopping 125%. If you don’t know that vital piece of information about aerosol forcing, you cannot have any confidence whatsoever in anything else. Arguing with me about this is not going to go well for you, I'm afraid. If you need an explainer that isn't so jargon-filled, Dr. Roy Spencer has a good one in the video below from a presentation he gave on March 3, 2021.

Chris Martz

27,501 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

So many people—myself included—are drawn to the climate movement because they want to help people. They care, want to help the poor, and save the planet. But what they don't understand is that the climate movement is doing the exact opposite of what these well-meaning activists want to accomplish. The movement vilifies reliable energy—the single biggest driver of getting people out of poverty. Over the past several decades, we’ve spent trillions on an energy transition away from fossil fuels. The result? We’ve made our energy system less reliable and more expensive. Western countries have also practiced climate colonialism by preventing Africa from developing with natural gas, coal, and oil. (This goes against everything climate activists claim to stand for!) This is the most morally inverted movement ever. Right now, a billion people don't have access to reliable energy. That means women are spending their entire day figuring out how to get fuel to cook their food. Children in these settings are not going to school, they’re spending hours collecting wood or walking to get water. All of that is a symptom of energy poverty. This is when climate activists will say “but the planet is burning!” Just no. The planet is not burning. Yes, we've added CO2 to the atmosphere and seen about ~1°C of warming over 150 years. But 95% of CO2 is naturally occurring and historically, warming periods are when humans flourish. The Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) is a great example. It was 0.7-1°C warmer and populations boomed. They then collapsed during the Little Ice Age. Takeaway the climate hysteria and objectively you would choose to live during a warming period over a cooling period. The rest of the data is reassuring: ✅Globally hurricanes rates are slightly declining ✅Tornadoes are down ✅Sea level rise is a manageable ~3mm/year ✅Global greening is up 15–40% since the 1980s ✅10x people still die from cold than from heat In the West the first time students hear about our energy system is within the context of “fossil fuels are burning the planet.” They’re never taught that it’s an amazing technology that has lifted billions out of poverty. I considered this a huge injustice. We need to pivot away from climate hysteria toward one goal: ending energy poverty and expanding access to energy. If you’re still gripped by climate fear and anxiety, I’m sorry you are a victim of this fear narrative. But it's time to get out.

So many people—myself included—are drawn to the climate movement because they want to help people. They care, want to help the poor, and save the planet. But what they don't understand is that the climate movement is doing the exact opposite of what these well-meaning activists want to accomplish. The movement vilifies reliable energy—the single biggest driver of getting people out of poverty. Over the past several decades, we’ve spent trillions on an energy transition away from fossil fuels. The result? We’ve made our energy system less reliable and more expensive. Western countries have also practiced climate colonialism by preventing Africa from developing with natural gas, coal, and oil. (This goes against everything climate activists claim to stand for!) This is the most morally inverted movement ever. Right now, a billion people don't have access to reliable energy. That means women are spending their entire day figuring out how to get fuel to cook their food. Children in these settings are not going to school, they’re spending hours collecting wood or walking to get water. All of that is a symptom of energy poverty. This is when climate activists will say “but the planet is burning!” Just no. The planet is not burning. Yes, we've added CO2 to the atmosphere and seen about ~1°C of warming over 150 years. But 95% of CO2 is naturally occurring and historically, warming periods are when humans flourish. The Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) is a great example. It was 0.7-1°C warmer and populations boomed. They then collapsed during the Little Ice Age. Takeaway the climate hysteria and objectively you would choose to live during a warming period over a cooling period. The rest of the data is reassuring: ✅Globally hurricanes rates are slightly declining ✅Tornadoes are down ✅Sea level rise is a manageable ~3mm/year ✅Global greening is up 15–40% since the 1980s ✅10x people still die from cold than from heat In the West the first time students hear about our energy system is within the context of “fossil fuels are burning the planet.” They’re never taught that it’s an amazing technology that has lifted billions out of poverty. I considered this a huge injustice. We need to pivot away from climate hysteria toward one goal: ending energy poverty and expanding access to energy. If you’re still gripped by climate fear and anxiety, I’m sorry you are a victim of this fear narrative. But it's time to get out.

Lucy Biggers

31,443 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

🔥 THE $375 BILLION CLIMATE LAUNDRY: How Podesta’s ‘Green Fund’ Became the Largest Money-Washing Scheme in U.S. History What’s being sold as “climate action” is actually the most audacious money-laundering operation on Earth—running in broad daylight, under the friendly banner of “saving the planet.” Forget Paris — the real Accords are happening right here at home. John Podesta, better known for his side gig as the Pizza Man of Washington lore, now oversees a $375 BILLION “climate investment” slush fund. Billions are routed through fake NGOs and “environmental” fronts that file no federal disclosures and face zero oversight. The so‑called Pizza Accords channeled mind‑bending sums to groups that, upon inspection, either don’t exist, were created weeks before receiving payouts, or push openly extremist agendas: 💸 $20 BILLION shoveled into “green” groups that appeared out of thin air just before cash‑out. 💸 $7 BILLION to a Maryland front so obscure it doesn’t even appear in the IRS database. 💸 $2 BILLION to Stacey Abrams’ outfit—which, before this jackpot, had raised a grand total of $100. 💣 $100 MILLION to “Climate Justice,” an alleged eco‑charity that glorifies violent terrorist groups. 💣 $100 MILLION to “NDN Collective,” which openly champions dismantling the police and the U.S. military. 💣 $50 MILLION to “NY Immigration Coalition / NJ Alliance,” which advocates for open borders and dissolving citizenship. 💣 $50 MILLION to “Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs,” which calls for abolishing both police and prisons. 💣 Up to $3 MILLION to “Ella Baker Center,” promoting the decriminalization of theft and “re‑imagining justice”—i.e. anarchy. What’s erupting in Minnesota and California is only the surface bubble of a vast subterranean pipeline of fraud. The climate machine isn’t about weather—it’s about power and laundering. Every “green” slogan masks an industrial‑scale racket lubricated by your tax dollars and protected by bipartisan silence. 🧾 There’s one unspoken rule in this empire of deceit: question the climate narrative—lose your reputation. The media doesn’t debate; it crucifies. Welcome to the $375 Billion Greenwash. The planet isn’t being saved—it’s being used.

🔥 THE $375 BILLION CLIMATE LAUNDRY: How Podesta’s ‘Green Fund’ Became the Largest Money-Washing Scheme in U.S. History What’s being sold as “climate action” is actually the most audacious money-laundering operation on Earth—running in broad daylight, under the friendly banner of “saving the planet.” Forget Paris — the real Accords are happening right here at home. John Podesta, better known for his side gig as the Pizza Man of Washington lore, now oversees a $375 BILLION “climate investment” slush fund. Billions are routed through fake NGOs and “environmental” fronts that file no federal disclosures and face zero oversight. The so‑called Pizza Accords channeled mind‑bending sums to groups that, upon inspection, either don’t exist, were created weeks before receiving payouts, or push openly extremist agendas: 💸 $20 BILLION shoveled into “green” groups that appeared out of thin air just before cash‑out. 💸 $7 BILLION to a Maryland front so obscure it doesn’t even appear in the IRS database. 💸 $2 BILLION to Stacey Abrams’ outfit—which, before this jackpot, had raised a grand total of $100. 💣 $100 MILLION to “Climate Justice,” an alleged eco‑charity that glorifies violent terrorist groups. 💣 $100 MILLION to “NDN Collective,” which openly champions dismantling the police and the U.S. military. 💣 $50 MILLION to “NY Immigration Coalition / NJ Alliance,” which advocates for open borders and dissolving citizenship. 💣 $50 MILLION to “Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs,” which calls for abolishing both police and prisons. 💣 Up to $3 MILLION to “Ella Baker Center,” promoting the decriminalization of theft and “re‑imagining justice”—i.e. anarchy. What’s erupting in Minnesota and California is only the surface bubble of a vast subterranean pipeline of fraud. The climate machine isn’t about weather—it’s about power and laundering. Every “green” slogan masks an industrial‑scale racket lubricated by your tax dollars and protected by bipartisan silence. 🧾 There’s one unspoken rule in this empire of deceit: question the climate narrative—lose your reputation. The media doesn’t debate; it crucifies. Welcome to the $375 Billion Greenwash. The planet isn’t being saved—it’s being used.

Tony Seruga

38,318 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

🚨BREAKING NEWS: Australia’s Climate Straitjacket: Fashioned by Idiots, Funded by You SYDNEY — In a bold move that left ABC viewers clutching their oat milk lattes in horror, Andrew Hastie committed the unthinkable: he used logic. On national TV. In front of Patricia Karvelas. Without crying. Hastie, a man constantly smeared as “far-right” by people who think Simon Holmes à Court is an energy expert and not a trust fund cosplay activist, simply asked the question no Marxist wants to answer: Why are we punishing Australians with sky-high power bills while selling coal to China and India like it’s a Boxing Day clearance? Cue the shrieking from ABC Twitter™, where the average viewer still believes carbon is toxic, “equity” means equal outcomes, and nuclear power is what turned the Hulk green. But Hastie went further. He had the gall to call net zero what it is: a straitjacket. Not a plan. Not a target. A bureaucratic, UN-approved, teal-endorsed death sentence for Australian industry… designed to strangle productivity while outsourcing “emissions” to the very countries buying our coal in bulk. And as for nuclear? The only technology that could actually reduce emissions and keep the lights on? Banned. Because feelings. Because Greens. Because Simon Holmes à Carbon Credit™ said so. It’s not a climate policy. It’s a global wealth redistribution scheme… where rich Western guilt funds China’s rise, the UN’s bureaucracy, and India’s coal renaissance. All while Australia pretends that bankrupting pensioners and killing off manufacturing will somehow make the planet cooler. This isn’t policy. It’s performance art for the deranged. And PK is front row with popcorn. So ask yourself: Do you want to hit some random arbitrary target for a made-up climate crisis to virtue signal so you can feel better about yourself… or do you want to save lives? You can’t have both. ABC News Patricia Karvelas Anthony Albanese 💧simon holmes à court 🦋 Punter's Politics Climate 200 United Nations UN Climate Change World Economic Forum Australian Labor Australian Greens

🚨BREAKING NEWS: Australia’s Climate Straitjacket: Fashioned by Idiots, Funded by You SYDNEY — In a bold move that left ABC viewers clutching their oat milk lattes in horror, Andrew Hastie committed the unthinkable: he used logic. On national TV. In front of Patricia Karvelas. Without crying. Hastie, a man constantly smeared as “far-right” by people who think Simon Holmes à Court is an energy expert and not a trust fund cosplay activist, simply asked the question no Marxist wants to answer: Why are we punishing Australians with sky-high power bills while selling coal to China and India like it’s a Boxing Day clearance? Cue the shrieking from ABC Twitter™, where the average viewer still believes carbon is toxic, “equity” means equal outcomes, and nuclear power is what turned the Hulk green. But Hastie went further. He had the gall to call net zero what it is: a straitjacket. Not a plan. Not a target. A bureaucratic, UN-approved, teal-endorsed death sentence for Australian industry… designed to strangle productivity while outsourcing “emissions” to the very countries buying our coal in bulk. And as for nuclear? The only technology that could actually reduce emissions and keep the lights on? Banned. Because feelings. Because Greens. Because Simon Holmes à Carbon Credit™ said so. It’s not a climate policy. It’s a global wealth redistribution scheme… where rich Western guilt funds China’s rise, the UN’s bureaucracy, and India’s coal renaissance. All while Australia pretends that bankrupting pensioners and killing off manufacturing will somehow make the planet cooler. This isn’t policy. It’s performance art for the deranged. And PK is front row with popcorn. So ask yourself: Do you want to hit some random arbitrary target for a made-up climate crisis to virtue signal so you can feel better about yourself… or do you want to save lives? You can’t have both. ABC News Patricia Karvelas Anthony Albanese 💧simon holmes à court 🦋 Punter's Politics Climate 200 United Nations UN Climate Change World Economic Forum Australian Labor Australian Greens

mdtlion

75,072 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

A stunning revelation from renowned oncology Professor Angus Dalgleish. He describes a climate of scientific censorship so profound that senior colleagues would phone him simply to shout him down, citing journal articles as unquestionable gospel. His account reveals two critical failures in our scientific institutions: 1. The Illusion of Consensus. He exposes how a "perfectly safe and effective" narrative was enforced not by robust debate, but by pointing to papers in prestigious journals like The Lancet. Dalgleish argues these papers are often planted by Big Pharma, signed by a chorus of voices, and accepted without critical thought. This, he states, is the reduction of scientific inquiry to mere quoting. 2. The Manufactured "Settled Science." He details the specific case of the lab-leak theory. Dr. Fauci, he claims, orchestrated a paper to definitively state a natural origin for the virus—a paper Dalgleish found deeply flawed. Crucially, he alleges the authors were subsequently rewarded with "massive grants," and journals like Nature actively suppressed criticism, deeming it "not in the public interest." This powerful testimony paints a picture of a scientific establishment that prioritizes narrative over truth, using manufactured consensus to shut down dissent and propel multi-billion dollar agendas. The question is no longer about a single virus or vaccine, but about the very integrity of the institutions we are told to trust.

A stunning revelation from renowned oncology Professor Angus Dalgleish. He describes a climate of scientific censorship so profound that senior colleagues would phone him simply to shout him down, citing journal articles as unquestionable gospel. His account reveals two critical failures in our scientific institutions: 1. The Illusion of Consensus. He exposes how a "perfectly safe and effective" narrative was enforced not by robust debate, but by pointing to papers in prestigious journals like The Lancet. Dalgleish argues these papers are often planted by Big Pharma, signed by a chorus of voices, and accepted without critical thought. This, he states, is the reduction of scientific inquiry to mere quoting. 2. The Manufactured "Settled Science." He details the specific case of the lab-leak theory. Dr. Fauci, he claims, orchestrated a paper to definitively state a natural origin for the virus—a paper Dalgleish found deeply flawed. Crucially, he alleges the authors were subsequently rewarded with "massive grants," and journals like Nature actively suppressed criticism, deeming it "not in the public interest." This powerful testimony paints a picture of a scientific establishment that prioritizes narrative over truth, using manufactured consensus to shut down dissent and propel multi-billion dollar agendas. The question is no longer about a single virus or vaccine, but about the very integrity of the institutions we are told to trust.

Camus

69,780 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

WE CAUGHT THEM! UN climate elites dumped their conference garbage on a poor Brazilian neighbourhood The United Nations has been dumping its construction waste from conference facilities in a vulnerable community. While global VIPs preach climate virtue inside the UN summit in Belém, the city and the United Nations are using the impoverished community of Vila da Barca as their real-life dumping ground. Former VP Al Gore was just at the United Nations’ climate conference droning on about how ordinary people are supposedly “using the sky as an open sewer,” but, as the facts now show, that phone call was coming from inside the house. We discovered something that Gore, the climate delegates, and their media cheerleaders don’t want you to see: they’re using a poor neighbourhood here in Belem, Brazil as their own open sewer and garbage dump. My videographer, Kian Simone, and I travelled into a favela called Vila da Barca on the edge of Belém. There’s no proper sanitation. There’s very little electricity. Homes aren’t hooked up to a sewer system. And it's dangerous. Most residents don’t even legally own the land their houses sit on. If the city decides to bulldoze everything tomorrow to make way for some shiny new project, that’s it. They’re gone. We went there because we saw local Instagram videos from residents accusing the United Nations and the city of Belém of using Vila da Barca as a personal garbage dump. For years, people here have complained that sewage from richer parts of the city is routed straight through their community and out into the bay, turning the water into a filthy, dangerous soup. On the ground, we saw the evidence. And then we found something else. The UN – the same UN holding a climate conference just a few kilometres away – has been dumping its construction waste from conference facilities in this vulnerable community. We tracked it down, and wouldn’t you know it, we found the very dump site the UN is using. We found the discarded UN-logo'ed signs and trash hiding in plain sight. I’m not someone who buys into the woke buzzword “environmental racism” when it’s used to smear oil and gas companies that bring good jobs to Indigenous and rural communities. But what we saw in Vila da Barca? If anything deserves that label, it’s powerful international elites quietly hiding their mess in a powerless, working-poor neighbourhood that has zero ability to fight back. This is a poor community. It’s largely mulatto and marginalized. They don’t have political clout, lobbyists or PR teams. And yet the world’s climate aristocracy has chosen to hide its environmental carnage right in the middle of their homes. The people of Vila da Barca can’t stop it. They don’t have a voice inside the UN conference centre, where journalists are more interested in recycling talking points than asking hard questions about where the garbage actually goes. But we went there. We filmed what the UN and the city of Belém are doing in the shadows while preaching climate purity in air-conditioned halls. This is real journalism – the kind the accredited press inside the conference won’t do because it doesn’t fit the script and might offend the powerful. I’m proud of the work we did today in Vila da Barca, pulling back the curtain on yet another layer of UN hypocrisy.

Rebel News

140,094 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !

Michael Shellenberger

80,277 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce