RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/10/the-coming-civil-war-of-climate-hysterics/

The Gates memo may soon touch off a mad scramble for the cash that the donor class is still willing to contribute to climate.

The Maldive Islands used up all their fresh drinking water in 1992 and are expected to retreat beneath the rising sea levels within the next 20 years. The Gaza Strip, already burdened by the war its terrorist government inaugurated, became ecologically uninhabitable in 2020. In 1985, air pollution halved the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface. Children stopped remembering what snow even was sometime in the last decade. In 2013, the Arctic became irrevocably ice-free. The “world is going to end” before this decade is out, and every last human being will be dead by the end of next year.

To say that these predicted scenarios of imminent climatological catastrophe have become forgettable background radiation is too charitable. At least background radiation is actually harmful. Climate change, by contrast, is a manageable phenomenon that does not present an existential threat to humanity’s survival. At least, not according to Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates.

“Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” Gates wrote in an essay published this week ahead of the COP30 climate summit. Indeed, he observed, the eschatology to which climate change activists are inclined has contributed to negative outcomes, especially in the developing world.

“This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives,” Gates added. He stressed the need for philanthropic endeavors to prioritize mitigating the effects of hunger, poverty, and disease over their myopic fixation with reducing heat-trapping emissions. “Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering,” Gates continued, “particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.”

“People will be able to live and thrive on Earth for the foreseeable future,” Gates conceded, even in a “warming world.” This bit of apostasy from someone who was — or, at least, posed as — a true believer in the cataclysmic future that runaway climate change held in store for us has shaken the industry around environmental activism to its foundation. The memo sets the stage for a pivotal internecine conflict over the future of climate activism.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/bill-gates-about-global-warming-never-mind/

It’s a miraculous era. Rahm Emanuel acknowledged that men can’t turn into women. Bill Gates is off the global warming doomsday express.

It’s not as if he’s actually admitting it’s all nonsense, but the former Microsoft honcho starts out by rejecting the doomsday scenarios.

There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:

In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.

Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. 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.

This doesn’t sound like such a big deal, but otherwise liberals in good standing were denounced as oil company shills for rejecting the catastrophic view of global warming.

Bjørn Lomborg can hardly speak to any audience other than the conservative ones because even though he’s a scientist who believes in global warming… he doesn’t believe it’s catastrophic. There are entire sites dedicated to destroying Lomborg and the media rarely speaks about him without a sneer or claims that he really works for the evil fossil fuels people.

So what Bill Gates is saying is big in its own way. It may not sound that way, but it’s heresy to a cult that built its entire ideological infrastructure around an imminent armageddon that has to be stopped no matter how many lives those efforts destroy because the alternative is the mass extinction of mankind.

Gates, a major donor and funder of climate causes, just shrugged all that off.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/10/29/will-the-30th-u-n-climate-conference-be-the-last/

The United Nation’s 30th Conference of the Parties, known as COP30, will be held next month in Belem, Brazil. It will be a nearly two-week festival of intellectual depravity, in which fiery sermons are preached, nags are given an undeserved forum, backs are slapped, glasses clinked and participants tell each other and the world how important they are. Our hope is that it’s an endangered species falling hard toward extinction.

While the crisis-mongers are supping luxuriously and congratulating themselves for saving a world that’s in no danger from human fossil-fuel exhaust, their crusade is losing momentum. Polls are showing that fewer Americans believe it’s a “very serious” or serious problem. When issues are ranked by the public, climate is far behind others, such as health care and the economy. It also follows, though a bit more closely, immigration, energy policy and crime as a top concern. Some Americans are even more troubled by our growing political extremism, which, given the growing violence on the left, is understandable.

President Donald Trump, for one, seems to have never thought too much of the climate warnings. Last month, Politico reported that he was actively seeking “to undermine international efforts to tackle climate change.” While using “the bully pulpit” at his U.N. address last month, he touted “the benefits of U.S.-produced fossil fuels,” while also ridiculing “other nations for embracing green policies and renewable energy.”

Which is as it should be. No American president ought to let an international cabal of grifters and zealots dictate our energy policy.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/10/14/checking-in-on-the-climate-here-are-a-few-facts/

Global warming hysteria has been cooling off. But it’s not cold-on-the-slab dead yet. So it’s important to continue to roll out the reality. If we don’t, the zealots will rearm and flood the zone with their mendacious narrative.

From various sources, here is an update on the facts and the fiction:

Summers are still summer in America – hot, but not as hot as the climatistas want us to believe they are. University of Alabama in Huntsville climate researcher Roy Spencer, who keeps up with this sort of thing, tells us summer’s hottest days in the U.S. “Have Barely Warmed in the Last 40 Years.” He continues: “Of course, you would never know this based upon media reports … in fact, most people are probably under the impression that our hottest days are rapidly getting hotter.”
A month ago, the New York Times reported, citing “scientists,” that “Severe heat this summer killed three times as many people in European cities as would have died had humans not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.” Is that right? No, it’s not, says a fact-check service provided by a consortium of policy groups.

These are not real mortality figures.” The Times “admits that these figures from Dr. Malcolm Mistry, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, are derived from the modeling of mortality trends in 854 European cities, not observational data, which the Times says ‘[a]re not yet widely available.’ Thus, they are attempting to pass a claim off as established fact without supporting evidence.”

The claims that man-made global warming is causing island nations to sink into the sea won’t go away. They should. H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute notes that even with “modest sea level rise,” the island nations that are supposedly drowning “have increased in size, population, and prosperity amid modest climate change.” There’s simply “no real data (that) shows that the oceans are about to swamp these countries.”
The alarmists have warned for decades that global warming was going to cause bigger and badder storms, including, according to federal functionaries, an “above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season.” Except – “no hurricanes made landfall in the United States” in September, says meteorologist Anthony Watts. It was “the first time that’s happened in a decade.” 
Solar farms are supposed to be keys to saving us from global warming, yet they raise nighttime air temperatures from 5 to 7 degrees (3 to 4 Celsius) Fahrenheit. Shouldn’t someone say something about this?
Here’s a point we’ve been making for decades from Substacker Ignominious: “In 1875 very few sensors were placed in very few areas. We have extremely limited data for the first 100 years (1850-1950) so temperature comparisons are unreliable.” He also mentions that “temperature is local and changes acre to acre and block to block due to elevation, wind, rain, and land type. Precise worldwide temperature cannot be known.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/09/30/fact-checking-trumps-climate-claims/

Editor’s note: We expect that Google’s AdSense will strip ads from this page, saying the editorial contains “unreliable and harmful claims.” It’s done that to us before, many times. You can tell Google where to stuff its censorship by donating directly to I&I. Just click here.

President Donald Trump spoke at the United Nations last week in an address that the world needed to hear. It was of course picked apart, particularly his claims about global warming. He twisted facts and made “false claims,” say the gatekeepers of the Great Climate Narrative. Is this so?

Let’s look:

Trump called the global warming scare a “hoax.” Not a word we would use, but he’s closer to the truth than the climatistas. It’s obvious to those with open minds that the global warming tale is the product of academic fraud, gross exaggerations, and an effort to lie to the public to move opinion and force politics into what should be a scientific debate.

Trump said renewable energy sources “don’t work,” are “too expensive” and a “joke.” They work, but not as advertised. Renewables are unreliable and they are far too costly (without taxpayer-funded subsidies they’re dead). “Joke” is another word we wouldn’t use, because the damage done by the blind drive to net zero emissions is not funny.

“All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong,” Trump said. “They were made by stupid people.” They are not stupid. But they are conniving, deceitful, shameless, wrong and vicious. They are also dangerous (see the point above).

Trump called the global warming account “the greatest con job perpetrated by the world.” The predictions of doom have not materialized. The models they are based on are overheated. The real motive for clamping down on fossil fuel use is not to save the sky but to break capitalism, phase out human existence, force a false religion on others and take control of the economy. Sure, it’s a con, and it’s worked fairly well. As Elon Musk recently said, “legacy media propaganda is very effective at making people believe things that aren’t true.”

Wind turbines, the president said, are “so pathetic.” Still not a word we would use but we are in agreement with the greater point. The world is shunning wind and solar power. More than 1,000 proposed projects have been blocked globally. In addition to the inferior nature of renewables, land-use conflicts are constraining their growth as are investors, who don’t want to squander their capital on investments that won’t earn them a profit.

“Now,” said Trump, the zealots “just call it climate change, because that way, they can’t miss. It’s climate change, because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there’s climate change.” He’s correct. The green jihad was rebranded because the warming argument wasn’t working – the climate was not cooperating with fantastic tales about an overheating planet.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/09/co2_alarmism_science_or_superstition.html

When Americans hear about carbon dioxide (CO2), it’s often shown as a harmful pollutant that threatens the planet. Politicians, activists, and media outlets warn that if we don’t reduce emissions right away, disaster will happen. 

Preeminent “climate scientist” Al Gore told Congress in 2007, “The science is settled. Carbon dioxide emissions – from cars, power plants, buildings, and other sources – are heating the Earth’s atmosphere.” He continued warning, “The planet has a fever.”

What if the fever is instead a cold plunge? As CNN reminded us earlier this year, “Record-breaking cold: Temperatures to plunge to as much as 50 degrees below normal.”

The Weather Channel posted on Facebook last week, “Record-breaking cold temperatures for the month of August provide many their first taste of fall.” What happened to global warming?

Let’s not focus on the last year or the last fifty years. Instead, let’s look at the past 600 million years. From this perspective, the story looks very different.

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, authored a policy paper in 2016 titled, “The positive impact of CO2 emissions on the survival of life on earth.” Note the organization he cofounded. This is not some far-right, anti-science, fascist, Nazi, white supremacist organization, as the left would characterize anyone questioning “settled” climate science. Since its founding in 1971, Greenpeace has promoted environmental activism.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/10/fact-checking-newsoms-clean-energy-claims/

In a recent guest op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, California Governor Newsom claimed that “Clean Energy Powers California’s Economic Growth,” a claim that is transparently false. Aggressive “clean energy” mandates, paired with perpetually escalating restrictions on conventional energy sources, are the reasons Californians pay the highest prices in America for gasoline and electricity, and nearly the highest prices of any major state for natural gas.

Along with ignoring the fact that affordable energy is fundamental to economic growth and California has the least affordable energy in America, Newsom makes grossly incorrect statements. In the subhead of his op-ed, he writes, “More than two-thirds of the state’s electricity is from sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal.” This isn’t even close to accurate.

The California Energy Commission reports in-state electricity production by source. The most recent data is for 2023, and in that year, wind, solar, and geothermal energy accounted for a mere 31 percent of California’s total in-state electricity production. Even when adding nuclear and hydroelectric power, California’s total “clean” energy only accounted for 54 percent of the electricity generated in the state.

Newsom goes on to write that “climate change has made our summers hotter,” and that 2024 was the warmest on record. He boasts that “rapid deployment of clean energy and battery storage” got Californians through the summer of 2024 without blackouts. This is a half-truth at best. As reported in CalMatters, a left-leaning site that covers California politics, in 2023, in order to “shore up California’s straining power grid,” Newsom delayed the planned closures of three natural gas-powered generating plants that together contribute 2.2 gigawatts to California’s electricity grid. In 2022, Newsom delayed the planned 2025 closure of California’s last major nuclear-powered generating plant, Diablo Canyon, preserving another 2.2 gigawatts of baseload electricity.

Furthermore, no fact check of Newsom’s WSJ op-ed would be complete without questioning his claim that 2024 was “the warmest on record.” This is something we hear all the time. It is a statement meant to foment fear and discourage dissenting opinions. But is it true? Los Angeles County, a place where an estimated 27 percent of all Californians live, has kept temperature records since 1878. If you plot the average annual temperature, you will see a trend suggesting that overall, in Los Angeles County, it is not quite three degrees Fahrenheit hotter in the 2020s than it was in the 1880s. The trend isn’t smooth. In the 1930s, average temperatures were comparable and in some years hotter than in the 2020s. But there’s a major factor that politicians and biased activists conveniently ignore: the urban heat island effect.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/09/09/another-crack-appears-in-the-global-warming-narrative/

Editor’s note: It is likely that by the time you read this editorial, the leftist thought police at Google will have deemed it “dangerous” and “misleading” — because it blasphemes the climate religion—and stripped its AdSense ads from the page. This is why we mounted our Kill the Ads campaign. It’s our small way of trying to stick it to Big Tech. Readers can help counter attempts to suppress our speech with a direct donation to I&I.

Al Gore famously warned that sea level rise caused by man’s use of fossil fuels was going to kill us. Barack Obama implied that he had magic powers that would control surging sea levels. A fresh study shows just how dishonest this pair and the many others who did their best to misinform the public have been.

Gore’s 2006 propaganda film told us to beware of sea levels rising by 20 feet, devastating New York and Florida. The uber-narcissistic Obama promised an adoring crowd that his nomination to be the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nominee “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” California Gov. Jerry Brown predicted a little more than a decade ago that collapsing glaciers would submerge both the Los Angeles and San Francisco international airports.

These of course are just three of many examples of alarmists, hacks, globalist busybodies, NASA eggheads, academic ideologues and true believers fear-mongering over sea-level rise.

Obama, no climate refugee he, was later roasted for buying oceanfront compounds in Martha’s Vineyard and Hawaii. The purchases clearly show he didn’t believe what he said – he was just another political hack appealing for votes and hoping to burnish a legacy before he even set foot in the White House.

But how can we know it’s just fear-mongering?

Actual science, not Gore’s junk variety, now tells us that “approximately 95% of the suitable locations” researchers looked at showed “no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise.” This “suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-energy-plan-2025-climate-change

New York’s recently released Draft 2025 Energy Plan is rooted in fantasy. The plan asserts that the Empire State’s electrification and zero-emissions obsession will reduce energy costs, fight climate change, and create over 60,000 net new jobs by 2035. In reality, while the plan won’t meaningfully affect the climate, it will devastate consumers and New York’s economy.

The plan asks New Yorkers to ignore the realities before their eyes—including surging energy costs. ConEd, the state’s largest electric and gas utility, has requested double-digit rate increases for its provision of electricity and natural gas, which will cost consumers an additional $2 billion annually. National Grid has filed for similar rate increases upstate.

Those requested hikes are solely for natural gas and electricity delivery. As more fossil-fuel-generating plants close in response to the state’s net-zero Climate Action Plan, wholesale electricity costs will continue to soar, as growing demand, driven by the state’s building- and vehicle-electrification mandates, outstrips supply.

The state’s climate plan also contains a litany of dubious targets and assumptions. For example, it commits the state to former Governor Cuomo’s goal of deploying 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035, despite that industry’s having sunk under its own bloated costs.

Elsewhere, the plan assumes that someone will somehow develop, commercialize, and install currently nonexistent electric generating technologies over the next 15 years. Specifically, it claims that someone will retrofit 17,000 megawatts of existing natural gas-fired generators—the equivalent of eight Indian Point nuclear plants—to burn pure hydrogen by 2040. The plan also assumes that the state will somehow manufacture enough “green” hydrogen using surplus wind and solar generation to fuel those plants and build an entirely new pipeline infrastructure to deliver hydrogen to them.

Even if developers created generators capable of burning pure hydrogen, the quantity of surplus wind and solar power generation needed to manufacture sufficient hydrogen to power those 17,000 megawatts is staggering. Producing enough energy to fuel even just the 10 percent of hours when electricity demand is highest would require building 13,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity, which would require an investment of between $25 billion and $65 billion. That doesn’t include financing costs. Nor does it include the cost of the hydrogen manufacturing facilities themselves.