Sorry, Fortune, Climate Change Is Hardly the Prime Influence on Sardine Fisheries

Fortune magazine published an article claiming that declining sardine fisheries and increased prices are due to climate change and the war in Iran. This is false. While warmer waters can drive sardine schools into cooler areas, this has always been the case and sardine stocks naturally fluctuate from year to year.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

Fortune magazine published an article claiming that declining sardine fisheries and increased prices are due to climate change and the war in Iran. This is false. While warmer waters can drive sardine schools into cooler areas, this has always been the case and sardine stocks naturally fluctuate from year to year. Recent ocean warming is also a multifaceted phenomena, and not just due to climate change. Also, overfishing, especially from countries that do not care about regulations and preservation of the fish stocks like China, is putting much greater pressure on fish stocks.

The article, “‘We’re facing a double whammy’: America’s hottest tinned fish snack is shrinking by nearly half thanks to climate change and war in Iran,” places climate change front and center to blame for the sardine fish catch dropping in recent years in places like Morocco.

An ocean fisheries researcher Fortune interviewed, Rashid Sumaila from the University of British Columbia, said that sardines “are very sensitive to climate change” and “follow the temperature.”

Blaming this on climate change is silly because of the way the media has primed the public to associate climate change with supposed human-caused long term global warming. “Climate change” does not impact ocean temperatures the same everywhere and hasn’t caused consistent yearly above-average sea temperatures either.

As explained in Climate at a Glance: Ocean Temperatures: It is true that global ocean temperature has, on average, increased since the early part of the 20th century, by just about 1.3°F, but multi-year patterns like ENSO drive ocean temperatures higher and lower depending on the phase, and even longer patterns like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) can shift temperatures over several decades. These are not human-caused, but rather natural patterns. Other shorter-term natural factors that are contributing to higher ocean temperatures and possibly impacting sardine stocks and movements are recent large El Nino cycles. In addition, evidence strongly suggests that regulations limiting emissions from ships has also played a role in recent ocean warming by letting more sunlight through to warm sea water – a human impact but not one tied to the long-term increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.

That sardines move with changing water temperatures doesn’t mean the fish are dying out, but rather moving away from the fishing zones of some countries. This is normal for sardines. Like birds, they migrate seasonally to stay in the temperature range they prefer, going north for the summer and moving south again when temperatures cool.

The article acknowledges that the fish are moving, not dying out, when they explain higher prices for sardines are exacerbated by higher fuel costs due to the war with Iran, and since fisherman “now have to travel farther to find [sardines], exactly as fuel becomes more expensive and the yield becomes less guaranteed.”

Fortune also correctly points out that “Government fuel subsidies make the underlying problem worse,” because “if you pay for fuel, that just makes people fish more than they would.”

Despite Portugal, Spain, and Morocco placing catch limits on sardines in order to protect fish stocks, illegal fishermen do not care.

A study from 2015 found that “overfishing exacerbates natural boom-and-bust cycles of the fish,” making it impossible for them to recover as quickly as they otherwise would. The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture report from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization says that sardines, “which represented about 33 percent of the total landings, was classified as overfished in 2023.” It also explained that catches of Pacific sardines “are strongly influenced by interannual environmental variability, particularly El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events.”

Fortune’s article only briefly mentions illegal international overfishing, in the process failing to name the country most responsible: China.

China’s distant-water fishing fleet is the largest in the world, with more than 3,000 fishing vessels that fish aggressively just outside the territorial waters  of other countries. The Chinese government subsidizes these fishing fleets. The Chinese Communist Party’s response to countries complaining about declining fish stocks and China’s role in it is to blame climate change.

A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article reports that near Ghana, “Chinese ships have exhausted small, sardine-like fish vital to coastal communities, according to local officials and conservationists.” In the same article, the Chinese Foreign Ministry deflects blame for its overharvest of squid by saying “the Chinese fleet isn’t responsible for the decrease in squid catches, pointing out that Peru’s own government has attributed the decline to changing ocean temperatures.”

Articles like this one in Fortune give China more cover for their activities.

The market for canned sardines is growing, especially as health fads focusing on high protein and healthy fats have become more popular. Their populations are dictated by natural boom-and-bust cycles, as nearly all small fish species demonstrate. Also, like other oceangoing migrating fish stocks, they are subject to and often harmed by overfishing especially during those bust cycles. Water temperature impacts where the fish are, and unfortunately when shallow coastal waters warm, sardines may be driven into the international waters that are famously overfished by the Chinese deep ocean commercial fishing fleet.

There is no justification for Fortune to attribute the up and down cycles and recent declines in sardine stocks to climate change, downplaying natural cycles, and more importantly, giving China’s illicit and uncontrolled fishing activity a pass in the process.

Nuclear waste storage ….. no big deal

Nuclear power will be the future.

There is no doubt about it.

Nuclear is the cleanest, greenest, cheapest, safest, energy source ever.

There is no doubt about that, no matter what anyone says.

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm

Nuclear power will be the future. There is no doubt about it. Nuclear is the cleanest, greenest, cheapest, safest, energy source ever. There is no doubt about that, no matter what anyone says. Also, just look at the energy density of sugar, coal, petrol, and uranium. Sugar contains about 20 megajoules per kilogram, coal 25, petrol 50, but uranium is 76,000,000. What this tells you is that you can carry your lifetime supply of electricity in a shopping packet, if you’re carrying uranium.

Let us face it, coal is going to be a primary energy source of the world for years to come. Stopping coal use is like shooting yourself in both feet with a machine gun. As time passes, rather rapidly, there’s no doubt that coal will give way to nuclear, for purely economic reasons. Certainly nothing to do with the myth of anthropogenic CO2 causing increased global warming. Meanwhile the Chinese are building new coal plants faster than the Western world is decommissioning theirs. The Chinese know what they are doing, and they are chasing their goal… of economic dominance.

Don’t burn banknotes

As coal gives way to nuclear power in the production of electricity, we should not stop using coal, but we should no longer burn it. Coal is composed of very valuable chemicals, so why burn them? Burning coal is something like burning banknotes instead of wood, to keep warm.

In South Africa we have the SASOL Company, which converts coal to petrol and diesel. About 1/3 of South Africa’s petrol and diesel comes from coal. The coal chemicals are also used to produce ladies’ cosmetics, aspirin, high-quality waxes, and more.

The ultimate answer is to use small nuclear reactors to drive the coal conversion plants.

The world’s consumption of electricity doubled over the past 25 years, and is set to double again in the next 25. In fact, it will double faster because more people are getting connected to electricity, and more and more electrical devices are coming into existence. So, forget about green extremist goals of reducing world energy consumption.

The most sensible route for doubling electricity consumption, on a world scale, is via nuclear. Electricity consumption is directly proportional to GDP, which in turn directly affects the take-home pay of citizens. Citizen wealth changes the nature of society.

Another Revolution is coming

Cast your mind back to the Industrial Revolution, of around 1760 to 1840. Abundant coal was linked to the development of steam engines, and iron production. Energy and engines led to deeper mining, mass textile production, and a host of other advances. So, the Industrial Revolution burst onto the scene and changed the world. A large adoption of nuclear power, together with AI, electronics, and massive scientific development will also change the world.

But let us return to nuclear, and the relentless anti-nuclear campaigns waged by the slogan-chanting greenies. One of their themes is; ‘what about the nuclear waste?’

Nuclear waste is no problem. Really. If you want a good night’s sleep, you can take a sleeping pill. If you take the entire bottle of pills, you will sleep really well, and never wake up. But people don’t usually do stupid things like that. Yes, without doubt a lot of nuclear radiation will kill you, if you are stupid. But small amounts of nuclear radiation are perfectly safe. Large amounts of nuclear radiation are also safe, when handled by professionals in a professional manner.

Why do the public somehow think that the Army can handle artillery ammunition in a safe, professional way, but somehow professional nuclear engineers can’t handle radioactive materials?

Does the Glacier worry you?

The radiation of concern is called Gamma radiation. It ‘shines’ like a light. Gamma rays are exactly the same as light, radio waves, X-Rays, or microwaves in the kitchen microwave oven. But the Gammas carry more energy than X-Rays, and so they can cause harm. The kitchen microwaves are safely contained inside the ‘box’ which is the microwave oven. When a radioactive object is put into a lead box the Gammas are safely contained in the box, and you can safely sit next to it and eat your lunch.

For long-term storage you put the box underground, and leave it there. Note that by international convention, no nuclear waste is ever dumped or thrown away. It is stored, like the gold bars at Fort Knox. The principle is that you can move the radioactive material at any time in the future. So, worrying about a glacier advancing in 100,000 years’ time is silly. When you see the glacier coming you have decades to move all your boxes.

A highly useful property of all radioactive materials is that they constantly advertise their presence. It is like a cricket in his hole in the lawn. His chirping tells you where he is. With a Geiger counter, even a radioactive pinhead is easy to find in your lawn. It calls you. But a lump of Arsenic is extremely difficult to find, because it hides. There is arsenic in advanced solar panels, but nobody panics about that.

Insignificant volumes

One huge advantage of nuclear is that there is so little nuclear fuel, so the resulting spent fuel is extremely small, unlike coal ash. The spent fuel is called High Level Waste (HLW). It is the really dangerous material, if you walk up to it. Then there is Intermediate Level Waste (ILW), which is things like pumps, pipes, and so on, which had radioactive material flowing through them. Finally, there is Low Level Waste (LLW) which is paper towels, lab coats, and items which were used in a radiation designated area, and could conceivably have some radioactive dust on them. All of these categories are packaged into drums and safely stored underground.

Nuclear waste is better handled than any other waste in the world. This is a positive spin-off legacy from all the exaggerated scare stories which have been generated by the anti-nuke lobby.

Nuclear people worldwide are very proud of what they do, and how they do it, and they do it well.

The big scare which has always been splashed in news media is if something explodes, then some of the radioactive material can be reduced to dust and scattered into the atmosphere. It then acts like any other dust, and blows with the wind, and then settles out. But remember the crickets in the lawn. If it were not radioactive you would not know where the dust was. You would not even know it was there. But even the dust ‘chirps’ its presence, and so the ‘chirp’ can be used to scare the public. Note that during the infamous Fukushima incident, not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation. Yet the popular news was full of scary stories of radiation spreading everywhere.

The nuclear waste repositories of the world are all perfectly able to safely store any radioactive material for centuries, just like Fort Knox stores its gold.

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a South African nuclear physicist who has been a CFACT Senior Advisor for over two decades. He is Chairman of Stratek Holdings, a nuclear project management company, and is past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). He has given both Congressional and Senate briefings in Washington DC. He has been guest speaker at over 20 US

Reality Check for PA’s Failed Green-Energy Mandates

Each month, Pennsylvania’s 6 million electricity customers—all facing rising bills—are charged for services of questionable value without knowing how much they are paying and, for most, that the charge even exists.

From The CO2 Coalition

By Gordon Tomb

Each month, Pennsylvania’s 6 million electricity customers—all facing rising bills—are charged for services of questionable value without knowing how much they are paying and, for most, that the charge even exists.

Enacted by the legislature in 2004, Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (AEPS) requires that 18 percent of an electricity seller’s offering consists of energy from sources like wind, solar, biomass, and other technologies deemed worthy of special treatment.

In 2025, this program, now in its third decade, cost customers more than $700 million. Although the amount each customer pays isn’t entirely visible on an electric bill, a household using 800 kilowatt-hours per month pays $4.11 every month at the 0.514 cents per kilowatt-hour compliance cost. While the charge for residential customers appears modest, AEPS’s lifetime cost of more than $3 billion amounts to a giant handout to special interests at the cost of everyday ratepayers.

Political opposition to AEPS, despite its significant burden, is sparse.

This is a stark contrast to another less-costly subsidy for green energy: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Costing $3.81 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2025, RGGI’s tax on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel plants costs less than AEPS’s $5.14 per megawatt-hour. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania withdrew from RGGI’s multi-state program last fall when Gov. Josh Shapiro agreed to drop his legal battle in favor of RGGI as part of the state budget deal. The original 2019 proposal to join RGGI rightly drew a firestorm of objections from Republican legislators and business and labor constituencies.

Six years of litigation over RGGI cratered investment in reliable energy, leading to today’s environment of energy scarcity and rising rates.

So, what accounts for the survival of one costly subsidy and the death of another?

AEPS came to fruition when prices were relatively stable, while Pennsylvania’s RGGI tax debate came at a time of skyrocketing prices and dwindling supply. In today’s environment, a new tax (i.e., RGGI) is far more vulnerable compared to an already established and codified one (i.e., AEPS). Plus, a divided legislature typically results in a stalemate on any new legislation, so old laws remain on the books—and the status quo marches on.

But AEPS is worth revisiting as the program’s costs are ballooning. Pennsylvanians’ prices rose more in the last five and a half years than in the previous 16 combined.

AEPS not only drives up your electricity bill but also fails to advance these politically preferred technologies beyond a tiny part of the energy mix. Pennsylvania’s share of electricity generation from renewables between 2013 and 2024 has plateaued at 4 percent—mainly because these sources require costly backup power and consume large amounts of land and materials to produce relatively little energy.

For these reasons—and more—leaders of the “green” movement are backing away from “decarbonization” commitments that have led to economic decline in places like Germany. Yet, Pennsylvania’s bureaucracy persists like an automaton ignorant of machine learning.

The latest AEPS annual report continues to promote “the realization of a net zero electricity grid by 2050.”

But that goal isn’t plausible when considering how inefficient these mandated sources are. Energy writer Robert Bryce explains the “law of power density,” showing how many units of energy a specific source produces compared to how many units it uses in its production. Wind and solar produce a 3.5:1 ratio, which is a pittance compared to coal (10:1), oil and natural gas (30:1), and nuclear (100:1).

Power density, for which these ratios are a measure, “helps us understand why wind and solar energy cannot, will not, ever be able to power our society,” says Bryce. “In addition to their incurable intermittency and dependence on the weather, they require too much land and other resources.”

These inconvenient truths should inspire skepticism of not only AEPS but also any proposal to expand the mandate. As part of his Lightning Plan, Governor Shapiro proposed a new spin on AEPS: the Pennsylvania Reliable Energy Sustainability Standard (PRESS). PRESS more than doubles the mandated percentage, requiring 50 percent of Pennsylvania’s electricity to come from similar sources by 2035. If enacted, Shapiro’s new mandate would result in $155 billion in added energy costs, doubling household electricity bills over the next decade.

Fortunately, PRESS failed to make it into this year’s state budget, sparing hard-working Pennsylvanians from paying even more in their monthly utility bills.

However, Pennsylvanians aren’t out of the woods. AEPS continues to drive up bills, and the looming threat of PRESS remains.

It is time for state leaders to prioritize affordability and allow technologies to stand on their own abilities to deliver low-cost, reliable energy.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy, September 2, 2026.

Gordon Tomb is Senior Advisor at the CO2 Coalition and senior fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation, a Pennsylvania free-market think tank.

From Early Irrigation to Urban Power: How Climate and Ancient Farming Practices Forged Sumerian Civilization

Sumerian civilization was one of the world’s earliest complex societies and is widely regarded as a cradle of civilization.

Prior agricultural practices in the region that became Sumer (southern Mesopotamia) developed over several millennia before the rise of full Sumerian city- states.

Sumerian civilization developed in a challenging arid environment in southern Mesopotamia (modern southern Iraq), where climate and water management were fundamental to its rise, flourishing, and later stresses.

AI generated by Grok

Sumerian civilization was one of the world’s earliest complex societies and is widely regarded as a cradle of civilization. It developed in southern Mesopotamia (modern- day southern Iraq), between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, roughly from the late 5th millennium BCE to about 1750 BCE.

Origins and Timeline

Predecessors: The region was first settled by Ubaid people (c. 6500- 4000 BCE), who developed irrigation agriculture, pottery, and early villages.

Sumerian emergence: By around 4000- 3500 BCE, during the Uruk period, true cities arose. The Sumerians (who called themselves the “black-headed people”) spoke a language isolate unrelated to surrounding Semitic or Indo-European languages.

Key periods:

  • Uruk period (c. 4000- 3100 BCE): Rise of the first cities.
  • Early Dynastic period (c. 2900- 2350 BCE): Independent city-states compete for power.
  • Akkadian Empire (c. 2334- 2154 BCE): Sargon of Akkad conquers Sumer.
  • Third Dynasty of Ur / Sumerian Renaissance (c. 2112- 2004 BCE): Brief revival under kings like Ur-Nammu and Shulgi.
  • Decline: After invasions by Gutians, Elamites, and Amorites, Sumerian political power ended around 2000–1750 BCE, though the culture and language continued as a scholarly and religious tradition.

Sumer consisted of independent city- states, each centered on a walled urban core with a temple (often a ziggurat) dedicated to a patron deity, controlling surrounding farmland and villages.

Major cities included:

  • Uruk — Often considered the world’s first true city; peak population possibly 40,000- 80,000.
  • Ur — Famous for its Royal Tombs and the well- preserved ziggurat.
  • Eridu — Mythologically regarded by the Sumerians as the first city.
  • Others: Kish, Lagash, Nippur, Umma, Larsa, and more.

The Sumerians are credited with numerous “firsts” in human history:

Writing — Cuneiform (wedge-shaped script on clay tablets), evolving from pictographs around 3500- 3200 BCE. Initially used for accounting, later for literature, law, and administration.

Cities and urbanism — Organized city planning, monumental architecture, and complex societies.

Irrigation and agriculture — Sophisticated canal systems that turned the floodplain into productive farmland (barley, wheat, dates, etc.).

The wheel — Including the potter’s wheel and wheeled vehicles.

Mathematics and timekeeping — Sexagesimal (base- 60) system still used for minutes, seconds, and degrees; early geometry and astronomy.

Law — Early legal codes (e.g., reforms of Urukagina; later the Code of Ur-Nammu).

Literature — Epic of Gilgamesh (one of the oldest surviving literary works), myths, hymns, and proverbs.

Other innovations — Sailboats, bronze metallurgy, schools (edubba), bureaucracy, and large- scale trade networks.

Society was hierarchical: kings (initially priest- kings), priests, scribes, free citizens, and slaves.

Religion was polytheistic; each city had a patron god or goddess (e.g., Inanna/Ishtar at Uruk, Nanna at Ur). Temples served as economic and administrative centers. Ziggurats were massive, stepped temple platforms.

Sumerian culture profoundly influenced later Mesopotamian civilizations (Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian).

Many elements—writing, urban life, legal concepts, myths (including flood stories), and administrative practices—spread widely and shaped the foundations of Western and Near Eastern civilization. Sumerian continued as a classical language of learning long after it ceased to be spoken.

In short, the Sumerians transformed a challenging riverine environment into the world’s first urban, literate civilization and laid many of the groundwork for complex societies that followed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Prior agricultural practices in the region that became Sumer (southern Mesopotamia) developed over several millennia before the rise of full Sumerian city- states.

These earlier Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures laid the foundation for the intensive irrigation -based farming that supported Sumerian civilization.

Agriculture began in the Fertile Crescent (including the Levant, Zagros Mountains, and northern Mesopotamia) around 10,000- 9,000 BCE. Early farmers domesticated:

  • Crops: Einkorn and emmer wheat, barley, lentils, peas, and later flax.
  • Animals: Sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs.

Initial farming was rain- fed (dry- farming) in highland and foothill zones where rainfall was sufficient. People used simple tools such as sickles with flint blades, grinding stones, and the hoe.

Agriculture gradually spread southward into the drier alluvial plains of Mesopotamia:

Hassuna culture (northern Mesopotamia, c. 6500- 6000 BCE): Rain- fed farming villages with cereal cultivation and animal herding.

Samarra culture (central Mesopotamia, c. 6000- 5500 BCE): One of the earliest clear examples of irrigation agriculture. Sites like Choga Mami and Tell es-Sawwan show evidence of small canals and crops that required supplemental water. This was a critical innovation for moving into lower- rainfall zones.

Halaf culture (northern Mesopotamia and beyond, c. 6000- 5400 BCE): Primarily rain-fed farming communities with distinctive pottery; focused on cereals, legumes, sheep, and goats.

Ubaid culture (southern Mesopotamia, c. 6500/5900- 4000 BCE, expanding northward later): The most direct predecessor of Sumer. Ubaid people settled the southern alluvial plain and marshes. They developed more systematic irrigation, combined cereal farming with date-palm cultivation, and raised cattle. Villages grew into larger settlements (e.g., Eridu, Tell al- Ubaid), with temples that foreshadowed later Sumerian religious architecture. By the late Ubaid period, farmers used early forms of the ard (scratch plow) and began exploiting secondary animal products (milk, wool, traction).

Key Agricultural Developments Before Sumer:

Irrigation: Started small-scale in the Samarra period and became more organized under the Ubaid culture. Early systems used simple canals and water- lifting devices to bring river water to fields.

Tools and techniques: Transition from hoe to the simple ard plow (pulled by animals). Use of sickles, threshing tools, and later more efficient seed- sowing methods.

Secondary products: By the 6th- 5th millennia BCE, animals were used not just for meat but also for milk, wool, and labor (plowing and transport).

Crop and animal mix: Emphasis on drought- tolerant barley, wheat, and legumes, plus date palms in the south. Herding of sheep, goats, and increasingly cattle.

Settlement patterns: Shift from small villages to larger, more permanent communities that required organized labor for canal maintenance and field management.

These practices transformed the challenging southern Mesopotamian environment, characterized by low rainfall, seasonal flooding, and marshy areas, into productive farmland.

The Ubaid agricultural system, in particular, provided the surplus and organizational experience that enabled the explosive urban growth of the Uruk period (c. 4000- 3100 BCE) and the emergence of classic Sumerian civilization.

In short, Sumerian agriculture was not invented from scratch; it refined and scaled up techniques of irrigation, plowing, and mixed farming that had already been developing for over 2,000 years in the wider Mesopotamian region.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Sumerian civilization developed in a challenging arid environment in southern Mesopotamia (modern southern Iraq), where climate and water management were fundamental to its rise, flourishing, and later stresses.

Southern Mesopotamia is a hot, semi- arid to arid plain with very low rainfall (typically under 250 mm per year).

Agriculture was possible only because of the perennial Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which are fed by rainfall and snowmelt in the distant Taurus and Zagros mountains.

Local precipitation was insufficient for reliable rain- fed farming, so society depended almost entirely on river water and irrigation.

The broader Holocene climate showed a long- term drying trend after the wetter Early Holocene.

Southern Mesopotamia remained arid, but river flow and sea- level changes strongly shaped the landscape.

Recent research emphasizes the role of tides and delta dynamics in the early stages (Ubaid and Uruk periods, roughly 6500- 3100 BCE).

Around 7000- 5000 years ago, the Persian Gulf extended farther inland. Twice-daily tides pushed freshwater up the lower rivers, creating a reliable, low- effort water source.

Early communities could use short canals for high- yield irrigation of cereals and date palms without massive infrastructure. This “tidal irrigation” likely helped jump- start intensive agriculture and population growth that led to the world’s first cities.

As the rivers-built deltas and the coastline advanced, tidal influence declined.

Societies shifted to larger- scale fluvial (river- based) irrigation systems, requiring greater organization, labor coordination, and eventual state- level control, key features of classic Sumerian city- states.

Climate Challenges and Later Impacts:

Increasing aridity: A gradual drying trend during the Middle to Late Holocene increased dependence on carefully managed irrigation. Soil salinization from long- term irrigation also reduced productivity over time.

4.2 kiloyear event (around 2200 BCE / 4.2 ka): A major rapid climate change episode of increased aridity and cooling affected much of the Near East and beyond.

It is strongly linked to the collapse of the Akkadian Empire (which had unified Sumer and northern Mesopotamia).

Proxy records show reduced rainfall, lower river flow, increased dust, and agricultural stress.

Northern rain- fed areas were hit hardest, leading to site abandonments and southward migration; southern irrigation- based cities also faced difficulties.

This event contributed to political fragmentation and the end of the Akkadian period, after which Sumerian culture experienced a brief renaissance under the Third Dynasty of Ur before further decline.

Climate was not the sole cause of political changes, internal factors such as over-irrigation, soil degradation, warfare, and administrative issues also played roles, but environmental stress amplified societal vulnerabilities.

Climate constrained and enabled Sumerian civilization:

  • Aridity made large- scale irrigation essential, driving technological innovation, labor organization, and the growth of complex institutions (temples, palaces, bureaucracy).
  • Reliable river water (and early tidal influence) supported agricultural surpluses that underpinned urbanization, writing, and monumental architecture.
  • Climatic fluctuations, especially the 4.2 ka aridification, contributed to crises, migrations, and political collapses.

In essence, the Sumerians thrived by mastering a difficult climate through water management, but they remained vulnerable to shifts in rainfall, river regimes, and long- term environmental change.

This interplay between climate, hydrology, and human adaptation is a central theme in understanding the world’s first urban civilization.

“You are being so Disrespectful” – Aussie PM No Show Climate Conference Edition

People should respect the handful of leaders who attended, not point at all the empty seats.

Pre-COP will be held in Fiji and Tuvalu in early October before COP31 gets underway in November.

AI generated by Grok

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

People should respect the handful of leaders who attended, not point at all the empty seats.

1.5C global warming breach likely as Australia defends Pacific climate talks

By climate reporter Romy Stephens and and foreign affairs reporter Stephen Dziedzic

The prime minister has defended the number of leaders attending a high-profile climate meeting in the Pacific Islands, as a United Nations report warns the world will breach the 1.5C global warming benchmark within the next five years.

The federal government had initially wanted world leaders to attend pre-COP next month, ahead of the main climate talks in Türkiye in November.

…

Reports said Australia was struggling to convince leaders outside the Pacific to attend a special meeting in Tuvalu, before Fiji’s foreign minister, Sakiasi Ditoka, gave the first public account of those going.

He said Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Thailand, Maldives and Timor-Leste had so far agreed to send leaders to the event, and Germany, Mexico and South Korea will send ministers.

…

The prime minister also voiced his displeasure with the line of questioning.

“You are being so disrespectful to the Pacific leaders who are here,” he said.

“We need to actually have some respect for the process and respect for our Pacific leaders, and Australia has an absolute interest in engaging with the Pacific.”

…Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-02/global-warming-breach-likely-as-albanese-defends-pre-cop-meeting/107108178

What can I say? I can’t believe they’re still pushing forward with this diplomatic embarrassment. I wish I had the time to attend in person, I’m sure it’s even funnier to watch up close.

This failed climate conference, if anyone bothers to remember, will stand in history as the turning point when national leaders stopped even pretending they care about climate change.

2026 Abundant Arctic Ice in August

August is significant because it is the last month that NH ice extent declines. Those familar with the datasets know that March monthly average is taken as the annual maximum ice extent, and September monthly average serves as the annual minimum.

From Science Matters

By  Ron Clutz

The chart above from DMI shows why Arctic ice melted more slowly than average. This year the daily mean temperature never went above freezing, From now on it will only grow colder.  August is significant because it is the last month that NH ice extent declines.  Those familar with the datasets know that March monthly average is taken as the annual maximum ice extent, and September monthly average serves as the annual minimum. Importantly both months are neutral, i.e. the ice extent values are nearly the same at the month start and end.  All the melting occurs April to August, all the freezing October to February.

[ It reminds me what a Saskatchewan grain farmer told me: “Around here we only have AAA farmers”. I asked what he meant and he replied: “April to August and then Arizona.”]

The arctic ice extents are now reported through August 31, 2026, and as noted previously the wavy polar vortex had hampered ice formation with incursions of warmer southern air into the Arctic circle. This factor receded in May and June, with July extents closing the gap with the averages. August ends with ice extents well above the 20-year average. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) goes through the Russian shelf seas of Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi seas on the way to Bering Strait in Beaufort Sea.

The image from August 31 shows the Arctic Ocean core is still solid, while the Eurasian NSR now has open water on the left vertical side, including passages through Laptev (top left) and Chukchi (bottom Left). As usual in August, Hudson Bay (bottom right) is full open water, as is Baffin Bay (middle right). At this point Canadian Archipelago has opened up the eastern end of the NW passage but still has extensive fast ice in Beaufort Sea (bottom center). Canadian Ice Service latest conditions along the Alaskan coast include an ice warning for ships:

The chart below shows the 20-year August averages for Arctic ice extents, along with 2026, 2025 and 2007 as well as SII v.4. Note that on average during this period 1.9M km2 of ice extent is lost. In August, MASIE was above average the last 3 weeks, showing considerable surplus ice end of August. SII v.4 continues to greatly underestimate Arctic ice extent, ending this period ~0.5M km2 lower than MASIE, or half a Wadham in deficit.

The table below shows the distibution of ice extents on day 243 across regions of the Arctic ocean.

Region2026243Day 243 Ave2026-Ave.20072432026-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere532073649602553604814827899492837
 (1) Beaufort_Sea73491357374116117268833846574
 (2) Chukchi_Sea424517290417134100123559300958
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea369883370301-417311369572
 (4) Laptev_Sea31682817498714184027325043578
 (5) Kara_Sea647146663-40192104111-97641
 (6) Barents_Sea015154-151549657-9657
 (7) Greenland_Sea142412164671-22259344052-201641
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence3610529325678037456-1352
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago3159212972081871326315452766
 (10) Hudson_Bay1620010-1999440797-40781
 (11) Central_Arctic29725842976914-4330294195630628

The table shows an overall surplus of 360k km2 or 7%, and almost a half wadham greater than 2007. Many regions are close to or above the 20-year average. The seas of Laptev, Chukchi and Beaufort are in surplus. The only sizeable deficit is in  Greenland Sea. Bering and Okhotsk seas are left off the list since they are open water now as usual.

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring ice and snow extents.

210- Million- Year- Old Dinosaur Unearthed from a Houseboat Expedition Is Zimbabwe’s Fifth Named Species

Phylogenetic analyses place it in the clade Unaysauridae, a group of early sauropodomorph dinosaurs restricted (so far) to the Late Triassic of Gondwana.

The Late Paleozoic Ice Age (LPIA), also called the Late Paleozoic Icehouse or (formerly) the Karoo Ice Age, was the longest and most extensive icehouse interval of the Phanerozoic Eon. It lasted roughly 100- 110 million years, from the Late Devonian (~360 Ma) to the Late Permian (~255 Ma), with peak glaciation in the Carboniferous and Early Permian

AI generated by Grok

Musango matusadonaensis (or simply Musango), a new species of early sauropodomorph dinosaur from Zimbabwe’s Lake Kariba area.

It lived about 210 million years ago in the Late Triassic (Norian stage), when dinosaurs were spreading but had not yet become dominant land animals.

This bipedal early relative of later giant long- necked forms like Diplodocus was relatively lightly built, roughly 4.5 meters (15 feet) long and about 222 kg (around 490 pounds, comparable to a large pig). It was nearly fully grown (estimated age ~8 years) when it died and shows evidence of having recovered from a serious injury or infection. Its skull is missing, but it was likely a herbivore or omnivore that fed on plants along rivers and streams.

The partial skeleton (vertebrae, ribs, limb bones, and parts of the hip and shoulder) was excavated in 2018 from the Pebbly Arkose Formation near the shore of Lake Kariba (near Matusadona National Park/Musango Island) in northern Zimbabwe.

It comes from the same rock unit as the previously named Musankwa sanyatiensis (announced earlier from the same expeditions), indicating diverse dinosaur ecosystems in the region rather than a uniform fauna across southern Africa.

The discovery method was unusual: a joint team of Zimbabwean, South African, and British paleontologists conducted expeditions in 2017 and 2018 from a houseboat/riverboat (a floating base/lab) on the lake.

This was necessary because the site is in a remote national park with dangerous wildlife (elephants, hippos, etc.), where camping is restricted and road access is limited. They used smaller boats to reach the shoreline exposures.

The species name references the local Shona word “musango” (roughly “living in the bush”) and the Matusadona area; the earlier Musankwa was named after the houseboat itself and a nearby river.

It is only the fifth dinosaur species formally named from Zimbabwe. The formal description appeared in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology (around late July 2026), with coverage continuing into September 2026. Researchers view finds like this as the “tip of the iceberg” for Africa’s understudied fossil record and plan further work in the area.

In short, the headline matches a real recent paleontological announcement highlighting both a scientifically interesting early sauropodomorph and the practical challenges (and creative solutions) of fieldwork in a remote African lake setting.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Phylogenetic analyses place it in the clade Unaysauridae, a group of early sauropodomorph dinosaurs restricted (so far) to the Late Triassic of Gondwana.

Musango is recovered as the sister taxon to the sympatric Zimbabwean form Musankwa sanyatiensis (from the same Pebbly Arkose Formation).

The broader Unaysauridae also includes Unaysaurus and Macrocollum (from Brazil, South America), plus Pradhania (from India). Some analyses show variable internal relationships among these taxa, but the overall grouping is consistently Gondwanan and Late Triassic (Norian) in age.

This supports the idea of a short- lived but geographically widespread Southern Hemisphere clade. Close morphological similarities (and shared derived features) with these relatives indicate that early sauropodomorphs could disperse across large distances while Africa, South America, India, and other landmasses remained connected within the southern portion of Pangaea (Gondwana).

During the Late Triassic (~210 million years ago), continuous land connections across Gondwana allowed faunal interchange. The presence of closely related unaysaurids in what Zimbabwe, Brazil, and India are now consistent with this.

Some popular or secondary accounts also note affinities or comparisons involving South African material, though the formal description emphasizes that no dinosaur taxa are currently shared between the Triassic deposits of Zimbabwe (Mid-Zambezi Basin) and the classic main Karoo Basin of South Africa. This actually strengthens the emerging picture of regional provincialism (distinct local ecosystems) within a still-connected supercontinent, rather than a completely uniform southern African fauna.

In short, Musango adds evidence that early dinosaurs (and specifically this lineage of bipedal sauropodomorphs) were capable of wide geographic ranges across joined continents, while also highlighting that local environmental differences produced more diverse, regionally distinct communities than previously assumed.

This fits the larger pattern of Gondwanan dinosaur biogeography during the rise of the group in the Late Triassic.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Late Paleozoic Ice Age (LPIA), also called the Late Paleozoic Icehouse or (formerly) the Karoo Ice Age, was the longest and most extensive icehouse interval of the Phanerozoic Eon. It lasted roughly 100- 110 million years, from the Late Devonian (~360 Ma) to the Late Permian (~255 Ma), with peak glaciation in the Carboniferous and Early Permian.

It was not a single continuous glaciation but a dynamic series of discrete glacial episodes (lasting ~1- 8 million years or longer) separated by warmer interglacial or ice-minimum intervals of similar duration. Ice centers shifted diachronously as the southern supercontinent Gondwana drifted across the South Pole:

  • Early phases began in western South America (Andean basins) in the Late Devonian- Early Carboniferous.
  • Ice expanded eastward across Africa, Antarctica, India, and into Australia.
  • Major peaks occurred in the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian, ~315 Ma) and Early Permian (Cisuralian/Sakmarian, ~295 Ma).
  • Final alpine- style glaciers persisted longest in eastern Australia, disappearing by the late Wuchiapingian (~255 Ma).

Evidence includes widespread glacial deposits (tillites, diamictites, dropstones, striated pavements, and glacial landforms) across Gondwana, notably the thick Dwyka Group in the Karoo Basin of southern Africa and the Itararé Group in Brazil’s Paraná Basin.

Primary drivers included:

  • Low atmospheric CO₂ — Levels dropped to some of the lowest of the Phanerozoic (possibly near or below modern values at times), largely due to the expansion of land plants (which buried organic carbon in vast coal swamps) and enhanced silicate weathering from mountain building (e.g., the Variscan/Hercynian orogeny during Pangaea assembly).
  • Paleogeography — Gondwana’s position over the South Pole provided high- latitude land for ice nucleation; the assembly of Pangaea altered ocean circulation, continental weathering, and climate belts.
  • Secondary factors: Orbital (Milankovitch) cycles influenced shorter- term ice- volume fluctuations; tectonic uplift created highlands favorable for glaciers.

Oxygen levels were correspondingly high, supporting large arthropods and other fauna in the Carboniferous.

Effects and Impacts:

  • Sea level — Large glacioeustatic fluctuations (tens of meters or more) produced cyclic sedimentary sequences (cyclothems) in low- latitude basins, alternating marine and non- marine deposits.
  • Climate — Strong equator- to- pole temperature gradients; low- latitude regions experienced monsoonal or seasonal climates linked to high- latitude ice volume. Equatorial areas saw “everwet” conditions during some glacial phases, shifting toward more arid or seasonal patterns as ice waned.
  • Biosphere — Influenced the distribution of coal- forming forests, marine biotas, and terrestrial ecosystems. The icehouse– greenhouse transition at the end of the LPIA set the stage for the warmer, more arid climates of the Late Permian and Triassic.
  • Landscape — Glacial erosion shaped significant topography (e.g., in East Antarctica and southern Africa), some of which is still preserved today after burial and later exhumation.

The LPIA ended gradually through the Middle- Late Permian as Gondwana drifted away from the pole, CO₂ levels rose (partly due to reduced weathering and changes in plant carbon sequestration), and ice sheets contracted. By the Late Permian, Earth had shifted into a greenhouse state that persisted into the Triassic, the climate backdrop for the early dinosaurs and the ecosystems discussed in prior context (including those of southern Gondwana where Musango later lived).

The LPIA is particularly significant as the only major icehouse- to- greenhouse transition recorded while complex terrestrial ecosystems (including forests and tetrapods) were already established, offering a deep- time analog for understanding long- term climate dynamics and feedback.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Pangaean climate shifts refer to the major changes in global and regional climate that occurred while Earth’s continents were assembled into the supercontinent Pangaea (roughly late Carboniferous to mid- Jurassic, ~335- 170 million years ago). These shifts were driven by the unique geography of a vast landmass, fluctuating greenhouse-gas levels, volcanism, orbital cycles, and the eventual breakup of the supercontinent.

Pangaea stretched nearly from pole to pole and was surrounded by the enormous Panthalassa ocean, with the Tethys Sea as a large eastern embayment. This configuration produced:

  • Extreme continentality: Hot summers and cold winters in the vast interior, with limited ocean moderation.
  • A broad arid belt across low- to- mid latitudes (especially the continental interior), one of the most extensive desert systems in Earth history.
  • The Pangaean megamonsoon: Intense seasonal wind reversals driven by strong land- sea temperature contrasts. Summer monsoons brought heavy rains to coastal and equatorial regions facing Tethys, while winters were dry. The megamonsoon intensified as Pangaea reached its maximum size in the Triassic.

Overall, the climate was a greenhouse (“hothouse”) world with no permanent polar ice caps for most of the time, though high latitudes experienced cooler, more temperate conditions suitable for forests.

Key Climate Shifts Through Time

Late Carboniferous–Early Permian (~320–280 Ma)
Assembly of Pangaea was underway. Equatorial regions were initially wetter (supporting extensive coal forests), but progressive aridification occurred as mountain ranges (Central Pangaean Mountains) created rain shadows and low-latitude seaways closed. The Late Paleozoic Ice Age still influenced southern Gondwana.

Middle–Late Permian
Climates warmed and dried further. Deserts expanded in tropical/subtropical areas. Seasonal rainfall increased in some regions, but overall aridity grew.

Permian–Triassic transition (~252 Ma)
A dramatic shift into extreme hothouse conditions, triggered primarily by massive Siberian Traps volcanism. Huge releases of CO₂ (and possibly methane) caused rapid global warming, ocean anoxia, acidification, and intensified aridity in many mid-latitude areas. Tropical sea- surface temperatures may have reached lethal levels (~40 °C) in the Early Triassic. Vegetation collapse reduced carbon sequestration, helping sustain high CO₂ and super- greenhouse conditions for several million years. This interval coincides with the end-Permian mass extinction.

Early–Middle Triassic
Continued hot, dry conditions with a prolonged “coal gap” (limited forests). Recovery was stepwise. Climatic oscillations occurred, with intermittent rainfall possibly linked to a strengthening megamonsoon. Polar regions remained relatively mild.

Late Triassic
The megamonsoon reached peak intensity. Three broad climatic regions developed: arid interiors, more humid coastal/monsoonal zones, and higher- latitude temperate belts. Climate was strongly seasonal and non-zonal (not strictly latitude-controlled in the usual way).
Notable events include:

  • The Carnian Pluvial Episode (~234–232 Ma): A multi-pulse interval of increased global humidity and rainfall linked to Wrangellia large igneous province volcanism and carbon- cycle perturbations. This temporarily expanded lakes, wetlands, and hygrophytic (moisture-loving) plants, with biotic turnovers.
  • Later cooling and aridification episodes, including the Rhaetian Cool Interval.
  • Orbital (Milankovitch) forcing produced ~10,000- and ~20,000-year cycles that influenced lake levels and precipitation, creating latitudinal climate zones that sorted faunas (e.g., different tetrapod assemblages in humid vs. arid belts).

Jurassic onward (breakup phase)
Fragmentation increased continental runoff and silicate weathering, drawing down atmospheric CO₂. Climates became wetter overall, seasonal contrasts decreased in many regions, and the extreme interior aridity diminished. Dryland coverage, which had been high (~50- 60% of land during peak Pangaea), declined significantly by the Cretaceous.

Drivers of the Shifts:

  • Paleogeography: Supercontinent size and configuration controlled moisture transport, monsoons, and the extent of arid interiors. Breakup reversed many of these effects.
  • Greenhouse gases: Volcanism (Siberian Traps, Wrangellia, CAMP) and reduced plant- driven carbon sequestration raised CO₂; weathering and organic burial lowered it.
  • Orbital cycles: Modulated precipitation and seasonality on shorter timescales.
  • Feedback: Vegetation loss amplified warming; ice- albedo and ocean circulation effects played secondary roles.

These climate shifts strongly influenced ecosystems, favoring drought- adapted plants and animals in arid interiors, enabling provincial (regionally distinct) faunas despite the continuous landmass, and creating the environmental backdrop for the rise of dinosaurs in the Late Triassic.

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for August 2026: +0.68 deg. C

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August 2026 was +0.68 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the July 2026 value of +0.48 deg. C. It appears the effects of the strengthening major El Nino event is beginning to appear in the global average tropospheric temperature, with an August temperature anomaly of +0.9 deg. C in the tropics.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

September 2nd, 2026 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August 2026 was +0.68 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the July 2026 value of +0.48 deg. C. It appears the effects of the strengthening major El Nino event is beginning to appear in the global average tropospheric temperature, with an August temperature anomaly of +0.9 deg. C in the tropics. This month I’ve added a plot of tropical temperatures (below).

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through August 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 32 months (record highs are in red).

YearMonGlobeNHemSHemTropicUS48ArcticAust.Can.
2024Jan+0.80+1.02+0.57+1.20-0.19+0.40+1.12+0.97
2024Feb+0.88+0.94+0.81+1.16+1.31+0.85+1.16+2.45
2024Mar+0.88+0.96+0.80+1.25+0.22+1.05+1.34+1.12
2024Apr+0.94+1.12+0.76+1.15+0.86+0.88+0.54+1.39
2024May+0.77+0.77+0.78+1.20+0.04+0.20+0.52+0.67
2024June+0.69+0.78+0.60+0.85+1.36+0.63+0.91+0.19
2024July+0.73+0.86+0.61+0.96+0.44+0.56-0.07+1.15
2024Aug+0.75+0.81+0.69+0.74+0.40+0.88+1.75+1.36
2024Sep+0.81+1.04+0.58+0.82+1.31+1.48+0.98
2024Oct+0.75+0.89+0.60+0.63+1.89+0.81+1.09+0.89
2024Nov+0.64+0.87+0.40+0.53+1.11+0.79+1.00+1.61
2024Dec+0.61+0.75+0.47+0.52+1.41+1.12+1.54+1.65
2025Jan+0.45+0.70+0.21+0.24-1.07+0.74+0.48+1.04
2025Feb+0.50+0.55+0.45+0.26+1.03+2.10+0.87-0.35
2025Mar+0.57+0.73+0.41+0.40+1.24+1.23+1.20+0.80
2025Apr+0.61+0.76+0.46+0.36+0.81+0.85+1.21+0.45
2025May+0.50+0.45+0.55+0.30+0.15+0.75+0.98+0.81
2025June+0.48+0.48+0.47+0.30+0.80+0.05+0.39-0.22
2025July+0.36+0.49+0.23+0.45+0.32+0.40+0.53-0.23
2025Aug+0.39+0.39+0.39+0.16-0.06+0.82+0.11+0.62
2025Sep+0.53+0.56+0.49+0.35+0.38+0.77+0.30+2.44
2025Oct+0.53+0.52+0.55+0.24+1.12+1.42+1.67+2.59
2025Nov+0.43+0.59+0.27+0.24+1.32+0.78+0.36+1.47
2025Dec+0.30+0.45+0.15+0.19+2.10+0.32+0.37-1.86
2026Jan+0.35+0.51+0.19+0.09+0.30+1.40+0.95+1.17
2026Feb+0.39+0.54+0.23+0.03+1.91-0.48+0.73+0.32
2026Mar+0.38+0.33+0.42+0.07+3.74-0.48+1.14-3.17
2026Apr+0.39+0.43+0.34+0.23+1.20+0.30+0.70-0.89
2026May+0.53+0.46+0.60+0.58+0.21+0.34+0.10+0.21
2026June+0.46+0.54+0.38+0.57+0.64+1.01+0.38+0.99
2026July+0.48+0.68+0.27+0.85+1.14+0.53-0.22+0.78
2026August+0.68+0.76+0.59+0.90+0.60+0.80+0.39+0.71
YearMonGlobeNHemSHemTropicUS48ArcticAust.Can.

Time Series Plots for Tropics, USA48, Canada, and Australia

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for August, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here. John officially retired with emeritus professor status on July 1, 2026, and is now working as a part-time employee of UAH.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere

Mid-Troposphere

Tropopause

Lower Stratosphere

Betsy “Code Green” Rosenberg: Emotional Climatism

“It is a classic notion on the left in general, and of environmentalist zealots in particular,” noted Thomas Sowell, “that no one can disagree with them unless they are either uniformed or dishonest.” A salient example of this came with comments to a social media post by Laura Clarke, CEO of Client Earth.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Rob Bradley the freedom to lie about our very real #climateemergency should be outlawed for crimes against nature- aka ecocide—as well as crimes against humanity.” (Rosenberg to Bradley. August 31, 2026)

“Please She/Her Rosenberg. Don’t assume, debate. Don’t pretend, research. Check the emotions and politics at the door and open your mind. There is good news about climate and energy if you are suffering from ‘climate anxiety’.” (below)

“It is a classic notion on the left in general, and of environmentalist zealots in particular,” noted Thomas Sowell, “that no one can disagree with them unless they are either uniformed or dishonest.” A salient example of this came with comments to a social media post by Laura Clarke, CEO of Client Earth, who wrote:

Today’s news from New Zealand is a significant setback for climate accountability. The Government has passed legislation banning climate tort claims, removing a legal avenue that communities may use to seek accountability for climate harms and preventing courts from considering these cases.

This is particularly concerning given that climate change is already imposing significant costs on people, communities and public finances…. I am deeply disappointed by this decision. It sends the message that the interests of major polluters deserve greater protection than the rights of communities seeking to hold them accountable.

I commented: “But great news for investors, consumers, and economic gains. We cannot sue each other for using the best energies!”

Then came this reply from Betsy Rosenberg, self-described as

“She/Her … CODE GREEN HOST on YouTube channel @betsyrosenberginterviews, Environmental Journalist, Climate Commentator, Green Personality, Author, Writer, Video/Audio Content Creator. Belvedere Tiburon, California” [1]

She did not confess to being rude, arrogant, condescending, and insulting. And inaccurate. She is out of her league when it comes to substantive, scholarly debate about the physical science, politics, and economics of anthropogenic climate change. [2] Judge for yourself from this exchange.

Rosenberg: There’s no great news on a dying planet, even for those motivated by money and power.

Bradley: Money and power? That describes the Climate Industrial Complex and those who want to be the “experts” to use government to plan for the rest of us. The planet is not “dying” but thriving, helped by CO2 greening. Check your time-series data for each weather extreme to quell “climate anxiety.” Statism is the foe of human betterment, including the all pain-no gain of climate mitigation policies.

Rosenberg: Sounds like you are a proud member of DIC, the Denial Information Complex, and delusional to think CO2 is making our planet and extreme weather occurrences better. Go ask the thousands of Americans who have lost everything in these worsening “unprecedented” disasters.

Bradley: Drop the emotionalism please. The ad hominem too. Please rely on time-series data and not “the latest” in your mind. Hurricanes are a major threat where I live. Check out this year and last for a fact check. Should I conclude that “climate change” reduces hurricanes? Well, maybe yes …

Rosenberg: “Excuse me I was mistaken. You are not merely a member of the Denial Industrial Complex but you are one of its founders!! If anyone is wondering what I mean just google Institute of Energy Research. Highly biased pro fossil-fuel, right wing…lies.

And as for my “emotionalism” it is nothing compared to the emotions of poor family members who lost their little girls in last year’s record flooding at Camp Mystic. I lived in Texas Hill Country (for the last 7 years) and the denial of climate science and our current reality due to the unchecked burning of fossil fuels for nearly 2 centuries is what contributed to the loss of more than 100 souls, including the 7-year-old camper who has never been found. By ignoring our new weather-on-steroids-world Texas officials—from Abbott and Cruz down to local officials—do not take proper precautions. Given the history of flash floods on the Guadalupe River they should never have put kids in cabins right on the water! And if camp owners had been more climate aware they would have known it’s not their father’s flash floods, and taken preventive action, like evacuating! This horrific tragedy should never have happened, yet only one example of the suffering and grief caused by extreme weather.”

Bradley: More emotion and ad hominem. No, IER is a classical-liberal think tank that is fuel neutral. Consumers decide, with government neutral. Do your homework!! Read the ‘About’ section on our website…

Bradley: No, the great flood of July 4, 2025 was the same as that in 1932, but the population and timing were different. This is physical science. On the loss of life, the investigations have/are establishing culpability that is human error, not “climate change.”

Bradley: Do you live in the Texas Hill Country or California? I live in Hunt, Texas and received the most damage next to the camps. So careful with your appeal to (your own) authority. Also, drop the politics. We are debating climate science and causality, but you have a ‘hate on’ toward critics of climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. Control your emotions please…

Rosenberg: I lived in Bee Cave, TX for 7 years and the denial of climate change by ALL Republicans is shameful and regressive. Wake up and smell the carbon! All you Koch-funded science deniers are being proven wrong more each day with the increasingly destructive “unprecedented” floods, fires, heat—exactly what was predicted as ppm’s are 432 and rising. You can call me an emotional alarmist all you want. Anyone who is paying attention—especially those with kids and grandkids— should be alarmed by whats happening AND very emotional given predictions of worst case scenarios coming true!

Bradley: Still more emotionalism and ad hominem? Are your counter arguments to climate exaggeration and energy retrogression that weak? If you are a fan of wind, solar, and battery industrialization, or like exaggerating to try to get people’s attention, I am not impressed. Neither will be the open-minded.

Your excuse of emotionalism “given predictions of worst case scenarios coming true!” is peculiar given the IPCC’s recent rejection of RCP 8.5. Climate models are not science; CO2 science is.

Final Comment

The exchange continued along the same lines: emotionalism and attacks in place of scholarly give-and-take.

I did leave her with these questions, which she has not found the time to answer.

  1. Did you have a professor at Cal Berkley who was not a climate alarmist? A critic of government-forced wind/solar/battery energy “transition”?
  2. As “among the first trainees in Al Gore’s Climate Realty Project in early 2007,” did you hear one viewpoint on climate alarmism and energy forcing? Any “skeptics” of alarm and wind/solar/batteries teaching the attendees?
  3. Of your claimed 5,000 interviews, how many were done with critics of climate extremism? Are you open to have “Code Green” debates with climate optimists and intellectual defenders of consumer-driven, government neutral, energy policy?
  4. Are you happy with California’s energy prices re the consumer and “social justice’? And what has been the aggregate climate effect from California’s anti-fossil-fuel policies in terms of temperature reduction and avoided sea level rise?

Please, She/Her Rosenberg. Don’t assume, debate. Don’t pretend, engage. Check the emotions and politics at the door and open your mind. There is good news about climate (and energy) if you are suffering from “climate anxiety.” And do understand why the decades-old alarmist message is not resonating with the general public–and how your approach (above) adds to theskepticism.

[1] Her full bio reads:

GREEN BEAT BROADCAST PIONEER: Betsy Rosenberg is an award-winning CBS Radio News journalist and long time green advocate. She’s best known for creating programming featuring environmental and climate-focused interviews in the ‘90s. Over the years Rosenberg has hosted several radio Internet and video programs.

Her current series CODE GREEN can be found on her YouTube channel: http://youtube.com @betsyrosenberginterviews. Her notable green-themed media career began with her signature “TrashTalk” segments on KCBS Radio in San Francisco nearly three decades ago. In 2004, Betsy launched “EcoTalk”the nation’s first syndicated daily “green” talk show. It was broadcast on the Air America Radio network until 2007.

Betsy launched “The Green Front” featuring an interview format on VoiceAmerica.com and the Progressive Radio Network America after 2009. The successful interview format has led to Betsy conducting thousands of interviews with leading experts, politicians, activists, scientists, and innovators tackling the biggest environmental challenges of our time on all shades of green topics with a focus on amplifying solutions.

Betsy is also a public speaker on environmental issues. She is outspoken about the lack of mainstream media news coverage on climate change. She is among the first trainees in Al Gore’s Climate Realty Project in early 2007. She has also contributed chapters to three books, including Climate Abandoned.

And her pitch for Code Green:

For nearly 3 decades I’ve been been interviewing leading activists, innovators, and experts across all shades of green topics. After surpassing 5,000 interviews I considered hanging up my mic to write a book about this challenging journey as an environmental journalist and sustainability advocate.

A few key events occurred that changed my mind: I became a grandmother, Trump was re-elected and wasted no time before pulling US out of the Paris Accords—again—and turning the EPA into the Environmental Plundering Agency. What followed was a series of continuing misguided rollbacks, and seeing L.A. on fire in the wake of a trip to Antarctica where glaciers were in meltdown—there was too much dissonance to not speak up and face all these destructive impacts head on!

We are living in surreal times where daily life may still feel normal but the backdrop tells another story. News about growing climate instability and ecological breakdown is being silenced by the influence of special interests.

While the climate and other pressing environmental changes have for too long been marginalized by the public, politicians and press, we find ourselves in a new era where up is down, black is white, and none of it is green enough! Trust in traditional news media is lower than ever, thanks to well-funded DISinformation campaigns—especially on the climate front. This comes at a time when greater public understanding of our planetary pickle is critically important.

Being environmentally aware can feel like living between two realities. In one the sky IS falling as atmospheric levels rise and each new day brings more disturbing signals from nature. In the other, life rolls merrily along as if tomorrow will be the same.

But it won’t stay the same. Destructive weather is intensifying, birds and bees are vanishing, and jet streams that regulate climate and life on earth are faltering. Too many of our so-called leaders remain missing in action—beholden to fossil fuel and chemical industry donors, afraid to tell hard truths, or simply unwilling to lead. Even worse, all the reversal of environmental and health protections are undoing decades of hard fought progress.

Mainstream news outlets have failed in their duty to properly inform the public and only rarely address broader ecological collapse. If this silence continues scientists warn the consequences will arrive faster—and more furiously than most can imagine.

Still, there is some hope. Recent research shows that 37 million Americans (about 11%) want to help avoid climate collapse but don’t know how they can make a positive difference. This is a tipping point too important to miss and CODE GREEN’s mission is to reach, inform, inspire, and mobilize them!

That’s where independent green media comes in, and despite its potential to play a crucial role in turning the eco-tide, we are swimming upstream. But after 28 years on this self-appointed and self-funded beat, I know too much to walk away.

Having interviewed thousands of “solutionaries,” I’ve seen the brilliance, courage and creativity already forging a path forward. CODE GREEN is my next — and perhaps last—media production. Each week I’ll bring you curated guests and perspectives that matter most and can only come from decades of experience.

Given our ailing planet, broken politics, and lamestream media, we must become the ones we’ve been waiting for!

[2] Rosenberg admits to her limited knowledge of climate issues with such statements as “key terms like stale alarmism and romantic government? What the hell is that supposed to mean?” The documented failure of alarmist climate predictions is part of the debate to question current, recycled alarmism. Second, “romantic government” is the fallacy of assuming that perfect government can correct imperfect markets (Public Choice economics).

Climate Majority Project: Scientists “Freaking Out”

Climate majority?

Only from polls where responders can claim to worry without having to pay for climate action–and not be told that their collective actions will not affect local or global climate for decades, if ever.

The pollsters might as well ask: “Do you want more or less extreme weather?” … “Do you want more or less safety?”

The fix is in.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Say ‘enough’ to the United Nations/IPCC/COP process. Call off the CO2 fests. Shift from mitigation (fail) to adaptation. Demote government, promote realism and civil society. And practice social justice with the new imperative: First, do no harm. That starts and ends with energy prices–no climate premium please.”

The Climate Majority Project (CMP) is predicated on a shaky premise:

Most people sense that the planet is in deep trouble and want to do something. Welcome to the climate majority.

Climate majority? Only from polls where responders can claim to worry without having to pay for climate action–and not be told that their collective actions will not affect local or global climate for decades, if ever. The pollsters might as well ask: “Do you want more or less extreme weather?” … “Do you want more or less safety?” The fix is in.

CMP is dedicated to “effective, coordinated climate action by a broad-based coalition of citizens; from grassroots initiatives to high-level policy.”

Through grassroots and policy level organising with communities, schools [“Climate Courage Schools”] and businesses [“Regulate Us. Better.”], we are working to turn that silent majority into a self-aware one — one that is able to slow climate breakdown and prepare for the impacts that are already underway.

Freak Out?

The CMP recently stated that “Most climate scientists are quietly freaking out,”

A 2021 anonymous poll by Nature found that the vast majority of climate scientists don’t believe humanity will limit warming to 1.5°C. In fact, 60% expected temperatures to rise beyond 3.0°C — levels that mean a high risk of triggering “hothouse Earth” conditions. So it comes with no surprise that 82% of those same scientists expected to see catastrophic impacts to our civilisation in their own lifetimes. Yet almost none were saying so publicly.

Enter a new term, scientific reticence, “when being too cautious puts us at risk.”

This kind of silence has a name. James Hansen — the godfather of climate science — calls it “scientific reticence”: scientists’ tendency to hold back from stating their conclusions in full. There’s also a communication problem baked into scientific culture: researchers are trained to lead with uncertainty, even when the evidence is overwhelming. A finding with 90–95% confidence is remarkably strong but will often be communicated with ifs and buts and doubt – every caveat chips away at the message, and the public often walks away hearing cool uncertainty rather than alarm.

“Other people are waiting on scientists to take bold action on climate,” the Climate Majority Project continues.

That reticence has real consequences. Business leaders, policymakers, and civil servants often rely on scientific consensus to justify urgent action. When scientists won’t spell out how bad things truly are, it quietly removes the permission others feel they need to sound the alarm themselves.

Strange. The IPCC and mainstream media live off the “consensus” argument. And critics have responded that science is not consensus, and climate models are not science. Academic climate scientists are all-in with alarmism to demonstrate their importance as “experts” and to keep the government money flowing. Never mind Climategate or RCP 8.5. Just keep alarming and don’t dare get skeptical. The benefits of anthropogenic climate change? Don’t go there; let the skeptics do that and stick to the consensus meme.

Back to the upside down Climate Majority Project:

This matters more than it might seem. Research on climate communication consistently finds that powerful people respond strongly to direct, negative facts — more than to hopeful messaging. Frank, emotionally honest speech from scientists could itself become a tipping point, particularly when paired with visible public support for action.

Again, this seems opposite of the real world. The “negative facts” is the neo-Malthusian narrative since Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s. Doom fatigue set in a long time ago. The latest iteration–the European heat waves this summer–is not demonstrative because it is localized.

Gotta fundraise. Can’t be too negative. There is hope….

There are signs the taboo is lifting. Hansen was among the first prominent scientists to say plainly that mainstream climate action has failed. Since then, a Guardian poll of scientists, Bill McGuire’s book Hothouse Earth, and a petition signed by 1,500 climate scientists have all declared the 1.5°C target effectively dead.

Greater scientific openness could be a catalyst — for coalition-building, for mobilisation, and for giving people permission to speak honestly about what the evidence actually shows. If you are a scientist, or know a scientist, forward this message along. One of the positive things about silent majorities is that sharing messages such as this one can actually make a difference.

The Climate (non)Majority Project ends:

If you know a scientist, share this with them. One of the hopeful things about silent majorities is that the more we become aware of all the others who share our concerns, the more we can build the feeling of being part of a movement large enough to make a difference.

Or do the opposite. Say “enough” to the United Nations/IPCC/COP process. Call off the CO2 fests. Shift from mitigation (fail) to adaptation. Demote government, promote realism and civil society. And practice social justice with the new imperative: First, do no harm. That starts and ends with energy prices–no climate premium please.