Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The historic and devastating fires in Los Angeles exposed the incompetence of leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass. So how do state legislators want to address that? By allowing victims who had their lives destroyed sue Big Oil. Of course. The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Gregory Wrightstone of the CO2 Coalition blow holes in that absurd political stunt and also discuss other recent to abuse the courts to push climate alarmism.
The historic and devastating fires in Los Angeles exposed the incompetence of leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass. So how do state legislators want to address that? By allowing victims who had their lives destroyed sue Big Oil. Of course. The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Gregory Wrightstone of the CO2 Coalition blow holes in that absurd political stunt and also discuss other recent to abuse the courts to push climate alarmism.
Also, Lee Zeldin has just started his first week as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and already the environmental left is terrified that the days of considering human emissions of carbon dioxide are coming to an end. We will dig deeper into the EPA’s “endangerment finding” for CO2 and whether it can be overturned in the next four years. We will also cover some of the “Crazy Climate News of the Week.”
Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET and join us in the chat where we will share your comments and answer our questions.
Microsoft is re-commissioning Three Mile Island, but how many mothballed nuclear reactors are available? Even gas has limits. It was inevitable they would turn to coal in their hour of need.
AI is bad for the environment, and the problem is bigger than energy consumption
Published: January 30, 2025 2.43am AEDT Hamish van der Ven Assistant Professor of Sustainable Business Management of Natural Resources, University of British Columbia
Artificial intelligence technologies, like chatbots, are attracting growing scrutiny for their voracious energy demands. However, energy consumption is only one part of their broader environmental impact.
…
Late last year, ChatGPT, the popular AI chatbot run by OpenAI, celebrated its second birthday. In its brief existence, the platform has amassed over 300 million weekly users who send roughly one billion messages to the chatbot per day.
…
Elsewhere in tech, other companies marked less savoury milestones. Alphabet — the parent company of Google — recently announced that its GHG emissions are up 48 per cent since 2019. At roughly the same time, Microsoft announced that its emissions are up 29 per cent since 2020.
…
The burgeoning AI industry needs so much electricity that plans to decommission several coal plants have been delayed. By some estimates, the collective demand of AI and other digital technologies will constitute 20 per cent of global electricity use by 2030.
Microsoft is re-commissioning Three Mile Island, but how many mothballed nuclear reactors are available? Even gas has limits. It was inevitable they would turn to coal in their hour of need.
The interesting point about this article is the author didn’t even try to claim renewables have a place in this new world order. They’re still fretting about climate change, but nobody is taking their coals, I mean calls.
The green movement is finally being relegated back to its proper place in society – a fringe movement of ignored radicals.
“The basic structure of EERE, populated by climate alarmists, is beyond redemption. Eradication appears to be the only thorough remedy.”
As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) strives to improve government efficiency, we urge them to look carefully at the“target-rich environment” of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with respect to both building and appliance energy efficiency standards. To this end we emphasize there are two facets: doing the right thing and doing the thing right. After explaining these codes, we offer historical perspective and expertise to assist DOGE in its endeavors.
Some conservative energy policy pundits believe “Net-Zero” policies are rapidly fading away. We disagree, at least with the “rapid.” A case-in-point is the recent growth and funding of biased building energy efficiency codes and performance standards throughout the US.
Over the years, we have focused mainly on appliance energy efficiency codes (as evidenced by the Krebs category archives). But no one else came forward to cover building energy efficiency codes and performance standards, so we are belatedly taking it on now. This article is intended to correct that issue by introducing the basics: building energy codes and performance standards and the threats thereof to consumer choice
Welcome to the byzantine world of building energy codes. There are two basic types of building energy codes. The first type is that of codes that can be adopted by state and local authorities that prescribe how residential or commercial buildings should be constructed to reduce energy consumption (or redirect to that bureaucratically deemed “clean”) and thus qualify for getting a building permit (alongside more traditional building safety codes). The second type of building codes are performance oriented. These set operating budgets for building energy consumption and/or carbon emissions. Additional details for each type of program are summarized as follows:
A: Essentials of Building Energy Codes & Standards (BECS)
BECS are officially referred to as “voluntary,” and supposedly developed by “consensus,” for state and local governments to implement building energy efficiency requirements. The International Code Council (ICC), through its numerous committees, publishes these codes and generates revenues by selling them to whoever needs them (e.g., code officials, builders, trades, etc.). ICC energy codes are organized and managed under a separate division of the ICC called the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).
Jurisdictions seeking to adopt IECC building energy codes can simply adopt the latest version once certified by DOE that they “save energy” under statute and are administrated under DOE’s EERE through their Building Energy Codes Program.” Once published by the ICC, these codes are ready for adoption into state and local building authorities and purchased by whomever. Publication sales represent a major source of ICC’s revenue. State and local code authorities may elect to adopt earlier IECC versions of the IECC codes or take an ala cart approach, picking and choosing an extensive selection of sections and options as they deem appropriate.
“Consensus” building energy codes have been largely and silently commandeered by EERE which has accelerated under the Biden administration. “Consensus” comes through “packing the bleachers” of committees with loyalists to further the Net-Zero concept. Tactics include “improving” building energy efficiency codes through “public/private partnerships.” However, the true cause of Net-Zero policies is to advance electrified “energy efficiency” via “clean” (a.k.a. renewable) energy so that consumers can be more readily controlled.
DOE’s takeover of building efficiency is directly counter to the historical role of ICC energy codes, embodied in the IECC. The IECC includes requirements for residential and commercial buildings that essentially run parallel. Prescriptive building requirements can also be met through alternative “performance” based requirements.
With a quick look at committee membership rosters, the preponderance of true believers in the Net-Zero cause is obvious. We have identified these committees below:
EERE and their National Labs also develop and fund Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS). Such set energy and/or emissions budgets that buildings must abide by. These may become more stringent over time and made enforceable by establishing financial penalties for non-performance. By design, BEPS can also be used to generate governmental revenue streams. Energy rationing may also be proposed (see here). Fortunately, BEPS are only applied to larger commercial buildings, so far at least.
Much of the initial BEPS concept was developed and financed via Bloomberg Philanthropies American Cities Climate Challenge program to “award” municipalities with cash to sign-on. The following graphic shows the status of BEPS in 2021:
Source: Draft ICC proposal to “normalize” BEPS from 2022
Bloomberg’s program was handed over to DOE/EERE via Biden’s (perversely named) “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA) funding. The following map shows the status of BEPS before IRA
Bloomberg American Cities Climate Challenge winning cities
Again, the common theme between BECS and BEPS is the massive/recent intervention by DOE’s EERE, its Labs and its well-financed NGO largesse. Initially, Net-Zero energy objectives were marketed in a manner that basically meant buildings should emit no more carbon than they consume (through fossil fuels). Under the Biden Administration and its allegiance to the “Paris Accords,” this definition simply became no more carbon emissions period. The following graph shows another reason why:
“Transitioning” energy efficiency to carbon efficiency grows the regulation business
EERE has provided conditional (strings attached) funding to the ICC for a long time. We have a video clip of EERE trying to buy the ICC that dates to 2009 during an ICC public meeting. The Biden Administration, through its IRA, lavished additional support for Net-Zero funding upon EERE and its National Labs, entities like the ICC and many non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
In turn, EERE and NGOs provide State and local “assistance,” financial and otherwise. For example, DOE’s Inspector General (IG) estimates that DOE’s “energy loan program” is in the range of $400 Billion total. Unfortunately, DOE’s IG advice was largely ignored, and the paper trail for accounting for such expenditures may be difficult at best to establish. The following excerpt is from a recent article, ‘Significant Risk of Fraud’: Federal Watchdog Calls for Emergency Halt to Biden’s $400 Billion Energy Loan Fund:
The Department of Energy’s inspector general on Tuesday issued an unprecedented call to suspend the Biden administration’s $400 billion energy loan program, warning that officials aren’t complying with conflict-of-interest rules and that the program carries a “significant risk of fraud.”
This par-for-the course corruption within the Biden Administration was further discussed as follows:
As the above articles illustrate, corruption “flows downhill.” It also applies in the case of EERE’s building energy codes & standards. EERE’s obscenely lavish funding of Net-Zero codes & standards programs and related energy policy objective measures invite corruption and have been “flying under the radar” for too long. Federal funding for codes & standards have also financed grass roots activists for untold years to come to further in fluence state and local governments into adopting “green” building codes, both BECS and BEPS.
Moreover, BECS and BEPS are not mutually exclusive. Both are often adopted and enforced simultaneously by State and/or municipal “virtue signaling” derived through “other people’s money.” As recently documented by Project Veritas in Throwing Bars of Gold Off the Titanic, the EPA is just as corrupt in its contempt for taxpayers.
Presently, building energy codes and standards do not legitimately serve the best interests of consumers or the environment. By intentionally limiting consumer choice to electric appliances, such policies drive-up utility costs, drive-up construction costs, squander taxpayer dollars and leads to additional overall inflation.
Consequently, these policies (along with their appliance efficiency dictates) violate (at a minimum) the following of President Trump’s Executive Orders (EOs) signed on January 20, 2025. [1]
Traditionally, energy efficiency building codes are predicated upon the scientifically indefensible notion of emissions reductions measured at the site of consumption according to energy-use intensity (EUI) metrics per square foot. Such policies are analogous to professing that energy is created inside of utility meters. Similarly skewed logic would be to reduce the amount of buildings since buildings emit at least 37% of worldwide emissions. More Ukraine’s anyone?
Conversely, the full fuel-cycle (a.k.a., “source”) of energy accounts for most of the upstream losses and emissions needed to deliver energy to consumers is generally (but not always) ignored. Energy building codes typically also work by setting site-based limits on carbon emissions and/or consumption. Subsequently, electric resistance heating is considered “clean” and electric heat pumps can be several times “cleaner.”
While EERE and DOE National Laboratories are authorized to implement Administration energy policies, these entities are not given authority for developing energy policy. They have simply done so, for decades, under the recently debunked “Chevron Doctrine” per the Supreme Court. Adding insult to injury, these taxpayer funded entities are responsible for evaluating their own cost-effectiveness. This includes so-called “peer reviews” conducted via DOE selection and “management.”
DOE’s National Laboratories and energy efficiency NGOs, receiving Federal funding are likewise not authorized via statue to implement Net-Zero building codes. Neither are they authorized by statute to cajole state and jurisdictions into adopting them. They just do it because nobody stops them. Unwittingly or otherwise, mainstream political “leaders” tend to ignore it all and don’t seem to even think about the effect un consumers. Or if they do think about it, it’s because the DNC directs them to “get on board.”
Midway Review
So far, absorbing this stream of information is probably like “drinking from a fire hose.” Therefore, let’s recap before we get “back in the weeds.” Major roles of these entities are summarized as follows:
With EERE funding, ICC manages “consensus” committees to develop codes and publish the result codes, but “packs the IECC committee rosters” by appointing NGO representatives with vested interests to Biden Administration Net-Zero policy goals
NGO’s, along with National Lab representatives, serve simultaneously as code change proponents, voting committee members, and evaluators of cost effectiveness of their proposals. [2]
NGO’s also pressure state and local entities to adopt these codes, aided by EERE funding inducements to limit state and local amendment to Administration energy policy goals.
To reiterate our main contention, the Net-Zero myopic objective to eliminate non-electric energy. Some states and cities are further indoctrinated than others and have moved much closer to BECS and BEPS that are biased towards electrification predominately (in theory) powered by renewables but irrespective of overall consumer cost effectiveness (or the lack thereof). Even if they say it is, it’s not about reducing consumer costs. It’s about reducing consumer emissions by controlling what they can and can’t do in accordance with “higher order” dictates from the UN and/or some other “new world order” directive.
Although never clearly stated, emission limits, like appliance minimum efficiency limits, may increase in severity over time and can also easily be made enforceable to generate additional revenue for state and/or local jurisdictions, [3] For a more extensive list of SCEP- funded programs, see State and Community Energy Programs News & Blogs.
“Back to the Weeds”
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is another player in developing building codes and standards. Regarding, building energy efficiency, ASHRAE’s primary leading building energy efficiency “guidance” is through their Standard 90.1, titled Energy Standard for Sites and Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. According to google AI:
ASHRAE 90.1 does not directly compete with the IECC commercial codes, but rather serves as the underlying standard that the IECC often references for commercial building energy efficiency requirements, meaning that while they are both related to commercial building energy codes, the IECC acts as the adopted code by states while ASHRAE 90.1 provides the technical basis for those requirements; essentially, the IECC is a “model code” that incorporates aspects of ASHRAE 90.1 to set its compliance standards.
Given the length and complexity of this article, we have chosen not to explain ASHRAE 90.1 any further; at least not now. Suffice it to say, ASHRAE 90.1 is equally byzantine and infiltrated as IECC.
While and BECS and BEPS programs may be predominately associated with Democrat-governed regions, they are not necessarily restricted to them. Regardless, the amount of these activities is growing largely due to contractually obligated funding already released during the Biden Administration. Another source for more in-depth and current information be obtained from the U.S. Climate Alliance Climate Policy Database:
The U.S. Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of twenty-four governors committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The Climate Policy Database is maintained by the U.S. Climate Alliance Secretariat with support from the United Nations Foundation.
Conclusions & Proposed Action Plan
The building real-estate market has become far from free, and this market is becoming less free as a function of increasing regulations as recognized by President Trump’s EOs listed above (with excerpts in the endnotes). The referees, in the form of policy-driven regulatory agencies and officials, have been routinely bought and paid for. The rules, in the form of advocacy-driven requirements upon the market, are rigged and the bleachers have been packed to further the Net-Zero agenda of the Biden Administration and their vast parasitic largess.
We have attended many hearings over many years regarding electric utility regulation and building codes & standards. The climate alarmistsoperate within the spectrum between a cult and the occult. They have become permanent fixtures as major stakeholders.
The basic structure of EERE, populated by climate alarmists, is beyond redemption. Eradication appears to be the only thorough remedy. Clawing back funding Is also appropriate but may be much easier said than done. Only time (and effort) will tell. On January 27, 2025, OMB issued a memo to all Federal agencies ordering a “Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan, and Other Financial Assistance Programs.” (Since withdrawn, the handwriting is one the wall regarding EERE.) The following day, President Trump offered an eight-month salary severance package to all Federal workers. At a minimum, there should be zero tolerance for failure to obey the OMB memo and should result in immediate termination without severance.
Comprehensively correcting this situation starts with “following the money.” This includes identifying and targeting EERE’s appropriations to develop Net-Zero code provisions and related policies through support of code-making bodies (i.e., ICC and their “energy efficiency” NGO cronies). Federal Lab supporting NetZero code as and standards under EERE include Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory (LBNL), and others.
With Trump back in office, such State and local hearings are likely where most of the near-future battles will be fought for at least the next four years. The problem is a general lack of organized free-market push-back against the “usual suspects.”
My article “Green” Weaponization in Missouri: Ameren vs. Ratepayers, Taxpayers provides a good case-in-point. Similar situations are playing out around the country. This lack of free-market representation is a major shortcoming that must be resolved. While there are numerous conservative organizations around the US, none are presently organized to effectively respond to the climate alarmists active at the State and local levels, especially when it comes to energy/regulatory intervention matters.
We need a plan. After all, “failure to plan is planning to fail.” Any ideas regarding who/ how this problem would be appreciated by leaving comments and suggestions below.
Numerous smaller localized “grass roots” NGOs are also involved in promoting Net-Zero codes and standards. Given the sheer numbers of these small entities around the country receiving DOE funding, they could be too numerous to fully identify (example here).
Given the extent that Federal Net-Zero funding has already been distributed and disbursed to States and local-based NGOs, such funding may not be recoverable either. Regardless, we will never know until we try. A serious effort should be made with equally serious funding to do so.
Significant efforts will also be required ascertaining, to the extent possible, EERE monies contractually spent through National Labs, subcontracting or direct grants to NGOs, etc. Federal Labs chartered missions should also be compared to actual lab activities to determine their true authority to develop Net-Zero technical assets. We expect to find a large discontinuity of mission versus actions and considerable use of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests will likely be necessary to dig out the details.
The new Trump Administration is strongly focused on “America first.” And that means American citizens first whose wallets have been viewed as a collective ATM by and for the administrative state for WAY too long.
The result of our recommendations should be to provide a better understanding of where and how much taxpayer dollars have and are being spent pursuing Net Zero fantasies. Knowing such details should guide funding recovery efforts. The fruits of these labors are expected to significantly assist the achievement of the Trump EOs, discussed above.
A secondary purpose of this project is to set the stage for a much-needed congressional hearing to investigate Federal funded building energy efficiency codes & standards programs. If nothing else comes of it, at a minimum, we urge that a firewall be erected to separate EE from RE.
Per our opening paragraph, the goals of DOE/EERE have morphed over time and the objectives of saving consumers money and of saving energy are often lost in the dust. As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) strives to improve government efficiency, we urge them to look carefully at the “target-rich environment” of DOE/EERE with respect to both building and appliance energy efficiency standards. To this end we emphasize there are two facets: doing the right thing and doing the thing right. Our discussions are intended to explain these codes “as simply as possible but no simpler.” We offer our historical perspective and expertise to assist DOGE in its endeavors.
Someone once said: “If you’re not at the table, you’re probably on the menu.” In the world of building efficiency codes and performance codes and standards, just being a token guest at the table will not suffice. The reason is because the majority participants already have reached consensus to pursue Net-Zero. While we strongly support President Trumps EO’s regarding unleashing America’s energy, there is room for improvement. One of those improvements would be to prohibit the use of site-based energy efficiency metrics, or at least those “under the influence’ of all Federal Agencies.
——————————–
Mark Krebs (markedwardkrebs@gmail.com), a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has worked in energy efficiency design and program evaluation for well over thirty years. Mark has served as an expert witness and/or commenter in scores of State and Federal energy efficiency proceedings and has been an advisor to DOE. Mark, a Principal at MasterResource, has authored dozens of articles on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” policy. Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy, Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services (GAAS) with other veteran energy analysts.
Tom Tanton (tantontwitter@gmail.com) is a Director of the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute. Mr. Tanton has 45 years in energy and environmental policy, focused on enabling technology choice and economic development. Mr. Tanton has testified to numerous state Legislatures and Congress as an expert on energy policy. He formerly served as Principal Policy Advisor at the California Energy Commission.
These high energy costs devastate American consumers by driving up the cost of transportation, heating, utilities, farming, and manufacturing, while weakening our national security.
(d) to ensure that all regulatory requirements related to energy are grounded in clearly applicable law;
(f) to safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and to promote market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries;
(h) to guarantee that all executive departments and agencies (agencies) provide opportunity for public comment and rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis;
Sec. 3. Immediate Review of All Agency Actions that Potentially Burden the Development of Domestic Energy Resources. (a) The heads of all agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, settlements, consent orders, and any other agency actions (collectively, agency actions) to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources — with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources — or that are otherwise inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including restrictions on consumer choice of vehicles and appliances.
(c) Any assets, funds, or resources allocated to an entity or program abolished by subsection (a) of this section shall be redirected or disposed of in accordance with applicable law.
(b) The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which was established pursuant to Executive Order 13990, is hereby disbanded, and any guidance, instruction, recommendation, or document issued by the IWG is withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy….
Moreover, many Americans are unable to purchase homes due to historically high prices, in part due to regulatory requirements that alone account for 25 percent of the cost of constructing a new home according to recent analysis.
I hereby order the heads of all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief, consistent with applicable law, to the American people and increase the prosperity of the American worker. This shall include pursuing appropriate actions to: lower the cost of housing and expand housing supply; eliminate unnecessary administrative expenses and rent-seeking practices that increase healthcare costs; eliminate counterproductive requirements that raise the costs of home appliances; create employment opportunities for American workers, including drawing discouraged workers into the labor force; and eliminate harmful, coercive “climate” policies that increase the costs of food and fuel.
[2] Representatives of energy utilities may also serve on committees. However, such utility representation is usually by electric utilities as most gas utilities have either been acquired by electric utilities and/or lost most of its building code expertise in recent years.
Fifteen more new studies published in 2024 document meters-higher sea levels across the world during the Mid-Holocene, when CO2 hovered near 260 ppm.
There were 45 studies published from 2022 to 2024 indicating sea levels were approximately 2 to 3 meters higher across the world about 7000 to 4000 years ago before declining to today’s levels.
For a full database of over 150 studies, see the updated “2m Higher Holocene Sea Levels” on the No Tricks Zone right side bar.
“The Holocene transgression began flooding the extensive continental shelf offshore BAH around 10 ka BP, progressively separating Masirah from the mainland through channel formation between 9.5 and 8.0 ka BP. It then inundated the present-day BAH peninsula around 7.7 ka BP, reaching a highstand of 2.5–3.2 m above present sea level by 6.0 ka BP (Mid-Holocene Highstand; MHHS), before gradually declining to the current level.”
Interest in pursuing the Net Zero fantasy is falling faster around the world than Dale Vince’s divorce-challenged bank account. Soon we might see an end to all the pseudoscientific fearmongering in mainstream media designed to promote the society-destroying campaign. Thankfully there is still some entertainment to be had, with Mail Online recently publishing an old favourite claiming that six-foot high sea level rises caused by “global warming” will submerge major cities such as London, Hull and Cardiff within 75 years.
Interest in pursuing the Net Zero fantasy is falling faster around the world than Dale Vince’s divorce-challenged bank account. Soon we might see an end to all the pseudoscientific fearmongering in mainstream media designed to promote the society-destroying campaign. Thankfully there is still some entertainment to be had, with Mail Online recently publishing an old favourite claiming that six-foot high sea level rises caused by “global warming” will submerge major cities such as London, Hull and Cardiff within 75 years. As regular readers will know, you can arrive at this twaddle by assuming sea levels will rise 13 times higher than current projected increases, and temperature rises will stop jogging along at around 0.1°C a decade and suddenly jump by 4°C by 2100. Just for good measure you can ignore the 2016 Dutch Deltares report that found the world has actually gained more land than was lost to water since 1985.
The science around sea level rise is a tad more complex than clickbait stories backed by attention-seeking climate scientists/activists might suggest. The Mail Online story was written by the publication’s Executive Science and Technology Editor Shivali Best, who pulled out all the stops by warning readers in the UK that one in four properties will be at risk of flooding within 25 years. Some catching up will be required then, given that in the year to March 2024 just 5,000 properties were flooded in England, similar to annual totals recorded over the last 20 years. Best has past form promoting her party piece, writing in the Mirror in 2019 that “rising sea levels could wipe out entire cities by 2050”. Countries in Asia such as Bangladesh, India and Thailand were singled out for particular concern. No doubt water-concerned citizens of Bangladesh were reassured by a recent science paper that found Bangladesh had experienced a 13.7% growth in its coasts since 1990. Overall, coastal areas across the globe had a net gain of more than 13,000 km2.
It would of course be unfair to single out Shivali Best for her services to entertainment. Matt McGrath of the BBC is another six footer and in 2019 he gave us his two metre ‘scientists say’ scare by noting, “scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted”. This could lead to the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, he added. Where will they go, we might ask? Perhaps they could head to the coast. In 2016 the BBC noted the comment by Dr Fedor Baart on the Deltares findings when he said: “We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world.”
It is obvious that the complexities of sea level rises and falls make simplistic sci-fi stories designed to induce mass climate psychosis look rather silly. Coral islands often accrete mass with the current small rises in sea levels, while land rises and falls around the Earth due to numerous natural geological forces. Measuring the actual sea level movement is problematic. Recent satellite measurements suggest annual rises around 3 mm but there are concerns that the radar altimeter data are heavily contaminated near the shore, the very area where accuracy is required. Whenever there are uncertainties, climate models are never far from the scene to give faux ‘scientists say’ certainty to the uncertain source material. According to a recent paper published by Malaysian scientists, “in-situ sea level observations through tide gauges remain the best approach for long-term tide coastal sea level study”. These appear to provide lower sea level rises around the 2 mm mark.
Best’s latest story is based on work produced by climate academics working out of a Singaporean university. They published a “fusion of probabilistic projects” about future sea level rises using ice sheet models and what are described as “expert elicitations”. It was noted that the projection of a 1.9 metres rise by 2100, “can inform a high-end storyline, supporting decision-making for activities with low uncertainty tolerance“. Quite what this gobbledegook means is not clear, so apologies if it does not refer to pumping out stories that journalists and politicians can use to scare the living daylights out of populations that fail to grasp the importance of Net Zero.
As if this “terrifying study” was not enough, Best uses a ‘Coastal Risk Screening Tool’ supplied by the Green Blob-funded Climate Central. Set the water level at 6.2 ft and Hull, Skegness and Grimsby disappear beneath the waves. In addition, several areas of London head for a watery grave including Bermondsey, Greenwich and Chelsea, while further west the bands in Weston-Super-Mare, Newport and Cardiff are tuning up to play Nearer My God to Thee. As we have noted in past editions, Climate Central’s handy flood reckoner is in regular use and many scare stories in local media can be traced back to this source. Climate Central claims that it has “built strong relationships with thousands of trusted, mostly local messengers who deliver our content”. Best is quite a fan. In her 2019 Mirror article she reported on Climate Central’s claim that 3.5 million could be at risk of flooding in the UK within 30 years. Climate Central hopes that its findings “will encourage coastal communities to prepare themselves for the future”.
Steering clear of this unsubstantiated, sandwich-board guff might be a start.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The October 7 terrorist attack in Israel. Sky-high inflation. The crushing price of groceries and other consumer goods. Pain at the pump.
One throughline connects some of the greatest failures of the Biden presidency: bad energy policy.
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The October 7 terrorist attack in Israel. Sky-high inflation. The crushing price of groceries and other consumer goods. Pain at the pump.
One throughline connects some of the greatest failures of the Biden presidency: bad energy policy.
To right the wrongs of his predecessor, President Donald Trump took the unprecedented step of declaring a national energy emergency on his first day in office. In his inauguration speech, Trump vowed to “bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and export American energy all over the world.” In contrast to the national malaise of the Biden years, Trump’s ambitious energy agenda promises a new morning in America. His commitment to “energy dominance” will subdue our enemies, tame the tiger of inflation, and usher in a new era of tech supremacy.
To understand why Trump declared a national energy emergency, it is first critical to understand where Biden failed on this issue. Consider the human toll of Biden’s energy policy in three arenas: Ukraine, Israel, and Mainstreet America.
Putin’s war on Ukraine was boosted by Biden’s own war on U.S. oil producers.
In the first year of his presidency, Biden kneecapped domestic LNG production by blocking new oil and gas leases on federal lands, canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline, and imposing impossible standards on domestic fossil fuel producers. As a result, U.S. crude oil production remained woefully behind pre-pandemic levels for the first year of Biden’s presidency—to the tune of approximately one million fewer barrels of oil per day.
Cheering on Biden’s restrictions just as much as the environmental lobby was Russian President Vladimir Putin. As the U.S. retreated from global oil markets, Russia advanced, increasing its production by nearly nine hundred thousand barrels a day in 2021. Putin’s ability to eat into the U.S. market share in the energy sector put Russia on strong economic footing in the leadup to its invasion of Ukraine.
After the invasion, the high price of oil fueled Russia’s war machine, kept its economy alive, and shored up its currency in the most critical years of the Ukraine conflict. Biden could have undermined Russia’s military campaign and decreased global oil prices simply by removing his restrictions on U.S. producers, allowing them to drill to their full capacity. But he refused and exacerbated the problem in 2024 by pausing new LNG exports to European allies. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians suffered as a result of Biden’s energy policies.
Sadly, Biden’s war on U.S. oil producers not only strengthened Russia—it also empowered Iran and endangered Israel.
Like Russia, Iran was able to capture a significant portion of the global oil market share that would have otherwise gone to the U.S. were it not for Biden’s harmful regulations. And like Russia, Iran was able to leverage this oil revenue to launch its own war. Using Hamas as its proxy, the Iranian regime engineered the October 7 terrorist attack against Israel, sparking one of the bloodiest conflicts in the region’s history.
From Europe to the Middle East, Biden’s disastrous energy policies made the world a more dangerous place. They also made it more expensive.
Mainstreet America was just another casualty in Biden’s war on oil. Everyday citizens foot the bill for this war in the form of high inflation, which reached a peak of over 9% in 2022 and caused the dollar to lose over 22% of its purchasing power in only four years. Exacerbating the highest inflation our country has seen in a generation were rising energy prices that resulted from the Biden administration’s attempts to curb fossil fuel production in favor of renewable energy.
Seeing the damage wrought by his predecessor’s energy policies—both here at home and abroad—Trump had no choice but to declare a national energy emergency. Thankfully, the new president understands what the former never did: Energy is the base layer of all matter, life, and human activity. Or, as Einstein put it, E = mc2.
As the fundamental currency of the universe, countries rise and fall on their ability to maximize energy production. And any attempt to manipulate the supply-and-demand dynamics that govern its use leads to distortions—not only in global markets but in monetary systems and international politics as well.
Trump intuits this. Which is why “Drill, baby, drill!”—beyond being a catchy slogan—is a promising, first-principles approach to getting our country back on track.
The logic is simple: Biden’s policies hurt energy providers here at home while enriching our enemies abroad. These policies drove up the price of energy and inflation in our country, making all Americans poorer. And they made electricity harder to acquire than ever before just when critical emerging industries in tech and transportation needed it most.
That’s why, as part of his national energy emergency, President Trump must revoke Biden-era energy regulations. Every last one.
The economy of the future—including Bitcoin and AI data centers, electric vehicles, commercial space exploration, and quantum computing—will require far more energy than we are producing today. According to research from S&P Global, electricity demand from U.S. data centers alone is expected to more than double over the next decade, increasing from 185 TWh to 440 TWh. Failing to meet this demand would give China the edge in the race for artificial intelligence, putting both our economy and our national security at risk.
Given the challenges facing our nation, securing energy dominance is the only option.
If the U.S. is to succeed in weakening its enemies, wrangling inflation, spurring GDP growth, and onshoring manufacturing, then it needs to use its God-given energy assets. This includes nuclear, hydro, solar, and yes, fossil fuels.
Almost no clean energy project would succeed without the manufacturing and infrastructure that fossil fuels make possible. Case in point: Texas.
Policymakers in the Lonestar State recognized long ago that oil and natural gas were critical companions in scaling up renewable energy. So in contrast to California, Texas lawmakers opted to encourage fossil fuel production, rather than restrict it. This decision has resulted in more—not less—renewable energy generation overall and the cleanest energy mix in the country. Our country’s leaders should embrace this all-of-the-above approach to energy production.
For the last four years under Biden, the federal government’s foot has been on the brake pad of energy generation. Trump must move it to the accelerator—because cheap and abundant power is the key to a safer world, lower inflation, better tech, and a stronger economy.
Brian Morgenstern is head of public policy for Riot Platforms and served as White House deputy communications director and deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury during the first Trump administration.
Sam Lyman is director of public policy for Riot Platforms and served as chief speechwriter to United States Senator Orrin Hatch.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
This time around, Trump and his people are doing a far better job of hitting the ground running on many issues. That is notably true in the area of climate and energy communications: a week in, there are already some meaningful changes at the websites of various agencies. However, changing communications on these issues is not a small task; the government websites during the Biden era had pervasive climate propaganda in thousands of locations.
[C]hanging the communications of the prior administration should be an easy and obvious first priority. However, the Trump people notably did a poor job on this subject the first time out. The subject of climate and energy is pervasive through the websites of dozens of federal agencies.
I had followed the EPA website in particular during the first Trump term, and it had been little changed even a year after Trump took office.
This time around, Trump and his people are doing a far better job of hitting the ground running on many issues. That is notably true in the area of climate and energy communications: a week in, there are already some meaningful changes at the websites of various agencies. However, changing communications on these issues is not a small task; the government websites during the Biden era had pervasive climate propaganda in thousands of locations.
So, a week into the new administration, here are some of the things that have either changed or not so far.
Department of Energy
My November post noted that there was a big section, dominating the Department’s website, titled “Combating the Climate Crisis.” Today, if you go to the Department’s opening web page, it’s quite different. The front page headline is “Restoring Energy Dominance,” followed by “President Trump’s Day One Actions will Return the Department to Regular Order.” Here’s how it starts:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), effective today, is ending the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) pause and returning to regular order following direction given by President Donald J. Trump to “unleash American Energy Dominance.”
Another big front-page topic back in November was “Energy Justice.” Today, if you go to the link that I had then for “Energy Justice,” you will be taken back to the opening page with the headline “Restoring Energy Dominance.” The whole “Energy Justice” thing seems to have disappeared. That’s great progress. On the other hand, if you go to the old November link for “Combatting the Climate Crisis,” you will find that a page full of the old Biden-era claptrap is still up:
There is no greater challenge facing our nation and our planet than the climate crisis. That’s why President Biden has laid out the boldest climate agenda in our nation’s history—one that will spur an equitable clean energy economy and cement America on a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. . ..
To their credit, the old links to this stuff on the introductory page are gone, and using the site’s search function doesn’t turn this up. Likely, it will be memory-holed shortly.
And yet there is still plenty of junk stuff up on this website that needs to go. As a few examples:
A section on “Decarbonization” (“The shift to a low-carbon economy will be one of the most significant economic transformations in history. Through the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) decarbonization initiatives, the United States is poised to capture the economic and other benefits of revolutionary decarbonization technologies.”)
A section on “Carbon Management” (“Carbon management encompasses a suite of technologies used to capture, transport, convert, and store carbon dioxide, as well as remove it directly from the atmosphere.”)
A section on the “Floating Offshore Wind Shot” (“The Floating Offshore Wind Energy Shot™ seeks to reduce the cost of floating offshore wind energy by more than 70% by 2035 for deep water sites far from shore.”)
A section on the “Net Zero Economy” (“A net-zero economy averts or removes as much greenhouse gas as it produces. Achieving this balance by 2050 is a pivotal undertaking for the United States”)
And there are many more such. So there is a long way to go. However, they have made a reasonable start. Given that it has only been a week, I would rate the effort an A-.
EPA
In my November post, I noted that there was a huge Climate Change section of the website that dominated from the opening page. Today, references to the subject on the opening page are gone. If you look under the tab “Environmental Topics” on the opening page, you will not find “climate change,” and if you try the closest topic on that tab, “Air,” you will not find “climate change” there either. They certainly are not making this easy!
However, if you type the words “climate change” into the search function of the site, the first link that comes up is http://www.epa.gov/climate-change, which is the exact same address I had back in November. It will take you to the old Climate Change section of the website that appears to be changed little if at all. It’s buried, but still very much still there. And it contains plenty of the same old nonsense. Examples:
They continue to pretend that CO2 in the atmosphere has something to do with “human health”: Understanding and addressing climate change is critical to EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.
There are sections on things like “Causes” and “Impacts” of climate change that pretend that this is a huge human-caused problem.
Endless pages on climate change “indicators” pretend to link all the usual extreme weather events, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc., etc., to human use of fossil fuels. (“Rising global average temperature is associated with widespread changes in weather patterns. Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change.”)
There are vast amounts of stuff here that need to go sooner rather than later. Yes, it has only been a week. Still, I rate the effort a B.
NOAA/NASA
These are the people who keep track of the weather and climate data and are famous for scaremongering with endless press releases and hype about “warmest day/month/year ever.” My November 2024 post had this link to a typical NOAA release from January 2024, titled “2023 was the world’s warmest year on record, by far.” That link is still live at the NOAA website.
Overall, it is not clear to me that the NOAA or NASA websites have yet changed much if at all. The “News” tab of the NOAA website has a list of “Latest News Releases” that include several last-minute initiatives of the Biden-Harris administration, including this gem: “Biden-Harris Administration, NOAA invest $15 million to help protect Western U.S. communities from wildfire.”
Go to the NASA website, and down at the bottom of the opening page you will find a link for “Earth & Climate.” At that page you will find a further link for “Climate Change,” that is as full of climate propaganda as any government page I have seen. Small excerpt:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause. . . . While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years. . . . The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia.
You get the idea. Somebody needs to start paying attention to this quickly. Yes, it has only been a week. Still, I would give this effort a C at best.
I’ll be watching these pages for periodic updates from time to time. I can’t wait to see a lot of this stuff disappear.
The climate establishment are going to great lengths to blame the Los Angeles fires on global warming.
One attempt has already bitten the dust, with claims of increasing winter droughts contradicted by the real world data.
So another team of so-called scientists have come up with an even more ridiculous idea – that it is now both to wet and too dry in California.
The BBC report:
Climate change has made the grasses and shrubs that are fuelling the Los Angeles fires more vulnerable to burning, scientists say.
Rapid swings between dry and wet conditions in the region in recent years have created a massive amount of tinder-dry vegetation that is ready to ignite.
Decades of drought in California were followed by extremely heavy rainfall for two years in 2022 and 2023, but that then flipped again to very dry conditions in the autumn and winter of 2024.
“Scientists” say in a new study, external that climate change has boosted what they call these “whiplash” conditions globally by 31-66% since the middle of the 20th Century.
“This whiplash sequence in California has increased fire risk twofold,” said lead author Daniel Swain from UCLA.
“First, by greatly increasing the growth of flammable grass and brush in the months leading up to fire season, and then by drying it out to exceptionally high levels with the extreme dryness and warmth that followed.”
Once again though the actual data shows the new study to be just as fake as the previous one. Most of California’s rain comes in the winter half, October to March; the last two years have been wetter than average, but no more so than many other years on record:
The same applies to the South Coast Drainage Division, which includes Los Angeles:
Neither is there any evidence of bigger swings from year to year.
Patrick Brown of the Breakthrough Institute has written a full scientific rebuttal here, which demolishes this latest fake science.
This is his summary:
Summary
So, let’s recap. At the annual timescale that is most relevant to the Los Angeles fires…
Figure 1: There is no clear increase in overall whiplash occurrence or wet-to-dry whiplash occurrence in Los Angeles in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
Figure 2: There is no clear increase in overall whiplash occurrence or wet-to-dry whiplash occurrence over southern California in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
Figure 3: There is a long-term decrease in whiplash events globally over land (where it matters) in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
Figure 5: There is no increase in the variability (standard deviation) of annual SPEI either for all months or centered on January) in the Los Angeles grid point using the pre-existing standard SPEI dataset.
Figure 6: There has been a decrease in the variability (standard deviation) of SPEI over global land since the 1980s using the pre-existing standard SPEI dataset.
Figure 7: There is no agreement on the direction of change (if any) in annual precipitation variability (standard deviation) over the Los Angeles area across eight different precipitation datasets.
Figures 8 and 9: There is no agreement on the direction of change (if any) in annual precipitation variability (standard deviation) globally across eight different precipitation datasets.
While “climate whiplash events” may be increasing in frequency under most of the very specific, selected definitions used and datasets investigated in Swain et al. (2025), the general idea that annual precipitation (or more generally, the water cycle, which includes evaporation) is becoming dramatically more variable is not supported when a broader set of datasets and definitions are used.
Would a reader of Swain et al. (2025), or especially its coverage, have any idea about the weakness of its broader conclusions or the lack of robustness of its results to different definitions and datasets? Almost certainly not, and I contend that this is a major problem for public understanding and trust in climate science.
Why don’t we see a robust increase in water cycle variability given the strong theory underpinning “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier”? For one thing, the theoretical size of the effect is known to be quite small relative to natural, unforced variability, making it inherently difficult to detect. For example, we see in Figure 7 above that year-to-year rainfall in Los Angeles naturally varies by as much as 300%, yet the signal we are looking for is one to two orders of magnitude less than this. It is also apparently the case that observational uncertainty is larger than the signal (or there would not be such disagreement between datasets). Physically, perhaps increasing mean precipitation is offsetting the increase in calculated evaporation in the SPEI index, reducing its variability. Maybe reduced temperature variability (via arctic amplification) is reducing calculated evaporation variability.
I don’t know the full answer, but these would be great research questions to identify and outline in a Nature review like Swain et al. (2025). Unfortunately, Swain et al. (2025) missed this opportunity because the paper seemed so focused on assembling evidence in favor of increasing water cycle variability that contradictory evidence was never presented or seriously grappled with.
My main discomfort with Swain et al. (2025) and its rollout is that it appears that the primary goal was to create and disseminate the “climate whiplash” meme rather than conduct a truly rigorous evaluation of the evidence, including countervailing evidence. Ultimately, this makes the research a much larger advance in marketing than an advance in science.
A recent study published in Nature Medicine warns that Europe could face up to 2.3 million annual heat-related deaths by 2100 unless drastic emission reductions are implemented. The dire prediction, eagerly echoed in headlines, paints a catastrophic future for the continent. However, closer examination reveals that this projection rests on the RCP 8.5 scenario, an extreme and discredited emissions pathway. The continued reliance on this outdated model isn’t just misleading—it actively distorts the climate debate.
A recent study published in Nature Medicine warns that Europe could face up to 2.3 million annual heat-related deaths by 2100 unless drastic emission reductions are implemented. The dire prediction, eagerly echoed in headlines, paints a catastrophic future for the continent. However, closer examination reveals that this projection rests on the RCP 8.5 scenario, an extreme and discredited emissions pathway. The continued reliance on this outdated model isn’t just misleading—it actively distorts the climate debate.
RCP 8.5, the foundation of this study, assumes an improbable future of runaway coal consumption, stalled technological progress, and unmitigated population growth. Under this scenario, global CO₂ emissions would triple by 2100, driving a temperature increase of over 4°C. But here’s the reality:
Global Energy Trends: Coal consumption is declining in many major economies, while renewables are expanding rapidly. Even in countries like China and India, where coal use remains significant, cleaner energy alternatives are gaining ground.
Population Dynamics: Population growth is slowing worldwide, with many countries projected to experience declines by mid-century.
Technological Advances: Energy efficiency, urban planning, and adaptive technologies are evolving far faster than the pessimistic assumptions baked into RCP 8.5.
These facts render RCP 8.5 not just unlikely—it’s a fantasy. Yet it continues to be used in studies like this one, inflating risks and misleading policymakers.
A Flawed Vision of the Future
The study assumes that Europeans will fail to adapt to rising temperatures, ignoring humanity’s demonstrated ability to innovate and adjust. Historically, societies have employed technologies like air conditioning, improved building designs, and urban greening to mitigate heat-related risks. By disregarding these realities, the study portrays a static population incapable of adapting, which is both unrealistic and irresponsible.
Moreover, while heat-related deaths are emphasized, the study conveniently omits the larger issue of cold-related mortality. Currently, cold kills far more Europeans than heat, and a warming climate could result in a net decrease in weather-related deaths as winters become milder. But such context doesn’t fit the narrative of impending disaster and is often excluded from the discussion.
The Bigger Picture: Heat vs. Cold
To grasp the true implications of climate change, it’s critical to consider both heat and cold. Currently:
Cold-related deaths outnumber heat-related deaths by a factor of 10 in Europe, according to Eurostat.
Warmer winters have already reduced cold-related mortality in many regions.
Adaptation measures, like affordable heating and cooling, remain the most practical solutions for addressing both heat and cold risks.
Ironically, climate policies inspired by studies like this may worsen cold-related deaths. For example, Net Zero-driven policies that increase energy costs—such as phasing out natural gas or subsidizing expensive renewables—make it harder for vulnerable populations to afford heating.
Why These Alarmist Projections Persist
The continued use of RCP 8.5 in studies serves a clear purpose: fear sells. Apocalyptic predictions generate headlines, mobilize funding, and provide justification for costly climate policies. But this approach does little to solve real-world challenges. Instead, it:
Distorts Public Perception: By focusing on implausible worst-case scenarios, these studies obscure more likely and manageable outcomes.
Misguides Policymakers: Resources are diverted toward combating hypothetical extremes rather than addressing pressing energy and adaptation needs.
Erodes Trust in Science: When the public learns that RCP 8.5 is a relic of outdated thinking, it risks undermining confidence in climate science as a whole.
A Better Way Forward
If we want to protect populations from heat-related deaths, the solution lies not in alarmist modeling but in practical adaptation strategies:
Expanding access to affordable air conditioning.
Designing cities to reduce the urban heat island effect.
Improving public health systems to better handle heatwaves.
At the same time, policymakers must acknowledge that warming isn’t all bad news—milder winters will reduce cold-related deaths and energy demand. Balanced, evidence-based approaches are essential to managing the risks of climate change without succumbing to hysteria.
Conclusion: Enough with the Alarmism
The Nature Medicine study’s projections of millions of heat-related deaths in Europe are rooted in the flawed and discredited RCP 8.5 scenario. This isn’t science—it’s scaremongering dressed up as research. By exaggerating risks and ignoring humanity’s capacity to adapt, such studies do more harm than good.
Rather than fixating on improbable doomsday scenarios, we should focus on resilience, innovation, and pragmatic policies that address both heat- and cold-related risks. The public deserves climate discussions rooted in reality; not fear-driven narratives built on outdated models.
It’s amazing that these clowns didn’t explicitly blame this on President Trump:
Seven paragraphs full of “misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories” followed by a stern warning about spreading “misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories” … I couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying.
It’s amazing that these clowns didn’t explicitly blame this on President Trump:
Closer than ever: It is now 89 seconds to midnight
In 2024, humanity edged ever closer to catastrophe. Trends that have deeply concerned the Science and Security Board continued, and despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies have failed to do what is needed to change course. Consequently, we now move the Doomsday Clock from 90 seconds to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe.
[…]
In regard to nuclear risk, the war in Ukraine, now in its third year, looms over the world; the conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation. Conflict in the Middle East threatens to spiral out of control into a wider war without warning.
[…]
The impacts of climate change increased in the last year as myriad indicators, including sea-level rise and global surface temperature, surpassed previous records.
[…]
In the biological arena, emerging and re-emerging diseases continue to threaten the economy, society, and security of the world. The off-season appearance and in-season continuance of highly pathogenic avian influenza…
[…]
An array of other disruptive technologies advanced last year in ways that make the world more dangerous. Systems that incorporate artificial intelligence…
[…]
The dangers we have just listed are greatly exacerbated by a potent threat multiplier: the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories that degrade the communication ecosystem and increasingly blur the line between truth and falsehood.
Seven paragraphs full of “misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories” followed by a stern warning about spreading “misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories” … I couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying.
Nuclear Risk
[T}he conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation…
That risk left the White House on January 20, 2025, right after preemptively pardoning his entire crime family.
Climate Change
Sea-level rise and global surface temperature, surpassed previous records…
According to NASA sea level has risen by 100.9 mm since 1993. That’s almost four whole inches!!! Enough to swamp four quarters or a baseball card or even a beer can!
The price of eggs sucks! But… 89 seconds to Doomsday? Not!
Systems that incorporate artificial intelligence…
AI is a long way from Skynet I Googled my favorite garbled lyric from the Toto song Africa: “There’s nothing that a hundred men on Mars could ever do.” The Google AI confirmed my garbled lyric:
The actual lyric is, “There’s nothing that a hundred men or more could ever do.” Now I know how Captain Kirk was able to short circuit androids.
The dangers we have just listed are greatly exacerbated by a potent threat multiplier: the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories that degrade the communication ecosystem and increasingly blur the line between truth and falsehood.
Remember when this was a misinformation conspiracy theory that would get you banned from social media?
The Shamdemic and 2020 coup ded’état clearly demonstrated this principle:
The notion that we are much closer to Doomsday now than when we were losing the Cold War is clearly the perfect example of “the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories that degrade the communication ecosystem and increasingly blur the line between truth and falsehood.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.