Day: February 14, 2025

Climate Justice Survey: 69% Oppose the Laws of Thermodynamics

From the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication…

From Watts Up With That?

Guest “If wishes were horses, we’d all get ponies for Christmas” by David Middleton

From the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication…

Peer-Reviewed Article · Jan 23, 2025

Americans’ support for climate justice

By Jennifer Carman, Danning (Leilani) Lu, Matthew Ballew, Joshua Low, Marija Verner, Seth Rosenthal, Kristin Barendregt-Ludwig, Gerald Torres, Michel Gelobter, Kate McKenney, Irene Burga, Mark Magaña, Saad Amer, Romona Taylor Williams, Montana Burgess, Grace McRae, Annika Larson, Manuel Salgado, Leah Ndumi Kioko, Jennifer Marlon, Kathryn Thier, John Kotcher, Edward Maibach and Anthony Leiserowitz


Filed under: Beliefs & Attitudes, Policy & Politics and Behaviors & Actions

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new article, “Americans’ support for climate justice,” in the journal Environmental Science & Policy.

Climate change is unfair. 

[…]

In collaboration with climate justice advocates and experts in the U.S. and Canada, we measured and explored predictors of Americans’ climate justice beliefs and intentions to engage in related behaviors as part of the Climate Change in the American Mind survey (n = 1,011).

[…]

Communication about climate justice should describe specific ways that climate change harms some people more than others, as well as the practical benefits of climate justice initiatives. For example, investments in infrastructure for vulnerable communities can reduce everyone’s risks from climate change impacts such as flooding. Moreover, many existing policies that promote climate justice – such as green job training and reskilling programs, transitioning to renewable energy, and home weatherization – are already popular among the U.S. public, so linking climate justice concepts to these benefits may build support.

[…]

The full article is available here for those with a subscription to Environmental Science & Policy, and a public postprint is available here on the Open Science Framework.

[…]

YPCCC

Maybe these folks haven’t been keeping up with current events, but Climate Justice got its @$$ kicked on November 5, 2024.

Exit Poll: Climate Voters were Harris’s Strongest Supporters.

Data from the AP/NORC exit poll of over 120,000 general election voters found that 7% of voters said climate change was the most important issue facing the country (up from 4% in 2020). Additionally, the Environmental Voter Project’s analysis of exit polling data found that these climate-first voters supported Kamala Harris by a 10:1 margin, which was larger than Harris’s support from any other issue constituency group. In some swing states, such as North Carolina, climate-first voters supported Harris by a staggering 48:1 margin, which was even more than her support from registered Democrats.

Environmental Voter Project

Figure 1. 93% of voters did not rank climate change as their top issue. The 9% of Trump voters who did rank climate change as their top issue probably actually understood the science. AP/NORC exit poll

Now let’s get back to the Climate Justice fantasyland. 69% of registered voters, allegedly surveyed in spring 2023, support repealing the Laws of Thermodynamics:

Figure 2. 69% support repealing the Laws of Thermodynamics. YPCCC

Show of hands: Who thinks this could be accomplished without amending those pesky Laws of Thermodynamics?

Transitioning the U.S. economy (including electric utilities, transportation, buildings, and industry) from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050: 69% of registered voters, including 93% of liberal Democrats, 84% of moderate/conservative Democrats, 58% of liberal/moderate Republicans, and 30% of conservative Republicans.

YPCCC

While it’s true that solar panels and windfarms don’t create energy, they can only convert sunlight and wind energy into electricity when the sun is shining, and the wind is blowing just right. Unless we’re supposed to just do without electricity when the weather doesn’t cooperate, a 100% “clean energy” economy would require a serious revision of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

100% “clean energy” can’t work without nuclear power and the authors of this survey oppose nuclear power because they view it as “inherently dirty, dangerous and costly.”

The Center for Climate Change Communication

The Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) is a research organization focused on promoting a left-of-center narrative around climate change. 4C is part of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

4C conducts research on public perceptions of climate change and then uses that research to advocate for environmentalist policy through communications with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and corporations. 1

History

George Mason University professors Edward Maibach and Connie Roser-Renouf founded 4C in 2007 while pursuing a research partnership with Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

The following year, 4C conducted its first Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM) national public opinion poll with the support of the Yale program. 2 Starting in 2009, 4C turned its attention to portraying climate change as an issue of public health. 3 4C runs a Program on Climate and Health, an initiative that argues that fossil fuel use is leading to climate change and unspecified “health harms” and advocates for the use of renewable energy. 4

[…]

Partnerships

Center for Climate Change Communication has collaborated with a number of left-of-center organizations to support its policy and research agendas, receiving support from groups including Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Rockefeller Family Fund, and the environmentalist Town Creek Foundation. 15 4C has used funding from the Rockefeller Family Fund since 2016 in order to fund policy advocacy initiatives related to 4C’s environmentalist research. 15

4C has also partnered with a number of federal government agencies, including the National Park Service (NPS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Beginning in 2012, 4C partnered with NPS to hire interns to communicate left-of-center theories about the impact of climate change on national parks to park visitors. 16 4C’s other government partnerships have been used to fuel and public opinion research projects in support of environmentalism. 15

In 2008 and 2012, 4C conducted national surveys with the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) which concluded that “local public health departments are seeing increases in climate change-related health problems.” 1718

Opposition to Nuclear Energy

The Center for Climate Change Communication was a cosigner on an April 2021 letter to President Joe Biden that asked the administration to promote weather dependent wind and solar power systems and “end the fossil fuel era.” The letter also advised the president to “Phase out nuclear energy as an inherently dirty, dangerous and costly energy source.”  19

Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and from 1990 until 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. 20

[…]

Influence Watch

The April 2021 letter to Sleepy Joe only advocated for wind, solar and Communism…

LETTER FROM 520+ ORGANIZATIONS
URGING END TO FOSSIL FUEL ERA, TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication are left-wing activist groups. They partner up with NOAA, NASA, NSF, etc. to promote their left-wing agenda (DOGE time!) and they oppose nuclear energy.

Back to the survey

The detailed survey results can be found in Climate Change in the American Mind: Climate Justice, Spring 2023 (Carman et al., 2023). This is from the introduction:

Climate justice has become an important part of federal climate policy in the United States, with efforts like the Justice40 Initiative and the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) being developed to increase federal funding to historically underserved communities and find ways to “leave no one behind”3 in the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy.

Carman et al., 2023

Sounds like more work for the DOGE boys!

These gems are from Appendix I of Carman et al., 2023. The data tables are from their report; the commentary and memes are the work of this author:

Figure 3. 75% of survey respondents were clueless as to what the fossil fuel industry is.
Figure 4. Only 26% of survey respondents were willing to get off there @$$es and join the fight for climate justice.
Figure 5. 56% of registered voters don’t give a rat’s @$$ about climate justice.
Figure 6. I think the DOGE boys will handle this one. (Credit Dennis Miller for “stomped like a narc at a biker rally.”)

Who pays for crap like this?

Funding Sources

The research was funded by the Schmidt Family Foundation, the U.S. Energy Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, and King Philanthropies.

YPCCC

U.S. Energy Foundation?

The Energy Foundation, also known as the United States Energy Foundation, is a left-of-center “pass through” charitable foundation founded by and supported by a network of left-wing organizations. The Foundation began in January 1991 as a $20 million collaborative between the Pew Charitable Trusts, Rockefeller family foundations, and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and has subsequently grown in partnerships and funding. 1 The Energy Foundation describes itself as a nonpartisan “grantmaker” with a focus on building a “new energy economy.”2 In reality, it is a medium for bundling vast sums of money from donors to far-left political causes, under the guise of philanthropy.

The Energy Foundation was involved in the funding scandal in 2015 which led to the resignation of Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber (D).

Origins

The Energy Foundation was conceived as early as 1989, according to Adele Simmons, the former president of the MacArthur Foundation. It was established to be a “pass through” nonprofit, emphasizing strategic grants to groups able to influence energy regulatory policy. According to the group’s “strategic assumptions,” “intelligent philanthropy can influence energy policy with multi-billion dollar payoffs.” 3

The Energy Foundation was founded by Hal Harvey in 1991, who served as the organization’s president until 2002. Harvey has a history of left-wing environmental activism. In his announcement of the creation of the Energy Foundation, he referenced the recent First Gulf War: “At a time of grave danger and volatility in the Middle East, it is worrisome that the United States is increasing its dependence on foreign oil, especially so because there are other proven alternatives.”4

Harvey also worked as founder and CEO of ClimateWorks Foundation from 2008-2011, and served as Environment Program Director at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation – both significant financial supporters of the Energy Foundation. 5

In 1999, the Packard Foundation helped to establish Energy Foundation China, with offices in Beijing. 6 In 2020, the Energy Foundation China separated from the United States Energy Foundation whilst retaining the legacy EIN number. 7

Influence Watch

This is all just one giant left-wing Enviromarxist political activist money laundering operation. I can’t wait until the DOGE boys cut their ties to taxpayer funding…

Figure 7. Calling all DOGE boys!
Figure 8. DOGE! DOGE with extreme prejudice!

I actually had to trick the Google AI. When I Googled with “taxpayer funding,” the AI reported that the organizations are not taxpayer-funded.

Back to reality

The world will not transition “from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050” or by 2100.

Figure 9. Life Expectancy: Our World in Data, Energy Consumption: Bjorn Lomborg, 2020

Life will go on and…

References

Carman, J., Ballew, M., Lu, D., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Goddard, E., Low, J., Marlon, J., Verner, M., Lee, S., Myers, T., Goldberg, M., Badullovich, N., Mason, T., Aguilar, A., Ongelungel, S. M., Sahlin, K., Sanchez, C., Burga, I., Magaña, M., Amer, S., Williams, R.T., Burgess, M., McRae, G., Fekede, M., Salgado, M., Larson, A., Barendregt-Ludwig, K., Gelobter, M., & Torres, G. (2023). Climate Change in the American Mind: Climate Justice, Spring 2023. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

Carman, J. P., Lu, D., Ballew, M., Low, J., Verner, M., Rosenthal, S. A., Barendregt-Ludwig, K., Torres, G., Gelobter, M., McKenney, K., Burga, I., Magaña, M., Amer, S., Williams, R. T., Burgess, M., McRae, G., Larson, A., Salgado, M., Kioko, L. N., Marlon, J., Thier, K., Kotcher, J., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2025). Americans’ support for climate justice. Environmental Science & Policy, 163, 103976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103976

Lomborg, Bjorn. Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Volume 156, 2020, 119981, ISSN 0040-1625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119981.

Why Overturning Net Zero Hurts China

As the image suggests, the push for Net Zero burdens western nations, but benefits China and Russia in different ways.  Russia pays lip service to the CO2 phobia, while its scientists and climate modelers know that any global warming will be modest and a boon to their high latitude country.  Thus, any economic and military self-destruction by other powers increases Russia’s position and security.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

As the image suggests, the push for Net Zero burdens western nations, but benefits China and Russia in different ways.  Russia pays lip service to the CO2 phobia, while its scientists and climate modelers know that any global warming will be modest and a boon to their high latitude country.  Thus, any economic and military self-destruction by other powers increases Russia’s position and security.

China’s gains from the Net Zero obsession have been greater and different.  First of all, China is protected from emissions reductions and economic development there can proceed unimpeded.

Secondly, and more significantly China has bet the house to be the dominant global supplier of “Green” energy hardware like wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries.  Their great success makes them vulnerable should the rest of the world realize these are impractical solutions for an imaginary problem.  Walter Russell Mead explains in his article Trump Outsmarts China on Green Energy.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

By dismantling the net-zero agenda, he ramps up economic pressure on Beijing

So much is happening so quickly in Washington these days that Donald Trump’s war on the green climate agenda has passed almost unnoticed. Steps like pulling out of the Paris Agreement, dropping electric-vehicle mandates, ending offshore leasing for wind projects, and fast-tracking fossil-fuel infrastructure would have dominated the news in quieter times.

But Mr. Trump’s climate policy matters for reasons that go beyond the climate debate. China has made Western climate policy a major focus of its economic strategy, and by pulling the rug out from under the global green agenda, the Trump administration is adding significantly to the economic pressure on Beijing.

Call it brilliant Chinese planning or gross Western incompetence, but the only real winner from the green agenda that Western governments have done so much to impose on the world is Beijing. Solar power cells, wind turbines, electric vehicles and the batteries that keep them moving: China has swiftly established dominance in one critical industry and supply chain after another.

This diagram shows the origin of the metals required for meeting the 2030 goals. The left side of the diagram shows the origin, based on today’s global production of metals. The right side shows the cumulative metal demand for wind and solar technologies until 2030. From study showing tonnage of Dutch demand only.

This was eminently foreseeable. The Chinese Communist Party’s economic planners in Beijing are the most effective technocrats the world has ever known, eclipsing the fumbling Soviet planners of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras. Give them a set of targets, a timetable and a list of technologies to promote, and they will coordinate state policy, banking subsidies and market forces to produce world-beating industries in record time.

China’s production capacity for these materials and components dwarfs the rest of the world – exceeding global demand in many cases. Source: James Kennedy https://us.docworkspace.com/d/sIAGK_NAjoOC-lAY

The European and American architects of the green transition were
unintentionally creating a playing field ideally suited to China’s core
strengths, and Beijing took full advantage.

But even the most brilliant planners make mistakes. China today is a combination of extraordinary economic and industrial success and monumental failure. The ruinous demographic consequences of its one-child policy, the explosive mix of financial and social pressures wrapped up in the real-estate bubble, and the excess industrial capacity resulting from decades of aggressive state planning loom ever larger over China’s future. Mr. Trump’s proposed upending of global climate policy would transform China’s drive to dominate the energy transition from a major win to an expensive misfire for Beijing.

The net-zero agenda, a set of targets and strategies by Western governments and climate diplomats to arrest global warming by limiting emissions, is the most audacious international effort in diplomatic history. It seeks to persuade or compel every country on the planet to make a transition to energy production that does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The costs of the transition easily run into the trillions of dollars. The social and economic impact will transform everything from agriculture to manufacturing.

An enterprise this ambitious requires enduring political support. As time goes by, the costs of the energy transition inexorably rise, and opposition to the project grows as more interests are affected. Proponents understood this and counted on three factors to ensure that progress toward net zero continued even as opponents dug in their heels.

1. Blame Natural Disasters on CO2 Emissions

First, as the growing costs of climate change ricocheted through the economy (driving up insurance costs in disaster-prone areas, for example, as weather risks grew), more voters would support net-zero policies.

2. Green Industries Lobby to Protect Their Interests

Second, industries that had invested in climate-friendly technologies (like automobile makers investing billions in EV-producing factories) would lobby politicians to protect their investments by maintaining the regulations and subsidies that made them profitable.

3.  Workers Wanting to protect their Green Jobs.

Third, as net-zero-friendly industries employed more workers, these beneficiaries of net-zero policies would support measures that protected their jobs.

Will those be enough to stop the rising wave of energy realism and loss of Net Zero faith?

Wright is now confirmed as US Secretary of Energy
EPA priorities Announced by Director Zeldin

France attracts global AI industry with nuclear power — Renewables-nations attract … nothing much

At this moment in history, as AI takes off, France has a couple of gigawatts of reliable baseload power to spare.  It has a vision of being one of the global Big Three industrial hubs of AI development along with China and the USA. The French Energy giant EDF is offering land near the power plants to build big new AI datacenters and is already signing those deals.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

A fork in the road…

At this moment in history, as AI takes off, France has a couple of gigawatts of reliable baseload power to spare.  It has a vision of being one of the global Big Three industrial hubs of AI development along with China and the USA. The French Energy giant EDF is offering land near the power plants to build big new AI datacenters and is already signing those deals.

With AI on the cusp of self-directed robots to transform manufacturing, transportation, medicine, research, and farming, it could be remaking whole economies soon.

Ten or twenty years ago, Australia could have joined this party. We could have expanded our economy vastly, putting us at the front of the new technology. Instead we wrecked the grid, blew up the coal plants, and ran out of gas. All so we “wouldn’t be left behind” or called mean names by someone at the UN.

France tempts AI firms with its nuclear electricity

World Nuclear News

UK-based AI cloud provider Fluidstack has signed a memorandum of understanding with the French government to construct one of the world’s largest decarbonised AI supercomputers in France. Meanwhile, utility EDF has identified four sites on its own land that it will offer for data centres. AI firms with its nuclear electricity.

It added: “Fluidstack and the French government recognise that AI’s future hinges on three core pillars: energy, compute power, and AI models. By leveraging France’s nuclear assets, the advanced grid infrastructure enabled by [grid operator] RTE, leading AI talent, and cutting-edge compute technologies, this partnership will establish France amongst the world’s top three AI hubs alongside the United States and China.”

Nobody tempts anyone with solar panels, voltage surges, price rises and unreliable power.

Fifty years ago, France built 56 nuclear plants in just 15 years, and they’re still reaping rewards and opportunities from them.

EPA Returns ‘Gold Bars’ to Taxpayers – The Climate Realism Show #145

The good news for climate realists and better governance in the Trump administration is piling up so fast it is difficult to keep up. As we covered on this show on December 6, a bit of undercover journalism by Project Veritas exposed a left-wing staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency admitting that he and others were trying to get billions of our tax money “out as fast as possible” before the Trump administration arrived in January and put a stop to it. “It truly feels like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge,” laughed Brent Efron, former “special advisor for implementation” at EPA.

From The Heartland Institute

The good news for climate realists and better governance in the Trump administration is piling up so fast it is difficult to keep up. As we covered on this show on December 6, a bit of undercover journalism by Project Veritas exposed a left-wing staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency admitting that he and others were trying to get billions of our tax money “out as fast as possible” before the Trump administration arrived in January and put a stop to it. “It truly feels like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge,” laughed Brent Efron, former “special advisor for implementation” at EPA. Well, new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced this week that he has jumped into his submersible and snatched the gold bars ($20 billion) out of the hands of unaccountable lefty nonprofit “NGOs” and returned them to the treasury. The endless flow of our tax money going to environmental extremists’ groups who advocate against America’s interest seems to be coming to an end.

The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely, will also talk about how the Paris Climate Agreement seems to be breaking apart, provide a media “Climate Fact Check” for January, check in on the continuing failure of EVs, show you what a “dying coyote” climate protest looks and sounds like, and more.

Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET and join us in the chat where we will share your comments and answer our questions.

The EPA’s Titanic Blunder: A $20 Billion Betrayal of Public Trust

In a staggering revelation, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin has uncovered a clandestine maneuver by the previous Biden administration, involving the allocation of approximately $20 billion in taxpayer funds to an external financial institution. This move appears to have been a deliberate attempt to circumvent potential budgetary constraints anticipated from the succeeding administration.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

In a staggering revelation, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin has uncovered a clandestine maneuver by the previous Biden administration, involving the allocation of approximately $20 billion in taxpayer funds to an external financial institution. This move appears to have been a deliberate attempt to circumvent potential budgetary constraints anticipated from the succeeding administration. The funds, earmarked for environmental projects under the Inflation Reduction Act, were distributed among eight entities, notably including the Climate United Fund.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Wednesday that he’s found $20 billion in taxpayer money that the Biden administration “parked” at a financial institution — in an apparent effort to prevent the Trump administration from cutting grants to “far-left activist groups.” 

Administrator Zeldin has expressed profound concerns regarding the transparency and oversight of this allocation process. He is advocating for the immediate return of these funds to the EPA to ensure proper management and accountability. Zeldin has also indicated plans to refer this matter to the EPA’s inspector general and to collaborate with the Justice Department to uphold fiscal responsibility and public trust.

“Shockingly, roughly 20 billion of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA,” Zeldin said. “This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight.”

In December 2024, Project Veritas released an undercover interview with Brent Efron, a Special Advisor for Implementation at the EPA. Efron candidly described the agency’s frantic efforts to distribute funds before the transition of power, stating, “Now it’s how to get the money out as fast as possible before they [Trump Administration] come in … it’s like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge.”

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/epa-advisor-admits-insurance-policy-against-trump-is-gold-bars-off-titanic?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Efron’s admission lays bare a troubling strategy: the EPA was funneling billions into nonprofits as a political buffer against incoming Republican oversight. He revealed that over the past year, the agency had disbursed $50 billion for climate initiatives, viewing these nonprofits as safer repositories for funds that might otherwise be retracted by a new administration. Efron even hinted at personal aspirations, noting that working for one of these well-funded organizations “would be really cool.”

It appears that X user Oilfield Rando was the one who identified this fund early one and was trying to call attention to it since at least January 30th.

https://x.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1885012124621025493

This behavior is not just irresponsible; it’s a blatant betrayal of public trust. The EPA, an agency entrusted with safeguarding our environment, appears to have engaged in covert financial maneuvers to advance a specific political agenda, all while evading accountability. Such actions undermine the very foundation of our democratic system, where transparency and oversight are paramount.

The metaphor of “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” is particularly apt. It suggests a reckless desperation, a willingness to jettison valuable resources in a futile attempt to salvage a sinking agenda. But unlike the doomed passengers of the Titanic, the EPA had a choice. They chose to prioritize political expediency over fiscal responsibility, to the detriment of the American taxpayer.

Steve McIntyre has posted a thread on X detailing the intended recipients of this slush fund.

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1889868794652164337

This scandal demands immediate action. The $20 billion must be returned to the EPA’s control, and a thorough investigation should be conducted to hold accountable those who orchestrated this scheme. Furthermore, this incident should serve as a clarion call for greater oversight of federal agencies, ensuring that they cannot operate as rogue entities pursuing their own agendas at the public’s expense.

The EPA’s actions represent a profound breach of public trust. It’s imperative that we address this misconduct head-on, not only to rectify the current situation but also to prevent such abuses in the future. The American people deserve a government that operates with integrity, transparency, and accountability—not one that throws their hard-earned “gold bars” into the abyss.

H/T joseph-zorzin, or-for

No, BBC, a Small Panamanian Island is Not Drowning Due to Climate Change

The BBC’s recent article “Climate change: The Panama community that fled its drowning island,” claims that the island of Cartí Sugdupu in Panama is being swallowed by rising sea levels due to climate change. This is false. The reality is that the island’s inhabitants are not being forced to relocate because of rising oceans, but due to overcrowding, poor infrastructure, and a lack of resources—issues that have nothing to do with climate change.

From ClimateRealism


By Anthony Watts

The BBC’s recent article “Climate change: The Panama community that fled its drowning island,” claims that the island of Cartí Sugdupu in Panama is being swallowed by rising sea levels due to climate change. This is false. The reality is that the island’s inhabitants are not being forced to relocate because of rising oceans, but due to overcrowding, poor infrastructure, and a lack of resources—issues that have nothing to do with climate change. Furthermore, real-world examples and peer-reviewed research contradict the idea that small islands are disappearing due to rising seas. Instead, many islands are growing, adapting, and naturally shifting over time. The BBC’s report is misleading at best, deliberately deceptive at worst.

Cartí Sugdupu is one of Panama’s San Blas Islands, home to the indigenous Guna people. The BBC’s article, painting a picture of climate-induced displacement, completely ignores the fact that the island is severely overcrowded, with more than 1,000 people packed into a tiny space of just 0.028 square miles. That’s a population density higher than New York City! The primary reason the residents are moving is not rising sea levels, but poor living conditions, lack of fresh water, and a shortage of space—issues that have been pressing for decades.

Instead of addressing these fundamental concerns, the BBC presents the relocation as a direct result of climate change, despite the absence of evidence that rising seas are responsible. The sea level around Panama has been rising at an average of about 1 to 3 mm per year, a rate consistent with natural post-Little Ice Age trends, a rate that has not increased during the recent period of climate change. As such, there is no indication of an impending climate catastrophe as described in Climate at a Glance. At this pace, it would take centuries before Cartí Sugdupu would face submersion.

Some new islands are even emerging. For example in the article San Blas Reborn: New Islands Emerge Amidst Climate Change Hysteria it has been reported:

Off the coast of Maoqui in the Dutch Cays, a new island is gradually taking shape. What started as a mere speck of land, approximately 5 meters by 8 meters, has grown over the past decade to a remarkable 40 meters by 80 meters.

The BBC article implies that small islands like Cartí Sugdupu are being swallowed by the ocean, yet fails to mention peer-reviewed research demonstrating that most islands are stable or even expanding. A 2018 study published in Nature Communications examined 101 Pacific and Indian Ocean islands and found that 88 percent were either stable or increasing in size (Kench, Ford, and Owen, 2018). The processes that shape islands—sediment accumulation, reef growth, and dynamic land movement—mean that atolls and low-lying islands are not passive victims of sea level rise.

Tuvalu is a perfect example. Despite years of claims that the country would disappear, its total land area has actually grown by 2.9 percent over four decades. Similar observations have been made for islands in Kiribati, the Maldives, and the Marshall Islands. If these islands are growing or maintaining their size despite sea level rise, why would Cartí Sugdupu be uniquely doomed? The BBC refuses to acknowledge this inconvenient reality.

The real reason for the relocation of Cartí Sugdupu’s residents has nothing to do with climate change. Instead, it comes down to basic infrastructure challenges:

  • Overpopulation – As seen in the head photograph, the island is overcrowded, with nowhere to expand. Unlike coral atolls that naturally grow, Cartí Sugdupu is an isolated, heavily inhabited island with no room for additional housing or development.
  • Lack of Freshwater and Sanitation – Many small islands struggle with freshwater availability. The BBC ignores this and instead attributes all hardships to climate change.
  • Economic and Government Decisions – Panama’s government is relocating the residents as part of a planned move, not an emergency evacuation due to rising waters.

The BBC’s reporting is a prime example of climate alarmism dressed up as journalism, with the organization pushing a narrative, while ignoring crucial facts. Rather than investigating the real reasons behind Cartí Sugdupu’s relocation—overpopulation, lack of infrastructure, and government decisions—the BBC misleadingly claims climate change is forcing its residents to relocate. It is the government that has made that decision, and not because the seas are rising at a historically unusual rate. The BBC ignores peer-reviewed research disproving its claim that islands are disappearing, fails to mention historical sea level trends, and omits crucial local factors that explain the island’s challenges. This isn’t objective reporting—it is activism disguised as news. The BBC’s audience deserves better, it deserves the truth.

The LA fires were man-made, but not like they say

The political fires that ignited with President Donald Trump’s second inauguration shifted national attention away from the devastating wildfires in California.

Now entirely contained, the Los Angeles County fires should not be allowed to fade into the history books, chalked up to yet another consequence of man-made global warming. Politicians trying to pin the blame for the disaster on climate change are not only attempting to avoid accountability but are just plain wrong.

Arson or nature disaster – burning fire flame on wooden house roof

From CFACT

By Chris Martz

The political fires that ignited with President Donald Trump’s second inauguration shifted national attention away from the devastating wildfires in California.

Now entirely contained, the Los Angeles County fires should not be allowed to fade into the history books, chalked up to yet another consequence of man-made global warming. Politicians trying to pin the blame for the disaster on climate change are not only attempting to avoid accountability but are just plain wrong.

Fires require three key ingredients: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen. Wildfires do not spontaneously combust because the planet is 1.2°C warmer now than in 1850. There must first be an ignition source. These can be natural, such as lightning, or man-made, such as fireworks, sparks, or arson. Ninety-seven percent of fires between 1992 and 2012 had a human ignition source, according to a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Mediterranean California is no exception. While the exact cause of the Los Angeles fires has yet to be determined, lightning has already been ruled out. Whether it was an accident, arson, or broken utility lines remains unknown. If it was a broken power line, Southern California Edison must explain why it didn’t deenergize its transmission lines in the foothills. What is known is that the weather conditions have been ripe for fires to escape containment and spread.

The meteorology

Before the fires started, the National Weather Service office in Los Angeles warned of “life-threatening” and “destructive” windstorms. Residents were advised to stay indoors and away from windows as strong northeasterly winds with gusts exceeding 80 mph were expected to hit the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding foothills. Such gusts can topple not only trees but also utility lines and loose objects that may ignite fires, which can spread rapidly.

The meteorology behind this is simple. The whipping northeasterly winds resulted from a tight pressure gradient between high pressure over the Great Basin and low pressure over Baja California. While the gradient of pressure points toward higher values, the acceleration acts inversely, shifting the prevailing wind direction to north, northeasterly. The tighter the gradient, the stronger the winds are.

As the mass of air moves toward lower pressures, it is channeled through mountain passes, descends the leeward side, and flows into the foothills. Funneling air through a region of higher pressure causes it to compress, accelerating the air because the same mass is forced through a smaller opening — consider the rush of air you feel when the valve core is removed to deflate a tire. Compression dries and heats the air at a rate of 17.6°F for every kilometer of descent. Once the hot, dry winds reach the foothills, they dry out vegetation, particularly small-diameter fuels such as twigs, leaves, and grass, in less than 10 hours and stoke existing fires by supplying them with more oxygen.

These winds are known as the Santa Ana winds. They occur each year, and every resident of Southern California is familiar with them.

The news articles linking the LA fires to man-made climate change cite increasingly parched vegetation caused by rising temperatures and decreasing rainfall. While LA has warmed by 5.4°F since records began in 1878, likely partly due to the urban heat island effect, there is no statistically significant trend in rainfall — 2023 was the sixth-wettest year on record.

Moreover, it’s worth considering that, on a regional scale, the Southwest has been getting drier since at least 1895. Since 2000, it has been in what is loosely defined as a “megadrought.” In fact, the Southwest has a well-documented history of “megadroughts.” Evidence from tree-ring reconstructions indicates that western North America’s current “megadrought” has precedent within the last millennium. The 400-year-long “Medieval megadrought,” which occurred between 900 and 1300 AD, has surpassed any recorded period of aridity since then.

There is no conclusive evidence that greenhouse gas emissions triggered the deadly blazes. For instance, variations in air temperature and precipitation from the average are minimal in relation to the burn area. Fires can burn regardless of whether the air is hot or cold. A study published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that the maximum temperature during all Santa Ana wind-driven fires from 1948 to 2018 ranged between 43°F and 95°F. The authors noted that no causal link existed between the acreage burned and temperature. Additionally, there was a weak correlation between burn acreage and rainfall in the seven to 30 days prior.

Fuels, particularly small-diameter fuels, dry out quickly when weather conditions shift. The drying effect of Santa Ana winds makes vegetation highly flammable within just a few hours, even if rainfall has been above average. Although the American Association for the Advancement of Science study found that no fires occur during 75% of Santa Ana wind events, it also found that humans cause 100% of fires associated with these winds.

Therefore, human-induced ignitions have a far greater impact on fire risk than the background environmental conditions influenced by a changing climate.

There is still no consensus about future changes in Santa Ana wind events. One study observed an increase in Santa Ana wind days over the past two decades, linking this trend to a rising frequency of jet stream configurations over California. However, another paper found that the southwest pressure gradient driving Santa Ana winds declines in the authors’ models in response to warming, although the downturns are less pronounced in winter. These and similar studies cast significant doubt on the connection between the fires and man-made climate change.

Reducing future fire risks

In Northern California, which is densely forested, fire exclusion and poor forest management, such as insufficient mechanical thinning and prescribed burning, have led to a century-long buildup of fuel, primarily on federal lands. In contrast, Southern California’s fuel load mainly consists of chaparral brush and nonnative plant species, such as eucalyptus, which contains flammable oils, and palm trees, which easily ignite due to their fibrous texture.

Although forest mismanagement isn’t as significant an issue, fuel reduction can still more than offset the small increase in fire danger resulting from future warming by as much as 15% relative to today under the “business-as-usual” emissions scenario. Essentially, rapid economic decarbonization efforts would prove futile.

Considering that 97% of fires are caused by humans, concentrating 11 million people who wish to live in sunny areas for six to nine months out of the year into a few thousand square miles will inevitably result in an increase in fire incidents.

Reducing fire risk will depend on increasing public awareness of fire safety to reduce ignitions, increasing firefighting resources, implementing and enforcing stricter building codes that mandate fire-resistant construction for homes, and ensuring that Southern California Edison cuts off power transmission during high-wind events to minimize the risk of fires caused by downed power lines or, alternatively, buries its lines underground.

While there are many useful mitigation techniques we could use, I am not convinced that any of them will be implemented. It’s too easy for progressives to continue to focus on “net zero” targets and blame every environmental disaster on climate change.

That allows them and their allies in media to then point the finger at energy companies and demand costly payments through litigation and legislation such as climate superfunds. Energy companies that produce what humanity requires to survive become the villains in the climate change morality play, conveniently diverting attention from progressives’ own policies that increased fire risk in recent decades: inadequate urban planning and neglecting essential underbrush thinning. And if their shenanigans succeed, they get millions of dollars to play with.

They must not be allowed to get away with it this time.

This article originally appeared in The Washington Examiner.

Why Don’t the Met Office Tell the Truth About UK Storms?

Are storms getting worse in the UK?

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Are storms getting worse in the UK?

You would be excused for thinking they are, given the torrent of headlines year after year:

I have certainly seen several comments in the media to that effect after Storm Eowyn last month. The Met Office themselves stoke this fake propaganda, with comments like this:

Most climate projections indicate that winter windstorms will increase slightly in number and intensity over the UK as a result of climate change.

You might recall a story I ran last month, when Sheffield City Council blamed climate change for a £5m tree maintenance bill, stating that the increased regularity of storms had caused costs to balloon.

Nowhere at any stage have I seen the Met Office publicly correct this disinformation and acknowledge in the media what their own Annual Reviews of the UK Climate say year after year – that storms are less intense and less frequent than they used to be – see here.

A year ago, I carried out an analysis of wind speeds at Bingley, West Yorkshire, using data provided by the Met Office. It showed a clear decline in maximum gust speeds each year since 1972:

(The maximum gust from Eowyn was 54 kts, though it is not shown on the graph).

I have now used the same data to calculate the number of stormy days each year, defined as over 50 kts. The results are startling as well as damning for the misinformation spewed by the media, which is sustained by the Met Office’s refusal to tell the public the truth.

NOTE: There are 1076 days with no Met Office data between 1973 and 2009. Since 2009 there are 7 missing days.

I really don’t need to comment, do I? The contrast is so stark that I even rechecked all of the data.

But what is also remarkable is that the 1970s appeared every bit as bad as the 1990s, both for peak gusts and frequency.

In 1974 there were 13 days over 50 kts at Bingley, including six in December alone, with the 28th peaking at 66 kts. A glance at the monthly weather report proves that the whole country had the same sort of weather:

We have not had a month like that in recent years. 78 kts (90mph) at Kew is simply astonishing, as is 83 kts at Eskdalemuir amd Middlesborough– note these were all set on separate days.

Bingley is of course just one location, but my analysis correlates closely with the UK plot of 50 kt storms, which also shows a marked decline in storm days after the turn of the century:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/08/04/met-office-admit-storms-were-much-worse-in-past/

It is time that the Met Office claim clean and told the public the truth about storms.

Climate Advocacy, not Scholarship: UNLV Professor Leffel at Work

Yes! End federal grants and spare the taxpayer! Climate scientists should be more amenable to doing controversial projects that are less alarmist or even pro-CO2.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“I will debate you on the condition that we hold the debate in the form of a WWE professional wrestling match, because that’s about as seriously as I take you.” (- Benjamin Leffel to author, below)

Benjamin Leffel, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Leadership, University of Nevada Las Vegas, posted on LinkedIn (with this link to Science magazine).

Dear foundations and philanthropies:
Thousands of high-impact research grant proposals are being pressured to change their language for fear of angering the Trump regime. Many researchers will be looking to foundations instead of federal sources like NSF as a result. Now is your time to shine.

I commented on his post:

Yes! End federal grants and spare the taxpayer! Climate scientists should be more amenable to doing controversial projects that are less alarmist or even pro-CO2.

Leffel then asked out of the blue, “where does your research funding come from?”

I answered:

Several thousand free market and classical liberal donors who like our principled, classical liberal positions. Might seem strange to you, but my beliefs have always come first. Ever since I was in the gasoline lines in the 1970s thanks to price controls.”

And added: “When are we going to debate there in Las Vegas? I have challenged you for months. I have a strong case against climate alarmism and for energy exceptionalism.”

Leffel responded: “I will debate you on the condition that we hold the debate in the form of a WWE professional wrestling match, because that’s about as seriously as I take you.”

I responded: “Are you an intellectual? A scholar? Your reply indicates anger at climate and energy realism. Again, let’s debate!”

——————————–

Funny thing, or not so funny. This professor is a lot like two others I have encountered on social media. Quotations from each are illustrative. Alarmist Gunnar Schade of Texas A&M said

“… there are plenty of climate science deniers here [on LinkedIn] to vehemently argue for the defendants’ case [in Mann v. Steyn]…. It is profoundly saddening when you realize that the platform I am writing this on would most probably not remove these people’s posts in the form they were written had somebody reported them.” 

Censorship is what Schade wants, and predictably, he blocked me on LinkedIn. And then there is Schade’s mentor and running mate at Texas A&M, Andrew Dessler, who has stated:

Hey assholes. We’ve been telling you for decades that this was going to happen if we didn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You didn’t listen and now it’s all happening. We hope you’re happy. Enjoy the heatwaves, intense rainfall, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and many other things, you fucking morons.” 

Leffel, Schade, Dessler … They cancel and ignore their worthy opponents rather than subject themselves to the harsh light of day. They are exaggerators and more like lawyers pleading a case.

Final Comment

It is hard being green when CO2 is green and wind/solar/batteries are not. They go Michael “Climategate” Mann whose strategy is “Report, block. Don’t engage.”

Despite all, the skeptics of climate alarm and forced energy transformation are winning. The other side had better step up or step down. A sabbatical to reexamine climate and energy issues would be ideal for these smug professors that pay no price for being wrong, unlike most everyone else in the real world.

Reform plan ‘major threat’ to renewables auction

Net Zero Watch says the Reform Party may have stopped the green bandwagon in its tracks. In a news conference today, the party’s deputy leader Richard Tice announced plans to claw back subsidies from renewables operators.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

London: 12 February 2025
Reform UK plans are ‘major threat’ to renewables auction

Net Zero Watch says the Reform Party may have stopped the green bandwagon in its tracks. In a news conference today, the party’s deputy leader Richard Tice announced plans to claw back subsidies from renewables operators.

With the party now ahead in many polls of Westminster voting intention, the announcement will be a major blow to a renewables industry already beset by problems, from soaring capital costs to collapsing demand. In particular, it threatens the next annual round of the Contracts for Difference renewables auction (AR7). The government needs the auction to deliver an unprecedented quantity of new renewables if it is to deliver on its Clean Power 2030 plan. However, the auction timetable has slipped compared to last year, suggesting that investors may already be nervous, and now Reform’s announcement may kill it off entirely.

Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:

‘Reform’s announcement is undoubtedly a major threat to future renewables auctions, because it completely undermines the economic rationale for building new wind and solar. If it brings the renewables bandwagon to a halt, consumers will at least be able to hope that their energy bills will eventually stop rising.’