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.
An urgent safety alert has been issued at wind farms across Australia after asbestos was discovered in Chinese-made wind turbines.
An urgent safety alert has been issued at wind farms across Australia after asbestos was discovered in Chinese-made wind turbines.
The deadly material was first found in brake pads used in wind turbine tower lifts at the Goldwind Cattle Hill wind farm in central Tasmania. The Daily Mail Online has the story.
WorkSafe Victoria and SafeWork NSW confirmed on Friday that white asbestos was also found at a number of wind farm sites.
The state regulators, along with renewable energy company Goldwind Australia, launched an investigation into the issue.
Goldwind, which is a subsidiary of Chinese firm Goldwind Science and Technology, claimed the brake pads were supplied by 3S Industry.
3S Industry is a major Chinese-based supplier and one of a few brake pad suppliers in Australia.
The supplier has provided brake pads to numerous wind farms across the country and has been involved in several projects, including White Rock, Gullen Range and Biala in NSW, Clarke Creek in Queensland, and Moorabool and Stockyard Hill in Victoria.
The discovery has sparked fears the problem could be more widespread, with the hazardous material potentially affecting turbines throughout the country.
The brake pads are part of the turbine’s internal mechanism, with the level of risk of asbestos exposure to workers and contractors unclear.
There is also no suggestion the community has been exposed to the asbestos or that the environment has been contaminated.
Consumers’ Research sent a letter to several members of the Trump administration Thursday, urging agencies to ditch any association with the company First Street over its allegedly inaccurate climate risk modeling.
Consumers’ Research sent a letter to several members of the Trump administration Thursday, urging agencies to ditch any association with the company First Street over its allegedly inaccurate climate risk modeling.
In the letter, Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild notes that recentreports captured doubts from homeowners and industry insiders over the reliability of First Street’s flood risk assessments and calls for “an interagency review of how federal collaborations are referenced in First Street press.” Consumers’ Research addressed the letter to the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Consumer Financial Protection Board Acting Director Russ Vought, among several other agency heads.
“First Street is attempting to push a radical climate agenda onto consumers by implying federal agencies endorse its politically motivated climate risk models. This practice is purposefully misleading, as First Street’s climate models undermine [Federal Emergency Management Agency] FEMA’s role as the legal and regulatory standard for climate risk scoring and arbitrarily distorts consumer property values,” Hild told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This is why we are urging these federal agencies clarify they do not endorse First Street and demand the removal of agency branding from all public materials. Consumers’ Research stands with homeowners and buyers who deserve accurate, transparent, and federally-validated information, not metrics driven by climate activists.”
Hild notes in the letter that some federal agency announcements and materials referenced First Street’s risk assessment data and argues that this is a concern due to recent reports and complaints that the company’s data may not accurately reflect flood risks. Major real estate platforms like Zillow, Redfin and Realtor.com have factored First Street’s flood data into their listings, the letter notes.
“Recent reporting and public complaints indicate that First Street’s property‑level scores can be materially wrong and difficult to remedy,” the letter states. “Your agencies’ names and logos — through formal agreements, data integrations, or research use — are cited by First Street as evidence of federal alignment with its property‑level climate risk scores. … I write to urge your agencies to (1) publicly renounce or suspend any partnership language and implied endorsements that lend federal imprimatur to First Street Foundation and its affiliated public‑benefit corporation, First Street Technology, and (2) clearly state that First Street/Risk Factor outputs must not be used in lieu of FEMA flood maps for regulatory, insurance, lending, disclosure, or listing purposes.”
First Street states on its website that the FEMA’s flood risk differs from its estimations as it “calculates flood risk on the property level, accounts for changing climate conditions, and considers the risk of flooding due to high-intensity rainfall,” whereas FEMA “determines flood risk on the community level, their risk projections capture risk from a single 1-in-100 or 1-in-500 event from storm surges and overflowing rivers and streams.”
First Street’s website states that “we exist to make the connection between climate and financial risk at scale for financial institutions, companies and governments.”
Several local homeowners toldNorth Carolina-based ABC News 13 that they believed they were struggling to sell their homes due to receiving high flood warning designations from First Street data. The homeowners argued that the data did not make sense as their close neighbors had vastly different flood warnings despite no seemingly feasible explanation.
One Tennessee-based real estate broker told the DCNF that she believes she and others in the industry have lost sales due to First Street flood data being displayed on real estate platforms.
“Buyer interest dropped off. Before we realized what was going on, we had canceled showings,” Stephanie Cross told the DCNF. “It’s crippling the seller. It’s crippling by putting this misinformation out there — and at the same time, basically devalues the property.”
A spokesperson for Realtor.com referred the DCNF to its flood risk information website page and noted that every listing displays both FEMA data and First Street data.
“A home is often a family’s most valuable asset, which is why Realtor.com believes it’s essential to help homeowners, sellers, buyers and renters understand any potential risks to a property so they can make informed decisions,” the spokesperson told the DCNF. “We think providing both ratings on the property listing paints a clearer picture of potential risks. If a home’s flood ratings appear particularly low or high, or in conflict, consumers are encouraged to consult a real estate agent or local floodplain official for guidance.”
First Street, Zillow and Redfin did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
This was mostly a quiet COP and with good reason. None of the big issues that normally create the drama were on the initial agenda. This omission of the most contentious issues was conspicuously deliberate. But at the end things got out of hand and nobody knows where they are going.
This was mostly a quiet COP and with good reason. None of the big issues that normally create the drama were on the initial agenda. This omission of the most contentious issues was conspicuously deliberate. But at the end things got out of hand and nobody knows where they are going.
The glaring initial omission was likely a Trump effect, because the biggest issue by far is funding from America and other so-called developed countries to the equally so-called developing countries. With the leading donor America not at the table there was little to discuss.
It all began when the agenda was established quickly and with little of the usual debate. COP President Lago of Brazil simply did not put the big issues on the list. Instead he set discussion groups to be held until the first Wednesday in the two week COP term.
Wednesday came and nothing had changed so the issues were again put off until Sunday when the COP was well on its way. There was still no progress so these issues were finally posted for formal discussion on the second Wednesday with just two days left to go.
The predictable result was a meaningless mishmash of futuristic statements. Mind you this makes sense since there was never anything of substance to decide. That is why few heads of state showed up.
But something big happened along the way. The buzzword that emerged was Roadmap. In each hard case there was going to be a roadmap for getting someplace, someday, which was often unspecified. But there were no roads so no map. An issue resolution roadmap normally specifies methods and milestones. In this case the only method was ever more meetings.
The big issues were huge dollar finance from America and other developed countries, trade measures, boosting emission-cutting ambition, transitioning away from fossil fuels and adaptation.
Trade measures is a relatively new issue. It has to do with the EU and some other countries implementing punitive trade barriers based on the emissions from making stuff. Of course, coal burning countries are against this, led by China.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels was especially interesting because it emerged from the crowd of countries amid great resistance. In particular the African group initially insisted that in the near term fossil fuel development was essential to their economic development. This was a refreshing piece of reality that many countries came to share.
As the clock ran down transitioning away from fossil fuels became the really big issue. One side, the radicals, wanted a roadmap specifying a global end to fossil fuel use by a date certain. The other side simply wanted no such thing.
Roughly half of the almost 200 countries present were on each side. But the UN rules say agreement must be unanimous so half was pretty small.
The nutty EU and UK actually led the radicals, insisting until just before the end that the final agreement would have to include this transition. Happily, it did not. In fact, fossil fuels were not mentioned, a victory for reality.
Then it gets really interesting, possibly critically. A commitment to a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels was not part of the COP 30 deal, but Brazil promised an initiative outside the UN process, building on a plan backed by Colombia and about 90 other nations.
This is a wild precedent to say the least. How does this new process work? Is it competing with the UN COP process established in 1992 with a Treaty all attending countries have ratified. Will the new process decisions have any such legal basis? It could even grow to replace the UN COP process which many countries have said is outdated. How it works is completely undefined.
In short Brazil fumbled the COP process to the point that an undefined new process is underway. Stay tuned to CFACT as this comic tragedy plays out.
“… Mr Albanese said on Sunday (AEDT) it was “a good thing” and “a very positive sign that the world wants to get on with co-operating” …”
G20 declaration rebuking Trump ‘a good thing’, PM says
Anthony Albanese says a declaration rebuking Donald Trump is “a good thing”.
Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer November 23, 2025 – 2:22PM
…
Despite the White House calling the G20 declaration “shameful”, Mr Albanese said on Sunday (AEDT) it was “a good thing” and “a very positive sign that the world wants to get on with co-operating”.
“It’s about what the world has committed to – the Paris Agreement and to action on climate change,” he told reporters ahead of his departure from Johannesburg.
“Of course, Australia signed up to the Paris Agreement, under Tony Abbott, and signed up to net zero under Scott Morrison, and with Angus Taylor as the energy minister.
“There is overwhelming support for action on climate change.
“People are very conscious of the fact that the increase in extreme weather events, the impact of climate change, is here right now.
“The impact on this continent here in Africa, the impact in the Pacific of course, is something that we’re very conscious of as well.”
Pressed on potential backlash from Washington, Mr Albanese said the declaration was “signed up by all of the countries who are participating here”, highlighting the US’ absence.
“And Australia, as a sovereign state, makes decisions based upon our own national interest,” he said.
In spite of these expressions of unity and common purpose, nobody seems to be announcing significant new climate ambitions or targets. There was massive delinquency in submitting plans for concrete climate action.
New climate pledges only slightly lower dangerous global warming projections
Under a third of Parties to Paris Agreement submitted new NDCs by 30 September 2025
Global temperatures now predicted to reach 2.3-2.5°C, down from 2.6-2.8°C last year
Lack of ambition and action means exceedance of 1.5°C is approaching
Nairobi, 4 November 2025 – A UN Environment Programme (UNEP) assessment of available new climate pledges under the Paris Agreement finds that the predicted global temperature rise over the course of this century has only slightly fallen, leaving the world heading for a serious escalation of climate risks and damages.
Other commentators have noted the lack of COP30 progress on agreeing climate finance, or rather closing the “ambition gap”, which is activist speak for making good on all those wild climate finance promises.
COP30 TAKES A HOPEFUL STEP TOWARDS JUSTICE, BUT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH
22 November 2025
Climate Action Network International (CAN) welcomes the adoption of the Just Transition mechanism as one of the strongest rights-based outcomes in the history of the UN climate negotiations. At the same time, CAN warns that COP30 has produced weak outcomes in the very areas that are critical to ensuring justice for vulnerable and frontline communities. A dangerously weak outcome on Adaptation finance leaves little hope for impacted communities.
Further adding to this injustice, governments did not deliver a concrete global response plan to address the ambition gap, and only agreed to have further processes to address this gap including on a just, equitable and orderly transition away from fossil fuels – while welcome, we need more than a process. We need implementation that includes finance to urgently address the root cause of the climate crisis.
The real faultline running through COP30 was the refusal of developed countries to agree to the provision of finance across all areas. Their blocking of commitments on Adaptation finance, mitigation ambition, and the transition away from fossil fuels directly weakened the overall outcome. By once again failing to meet their climate-finance obligations – obligations grounded in historical responsibility – developed countries have undermined trust and fairness in the process and limited what this COP could have achieved.
Sooo – they are all united in climate ambition, but nobody is moving forward. There are plenty of promises on the table, but nobody is receiving any money.
What are they waiting for? Why do they care so much about the USA’s position on climate change, when leaders like Albanese claim the entire rest of the world is ready to forge ahead with saving the world from climate change?
I think the answer to what they are waiting for is obvious. G20 nations excluding the USA are ready to “get on with co-operating”, just as soon as the USA gives them some money.
Mid-2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dropped a 140-page advisory opinion on nations’ and businesses’ obligations concerning climate change. All 15 judges declared it an “urgent and existential threat,” mandating that every nation slash CO₂ emissions, adapt to disasters like storms, and foot the bill for climate damages.
Mid-2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dropped a 140-page advisory opinion on nations’ and businesses’ obligations concerning climate change. All 15 judges declared it an “urgent and existential threat,” mandating that every nation slash CO₂ emissions, adapt to disasters like storms, and foot the bill for climate damages.
This opinion’s moral weight is seismic, igniting a torrent of lawsuits, fresh emissions, taxes, and skyrocketing energy and food prices.
It is saddling the West with trillions in reparations, while ignoring fossil fuels’ role in keeping life affordable — from fueling commutes to filling plates. Worse, the world’s top emitter, China (34% of CO₂ emissions), skates free. China emits more than all industrial nations combined.
This ICJ opinion began with 27 law students from Vanuatu, a Pacific speck of 350,000 souls scraping by on $4,000 per capita annually. They fumed over stalled climate aid. Wealthy nations pledged $100 billion yearly for vulnerable states; by 2024, $83 billion materialized.
Frustrated, the students rallied the ICJ for a decision, citing Vanuatu’s “sinking.” Data debunks this: 88% of Pacific atolls hold steady or are expanding, per studies. Sea levels have crept up nine inches since the 1890s, according to NOAA tidal records.
91 countries and 11 organizations, including Vanuatu’s foreign minister, testified, framing it as a “Pacific cry.” Showing their bias, ICJ mined Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summaries — politician and bureaucrat-friendly digests engineered for alarm — and skipped raw data or contrarian research.
Prudent Action: Curb emissions to avert transboundary woes, like overseas deluges. End all investments in coal or oil ventures (para. 145).
Remedy Wrongs: Halt CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions, vow restraint, and compensate— “climate victims” (para. 201).
Aid the Vulnerable: Funnel cash and tech to indigent nations (para. 78).
Universal Imperative: Climate stewardship is akin to genocide bans. Everyone must participate and any nation can sue the laggards (para. 210).
Skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg decry the disconnect. Fossil fuels provide 83% of global energy, greening crops, and regrowing France-sized forests. Two to three billion souls burn wood, dung, and crop waste for cooking and heating, inhaling carcinogens in their destitution.
The ICJ’s opinion requires at least a $200 trillion renewables pivot by 2050, which requires new turbines and solar panels every 20 years — a folly, as China and India (41% of emissions) erect 700 coal behemoths lasting 40 years.
Ripples spread fast. By September 2025, climate suits topped 2,800 worldwide, up 30% post-ruling, targeting governments and Big Oil. Asking for outrageous amounts of money, demanding a push for carbon taxes and fees jacking up prices for energy, groceries, and all else.
Glimpses abroad chill: Germany’s Energiewende chased 80% renewables by 2030, spiking rates to triple America’s average. Industries bolted to coal-reliant China (60% power) or to the U.S. Britain’s 2050 net-zero target ballooned industrial electricity costs 124% from 2019–2023, hammering homes too. California’s 2045 clean mandate doubled rates; a 2025 Spain blackout from wind/solar flops caused blackouts for 55 million.
Europe’s Green Deal swells their budgets another €100 billion annually on already threadbare treasuries.
The rub? The ICJ ignores the prosperity that fossil fuels provide humanity: powering 83% of our energy, enhancing our lives by providing fertilizers for half the world’s meals, plastics for hygiene, and gear like IVs — greening the desert fringes because more CO₂ provides better heat and drought tolerance.
Energy abundance breeds prosperity and helps the environment; the Dominican Republic’s subsidized propane preserved 46% of its forests, unlike Haiti’s wood and forest barren fuel-scavenged wastes. For 2–3 billion off-grid, more affordable energy means survival and better lives.
This $200 trillion gamble could gut the West, ceding ground to unchecked emitters and UN controls. No nation has nailed reliable wind/solar at scale — it’s unproven, expensive, extravagance. The ICJ cloaks inequity in equity’s garb, but it’s a wallet-wounding ruse.
Lawsuits, levies, and edicts will cause everything to go up in price, causing inflation and eventually shortages. For everyday people, this opinion offers only pain and no gain. It’s sabotaging what is bringing humanity prosperity: progress caused by affordable, reliable, abundant fuels that are the engines for more prosperity for more people. That should be our goal.
National Public Radio (NPR) recently posted an article titled, “3 massive changes you’ll see as the climate careens toward tipping points,” by Rebecca Hersher and Lauren Sommer, which claims that coral reefs, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, and Arctic permafrost are approaching dangerous, near-irreversible climate “tipping points.” NPR’s claims are false. There is no evidence that coral reefs, the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica, or Arctic permafrost are caught in a loop of inevitable decline due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Data show that other factors are at play, and that the so-called tipping points are far from certain.
National Public Radio (NPR) recently posted an article titled, “3 massive changes you’ll see as the climate careens toward tipping points,” by Rebecca Hersher and Lauren Sommer, which claims that coral reefs, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, and Arctic permafrost are approaching dangerous, near-irreversible climate “tipping points.” NPR’s claims are false. There is no evidence that coral reefs, the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica, or Arctic permafrost are caught in a loop of inevitable decline due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Data show that other factors are at play, and that the so-called tipping points are far from certain.
Let’s start with Greenland. As Climate at a Glance: Greenland Ice Meltdiscusses, Greenland contains roughly three million gigatons of ice – a value so large it is nearly impossible to comprehend. Even during the highly publicized melt years of the past decade, annual losses represent less than 0.01 percent of the total ice sheet. (See the figure, below). Further, as documented by NASA’s GRACE satellite gravity analysis, the observed mass losses from all sources contribute well under a millimeter per year to global sea level. The minimal recorded loss of ice mass is in large part due to the fact that ice that has melted refroze before ever reaching the sea.
Figure 1. A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency. Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts.
NPR omits this important context entirely and also ignores major research showing that a substantial portion of recent Greenland surface melt is driven by darkened, low-albedo “dirty ice,” caused by soot, dust, and microbial darkening, not simply by rising air temperature.
Ironically, the NPR article itself provides a photo of “dirty ice” with apparently oblivious scientific researchers trekking across it, seen below.
Scientists from the United Kingdom trek up to a research site on the west side of the Greenland ice sheet near Kangerlussuaq. This year marks the 29th year in a row that Greenland has lost more ice than it gained. Ryan Kellman/NPR
The article’s coral-reef tipping-point narrative is similarly false. Climate at a Glance’s “Coral Reefs” and “The Great Barrier Reef” show that corals have repeatedly demonstrated resilience over millions of years, surviving periods significantly warmer than today. Bleaching is a stress response, not a death sentence, and long-term monitoring by the Australian Institute of Marine Science has shown record-high coral cover following recent bleaching episodes. Multiple Climate Realism analyses highlight misreported coral-collapse claims, documenting how media narratives routinely ignore recovery. In addition, where coral has struggled in recent years, NPR ignores the role of local stressors, such as, pollution, sediment runoff, destructive fishing, and coastal development, which have contributed to true coral death on occasion, far outweighing small changes in ocean temperature as a factor.
NPR’s third “tipping point,” permafrost, relies on speculative model projections rather than observations. Although permafrost thaw is happening in some regions, methane trends do not match the runaway-loop scenario described. Peer-reviewed research summarized by Climate Realism in “Purdue Study Destroys the ‘Permafrost Methane Bomb’ Myth,” shows that thawed permafrost releases significantly less methane than early models predicted, with microbial oxidation, hydrology, and soil conditions limiting net emissions. Additional critique of runaway-feedback claims appears in Climate Realism’sreview of flawed permafrost-collapse modeling, where even climate-alarmism proponents describe such models as unrealistic. NPR mentions none of this literature.
NPR’s “tipping point” claims are not new in either tenor or specifics; rather, they repeat a predictable pattern: dramatic scenarios derived from models are presented as near-term certainties, while actual measurements that undercut those scenarios are downplayed or omitted entirely. For Greenland, NPR omits that annual melt is microscopic relative to the ice sheet’s mass or that surface darkening, not temperature alone, drives melting. For corals, NPR ignores the empirical record of rapid recovery and the documented role of local human impacts. For permafrost, the article conflates regional thaw and infrastructure damage with large-scale climate feedbacks that measurements simply do not support.
NPR also avoids critical scientific context: natural variability, multi-decadal oscillations, and regional environmental factors. The tipping-point narrative also sidesteps the fact that short-term excursions above the much feared global temperature threshold of 1.5°C in recent years did not produce the predicted avalanche of catastrophic extremes. In point of fact, science has revealed no known tipping points. They remain theoretical speculations based on flawed climate model assumptions about unverified feedback loops within the global ecosystem.
NPR listeners and readers deserve the truth, which can only be discovered when the full context of each alarmist claim is presented. Instead, shamefully, Hersher and Sommer betray the ideal of journalistic pursuit of the truth, and instead embrace advocacy, providing a simplified and scientifically unjustified trilogy of “tipping points,” tailored to motivate or justify policy actions at the COP30 conference. Equally shamefully, NPR’s editors and fact checkers let their reporters get away with this flagrant activism cloaked as objective reporting. That is not science communication, it’s climate doom theater.
The UN climate chief Simon Stiell was in fine hysterical form at the start of the COP30 conference in Belém, telling delegates that squabbling would not be forgiven while famines take hold, forcing millions to flee their homelands. “To falter whilst megadroughts wreck national harvests, sending food prices soaring, makes zero sense economically and politically,” he was reported to have said by the Guardian. Fine words, of course, maybe even worth cutting down 100,000 mature rainforest trees so that 50,000 other COP clowns can hear them.
The UN climate chief Simon Stiell was in fine hysterical form at the start of the COP30 conference in Belém, telling delegates that squabbling would not be forgiven while famines take hold, forcing millions to flee their homelands. “To falter whilst megadroughts wreck national harvests, sending food prices soaring, makes zero sense economically and politically,” he was reported to have said by the Guardian. Fine words, of course, maybe even worth cutting down 100,000 mature rainforest trees so that 50,000 other COP clowns can hear them. Almost a shame to note that over the last 30 years, higher crop yields, thanks to hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser and increases in global biomass caused by a little extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, have led to the almost complete elimination of natural famine. Nobody can adequately define a climate refugee but no doubt millions, nay billions, are already on the move in the fevered imaginations of COP attendees and Guardian readers.
Over the last 25 years, natural famine, those primarily caused by environmental factors such as droughts and heat, has become exceedingly rare. In fact, natural famine mortality has been falling dramatically over the last 100 years. Almost all famines are caused by local conflicts or senseless outbreaks of political ideology. Chairman Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ in the late 1950s destroyed traditional farming in China and led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation. Ironically, if the hard-Left Net Zero numpties get their way and abolish hydrocarbon-produced fertiliser across the globe, even higher numbers of people, stretching into billions, will starve and likely die.
According to the latest WHO State of Food Security and Nutrition Report, hunger affected 8.2% of the global population. This was down from 8.5% in 2023 and the peak of 9.2% in 2022. One always needs to see the workings out whenever the United Nations is involved these days, but famine classifications are said to be limited to warzones.
Simon Stiell is a major league climate hysteric with plenty of past form. Former Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo was also on COP manoeuvres and offered the opinion that “we’ll warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can’t plant food”. The picky might note that it is difficult to “destroy” H2O – just ask hydrogen fans who have the devil of an expensive job in separating its two constituent parts. Heat can work in separating the individual atoms – 10,000°C near the Sun is a good bet. Meanwhile, World Food Programme Executive Director Cindy McCain claimed that unchecked climate change was already driving millions towards hunger through extreme weather. Checking climate, stopping the temperature, getting rid of all hydrocarbons from a modern society to bring forth a bright new future – Chairman Mao must be quietly chuckling in his Tiananmen Square mausoleum.
Regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will, of course, be up to speed regarding all the twaddle spoken about extreme weather and natural events such as drought. But it seems that however many times it is pointed out that even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) detects little, if any, change in most extreme weather trends, the scare – the number one scare – is too good to let go to promote the Net Zero fantasy.
Professor Gianluca Alimonti said that in 2022 and an unholy alliance of activists manged to get his widely-publicised paper retracted in Nature a year later. Now he is back with Alimonti 2 noting there have been no statistically worsening trends of climate impacts. On the other hand, there have been many improvements in humans adapting to whatever nature has thrown against them. Alimonti draws attention to IPCC findings that there is “low confidence” in the emergence of drought frequency, “for any type of drought, in all regions”. Similar lack of change is detected in cyclones, floods and wildfires.
Meanwhile, evidence continues to accumulate showing the Earth is increasing biomass at a considerable rate as higher levels of CO2, partly helped by humans using hydrocarbons, rescue the atmosphere from the near-denuded levels of the immediate paleo past. As the COP clowns travelled down their local ‘Highway of Shame’, built for their comfort by chopping down 100,000 rainforest trees, they would at least have been cheered by the recent news that the remaining mature Amazon trees are gorging on the gas of life. According to a recent paper published in Nature Plants, they are getting fatter by 6% on average every decade.
Hydrocarbon-based fertiliser has been an enormous help in feeding the world, but the role of higher levels of CO2 is also crucial. More CO2 in the atmosphere has boosted plant growth almost everywhere, leading to notable de-desertification in marginal living areas in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Another advantage is that plants growing with more CO2 need less water and can survive in areas where local droughts occur. More biomass also leads to a healthier planet with massive benefits cascading through the ecosystem.
Promising famines while promoting the ‘Great Leap Forward’ of Net Zero is just one reason why this deluded elite COP30 gathering collapsed under the weight of its own sinister inconsistencies.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Iran is currently facing ecological catastrophe caused by drought and misallocation of public resources. But apparently climate cash will fix the problem.
Iran is currently facing ecological catastrophe caused by drought and misallocation of public resources. But apparently climate cash will fix the problem.
COP30: Iran says climate action impossible without financing
November 21, 2025 – 15:18
TEHRAN – Sediqeh Torabi, an official with the Department of Environment (DOE), has emphasized the need for sufficient and predictable financing for implementing climate actions by developing countries.
Referring to the intensifying impacts of climate change in one of the world’s driest and most sensitive regions, Torabi said that frequent droughts, water scarcity, extreme heat, forest fires, as well as sand and dust storms have adversely affected Iran.
She made the remarks on Tuesday, November 18, during a plenary session at the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP30, being held in Belém, Brazil.
The official noted that Iran cannot support raised ambition in emissions reductions or new targets unless financing, technology transfer, and capacity-building for developing countries are fully and reliably provided. She said that ambition must be matched by the means of implementation.
…
In a meeting with Anacláudia Rossbach, executive director of the UN Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat), Ansari highlighted the need for comprehensive urban planning to mitigate climate change impacts, improve the sustainability and resilience of cities in the face of rising heat.
“Despite economic and climate challenges, Iran is doing its best to utilize regional and global scientific capacities to make cities more sustainable,” She noted.
Rossbach, for her part, emphasized the effective role of the UN-Habitat office in Iran. The official stressed the need to boost joint efforts in improving urban management and climate risk management, as well as improving the quality of urban life.
Iran’s capital is now experiencing a massive and deepening water shortage. After months of drought and scorching heat, the five reservoirs feeding the city of more than 10 million are mostly empty. Local authorities have been forced to mandate water rationing, and the situation has become so dire that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently warned that, unless the region experiences rainfall in the coming weeks, the city may need to be evacuated altogether.
…
The reasons have everything to do with the skewed priorities of Iran’s ruling clerical regime. True to their revolutionary pedigree, Iran’s ayatollahs have consistently preferred guns over butter. They have poured billions of dollars into the country’s nuclear program, its burgeoning arsenal of ballistic missiles and its extensive network of terrorist proxies.
What they have not done is make a meaningful, sustained nationwide effort to reverse the country’s worsening water situation. Now that the crisis has truly hit, Iranian officials are predictably trying to deflect the blame onto the Iranian people themselves.
The author of the following article is Nikahang Kowsar, a University of Tehran trained geologist who once stood for election as a reformist candidate for Tehran City Council, but currently lives in exile in the United States.
Grand Theft Hydrology: How Iran’s Water Mafia Engineered a Drought—Then Sent the Bill
Iran’s drought isn’t some angry weather god punishing us with a dry spell.
Enter the Water Mafia—a term I’ve been using for years, finally getting the attention it deserves after some recent geopolitical truth bombs. Imagine a cozy little cartel of IRGC contractors, consultants with magical impact assessments, ex-revolutionaries rebranded as “hydropolitical visionaries,” and a revolving door of Energy Ministry officials who always seem to retire in Dubai or Vancouver… right around the time the rivers disappear.
These folks don’t manage collapse—they monetize it. Every dried-up wetland, every cracked riverbed, every tanker-truck village is another invoice: signed, sealed, and cashed.
And here’s the real magic: even in wet years, there’s still a crisis. Why? Because they’ve already sucked the aquifers dry—and surprise, they’re not refilling. Iran’s water policy is basically looting the savings account and burning down the vault. What used to be underground reservoirs—nature’s emergency fund—is now either empty or, thanks to land subsidence, permanently damaged. Entire basins have collapsed like a Ponzi scheme in a sandstorm. You can’t store water in a sunken sponge.
…
Let’s be clear: this isn’t just environmental collapse. It’s theft. It’s a crime scene. A slow-motion disaster that was warned1 about, predicted2, entirely preventable, and—most unforgivably—profitable.
British waters could be flooded with cheap Chinese wind turbines in the future because the cost of Beijing building the machines has plummeted so fast, a new study has warned.
Beijing’s ‘astonishing’ low costs put European rivals in peril
British waters could be flooded with cheap Chinese wind turbines in the future because the cost of Beijing building the machines has plummeted so fast, a new study has warned. The Telegraph has the story.
Offshore turbines can now be built in China for roughly a third of the price of those produced by companies such as Denmark’s Vestas Wind Systems or Siemens Gamesa, which are major suppliers to Britain, the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies (OIES) said.
Michal Meiden, the institute’s head of China energy research, said Beijing had achieved an “astonishing” reduction in the cost of turbines, reducing them from $1,200 (£915) per kilowatt in 2019 to less than $420 today.
In Europe, by contrast, turbine prices were last year still above $1,000 per kilowatt – a figure that would make a mockery of Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s pledge to start manufacturing turbines in the UK.
“In Europe there is a concern that if these cost advantages stem from state subsidies, short-term gains would be undermined by longer-term ruin for the European industry,” Meiden said.
The report also warned that only China may have the manufacturing capacity to supply all the machines the UK and Europe want to install to meet targets for renewable energy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.