Day: May 9, 2026

Alarmist Fussing at NYT Climate Reporting

“Great reporting by Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow [“Trump Allies Near ‘Total Victory’ in Wiping Out U.S. Climate Regulation,” New York Times (February 9, 2026)] on the long campaign by four hardcore climate deniers to take down the Endangerment Finding,” wrote Jeff Goodell on social media.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“… Instead of reporting on this, [Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow] present this as a horse race with one side gaining significant ground, and the other on the verge of losing mightily, though they also … [let] statements like ‘hoax’ or ‘green new scam’ go unanswered. It’s not quite yellow journalism but it is not without a heavy amber hue.” – Chris Wilke, Center for Environmental Law & Policy

“Great reporting by Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow [“Trump Allies Near ‘Total Victory’ in Wiping Out U.S. Climate Regulation,” New York Times (February 9, 2026)] on the long campaign by four hardcore climate deniers to take down the Endangerment Finding,” wrote Jeff Goodell on social media. The leading author of climate alarmist books and articles continued:

Forget the idea of energy policy based on abundance. This is energy policy based on scorched Earth. And a blatant giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, who will profit while the world burns.

Not so fast! Chris Wilke, executive director at the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, commented:

It’s good, but not great, reporting in my opinion. I respect the research and ability to name names, motivations and history of how we got here. This is very important in that respect. But it fails to discuss the consequences of the deregulatory actions, completely missing the clear trajectory of harm that will intensify as a result of this massive deregulation, as well as the global implications and economic risks.

It also misses the moral bankruptcy, fragility and vulnerability of their arguments. They may still lose this fight in court, especially in light of the finding last month that the Climate Impacts Group was illegally formed from biased people operating on a secret agenda.

Wilke continued:

Instead of reporting on this, the authors present this as a horse race with one side gaining significant ground, and the other on the verge of losing mightily, though they also fail to interview or even get statements from opponents, letting statements like “hoax” or “green new scam” go unanswered. It’s not quite yellow journalism but it is not without a heavy amber hue. They can do better.

Jeff Goodell responded:

This is deadline journalism, Chris. Of course lots more to say, more perspective and context to add, but this is far and away the best reporting I’ve seen today on this breaking news.

Chris Wilke tried, tried to tone it down a bit:

Thanks. I’m glad I saw it, and I’m glad you shared it. I’m also grateful for your writings.

This article however is another glaring example of how the Overton window has shifted as a result of extreme policies. Having climate deniers write a scientific report on climate change, and then to see the administration basing a far-reaching policy decision on climate just one week after that? Shameful, and transparently biased. That is the real story here: the why, not just the who, the what and the how, though that is all good to know.

A follow up article is indeed warranted to respond to the glaring omissions in this case. If that’s in the works, I’d happily postpone or withdraw my criticism. 😎

A Balint Katona joined in, adding a bit of weirdness.

Fair conclusion. I would add, that this should not come as a surprise. All the mass media platform are geared towards news that sell, sensations and creating tension. It is bs, nyt is shite. Instead of sharing relevant information that people can use to make life-affirming decisions, you are left with unnecessary stress.

And Lisa Friedman herself commented!

Thank you Jeff! And I agree with you too, Chris. It’s hard to do everything in one story. We have written at length about the consequences of this and other climate deregulations and will continue to do so. But this piece was an attempt to pull back the curtain and show the players who kept this issue alive even when a lot of corporate actors decided the endangerment finding was no longer worth fighting.
In any case, Ty for reading!!

Credit Trump with a sea change in the whole climate/energy issue. The Progressive Left is playing defense. And nerves are fraying in the face of pragmatism and the mere appearance of two-sided reporting given the changed political mainstream.

Copenhagen’s City Govt. Limits Elderly to Tiny Servings of Delicious, Nutritious Meat

Copenhagen’s municipal Food and Meal Strategy (part of broader climate goals to cut food-related greenhouse gas emissions by ~25%) sets advisory targets for meals served in public institutions, including nursing homes.

From Watts Up With That?

From Legal Insurrection

Clearly, the Danish council is shamefully basing nonsensical policy on both climate and dietary pseudoscience.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

In the name of “climate change,” the cultists running the Danish capital are targeting the elderly in their anti-meat crusade.

Copenhagen’s city government recently adopted climate-focused food guidelines that sharply restrict beef servings in public institutions, and this has been interpreted and criticized as limiting nursing home residents to about 80 grams of beef per week for “climate reasons.”

An eco-warrior politician has sparked outrage in Denmark after she defended guidelines limiting residents of government-run nursing homes to just 2.8 ounces of beef a week — which is less than one Big Mac.

Birgitte Kehler Holst of the left-wing green Danish party The Alternative was also accused of saying old people in nursing homes should be “punished” by restricting their meat intake in comments made in a meeting of Copenhagen’s City Council on April 30.

She was speaking against plans to exclude nursing home residents from guidelines in the Danish capital that restrict meals at government-run sites to just 2.8 ounces (80 grams) of beef, lamb, or veal per week.

That is less than the amount of beef in a standard McDonald’s Big Mac, which contains two 1.6-ounce beef patties — for a total of 3.2 ounces.

NEWS: The Socialist Green/Left Alliance ran Copenhagen Council has a climate plan that includes meat reduction

They give elderly care residents just 11.4 grams of beef (pictured) per day to avoid exceeding the weekly limit of 80 grams.

“Our elderly have been the biggest… pic.twitter.com/lqyky0SstK

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) May 5, 2026

This policy is a result of Copenhagen’s municipal Food Strategy (in force since 2020), aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from public meals, including those served to senior citizens.

The city signed the “Cool Food Pledge” and set a goal to reduce the climate impact of public meals by 25% by 2025 compared to 2018, mainly by reducing consumption of ruminant meat such as beef. A mid‑way evaluation (2018–2022) found that greenhouse gas emissions from senior‑meal procurement fell 10–14%, primarily due to a 27–46% reduction in beef purchases in nursing homes and central kitchens.

However, real dietary scientists would know that older adults should consume 1 to 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day (approximately 0.45 to 0.54 grams per pound). This is higher than the general adult recommendation of 0.8 g/kg/day. Experts suggest distributing this intake evenly throughout the day, aiming for 25-30 grams of high-quality protein per meal.

Too little protein can lead to malnutrition.

Eating too little protein can contribute to the progression of sarcopenia and anabolic resistance, as well as malnutrition. This can increase the chance of falling and sustaining a serious injury, which is already a higher riskTrusted Source in older age.

Experts recommend that older adults eat about 1 to 1.2 grams (g) of protein per kilogram of body weight (0.45 to 0.54 g per pound) each day. Depending on how many calories you eat a day, consider eating:

COPENHAGEN CUTS MEAT FOR ELDERLY

Green council caps beef at 80g a week. That’s 11g a day.

Officials say seniors were “CLIMATE SINNERS.”

Critics warn of MALNUTRITION.

Punishing the elderly over climate goals while elites preach? This is INSANE. pic.twitter.com/9167vaPZjs

— Global Dissident (@GlobalDiss) May 6, 2026

“Anabolic resistance” is a condition where aging muscles become less responsive to protein intake. Animal-based proteins, like delicious steak or pork chops, contain higher levels of essential amino acids like leucine, lysine, and methionine, which are particularly effective at stimulating muscle protein synthesis compared to plant proteins.

Bone breaks are particularly dangerous for the elderly. My mother is currently nursing a broken hip. A professor I cherished in graduate school died after breaking one of her major bones.

The high-quality protein in meat contributes to bone density and may protect against cognitive decline by promoting neurotransmitter production and supporting cognitive function.

One study published in the Nutrition & Metabolism journal found that a high-protein diet was effective in reducing body weight and improving body composition in overweight older adults. By incorporating sufficient protein into their meals, aging individuals can support weight management efforts, reduce the risk of obesity-related health issues, and maintain a healthy body composition.

Protein plays a fundamental role in supporting health and well-being as we age. From preserving muscle mass and enhancing bone health to boosting immune function and supporting cognitive health, protein is a vital nutrient for aging individuals. By incorporating adequate protein into your diet through diverse and high-quality sources, you can promote healthy aging and enjoy a better quality of life.

The Copenhagen climate cultists have managed to accomplish something truly remarkable: they have weaponized the green agenda against the elderly residents who built the civilization these eco-warriors now seek to dismantle, one beef patty at a time.

The lesson for Americans watching from across the Atlantic is stark and urgent: when climate cultism is allowed to capture municipal institutions, it doesn’t stop at your gas stove or your car. It will eventually reach the dinner plate of your grandmother in a nursing home.

Clearly, the Danish council is shamefully basing nonsensical policy on both climate and dietary pseudoscience.

Climate Fact-Check April 2026

Editor’s note: This compilation serves as a fact check on the top false claims made about climate change by the media in April 2026.

From ClimateRealism

Guest Post by: The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, The Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, and the International Climate Science Coalition, and Truth in Energy and Climate.

Editor’s note: This compilation serves as a fact check on the top false claims made about climate change by the media in April 2026.

Debunking the ‘fingerprint of climate change’ –
Dismantling claims that climate is causing homelessness, and setting the record straight about heatwaves, storms, wildfires, and hailstorms –
Plus, the Atlantic Current is NOT on the brink of collapse

Links: Seattle Times here and here, Fox 13 Seattle, University of Washington plot.
Links: Mother Jones article, Nature Communications study, heatwave deaths.
Links: hailstorm video post, record Wisconsin hailstone, NOAA Storm Events Database.
Links: WHYY News article, NOAA data.
Links: UCLA research, HUD analysis, extreme weather frequency.
Links: The Independent article, recent publications, AMOC strengthening, cited study, high-end emissions scenarios.
Links: RNZ reporting, extreme rainfall trends, normalized insurance losses.
Links: Associated Press article, Eaton Fire, Palisades Fire, Long term fire data.

Until next month, enjoy these and other great climate fact checks at:

ClimateRealism.com

ClimateDepot.com

Wattsupwiththat.com

U.S. Fossil Fuel Environmentalism: EPA Air Quality Statistics

U.S. air quality has improved dramatically over the past 50+ years, even as the economy, population, vehicle miles traveled, and energy consumption (largely from fossil fuels) grew substantially.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

A tweet from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) shared the latest from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the comment:

From 1970 to 2023, U.S. emissions of six criteria air pollutants declined 78% while GDP grew 321% and energy consumption rose 42%—consistent with the Environmental Kuznets Curve and driven by wealth creation and market incentives rather than central planning.

This progress can be traced back to 1970:

——————–

[1] The 1970 Clean Air Act required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for common pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, to protect public health. The original list of six, finalized by 1971, are Carbon Monoxide; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Sulfur Dioxide.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

U.S. air quality has improved dramatically over the past 50+ years, even as the economy, population, vehicle miles traveled, and energy consumption (largely from fossil fuels) grew substantially.

This progress reflects “fossil fuel environmentalism” in action: technological innovations in fossil fuel extraction, refining, combustion efficiency, emissions controls (e.g., catalytic converters, scrubbers, low-sulfur fuels), and shifts within the fossil fuel mix (e.g., more natural gas, less coal in power generation) have decoupled economic growth from pollution. The Clean Air Act and industry advancements drove much of this without halting fossil fuel-based energy growth.

EPA Air Quality Concentration Trends

EPA tracks six “criteria” air pollutants. National average concentrations have fallen sharply:

Percent change in national average concentrations (from EPA data through 2024):

Pollutant1980 vs 20241990 vs 20242000 vs 20242010 vs 2024
Carbon Monoxide (CO)-87%-80%-67%-25%
Lead (Pb)———-86%
Nitrogen Dioxide (annual)-69%-63%-54%-31%
Nitrogen Dioxide (1-hr)-66%-55%-40%-23%
Ozone (8-hour)-29%-24%-18%-7%
PM₁₀ (24-hour)—-36%-39%-7%
PM₂.₅ (annual)——-46%-27%
PM₂.₅ (24-hour)——-45%-21%
Sulfur Dioxide (1-hr)-95%-93%-87%-79%

These improvements stem from real-world monitoring data.

Emissions Trends (Direct Reductions)

Emissions of the six principal pollutants and precursors dropped even as society grew:

Combined emissions of six key pollutants: Down ~79% from 1970 to 2024.

Specific emissions changes (1980–2024): CO -77%, Lead -99%, NOx -75%, VOCs -61%, Direct PM₁₀ -63%, SO₂ -94%.

Economic context (1970–2024): GDP +338%, vehicle miles traveled +195%, energy consumption +43%, population +66% — while aggregate criteria pollutant emissions fell 79%. CO₂ emissions (a greenhouse gas, not a criteria pollutant) rose overall but have stabilized/declined in recent periods relative to growth.

For the latest interactive data, see EPA’s Our Nation’s Air report and Air Trends summaries.

Ding Dong, RCP8.5 Is Dead!

For years, we have been fed a never-ending diet of apocalyptic climate scares – killer heatwaves, biblical floods, deadly droughts, devastating hurricanes, to name just a few.

And it is not just sensationalism from the media that I am talking about. The language may have been slightly less dramatic, but official bodies from the UN down have been equally guilty, including our own Met Office.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

For years, we have been fed a never-ending diet of apocalyptic climate scares – killer heatwaves, biblical floods, deadly droughts, devastating hurricanes, to name just a few.

And it is not just sensationalism from the media that I am talking about. The language may have been slightly less dramatic, but official bodies from the UN down have been equally guilty, including our own Met Office.

All these scare stories have one thing in common – they are based on emissions scenarios, which have long been regarded by independent experts as implausibly high. The scenario in question is known as RCP8.5.

RCPs are a set of greenhouse gas concentration trajectories (not emissions scenarios per se) used by the IPCC for climate modelling and projections. They describe different possible future paths for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the resulting radiative forcing (the change in energy balance in the Earth’s atmosphere, measured in W/m²) by the year 2100.

RCP 8.5 is the highest, being based on continued, strong growth of GHG emissions:

It was described by one of the IPCC’s co-chairs in 2021 as follows:

“The high-emissions RCP8.5 scenario has long been described as a “business-as-usual” pathway with a continued emphasis on energy from fossil fuels with no climate policies in place. This remains 100% accurate.”

However, energy experts have stated that a continuation of the recent growth rate of fossil fuel use simply is not possible, because there are not enough reserves of coal, gas and oil to supply such demand.

Now it has been formally announced that RCP8.5 and other similarly high scenarios, such as RCP6.0, will be eliminated in future.

All of a sudden, the doomsday projections of 4C of warming have been binned.

That does not mean, of course, that the lower emission scenarios are any more credible. But as Prof Roger Pielke Jr puts it:

The now-implausible upper-end scenarios — RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 — are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research. They are embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds of billions of dollars in bank capital.

🚨RCP8.5 is Officially Dead – by Roger Pielke Jr.

In this country, government policy is influenced and even the Bank of England’s stress tests of banks and insurers must take account of these upper-end scenarios.

Let’s look at the Met Office, for instance.

In 2022, they published a report titled “UK Climate Projections”, (UKCP18). Innocent enough, you might say.

But right at the start, they tell us that their report focusses on RCP8.5:

UK Climate Projections (UKCP18) – Met Office

Sure, you can “extract results” for other scenarios, but it is RCP8.5 that is making the headlines and it is projections using RCP8.5 that form the basis of government policy making.

These are some of the plainly far-fetched claims made in UKCP18:

  • Summers will be 5.1C hotter by 2070 and winters 3.8C
  • The temperature of the hottest summer days will increase by 6.8C by the 2070s.
  • By 2070, summer rainfall could be 45% lower on average and winter rainfall 39% higher.
  • There will be an increase in the intensity of summer rainfall
  • Summer storms will extend into autumn, as temperatures increase.
  • There will be significant increases in hourly precipitation extremes in the future
  • Droughts in summer will be much worse
  • Snow will be a thing of the past, except for mountainous regions
  • Sea levels in London will be 1.15m higher by 2070.

As the Met Office pointed out, “Government will make use of UKCP18 to inform its adaptation and mitigation planning and decision-making.”

How much money then has the Government wasted adapting to events that will never happen?

All of the above fictitious claims, and many others made since by the Met Office, have been discredited by their own data, which has consistently shown none of these things happening in practice. Yet still the projections remain the official source of climate advice for governments:

As the Met Office state:

“As part of the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme, the UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) offers a range of tools designed to help decision-makers assess their risk exposure to climate change and adapt.

The UKCP18 project uses cutting-edge climate science to provide updated observations and climate change projections until 2100 in the UK and globally. The project builds upon on the success of UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) to give the most up-to-date assessment of how the climate of the UK may change over the 21st century.”

UK Climate Projections (UKCP18) – Met Office

Now we know that the Met Office have been feeding government with advice based on faulty assumptions. They must now withdraw UKCP18 in its entirety and explain why they used them in the first place, particularly given the long standing criticisms of RCP8.5.

In turn, the Government must now come clean and immediately suspend all programmes, spending and targets, which have been justified on the basis of the Met Office’s climate projections.

Endangered Species Act regulatory overkill

The regulatory machinery of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is incredibly overdone, often making the reasonable use of regulated land impossible. Congress needs to fix this.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The regulatory machinery of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is incredibly overdone, often making the reasonable use of regulated land impossible. Congress needs to fix this.

The law itself is pretty simple but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has interpreted it in an extreme way. The law says you cannot harm an endangered species. FWS has interpreted “harm” to include any change in the species’ habitat that might affect it. Cutting down a tree that an endangered bird might happen to nest in is considered harm.

The law actually allows for property development within an endangered species habitat. It is called an “incidental take” permit because every habitat change is considered a “taking” of the species. FWS has stretched this language to the limit.

The problem is that FWS has made incidental take permits so expensive that only rich landowners can afford them. Since most of us are not rich this incredible fee structure has made reasonable development impossible.

This taking fee overkill can be seen in an example from Florida. A landowner with a modest five acre plot wanted to build a house on that land. The incidental take fee was a choking $139,440 which made building impossible. The landowner has asked the Court to overturn this destructive fee structure but it is really Congress’s job to do that. See the case here.

Federal Court Allows Property Rights Challenge to Proceed in Charlotte County ESA Case

This case is from Charlotte County, Florida, one of a number of American jurisdiction to do what is called a regional Habitat Conservation Plan, which is required to get an ESA incidental take permit. The County then sublets the take to local landowners who want to improve their property.

The horrendous ESA fee structure is usually secret but Charlotte County has published theirs here.

For anything over 100 acres, such as developing agricultural land, the ESA fee is a punitive $2,289,700. This pretty much rules out agricultural development. Ironically it invites things like malls and data centers that sterilize the land. Developing even the smallest piece of land, up to 0.22 acres, costs $2,032.

In most of America where there are endangered species about the landowner has to directly apply to FWS for an incidental take permit in order to develop their land. The required Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is very expensive and time consuming. So much so that doing HCPs for landowners has become a lucrative industry.

Even worse FWS has ruled that their approval of every HCP has to go through the laborious National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This is truly strange given that there are no direct impacts on the endangered species, just on its habitat.

In sharp contrast the National Marine Fisheries Service issues incidental take permits to actually harass and harm protected marine mammals without going through NEPA. The Dominion Energy offshore wind project is authorized to harass and harm almost 60,000 marine mammals. NEPA is not involved.

The situation is clear. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Endangered Species Act regulations seriously distort Congressional intent. They make it almost impossible for anyone except the rich to develop land within the extensive habitat of an endangered or threatened species. Not just in Florida but throughout America.

The Endangered Species Act is not the problem; it is the extreme regulations that Congress must constrain.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science, he brings a unique perspective to complex policy issues.

His specializes in science and technology intensive issues, especially in energy and environment. As a cognitive scientist he also does basic research on the structure and dynamics of complex issues and reasoning. This research informs his policy analyses. He has written hundreds of analytical articles.

Many recent examples can be found at https://www.cfact.org/author/dwojick/

Often working as a consultant on understanding complex issues, Dr. Wojick’s numerous clients have included think tanks, trade associations, businesses and government agencies. Examples range from CFACT to the Chief of Naval Research and the Energy Department’s Office of Science.

He has served on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staff of the Naval Research Laboratory. He is available for confidential consulting, research and writing.