Tag: Climate

Is climate change Abe Lincoln’s fault?

Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

‘Climate’ is the state of affairs which one can observe over some region, over a period of something like 30 years. In contrast, ‘weather’ is short term, from one day to the next, or from one week to the next.

For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.

Lincoln Memorial, Washington DC

From CFACT

By Kelvin Kemm

Mark Twain said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” His real name was Samuel Clemens, and in 1863, he adopted ‘Mark Twain’ as a pen name. The most common explanation of where the name came from is that as the riverboat men on the Mississippi measured the depth of the water, they would call out ‘mark twain’ at the ‘two fathom’ mark on a rope. A fathom is about six feet, so that mark indicated that there was twelve feet of water, and so it was safe for the boat to move.

There is, however, an alternative explanation. Sam was a newspaper reporter in Virginia City, which was a mining town on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada. He was well known in the saloons around town where he reportedly consumed many drinks, no doubt on his hunt for news stories. In the saloons, they would have a chalkboard, and the barman would mark up the customer’s drinks on the board. Apparently, Sam would order two drinks and call out to the barman, ‘mark twain, indicating that he should mark up two drinks at a time.

Whatever the truth of the origin of the name is, it has certainly become a famous name in history. There would be no doubt that the boatmen of the Mississippi would be very well-aware of daily weather conditions. Mark Twain clearly would have been. So, it is very important to make a distinction between climate and weather because these days they are so often confused.

Half a lifetime

‘Climate’ is the state of affairs which one can observe over some region, over a period of something like 30 years. In contrast, ‘weather’ is short term, from one day to the next, or from one week to the next. For some newspaper to report evidence of climate change because there was a heavy storm yesterday is crazy.

Mark Twain traveled around the world a lot and so he would have examined the recorded climate for any region that he was visiting. But having grown up with the riverboats, he would have been very well aware that the weather at any time that he arrived somewhere might not at all be what the recorded general climate indicated.

So, if you ask the question, “Is climate change taking place or has climate change taken place?” the first thing you have to do is ask the secondary question, “What period of time are you referring to?” If you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was at the time of the dinosaurs?” the answer is clearly no. Similarly, if you ask, “Is the climate today the same as it was during the time of President Lincoln?” the answer is also no.

The temperature of the atmosphere of the planet has changed over much shorter periods than from the dinosaurs to now. It is well known and verified that there was a warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from around the year 950 to 1250. During this time, grapes were grown in England and the Domesday Book of 1086 records vineyards at Tiddington in Oxfordshire.

That warm period was followed by a cold period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), from about 1250 to 1850. This covered the time of Shakespeare. During this time there were paintings produced of the Thames freezing over, even showing horse-drawn carriages riding down the frozen Thames.

The potato famine in Ireland also happened during this period. There are historical records showing that food shortages in Ireland and Europe were part of the reason that the Pilgrim fathers went to the New World of America.

Top hat marker

Abraham Lincoln was president right at the end of the LIA, at a time when temperatures in the U.S. were about a degree colder than they are now.

It is also an historical fact that the Industrial Revolution came about from the middle of the 1800s, at about the same time as the term of office of Lincoln.

The planet is now going into a period of modern warming, so temperatures are around 1° to 2° warmer than at the time of Lincoln. So yes, there has undoubtedly been global warming of a bit more than a degree since the time of Lincoln, which is also the time of the Industrial Revolution.

There has never been any argument that there has been some global warming and some consequent climate change.

The discussion point of merit is not whether it has happened, but rather what caused it?

‘Carbon’ is simplistic

To blame ‘climate change’ on industrially created CO2 is totally simplistic. It is far too convenient for the warming enthusiasts to blame observed warming on modern industry. By far the more plausible explanation is a variation in the incidence of cosmic radiation from outer space which alters the amount of cloud cover, which in turn alters the amount of heat reaching the ground. The cosmic rays are in turn controlled by the stream of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun, which are controlled by the magnetic field of the Sun. These particles interact with the magnetic field of the Earth.

It has been known for centuries that the Sun goes through an 11-year solar cycle, during which time the activity of the Sun varies and consequently alters the magnetic shield around the Earth.

So, try to exhibit the wisdom of Mark Twain and don’t blame every unusual storm on ‘climate change,’ which is then darkly linked to ‘the fault of modern industry.’

Climate exaggerators won’t go away

Consider exaggerating natural weather to the point of fanaticism. It is about control. Most Americans will simply say, ” Live the life the way you want. Most leftists say you have to live your life the way I want, because I am right, and for the good of the whole, you must obey. The other part is the people who eventually get overrun, who are just trying to live their lives and don’t care about the whole issue, whatever it is.

Atmospheric Mood and Emotional Concept Background Collection.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

Climate exaggerators won’t go away.

Consider exaggerating natural weather to the point of fanaticism.  It is about control. Most Americans will simply say, ” Live the life the way you want. Most leftists say you have to live your life the way I want, because I am right, and for the good of the whole, you must obey. The other part is the people who eventually get overrun, who are just trying to live their lives and don’t care about the whole issue, whatever it is.

Realizing this, the left weaponized climate as a tool for control. If you have enough religious zealots, backed up by money, knowing darn well they will be the ruling class, then if you can limit a person’s freedom by making energy more costly and less accessible, then you can overwhelm the system. It’s a Cloward-Piven philosophy of overwhelming the system. Knowing that the average American is complacent and comfortable, you must then sow seeds of discord and desperation, which will pull more people into your way of thinking. And while we all were patting ourselves on the back that once POTUS Trump took over, we would win, nothing is further from the truth. In the world of zealots, if you survive, you simply live to fight another day, when the left takes back over.

You are seeing it now in the climate, with some of the one-sided bias pushed headline-grabbing things coming out.  In the Senate, Sheldon Whitehouse is shameless and is still all-in on portraying natural weather as the “worst ever.”

Some examples:

Never mind the same climate change has 100 million MORE people in Europe with unseasonable cold.

Or, as so often happens, the pattern flips next week:

And the portrayal of the bowels of Hades color schemes:

How about this:

What about the record for the date of cold in the Arctic right now?

Will that be smashed on the cold side? Which is more important? A week of hot weather in Europe or the fact that at the time of the year when ice can melt temperatures are not going above the average in the summer which is near 0C. The warming is all in the winter, courtesy of water vapor, which impacts temperatures more when it’s very cold and dry, not CO2.

Or the heat hysteria in India, where May is the hottest month of the year before the monsoon sets in. It’s about a wash as far as warm vs cold goes.

So, how is that portrayed by people pushing this?

The monsoon is a bit late in Southeast Asia, so it’s hotter, but next week it flips again:

I won’t even get into the Super Nino hype, which can be countered here in something I wrote a few weeks ago, which explains why the very thing they lament and mislabel as man-made, the overall oceanic warming, can blunt the impact of this event.

Who’s afraid of the big bad El Niño wolf?

They also conveniently do not even look at the MEI, which is the cold standard for forecasters, as it isn’t just water temps but actual reactions in the atmosphere, or the longest-running measure of the El Niño – the SOI. (Those are talked about above.)

Why? Because the key zealot-based deception is to tell elements of the truth while simply eliminating the parts that negate it. Let the horse out of the barn, and then no one can catch it.

To advance, a society must produce. If the means of production are handicapped, it cannot, which takes away incentive and the ability to elevate oneself. It makes someone more susceptible to the false of safety at the hands of others, rather than a master of your own fate. The entire leftist agenda on energy is based on control via limiting the ability of the individual to reach beyond their grasp.

The climate agenda has precious little to do with climate or weather, but instead in a realm that is almost otherworldly in its evil roots

It’s happening right in front of us.

‘Climate Hushing’: Pragmatism Demoting Exaggeration (McKibben fools himself)

Climate messaging is a mess as the Progressive Left tries to square the energy circle with affordability.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“There’s a thing out there called a ‘climate husher.’ Anyone who cares about what fossil fuel pollution is doing to Earth’s natural systems needs to ignore these so-called ‘climate hushers’ – people who think Dems should stop talking about climate.” – Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Climate messaging is a mess as the Progressive Left tries to square the energy circle with affordability. Traditional messages have flunked. Complained one activist:

Maybe the problem isn’t climate denial. Maybe it’s climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We’ve spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed.

The latest despair comes from Bill McKibben in his Earth Day post, Let’s TALK Climate. “The so-called ‘climate hushing’ among Democrats is a product of political consultants looking at polling data,” he complained. McKibben then quotes from Claire Barber’s essay, which summarized a report by Searchlight Institute (a Democratic think tank), “The First Rule About Solving Climate Change: Don’t Say Climate Change.”

“While battleground voters overwhelmingly agree climate change is a problem, addressing it is not a priority for them,” the report said. Similar to the American Mind Survey, Searchlight found that a majority of Americans believe that climate change is a problem, but rank it below other key issues, like affordability. Searchlight also found high partisan (Democratic) association with the terms “climate” and “climate change” and suggested jettisoning mentions of both altogether.

McKibben then provides some context:

The phenomenon really dates, I think, from the 2024 presidential campaign, and Kamala Harris’s abbreviated run for the White House. Climate campaigners were perfectly happy to shut up during that run for an obvious reason: Joe Biden had given them, in the Inflation Reduction Act [IRA], most of what DC could provide: a massive infusion of funds for the energy transition we require.

The job was to pull Harris across the finish line so that her administration could continue the work well underway with the IRA. We failed at that: her message, on the politics of joy and the dangers of Trump ran aground on frustrations with inflation. Climate played no discernible part in the election…..

Wimp-out. Climate and energy were an issue to Republicans, independents, and libertarians, along with the overreach of the Democrat Party elsewhere. The IRA, notably, was an attempt to create too-big-to-fail, rent-seeking wind, solar, battery, and EV businesses. That horrendous bill threw deficit dollars at the worst energies, pure misdirection and waste that is now being undone by a new administration.

Back to McKibben:

In the wake of their defeat, Democrats have seized on “bread and butter issues,” and left supposed culture war clashes behind. That’s come at a real cost. Corporations, feeling only pressure from the right, have backslid dramatically on their climate commitments. (The big tech guys, who just a couple of years ago were noisily pledging they’d go net zero, are currently planning gas-fired data centers that Wired reports today will produce more emissions than mid-sized European countries). And journalists are, not surprisingly, wandering away from the whole area: the wonderful Amy Westervelt yesterday described a dour meeting of environmental reporters where, among other things, she learned that not just the Washington Post but also Reuters was laying off its climate desk.

Good news, right? The hyperbole and strongarming for bad over good, exaggeration over realism, encouraged at the federal level by a new Administration, was removed. Amway-eyed McKibben can see only red instead of green (as in less wind/solar/battery blight/sprawl).

Meanwhile, funders of climate journalism are largely folding, too, opting to back comms projects instead or simply stay away from anything as “controversial” as climate and journalism altogether. The cowardice is breathtaking.

McKibben quotes from the “media watchdogs” FAIR:

Our research has found that online news coverage of climate change has been trending down. A search of the term “climate change” in Media Cloud’s US–National dataset, which indexes 248 online outlets, found that there was almost 32% less climate coverage in 2025 than 2024. This trend is similar in TV news. A recent Media Matters (3/4/26) study found that climate coverage on major US commercial broadcast TV networks was down 35% in 2025….

McKibben fools himself, something that Richard Feynman warned against decades ago.

What’s interesting about all this is that it’s not being driven by some change in the basic underlying politics of climate [wrong]. New polling data makes clear that Americans are as concerned about climate change as they ever have been [wrong].

Polls? Ask the question in terms of priorities or in terms of monetary sacrifice. Sure, it is easy to want a freebie to make X or Y better. But consider the reality that climate change and the environment are way back of, yes, bread-and-butter issues.

“Americans’ assessments of the environment are particularly bleak ahead of Earth Day,” McKibben continues, “as a record-low 35% offer a positive rating of the environment’s quality and two-thirds say it is worsening.” But that is largely from exaggeration from a political takeover of natural/social science around the issue. The neo-Malthusian consensus has been wrong since at least the 1960s on a variety of related issues. Bottom line: people are not the problem, they are the solution. Julian Simon lives in death. Paul Ehrlich is intellectually dead in death.

McKibben advises what the Republicans would like to see happen.

The key data point here, for political thinkers, is that the increase in worry about the environment is being driven by independent voters, precisely the people who will determine how the midterms go.

I doubt it. The Green New Deal Scam is exposed. “Climate” is code for energy inferiority, don’t eat meat, and don’t be temperature-comfortable indoors. Self-sacrifice, in other words, is a nonstarter from the U.S. to France. McKibben’s alarmism is just too tired and old. [1] Time’s up: Get real or get out.

———————–

[1] McKibben ends on his regular alarmist note:

So, especially as the climate disasters of this hot summer start to mount, and as the El Niño [a natural phenomenon?] starts to scare people anew, I’d spend some time if I were campaigning making fun of the president on this score….

… with a killer fallacy and magical thinking on stilts:

I’d couple [the pitch] with a full-on assault about affordability…. a quick move to clean energy drives down prices. If I were preparing ads for congresspeople, I’d definitely have one about how a solarized Australia will, in June, start providing electricity free for three hours every afternoon to all its citizens. Talk about affordability!

WESA Is Wrong, Sneezing and Watering Eyes Aren’t Climate Change Indicators

WESA Radio in Pittsburgh ran a story titled, “Sneezing, runny nose, itchy eyes: Allergy symptoms start earlier with climate change,” claiming that allergy seasons are beginning earlier and becoming more intense because of climate change. This is false. Year-to-year changes in pollen timing and severity are overwhelmingly driven by short-term weather variability, regional conditions, landscaping choices, and natural biological cycles, not gradual global temperature trends.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

WESA Radio in Pittsburgh ran a story titled, “Sneezing, runny nose, itchy eyes: Allergy symptoms start earlier with climate change,” claiming that allergy seasons are beginning earlier and becoming more intense because of climate change. This is false. Year-to-year changes in pollen timing and severity are overwhelmingly driven by short-term weather variability, regional conditions, landscaping choices, and natural biological cycles, not gradual global temperature trends.

The article states that “allergy season starts earlier than past seasons because of the effects of climate change,” and that “temperature and precipitation pattern changes mean trees are blooming earlier and vegetation is growing more rapidly, producing more pollen in the atmosphere.” That is a broad attribution claim. It assumes that earlier blooms in a given year reflect long-term climate forcing rather than ordinary seasonal variability.

But plant phenology, the timing of leaf-out and pollen release, has always varied from year to year depending on winter chill, spring temperature swings, soil moisture, late frosts, and regional precipitation patterns. A mild February followed by a warm March can advance tree pollen season by weeks. A cold or wet spring can delay it. That is weather, not climate.

The physicians quoted in the story acknowledge that pollen allergy season “typically begins in the beginning of March,” with grass allergens in summer and ragweed in fall. That seasonal progression has been consistent for decades. The intensity of any given season depends heavily on rainfall, wind patterns, and local vegetation density.

In Pennsylvania and surrounding states, spring temperature variability from one year to the next routinely swings by several degrees. Those swings have an immediate effect on bloom timing. A single warm spell can trigger early budding. Extra precipitation can speed up plant growth. A subsequent cold snap can halt or damage growth. None of that requires invoking global climate change. It is the normal interplay of regional weather patterns.

For example, regional map data from the Northeast Regional Climate Center show that for the month of March, Pennsylvania has had above normal precipitation:

Similarly, Pennsylvania’s March temperature has been above normal:

Anybody who has a home garden can tell you that’s a double-booster for plant growth, and by extension results in more pollen causing spring allergies. March next year could be exactly the opposite, cold and dry, with a delayed allergy season. That’s normal year-to-year weather variability. Plants respond to immediate temperature thresholds, not abstract global averages. A warm week in late February can advance budding regardless of whether the long-term global mean temperature has increased by one degree over a century. Year-to-year variability in spring onset can easily exceed the magnitude of the long-term warming trend itself.

Moreover, increased pollen exposure can result from non-weather factors. Urban and suburban landscaping choices matter. The widespread planting of male ornamental trees, which produce pollen but no fruit, has increased airborne pollen in many communities. The widespread planting of male ornamental trees is a phenomenon often referred to as “botanical sexism,” a term coined by horticulturist Tom Ogren to describe the preference for planting male clones of trees and shrubs in urban environments. This practice, which has contributed to significantly higher pollen counts and increased seasonal allergies is likely the single biggest source of tree pollen in expanding suburban areas. That is land-use policy, not atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Air quality also plays a role. Particulate pollution, diesel exhaust, and ozone can irritate airways and exacerbate allergy symptoms, independent of pollen counts. Population growth and urban heat island effects can locally amplify pollen production and symptom severity. Warmer localized conditions in a city can trigger earlier plant growth. Again, these are regional environmental factors, not evidence of global climate-driven transformation.

Another important point is timescale. The article implies a trend based on recent seasons, but meaningful climate analysis requires at least 30 years of consistent, standardized pollen monitoring across the same sites. Pollen data are often sparse, localized, and methodologically inconsistent. Drawing sweeping climate conclusions from a handful of recent seasons is statistically weak and little more than mere opinion.

It is also worth noting that allergy medications and diagnostic awareness have improved significantly over the past two decades. Increased reporting of symptoms may reflect better recognition and treatment, not necessarily worsening environmental exposure.

None of this denies that climate has modestly warmed over the past century. It certainly has. But attributing fluctuations in pollen timing in a single region to global climate change requires rigorous long-term datasets showing a clear upward trend beyond natural variability. The WESA article does not present such data. It relies instead on expert opinion and generalized statements about warming.

Weather variability explains why one spring is earlier or more intense than another. Soil moisture explains why some years produce heavier pollen loads. Wind patterns explain distribution. Urban landscaping explains local exposure levels.

Year-to-year allergy changes are normal biological responses to local weather conditions. Converting those fluctuations into proof of climate change stretches correlation into causation. Climate Realism debunks articles just like this one every spring, and there are dozens of examples of such flawed reporting we’ve written about.

Sneezing in March is not a climate signal and WESA is doing a disservice to allergy sufferers in their coverage area by falsely leading them to think climate change is making them miserable.

A BRILLIANT take on cows, methane, and climate

The biogenic carbon cycle (also called the biogenic methane cycle in the context of ruminant livestock) is a natural, relatively short- loop process that recycles carbon through living organisms, the atmosphere, and back again- primarily involving plants, ruminant animals (like cows, sheep, and goats), and soil. It contrasts sharply with the fossil carbon cycle, where burning ancient fuels adds “new” carbon that has been locked away for millions of years and accumulates in the atmosphere over centuries to millennia.

A circular diagram depicting the carbon dioxide (CO2) cycle with cows and plants against a pasture background, highlighting the role of the atmosphere.

The phrase “A BRILLIANT take on cows, methane, and climate” directly refers to a widely shared perspective that challenges the mainstream narrative blaming cattle for significantly driving climate change via their methane (CH₄) burps.

This view centers on the biogenic carbon cycle:

Cows eat grass that has recently absorbed CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

They digest it, releasing methane as a byproduct of rumen fermentation.

That methane breaks down in the atmosphere over about 10–12 years into CO₂ and water.

If herd sizes remain stable (not growing), the CO₂ gets reabsorbed by new grass regrowth, creating a roughly closed loop with no net long-term addition of warming gases to the atmosphere- unlike fossil fuel CO₂, which adds ancient carbon that accumulates for centuries to millennia.

The biogenic carbon cycle (also called the biogenic methane cycle in the context of ruminant livestock) is a natural, relatively short- loop process that recycles carbon through living organisms, the atmosphere, and back again- primarily involving plants, ruminant animals (like cows, sheep, and goats), and soil. It contrasts sharply with the fossil carbon cycle, where burning ancient fuels adds “new” carbon that has been locked away for millions of years and accumulates in the atmosphere over centuries to millennia.

Diagram illustrating the biogenic carbon cycle, showing the roles of the atmosphere, CO2, plants, and cows in carbon exchange.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

A woman in a beanie and jacket engaging in a discussion with an older man wearing a cowboy hat and a brown jacket, with a herd of cows in the background and a cloudy sky.

Every once in a while, the climate chaos noise gets condensed into something simple. Reduced to fact in the crucible of truth. This post on X was one of those moments:

A farmer and an activist engage in a discussion in a pasture with cows in the background. The farmer wears a cowboy hat and jacket, while the activist wears a beanie and a coat, as they debate the environmental impact of cattle and the biogenic carbon cycle.

Yes, you can look it up.

Illustration of the biogenic carbon cycle, depicting the processes of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture by plants, methane (CH4) emissions from cows, and hydroxyl oxidation. Includes a sun icon, a cow, and labels explaining each step in the cycle.
The Biogenic Carbon Cycle and Cattle | CLEAR Center

Meanwhile:

Infographic showing sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting that cattle represent just 2% of emissions within the livestock category, alongside data on transportation, electricity generation, industry, and agriculture.
Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United States. Note that beef production is
less than half of the entire livestock sector, at just 2 percent. Source: Data from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Graphic by Anthony Watts. Artwork icons in graphic licensed from 123rf.com.

Nutty Alarmism: The Latest

Wrong, Roger. Weather is not climate change. Your professors at Kings College–did any question climate models and explain the benefits of CO2 enrichment and warmer temperatures (think winters and nights)?

A protest scene featuring a crowd holding signs about climate emergency and extinction rebellion. In the foreground, a man holds a sign that reads 'Nutty Alarmism: The Latest.'

From The Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Wrong, Roger Hallam. Weather is not climate change. Your professors at Kings College–did any question climate models and explain the benefits of CO2 enrichment and, yes, of warmer temperatures (think winters and nights)?”

The Climate Industrial Complex, the companies and their nonprofit allies, are flexing toward the middle. It is all about money and power, less about real human welfare re “saving the planet.’

This inconvenient truth has the true believers upset. Consider the latest from Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, where he works full-time:

Another disastrously pathetic response from “environmental campaigners” – who cares about the bloody “green new deal”. What needs to be communicated is that unless there is a drastic reduction in emissions – and that means including zero car emissions by 2030 – Europeans are going to starve to death. Literally, they are going to be dead.

He continues:

Relaxing the regulation on car emissions makes as much “common sense” as organising the suicide of western civilisation. It is fucking mad.

What a nut! And a stain on Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil that employ him. The poor man’s Al Gore is the story of a dirt farmer gone mad. “As an organic farmer for over 20 years,” Hallam explains, “I could no longer sustain my vegetable growing.” It wasn’t his fault.

The impacts of climate change were decimating the livelihoods of farmers such as myself. Something was very wrong with the world; I could feel it, I could see it and I knew that something had to be done about it as our entire food production system was at stake.

I studied the science and realized beyond unequivocal doubt that the extinction crisis was upon us and that our impending annihilation was being perpetuated by psychopathological criminals who have no interest in the wellbeing of the average human being or the natural world.

The know-it-all versus the world continues his self-described journey:

Something needed to be done; I gave up everything I had and left for Kings College where I spent the next 4 years sleeping in my car in order to complete my studies in the science of mass mobilization in the tradition of Martin Luther King and Gandhi. I found the answers to the questions I had been seeking. I discovered the actions that we need to take in order to buy ourselves as much time as possible and mitigate indescribable suffering that awaits us as most of the planet becomes uninhabitable and we risk unspeakable horrors such as mass slaughter, starvation and rape, and the rise of fascistic regimes as the scramble for water and land takes off.

Roger knows what everyone else doesn’t:

But of course, the NGOs are not going to say this and so they are massively complicit in the appalling denial that covers up the death wish of the elites.

Wrong, Roger. Weather is not climate change. Your professors at Kings College–did any question climate models and explain the benefits of CO2 enrichment and warmer temperatures (think winters and nights)? What about energy price inflation for the masses, including yourself, from dilute, intermittent wind and solar? Or do we (you first!) have to go without?

Why are industrial wind, solar, and batteries environmental? Those “green” companies–are they led by crony capitalists living off of the rest of us?

Roger Hallam, the global rethink of global climate change gets to you, too. Consider all the downsides of anti-CO2 and report back–with detail.

A man holding protest signs that read 'SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE' during a climate crisis demonstration, with another man in a smaller inset image also participating in the protest.

From Storm to Scare Story: How the Guardian Wrongly Claimed Climate Change Caused a ‘Climate Breakdown’

The Guardian’s recent article, “‘My husband and daughter went down to the garage in case it flooded. Then I heard a strange noise’ – This is climate breakdown,” by Ajit Niranjan, presents the tragic story of a family caught in the Valencia floods of October 2024, framing the disaster as evidence of “climate breakdown.” This is false. History shows such storms and floods have repeatedly occurred in that region of Spain before, and the article ignores that important context along with other factors, like rebuilding in known flood zones, which made the recent flooding worse than it otherwise might have been.

A flooded urban area showing damaged white cars and debris in front of a red residential building, suggesting the aftermath of a severe storm or flooding event.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

Screenshot of an article from The Guardian, featuring a quote about a family's experience during flooding in Valencia, Spain, and a section titled 'This is climate breakdown.'

The Guardian’s recent article, “‘My husband and daughter went down to the garage in case it flooded. Then I heard a strange noise’ – This is climate breakdown,” by Ajit Niranjan, presents the tragic story of a family caught in the Valencia floods of October 2024, framing the disaster as evidence of “climate breakdown.” This is false. History shows such storms and floods have repeatedly occurred in that region of Spain before, and the article ignores that important context along with other factors, like rebuilding in known flood zones, which made the recent flooding worse than it otherwise might have been.

The article asserts, “devastating storms hit the Iberian Peninsula, bringing the heaviest rain so far this century . . . scientists say the explosive downpours were linked to climate change.” The human tragedy is real, and the suffering undeniable. But The Guardian uses this story as a vehicle for a sweeping climate narrative that the observational record undermines.

A single storm—even a deadly, destructive one—says nothing about long-term climate trends. Weather is not the same as climate. Weather extremes resulting in floods have occurred in Spain for centuries, well before modern industrial emissions. Historical accounts such as those of the catastrophic October 1957 Valencia flood, which killed dozens and reshaped the city, or the 1879 and 1897 torrential rains that inundated large portions of eastern Spain, illustrate that intense downpours are hardly unique to the present era.

An example is a drawing from 1864, by Frederico Ruiz, which showed the scale and violence of flooding in Valencia Province, in Alzira, a city on the left bank of the Xúquer River, 45 kilometers to the south of Valencia in 1864.

An 1864 drawing depicting a flooded Valencia Province, featuring buildings partially submerged in water and dramatic dark clouds overhead.

In fact, peer-reviewed science shows a long history of such floods well before “man-made climate change” was even a buzzword and global atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower. One peer-reviewed study published in 1996 shows that floods there were far worse in the 1600s than today, as seen below.

Graph depicting historical flooding frequency in Spain from 1300 to 2000, with a 10-year and 30-year smoothing filter applied.
Distribution of historic floods in Spain during different periods (according to Benito et al. 1996).

The Guardian ignores this important context entirely, promoting the false narrative that climate change is responsible for or makes worse every present day natural disaster, notwithstanding history.

Observational climate data paint a more complicated picture than “climate breakdown.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), on Page 90, table 12.12 (seen below) states that it has low confidence in any global trend in flood frequency or magnitude.

Table showing the emergence of climatic impact drivers over different time periods, highlighting low confidence in trends related to heavy precipitation and river flooding.

Similarly, rainfall intensity varies strongly across decades due to natural climate oscillations such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Mediterranean teleconnections. None of this appears in the article, which instead wrongly implies a direct, linear link between fossil-fuel emissions and a single storm event.

If readers want data-driven assessments rather than emotional narratives, they can consult the Climate at a Glance summary “Floods,” which explains that global flood trends show no sustained upward pattern. Likewise, “Extreme Weather” summarizes that most categories of extreme weather—hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, heatwaves, rainfall—show mixed or declining long-term trends in the observational record. Climate Realism has documented many media misrepresentations of rainfall and flooding events, including their recent takedown of a similar BBC claim, “Flooding Facts Drowned by Climate Hysteria: The BBC Ignores Spain’s Weather History.”

The Guardian also fails to acknowledge the decisive role that local factors played in magnifying the Valencia disaster. The flood images in the article, showing submerged vehicles piled together and narrow streets acting as channeled torrents, make clear that urban design, impermeable surfaces, insufficient drainage systems, and inadequate warnings all contributed to the severity of impacts. The increased urbanization in a known flood plain was an invitation to the disaster that occurred. The woman at the center of the article concludes that the regional government’s failure to warn residents or provide preventive measures was the primary cause of loss, not the climate. Yet The Guardian still insists that the true antagonist is “climate breakdown.”

Natural climate variability, infrastructure decisions, and emergency preparedness determine disaster outcomes far more than marginal changes in global average temperature, a fact The Guardian ignores to the detriment of the truth and its readers. The Guardian’s assertion that the recent flood was unprecedented is flat out false, as similar or worse flooding events in the region documented in the historical record attest – floods that occurred long before CO₂ levels rose significantly .

By implying that a heartbreaking family tragedy is proof of global climate collapse, The Guardian irresponsibly misleads its readers, substituting emotional persuasion and advocacy with scientific rigor. Readers deserve factual reporting complete with historical context and data, rather than a false narrative that treats every intense weather event as evidence of a “climate breakdown.”

Thankfulness for Climate and Energy Reality

What We Should Be Grateful For in Climate, Energy, Living Standards, and Human Prosperity

A farmer holding a pitchfork stands next to a red tractor, overlooking a golden landscape at sunset, with mountains in the background.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

What We Should Be Grateful For in Climate, Energy, Living Standards, and Human Prosperity

Every year, as the cranberry sauce congeals and the football game drones on in the background, we’re told to “reflect on what really matters.” Fair enough. But rarely does anyone suggest reflecting on something far more fundamental to our modern existence: the extraordinary environmental stability, energy abundance, and human progress that underpin every comfort we enjoy today.

Instead, we hear about apocalyptic tipping points, “unlivable” futures, and the suggestion that your Thanksgiving turkey may soon be illegal unless it’s raised on insect protein and good intentions. But beneath the noise, the data tell a very different story—one worth genuine gratitude.

Below is an extended reflection—yes, a long one, the length you’d expect from me—covering the things we should be thankful for when it comes to climate, energy, standard of living, and human prosperity, backed by evidence, historical perspective, and just enough wit to keep things digestible.

1. A Climate System Far More Stable Than Advertised

If you rely on headlines alone, you’d assume we live in a constant state of environmental emergency. Oceans rising by the minute. Storms “unprecedented” (a word the press now uses like salt—whether needed or not). Temperatures marching upward in perfect lockstep with the worst-case models.

But the real climate story is slower, more nuanced, and—dare I say—reassuring.

The Climate Isn’t Spiraling—It’s Drifting Gradually

What does long-term data actually show?

  • Warming has occurred, yes—but at a rate far below the early alarmist projections.
  • Long-term historical reconstructions tell us that modern temperature variability is well within the bounds of natural swings.
  • Records of past warm periods—the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, and Holocene Climate Optimum—remind us that warmth has historically been a good thing for human flourishing.

In other words, the Earth isn’t teetering on the edge of catastrophe. It’s behaving like it always has: with variability shaped by solar cycles, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and yes, human influence—but not in the runaway fashion so often claimed.

Climate/Weather Related Deaths Have Plummeted

This is one of the most underreported achievements in human history.

Roger Pielke Jr. and others (Lomborg, seen below) have shown that climate-related deaths (drought, flood, storms, heat, cold) have declined by over 95% since the early 20th century.

Line graph depicting the decline of climate-related deaths from 1920 to 2021, showing a significant decrease from over 450,000 deaths per decade to under 50,000, with annotations on notable disasters in 2021.

Why?

Not because the weather got nicer.
Because we got better.

Better forecasting. Better infrastructure. Better emergency response. Better sanitation. Better agriculture.
Human progress—not atmospheric CO₂—is the dominant climate factor in human survival.

CO₂: Not a Demon, But a Fertilizer
If you want something to genuinely be thankful for, look to the data from NASA: the Earth has greened dramatically over the last 30+ years, with increased vegetation equivalent to adding a new continent of green growth.

Global vegetation index map showing areas of plant growth across continents as of October 16, 2019.

This isn’t conjecture—it’s satellite imaging.

Plants love CO₂. They perform better with more of it. Farmers know this. Botanists know this. In fact, commercial greenhouses pump CO₂ into their structures to enhance growth.

The irony is stunning:
The same molecule that activists call pollution is also fueling global agricultural success. For example, global wheat yield:

Line graph showing global wheat yield from 1961 to 2023, measured in tonnes per hectare, with an upward trend.

2. Energy Abundance: The Real Foundation of Modern Life

It’s fashionable in political circles to talk about “ending fossil fuels,” usually from people speaking into microphones, under lights, in air-conditioned rooms—all powered by fossil fuels.

But here’s the truth:

We owe modern civilization to abundant, affordable energy.

Hospitals. Refrigeration. Data centers. Clean water. Manufacturing. Transport. Heating.
None of these work without reliable, dense energy sources.

Fossil Fuels Still Provide 80% of Global Energy for a Reason

A chart showing global electricity production by source from 1985 to 2024, illustrating energy contributions from coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, bioenergy, and other renewables, measured in terawatt-hours.

They’re:

  • Energy-dense
  • Affordable
  • Transportable
  • Available on demand
  • Scalable to billions of people

Intermittent sources—wind and solar—simply cannot replace them without massive backup, land use, and expensive infrastructure.

Natural Gas Has Done More for Emissions Reductions Than Policy

Infographic illustrating the reduction of CO2 emissions in the U.S. electric power sector attributed to increased natural gas use since 2006, highlighting a decrease of 3,871 MMT CO2 from the shift to natural gas compared to 2,422 MMT CO2 reduction from the increase in non-carbon generation.

This is the part climate activists hate to discuss.

Thanks to advances in natural gas production, the U.S. has:

  • Lowered CO₂ emissions more than any country in the past two decades
  • Reduced air pollution dramatically
  • Improved energy reliability

Not through regulation.
Not through subsidies.
But through market-driven innovation.

Nuclear Power: The Neglected Hero

Nuclear energy remains:

  • The most reliable low-emission energy source
  • The smallest land-footprint electricity source
  • Capable of running 24/7 for decades
  • Safer than almost any major industry when judged by mortality data

If energy policies were guided by evidence rather than ideology, nuclear plants would be popping up like Dollar General stores.

3. Standard of Living: Better Than Any Time in Human History

It’s easy to forget this, because modern comforts are so normal we barely notice them.

But step back and look at the big picture.

Infographic titled 'The World as 100 People' illustrating data on extreme poverty, democracy, basic education, vaccination, literacy, and child mortality over the last two centuries.

We live in an era of unprecedented human well-being.

Consider:

  • Life expectancy at global all-time highs
  • Infant mortality at all-time lows
  • Access to clean water and sanitation for billions
  • Food production levels unimaginable a century ago
  • Air quality in developed nations dramatically cleaner than in the 1970s

Much of this progress is directly tied to energy availability and technological advancements—not climate policy.

Weather Matters Less Than Ever

Modern infrastructure shields us from the elements.
Air conditioning saves millions from heat deaths.
Heating saves millions from cold-related mortality (which still far exceeds heat deaths globally).
Weather that once posed daily threats is now a manageable inconvenience thanks to better detection and warning systems.

To put it humorously:
Your ancestors worried about freezing to death.
You worry about whether your phone will survive a drop in the pool.

That’s progress.

4. Human Prosperity: The Real Miracle Worth Celebrating

We often take prosperity for granted because it arrived gradually. But zoom out, and the past 150 years represent a transformation unlike anything in human history.

Billions Have Escaped Extreme Poverty

According to the World Bank, global extreme poverty has fallen from 90% in 1820 to under 10% today, despite the world’s population skyrocketing.

Graph showing the decline of extreme poverty from 1800 to 2017, indicating a drop from 85% to 9% of the global population living on less than $2/day.

That improvement was not fueled by solar panels and carbon taxes.
It was powered by affordable energy, industrialization, and economic freedom.

Agricultural Productivity Has Soared

Line graph showing the change in cereal production, yield, land use, and population from 1961 to 2023, with cereal production and yield increasing significantly compared to stable land use.

Thanks to:

Mechanization
Fertilizers
Irrigation
Crop science
CO₂ fertilization
The world produces more food, more reliably, and with less labor than ever before.

This is how we’ve fed billions without turning the planet into farmland.

Freedom of Mobility, Trade, and Information
Energy makes everything mobile:

Goods
People
Medicine
Ideas
You can’t operate a global medical supply chain on a wind turbine.
You can’t run international commerce on battery-powered cargo ships—at least not for the next several decades.

Energy is the circulatory system of global prosperity.

  1. The Human Spirit: Innovation Over Fear
    If there’s one thing history proves, it’s this:

Humans are far better at solving problems than predicting catastrophes.
Predictions of environmental doom have failed for over 50 years:

Mass famine by the 1980s
“Ice-free Arctic by 2013”
Peak oil
The end of snow
Cities underwater by 2020
Hurricanes getting worse
These predictions weren’t ignored—they were wrong.
Meanwhile, real progress came from innovation:

Better forecasting and warnings
Better infrastructure
Better agricultural methods
Better energy systems
Better scientific understanding
We have every reason to believe human ingenuity will continue to outpace environmental risks, especially if policy doesn’t get in the way.

Thanks most of all for: Prosperity Grounded in Reality
This Thanksgiving, rather than giving thanks for “climate action” or “net-zero commitments”—political slogans with poor track records—we should express gratitude for things that are real, measurable, and historically unprecedented:

A remarkably stable climate
Lower climate-related mortality
A greener planet
Abundant affordable energy
Technological resilience
Unmatched living standards
Unprecedented global prosperity
Human innovation that consistently outperforms doom predictions
These are not talking points.
These are facts grounded in data, history, and observation.

And they’re worth celebrating—because they’re the foundation of everything we enjoy today, from the food on our Thanksgiving tables to the warmth in our homes, to the freedom to question the prevailing narratives.

And, I would be remiss if I did not say thank you to all of you, the readers and supporters of WUWT. This coming year, we’ll hit 20 years in November 2026. WUWT has outlived and outperformed every other website about climate during that time. Not one can come close to the longevity, the reach, the number of publications, or the views that we have.

So, thank you dear readers. May your day be blessed with warmth, thankfulness, joy, abundance and good cheer.

Jilted Aussie Green Hydrogen Investor Accuses President Trump of Lying

“…  wrote off $244 million in clean energy spending …” after Trump 2024 Election win.

A close-up of a man speaking at an event, wearing a blue suit with a yellow tie, gesturing with one hand, and looking intently into the camera.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“…  wrote off $244 million in clean energy spending …” after Trump 2024 Election win.

‘Sue me’: Forrest says Trump is telling lies on climate

Jessica Gardner United States correspondent

Washington | Mining billionaire Andrew Forrest has accused United States President Donald Trump of lying about climate change as he pilloried the White House’s pivot away from renewable energy to polluting fossil fuel sources.

…

“There’s real damage being done to people’s lives all over the world by your president propagating a complete myth that global warming is not happening. That’s wrong. That’s utterly wrong,” Forrest said.

“Your administration … it’s put a bet on the oldest, tiredest horse on the line, which is fossil fuel,” he told the event hosted by the New York Times. “And by the way, all these other horses are fit, lean, they’re getting stronger every day, which is renewable energy, renewable technology, storage, everything.”

…

The company wrote off $244 million in clean energy spending after halting more than $1 billion worth of hydrogen projects, according to its annual financial disclosure in August.

…Read more: 

https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/sue-me-forrest-says-trump-is-telling-lies-on-climate-20250925-p5mxqo

In addition to the $244 million Andrew “Twiggy” Forest had to write off over his failed clean energy schemes, Twiggy’s resource companies have likely been impacted by President Trump’s import tariffs.

Making belligerent speeches aimed at President Trump seems to be the latest fashion in Australia’s political and business circles. But I doubt President Trump can be bothered to remember who Twiggy is.

The truth is the world is moving on without Australia. While the USA and Asia build the world of tomorrow, Australia’s political and industry leaders are clinging to the failed green ideas of the past, desperately grasping at straws of international relevance, while pretending to the audience back home that Australia still matters.

Climate Change Forever- It is time to stop vilifying carbon dioxide

Earth’s weather and climate have always been in a perpetual state of flux. These changes are driven by shifting ratios of land and sea over geological epochs, tectonic forces, and external influences such as the Sun and the planets — “wandering stars” — of our solar system. Science has significantly advanced our understanding of the intimate relationship between the Sun’s energy outputs and Earth’s weather and climate systems.

A scenic landscape showcasing rolling green hills under a bright sky with the sun shining, overlaid with bold yellow text stating 'carbon dioxide and a warming climate change are no problem.'

From The New American

By Dr. Willie Soon

A digital illustration of Earth in space with the Sun shining brightly in the background, highlighting the relationship between the planet and its primary energy source.

AT A GLANCE

• The world’s climate has always been in a perpetual state of flux.

• Carbon dioxide is the gas of life.

• The alarmism against CO2 is not based on science.

• It is time to stop vilifying CO2.

Earth’s weather and climate have always been in a perpetual state of flux. These changes are driven by shifting ratios of land and sea over geological epochs, tectonic forces, and external influences such as the Sun and the planets — “wandering stars” — of our solar system. Science has significantly advanced our understanding of the intimate relationship between the Sun’s energy outputs and Earth’s weather and climate systems.

However, it is troubling that anti-science organizations and global governments are now promoting the notion that Earth’s climate must remain static and unchanging. These groups argue that the climate is deteriorating due to rising carbon dioxide levels since the onset of the Industrial Revolution some 240-260 years ago. This belief is pushed despite the lack of direct or indirect evidence proving that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. Nonetheless, these elements have succeeded in convincing a largely disengaged public that we must stabilize Earth’s climate by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, without defining what concentration is desirable or specifying the “correct” global temperature to maintain.

On July 9, from the garden of Laudato Si’ Village, Pope Leo XIV delivered a homily stating:

We must pray for the conversion of so many people, inside and outside of the church, who still don’t recognize the urgency of caring for our common home. … We see so many natural disasters in the world, nearly every day and in so many countries, that are in part caused by the excesses of being human, with our lifestyle.

The pope also issued a warning ahead of the September 1 World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation:

Our earth is being ravaged. On all sides, injustice, violations of international law and the rights of peoples, grave inequalities and the greed that fuels them are spawning deforestation, pollution and the loss of biodiversity. Extreme natural phenomena caused by climate changes provoked by human activity are growing in intensity and frequency.

I feel compelled to remind readers of what I wrote when the encyclical Laudato Si’ was released by the late Pope Francis 10 years ago: “Only around 2% of the encyclical addresses climate change — 4 out of 246 items — and even these contain half-truths. Half-truths are the enemy of science and must be eradicated.”

A person in religious vestments delivering a speech outdoors, holding a document in one hand while gesturing with the other.
Pope Leo XIV (AP Images)

I feared then, as I do now, that the encyclical was driven more by social and political motives than by science. The office of the pope is mistaken in condemning the beneficial use of fossil fuels, which have enhanced life on Earth. As Galileo said 400 years ago when the papacy similarly rejected science: “It is not in the power of any created being to make things true or false, for this belongs to their own nature and to the fact.”

While we can forgive Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV for their lack of familiarity with climate science, their dire warnings about atmospheric CO2 border on alarmism. These proposals to manipulate CO2 levels in the name of God would be almost comedic if not for the potentially severe consequences of reducing carbon dioxide through the suppression of industrial activity. The proponents of such action appear entirely unaware of how the planet’s carbon cycle works. Even halting all human industrial activity, which actually occurred to an extent during the Covid-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2023, may not significantly lower atmospheric CO2 levels.

What the Data Tell Us

The numbers tell a rather shocking story about CO2. For example, Britain’s coal consumption has dropped to levels not seen since 1666. U.S. fossil-fuel-related CO2 emissions have declined 18 percent from their mid-2000s peak. In June 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported a 38-percent reduction in emissions from power plants. American air quality is better than ever, especially when compared to that of China and India. The U.K. has reduced emissions by more than 50 percent since the 1970s. Globally, CO2 emissions have remained relatively flat for the past decade.

And yet, atmospheric CO2 continues to rise — seemingly in spite of decades of sacrifice and policy changes. These factual, real-world data suggest that the global carbon budget is far more complex than simply adding up human emissions.

The Role of CO2 in the Biosphere

Scientific evidence shows that carbon dioxide is the “gas of life,” enhancing biological productivity across ecosystems. Since the 1800s, the Earth has greened noticeably, including in marginal desert areas, as plants become more efficient in water usage under elevated CO2. In contrast, low CO2 levels during glacial periods (often called “ice ages”) led to inhospitable conditions for vegetation and animal life. Today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is at a mere 0.043 percent. Far from being dangerous, this may be suboptimal for a thriving biosphere.

What About the Climate Itself?

Science has yet to offer a precise definition of “climate.” It’s not merely a statistical average of weather patterns. The full range of climatic interactions, including seasonal temperature and precipitation patterns across geographical areas, remains only partially understood. Those who insist that rising atmospheric CO2 levels lead only to negative climatic effects ignore the substantial positive impacts on life.

It is disheartening that major scientific organizations have failed to communicate any factual understanding of climate change. Instead, many have adopted a singular, alarmist narrative for the past 30 or 40 years.

The Sun’s Role: Our True Power Source

What powers Earth’s energy systems? The Sun — our Bright Orange Ball, or BOB — provides 99.99 percent of all energy on Earth, including for photosynthesis. Since the 1940s, science has linked changes in Sun-Earth orbital configuration to the timing of ice ages and warm periods of the last 2.5 million years. Satellite data confirm that the Sun is not a stable, unchanging lightbulb; its emissions, including ultraviolet and X-rays, vary significantly. These energetic shifts may even play a role in gene mutation and the evolution of life.

At the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, we have published studies showing that the Sun’s activity explains most — if not all — of Earth’s thermal variability. However, further research is needed to capture the true dynamics of both solar and terrestrial change, which anti-science activists continue to ignore.

Urban Heat and Climate Narratives

Our research confirms that global temperature records are significantly influenced by Urban Heat Island effects, first described in 19th-century London, England. A recent, independent study by Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy corroborates these findings in U.S. temperature records. These results challenge decades of claims about “global warming” or “global boiling” pushed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and even the “burning world” echoed by Pope Leo XIV.

In contrast to IPCC computer models predicting continuous and accelerated warming, real-world data show that temperature oscillates between warm and cool phases every few decades.

Scientific Integrity vs. Cherry-picked Narratives

Our latest twin papers, employing two of the most powerful modern toolkits — Large Language Models and Principles of Forecasting Science — critically evaluate the IPCC’s 2021-2023 reports. The conclusion? The reports are at best cherry-picked and at worst deliberately misleading. The IPCC’s 35-year narrative represents anti-science rather than science.

It is time to abandon the relentless campaign to vilify carbon dioxide. Science and reason, not fear, should guide our efforts to improve life on Earth. The principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, should remain our compass.

Perhaps it is fitting to close with the words of Pope Leo XIV himself: “May this be the harmony we spread throughout the world.”