RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/09/co2_alarmism_science_or_superstition.html

When Americans hear about carbon dioxide (CO2), it’s often shown as a harmful pollutant that threatens the planet. Politicians, activists, and media outlets warn that if we don’t reduce emissions right away, disaster will happen. 

Preeminent “climate scientist” Al Gore told Congress in 2007, “The science is settled. Carbon dioxide emissions – from cars, power plants, buildings, and other sources – are heating the Earth’s atmosphere.” He continued warning, “The planet has a fever.”

What if the fever is instead a cold plunge? As CNN reminded us earlier this year, “Record-breaking cold: Temperatures to plunge to as much as 50 degrees below normal.”

The Weather Channel posted on Facebook last week, “Record-breaking cold temperatures for the month of August provide many their first taste of fall.” What happened to global warming?

Let’s not focus on the last year or the last fifty years. Instead, let’s look at the past 600 million years. From this perspective, the story looks very different.

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, authored a policy paper in 2016 titled, “The positive impact of CO2 emissions on the survival of life on earth.” Note the organization he cofounded. This is not some far-right, anti-science, fascist, Nazi, white supremacist organization, as the left would characterize anyone questioning “settled” climate science. Since its founding in 1971, Greenpeace has promoted environmental activism.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/10/fact-checking-newsoms-clean-energy-claims/

In a recent guest op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, California Governor Newsom claimed that “Clean Energy Powers California’s Economic Growth,” a claim that is transparently false. Aggressive “clean energy” mandates, paired with perpetually escalating restrictions on conventional energy sources, are the reasons Californians pay the highest prices in America for gasoline and electricity, and nearly the highest prices of any major state for natural gas.

Along with ignoring the fact that affordable energy is fundamental to economic growth and California has the least affordable energy in America, Newsom makes grossly incorrect statements. In the subhead of his op-ed, he writes, “More than two-thirds of the state’s electricity is from sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal.” This isn’t even close to accurate.

The California Energy Commission reports in-state electricity production by source. The most recent data is for 2023, and in that year, wind, solar, and geothermal energy accounted for a mere 31 percent of California’s total in-state electricity production. Even when adding nuclear and hydroelectric power, California’s total “clean” energy only accounted for 54 percent of the electricity generated in the state.

Newsom goes on to write that “climate change has made our summers hotter,” and that 2024 was the warmest on record. He boasts that “rapid deployment of clean energy and battery storage” got Californians through the summer of 2024 without blackouts. This is a half-truth at best. As reported in CalMatters, a left-leaning site that covers California politics, in 2023, in order to “shore up California’s straining power grid,” Newsom delayed the planned closures of three natural gas-powered generating plants that together contribute 2.2 gigawatts to California’s electricity grid. In 2022, Newsom delayed the planned 2025 closure of California’s last major nuclear-powered generating plant, Diablo Canyon, preserving another 2.2 gigawatts of baseload electricity.

Furthermore, no fact check of Newsom’s WSJ op-ed would be complete without questioning his claim that 2024 was “the warmest on record.” This is something we hear all the time. It is a statement meant to foment fear and discourage dissenting opinions. But is it true? Los Angeles County, a place where an estimated 27 percent of all Californians live, has kept temperature records since 1878. If you plot the average annual temperature, you will see a trend suggesting that overall, in Los Angeles County, it is not quite three degrees Fahrenheit hotter in the 2020s than it was in the 1880s. The trend isn’t smooth. In the 1930s, average temperatures were comparable and in some years hotter than in the 2020s. But there’s a major factor that politicians and biased activists conveniently ignore: the urban heat island effect.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/09/09/another-crack-appears-in-the-global-warming-narrative/

Editor’s note: It is likely that by the time you read this editorial, the leftist thought police at Google will have deemed it “dangerous” and “misleading” — because it blasphemes the climate religion—and stripped its AdSense ads from the page. This is why we mounted our Kill the Ads campaign. It’s our small way of trying to stick it to Big Tech. Readers can help counter attempts to suppress our speech with a direct donation to I&I.

Al Gore famously warned that sea level rise caused by man’s use of fossil fuels was going to kill us. Barack Obama implied that he had magic powers that would control surging sea levels. A fresh study shows just how dishonest this pair and the many others who did their best to misinform the public have been.

Gore’s 2006 propaganda film told us to beware of sea levels rising by 20 feet, devastating New York and Florida. The uber-narcissistic Obama promised an adoring crowd that his nomination to be the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nominee “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” California Gov. Jerry Brown predicted a little more than a decade ago that collapsing glaciers would submerge both the Los Angeles and San Francisco international airports.

These of course are just three of many examples of alarmists, hacks, globalist busybodies, NASA eggheads, academic ideologues and true believers fear-mongering over sea-level rise.

Obama, no climate refugee he, was later roasted for buying oceanfront compounds in Martha’s Vineyard and Hawaii. The purchases clearly show he didn’t believe what he said – he was just another political hack appealing for votes and hoping to burnish a legacy before he even set foot in the White House.

But how can we know it’s just fear-mongering?

Actual science, not Gore’s junk variety, now tells us that “approximately 95% of the suitable locations” researchers looked at showed “no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise.” This “suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-energy-plan-2025-climate-change

New York’s recently released Draft 2025 Energy Plan is rooted in fantasy. The plan asserts that the Empire State’s electrification and zero-emissions obsession will reduce energy costs, fight climate change, and create over 60,000 net new jobs by 2035. In reality, while the plan won’t meaningfully affect the climate, it will devastate consumers and New York’s economy.

The plan asks New Yorkers to ignore the realities before their eyes—including surging energy costs. ConEd, the state’s largest electric and gas utility, has requested double-digit rate increases for its provision of electricity and natural gas, which will cost consumers an additional $2 billion annually. National Grid has filed for similar rate increases upstate.

Those requested hikes are solely for natural gas and electricity delivery. As more fossil-fuel-generating plants close in response to the state’s net-zero Climate Action Plan, wholesale electricity costs will continue to soar, as growing demand, driven by the state’s building- and vehicle-electrification mandates, outstrips supply.

The state’s climate plan also contains a litany of dubious targets and assumptions. For example, it commits the state to former Governor Cuomo’s goal of deploying 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035, despite that industry’s having sunk under its own bloated costs.

Elsewhere, the plan assumes that someone will somehow develop, commercialize, and install currently nonexistent electric generating technologies over the next 15 years. Specifically, it claims that someone will retrofit 17,000 megawatts of existing natural gas-fired generators—the equivalent of eight Indian Point nuclear plants—to burn pure hydrogen by 2040. The plan also assumes that the state will somehow manufacture enough “green” hydrogen using surplus wind and solar generation to fuel those plants and build an entirely new pipeline infrastructure to deliver hydrogen to them.

Even if developers created generators capable of burning pure hydrogen, the quantity of surplus wind and solar power generation needed to manufacture sufficient hydrogen to power those 17,000 megawatts is staggering. Producing enough energy to fuel even just the 10 percent of hours when electricity demand is highest would require building 13,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity, which would require an investment of between $25 billion and $65 billion. That doesn’t include financing costs. Nor does it include the cost of the hydrogen manufacturing facilities themselves.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/epa-endangerment-finding-clean-air-act-trump

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn’t on anyone’s mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the “Endangerment Finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming.

A new Trump administration proposal to reverse the Endangerment Finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat.

The Endangerment Finding stemmed from the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision “ignores the complexities” of addressing global warming through the statute—but suggested its effects “may be more symbolic than anything else.” He couldn’t have been more wrong.

In his first year in office, President Obama recognized the limits of the Clean Air Act and sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress. But when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, in response to Massachusetts, the EPA declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endangered public health and welfare and therefore required regulation.

Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2. This is partly because the act is designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet, and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just for breathing.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/08/06/when-the-climate-zealotry-runs-hot/

We thought President Donald Trump was merely another Hitler. But, no, he’s also another Mao and another Stalin. Next he’ll be on his way to becoming Beelzebub himself, unless the climate fanatics can finally get a hold of themselves.

In one of the more maniacal rants we have seen, Rep. Sean Casten, an Illinois Democrat, swore before hundreds of millions that the administration’s dropping of the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon dioxide endangerment finding is an act of mass murder. Seems to be a lot to put on an administrative order that reverses the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2, which provided government with the veneer of “science” to pursue its EVs-for-all, gasoline-for-none crusade, promote of unreliable renewable energy sources. attack conventional energy suppliers and micromanage consumer appliance manufacturing.

“This is anti-scientific, immoral and economically irresponsible. I say this without hyperbole – when the history of this era is written, Donald Trump will have been responsible for more deaths than Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined,” Casten said last week in a particularly frothy tweeted.

That would be quite a number, maybe as high as 100 million. But even if only a little more than half that, as some have calculated, it’s still a staggering sum.

As if he didn’t expose himself enough, Casten added that he’s sure “Millions, if not billions will die if we don’t address climate change; some will survive but if rivers keep moving, coasts keep eroding, fires keep burning we will be forced to become migratory. That is a choice.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/world-court-vs-trump-admin-on-climate-change/

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest judicial body that is also known as the World Court, has become an utter embarrassment by violating the fundamental principles of a fair and impartial judiciary.

In 2024, the ICJ took the side of the Palestinian terrorists and their supporters by outrageously allowing a bogus complaint filed by South Africa against Israel to proceed rather than dismissing it outright. The complaint falsely accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. In deciding that South Africa’s case against Israel could move forward, the ICJ gave credence to the blood libel claiming that Israel’s legitimate defense of its own people to prevent another October 7th-style Palestinian terrorist rampage constituted genocide by Israel.

Now the ICJ has taken the side of leftwing, progressive climate activists by issuing its “Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change.” The United Nations General Assembly had requested the opinion.

ICJ’s President, Justice Yuji Iwasawa, described the climate change case as “unlike any that have previously come before the court.”

The case was not simply about a “legal problem,” Justice Iwasawa said, but “concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

The ICJ had no business hearing and deciding this case in the first place. Courts are supposed to confine themselves to adjudicating concrete legal controversies between parties, not acting as a quasi-legislature. Justice Iwasawa sounds more like a progressive politician pushing the radical Green New Deal agenda than a judge who is supposed to interpret the law as written. The ICJ opinion might as well have been written by a climate advocacy organization.

“A complete solution” to what the ICJ described as the “daunting and self-inflicted problem” of climate change requires, according to its opinion, “human will and wisdom at the individual social and political levels to change our habits, comforts, and current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.”

It is up to each sovereign nation, not an international court, to balance the potential gravity of any environmental concerns with the economic welfare and wellbeing of its people. Such tradeoffs are the responsibility of each nation’s duly authorized policymakers, whose decisions are supposed to be made in the best interests of their own people.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/07/22/fact-checking-the-climate-claims/

The climate alarmists regularly seize on weather events they believe will help them exploit their narrative. Naturally, they ignore contradictory information. So we see it as our duty to fill in the gaps from time to time. Following are a few examples that show why the global warming story is less scientific theory than conjecture in the service of a political agenda.

Let’s begin in the West Arctic, where the Northwest Passage is experiencing its third-highest level of sea ice extent in the last two decades. In 2009, Al Gore said, with his usual galling listen-to-me certainty, the Arctic polar ice cap could be gone during summer within five to seven years.
There has been “marked cooling since the early 2010s … which is likely linked to a documented slowdown in Greenland’s warming and ice loss,” say a pair of South Korean researchers.
Efforts to attribute the deadly Texas flood, in which the Guadalupe River rose by 37.5 feet, to human carbon dioxide emissions have been debunked (as has every other attempt to tie man’s CO2 to harsh weather). Our friend Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com points out that “much worse flooding had occurred more than a century earlier in July when the Guadalupe River had risen by a whopping 42.3 feet.”
Summer heat is always blamed on man’s fossil fuel use. This year, more than 160 million people in the Midwest, the South, and on the East Coast endured temperatures around the 100-degree mark. But nothing has happened to indicate that man is responsible. Have a look at the data.
Last month, H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute noted that polar ice has refused to follow the climate crisis narrative. “Having examined the data and history, I knew Antarctica has not been following the climate crisis script since the alarm was first raised with James Hansen’s theatrically staged 1988 congressional testimony in which he claimed the Earth was dangerously warming due to human activity.”
Last month, a Tampa, Fla., meteorologist blamed “climate change,” and we don’t assume he’s talking about natural variations that have always existed, for 90-degree days having doubled in the city. He was fact-checked by the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow: “Tampa does not represent the rest of Florida. The average number of days reaching 95°F (35°C) or higher in Florida has not increased since 1895,” according to federal data. “Tampa’s temperature data has been contaminated with urban heat island effects, which have led to an artificial rise in the number of extremely hot days.”
The New York Times wants readers to believe that the June Air India crash that killed 241 is a curtain-raiser for future air crashes caused by climate change. Milloy had the best response: “No other plane crashed because of global warming. Just that one.”

If the climate tale were undeniably true, the activists in and out of the media would not have to exaggerate, disinform, and make connections that don’t exist. The fact that they feel they have to provides a clear insight into their duplicitous nature.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/07/21/the-fruitful-results-of-increasing-co%e2%82%82/

Among the climatically correct, nothing is more scandalous than describing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions as beneficial. You can be blacklisted from public forums and professional networking sites and even be removed from your tenured university position as an accomplished scientist.

Nonetheless, the truth is this: CO₂ is fundamental to the photosynthetic process by which plants make food for themselves—and ultimately for us. Furthermore, the increase in atmospheric CO₂ from industrial activity in the past century has helped vegetation over most of the planet to flourish. Also benefiting plants has been the relative warmth of recent decades.

Among the beneficiaries are fruit plants, whose sensitivity to cold is well established. In April 2007, an unseasonable freeze caused considerable low-temperature injury to small fruit plants, including grapes, strawberries, blueberries, and blackberries, in 21 U.S. states. The financial repercussions for the agricultural sector were substantial. In North Carolina alone, farming losses were estimated to be $112 million, including $86 million in damages to fruit crops.

During the Little Ice Age (1300–1850), many of the fruit crops faced significant challenges from low temperatures, shorter growing seasons, and extreme weather events like frosts, heavy rains, and drought.

In Iceland and high alpine areas, agriculture nearly collapsed. In China’s Jiangxi Province, centuries-old orange cultivation was abandoned due to cold. In temperate zones, apple and pear trees struggled with erratic temperatures, causing irregular blooming and lower yields.

Fast forward 175 years or so, and we have fruit crops thriving globally, thanks to elevated CO₂ levels, relative warmth, and a series of innovations in plant biotechnology. Regardless of whether certain politicians or news media believe it or not, plants love the warmer temperatures and increasing carbon dioxide of our season of plenty.

Rising temperatures extend growing seasons by delaying fall frosts and advancing spring thaws, allowing more plantings and reducing late-spring frost risks for orchard growers. The U.S. growing season has lengthened by over two weeks since the early 20th century.

A 2022 study led scientists to conclude that there is no doubt about the “fertilization effect of CO₂” on fruit species, which also benefit from natural warming as Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age.