RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2025/05/24/when-the-ice-cracks-michael-manns-legal-defeat-and-the-climate-of-accountability-n4940123

There was a time, not so long ago, when climate scientist Michael Mann could bully critics into silence with the mere threat of a lawsuit. He was the face behind the infamous “hockey stick” graph, a man lauded by progressives, featured in Al Gore’s documentary, and embraced by a media eager to label skeptics as dangerous deniers. But the courtroom, as it turns out, is no place for manufactured myths or moral grandstanding.

A Washington, D.C. court just handed Mann a bruising legal defeat. After more than a decade of litigation, he has been ordered to pay over $1 million in attorney’s fees to the very people he accused of defamation: National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and writer Rand Simberg, a former PJM contributor.

Even more humiliating, the court revealed that Mann grossly misrepresented his financial damages. Once celebrated as a martyr for the climate cause, he now stands exposed as a fabricator, not just of projections, but of personal injury.

The Graph That Launched a Thousand Grants

Mann’s rise to prominence began with a temperature reconstruction graph published in 1998. It erased historical warming periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in favor of a dramatic 20th-century spike. To the casual observer, it looked like mankind had shoved the planet off a climate cliff.

The media ran with it. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) elevated the hockey stick to icon status. Schools taught it. Politicians cited it. Al Gore plastered it in “An Inconvenient Truth,” like a gospel.

But critics soon noticed that something wasn’t right. Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick uncovered glaring flaws in Mann’s methodology, showing that his algorithm could produce a hockey stick shape even when fed with random data. This wasn’t just bad science; it was political theater dressed in lab coats.

From Researcher to Legal Enforcer

Rather than engage in honest debate, Mann chose litigation as his cudgel. In 2012, he sued National Review and CEI after their writers criticized his work and compared how Penn State handled their investigations of Mann after the East Anglia emails leak, and of Penn State’s disgraced football coach, Jerry Sandusky.

This was not a matter of protecting one’s reputation from slander. This was a climate scientist declaring war on dissent. And for a while, it worked. The lawsuits dragged on for over ten years. Many media outlets pulled back from covering the criticisms, not out of agreement, but out of fear.

The recent rulings, however, dismantle Mann’s claims. The D.C. court awarded National Review $530,820.21 in legal fees. CEI and Simberg will receive $472,000. These were not sympathy payouts. They were direct rebukes of a man who tried to game the legal system as thoroughly as he gamed climate projections.

A Courtroom Beatdown

In one of the ruling’s most scathing parts, the court found that Mann and his attorneys misled the jury about the damages he suffered. He testified he lost grants, suffered financially, and had speaking engagements canceled because of the defamation.

But evidence showed the opposite. Mann’s career flourished during the litigation. His speaking fees increased, and his public profile soared. His hardship claim was a mirage, and the court wasn’t buying it.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/our-feckless-nature-fakery/

Recently, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum announced that the Trump administration is documenting the value of what we the people own: “enormous stores of oil, coal, minerals, timber, and geothermal power, all held within a vast property portfolio,” Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal writes, including “480 million surface acres, more than 2 billion offshore acres, and 750 million acres of subsurface minerals.”

These abundant assets potentially can create revenue for the federal government that could obviate the need to borrow trillions of dollars, and to extract billions more from our most productive citizens, in order to “rob selected Peter to pay collective Paul,” as Rudyard Kipling in 1919 described redistribution schemes. But as Strassel understates, such common-sense action will require “hard political choices.”

That’s because for two centuries, the West has practiced what Theodore Roosevelt called “nature fakery.” In a 1907 article, Roosevelt attacked Jack London and other romantic writers for practicing what TR called “nature fakery,” which made them “an object of derision to every scientist worthy of the name, to every real lover of the wilderness, to every faunal naturalist, to every true hunter or nature lover.”

Roosevelt was alluding to the Western transformation of how we think about the natural world and our relationship to it. Rather than recognizing nature’s “fierce eternal destruction,” as John Keats put it, we have idealized and romanticized nature, and indulged what Victorian art and social critic John Ruskin called the “pathetic fallacy.” This is the idealization of nature by attributing to it and animals the conduct and emotions of human beings. Thinking your dog “loves” you, for example, is wish-fulfillment, not a statement of reality. Stop feeding it and see how much it loves you.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/20/more-truth-about-global-warming/

Editor’s note: In its ongoing effort to silence dissent about “climate change,” Google’s AdSense immediately stripped its network ads from this page, saying this editorial contains “unreliable and harmful claims” (see below). Because, you know, the truth is unreliable and harmful. You can tell Google where to stuff its policy violations by donating directly to I&I. Just click here.

Media reports are laced with unsubstantiated claims that man is overheating his planet. Every time climate change is mentioned in a story, even features in a newspaper’s food or fashion pages, it is understood that humans are turning Earth into a muggy greenhouse by burning fossil fuel. No evidence is provided to corroborate the claim. Man-made global warming just is and skeptics are deplorables.

But the facts tell a different story.

Roy Spencer, a University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist, has determined that “65% of the U.S. linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that (urban heat island) effect warming occurred before 1970.”

In other words, man has built heat sinks, which skew the temperature data upward.

Researchers have known about the urban island effect for almost two centuries. It “is mostly due to the replacement of vegetation and aerated soils with buildings and impervious pavement.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/05/15/wasting_away_in_wind-and-solarville_1110296.html

While green advocates commonly use the terms renewable, sustainable, and net zero to describe their efforts, the dirty little secret is that much of the waste from solar panels and wind turbines is ending up in landfills. 

The current amounts of fiberglass, resins, aluminum and other chemicals – not to mention propeller blades from giant wind turbines – pose no threat current to local town dumps, but this largely ignored problem will become more of a challenge in the years ahead as the 500 million solar panels and the 73,000 wind turbines now operating in the U.S. are decommissioned and replaced.

Greens insist that reductions in carbon emissions will more than compensate for increased levels of potentially toxic garbage; others fret that renewable energy advocates have not been forthright about their lack of eco-friendly plans and the technology to handle the waste.

“Nobody planned on this, nobody had a plan to get rid of them, nobody planned for closure,” said Dwight Clark, whose company, Solar E Waste Solutions, recycles solar panels. “Nobody thought this through.”

The rise of solar farms, including the 8,488 panel facility in Denton, TX., presents new environmental issues. 
Business Wire

The discussion about what to do with worn-out solar and wind equipment is another topic usually elided in Net Zero blueprints, which often focus on the claimed benefits of projects while discounting or ignoring the costs. As RealClearInvestigations previously reported regarding the lack of plans for acquiring the massive amounts of land for solar and wind farms needed to achieve net zero, the math can get fuzzy, and the numbers cited most frequently are those rosiest for renewables.

“They’ve been either silent, or incoherent – or just hand-wave that we should recycle all this stuff without telling us how,” said Mark Mills, executive director of the National Center on Energy Analytics. In the headlong effort to make solar and wind seem as inexpensive as possible, they have not included fees that address the eventual cost of disposal, which could leave taxpayers holding the bag.

Some renewable supporters acknowledge Mills’ point. The Alliance for Affordable Energy, which supports government-funded research on recycling panels and turbines, said the “circular economy” Mills referred to has yet to materialize.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/05/growth_of_wind_farms_put_golden_eagle_on_path_to_possible_extinction.html

Just a thought: Maybe if the environment and nature matter, we reconsider the towering slaughter machines killing all our birds?

A species that’s been ranked as a “least concern” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) is now on a fast track to “possible extinction.”

And, like essentially all the chaos, brokenness, and death one can observe in the modern world, if you unravel the thread to get to the why, you’ll no doubt arrive at a leftist policy in some capacity.

A drastic increase in violent crime? Look no further than the federal government’s “war on poverty,” open borders, and the promotion of godlessness.

A mental health crisis? Blame abortion—one out of every three or four women is post-abortive, and suffering from serious mental trauma. When men say women are getting crazier, there’s probably a good amount of truth to that. They’re very likely experiencing post-traumatic stress, and not being treated for it. Blame a “health care” industry that’s not focused on selling dangerous medications instead of health and healing. Blame a progressive “education” system that teaches that boys can be girls and girls can be boys, and all it takes is some irreparable mutilation to your sexual organs and a serious drug cocktail of synthetic hormones for the rest of your life.

A worthless dollar? Thank progressive spending to sustain progressive social programs.

A once-thriving species now backsliding toward extinction? Enter…those godawful wind turbines.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/16/grinding-down-the-great-green-grift/

For Democrats, green policies are a blunt object to be used for taking down capitalism and controlling the economy. They are also a magnificent vehicle for graft. It’s encouraging to see the Trump administration cracking down on the latter.

As his last days in the White House were nearing, Joe Biden, or whoever controlled his autopen, handed out $100 billion in loans and other financial commitments to bolster what’s been called the “Green New Deal wish list.” The funds were dispersed by the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office in the 76 days after Kamala Harris lost the election. To understand how extraordinary and suspicious this was, that same office distributed a little more than $40 billion in its first 15 years of existence, says Energy Secretary Christopher Wright.

“If those were great ideas that were a benefit to America, why didn’t they do it in the two-and-one-half years after the Inflation Reduction Act was passed?” Wright asked last week on a Fox Business segment with Maria Bartiromo. “Why did they wait until they lost the election? They changed terms and loan covenants. They basically tried to set bombs to make it hard for us to unwind the mess they created.”

The answer, which Wright knows, is that it was an act of sabotage but primarily a grift. Democrats are well seasoned in doling out taxpayers’ money to favored groups. There’s no need to think back any further than a couple of months ago when the new administration began to root out the racket known as the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has propped up the Democratic political machine and has the appearance of a criminal organization.

On its way out, the Biden administration also “parked” $20 billion “at an outside financial institution,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said in February. “This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history, and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight.”

It appears the $20 billion was part of the Biden plan to toss “gold bars off the Titanic” to get money to the “right people” before Biden had to leave the White House. Zeldin promised his office would “review every penny that has gone out the door.”

“The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left, activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” he said.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/05/cosmic_rays_not_carbon_dioxide_cause_climate_change.html

When a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Dr John Clauser, labels the claims about greenhouse gases warming the Earth as “pseudoscience” and describes them as “a dangerous corruption of science,” I urge you to take notice. He further stated that “the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation,” and remarked that climate science has “metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.”

Similarly, Professor Harold (Hal) Lewis, a distinguished physicist, called such claims “the biggest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud” he had encountered in his lifetime. Another German physicist expressed outrage upon discovering that much of what the IPCC and the media presented was “sheer nonsense,” unsupported by scientific facts or measurements. The late Dr Tim Ball, author of Human Caused Global Warming – The Biggest Deception in History, often cited this scientist.

Over a decade ago, Swedish Professor Claes Johnson, a brilliant scientist, authored a 115-page document explaining why radiation from cooler atmospheric molecules cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface, thus debunking the notion that such radiation warms the Earth.

Physics, not climatology, governs radiation and energy transfer. Physicists like those mentioned above, and I, possess a deeper understanding of atmospheric physics than many climatologists, who often rely on flawed interpretations. For example, a textbook written by Raymond Pierrehumbert often promoted a concept of “Radiative Forcing,” misleading generations of students.

Consider this: water vapor, the primary “greenhouse gas,” constitutes an average of 0.25% of the atmosphere, reaching up to 4% in humid regions. Carbon dioxide averages 0.04%, and methane a mere 0.0002%. Together, these gases account for less than 0.3% of the atmosphere.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/07/principles-of-new-environmentalism/

Last month, in recognition of the annual celebration of Earth Day, it seemed appropriate to compile a list of ten common myths that constitute the major premises of modern environmentalism. That list, along with explanations of why each of these premises is unfounded and counterproductive, can be summarized as follows:

1 – There is no climate crisis.
2 – There are not too many people on Earth.
3 – We are not running out of oil/gas/coal.
4 – Biofuel is not renewable or sustainable.
5 – Offshore wind is not renewable or sustainable.
6 – Renewables are not renewable.
7 – Renewables cannot replace oil/gas/coal.
8 – Housing should not be confined to densifying existing cities.
9 – Mass transit is almost never cost-effective.
10 – Wilderness areas are not sacred.

Environmentalism, pursuant to these myths, is not a movement primarily devoted to protecting the planet’s ecosystems. It is a totalitarian political agenda that aims to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a managerial elite that will wield absolute control over every aspect of human life. Where you live or travel, what you purchase or produce, and what you can own and consume will all be specified, monitored, and rationed. And the moral justification for this will be the “climate emergency.”

There are few examples in history that can compare to the political power grab enabled by the alleged “existential threat” of climate change. But of equal concern is the fraudulent essence of the economic and technological agenda pushed in the name of fighting climate change. It not only discredits environmentalism in the eyes of awakening millions, but, as explained in the ten myths, it also will wreak environmental havoc.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/06/there-goes-antarctica/

The ice sheet at the bottom of our planet is not cooperating with the global warming narrative.

Our southernmost continent is, we’ve been told, the suffocating canary in the global coal mine. The more ice loss in Antarctica, the greater trouble we’re in. So what do we make of a study which found that between 2021 and 2023, there was a record-breaking increase in the Antarctic Ice Sheet?

We mark it down as another in a long line of misses from the global warming zealots.

“Notably, four major glaciers in the Wilkes Land–Queen Mary Land region of East Antarctica reversed their previous pattern of accelerated mass loss from 2011 to 2020 and instead showed significant mass gain during the 2021 to 2023 period,” says an article in SciTechDaily summarizing the report from Tongji University researchers.

How could such an unanticipated event happen?

“The study points to anomalous precipitation as the primary driver, suggesting that natural variability plays a significant role in short-term ice sheet changes,” says climate site Watts Up With That? It also “underscores the complexity of Antarctica’s ice system and the pitfalls of oversimplified climate narratives.”

Of the latter, we’ve had more than enough.