Despite spending trillions of dollars, the “green transition” is failing

 According to Irina Slav, the global energy transition cost $4 trillion through 2023 and reduced fossil fuels by just 1%. As she put it, “we’ve paid trillions to still depend on hydrocarbons for most of our energy supply.” According to the Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2024, fossil fuels supplied 86.6% of world energy. Thirteen years prior, in 2011, the Statistical Review found that fossil fuels supplied 89.6% of the world’s energy. The difference is three percentage points. While that is slightly better than the 1% that Ms. Slav calculated using two different sources, the picture is still the same – the world is still relying on fossil fuels for almost 87% of its energy.

So, in 13 years, between 2012 and 2023, the global economy spent $4 trillion on moving away from fossil fuels, but still gets almost 87% of its energy from them. Slav also points out that spending on renewable and “clean” energy continued in 2024 to the tune of $2.4 trillion, covering investment in renewable energy, electric vehicles, energy efficiency and power grids. At the same time, coal supplied a record amount of energy in 2024. The world is learning very little from its exploits into mostly intermittent renewable energy (wind and solar power) that require expensive backup when the wind does not blow, and the sun does not shine, as politicians continue to force them upon consumers despite skyrocketing energy costs...<<<Read More>>>...

The Global Warming Gravy Train is Coming to a Screeching Halt at Long Last

 The global warming craze is dying out, says Matt Ridley in the Spectator, as banks, billionaires and politicians bail out of the Net Zero agenda. Well thank goodness for that. Here’s an excerpt:


The other factor that kept the climate scare alive was that emissions reduction proved impossibly difficult. This was a feature, not a bug: if it had been easy, the green gravy train would have ground to a halt. Reducing sulphur emissions to stop acid rain proved fairly easy, as did banning chlorofluorocarbons to protect the ozone layer. But decade after decade, carbon dioxide emissions just kept on rising no matter how much money and research was thrown at the problem. Cheers!

Switching to renewable energy made no difference – literally. Here’s the data: the world added 9,000 terawatt-hours of energy consumption from wind and solar in the past decade, but 13,000 from fossil fuels. Not that wind and solar save much carbon dioxide anyway, their machinery being made with coal and their intermittency being backed up by fossil fuels.

Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, these two ‘unreliables’ still provide just 6 per cent of the world’s energy. Their low-density, high-cost, intermittent power output is of no use to data centres or electric grids, let alone transport and heating, and effectively poisons the economics of building and running new nuclear and gas generation by preventing continuous operation. Quite why it became mandatory among those concerned about climate change to support these unreliables so obsessively is hard to fathom. Subsidy addiction has a lot to do with it, combined with a general ignorance of thermodynamics.

Now the climate scare is fading, a scramble for the exits is beginning among the big environmental groups. Donations are drying up. Some will switch seamlessly to trying to panic us about artificial intelligence; others will follow Gates and insist that they never said it was the end of the world, just a problem to be solved; a few will even try declaring victory, claiming unconvincingly that promises made at the Paris conference a decade ago have slowed down emissions enough to save the climate....<<<Read More>>>...

Patrick Michaels exposes the global warming scam in “Climate Coup”

 Global warming alarmism has permeated various sectors, including education, national defense, international development and academic publishing. This pervasive narrative of climate catastrophe has led to fear-based education, financial exploitation under the guise of climate justice and the use of climate change as a justification for military budget increases and trade restrictions.

Patrick Michaels criticizes the IPCC for relying on non-peer-reviewed sources, which has led to the retraction of claims about the Amazon rainforests, African crop harvests and Himalayan glaciers. The 2009 Climategate scandal, involving leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, further undermined the IPCC's credibility by exposing efforts to conceal flaws and exclude skeptics. The book highlights the growing power of the executive branch, particularly the EPA, in implementing climate policies without explicit congressional authorization. The EPA's "Endangerment Finding" in 2009, which classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, is cited as an example of this trend, raising concerns about the erosion of constitutional principles of limited government and separation of powers.

Michaels criticizes aggressive climate policies like the American Clean Energy and Security Act for their potential to increase the cost of electricity and energy, mandate costly regulations and impose economic burdens similar to those experienced by Spain with its green energy subsidies. He argues that these policies could lead to significant economic and social disruptions.

The book examines the militarization of climate change, with the Department of Defense using it as a justification for budget increases and the development of literature that amplifies military roles based on climate threats....<<<Read More>>>...

Reexamining the global warming narrative: Insights from “The Satanic Gases” by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr.

 Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. argue in "The Satanic Gases" that mainstream panic over global warming is politically motivated rather than scientifically sound, criticizing figures like Al Gore for exploiting extreme weather events for political gain.

The authors demonstrate that climate models have consistently overstated warming trends, with real-world data showing minimal temperature increases in over 80 percent of the troposphere — undermining claims of rapid climate change.

Contrary to apocalyptic predictions, rising CO? levels enhance plant growth, agricultural productivity and ecosystem health, with studies confirming a global "greening" effect.

Federal funding and institutional incentives bias research toward alarmism, with scientists incentivized to perpetuate exaggerated narratives despite contradictory evidence.

The Kyoto Protocol and similar mitigation efforts are deemed costly and futile, with the authors advocating instead for adaptation strategies and evidence-based policymaking free from political distortions.

In "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming," climatologists Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. present a bold challenge to the mainstream narrative on climate change.

They argue that much of the panic surrounding global warming is politically driven rather than scientifically justified. Their book dismantles the alarmist claims often promoted by figures like former Vice President Al Gore, who has built his career on framing extreme weather events as direct consequences of human-caused climate change. Michaels and Balling contend that these incidents are exploited for political gain rather than reflecting genuine scientific consensus....<<<Read More>>>...

Normal summer heatwave used as CHUM by the CLIMATE CULT to control the populace in Europe and take their money

Despite record-breaking heatwaves scorching much of Europe and North America, public support for climate action appears to be weakening rather than intensifying. A recent report from The Guardian reveals that voters across the UK and Europe are increasingly tolerant of political rollbacks on green policies — even as extreme weather events, driven by climate change, become more deadly and frequent.

Heatwaves Failing to Mobilize Climate Action: Despite record temperatures across Europe, including highs of 42 C in Spain, public concern about climate change remains muted. Many, like retiree Julie from Essex, acknowledge worsening summers but express skepticism about the government's ability — or willingness — to act meaningfully on emissions.

Climate Concern Falling Down Public Priorities: Polling data shows a decline in public concern for climate change in the UK, with support for net zero emissions by 2050 dropping from 62 to 46 percent. Climate issues now rank low compared to cost of living, healthcare, and immigration, reflecting shifting priorities amid growing economic hardship.

Rise of Populist Climate Skepticism: Right-wing populist parties like Reform UK in Britain and far-right groups across Europe are gaining ground, openly opposing climate policies even in regions vulnerable to floods and fires. Many of their supporters tolerate, or even embrace, rollbacks of green regulations, viewing them as economically disruptive.

Climate Policy as a ‘Self-Limiting’ Effort: Observers suggest climate action is only politically sustainable until it imposes visible economic or social costs. As living conditions worsen, especially in the UK, people are increasingly prioritizing immediate survival over long-term climate goals — even as the environmental toll continues to rise....<<<Read More>>>...

“Lukewarming” challenges the climate change narrative: A new perspective on global warming

 The authors, both seasoned climate scientists, argue that the climate is indeed changing, but not in the dramatic, catastrophic manner often depicted in media headlines and policy discussions. Michaels and Knappenberger introduce the concept of "lukewarming," a term that encapsulates their belief in a more gradual and less alarming warming trend. They contend that the evidence points to a milder increase in global temperatures than what is commonly projected by climate models.

The book opens with an intriguing examination of the incentive structures within the scientific community. Michaels and Knappenberger suggest that there is a bias toward alarmism, driven by the need to attract funding and attention. They point to the U.S. National Climate Assessments as examples, claiming that these reports often exaggerate the impacts of climate change to support specific policy agendas. As Michaels states, "The incentive to be alarming is strong, as it garners more funding and media coverage."

One of the most compelling aspects of "Lukewarming" is its exploration of the historical context of climate science. The authors highlight that the concept of lukewarming is not new, with contributions from scientists like Judith Curry and Will Happer over the years. They emphasize the importance of skepticism and critical thinking, arguing that the current climate change narrative often lacks these essential elements.

Michaels and Knappenberger also delve into the role of sulfate aerosols in climate models. They argue that these aerosols have been used as a "Band-Aid" to help models simulate past climate conditions more accurately. However, they question the validity of this approach, suggesting that it allows modelers to hold onto their paradigms longer than they should. "The use of sulfate aerosols in models is a double-edged sword," Michaels explains. "While it helps reconcile models with past data, it also masks the uncertainties inherent in our understanding of the climate system."...<<<Read More>>>....

“Climate risk” hype overstates threats: Real culprits are real estate growth and density

 In an era of escalating insurance premiums and mortgage costs, a controversial new report claims climate change is driving financial risks from extreme weather—a narrative criticized as alarmist and misleading by scientists and economists who say the real culprit is unchecked coastal development. 

CNN’s recent coverage of FirstStreet’s “Climate, the Sixth ‘C’ of Credit” report purports that “climate risk” threatens lending practices and credit scores. But experts argue this framing misrepresents climate science, blends short-term weather events with long-term climate trends, and obscures the economic realities of population growth and inflated property values...<<<Read More>>>...

Faked data? Met Office’s data gaps raise questions over climate crisis claims

 The U.K. Met Office, a cornerstone of global climate science, faces mounting scrutiny after failing to identify the sources of temperature data linked to 103 non-existent weather stations. Investigations by independent researchers and frustrated Freedom of Information requests have exposed gaps in the agency’s methodologies, casting doubt on its climate data reliability. The findings, emerging against a backdrop of urgent global climate policies, raise critical questions about the validity of temperature records used to justify the U.K.’s Net Zero agenda and international climate models. 

In May 2025, citizen investigator Ray Sanders revealed that the Met Office cannot name specific weather stations providing temperature data for 103 so-called “zombie sites”—locations that ceased operation decades ago or never existed. After submitting FOI requests, Sanders discovered the agency admitted it lacks records detailing the “well-correlated neighboring stations” supposedly used to estimate data for these non-functional sites.

Sanders highlighted two cases: Scole, a Norfolk station operational only from 1971-1980, which now lists temperature averages spanning 1959-2020—including a full decade before its establishment. The Met Office defended this by citing “regression analysis” to maintain long-term climate averages but refused to name the stations that supplied data for Scole’s 1990–2020 records, stating such information is “not held.” A similar issue arose with Manby, a Lincolnshire site closed in 1974, yet still listed with 60 years of temperature data.

“If the data isn’t real and relies on unverified estimates from unknown sources, it’s no better than fiction,” Sanders said. “Any scientist would tell you this breaches fundamental standards. Without verifiable sources, Credibility vanishes."...<<<Read More>>>...

Net Zero is the New Brexit

 Nigel Farage would have been well suited to the job [of newspaper editor], because he possesses an almost uncannily sharp news sense. That is, he has a special knack for identifying issues that matter to ordinary people yet have been missed or dismissed by those who grandly assume they know better. Free movement, for example, or the small boats. He was banging on about these problems long before most of his rivals grasped the true scale of their salience. In short: like an experienced editor, he always seems to know what the next big story is going to be.

All of which is why I think it would be a grave mistake for his opponents to ignore his latest comments about Net Zero. Speaking to the Sun on Sunday, Mr Farage said: “This could be the next Brexit, where Parliament is so hopelessly out of touch with the country.”

The Reform leader’s foes seem convinced that, in fact, he’s the one who’s out of touch. Look at the polls, they scoff. According to the Observer, “Polling experts believe the attacks on Net Zero could backfire on Reform”, because “the policy is overwhelmingly supported by the public”.

Hmm. I wouldn’t be so sure. Many people may indeed have told pollsters that they support Net Zero. But are we quite certain that they meant it?

Personally, I tend to feel that, if you really want to know whether the public supports Net Zero, the question to ask is not, “Do you support Net Zero?” Instead, the question to ask is: “To help achieve Net Zero, what sacrifices would you personally be willing to make? Would you be willing to give up flying? How much more would you be willing to pay in green taxes? Exactly how much poorer are you willing to be? And, given that Britain is responsible for less than 1% of the planet’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, how much difference do you think it would make to global temperatures even if this country somehow achieved Net Zero tomorrow? Oh, and before you answer: did you see the FT headline from February, which read: ‘China’s Construction of Coal-Fired Power Plants Reaches Highest in a Decade’?”

Even asking those questions, however, wouldn’t necessarily lead us to the truth. Because public opinion isn’t always what it seems....<<<Read More>>>...

The End of Medicine: Patients take second place to global warming

 If you think doctors are paid to look after people, make them well and keep them alive then you’re as out of date as a man who dons spats or a woman who wears a bustle.

Today, officially, a doctor’s prime responsibility is not to his patients but to the planet. The medical establishment has been conned, tricked or bought into swallowing the global warming myth hook, line and sinker.

The result is that today’s doctor (whether she or he is working as a general practitioner or employed in a hospital) has been told that making diagnoses and providing the best treatment for their patients must take second place to worrying about preventing the Eiffel Tower from being submerged.

Every sane, intelligent and informed person knows that global warming is the world’s most evil and dangerous scam.

But the medical establishment does not consist of sane, intelligent or informed people. The medical establishment consists of ruthless, corrupt, self-serving, greedy individuals who are, like their ultimate masters, driven by the pursuit of power and wealth.

Half a century ago, in 1975, I exposed the hold the drug industry has over the medical profession. In a book called `The Medicine Men’ (now available again as a paperback) I showed that the medical establishment had been bought by the pharmaceutical industry. (I also explained why I believed, and still believe, that the pharmaceutical industry is more wicked than any of the illegal drug cartels such as the one run by Pablo Escobar.)...<<<Read More>>>...

GLOBAL FREEZING and the “carbon footprint” SCAM of the century, featuring famous actor Billy Bob Thornton blowing the whistle on it all

 The beaches around the world are not shrinking, like Al Gore swore they would more than 20 years ago. The earth is not getting hotter by the year, like the falsified NASA charts displayed to gaslight climate alarmism, as those graphs only highlighted a few hot trends here and there over the past century, ignoring that we’re actually in a very slow global cooling phase.

Yes, the polar bears are doing just fine, don’t go worrying your propagandized head about those either. Sure, it’s important to be conscious of how much you yourself are polluting the environment, but we need gasoline and diesel fuel to keep the human race functioning. That’s why it’s so nice to finally hear a famous actor blow the whistle on the climate change, “green energy” hoax....<<<Read More>>>...

Aussie’s ABC TV forms ‘National Climate Team’ of reporters to hype global warming – Critics slam as ‘battalion of bedwetters’

 The ABC’s global warming hype isn’t lurid enough, so the national broadcaster’s bosses have turned up the dial to 11. Step forward the ABC’s new “National Climate Team”. 

Creating this battalion of bedwetters was the brain snap of retiring managing director David Anderson.  Based on the precedent of  Alan Joyce‘s departure from Qantas, it’s my view that he should be docked at least $1 million of his $1.16 million parting salary. 

The National Climate Team’s parameters remain under wraps, but random details trickle out. For example, the Team includes weather specialist Tyne Logan. 

On ABCTV’s 7pm flagship news of August 31 she did a piece about Sydney University medicos broiling volunteers in a heat chamber, cheered on by climate scientists, to estimate what level of global warming would kill them. “It’s been set to 54 degrees Celsius, with 26 per cent humidity — a combination believed to be lethal after six hours,” ...<<<Read More>>>...

“Net Zero” will destroy you and everything you care about

 The relatively small group of individuals behind the drive to “Net Zero” conspiracy were originally inspired by an erroneous belief that the global population had grown too large and needed to be reduced and controlled.

In order to terrify the population they invented the concept of “global warming” (later changed to the more easily defended “climate change”) as an excuse for a wide range of controlling mechanisms designed to encourage those whom they succeeded in brainwashing to help them promote a series of destructive proposals which would, without the fake threat of “climate change” be dismissed as dangerous nonsense but which would, when offered as the only solution to the fake threat, be accepted as essential and unavoidable.

It is absurd and dangerous that it should be suggested that we abandon fossil fuels and to suggest that we go “cold turkey” is nothing short of insane. To do so would mean being prepared to alter every aspect of our lives.

Without fossil fuels, we will have very little food, no schools, no hospitals, very little transport (except what is provided by horses and bicycles), no computers, no television, no magazines or newspapers, no air conditioning, no mobile phones, little or no lighting, little or no heating and little or no cooking. Like it or not we will be dragged back to the 19th century.

Solar panels and windmills will not stop this happening. I wonder how many of those who support the idea of “Net Zero” know what will happen. The world we know is about to come to an end but ninety-nine people in a hundred have no idea just how bad things are going to become; partly because no one has ever told them and partly because they have been warned not to listen to anyone trying to tell them the truth....<<<Read More>>>...

Guess what happened after earth’s “1.5C temperature limit” was “breached” for an entire year? NOTHING…

The planet has reportedly been warmer than normal for the past 12, going on 13 months with temperatures reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. And yet absolutely nothing in terms of a climate calamity has occurred despite decades of fearmongering.

For many years, the world was told that if temperatures rose by the amounts averaged over the past year that ocean levels would rise, polar icecaps would melt and the world would basically end. Look around you: has any of this actually changed?

June 2024 was supposedly the warmest June on record with July 2024 shaping up to be a similar record-breaker. And yet the world is still spinning, the nation is just as corrupt as ever and all is "well" in terms of being the same ol' rotten thing as always.

"Global warming caused by human activities reached approximately 1°C over the past 170 years, increasing at 0.2°C per decade," writes Anthony Watts for Climate Realism. "Scientists warn that an average rise of more than 1.5°C in the surface temperature of the earth compared to pre-industrial levels will be catastrophic for the environment and human health."

"But despite 12 months of the globe being above the so-called temperature limit, nothing bad happened on a global scale. Predications of climate catastrophe once we passed the so-called 1.5C temperature limit, never happened. The limit was nothing more than a political talking point from the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, as described in this Associated Press article: The magic 1.5: What's behind climate talks' key elusive goal." ...<<<Read More>>>...

Global warming in the last 20 years has mostly been caused by changes in the clouds, not greenhouse gases

An assumption made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) in its most recent report is that the warming caused by the increase in long-wave back radiation was due solely to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

The IPCC attributes 100% of the warming to this effect and justifies this with model calculations. However, a study published in 2021 proved this to be incorrect.

he analysis of the measured data by Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt showed that the warming due to the decrease of short-wave radiation and the increase in long-wave radiation is mainly attributable to the cloud effect.

“The direct aerosol effect is rather small, but the indirect effect via the cloud formation may be larger,” the researchers noted in their peer-reviewed paper.

The two researchers investigated the Earth’s radiation balance over the last 20 years in a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Atmosphere in September 2021. The study titled ‘Radiative Energy flux variation from 2001 – 2020’ brought to light that the warming of the Earth in the last 20 years is mainly due to a higher permeability of clouds for short-wave solar radiation. The authors came to this clear conclusion after evaluating the CERES radiation data.

“The warming of the last 20 years has been caused more by change in the clouds than by the classical greenhouse effect,” they said.

Adding, “The time span of 20 years is still too short to be able to decide conclusively whether the current heating phase is a temporary or permanent development. In the former case, climate forecasts will have to be fundamentally revised.”...<<<Read More>>>...

Have you wondered why we’re getting so many grey, hazy skies?

 I have always been opposed to capital punishment.  But I have decided that I will make an exception for the geoengineers and climate engineers who are behind the sprinkling of millions of tons of light-reflecting particles in our stratosphere.

I have written before about the sprinkling of powder in the skies (it’s known as solar engineering or solar radiation management).

These chemical clouds are designed to cool the earth, and the insane people behind it believe (or at least pretend to believe) the mad theory known as “climate change.” My research suggests that virtually no independent scientists believe the “climate change” theory. The vast majority recognise that it is a confidence trick.

But the conspirators are using climate change as an excuse to block out the Sun’s rays even though they know the damage it will do. Thousands of planes (all running on fossil fuels) are flying around in the stratosphere.

There will, they admit, be inevitable side effects to their plan.

And what are the side effects?

Well, there is famine.

And flooding.

And drought.

And it is already happening.

When you hear about flooding and drought it is blamed on man-made climate change. It is very convenient to be able to blame the problems caused by solar engineering on the fashionable bête noir.

But the floods and the droughts aren’t caused by industry or cars or aeroplanes or farting cows.

These easily dismissed side effects, which are resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths, are being deliberately caused by solar engineering.

The plan, of course, is to reduce the size of the world’s population by wrecking agriculture and leading to mass starvation. And it is working.

These utterly insane and criminal plans have never been approved by any electorate or by any elected bodies.

And it’s all happening already.

Just look up at the sky.

Instead of nice blue skies you will, on most days, see grey, hazy skies. And very little visible sun.

The people responsible for solar engineering should be arrested, tried and then shot. They are a menace to mankind. And they’re already responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.

Oh, and there’s one other thing.

Now that solar engineering has started it can never ever stop. There will always have to be planes flying around sprinkling their death dust in the stratosphere...<<<Read More>>>...

It’s about to get colder and CO2 levels may drop to dangerously unproductive levels

 Prof. Dilley is a meteorologist, climatologist, palaeoclimatologist and a former NOAA National Weather Service Meteorologist. He is the founder and CEO of Global Weather Oscillations (“GWO”), a company heavily involved in researching and developing technology for predicting natural climate and weather cycles.

He has 54 years of experience ranging from the Air Force to NOAA National Weather Service and GWO. As the senior research scientist and forecaster for GWO, Prof. Dilley developed ClimatePulse Technology based on geomagnetic cycles of the earth, moon and sun, and how these cycles align with historical, present-day and future climate and weather cycles.

Earth is currently nice and warm. This warmth is conducive to abundant life due, amongst many other things, to optimal levels of carbon dioxide that sustains plant life. Take a look around you – does it look like this lush, green planet is dying?

Intuitively (and empirically), when it gets colder, life on Earth will not be so good. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about it except prepare future generations (two or three of them) with the best of the evidence we can muster, rather than ignorant, political dogma about incessant, irrational global warming. 

Spoiler alert!

Here follows a succinct scientific analysis of what does and what does not cause climate change: 

The sun does.
The moon does.
The oceans do.
The poles do.
Man-made carbon dioxide does not....<<<Read More>>>...

ENERGY SUICIDE: G7 nations forge plan to shut down ALL coal-fired power plants between 2030 and 2035; electricity costs to sharply increase

To limit global temperature increases – or so they say – the Group of Seven (G7) nations have announced plans to sign a deal that will force all remaining coal-fired power plants in member state territories to close down between 2030 and 2035.

With few exceptions, the nations of the G7 – or at least those over which the G7 has influence and control – will be expected to come up with energy production alternatives that the globalists have decided are good for the climate and the planet.

All of this was devised at the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai last December where globalist powerbrokers decided that Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States must "fully decarbonize electricity by 2035" in order to stop global temperatures from rising another 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Since Germany and Japan derive more than one-quarter of their total electricity from coal, these two nations will reportedly be granted some leeway with the coal shutdown plan, Reuters reported. Germany, though, is still planning to phase out coal, just by 2038 at the latest, while Japan has not yet set a date. ...<<<Read More>>>...

The "amazing tale" of how three billionaires plunged the world into climate catastrophism

 Do you think that the constant catastrophising of weather and climate in the mainstream media, politics and science has just appeared by accident? Over the last few years, the BBC and the Guardian, as of one mind, decided to float improbable 'tipping point' scares under cover of 'scientists say', while UN officials concluded that we had two years to save a 'boiling' planet and the ubiquitous 'Jim' Dale has been given free rein to make it up as he goes along on Talk TV and GB News. Of course all this didn't suddenly happen. Each of these examples is testament to an extraordinary corruption of the true scientific process - an "amazing tale" according to political science writer Roger Pielke Jnr., "a story of how wealth and power sought to shape climate science in pursuit of political goals".

The main culprit in this amazing tale will not be unknown to regular readers of the Daily Sceptic and it is the improbable scenario of RCP8.5. This has been promoted as a 'business as usual' set of scientific, economic and societal assumptions and it suggests temperature rises up to 4°C in less than 80 years. Although downgraded by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of late as "low likelihood", it is still estimated to be behind about 50% of the climate modelled 'impacts' highlighted over the entire scientific literature. Almost all the claims of climate Armageddon and economic disaster peddled by those identified in our first paragraph are based on RCP8.5 input. It is a tale of how three wealthy men bankrolled a project to promote an extreme scenario to guarantee that the economic impact of climate change they projected into the future would be "eye-poppingly large".

It will also not be a surprise to learn that the billionaire green activist Michael Bloomberg has played a key role over the last decade in lifting this implausible pathway to underserved prominence....<<<Read More>>>...

The Great Reset King pollutes Christmas message with “climate change” activism

 On Christmas day, when Christians are celebrating the birth of their Saviour, King Charles III used his Christmas message to push the “climate change” narrative.

“Out of God’s Providence, we are blessed with much and it is incumbent on us to use this wisely. However, service to others is but one way of honouring the whole of creation, which after all is a manifestation of the divine. This is a belief shared by all religions,” Charles III said.

Then he slipped seamlessly into climate activism. “To care for this creation is a responsibility owned by people of all faiths and of none. We care for the Earth for the sake of our children’s children. During my lifetime I’ve been so pleased to see a growing awareness of how we must protect the Earth and our natural world as the one home we all share.”

What has that message got to do with the birth of Jesus and Jesus’ message for the world? Is he conflating religions? Is he attempting to dilute or usurp the “Our Saviour is born” message? Or, perhaps, he is attempting to merge his own beliefs into another to create a universal belief system he thinks we should all follow...<<<Read More>>>...