Climate Hypocrisy

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Reality Caught Up to ‘Climate Change’



Two, ascendant China’s massive arms buildup and its bullying Belt and Road imperialism have finally put international “climate accords” into question.

Even the environmentalist King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has recently let it slip that he is troubled by why Europe sandbagged its own economy by shutting down its formerly efficient nuclear and fossil fuel plants. He reminded the world that the European Union nations contribute only six percent of the planet’s carbon emissions.

The West finally realizes that a cynical China has been playing it for years by funding green propaganda abroad.

Indeed, Beijing guilt-tripped Europe and the U.S. on global warming while it exported billions of dollars of cheap wind and solar generation products—often below its own cost of production.

Meanwhile, China plows ahead, building two to three coal and nuclear generation plants per month.

Under the propagandistic banner of “climate change,” China hopes that its Western competitors invest in inefficient and high-priced renewable energy. Meanwhile, its own expanding fossil fuel and nuclear industries ensure it will enjoy global price advantages in both trade and armament.

Three, the global climate crisis shakedown has become shameless. Formerly third-world nations now demand from the West hundreds of billions of dollars in “climate reparations” for carbon emissions released decades ago.

Yes, the West burned more oil and gas. But it also provided the rest of the world with carbon-fueled cars, factories, and modern consumer goods.

Green critics fail to concede that almost all global technology and modern industrial products come from either the West or westernizing copycats.

Four, energy production is at the nexus of conflict and can mean life or death for nations. To the degree the United States and its allies produce lots of natural gas and oil, they can protect the West from crippling embargoes and cutoffs from anti-Western energy producers.

During the Ukraine War, America exported liquefied natural gas to Europe, not solar panels or turbine blades. And it will be increasingly essential to keep Europe afloat as Russia turns off its export spigot.

When oil and natural gas are affordable, thanks to the fossil fuel production of Western nations, then illiberal and bellicose oil-exporting countries like Iran and Russia have less money to spend on aggressive wars or subsidizing their global terrorists.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Louisiana residents sue over carbon capture land seizures


The lawsuit, filed in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish, claims laws passed since 2020 violate the state constitution by allowing companies engaged in carbon capture and storage to use eminent domain for private gain.

The plaintiffs include the nonprofit group Save My Louisiana, composed of several property owners in Rapides, Vernon, Allen and Beauregard parishes. They want the laws declared unconstitutional and state officials ordered to halt all permitting and regulatory actions related to Class VI injection wells and pipelines across the state.

The wells are designed for the purpose of injecting carbon dioxide a mile or more below the earth’s surface into underground rock formations for long-term storage.

The lawsuit names the state of Louisiana as the defendant through Gov. Jeff Landry and Department of Conservation and Energy Secretary Justin Davidson. The plaintiffs argue Louisiana's carbon capture and sequestration laws violate private property rights, allow improper use of eminent domain for private gain and fail to protect public health and safety.

Landry's office and the Department of Conservation and Energy declined requests for comment on the lawsuit. The Center Square's attempts to reach Save My Louisiana were unsuccessful before publication.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Oops! Prestigious Science Journal Retracts Climate Study That Predicted Imminent Economic Catastrophe




Hoo boy. Sometimes, you might do something so embarrassing, so humiliating, that you want to hide in the closet. The prestigious science journal Nature may be thinking about doing that right about now, because on Wednesday, they officially retracted an influential 2024 climate report that predicted gloom and doom, death and misery, and impending economic catastrophe.


As is the case with so much of the leftist climate narrative, their wild claims were quite simply unproven:

In April 2024, the prestigious journal Nature released a study finding that climate change would cause far more economic damage by the end of the century than previous estimates had suggested. The conclusion grabbed headlines and citations around the world, and was incorporated in risk management scenarios used by central banks.

On Wednesday, Nature retracted it, adding to the debate on the extent of climate change’s toll on society.

Shocker — it seems as if they were relying on flawed data.

The decision came after a team of economists noticed problems with the data for one country, Uzbekistan, that significantly skewed the results. If Uzbekistan were excluded, they found, the damages would look similar to earlier research. Instead of a 62 percent decline in economic output by 2100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by 23 percent.





 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

About That Retracted Climate Report …



The global warming crisis blob is eager to bullhorn any scrap of “science” to scare the industrial West into surrendering to its agenda. But it turns out that when a much-touted report was slain by error, then the metaphorical crickets, not the ones the elites want us to eat to save the environment, are all that can be heard.

A paper published in the science journal Nature in April 2024 was retracted this week by its authors because “the results were found to be sensitive to the removal of one country, Uzbekistan, where inaccuracies were noted in the underlying economic data for the period 1995–1999.”
The authors fixed the data, but they “acknowledge that these changes are too substantial for a correction, leading to the retraction of the paper.”
“The Economic Commitment of Climate Change” wasn’t merely “a fatally flawed paper,” says Roger Pielke Jr., environmental studies professor, “but a flawed paper that had taken on outsized influence in climate advocacy and policy.”

The authors predicted that climate change would cost $38 trillion a year by 2049, estimating “that the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years, regardless of how rapidly humanity now cuts emissions,” says Carbon Brief. As is expected, they also warned “that climate change is likely to exacerbate existing inequalities,” so that policymakers could cite the paper to support their wealth redistribution schemes.

The authors further claimed to see clearly enough into the future to project “the global gross domestic product would be lowered by 62% by 2100.” That’s three times larger than the decline found in similar previous forecasts.

None of the three researchers who authored the paper was an economist, yet they made an economic forecast, and a dramatic one, at that. But then science has been corrupted by a braying mob of leftists, which has turned what should be calm, rational, defensible forecasts into a politically driven scrap yard of pseudo-scientific rubbish.

Of course, the media were all in. The paper was picked up by 542 news outlets and is referenced in 11 Wikipedia pages. It was ranked No. 2 among climate papers in 2024 for “social and media attention.” The article has been accessed on the Nature site more than 300,000 times and cited 226 times.

Outside the media attention, Pielke says the study was used to “justify projections of catastrophic future climate impacts and as a basis for cost-benefit analyses of mitigation” by the Congressional Budget Office, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Bank, and the British Office of Budget Responsibility.


It was also adopted by a “consortium comprised primarily of central banks around the world … as the basis for its ‘damage function’ used by bank regulators to stress test monetary policies against climate risks.”

And it was wrong, and every news outlet that used it to stir up fear and activate the warming loons should cover the retraction as comprehensively as they did the paper when it was released. It’s their journalistic duty.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member


Despite pressures to decarbonize, Norway has increased efforts to exploit oil and natural gas reserves. The crown jewel of this fossil fuel renaissance is the Johan Castberg field. Located in the Barents Sea, 100 kilometers north of the 20-year-old Snøhvit natural gas field, Johan Castberg is expected to be a beast of a producer—450 million–650 million barrels over 30 years, with a peak daily capacity of 220,000 barrels.

And the investments don’t stop there. The Norwegian government—ignoring the wailing of the United Nations—has initiated plans for its 26th round of oil and gas licensing. Targeted will be “frontier areas”—little-explored regions that can reward high risk with massive returns. While the U.K. suffocates its North Sea industry with windfall taxes and regulatory hostility, Norway is effectively saying, “If you won’t drill, we will.”

Companies operating on the Norwegian continental shelf plan to pour about $25 billion into oil and natural gas projects in 2026. Almost $2 billion higher than a previous estimate because of rising development costs, the commitment signals determination to keep production climbing.
 

Czar

Well-Known Member
The population of Norway is only around 6 million. Those oil tax revenues will do them nicely.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The fortunes spent on that green sht that doesn't work was so amazingly stupid it is almost beyond belief.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

ABC Hypes Up Scary Polar Bears Study Complete With Climate Alarmism Tropes



It looks like ABC News' department of WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE' is still fully funded and churning out content. The media is enjoying hard-earned record lows in credibility. Even before Trump Derangement Syndrome, there were these global cooling global warming climate change climate emergency stories trying to scare us into giving up lightbulbs, meat and air conditioning among many others.

Which brings us to this week's new panic. It is replete with all sorts of weasel words.

'A new study ... suggests ... '

'It’s kind of the first time that we believe we’ve seen ...'

'scientists believe it's due to the impacts of climate change'

'as two-thirds of the world’s (polar bear) population could perish by 2050'








Climate alarmism is nothing new. When Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' was the new hotness (pun intended), scientists and journalists were throwing everything against the wall to see what would stick. Just one example, the climate crisis could increase online hate.

Nowadays, we're so wary and weary of stories that lead with 'studies suggest', 'experts say' or 'scientists warn', we roll our eyes and move on. We've learned that scientists have often substituted the scientific method for fashionable scientific consensus like, systemic racism grants an exception to quarantine from a deadly virus. In addition, we know that the media has a track record of hyping a study, only to find the research was shoddy or the data was fraudulent as in the case of exaggerated hydroxychloroquine deaths during Covid. (Recall CNN's malicious efforts to link it to a story of a couple consuming fish-tank cleaner in an effort to get Trump?)


1765815274916.png

1765815254560.png

1765815313645.png
 

limblips

Well-Known Member

ABC Hypes Up Scary Polar Bears Study Complete With Climate Alarmism Tropes



It looks like ABC News' department of WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE' is still fully funded and churning out content. The media is enjoying hard-earned record lows in credibility. Even before Trump Derangement Syndrome, there were these global cooling global warming climate change climate emergency stories trying to scare us into giving up lightbulbs, meat and air conditioning among many others.

Which brings us to this week's new panic. It is replete with all sorts of weasel words.

'A new study ... suggests ... '

'It’s kind of the first time that we believe we’ve seen ...'

'scientists believe it's due to the impacts of climate change'

'as two-thirds of the world’s (polar bear) population could perish by 2050'








Climate alarmism is nothing new. When Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' was the new hotness (pun intended), scientists and journalists were throwing everything against the wall to see what would stick. Just one example, the climate crisis could increase online hate.

Nowadays, we're so wary and weary of stories that lead with 'studies suggest', 'experts say' or 'scientists warn', we roll our eyes and move on. We've learned that scientists have often substituted the scientific method for fashionable scientific consensus like, systemic racism grants an exception to quarantine from a deadly virus. In addition, we know that the media has a track record of hyping a study, only to find the research was shoddy or the data was fraudulent as in the case of exaggerated hydroxychloroquine deaths during Covid. (Recall CNN's malicious efforts to link it to a story of a couple consuming fish-tank cleaner in an effort to get Trump?)


View attachment 194110
View attachment 194109
View attachment 194111

Pretty sure this would be called evolution in real science.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Twenty Years Later, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Has Been Thoroughly Debunked

At the start of 2026, nearly 20 years after the film hit theaters and helped pave the way for Europe's delusional "net zero" policies, electric car mandates, and low-flow showerheads, OutKick rewatched "An Incovenient Truth" to see how well it held up over time. Spoiler alert: not particularly well!

The film starts off as a glowing tribute to Al Gore himself, an unsurprising beginning given his obvious ego and hubris. Almost immediately afterward, it jumps straight into the propaganda. He references Hurricane Katrina as an example of more extreme weather events in the modern world. There's a "Simpsons" video with propaganda of "global warming," remember, this is pre-rebrand to "climate change," with a young girl seeing her ice cream cone melt. Gore talks about what got him into this field which is one professor who took some measurements of CO2, then made vague predictions of what would happen if we didn't make changes.

He says we started measuring CO2 in 1958, which, of course, thoroughly discredits his activism. Assuming the latest estimate is accurate, the earth is billions of years old. It keeps growing by the year, but as of January 2026, it's 4.54 billion years. Sure, you can estimate CO2 concentrations for part of that past, but not all of it. Or even a sizable percentage of it. And making predictions and assumptions on such limited data is awful science.

But ignoring the past and focusing on the future, one of his most concrete predictions of doom came regarding Mt. Kilimanjaro. In his discussion, he shows pictures of snow on the African mountain from decades ago, then images from the early 2000's with much less snow. He blames this on global warming, then ominously predicts, "Within the decade there will be no more snows on Kilimanjaro."


How'd that age?

Gore's Predictions Prove Woefully Wrong​

[clip]

Gore then uses a graph to show how our climate is warming, though, naturally, it's purposefully misleading. The warming period he demonstrates in the modern era barely reaches above 0.0, after decades of well below average weather. Essentially, we experienced decades of cooling, as immortalized in a Time magazine cover from the 1970's warning of global cooling, and the trend reversed. He also claims we can use ice in Antarctica to look back 650,000 years and show CO2 concentration at that point in time That's nice, but again, doesn't come close to covering 4.54 billion years of world history. He talks about Ice Ages, with zero acknowledgment that those Ice Ages ended without human intervention.

He uses a prop lift to show that we have the highest CO2 levels yet, and within 50 years, or 2056, he expects the concentration of CO2 will be well over 750ppm, doubling in a matter of decades. It's currently around 420ppm. When the movie was made, two decades ago, it was 380ppm. At that rate of increase, it would take 185 years from when he made his prediction to reach 750ppm.

Whoops.

Oddly enough, after years of climate "experts" saying that weather isn't climate, meaning individual weather events or yearly outcomes aren't representative of changes in climate, Gore repeatedly references record warm temperatures in 2005 as "proof" of global warming. He specifically mentions the number of days over 100 degrees in western US cities to back up his fearmongering. Naturally, these trends have not been consistent. For example, in 2006 when this movie was released, Las Vegas had 86 days when temperatures reached 100 degrees. In 2025, there were 77.


Gore Makes Hurricane Predictions, Drought Predictions, That Prove False​

Later on, Gore references hurricanes in the South Atlantic, once again using those as proof of increasing extreme weather, as if we have measurements of all hurricane activity in that ocean for 4.54 billion years. He claims that Katrina is yet more proof, using a graphic to show that it intensified because it went over warmer waters. These extreme storms will become more frequent, he says, because of warming temperatures. There is, of course, no evidence that this has happened. There were 14 hurricanes that made landfall from 2003-2005 in the United States. There were eight that made landfall from 2022-2024 in the United States.

Just this past year, the NOAA predicted an above-average hurricane season in 2025, literally a few months in advance. They were completely wrong, as there was average to below-average activity, with no increase in hurricane strength. Every single time.
 
Top