Biased science reports fuelled climate alarm | Financial Post - "The journalistic rule, “If it bleeds it leads,” appears to be widely followed in reporting on climate change. In a new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper, researchers compared newspaper articles from 10 major outlets in the United States and United Kingdom with scientific evidence from all six IPCC assessment reports from 1990 to 2023 (IPCC being the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body). Their conclusion? “Public summaries of IPCC climate assessments lean toward the more severe end of the technical evidence.” The biased media reporting takes place in two stages. The first is caused by the unusual nature of IPCC reports, in which the scientific assessments are condensed into a Technical Summary (TS) and then further condensed into a Summary for Policymakers (SPM). “The SPM reaches policymakers, journalists, and the public,” the authors of the NBER paper explain. “Before its release, representatives of all 195 IPCC member governments approve it line-by-line in plenary.” As a result, the SPM is “a politically negotiated artifact rather than a neutral summary of the underlying science.” Using large language models to analyze scientific claims made in these documents, the researchers find that for every IPCC assessment report from 1990 to 2023, the politically negotiated SPMs skew towards the more severe ends of what the scientific assessments actually show. Next, when journalists and editors use the SPM to write their articles, the same shift takes place: the more severe climate impacts are given more weight and emphasis... If journalists favour emphasizing the most severe projected climate impacts, so too do activists and politicians keen on imposing sweeping government interventions. For more than a decade, including in his 2021 book Value(s), Mark Carney backed large-scale climate initiatives premised on the idea that RCP 8.5 (an extreme scenario under which temperatures rise an estimated 4.5 degrees by 2100) was a likely outcome. But RCP 8.5 was always an extreme top-of-range scenario, and the new scenario framework published last month that will form the basis for the next IPCC assessment report excludes it from the range altogether. The emission projections under RCP 8.5, the scenario authors concluded, have “become implausible.” In fact, RCP 8.5 was known to be implausible for years. An article in Nature in January 2020 called it a “dystopian” scenario that was becoming “increasingly implausible with every passing year. Emission pathways to get to RCP 8.5 generally require an unprecedented fivefold increase in coal use by the end of the century, an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves.” Ross McKitrick noted in a column in June 2020 that the assumptions RCP 8.5 relied on not only didn’t make sense, they also contradicted each other. But that hasn’t stopped Carney and others from using it to stoke climate alarm. In recent years, both the Canadian Climate Institute, which is funded by the federal government, and federal departments themselves have used RCP 8.5 prolifically."
Steve Guest on X - "Vox with a BOMBSHELL admission in the wake of the demise of RCP8.5. “Those numbers shaped a decade and a half of climate journalism, including a lot of my own when I covered climate change at Time magazine. I didn’t always know — and didn’t always communicate — that the scenario behind the most apocalyptic, attention-getting findings was largely an attempt to imagine how bad things could get, not a true forecast. But I wasn’t alone. RCP 8.5 was a frequent background presence in climate journalism.”"
Thread by @SenEricSchmitt on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Did you know our Judiciary has its own taxpayer-funded “neutral training pipeline"? Meet the USAID of Article III. The Federal Judicial Center. What I've uncovered isn't "neutral" judicial training. It's ideological capture. Take a look at how it's infecting our judiciary. 🧵
The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) is the official research and education arm of the federal courts, created by Congress to train and equip our nation's judges. It shapes how these judges evaluate evidence. Its materials influence real court cases across the country every day. You'd assume the FJC is filled with unbiased and impartial legal scholars, especially when it comes to directing judges' continuing education. Let's meet @jrlinkins, Director of Education at FJC. She describes her "heroes" as Zora Neale Hurston (known for her flagrant plagiarism in her extensive work on Haitian Voodoo) and Staceyann Chin (A Chinese-Jamaican Lesbian Poet known for writing smut and reciting it at poetry slams). Unsurprisingly, this is the type of content being promoted by the FJC's leadership. But does this asinine ideology flow into FJC's work? Of course. The FJC has partnered with Columbia University and other left-wing organizations. Together they “educated” over 2,000 judges on climate change nonsense. This is clearly a taxpayer-funded patronage network. While doing the Left's dirty work in the Judicial branch, Linkins quietly funneled kickbacks through ActBlue to Democrats in Congress and Biden's Campaign. Then came the bombshell: The FJC’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, the guide judges use to decide what science counts in court. They snuck in a MASSIVE new climate change chapter, written by organizations actively suing energy producers. The backlash was so fierce that the FJC was forced to pull the entire climate chapter, but only after it had already been distributed to thousands of judges. Let that sink in. They laundered Greta Thunberg talking points into the official judicial reference manual. This taxpayer funded outfit has become infested with pop scientists peddling Davos-approved talking points. This isn’t something we can simply overlook or ignore. The courts are not a branch of the left-wing NGO complex. They are not supposed to be trained by the very left-wing activists filing the lawsuits. They are not supposed to get their “science” from outfits whose explicit goal is to reshape law in favor of climate policy outcome. The rule of law is sacred. It demands real neutrality, not indoctrination from Columbia climate warriors and their NGO allies. We’re going to keep shining a light on this until the pipeline is shut down and accountability is restored."
Lauren Chen on X - "This is why the left wins all the time. Each bureaucrat is actually an activist working to ingrain their ideology into our institutions at every chance. Take this example with the Federal Judicual Center, which has an official manual that instructs judges on how to weigh scientific evidence. It turns out the climate section was really the work of green activists, meaning they were effectively biasing judges toward climate change activism before cases even got to court. Now this climate chapter was pulled once it was discovered how slanted it was, but imagine how many more examples are out there in every corner of government, academia, media, and corporate life..."
WALLACE: The Iran shock destroyed the illusion of a renewable-only future - "The closure, first by Iran and then subsequently by the United States (US), of the Strait of Hormuz has caused an international energy crisis with prices spiking above US$100–120/bbl and LNG prices jumping more than 50% from 2025 averages. While the current events in the Straight of Hormuz were not predictable at the time we wrote our paper in 2022, the consequences of emissions policies that advocated for the curtailment, and in some cases the elimination, of vital fossil fuels were nonetheless predictable. As we wrote then: “North America and particularly the European Union are experiencing the consequences of misguided energy policies that have undermined efforts to sustain energy security throughout the West.” Mintz and Wallace, 2022. As Western economies raced to reduce carbon emissions, many lost sight of the vital contribution that fossil fuels make to economic resilience and national, regional, and international security. Those policies, especially in the EU, have demonstrated that energy transitions are neither automatic nor inherently secure and have been seen to result in market instabilities, power interruptions, and continued price escalations. Evidence from Germany’s recent experience demonstrates that assumptions of a smooth, inevitable shift to renewables have seriously underestimated system complexity and have shifted the emphasis to reliability, affordability, and geopolitical resilience. The strategic role of firm energy supply was demonstrated when the EU was forced to spend an additional €6 billion in just 17 days on fossil fuel imports as renewables alone could not stabilize its grid. The EU’s energy bill rose by €24 billion in the first 52 days of the Iran conflict, showing how price escalations and supply insecurity persisted despite aggressive decarbonization policies... since 2015, Canada has implemented regulatory and tax policies that have substantially blocked Canadian energy from reaching beyond traditional destinations to enter the international marketplace. The exception is the performance of the Trans Mountain pipeline... a sobering reminder of the income foregone by Canada because of major project cancellations, like the Northern Gateway pipeline, by the Trudeau government. Canada and Alberta have both maintained legislated or policy anchored net zero commitments, frameworks that are explicitly designed to constrain the emissions profile of hydrocarbon production, at a time when the major points in the Canada-Alberta MOU for a BC coast pipeline remain unresolved. Meanwhile, as European states reassess and evaluate the effects of energy security shocks, Canadian energy could be backfilling against sanctioned Russian oil and gas and curtailed shipments from the Middle East. Despite reassurances, Canada appears fixated on policies for net zero, with few realistic options to increase exports to the EU or to optimize energy security within Canada. Europe’s strategic policy decision to undermine its own energy production in favour of renewables has exacerbated the effects of the Iran crisis. Europe is now twice as exposed to the Hormuz crisis as is the US and faces an imminent shortage of strategic supplies such as jet fuel — a dual threat to the military and industrial capacity of Europe. Meanwhile, the US has become a major net exporter of refined products, including jet fuel, with shipments to Europe surging to record levels. Europe, by contrast, must import 60% of its total energy and 40%–75% of its jet fuel. The Iranian conflict demonstrates that policies for net zero and renewable energy, commitments that required vast financial investments, are wholly insufficient to maintain energy and economic security. As the fourth largest global producer of crude oil, Canada’s opportunities have been limited by insufficient infrastructure, punitive regulatory timelines, and limited international access. The Iran shock has exposed the false assumptions of uninterrupted global trade and steadily falling demand for fossil fuels."
The widespread cope is that the Iran war shows that countries need to double down on renewables. Reality is no match for climate change hysteria
Sainsbury’s ditching brown eggs is damning proof of the net zero farce - "The rationale behind this apparent scrapping of brown eggs is that, according to Sainsbury’s, its white eggs were found to have a 12.7 per cent lower carbon footprint than brown ones. This magical little figure was fashioned, the company reports, “through a lifecycle assessment with three of our egg suppliers”. This nugget appears in their recently published 2026 annual report. Further wording adds little flesh to the bones, claiming that the lower carbon footprint is “largely due to better feed conversion” (the report’s authors don’t waste any time explaining whatever that might mean), and “the longer productive lifespan of the white hens”. “Additionally,” the report continues, “white hens are less prone to feather pecking, leading to higher animal welfare.” It’s a point of no relevance to the issue at hand, of course, but it gives another warm hug of feel-good buzzwordery. Still, Sainsbury’s says determinedly it is “making progress on transitioning our shell eggs from brown to white eggs, aiming towards 100 per cent in our own brand core ranges”. Do you follow? If not, let me help with some clarity here. There appears to be some science, from just three egg producers, that there might be a slightly smaller carbon footprint from hens that lay white eggs, which has something to do with feed. Aside from that, the company’s claim to be “making progress on transitioning” means it’s unlikely to be doing very much very soon. Besides, this shift will only affect its “own brand core ranges”, so lots of other brown eggs will still remain on sale. Yet this vague garbage is then pushed out as a story about Sainsbury’s glorious charge to net zero... Sainsbury’s messaging simply shows how infected it is by the woke dogma of Ed Miliband and his green agenda – a drive to net zero that makes us all colder and poorer, while having a direct effect on the planet’s annual emissions of less than 1 per cent. As Peter Mandelson was reported to have said: “The Chinese are not listening to Ed Miliband.”"
I’m not giving up meat for Miliband, and neither should you - "Everyone laughed when they saw that unfortunate photo of Ed Miliband trying to eat a bacon sandwich in 2014, but perhaps they’ll come to regret it because the Energy Secretary has just signed Britain up to stringent new climate targets. The Climate Change Committee, which provides independent advice to the Government, says that to help achieve these targets, the public will need to eat 25 per cent less meat. In response to this claim, a spokesman for the Government has insisted that it will succeed “without telling people how to live or behave”. All the same, I have an uneasy feeling that a certain someone may privately see this as the perfect opportunity for revenge. “Now nobody will be able to eat a bacon sandwich because we’re going to drive all the farmers who produce bacon out of business!” At any rate, I certainly won’t be giving up meat for net zero – and neither should you. Why? For starters, net zero zealots endlessly claim that the farming of meat plays a huge role in causing climate change because cows and other farm animals release so much methane. Yet, a 2021 study found that vegan men fart seven times more than men who eat meat... an awful lot of vegans’ favourite foods – quinoa, avocados, lentils, soybeans and chickpeas, for example – are grown in countries many thousands of miles away. To reach Britain, they have to be transported on long, environment-damaging flights."
Net zero killed British industry, not Thatcherism - "Burnham, like many on the Left, argues that Britain’s economic and social malaise started with deindustrialisation brought about by so-called “neo-liberal” reforms undertaken by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives in the 1980s. While memories of miners’ strikes, union reforms and the privatisation of failing nationalised industries reinforce this popular narrative, the facts tell a different story. Start with the total output of the industrial sector in inflation-adjusted terms. Between 1979, when Thatcher entered office, and 1990, when she resigned, industrial production rose by a healthy 16pc – barely slowing from its preceding trend. The volume of goods exports rose by 50pc over the same period. Under Thatcher, Britain produced more and sold more to the world. Even as production and exports grew, industrial employment slumped by 28pc, a loss of 2.1 million jobs. Total employment rose by 6.5pc – a net increase of 1.7 million. In the 11 years to 1990, Britain created as many new jobs as it had done from 1952 to 1979. Similar patterns are visible elsewhere... Through the 1970s, successive British governments had run up massive costs, encouraged overmanning and capital misallocation to delay inevitable structural changes. Thatcherism, grounded in sound economics, represented the moment when policymakers decided to stop fighting the tide. British industrial production, alongside goods exports, continued to grow steadily after Thatcher left office – under John Major’s Conservatives and for most of Tony Blair’s New Labour reign – even as both administrations stuck with the market reforms of the 1980s. But as production grew, its share of GDP predictably continued to edge lower, along with its employment share. The decisive negative turn in industry came in the 2000s, when Britain tilted its energy policy towards decarbonisation and in favour of renewables like wind and solar. This process started in the 1990s, accelerated in the 2000s, and ramped up with the 2008 Climate Change Act, subsequent renewables targets, the Carbon Price Floor in 2013, emissions performance standards, contracts for difference and the 2019 net zero law. However well-intentioned, these policies have resulted in energy scarcity in the UK and some of the highest industrial electricity costs in the advanced world. It is no surprise that trends in electricity availability and output in energy-intensive industrial sectors track closely over time. Energy capacity and production rose precipitously through the 20th century until 2005, when electricity supply peaked. A year later, industrial production reached record highs. Since then, the reduction of electricity capacity, including coal and oil as well as nuclear, combined with a painfully slow build-out of renewables, has cut electricity supply by a fifth, while industrial production has fallen by around 7pc. If Burnham wants to reindustrialise Britain, he needs to reverse net zero, not Thatcherism. Abundant, stable, and competitively priced energy is vital for a healthy industry. But even then, he could not expect to see a jobs boom in the industrial sector. In the age of automation, that is impossible. The benefits from reviving British industry would stem from faster economic growth and increased productivity. Higher wages, stronger public finances and renewed national confidence would follow, without any need to recreate the factory floor of the 1970s. While Burnham may believe he can bring fresh thinking into No 10, his penchant for demonising Thatcher and appealing to misplaced nostalgia suggests there is limited scope for a course correction once the realities of office hit."
Sir Tony Blair mocks Energy Secretary Ed Miliband over net zero policies - "Sir Tony Blair has mocked Ed Miliband over his net zero policies, in a further attack on the Labour Government. The former prime minister accused the Energy Secretary on Wednesday of pushing a “quixotic fantasy” and said that China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, did not care about his beliefs... Sir Keir is coming under pressure from his Cabinet to overturn a ban on North Sea drilling, according to reports. Ministers are beginning to question Mr Miliband’s repeated claim that allowing new North Sea drilling would “not take a penny of bills” because even if they remained the same, prices would fall across the wider economy. One Whitehall source said: “People keep saying that it won’t take a penny off bills. But if it improves your balance of payments, it helps your currency, potentially letting you get more for your money on all sorts of goods. A second source said: “There is a growing feeling that we’ve boxed ourselves in with a line that’s technically true but politically useless. People hear ‘it won’t cut bills’ and assume there’s no economic benefit whatsoever.” The UK emits less than 1 per cent of global greenhouse gases within its own borders. In 2025, its net contribution was estimated at 367 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – a 2 per cent fall on the previous year and a 54 per cent decrease compared to 1990. By contrast, global carbon emissions from fossil fuels were expected to rise by 1.1 per cent in 2025, reaching a record high of around 38.1 billion tonnes. Sir Tony warned Britain would continue to rely on carbon beyond the net zero deadline of 2050, adding: “I don’t understand why you’d shut your own fossil fuel industry and import someone else’s.”... Mr Miliband has been accused of having an “ideological obsession” with net zero, driving him to pursue green policies at any cost. Earlier this month, he was accused of “covering up” evidence suggesting his flagship schemes could backfire while taxpayers foot a multi-billion-pound bill."
John Tomkinson on X - "In Ottawa, discussion on Alberta’s pipeline are now framed as violence against women. "Violence against nature and the climate are inseparable from violence against humans. One example is climate change as a gendered issue, which leads to systemic disadvantages for all women.""
Miliband defies Starmer over cuts to fund defence - "Sources said the Energy Secretary was pushing back against demands to find capital budget savings of at least 1pc within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to help fund the long-delayed defence investment plan (DIP)... The pushback will be seen as fresh evidence of Sir Keir’s waning authority as Labour MPs and ministers openly prepare for a leadership competition that could see the Prime Minister supplanted by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester. Mr Miliband has been supporting Mr Burnham behind the scenes and is said to have fallen out with Sir Keir in recent weeks after telling him that he felt his position had become untenable."
Poll: Majority of British women think nuclear power is not low-carbon 🤦♂️ - "only 31% of British women believe nuclear energy produces no or low carbon emissions... The gap between men and women in this poll is staggering across the board. Men are more than twice as likely as women to think nuclear power is safe (64% vs. 28%). Men want way more nuclear energy in the mix (59% vs. 17%). And when asked about building a nuclear plant in their own backyard, men say yes at 57% while women clock in at a resounding 22%. People tried to offer explanations (most of them had to do with repealing the 19th Amendment, which isn't even a thing in England 😂). There are debates to be had over nuclear power, but one of these debates is not about its carbon footprint being too large. It uses magic rocks to give near-unlimited power while emitting steam (AKA water). The UK is trying to lower its carbon emissions, but if women think nuclear power emits a bunch of carbon, they are going to be stuck with wind turbines and solar panels (both of which have regular replacement costs with higher carbon requirements)."
Epistocracy is "sexist", so too bad
We can’t afford a $20-billion Pathway to nowhere | Financial Post - "Given its massive debt and never-ending deficits, Ottawa should not waste tens of billions of dollars in tax credits and cash on a project that has no chance of achieving its public policy objective, even if it does give the prime minister political cover. The boondoggle in question is the Pathways Project, a $16- to $24-billion (excluding cost overruns) carbon capture and storage (CCS) network in northeastern Alberta sponsored by the six largest oilsands companies. Its mission is to capture greenhouse gas emissions from over 20 oilsands sites and transport them via pipeline to an underground storage hub near Cold Lake. Prime Minister Mark Carney has made Pathways a condition for approving any major oilsands pipeline project, on the grounds it would eliminate emissions from drilling, processing and flaring. But such upstream emissions are only 15 per cent of the total. Downstream emissions from consumption in transportation, industrial use, power generation and buildings account for the rest. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith obviously knows this but succumbed to the feds’ extortion because it was the only way to get them on side. In a recent opinion piece, Martha Hall Findlay, chair of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy and former Liberal MP, came out against Pathways, which she spent years helping create. She belatedly admits it would entail significant cost “with, frankly, a negligible effect on global emissions.” A dramatically changed world provides a reason for her about-face: “Canada’s priorities are now clearly economic diversification, national defence, national security — nothing less than our sovereignty.” Findlay is correct that geopolitical events make the Pathways project even more indefensible, but without massive government subsidies CCS was never economically viable, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). And another reason for her change of mind existed when she helped create Pathways: Canada produces a mere 1.3 per cent of global GHG emissions; the oilsands represent 12.4 per cent of Canada’s total emissions; and Pathways’ first phase would likely reduce global emissions by less than 0.02 per cent — or one in 5,000 — with an undetectable impact on global temperatures. Even worse, the IEEFA says no CCS project anywhere has ever reached its target CO2 capture rate, and most miss by a lot. CCS projects have a troubled history around the world, with chronic underperformance, ballooning costs and technical failures. For example, in May 2024, Edmonton-based Capital Power cancelled a $2.4-billion project built to capture up to three megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from its gas-fired Genesee generating station in Alberta. The reason? It was not “economically feasible.” Even hard-line green NGOs oppose CCS. Environmental Defence called it a billion-dollar scam based on junk science, with associate director Julia Levin saying: “Carbon capture is unnecessary, ineffective and expensive.” Mind you, her solution is to prevent energy projects from being created in the first place. Then there are the safety risks, which have not been adequately addressed. When stored in deep saline aquifers or depleted reservoirs, compressed CO2 can leak into groundwater or the atmosphere. In 1986, a release in Cameroon killed about 1,700 people. In 2020, the rupture of a CO2 pipeline in Mississippi resulted in dozens of hospitalizations and the evacuation of an entire town. Apart from the dangers of carbon dioxide poisoning, fluid injection can induce earthquakes by altering underground pore pressure, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Unfortunately, Mark Carney is unlikely abandon Pathways. He is using CCS to justify pipeline construction on the false pretence it will make energy projects carbon-neutral. He may even delude himself that purchasers will pay more for “net-zero” fossil fuels, which they never have and likely never will. Even with Pathways going ahead, several Liberal caucus members, including Steven Guilbeault, could jump ship, jeopardizing Carney’s razor-thin majority. The NDP’s Avi Lewis, environmental activists and some members of the media will also be outraged by Carney’s perceived betrayal of the climate cause. Last Sunday marked 20 years since the release of Al Gore’s hyperbolic movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” That sci-fi thriller propelled Gore to centi-millionaire status and contributed to an outburst of collective madness that has cost the world $17 trillion in failed net-zero policies. Although in most places the tide has begun to turn against self-destructive climate hysteria, our government has been slow to acknowledge the new reality. Abandoning Pathways would help Canada catch up with the rest of the world. Too bad it won’t happen under Carney’s leadership."
Time to waste money on left wing conceits and weaken the country further, so the US can annex Canada faster
i/o on X - "Extraordinary. Among the many claims that Al Gore got wrong or grossly overstated were:
(1) An imminent 20-foot sea level rise
(2) The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro
(3) Polar bears drowning in "significant numbers"
(4) Hurricane Katrina was a direct result of warming
(5) An influx of fresh meltwater from Greenland could completely halt the Gulf Stream, potentially plunging Northern Europe into a sudden ice age
(6) The drying of Lake Chad was entirely due to global warming
(7) Rising carbon dioxide levels historically directly caused the Earth's temperature to rise in a cause-and-effect relationship
(8) Glacier National Park would lose all (or nearly all) its glaciers soon
(9) Arctic summer sea ice could disappear very soon
(10) Low-lying Pacific atolls/islands were currently being inundated now, causing evacuations due to warming
(11) Coral reefs facing imminent widespread destruction primarily from warming
(12) Increased frequency and severity of floods, wildfires, tornadoes, or general extreme weather directly are tied to warming
(13) Himalayan glaciers melting rapidly and will soon lead to depletion of water supplies"
M. A. on X - "Want to manufacture a global climate emergency? It’s easy: just delete Southern Europe from your dataset. While the media runs a coordinated meltdown over a standard two-week summer stretch in England, France, and Germany, look at what’s actually happening in Europe's traditionally warmest regions. Take a look at the real data for Valencia from 2000 to 2026. The historical average for June sits at 34.3°C (the blue line). But look at the far right of the chart for this year, 2026. The temperature has plummeted all the way down to 32.0°C, well below the baseline. But you won't see this chart on the news. The strategy relies entirely on rigging the data pool: cheery-pick a tiny geographic window, filter out the cool regions that ruin the narrative, and declare a hot afternoon a global catastrophe. This is pure geographical narcissism masked as science. Because the major media empires and political institutions happen to sit in London, Paris, and Brussels, they project their local afternoon sweat onto the entire planet. They’ve rigged a linguistic trap where the narrative can never lose: when Western Europe gets hot, it’s a systemic planetary failure, but when the Mediterranean runs cold, it’s just background noise to be ignored. Real analysis looks at the whole map. Propaganda just hunts for whatever local thermometer is high enough to justify the day's headlines."
Tony Aubé on X - "I just came back to my Airbnb in France. It’s 96° outside and 104° inside. No AC. The woman was angry because one of the light was left on, and “they pay for it”. Have a lot of empathy for your French friend. People are surprisingly poor there and the struggle created by socialism is unbelievable for the average American."
