Category Archives: Climate change

It’s a win: Bankers are backing away from the Monster Banking Climate Cartel

It’s become a flood

Article by Jo Nova.

Excerpt:

It’s a good start to 2025 — just quietly, the money is exiting the Monster Banker Climate Cartel. Since the Trump win, the bankers are running away suddenly from the United Nations “Net-Zero Banking Alliance” (NZBA) which is a sub-part of GFANZ (the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero) — the world’s largest and richest climate activists club. GFANZ is the public face of every kind of global financial-bullying-to-save-the-world. Economically, the monster collective could eat whole nations for breakfast. At one point the collective assets-under-management were as valued at the fantastical conglomeration of $130 trillion. It is the hydra-head hissing at superannuation funds and national treasurers that don’t comply with sacred green goals. Who cares what the voters want?

Environmental Kuznets curve

Definition: The environmental Kuznets curve suggests that economic development initially leads to a deterioration in the environment, but after a certain level of economic growth, a society begins to improve its relationship with the environment and levels of environmental degradation reduces.

From a very simplistic viewpoint, it can suggest that economic growth is good for the environment.

However, critics argue there is no guarantee that economic growth will lead to an improved environment – in fact, the opposite is often the case. At the least, it requires a very targeted policy and attitudes to make sure that economic growth is compatible with an improving environment.

Continue reading here.

Collapse of the $5 Trillion Green Energy Scam

Interview with Doug Casey in “International Man” (via lewrockwell.com).

Excerpt:

Doug Casey: We’ve had two tremendous mass hysterias in the last decade.

One revolves around health, with a novel disease and the creation of a vaccine said to fight it. Second is the climate hysteria, which promises to be even more disruptive.

Generations of students have been indoctrinated to believe that Mother Earth is being ravaged by its evil human population. In reality, Earth is going to be just fine. The real damage is being done by the kind of people who want to control other people. The answer to what should be done is: Nothing. The busybodies should mind their own business.

The Greens, however, love to get involved in big causes where they have lots of slogans and memes but very little scientific or technical knowledge. However, “getting involved” generates emotions which give meaning to their generally unproductive lives. Lacking traditional religion, they crave something bigger than themselves. It wasn’t so long ago that saving the whales was the cause du jour. Even though, with some minor exceptions, whales haven’t been hunted for over a century. Or saving the polar bears, even their population has been increasing for decades. I wonder what ever happened to the snail darter?

If it’s not one thing, it’s something else. It’s always something to get the population into a state of fear and hysteria. The elite who control society use them to keep the plebs in line.

They’re Trying to Silence Us: The G20’s War on Climate Skepticism

Article by Charles Rotter.

Excerpts (more links in the original):

In yet another chilling example of Orwellian overreach, the G20 Summit in Brazil has unveiled a new international effort to stifle dissent under the banner of “fighting disinformation.” This latest scheme, dubbed the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, is spearheaded by the United Nations and UNESCO. With a financial war chest provided by nations like the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden, this initiative isn’t about “truth” or “science”—it’s about control.

According to their public statements, the Initiative seeks to fund nonprofits for “research” and “public awareness campaigns.” They’re also creating what they call an “international research network” to identify and suppress so-called disinformation. In other words, they’re building an apparatus to label opposing viewpoints as dangerous lies and to justify censoring them into oblivion.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with his characteristic paternalism, declared disinformation a threat to climate action and even democracy itself. The not-so-subtle subtext? If you dare question their dogma, you’re the problem.

 “We must also take on climate disinformation,” Guterres said. “Our climate is at a breaking point.”

This isn’t the first time climate skeptics have been targeted. As far back as 2010, Google began manipulating search results to demote skeptical voices. A French study highlighted how skeptics dominated online search rankings at the time, leading to a concerted effort to bury their views beneath mountains of alarmist propaganda. Blogs like Pensée Unique and works by Claude Allègre drew enough attention to provoke the ire of the establishment.

The global elites are terrified of one thing: losing control. Despite decades of propaganda, public skepticism about catastrophic climate change has grown. Every failed prediction—from the “ice-free Arctic” to collapsing polar bear populations—chips away at their credibility. And with each new report showing the astronomical costs of Net Zero policies, more people are asking whether the so-called cure is worse than the disease.

Rather than answer these legitimate questions, the climate establishment resorts to silencing its critics. They know their models are flawed, their data cherry-picked, and their policy prescriptions ruinous. Yet instead of reevaluating their position, they double down on censorship.

Make no mistake: this is a battle for the soul of free inquiry. If the climate alarmists succeed in silencing dissent, the consequences will extend far beyond climate policy. The precedent being set is clear: disagree with the elite consensus, and you will be erased.

Stop blaming climate change for Spain’s disastrous floods

We can’t let the authorities off the hook for this horrific tragedy.

Article by Rob Lyons.

Excerpt:

As with all disasters, lessons must be learned and changes made so that human suffering can be reduced in the future. Furthermore, even if there is an element of truth to the claim that human-created climate change made the floods worse – and that’s a big ‘if’, according to the IPCC – we still have to learn to cope with the problems that the weather throws at us. With ingenuity and investment, we are more than capable of doing so.

Net Zero means zero growth

Interview (podcast) on spiked-online.com with Jon Moynihan. Interviewer is Brendan O’Neill.

Introduction of the written excerpts:

Britain, the nation that birthed the Industrial Revolution, is now a world leader in deindustrialisation. The power stations, oil refineries and steelworks that helped make the UK wealthy are now closing down and moving abroad. High energy prices are crippling industry and hurting households. Yet politicians are doubling down on precisely the policies that have brought us here. Reducing carbon emissions, they say, must be the nation’s priority. Apparently, we need to embrace a Net Zero future, no matter what it costs our economy.

Why was Grenfell covered in cladding? Climate targets

There is a refusal to acknowledge the role green policy played in this tragedy.

Article by James Heartfield.

Excerpts:

Yesterday’s phase-two report from the inquiry, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, rightly highlights Rydon and Harley Facade’s evasion of basic safety oversight, and the complicity of both Kensington and Chelsea council and the UK government’s housing ministry. What it does not do is ask the obvious question – why was the cladding installed in the first place?

Grenfell Tower was part of this trend. In 2012, engineer Max Fordham wrote a report on renovating Grenfell for the Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council with sustainability in mind. His aim was ‘to identify how, as part of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment scheme, the current energy and environmental-comfort problems can be addressed, and how the chosen solutions sit within the London Plan’s aim to bring existing housing stock up to the mayor’s standards on sustainable design and construction’. ‘The poor insulation levels and air tightness of both the walls and the windows at Grenfell Tower result in excessive heat loss during the winter months’, Fordham explained, and ‘the London Plan July 2011 aims to conserve energy’. Fordham argued that the council should have a ‘hierarchy’ of goals for the renovation. At the top of that list, it should: ‘Be lean: use less energy, in particular by adopting sustainable design and construction measures.’

After the overcladding was completed, the council boasted that it had clad ‘a high-rise block in the north of the borough’ – namely, Grenfell Tower – as part of a ‘greener housing’ strategy to ‘mitigate’ the causes of climate change. It admitted that because of the borough’s ‘limited capacity for new housing, we acknowledge the importance of seeking reasonable alterations to the existing building stock to mitigate the causes… of climate change’.

Since the Grenfell Tower fire, no new cladding has been put on to tower blocks to reduce climate change. Presumably, those CO2 targets were never quite as important as they seemed. Indeed, millions of pounds have since been spent removing dangerous cladding from these blocks. Billions more has been earmarked to complete the de-cladding of more than 500 buildings that are still considered dangerous.

There is no doubt that 72 lives were lost mainly because unscrupulous companies and legislators cut corners to slap cheap and dangerous materials on the sides of large working-class estates. But as wicked as the cost-cutting surely is, we cannot ignore why it was felt at the time that this cladding was necessary. This was a disaster fuelled by climate targets.