Weirdly, the Paper Of Record forgot to mention all the long fossil fueled trip, mostly on private jets, world leaders took to NYC

At Global Climate Summit This Week, U.S. Isolation Was on Full Display

At a climate summit at the United Nations on Wednesday, the vast majority of the world’s nations gathered to make their newest pledges to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.

Geopolitical heavyweights including China, Russia, Japan and Germany were there. Dozens of small island states were there. The world’s poorest countries, including Chad and the Central African Republic, were there. Venezuela, Syria, Iran — there, too.

The United States was not.

There are few issues on which the United States is more diplomatically isolated from the rest of the world than climate change. President Trump’s hostility to renewable energy, which he clearly broadcast in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, is at odds with the rapid construction of wind farms, solar arrays and other renewable energy sources in a range of countries. The construction boom includes even oil-producing giants like Saudi Arabia, which is adding solar capacity at a rapid clip.

Do we care? Does Trump care? If the other nations want to mortgage their future on this scam, have at it. If the Elites in other countries want to use this to initiate authoritarianism, real, that’s on them. None of those Elites at the UN nor their staffs are practicing what they preach.

At Wednesday’s climate summit, 121 countries were scheduled to deliver a message very different from Mr. Trump’s, pledging to rein in global emissions not only for the sake of trying to slow catastrophic global warming but because renewables are getting cheaper faster than was previously thought. In some cases, renewables now produce electricity more affordably than plants that burn fossil fuels, bolstering the argument made by some countries that solar and wind can help with economic growth while providing energy security by limiting reliance on imports of fuels like coal, oil or gas.

Can they start by making their leaders take trains and sailing ships back to their home companies?

I mean, I’m seriously impressed, the doomsday cult has really been working on coming up with new stuff instead of recycling the same old stuff

Where ‘day-zero droughts’ could happen as soon as this decade

Many parts of the world are predicted to endure “day-zero droughts,” periods of extreme and unprecedented water scarcity, which could happen as soon as this decade in certain hotspots including parts of North America, the Mediterranean and southern Africa, according to a new study.

It’s well known that climate change, driven by burning fossil fuels, is throwing the global water cycle off balance and causing scarcity. What’s much less clear is when and where extreme water shortages will hit. The new research helps provide answers and some of them are surprising, said Christian Franzke, a climate scientist at Pusan National University in South Korea and an author of the study published Tuesday in Nature Communications.

The scientists used a large number of climate models to assess the timing and likelihood of day-zero droughts. These are “unprecedented water scarcity events, events which haven’t occurred so far,” Franzke said. It’s when “you turn on your water tap and no water comes out,” he told CNN.

Day-zero droughts arise from the confluence of various factors, including a prolonged dearth of rain, low river levels and shrunken reservoirs, as well as rocketing water demand to supply people, farms and industries.

Computer models, LOL. They tell the doomsday scientists whatever they want. Anyhow, what happens if this doesn’t happen? Who loses their job, pension, and reputation?

More than a third of these regions, including the western United States, could face this situation as early as the 2020s or 2030s. The finding that day-zero droughts could happen so soon, at current levels of global warming, was “something that surprised us,” Franzke said, even though a few cities have already come perilously close.

Oh, right, no one will remember this particular bit of scaremongering, it’s meant for now, to freak people out and get politicians to pass laws. But, I think people are mostly done being scared. I’ve always watched a ton of horror movies since I was young and read horror books. There’s little that scares me anymore.

I hope it was by Zoom

Six World Leaders on Navigating Climate Change, Without the U.S.

International collaboration on climate change is fraying. The Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the 2015 treaty aiming to limit global warming, and has penalized the renewable-energy business and promoted fossil fuels. Ten years after Paris, a vast majority of countries are not on pace to meet their climate targets. With the United States sidelined and China ascendant as a clean-energy superpower, the global map of alliances on climate action is being redrawn. On top of all this, the planet keeps warming.

Debates around climate change often focus on the world’s largest economies and biggest emitters. But much of the hard work of figuring out how to adapt — both to a hotter planet and to a new geopolitical landscape — is happening in countries that have contributed relatively little to the problem yet are still navigating complex climate-related issues. Hoping to better understand how global warming and the changing world order are affecting some of these often-overlooked places, I spoke with six world leaders from different geographic regions. I heard some common themes: the ravages of extreme weather, the difficulties posed by the Trump administration’s retreat. But these conversations also illustrated the intensely varied predicaments facing world leaders right now.

They talk to

• Hilda C. Heine, president of the Marshall Islands, who says ‘We will be submerged by 2050 if the world doesn’t do its part.’
• Anthony Albanese, prime minister of Australia
• Mohamed Irfaan Ali, president of Guyana, who says ‘We can’t be naïve. The world will need fossil fuel a long time into the future.’
• William Ruto, president of Kenya who said ‘When it comes to emissions, we are paying for a crime that others committed.’
• Muhammad Yunus, chief adviser of Bangladesh
• Petteri Orpo, prime minister of Finland who said ‘We are going to change our whole society.’

Orpo’s full quote

Today we produce more than 95 percent of our electricity carbon-neutral. We are going to change our whole society to use clean energy and get rid of fossils and to be carbon neutral. And we can do it. Our companies are committed. And our people, the whole of society, is committed to these targets.

You will change whether you like it or not. Oh, also the NY Times

It’s Gridlock Week in Manhattan as U.N. General Assembly Starts

It’s that time of year when Midtown East in Manhattan both brims with action and comes to a standstill.

The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, starting Monday, will bring together more than 140 world leaders to discuss contentious issues like the war in Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It is known by many diplomats as the World Cup of diplomacy.

But it is known by many New Yorkers as a pain in the neck.

The main event, which takes place this week along First Avenue between East 42nd and 48th Streets, brings with it impassable streets in Midtown East as well as intermittent closures citywide. The Department of Transportation is encouraging New Yorkers to use public transit and other “nondriving modes” for getting around Midtown over the next five days.

They want New Yorkers to take mass transit while the all the big shots, including the 6 mentioned above, take fossil fueled trips in big SUVs, along with their whole retinues. Climate doom is for you peasants.

The cult is really looking for things to fearmonger over (the question mark in the headline is not mine. Not sure why it is there)

How Climate Change Is Quietly Damaging Your Skin?

When we think about climate change, images of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather often come to mind. But there’s a more personal—and often overlooked—dimension to this global issue: your skin. Yes, the largest organ of your body is silently bearing the brunt of a changing climate. From increased UV radiation to humidity fluctuations, climate change is influencing skin health in subtle but significant ways.

Global temperatures have steadily climbed over the past century, and with them, heat-related skin issues are on the rise. Prolonged exposure to higher temperatures can exacerbate conditions like:

• Heat rashes and hives: Sweat ducts can become blocked, leading to irritation and inflammation.
• Rosacea and eczema: These conditions are often aggravated by environmental stressors like heat and pollution.
• Acne flare-ups: Increased sweating can clog pores and worsen breakouts, especially in humid climates.

Yes, you’re sweating because of 1.7F increase in global temperatures since 1850. You can really notice.

As the ozone layer thins, more ultraviolet (UV) rays are reaching the Earth’s surface. This intensification of UV exposure accelerates:

Obviously, it’s all about Trump in this astroturfed suit, which, sad to say, I missed earlier in the year

The Youth Activists Suing Trump Are Fighting Climate Change and Authoritarianism

Does the United States Constitution guard against executive abuses of power that deprive children and youth of their fundamental rights to life and liberty?

That was the fundamental question Julia Olson, an attorney and the founder of Our Children’s Trust, posed to Judge Dana Christensen this week during a two-day hearing in a federal courthouse in Missoula, Montana.

The case, Lighthiser v. Trump, began in May when 22 young climate activists, aged 7 to 25, filed a lawsuit in the District of Montana asking the court to declare three Trump administration executive orders unconstitutional and prevent their implementation. The plaintiffs say the orders show the Trump administration’s intention to increase fossil fuel development, block renewable energy, and terminate congressionally mandated climate change science and research—all “under the false claim of an energy emergency, while the true emergency is that our fossil fuel-based energy system is polluting the air, water, lands, and climate on which Plaintiffs’ lives, liberties, and personal security depend.”

In some ways, Lighthiser v. Trump is the logical next step for OCT and the U.S. climate litigation movement, which aims to compel the government to take meaningful action to address the climate crisis—or prohibit it from making the crisis worse—through the judiciary. The lawsuit follows two of OCT’s recent wins, Held v. Montana and Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, and “further builds American constitutional jurisprudence on fossil fuel activities infringing the fundamental rights of youth,” according to the nonprofit law firm.

Sadly, the government lawyers never asked “have you youts given up your own use of fossil fuels and made your lives carbon neutral?” But, in fact, the Chief Executive does have the authority to put out those EOs, in the same way Biden apparently had authority to go the other way.

In other ways, Lighthiser is unlike anything that has come before. For one, this week’s hearing marked the first time a U.S. federal court heard live testimony in a constitutional climate change case. And, as Mat dos Santos, one of the OCT attorneys representing the plaintiffs, told me, “Lighthiser goes beyond the traditional climate cases that Our Children’s Trust is famous for, because it’s really a case about our democracy and whether this president has the power to act on his own initiative without any regard for how that power was supposed to be divided up amongst the other branches of government.”

Yeah, and it is all about force every American to comply with the insane, doomsday beliefs of the cult, while very few actually practice what they preach. They couldn’t really convince people to act in practice via 35 years of scaremongering. They couldn’t get as much legislation passed as they wanted. So, now they sue. If this makes it to the Supreme Court the cult will lose.

We know which way the Democrats will vote on this: will all the Republicans in Congress vote for it, or, will a few get squishy?

Congresswoman Hageman Introduces Legislation to Protect the American Taxpayer from Climate Change Reparations

Today, Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (WY-AL), alongside Congressman Tom Tiffany (WI-07), introduced legislation protecting the American taxpayer from attempts by international courts to impose climate change reparations on the U.S.

In July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN), issued an advisory opinion contending that international climate change treaties are binding on UN member states, and that breaching these agreements is an “international wrongful act.” According to the ICJ, countries that produce or consume fossil fuels could be subject to orders demanding they cease all “climate change” activities and pay full reparations to harmed nations.

Reps. Hageman and Tiffany’s bill would block the use of federal funds to pay a demand for reparations issued by any international bodies or courts for alleged violations of international law.

“The UN’s war on affordable and reliable energy is well known. This is just another effort to push forward with radical policies that have no basis in fact or science. Pursuant to the ICJ theory, every single country in the world would be subject to paying reparations, as every single country consumes fossil fuels. Yet, we know that such an outcome isn’t the UN’s intent. This is just another effort to force America to prop up the economies of failed states and impoverished nations. American citizens are not going to be forced to pay reparations based on vague, speculative claims about so-called climate damage,” said Rep. Hageman. “This bill protects both U.S. sovereignty and Congress’s constitutional authority. It guards against financial risks born of international lawsuits or opinions built on unproven assumptions.”

If other nations want to pay, have at it. It’s very sketchy as to if the US is even subject to the ruling by the ICJ, which is also non binding because it was just an advisory opinion. It makes the lawyers happy, though.

But, what if a Democrat wins in 2028? That wacko could start directing US money to the scam. This law could stop that.

If they were still respectable they would note the effect on the climate from things like land use, urban heat island effect, natural processes, and, oh yeah, the big ball of nuclear fire at the center of the solar system. But, no, they cannot even use the proper term which would be anthropogenic global warming. ‘Climate change’ replaced AGW in order to Blamestorm pretty much everything, including snow and cold weather

Climate change ‘beyond scientific dispute,’ National Academies report says

One of the United States’ most respected scientific bodies rejected claims from Trump administration officials that rising temperatures posed little danger, saying on Wednesday the scientific evidence of climate change was “beyond scientific dispute” and that impacts on the nation are worsening.

The conclusion from the the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine differs starkly from a draft report issued by the Energy Department in July, in which a panel of scientists known for their contrarian views argued that the risks of climate change have been overblown.

The nonprofit National Academies advise the government on scientific issues.

In sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s report, NASEM’s 135-page review of climate science says that our understanding of climate science has only improved since EPA in 2009 formally declared greenhouse gases a threat to human health and welfare.

That includes long-term observations that “confirm unequivocally” that human emissions are warming the planet, that climate change is already harming the health and welfare of U.S. citizens and that the severity of climate change increases “with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted.”

Reads more like blathering from a doomsday cult with skin in the game to keep the money train rolling

“Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved and new threats have been identified,” the report concluded. “These new threats and the areas of remaining uncertainty are under intensive investigation by the scientific community. The United States faces a future in which climate-induced harm continues to worsen and today’s extremes become tomorrow’s norms.”

I have a recommendation: everyone at the National Academies should immediately give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral. No one is allowed to travel to Brazil for COP30. The Academies should forgo all use of fossil fuels, AC, heating, and more at it’s offices, ban meat. And tell everyone who believes this report to do the same.

I can only hope so

It Isn’t Just the U.S. The Whole World Has Soured on Climate Politics.

Ten years ago this fall, scientists and diplomats from 195 countries gathered in Le Bourget, just north of Paris, and hammered out a plan to save the world. They called it, blandly, the Paris Agreement, but it was obviously a climate-politics landmark: a nearly universal global pledge to stave off catastrophic temperature rise and secure a more livable future for all. Barack Obama, applauding the agreement as president, declared that Paris represented “the best chance we have to save the one planet we’ve got.” (snip through several paragraphs of yapping about Paris Agreement)

A decade later, we are living in a very different world. At last year’s U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP29), the president of the host country, Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev, praised oil and gas as “gifts from God,” and though the annual conferences since Paris were often high-profile, star-studded affairs, this time there were few world leaders to be found. Joseph R. Biden, then still president, didn’t show. Neither did Vice President Kamala Harris or President Xi Jinping of China or President Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission. Neither did President Emmanuel Macron of France, often seen as the literal face of Western liberalism, or President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, often seen as the face of an emergent movement of solidarity across the poor and middle-income world. In the run-up to the conference, an official U.N. report declared that no climate progress at all had been made over the previous year, and several of the most prominent architects of the whole diplomatic process that led to Paris published an open letter declaring the agreement’s architecture out of date and in need of major reforms.

This year’s conference, which takes place in Brazil this November, is meant to be more significant: COP30 marks 10 years since Paris, and all 195 parties to the 2015 agreement are supposed to arrive with updated decarbonization plans, called Nationally Determined Contributions, or N.D.C.s. But when one formal deadline passed this past February, only 15 countries — just 8 percent — had completed the assignment. Months later, more plans have trickled in, but arguably only one is actually compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the climate scientist Piers Forster recently calculated, and more than half of them represent backsliding.

Perhaps they are all tired of it? Perhaps the politicians pushing the scam realize that the peasants are tired of it all, and politicians usually do not want to lose their positions, eh?

And neither is it a story particular to America. The retreat from climate politics has been widespread, even in the midst of a global green-energy boom. From 2019 to 2021, governments around the world added more than 300 climate-adaptation and mitigation policies each year, according to the energy analyst Nat Bullard. In 2023, the number dropped under 200. In 2024, it was only 50 or so. In many places — like in South America and in Europe — existing laws have already been weakened or are under pressure from shifting political coalitions now pushing to undermine them.

And therein lies a big problem: more and more citizens are noticing that this has less to do with science and more to do with Government controlling the citizens, all while the people implementing these laws and policies refuse to practice what they preach dictate

Few advocates believed naïvely in the caricatured versions of those propositions, but even so, it was seductive to imagine a kind of flywheel effect unfolding, with faster action enabling still faster action through public enthusiasm for a new and transformative green industrial revolution. At least when it came to politics, the flywheel never got spinning. Globally, concern about warming is still rising, but only slowly — and while large majorities in many countries say they support faster decarbonization, other polls show that voters don’t actually prioritize decarbonization and, crucially, aren’t willing to pay much to bring it about.

Yeah, Doing Something is popular in theory, but, when it comes time to practice it? Not so much. I also suspect that those in the 1st World are tired of the constant litany of doom and gloom. You can only take so much.

I hope this trend continues.

Way in the future, of course, but, this can be fixed if Aussies give up their own use of fossil fuels (excluding the Elites) and give all their freedom to government

Millions of Australians at risk from rising sea levels and heat deaths could soar, landmark climate report warns

The number of heat-related deaths in Sydney could surge by almost 450% if global heating surpasses 3C, according to a landmark report that finds no Australian community would be immune from the “cascading, compounding and concurrent” risks of a worsening climate.

The report also lays bare the heightened risk from rising sea levels on Australia’s populous coastal communities, including flooding, erosion and inundation.

It found that by 2050, 1.5 million coastal residents would be at risk, rising to more than 3 million by 2090.

The federal government on Monday released the long-awaited national climate risk assessment, providing the most detailed picture of the severe and far-reaching social and economic impact of the climate crisis for Australia.

Except, most tide gauges in Australia barely show any sea level rise. Sydney shows a whopping 0.8mm per year, which is 0.26 feet in 100 years. The gauge goes back to 1886.

Under a 3C scenario, the number of heat-related deaths in Sydney increases by 444% and by 423% in Darwin.

The assessment also modelled the economic impact, estimating the direct cost of floods, bushfires, storms and cyclones across the states and territories could reach $40bn a year in 2050 – even under a 1.5C scenario.

But the economic damage would extend beyond the disasters themselves.

For example, losses in property value could increase to $611bn by 2050, rising to $770bn by 2090. In another finding, the number days lost of work due to heatwaves could reach 2.7m across the workforce under the 3C scenario.

Keep the doomsaying going, guys. That will totally help your cult.