Another excellent article by Brenda Shaffer thebureau.news/p/when-green-… It's still not clear which Mark Carney we elected last year. Builder Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, green Carney hiked it on industry and tightened the Clean Fuel Reg. Builder Carney scrapped the EV mandate, green Carney brought in new CO2 tailpipe rules that by 2035 only EVs can meet. Builder Carney admits we can't meet our Paris target, green Carney doubles down on Net Zero. Builder Carney courts global investors, green Carney is pushing an EU-style green Taxonomy that will strangle finance to our energy sector. While builder Carney keeps appearing at the photo-ops, green Carney seems to be the one writing the actual rules.

Interesting article in Bull of Atomic Sci on the DOE Climate Working Group Report. Mainstream scientists still whining over this & lack of response from the CWG after their lawfare shut us down thebulletin.org/2026/10/scie…

NAS collusion behind the scenes with the activist green left to rig a federal manual for judges is now a matter of public record: rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p…. Anyone thinking today's US National Academy of Sciences is still the august body of old needs to look at this case. Institutions with sterling reputations present rich targets for the long march crowd to capture, thereby gaining an instant cloak of authority for ideas that don't deserve it on merit. But the parasite eventually destroys the host. No institutions are immune and there are apparently no procedural rules that can prevent it once partisan hacks occupy key admin roles. I don't think the NAS will admit any wrongdoing or change its ways so the most likely outcome is that they will continue to become ever more predictable, biased and irrelevant, and what was once a trusted source of knowledge will eventually be dismissed by the public as a pompous relic.

Two important essays were published this week on the theme that the climate movement is now a serious national security risk for the US and Europe. This one in Tablet magazine: tabletmag.com/sections/news/… is by 2 authors, one from the Hudson Inst in DC and the other a professor at the Naval Postgrad Academy in CA. They trace the links between China and the western Net Zero movement, which is partly financial, but works mostly through influence operations by which the CCP gains exemption from criticism by western green groups despite its own coal-intensive and slave labor-dependent growth strategy. This one: thegwpf.org/content/uploads/… is by Richard Dearlove, former head of MI5, explaining how China's influence ops in the UK led to deindustrialization and a precarious dependence on China; to the extent that the UK could not now reindustrialize or stabilize its electricity grid without seeking assistance from Beijing. Dearlove's paper raises the possibility that a security agency like MI5 saw a threat building but was unable to address it because of a perception that climate science forbids criticizing Net Zero and related measures. A question I think worth asking is whether western intelligence agencies have internalized the green Net Zero mindset thereby preventing them from challenging the climate alarmism so effectively weaponized by the CCP. And if they now want to start doing so, would they know how, or have the capacity to do so.

So, some of the climate old guard published a paper: agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… in an outlet called "Earth's Future" slamming a half-page section of last year's DoE report much of which consisted of quotes from IPCC AR6 and a prior paper by others. Also the EF paper critiques a figure in a Youtube video which wasn't in the report but was shown in a seminar last year at UT Austin. EF didn't tell us about the submission or invite a reply, which is pretty shabby. We heard about it in an email from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (speaking of the old guard) seeking a response and an explanation of why we haven't responded to the critics of last year's report. After conferring with my coauthors I sent the following reply: Jessica: First, we were not informed of the paper submitted to Earth's Future by Santer et al. nor offered a chance to reply. Your email is the first we heard of it. It is poor scientific practice (and a disservice to the public) to publish a critique like that without inviting a response from the targets of the criticism, especially when critics allege wrongdoing. Perhaps you could ask the editor of Earth's Future why they departed from normal scientific practice in this case. The Santer et al. paper claims we made two assertions about observed warming in the tropical LS without citing any sources. The CWG report section in question is on pp. 38-39. We cited IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch 2 pp. 327-329, and specifically quoted the following sentences (among others): "Most datasets show no significant or only marginally significant trends over 2000–2019, and the results of Philipona et al. (2018) show weak increases over 2000–2015 in the very lowermost stratosphere sampled by radiosondes….It is virtually certain that the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century. However, most datasets show that lower stratospheric temperatures have stabilized since the mid-1990s with no significant change over the last 20 years. It is likely that middle and upper stratospheric temperatures have decreased since 1980, but there is low confidence in the magnitude." We also cited Philipona et al. (2018) and quoted from their analysis which showed post-2000 tropical LS warming in radiosonde data. And we referred to results in Santer (2023). The reference in these quotes to radiosondes is important. LS data are available from satellites, radiosondes and reanalysis. Models on average still show slight cooling after 2000. The satellites lie closest to models, though on average their trend sign is +, which you can see in Fig 2 in the Santer et al. paper. Santer et al. do not discuss or show radiosonde or reanalysis data (nor radio occultation data) all of which show post-2000 warming in the tropical LS at higher rates than satellites. Our report in July 2025 was a draft for public comment. We were not involved in writing the Endangerment Finding rescission either at the draft or final stage. Unfortunately our group was disbanded due to the FACA lawsuit and we were forbidden from publishing a revised version or even our response material: we are still under that constraint and the problem remains unresolved. However, we went over all the critical comments supplied by the Dessler&Kopp group and have prepared extensive response material and revised section drafts. Our draft report did not adequately discuss the role of CFC's and ozone changes and we did not supplement the cited IPCC and Philipona et al. discussions with a presentation of updated data. Our revised version addresses these issues, among others. Ross

Trump has done the service of making other Canadians see our energy and resources in the same light that I do: magnificent tools for revenues, jobs, investment, soft power and alliances. It is therefore a cruel twist of fate that my fellow Canadians’ inclination for exercising this leverage is to 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳. Some people want to take this moment to fantasize about potash export taxes and oil production curtailment. They are willing to inflict pain on Canada’s producers, reduce our exports revenues, and jeopardize our reputation as a reliable trading partner in order to experience some short lived schadenfreude. The stakes and the prize are so much bigger. Canada has an opportunity to shine in this commodity cycle if we choose ambition over pettiness. Let’s focus on the good we can do for ourselves, not the harm we can inflict on others. nationalpost.com/opinion/hea…

This is an excellent article about my friend and coauthor John Christy of Univ Alabama and his newest work on the history of extreme temperatures in the US. It illustrates a peril in academia: with so much online data easily available, not many researchers re-check the source records. theepochtimes.com/article/cl…

As someone who wants to keep his academic job until the mortgage is paid off, let me state in no uncertain terms that I stand with the fraud/plagiarist/fabulist+ community.

.@SecretaryWright makes an important point: It’s the “foolish green policies” that have made energy prices unaffordable in blue states. These policies do NOTHING but advance the far-left green agenda at the expense of Americans’ well-being.

Universities across the Anglosphere are stocked with Jason Ardays. None match his colorful résumé, yet the faculty and administrators who hired them under DEI rules have faced zero accountability. Cambridge is just the latest chapter in the same story.

One of Fauci’s greatest lies, and there are certainly many to choose from, concerned the infection-fatality ratio. We now know from his diary that he understood it was far lower than he publicly claimed. But a low fatality rate would not have supported lockdowns, mass “vaccination,” or Fauci’s transformation into the indispensable hero of the pandemic. So he simply lied about it. What is rarely discussed is that this deception depended on the natural origin lie. A naturally emerging virus does not spread through the entire human population at full efficiency straight out of the box. It must first adapt to its new host. Fauci’s estimate of 34,000 infections therefore only made sense if the virus was natural and poorly adapted to humans. It made no sense whatsoever if the virus had been engineered to maximize human transmission. In that case, 34,000 infections would have represented only a tiny fraction of the true total, because the virus would already have been spreading rapidly through vast numbers of people around the world, which is exactly what actually happened. Fauci knew exactly what he was doing. He used the natural origin lie to hide the true scale of infection, fabricate a terrifying fatality rate, and set in motion his own elevation as the savior of the pandemic.

Here is Fauci claiming to not know who the authors of Proximal Origin were In actual fact he organized them and prompted the writing of the paper

All the focus on Fauci is burying the more important story, which is that scientists enforcing a common narrative to the detriment of truth has become extremely common. It's a strong case of in-group behavior in academia that, I believe, most of them are not fully aware of. As @LocasaleLab put it so aptly "the academic system punishes honesty". And this is the real story: This isn't just about Fauci. Fauci is just an extreme and very visible example in a case that has attracted a lot of public attention. But misleading the public about the status of scientific research has become extremely widespread.

Cool @politico partially quotes a tweet of mine from yesterday and uses it to completely change the meaning of what I actually wrote Classy 🤨

More crack reporting from @politico today “Critics of attribution science frequently attack the field’s credibility by suggesting it was developed for the explicit purpose of bolstering climate lawsuits. But Hurrell, who has watched the field mature over the course of his 36-year career, says that’s not true.” Oh really? Also from @politico (EE News) 2019: “Friederike Otto, a climate expert at the University of Oxford who has worked with [Myles] Allen, said her efforts to link extreme weather events to climate change have always been tied to the possibility of legal action.‘Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind,’ she said” 🤣🤷‍♂️

This is so obscene. In the US, young adults currently in their 20s were exposed to outrageous alarmist propaganda, and many are still traumatized by this

I'm humbled by this tribute from Stephen Heins in response to RIP Climate Etc stephenheins.substack.com/p/…

All the stuff about Zucman, Piketty et al. makes me scream that I didnt finish my book earlier. It is, without making it about them or their work, a strong alternative. Its a simple pitch: markets are egalitarian forces that improve living standards really fast. Markets minimize the need for the state to do things, complement some of its (the state) good things, and can offset some of the bad things it does. The proof is the extended gilded age (gilded age + progressive era) when the top 10% got richer nearly 1.2 percentage points slower per year than bottom 90%. For the top 1%, the pace was as fast as the bottom 90%.

"economists*" who have "done the maths" vs economists who have done the math.

Canada will not have civil conflict. It has the opposite problem -- it's too nice to have a serious open debate about its real problems: * Low productivity growth * Inability to retain talent * Provincial fragmentation * NIMBYism * The perverse incentives of MAID