'GOOD RIDDANCE': Trump dunks on climate alarmists over ridiculous doomsday scenario



President Donald Trump mocked climate alarmists on Saturday after another one of their doomsday scenarios was shown to be utter nonsense.

The admission by scientists that prompted Trump's derision is but the latest in a long series of embarrassments for those activists keen to use climate prophecies as an excuse to socially engineer human beings and regulate society.

Narrative collapse

The imagined threat of anthropogenic climate change has driven numerous public officials, scientists, and impressionable people bonkers in recent decades.

While Western politicians sacrificed energy security and hobbled industry in hopes of slowing natural phenomena and defeating the arch-villain carbon dioxide (plant food), similarly minded scientists proposed blotting out the sun; "culling" the emission-generating human population with a deadly pandemic; reducing or eliminating meat consumption; putting the population on a diet of bugs, weeds, and micro-algae; and having fewer children.

'Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs.'

This madness has been driven and exacerbated in large part by bogus claims and laughably wrong predictions. In most cases, all that's required to debunk such claims is time and a functional set of eyes.

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, for instance, said at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 that new research indicated there was "a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."

Just as Gore was wrong about a 20-foot rise in the global sea level "in the near future," polar bear drownings, and the snows of Kilimanjaro, he was wrong about the future of Arctic ice.

A paper published late last year in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters concluded that over the past 20 years, "Arctic sea ice loss has slowed considerably, with no statistically significant decline in September sea ice area since 2005."

RELATED: Bizarre academic paper about releasing ticks resurfaces amid surging bites

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

If, perhaps, Gore confused the Arctic with the Antarctic, he'd still be wrong. Antarctica has enjoyed a massive gain in ice mass — at a rate of 119 billion tons per year from 2021 to 2023.

Polar ice is hardly the only planetary feature alarmists mistakenly suggested would fall victim to climate change.

Alarmists suggested in a 2017 study and elsewhere that climate change posed an existential threat to the world's coral reefs and that "immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs."

While dutifully claiming that "climate change mitigation" was still essential, researchers admitted in 2024 that "widespread and diverse coral species all exhibit the potential to adapt to the changing climate."

Former Jeffrey Epstein associate Bill Gates is one of the few alarmists to admit to having pie on his face.

Gates alleged in a 2021 work of climate alarmist agitprop that if humanity failed to eliminate so-called greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic."

After years of fear-mongering, he apparently felt compelled to admit that he too had gotten it wrong.

Gates noted in October that the "doomsday view of climate change" that says "cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization" and that "nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature" is wrong.

UN wrong, again

The United Nations, like Gates a longtime proponent of climate hysteria, was recently confronted with evidence that it too is wrong.

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project, an outfit led by a committee of top climate scientists, admitted in a study published last month in the journal Geoscientific Model Development that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's worst-case future emissions scenarios are "implausible based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends."

Taking into account the world's future population, emission trends, energy sources, climate policies, and other factors, researchers have cooked up various climate scenarios for use in scientific modeling and activist propaganda.

In the early 2010s, such researchers developed a set of four scenarios for climate modeling, called "representative concentration pathways" or RCPs. The most extreme of these was RCP8.5.

The number 8.5 here signals the level of radiative forcing — the extra heat supposedly trapped in the Earth's system, expressed in watts per square meter — projected by the year 2100.

The IPCC projected in 2013 that under this scenario, there would be a temperature rise of 4.3°C by 2081-2100 when compared to the pre-industrial period.

Government of Canada

RCP8.5's successor, "shared socioeconomic pathway"-8.5, projected warming of 4.4°C by 2081-2100, with a "very likely" range of 3.3°C to 5.7°C, the Carbon Brief reported.

It was all nonsense.

Roger Pielke Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted, "The four scenarios were never apples-to-apples. They were four different fruits from four different trees. Yet, over more than a decade and in tens of thousands of papers, RCP8.5 was treated as where the world was headed and the other three scenarios — but especially RCP4.5 and 2.6 — as a world with climate policy interventions."

Despite numerous scientists stressing that the alarmist scenario was not only unlikely but misleading, the RCP8.5 scenario "came to dominate the literature to a degree that is impossible to overstate," Pielke said.

"RCP8.5 accounted for more than half of all RCP references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, nearly 60 percent in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere, and about a third of all RCP references in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report," Pielke wrote. "By early 2020, researchers were publishing studies invoking RCP8.5 at a rate of roughly 20 per day. So far in 2026, studies using RCP8.5 (or its even more extreme successor, SSP5-8.5) are being published at a rate of ~30 new studies per day."

Now, the scientific community must contend with the acknowledgment that this scenario is bogus.

Science journalist Maarten Keulemans noted in a post that has been translated from its original Dutch, "The IPCC acknowledges what has been circulating for a long time: The highest disaster scenario, 8.5, no longer aligns with reality. WHAT CONSEQUENCES this has. ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT CLIMATE FUTURE IS WRONG."

Keuleman suggested further that this admission effectively torpedoes claims that global surface temperature will increase 4-5°C by 2100; summers will all hit 104°F and agriculture in Western Europe will be unsustainable by century's end; tuna, swordfish, and other marine creatures will go extinct; there will be millions of climate refugees every year; and that there will be no more Winter Olympics by 2040.

Trump similarly weighed in, stating, "GOOD RIDDANCE! After 15 years of Dumocrats promising that 'Climate Change' is going to destroy the Planet, the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"

"For far too long Climate Activism has been used by Dumocrats to scare Americans, push horrible Energy Polices, and fund BILLIONS into their bogus research programs," the president continued. "Unlike the Dumocrats, who use Climate Alarmism nonsense to push their GREEN NEW SCAM, my Administration will always be based on TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

This 7% of Earth’s surface burns more fuel than anywhere



The ruling class trades in carbon outrage like it’s gold. Sanctimony fuels its crusade against oil, gas, and coal — never mind that those very fuels built the modern world. The comforts we take for granted — from longer lives and stocked shelves to clean water and lifesaving medicine — all trace back to the energy abundance that hydrocarbons made possible.

Still, the decarbonization faithful press forward. They dream of a carbon-free Eden, even as the global power grid, still humming on fossil fuels, refuses to cooperate.

Critics keep forecasting a shift away from fossil fuels. Reality keeps proving them wrong.

You won’t find a clearer contradiction than in the Yuxi Circle.

Draw a circle with a 2,485-mile radius around the southern Chinese city of Yuxi. British geographer Alasdair Rae did just that — and inside it resides 55% of the world’s population: some 4.3 billion people crammed into just 7% of Earth’s surface. The region includes China, India, much of Southeast Asia, and parts of Pakistan. Some of it — like the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan Desert — is barren. But the rest is packed with cities, factories, and the aspirations of hundreds of millions clawing their way toward modern life.

Why does this matter? Because this region now anchors the world’s biggest fight over energy, growth, and climate policy.

While bureaucrats in Brussels sip espresso and activists glue themselves to the pavement in London, the real action plays out in Asia’s economic engine. In cities like Shanghai, Delhi, and Tokyo, energy demand soars — and fossil fuels do the heavy lifting. Coal and gas plants keep the lights on, while wind and solar trail far behind.

China burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. India burns more than the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom combined. The 10 ASEAN countries rank third. Oil use tells the same story: China and India sit alongside the U.S. atop the global leaderboard of consumption. Economic growth, it turns out, runs not on hashtags but on hydrocarbons.

Critics keep forecasting a shift away from fossil fuels. Reality keeps proving them wrong.

Hundreds of millions in the Yuxi Circle are still striving for what Westerners call a “decent life.” That means refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioning — and with them, a dramatic spike in electricity demand.

RELATED: Climate orthodoxy punishes the West

Photo by Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images

For context: The average American consumes 77,000 kilowatt-hours of energy each year. The average Indian uses a 10th of that. A Bangladeshi? Just 3% of what the average Norwegian consumes.

Now multiply that gap by a population of billions, and you begin to understand what’s coming.

The living room revolution is only the start. An industrial boom is building behind it — factories, office towers, and shopping malls all hungry for electricity. The coming surge in energy use across the Yuxi Circle will make the West’s climate targets look like a quaint relic of the past.

In this part of the world, the green fantasy runs headfirst into human need. Wind and solar can’t meet the moment. Coal, oil, and gas can — and do.

Just as they did for the West, these fuels now power the rise of the rest. And no amount of Western guilt or climate alarm will change that.

Out of touch and out of orbit: Hollywood’s hypocrisy hits new heights



It’s a familiar pattern. Wealthy, self-righteous elites who crisscross the globe by private jet turn around and shame others for doing the same — so long as it’s done with less glamor and more purpose. The latest target of their selective outrage? Six women who took a private spaceflight last week aboard Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin rocket.

You’d think such a moment — an aerospace engineer, an entrepreneur, and other accomplished women making history on a suborbital mission — might warrant celebration. Instead, it drew scorn. According to Hollywood’s self-appointed moral authorities and their Instagram followers, this was a grave offense against the planet and the poor.

These flights are more than joyrides. They’re test beds for innovation, job creation, and future scientific breakthroughs.

What the climate elites ignore — again — is that progress for women, on Earth or in space, depends on one thing they take for granted: energy.

Access to reliable, affordable energy is the cornerstone of women’s liberation in the developing world. It means light to study at night, clean water, safer childbirth, personal security, and a future that doesn’t begin and end with gathering firewood. The freedom to dream big, like flying to space, starts with the freedom to flip a switch.

Classic virtue-signaling

Gayle King, one of the passengers and a trailblazer in journalism, rightly called the backlash “elitist and sexist.” But she left something out: it’s not just sexist. It’s sanctimonious, selective, and suffocating. These are the trademarks of climate virtue-signaling.

Here’s how the game works in today’s inverted moral order: Jet to Davos or Cannes to lecture the public on climate change and you’re hailed as enlightened. Board a rocket as a civilian scientist or entrepreneur, and suddenly you’re a villain — a carbon criminal with the wrong pedigree.

Leonardo DiCaprio can bounce between islands on a yacht to “save the seas,” and no one complains. John Kerry can cross the Atlantic alone in a jet to accept a climate award, and the hypocrisy goes unmentioned. But let six women go to space without the blessing of the green aristocracy, and the mob lights its torches.

Companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX aren’t just about space tourism. They’re pushing technological boundaries that benefit everyone — from global internet access to environmental monitoring. These flights are more than joyrides. They’re test beds for innovation, job creation, and future scientific breakthroughs.

And here’s the larger truth: Abundant, affordable energy is the single most powerful engine of human progress. Societies with the highest energy access are the ones where women thrive. Education, health care, and economic opportunity all expand when energy is plentiful. When the climate movement demonizes innovation and blocks energy development, it’s not saving the planet — it’s stunting the dreams of billions, especially women and girls.

But the climate elites aren’t interested in nuance. Their worldview leaves no room for liberty or aspiration — only guilt, rules, and control.

No apologies

What makes this worse is their arrogance. As if launching six women into space is somehow a threat to “equity.” These women didn’t beg permission from the climate commissars. They didn’t issue carbon apologies. They didn’t buy indulgences from Greenpeace. They flew — because they could. That’s what really infuriates their critics.

The same people who shame Americans for driving pickups or heating their homes sip imported oat milk and scold others from first-class lounges. They claim to speak for justice, but their double standards always circle back to their own comfort.

Instead of condemning these women, we should be applauding them. In an age where pessimism is the norm and grievance is currency, their boldness reminds us of what ambition without apology looks like.

We should be asking: How can we empower more women — not just to fly to space, but to lead in science, business, and technology? The answer is energy. The free market — not fearmongering — will launch the next generation of pioneers.

This was a win for human achievement. No amount of Hollywood hand-wringing can diminish it.

To the ladies of Blue Origin: Don’t let the sanctimonious elites pull you down. While they stare at the sky, you’ve already touched it.

New peer-reviewed study points out the obvious: Carbon emissions are feeding plants and greening the planet



Climate alarmists have long suggested that human industry, farming, and the consumption of affordable energy would amount to environmental ruin and possibly extinction. It turns out that humanity's much-lamented carbon dioxide emissions are actually doing a great job feeding plants and greening the world.

Global greening, in turn, is apparently diminishing the impact of so-called global warming as well as weather extremes.

A peer-reviewed study recently published in the journal Global Ecology and Conservation underscored that "global greening is an indisputable fact" and has accelerated over the past 20 years across over 55% of the globe.

The global leaf area index — the measure of the amount of leaf area relative to ground area — based on satellite observations has shown the world to be greening since the early 1980s. Researchers from Australia and China endeavored to confirm with remote sensing data whether this trend has continued in recent years, especially in the face of recent suggestions that the world is alternatively browning.

The researchers found that "the global greening was still present in 2001-2020, with 55.15% of areas greening at an accelerated rate, mainly concentrated in India and the European plains, compared with 7.28% of browning."

Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that the "dominant driver" for this trend was carbon dioxide.

A 2019 paper published in the journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment and taken up by NASA indicated greening slows global warming.

The paper stated, "Vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of greening on the global scale, with other factors being notable at the regional scale. Modelling indicates that greening could mitigate global warming by increasing the carbon sink on land and altering biogeophysical processes, mainly evaporative cooling."

Shilong Piao of Peking University, lead author on the 2019 paper, said, "This greening and associated cooling is beneficial."

"It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth," said co-author Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, "which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming."

Another recent study published in the sustainability journal One Earth found that greening "has mitigated day time and nighttime hot temperature extremes."

Despite the upsides of global greening, climate alarmists tend to cast it in a negative light.

Upon reviewing the recent study indicating more than half the world is getting greener, Vox concluded greening is "not inherently good. Sometimes it's very bad."

Carl Zimmer of the New York Times claimed in a 2018 article that a greener world is "nothing to celebrate."

Zimmer quoted an environmental scientist from the University of California, Santa Cruz, who suggested carbon dioxide "only accounts for a small fraction of the increase."

Contrary to the suggestion by Zimmer's expert, a 2016 study published in Nature Climate Change made clear that satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments showed carbon dioxide fertilization accounts for 70% of the greening effect.

While cynical about the good of greening and ostensibly willing to downplay the impact of carbon fertilization, Zimmer noted that plants remove an estimated 25% of the carbon humans emit; plants are apparently taking out more carbon dioxide every year; and with greening, the world will have more plants to help out.

Nevertheless, Zimmer characterized the carbon emission-driven phenomenon thusly: "It's a bit like hearing that your chemotherapy is slowing the growth of your tumor by 25 percent."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

France poised to drop renewable targets and fully embrace nuclear energy to ensure 'energy sovereignty'



France is looking to lean more heavily on nuclear power, having apparently realized that a civilized and productive nation cannot reliably run off so-called renewable energy.

The French government will consider legislation in early February that would eliminate renewable power objectives within France's energy code, including targets for reducing energy consumption by way of renovating buildings. France24 indicated that the legislation sets no explicit targets for building renewable capacity.

Instead of mucking around with objectives for renewables, the legislation would have France embrace "the sustainable choice of using nuclear energy as a competitive and carbon-free" source of power.

To this end, the proposed French legislation — touted as a means to ensure "energy sovereignty" — would push for the construction of between six and 14 new nuclear reactors.

Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher told the weekly newspaper La Tribune Dimanche that the construction of these reactors is necessary to reduce the country's reliance on fossils fuels to 40% from 60% by 2035, reported Reuters.

The U.S. Department of Energy admitted in 2021 that nuclear energy was the most reliable energy source, at least on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Each nuclear reactor typically generates the same amount of power as 431 utility-scale wind turbines or 3.1 million solar panels.

In addition to being less productive than nuclear and fossil fuels, renewables are unreliable.

A 2021 study published in the journal Nature Communications indicated, "If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability."

The researchers indicated that "the most reliable renewable electricity systems are wind-heavy and satisfy countries' electricity demand in 72-91% of hours ... Yet even in systems which meet >90% of demand, hundreds of hours of unmet demand may occur annually."

Despite the efficacy of nuclear, the French legislation has been met with some criticism.

Arnaud Gosse, a lawyer with the French energy-focused firm Gosse Avocats, suggested in a blog post that the bill, which goes before the French cabinet next month, "weakens France's climate objectives, starting with the objective of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. The objective would no longer be to 'reduce' but to tend towards a reduction in 'our greenhouse gas emissions.'"

Gosse suggested further to France24 that the bill "a terrible step back."

Jules Nyssen, the president of France's Renewable Energies Union, was unsurprisingly antagonistic of the bill, claiming he was "stunned" to learn it removes renewable targets.

Anne Bringault, an activist at Climate Action Network — an alarmist group that seeks "transformational change in our societies and economies" — told France24, "this is an extremely significant step backwards, and totally inconsistent with European objectives."

RFI reported that France remains among the lowest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union largely thanks to the 57 nuclear reactors it has built since the 1973 oil crisis.

Reuters indicated that an increase in French exports of nuclear power to other European nations would likely reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and thereby spare climate alarmists the guilt often associated with winter warmth.

Already this year, France has reportedly overseen a three-year high in nuclear generation. From Jan. 2-9, France was an average daily net exporter of over 12.2 gigawatts of power, with roughly 3 gigawatts going to Germany and another six headed to Switzerland, the U.K., and Italy.

France is not the only European nation waking up to the unreliability of renewable electricity. The Swedish parliament announced last year that in the interest of a "stable energy system," it would have to abandon its goal of "100 per cent renewable electricity production by 2040."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Warning: This government scam would be the 'destruction of rural America'



Another day, another government proposal that will throw a wrench in American citizens' freedom.

The SEC proposal would allow for the creation of a new type of company called a “natural asset company,” which could buy up land to use natural processes — like the generation of fresh air — to write off carbon emissions.

Glenn Beck calls the proposal “horrifying.”

Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks is in agreement, telling Glenn that the proposal will “permanently stop economically essential activities like grazing, mineral extraction, modern agriculture” and “severely curtail recreational access.”

“We’re basically talking about the destruction of rural America,” he adds, noting that the move is simply “an effort to take control of America’s natural resources.”

The proposal is “essentially placing a value on natural processes,” Oaks continues, using “biological systems that provide clear air, water, food” as an example.

To put it simply, Oak calls it “just another scam” that uses “God-given processes” at the expense of our country.

“It represents a massive transfer of wealth,” he adds.

Glenn is aware that all of this has seriously far-reaching implications.

“Our food prices will go through the roof,” Glenn says, “and good luck going to a national park.”

“This is so evil. This is so incredibly evil,” he adds.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

THIS government SCAM would be the 'DESTRUCTION of rural America'
play icon

THIS government SCAM would be the 'DESTRUCTION of rural America'

In Debate, Governor Will Answer To Constituents For Plans To Make Wyoming ‘Carbon Negative’

On Friday, 30 state lawmakers called on Gordon to debate the merits of the 'carbon negative' policy he recently promoted.

Lego's attempt to ditch oil-based bricks is a costly failure; 'sustainable' alternative would have created higher emissions: Report



Fossil fuels keep people around the world clothed, fed, mobile, housed, entertained, and comfortable. Despite the extensive utility of oil and gas, there is a concerted effort in the West to instead drive reliance upon resources of dubious environmental benefit. This endeavor has been long pursued by governments and companies alike, sometimes at great cost.

The Danish toy company Lego, among the organizations that vowed to cut down on oil usage, has recently discovered that transitioning is not as clean or as easy as it looks on paper.

Lego, like other large woke corporations, is captive to ESG goals, claiming on its website to be playing a "part in building a sustainable future and creating a better world for children to inherit."

The company indicated in 2018 that it had set a target to swap the oil-based plastics it uses in the 110-120 billion pieces it produces every year for sustainable materials by 2030. This would mean that the 4.4 lbs of petroleum required for each 2.2 lbs of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic granules — used to make up to 85% of the company's bricks — would need to be replaced.

"Everything about them is plastic," said Sharon George, a senior lecturer in environmental sustainability at Britain's Keele University. "It's certainly not an easy challenge for them. But I really hope that Lego can do something innovative because if anybody can they can, thanks to their prices."

Tim Brooks, Lego’s head of sustainability, told the Financial Times at the time, "We are making a toy for children. ... We can't make a toy that harms their future. If we are not doing a good job on the environment, then we have short-changed them."

In 2021, the company indicated it had found a winning alternative: older oil-based plastics in the form of recycled drink bottles. Lego's reliance on such a recycled supply would demand the continued primary manufacture of oil-based bottles for their expensive bricks.

The company has since blown $1.2 billion on "sustainability initiatives" only to discover that secondhand plastics weren't all they were cracked up to be.

Niels Christiansen, the CEO of Lego, told the Financial Times Sunday that the use of recycled polyethylene terephthalate would have led to the creation of higher carbon emissions.

"In order to scale production [of recycled PET], the level of disruption to the manufacturing environment was such that we needed to change everything in our factories. After all that, the carbon footprint would have been higher. It was disappointing," said Brooks.

Christiansen admitted that the company's search to "find this magic material or this new material" that could replace oil-based plastics while still affording Lego bricks comparable "clutch power" and durability has come up wanting.

"We tested hundreds and hundreds of materials," said the Lego CEO. "It's just not been possible to find a material like that."

While defeated and decided against adopting recycled plastic as the stuff of its bricks, Lego has attempted to give hope to climate alarmists and fans of its oil-based pro-renewables wind turbine kit.

The Times indicated that Lego will kick the can farther down the road such that by 2032 it hopes both to be using only so-called sustainable materials and to see a 37% reduction in emissions compared to 2019.

The BBC reported that as of 2021, the company was emitting roughly 1,322,773 tons of carbon a year. By way of comparison, the average American emits roughly 17.85 tons a year.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Where Is Kristi Noem As Her Corporate Sponsors Take Over Constituents’ Land?

South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem is silent as out-of-state corporations seize constituent land by eminent domain.