CNN data analyst dumps cold water on climate alarmism: It 'has not really worked'



Although elites like Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates have been pushing climate alarmism on the masses for decades, most people have never bought what they were selling. In fact, data shows that climate change has not been a defining issue for many people for a long time, one CNN analyst argued.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten demonstrated that the American people's concern about climate change has remained surprisingly consistent for decades and has even possibly declined in more recent years.

"What are we talking about? Greatly worried about climate. You go all the way back to 1989, it was 35%. 2000, 40%. 2020, 46%. And in 2025, look at that — it's 40%, the same number as we had 25 years ago back in 2000, and then only just five points higher than we had back in 1989. Really we've just seen consistency on this issue," Enten explained.

'It will not lead to humanity's demise.'

Enten showed that the number of Americans who see climate change as a top issue is and has been negligible for roughly the past four years. One 2025 poll indicated that just 17% of Democrats believe climate change will make staying in their home area "harder," Enten revealed.

Noting Gates' recent tone shift on the issue, Enten said most people would "agree" with Gates' new assessment that climate change won't be the end of humanity.

RELATED: Bill Gates quietly retires climate terror as AI takes the throne

Photo by Patrick van Katwijk/Getty Images

"The bottom line is that the climate change message that folks who, of course, believe that climate change is real and is quite worrisome, simply put, has not really worked with the American people,” Enten said.

Just this week, Gates altered his approach to climate change, one of his trademark issues.

"Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity's demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future," Gates wrote in his October 28 essay, "Three tough truths about climate."

"The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been," Gates continued.

While Gates did not completely dismiss his emphasis on climate change, this shift comes after at least 20 years of efforts to raise concern in the public consciousness about an existential threat. Gates famously warned that the climate was a bigger issue than COVID in the midst of the pandemic in 2020.

"Whether or not he's following the science or public opinion, there does seem to be a shift here," CNN anchor John Berman told Enten.

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

Pope Leo stuns with CLIMATE RITUAL and anti-pro-lifer comments



BlazeTV host Pat Gray had high hopes for the new Pope Leo, but after he blessed a block of ice at a climate change event and made questionable comments toward pro-lifers, he isn’t so happy with the choice.

Leo made his stance on pro-lifers clear when asked by a reporter how he feels about Cardinal Cupich giving an award to Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is for legalized abortion.

“Some people of faith are having a hard time with understanding this because he is pro, or rather, he’s for legalized abortion. How would you help people right now decipher that, feel about that?” the reporter asked.

“I’m not terribly familiar with the particular case. I think that it’s very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, 40 years service in the United States Senate,” Leo responded.


“I think, as I myself have spoke in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the church. Someone who says, ‘I’m against abortion,’ but says, ‘I’m in favor of the death penalty,’ is not really pro-life,’” he continued.

“So, someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life. So, they’re very complex issues. I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them,” he added.

“There goes any hope I had for the new pope,” comments Keith Malinak, executive producer of “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“Drawing that equivalency between killing an innocent baby and a murderer who has killed maybe multiple people — that’s the same thing? You’re not pro-life if you don’t support one and reject the other? What?” Gray agrees.

“I mean, that is a far-left talking point, and it has been for years,” Malinak adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

America First energy policy will be key to beating China in the AI race



The world is on the verge of a technological revolution unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Artificial intelligence is a defining force that will shape military power, economic growth, the future of medicine, surveillance, and the global balance of freedom versus authoritarianism — and whoever leads in AI will set the rules for the 21st century.

The stakes could not be higher. And yet while America debates regulations and climate policy, China is already racing ahead, fueled by energy abundance.

Energy abundance must be understood as a core national policy imperative — not just as a side issue for environmental debates.

When people talk about China’s strategy in the AI race, they usually point to state subsidies and investments. China’s command-economy structure allows the Chinese Communist Party to control the direction of the country’s production. For example, in recent years, the CCP has poured billions of dollars into quantum computing.

China’s energy edge

But another, more important story is at play: China is powering its AI push with a historic surge in energy production.

China has been constructing new coal plants at a staggering speed, accounting for 95% of new coal plants built worldwide in 2023. China just recently broke ground on what is being dubbed the “world’s largest hydropower dam.” These and other energy projects have resulted in massive growth in energy production in China in the past few decades. In fact, production climbed from 1,356 terawatt hours in 2000 to an incredible 10,073 terawatt hours in 2024.

Beijing understands what too many American policymakers ignore: Modern economies and advanced AI models are energy monsters. Training cutting-edge systems requires millions of kilowatt hours of power. Keeping AI running at scale demands a resilient and reliable grid.

China isn’t wringing its hands about carbon targets or ESG metrics. It’s doing what great powers do when they intend to dominate: They make sure nothing — especially energy scarcity — stands in their way.

America’s self-inflicted weakness

Meanwhile, in America, most of our leaders have embraced climate alarmism over common sense. We’ve strangled coal, stalled nuclear, and made it nearly impossible to build new power infrastructure. Subsidized green schemes may win applause at Davos, but they don’t keep the lights on. And they certainly can’t fuel the data centers that AI requires.

The demand for energy from the AI industry shows no sign of slowing. Developers are already bypassing traditional utilities to build their own power plants, a sign of just how immense the pressure on the grid has become. That demand is also driving up energy costs for everyday citizens who now compete with data centers for electricity.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has even spoken of plans to spend “trillions” on new data center construction. Morgan Stanley projects that global investment in AI-related infrastructure could reach $3 trillion by 2028.

Already, grid instability is a growing problem. Blackouts, brownouts, and soaring electricity prices are becoming a feature of American life. Now imagine layering the immense demand of AI on top of a fragile system designed to appease activists rather than strengthen a nation.

In the AI age, a weak grid equals a weak country. And weakness is something that authoritarian rivals like Beijing are counting on.

Time to hit the accelerator

Donald Trump has already done a tremendous amount of work to reorient America toward energy dominance. In the first days of his administration, he released detailed plans explicitly focused on “unleashing American energy,” signaling that the message is being taken seriously at the highest levels.

Over the past several months, Trump has signed numerous executive orders to bolster domestic energy production and end subsidies for unreliable energy sources. Most recently, the Environmental Protection Agency has moved to rescind the Endangerment Finding — a potentially massive blow to the climate agenda that has hamstrung energy production in the United States since the Obama administration.

These steps deserve a lot of credit and support. However, for America to remain competitive in the AI race, we must not only continue this momentum but ramp it up wherever possible. Energy abundance must be understood as a core national policy imperative — not just as a side issue for environmental debates.

RELATED: MAGA meets the machine: Trump goes all in on AI

Photo by Grafissimo via Getty Images

Silicon Valley cannot out-innovate a blackout. However, Americans can’t code their way around an empty power plant. If China has both the AI models and the energy muscle to run them, while America ties itself in regulatory knots, the future belongs to China.

Liberty on the line

This is about more than technology. This is about the world we want to live in. An authoritarian China, armed with both AI supremacy and energy dominance, would have the power to bend the global order toward censorship, surveillance, and control.

If we want America to lead the future of artificial intelligence, then we must act now. The AI race cannot be won by Silicon Valley alone. It will be won only if America moves full speed ahead with abundant domestic energy production, climate realism, and universal access to affordable and reliable energy for all.

The climate cult is brainwashing your kids — and you’re paying for it



America’s education system is facing a growing list of challenges — from plummeting test scores and the lingering hangover from COVID-era remote classes to teacher shortages and mounting public frustration over gender ideology.

But take it from a former teacher: Another grave problem is haunting our classrooms. Climate extremists have infiltrated American schools, and they’re indoctrinating our children in radical ideology. It’s time the Department of Justice took action to stop it.

I worked for many years as a teacher and saw firsthand just how deeply rooted this climate ideology is in our classrooms.

Fortunately, they’ve taken the first step. In May, the Justice Department filed lawsuits against four states for allegedly funneling public funds into unconstitutional climate litigation. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the litigation “burdensome and ideologically motivated,” and she’s right. The troubling part is: It’s happening in our public school classrooms too.

If the Trump administration is serious about rooting out taxpayer-funded climate extremism, the next logical step is clear: Launch an investigation into the climate ideologues flooding our education system with fearmongering and pseudoscience.

Indoctrinated K-12 classrooms

Just look at what’s happening in New York City. In the summer of 2024, Columbia University partnered with NYC Public Schools to hold a four-day workshop for teachers called “Integrating Climate Education in N.Y.C. Public Schools.” The aim should be clear from the name: Teachers were guided on how to interweave climate hysteria into their lesson plans.

A reporter later visited a public school in the Bronx where a teacher was reading her students a book about flooding in Africa. “And what’s causing all these rains and storms and floods?” she asked. “Carbon,” an 8-year-old answered.

RELATED: Trump’s climate policy shift could save American farmers from disaster

SimonSkafar via Getty Images

This isn’t isolated to New York. In 2020, New Jersey became the first state in the nation to mandate that climate change be taught at all grade levels. It begins in kindergarten, where even the lighthearted activity of dancing is used to “examine global issues, including climate change as a topic for dance.” And it’s integrated into every other school subject — from computer science to physical education.

Other states are working to incorporate climate change into their curricula. California’s Assembly Bill 285, passed in 2023, requires science teachers to instruct students beginning in the first grade “on the causes and effects of climate change, and on the methods to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”

This isn’t science; it’s political conditioning masquerading as curriculum.

Take it from me: I worked for many years as a teacher and saw firsthand just how deeply rooted this climate ideology is in our classrooms — and that was before state governments began passing their mandates. What I witnessed wasn’t education but indoctrination, and it proved very successful.

Radicalized universities

Later, I left K-12 to teach as a college professor, and what I found was troubling. My freshman students widely believed the world was going to end within their lifetimes and were emotionally paralyzed by it. They didn’t want to debate other students or hear the other side of the argument. Instead, out of anger, they wanted to shame and cancel those who thought differently.

Even the most milquetoast of pushback was met by my students with confusion and contempt. This is what happens when children are indoctrinated from a very young age.

The effects of climate brainwashing are so widespread that psychologists even have a term for it: climate anxiety. The New York Times recently profiled the case of a woman paralyzed by mundane activities, like eating nuts.

They came wrapped in plastic, often in layers of it, that she imagined leaving her house and traveling to a landfill, where it would remain through her lifetime and the lifetime of her children.

In 2021, the first study on climate anxiety was released. It found that young children all over the world had been affected. Of those surveyed, more than half reported feeling sad, anxious, angry, and guilty over the climate, while a full 75% said the future looked frightening.

Leading academic institutions like Yale and Harvard have since accepted that climate anxiety is inevitable and sought to provide therapy to their students. But this is like an arsonist claiming fires are inevitable and investing in more garden hoses. Climate anxiety isn’t inevitable; it’s a direct result of convincing our children that a made-up apocalypse is inevitable.

Root out climate hysteria

Teaching kids how to care for the environment is not wrong. I was part of a generation taught to recycle, respect nature, and preserve the land for future use. But today’s curriculum isn’t about stewardship — it’s about shame. It’s not about science — it’s about fear.

It’s time for the Justice Department to broaden its investigation into the public education bureaucracies, state curriculum mandates, and activist organizations pushing climate panic in the classroom. Climate extremism shouldn’t be government policy, and it certainly shouldn’t be taught as gospel to our kids.

Let’s stop the fear, stop the brainwashing, and bring common sense back to the classroom.

Why leftism attracts the sad and depressed — and keeps them that way



By now, the trope of the “sad leftist” has become so popular that it’s essentially a meme. Multiple studies show leftists are, on average, far less happy than conservatives. That aligns with the experience of many who observe self-professed leftists exhibiting more anxiety, gloom, and hostility than others.

It’s not difficult to understand why. If your main news sources tell you the president is a fascist, half of your countrymen are bigots, and the world is about to end due to climate change, you’re bound to feel — and vote — blue. Yet, even in Democratic administrations, leftists never seemed content.

People latch onto progressive narratives because they offer someone to blame. That brings short-term relief, but it quickly fades.

This suggests the root of their discontent isn’t merely political messaging but something deeper. Rather, the ideas implicit in leftism seem antithetical to a happy life and human flourishing — even if well-intended. Leftists push for diversity, equity, and inclusion in place of meritocracy, support a more powerful state to implement those ideals, advocate open borders to globalize them, and demand wealth redistribution to fund them. In the sanitized and euphemistic language they often prefer, leftists are about fairness, progress, and kindness.

Sad people lean left

Nate Silver recently weighed in on the happiness gap between conservatives and progressives. His take? People might have it backward. It’s not that leftism makes people sad but that sad people gravitate toward leftism: “People become liberals because they’re struggling or oppressed themselves and therefore favor change and a larger role for government.”

If this is true, it still doesn’t explain why leftism is correlated with sadness and why it offers no remedy. Conservatives, for their part, offer a diagnosis and a cure: Leftism is foolish and destructive — so stop being a leftist. That’s the gist of Ben Shapiro’s infamous line, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

While clever and catchy, this oversimplifies the problem. People who ascribe to liberal or leftist causes don’t merely do so because they prioritize feelings over facts. Yes, some are true believers, but most are reacting to powerful cultural pressures and personal struggles. These feed destructive habits that, in turn, make them more susceptible to leftist propaganda.

After all, the narratives that comprise leftist propaganda are easy to understand and adopt since they lay the blame of all society’s ills on someone else. People are poor because rich people exploit them; people of color are marginalized because white people are racists; queer people are depressed because straight people don’t accept them; third world countries are dysfunctional because Americans and Europeans meddled in their affairs too much or too little; and leftists are unpopular because Trump and other conservative populists are effective con men.

The media’s vicious cycle

These narratives not only offer paltry short-term solace — they breed resentment. Instead of directing their efforts to personal improvement, leftists are encouraged to push their anger outward — sometimes through direct violence (vandalism, looting, even political violence) and sometimes indirectly by cheering on those who perpetrate it. In this way, left-wing media weaponizes its audience.

Nevertheless, the principle motivation behind leftist propaganda is not necessarily weaponization. It’s monetization. Beyond adopting leftist narratives and positions, audiences need to continue consuming leftist media and become addicted to it.

RELATED: Breaking the ‘spell of woke possession’: Why America is choosing tradition

Karolina Grabowska/Pexels

As Georgetown professor and computer scientist Cal Newport explains in his book “Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World,” society has now entered the era of the “attention economy,” where media companies do everything in their power to hold people’s attention — for forever. In conjunction with tech companies, these outlets turn otherwise healthy people into helpless junkies enslaved to the apps on their smartphones.

Like any addiction, this one feeds a destructive cycle. People latch onto progressive narratives because they offer someone to blame. That brings short-term relief, but it quickly fades. The need for comfort drives them to consume even more leftist content, which distorts their view of the world and fuels resentment. Anxiety deepens. Misery spreads.

As their emotional state deteriorates, they seek comfort in even more content. Eventually, this behavior sabotages their ability to function. They become dependent on the very content that made them feel worse in the first place. Many even join the performance, filming themselves crying, ranting, and broadcasting their despair for clicks.

Meanwhile, the titans of the attention economy grow wealthier and more powerful. They refine their algorithms, suppress dissent, and tighten their grip. The last thing they want is for their users to wake up — to take Newport’s advice, unplug, and rediscover meaning in the real world. They might just find happiness. And stop drifting left.

Model a different life

This presents an opportunity for conservatives hoping to transform the culture. The answer isn’t just a matter of advocating time-tested ideas but of modeling the habits that reinforce these ideas. Rather than view leftists as incorrigible scoundrels and idiots who refuse to open their eyes, conservatives should see them as unfortunate people who have been seduced, reduced, and enslaved by powerful corporate and government interests.

This means that conservatives should do more than offer political arguments — we must pull them away from the vicious cycle through modeling a better life. Leftists (and many on the online right, for that matter) must be reminded that being perpetually online and endlessly scrolling is a recipe for sadness. In contrast, church, family, friends, and meaningful work are what empower people. They are what make us human — and happy.

Once the cycle is broken — and the leftist has regained some control over himself — the case for conservatism becomes much easier. If Nate Silver is right that sad people gravitate to the left, then it’s only logical to assume happy people should be attracted to the right. Conservatives should cherish those values and habits that make them, on average, happier and more fulfilled. It’s time to stop drinking leftist tears and help them out of their malaise.

G7 meets in a carbon-rich paradise to demand less carbon



As Canadians host the 50th annual G7 Summit this week in Kananaskis, Alberta, they can expect a deluge of “climate-saving” proclamations — rhetoric divorced from scientific evidence and economic reality.

This elite gathering of the world’s leading economies, along with the European Union, plans to spotlight climate resilience, net-zero targets, green certification, and renewable energy. But the most heavily hyped technology on the agenda will likely be carbon capture — a scheme billed as the silver bullet for saving the planet from carbon dioxide emissions.

NASA has credited rising CO2 levels with 70% of Earth’s recent greening. More carbon dioxide, not less, helps feed the world.

Carbon capture refers to the removal of carbon dioxide from industrial exhaust or directly from the air. The captured gas is then injected underground or used commercially, such as for boosting oil production. That latter application has proven highly effective worldwide. But the idea of scaling up carbon capture to cool the planet is not just costly — it’s potentially counterproductive.

Carbon capture as a climate fix imposes heavy costs with no measurable benefits. It burdens consumers, risks environmental harm, and distracts from more effective energy solutions. Most proposals target emissions from coal- or gas-fired power plants, where the captured CO2 would be pumped underground and stored permanently.

With Alberta phasing out coal in favor of natural gas, the cost implications matter. Using data from the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory, we examined what it would cost to retrofit gas-fired plants in the province with carbon capture.

NETL analyzed two natural gas combined cycle plants: a 727-megawatt and a 992-megawatt facility. The numbers are staggering. For the smaller unit, construction and startup costs would jump from $760 million to $1.4 billion. Annual operation and maintenance would rise from $29 million to $55 million.

For the larger plant, the picture is no better. Costs climb from $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion to build and launch, and annual maintenance surges from $39 million to $70 million — an 80% increase.

On top of the financial hit, carbon capture reduces energy output by about 11%. That means consumers would pay more — for less electricity.

These systems also require an extensive network of pipelines to move CO2 to underground storage sites. One proposal to connect Canada’s oil sands operations with a CO2 transport system estimated the cost at $4 billion. And that’s just for the pipes.

Even if money were no object, carbon capture fails the basic test of relevance. The theory that CO2 is the primary driver of Earth’s temperature remains unproven. Natural factors — like changes in solar output, the planet’s orbit, and its axial tilt — play a far greater role. Alarmist climate models, built on faulty assumptions, fail again and again to match observed data.

According to the CO2 Coalition, even if the United States had reached net-zero emissions in 2010, the reduction in global temperature by 2100 would amount to just 0.1040 degrees Celsius. That’s not a meaningful impact. Alberta’s emissions, by comparison, are a fraction of the U.S. total.

Far from being a pollutant, carbon dioxide is essential to life. It feeds plants, boosts crop yields, and promotes ecosystem health. NASA has credited rising CO2 levels with 70% of Earth’s recent greening. More carbon dioxide, not less, helps feed the world.

Instead of obsessing over how to bury carbon, G7 leaders might do better to look around at the Canadian Rockies and ask why they’re trying to deprive the planet of the gas that makes them so green in the first place.

Big Oil turns on Trump over Paris accord exit for all the wrong reasons



One of Donald Trump’s priorities upon returning to the Oval Office in January is to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This move is welcome news for those who oppose the decarbonization agenda, which undermines freedom, prosperity, and mobility. Given that petroleum the bête noire of the global climate cult, you might expect major oil companies would support U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

Soon after Trump’s intentions for the Paris agreement became clear, major oil companies signaled their opposition to his decision. Instead, they favor continuing down the path of heavy regulation and government subsidies for their industry, aligned with the priorities of the global climate community. As reported by Fox News, “Big Oil is calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement after withdrawing from the treaty during his first term.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Why would companies whose primary business is extracting and selling petroleum align themselves with an unelected body openly hostile to oil and committed to achieving "net zero" production within a generation?

Unfortunately, this approach is a betrayal to those who have long defended Big Oil as a pillar of capitalism. Big Oil’s actions now appear to be in direct conflict with free-market principles.

By supporting government-mandated climate compliance, major oil companies can eliminate competition from smaller players in the short term, consolidating their market dominance. In the long term, they aim to secure government grants and subsidies for carbon-related initiatives, positioning these as a significant revenue stream.

ExxonMobil has made it clear that it sees the government as its future largest customer, carbon-related initiatives as its primary product, and government funding as its main revenue source. In the short term, the company seeks to leverage government power, under the Paris Climate Agreement, to eliminate competition from independent oil producers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods opposes Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from the climate accord. According to the article, Woods argues against the withdrawal, citing ExxonMobil’s efforts to expand outreach to government officials and advocate for “global carbon accounting measures.”

While the specifics of “global carbon accounting” remain unclear, it seems far removed from real-world generally accepted accounting principles. It is reasonable to assume that this concept involves government officials distributing taxpayer money to favored entities — a group Woods clearly intends for ExxonMobil to join.

The WSJ story goes on to say that ExxonMobil and other major oil companies are lobbying the incoming GOP leadership to preserve tax credits included in Joe Biden’s “signature climate law,” the Inflation Reduction Act. These credits reward technologies like carbon capture, in which the companies are heavily invested.

The IRA is a boon for Big Oil’s carbon-related projects. During an energy conference last March, Woods voiced his support for the legislation, stating, “I was very supportive of the IRA — I am very supportive of the IRA …”

In plain terms, ExxonMobil wants more taxpayer money and federal tax credits to fund its carbon mitigation initiatives. Meanwhile, you better believe small, independent drillers in West Texas are left out of these taxpayer subsidies. ExxonMobil, by contrast, is angling to make taxpayer subsidies a major source of revenue.

The Guardian in August highlighted how ExxonMobil has pivoted its business strategy to heavily rely on government subsidies for its carbon capture and storage operations. The company launched its Low Carbon Solutions division in 2021 and began lobbying for direct government funding. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, ExxonMobil secured a subsidy of $85 per ton of captured carbon. Dan Ammann, head of the Low Carbon Solutions unit, said the carbon capture business could eventually become “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Trump’s selection of Chris Wright as energy secretary offers a glimmer of hope for the American petroleum industry.

In the oil patch, Wright’s appointment has been met with much rejoicing. As the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, Wright understands well the challenges faced by independent oil producers. Unlike major oil company executives who apologize for their industry and align themselves with climate activists, Wright unapologetically defends the petroleum sector. Described as a “dedicated humanitarian on a mission to better human lives by expanding access to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy,” Wright has earned respect across the industry.

But Wright’s fight to protect American oil won’t just involve battling left-wing advocates of net-zero policies. He will also face opposition from major oil company executives who have aligned with radical climate agendas, working to suppress independent producers while ceding control of the oil business to the government. He’ll need all the help he can get.

Green policies fuel riches for elites, pain for the rest



Azerbaijan’s government has some troubling practices, and the world should pay attention. Whether you believe in a climate emergency or not — and especially if you do — the shenanigans at the ongoing COP29 climate conference in this authoritarian Caucasus nation should raise alarms.

Recent U.N. climate conferences, including COP28 in the United Arab Emirates and COP29 in Azerbaijan, reveal a troubling trend: Global environmental activists seem unbothered by the severe wealth inequality their policies exacerbate. These activists actively collaborate with state oil tycoons to secure their own gains, often at the expense of ordinary people.

Climate alarmism remains a luxury belief held predominantly by wealthy elites, not ordinary people.

The authoritarian regimes of the UAE and Azerbaijan epitomize this disparity. In Azerbaijan, the average GDP per person is about 18 times higher than the median income. In contrast, this ratio in Western nations typically ranges between four and five. These glaring inequalities underscore the cozy relationship between government elites and global environmental activists.

Climate activists and state oil moguls actively disregard free markets and consumer preferences. Environmentalists routinely condemn consumer choices they deem “wasteful” or “unsustainable” and push policies that force compliance rather than encourage voluntary participation. Likewise, state oil companies reject competition at home and collude internationally to manipulate oil production when it increases their profits.

Both groups enrich themselves at others’ expense. Taxpayers, not attendees, fund COP29. National delegations draw from public budgets, while global NGOs like the United Nations and World Bank use funds from member nations to support the conference.

Oil barons in the UAE and Azerbaijan exploit natural resources for personal gain. Officials use state power to secure private wealth while denying citizens their rights. These oil-rich nations exemplify extractive institutions, where elites monopolize resources and leave the public to bear the cost.

The environmental agenda seeks to do the same — transferring hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to narrowly owned wind, solar, and other green projects. Rather than serving customers and receiving voluntary payment, both environmentalists and government oil barons would rather extract resources from people by force.

COP29 participants explicitly demand that wealthy nations’ taxpayers “pay up” through climate reparations. These funds will likely enrich corrupt officials instead of benefiting the poor and vulnerable who are supposed to receive them. Decades of foreign aid being diverted into government officials’ pockets provide ample reason to reject this policy.

The irony of hosting the U.N. climate change conference in oil-producing countries runs deep. Participants create massive carbon footprints through air travel, food and goods consumption, and electricity use. Their activities rely on the very oil production they criticize, in countries they now place at the forefront of climate planning.

Climate alarmism remains a luxury belief held predominantly by wealthy elites, not ordinary people. These elites can more easily handle the higher costs created by environmental restrictions, unlike the poor and middle class. Moreover, elites are more likely to profit from net-zero policies, which subsidize solar panels, electric vehicles, and billion-dollar carbon offset and green energy schemes.

It’s time to end the self-serving theatrics of U.N. climate conferences pretending to save the planet. Expanding fossil fuel exploration and development in the United States offers a far better path. Cheap energy means greater freedom and prosperity for all.

Next time someone cries about 'climate change,' put them to shame with THESE historical facts



If there’s one thing the left and the right can agree on, it’s that the string of disasters occurring recently across the globe is tragic.

Between the Maui fires, the hurricane in Florida, the earthquake in Morocco, and the flooding in Libya, far too many people have lost their lives.

However, the left and right clash when it comes to the origins of these catastrophes.

“The goofballs on the left are screaming, ‘See? Climate change! Climate change!’” mocks Pat Gray.

“But you know what?” he continues. “Natural disasters are not new.”

The truth is, “fewer people die from them now than ever before in world history.”

And if you don’t believe us, here are the numbers to prove it:

  • “Four million people died in China in floods” in 1931.
  • “Two million [died] in the 1887 Yellow River flood” in China.
  • In “1976, 655,000 Chinese people died in the Tangshan earthquake.”
  • “500,000 died from an earthquake in 1970 in Bangladesh.”
  • 9,500 people died as a result of “the eastern United States heat wave of 1901.”
  • “The French heat wave ... killed 41,000 people in 1911.”
  • “5,000+ died in a North American heat wave" in 1936.
  • “100,000 people died in a landslide in 1786” in China.

“These natural disasters go on and on and on,” says Pat, “and you can break it down by century, by decade.”


Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

160 people arrested on arson charges for Greek wildfires that the media previously said climate change was to blame



Greek officials arrested 160 people on arson charges for the wildfires that ravaged Greece this summer. Previously, the media almost exclusively blamed the Greek wildfires on climate change.

Wildfires have scorched Greece this summer. In the past week, at least 21 people – including two children – lost their lives in connection with the wildfires.

Fire department spokesman Ioannis Artopios said 60 firefighters had been injured attempting to extinguish the blaze as of Thursday.

Firefighters battled 99 separate wildfires across the country on Wednesday.

The wildfires have forced numerous evacuations during the summer months, including the main hospital of Alexandroupolis in northeast Greece.

The European Union's Commissioner for Crisis Management Janez Lenarcic said that more than 180,400 acres burned in the port city of Alexandroupolis – making it the largest wildfire ever recorded among European Union countries, according to CNN.

Government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis said that 160 people had been arrested across the country on arson charges, 42 of them accused of intentional arson and the remainder accused of setting fires through neglect, according to the New York Times.

Marinakis declared, "The culprits will face justice."

The Associated Press reported, police searched the home of one alleged arsonist suspected of setting at least fires and found kindling, a fire torch gun, and pine needles.

Climate Crisis and Civil Protection Minister Vassilis Kikilias torched the fire-starting suspects as "arsonist scum."

"You are committing a crime against the country,” Kikilias said during an emergency briefing on Thursday. "Arsonist scum are setting fires that threaten forests, property, and, most of all, human lives."

He declared, "You will not get away with it, we will find you, you will be held accountable."

Kikilias warned that the arsonists attempted to start new fires on Mount Parnitha – a densely forested mountain range roughly 30 miles north of Athens.

The media previously blamed climate change for the wildfires devastating Greece.

Only a few weeks ago, CNN ran an article titled: "Why wildfires happen: Debunking the myth that arson is to blame more than climate change."

The BBC declared, "Summer wildfires are common in Greece and scientists have linked the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including heatwaves, to climate change."

The following articles prominently mention climate change, but do not use the word "arson" at all in the articles.

Earlier this month, NBC News published an article with the headline: "Greek wildfires are the 'harsh reality of climate change,' experts warn."

Politico Europe proclaimed in July, "Hundreds of people have been evacuated as wildfires rage in Greece, and Southern Europe faces another week of sweltering, above-40C temperatures in a heat wave that experts say is linked to climate change."

In an opinion piece in The Guardian titled: "The lesson from the Greece wildfires? The climate crisis is coming for us all," the writer claimed that a video of the Greek wildfires "could easily pass for a TV climate crisis awareness-raising campaign."

The New York Times wrote in July, "The fiercest wildfires have hit only parts of a few islands. But the effects of climate change pose a far wider threat to Greece’s tourism industry."

Last month, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis told parliament: "The climate crisis is already here, it will manifest itself everywhere in the Mediterranean with greater disasters."

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