GRAVE 'DIGGER': Will Tom Cruise's $100 million eco-flop bury Warner Bros.?



John Cleese must feel very lonely.

Not only is the Monty Python alum virtually alone in calling out the inconvenient ills of British society, but he rarely gets support from his fellow stars.

It’s climate change alarmism run wild, a shocking project from an actor who aggressively avoids political hot takes.

Cowards, the lot of 'em.

Now, things could be getting serious. A British Muslim group has reported Cleese to the authorities for his “anti-Islamic” comments. It’s not funny. Just ask Graham Linehan. The British comic/writer got arrested last year for his thoughts on transgenderism.

Will Cleese be next? Just know that if he’s sent to the hoosegow, free speech “warriors” like Jimmy Kimmel and Howard Stern will remain whisper-silent …

Woody's buzz

Woody Allen is heading back to work at the age of 90.

The quasi-canceled auteur is prepping his next film, a story he describes as “a comedy with romance, intrigue, and infidelity.”

The more things change, right?

Except some things have changed for Allen. A-listers now flee his projects, fearful of the MeToo blowback. Did Allen inappropriately touch his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow many years ago? For a while, Hollywood shrugged off the accusations. Then, after the #MeToo revolution, “name” stars stopped working with him.

There’s an easy fix for him. All he needs to do is shout, “Free Palestine,” and he could be back in the industry’s good graces again …

Green party

Hulk still mad!

Mark Ruffalo has been obsessed with the Paramount/Warner Bros. merger for some time. "Merger bad!" he cried from every possible venue.

Now, with the deal close to fruition, he’s still sounding off.

“This merger will stifle creativity, weaken free speech, and cost people their jobs — it is a bad deal for this country and should never have been approved.”

Huh. We don't remember Ruffalo tearing his trousers over Disney’s acquisition of Fox, or the rampant attacks on free speech during the woke era ...

Hulk hypocrite!

RELATED: 'View' host questions Patrick Clancy's divorce: 'You know, in sickness and in health'

Lou Rocco/Boston Globe/Getty Images

S is for 'socialism'

Jon Stewart is getting a tad touchy.

The far-Left “Daily Show” host has been kissing up to socialists for quite a while now. Watching him lob softballs at Zohran Mamdani gave us one undeniable thought. “Get a room.”

Now, he’s recoiling at being labeled a socialist.

And, you know, now the buzzword on, on the right is, oh, so you're, you know, you want socialism. Well, no, I want to stop privatizing things that don't work well in a market system like health care, like Medicare, like all those things that are getting ruined by privatization and insurance, and all those different markets and rebalance so that labor gets a fairer shake.”

Fair shake? He blasts income inequality and is a millionaire many times over. And if George Soros graced his Comedy Central studio, he would ask even more gentle questions than the ones that greeted Mamdani.

If you don’t want the “S” label on your jersey, Jon, maybe ask a tough question or two of the next DSA member who enters your studio …

Goofy 'Globes'

There’s plenty to laugh at regarding the annual Golden Globes gala. The awards remain in the shadow of the Academy Awards, for starters. Nominees are known to hit the bar, and hard, between announcements. Plus, unusual nominees and bizarre categories are still the norm.

Now this.

“Obsession,” the year’s most unlikely blockbuster, will compete for Globe honors in the Comedy/Musical category. The horror film isn’t remotely funny, beyond some gallows humor that runs through many a horror tale. And if there was a musical number between star Inde Navarrette’s murderous rages, we missed it.

As long as the Globes cling to such insane categories, they will remain a punching bag for all things Hollywood …

'Digger' in deep

Steven Spielberg famously praised Tom Cruise for “saving” Hollywood with “Top Gun: Maverick.” The blockbuster coaxed moviegoers back to theaters after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now, Cruise may be an anchor around the neck of a major movie studio.

Warner Bros., about to be gobbled up by Paramount, spent a reported $180 million on Cruise’s new film, “Digger.” The black comedy casts Cruise as a Southern oil tycoon whose drilling station sparks an ecological panic.

It’s climate change alarmism run wild, a shocking project from an actor who aggressively avoids political hot takes.

The film is getting some awful reviews, deservedly so, and could lose Warner Bros. millions.

How many? The conservative estimate is at least $100 million. Crunch the numbers on a cocktail napkin, and you might want to double that figure. “Digger” is looking at a $12 million opening, at best.

Once word of mouth kicks in, it’s good night, Gracie.

Did Hollywood's onetime savior just dig an iconic studio's grave?

America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself



Let’s face it: $20 trillion is a lot of money.

One would expect a big bang to follow the spending of 20,000 billion dollars. It’s a lot of money! In fact, it’s pretty much the total present value of America’s GDP.

The American economy sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.

This is the total amount spent globally — largely by Europe and the United States — in a coordinated effort by the developed world to decarbonize the global economy. China, in contrast, sold windmills and solar panels worldwide while opening a new coal-fired power plant every month.

What was the net effect of this “Green" Marshall Plan? Hydrocarbon consumption continued to increase anyway. All that was achieved was a tiny reduction, just 2%, in the share of overall energy supplied by hydrocarbons. Put simply, as the energy pie got bigger and all forms of energy supply increased, hydrocarbons ended up with a slightly smaller share of a larger pie.

We also saw the deindustrialization of the European and American economies — not just with higher prices at the gas pump and on electric bills, but a stealth green tax that was passed on to consumers on everything. This is the culprit of our American and global affordability crisis. So much treasure and pain for a 2% reduction in the share of hydrocarbons.

Ironically, a byproduct of this Green Hunger Games was political populism.

What a waste. The worst bang for the public and private buck ever. Yet the Chicken Little believers of the Church of Settled Science and the grifters who profited from it will still sing in unison that it failed because they did not go far enough. If only the global community spent and regulated more!

In contrast, the Marshall Plan (1948-1951) rebuilt a decimated Europe into an industrial, interconnected, and peaceful powerhouse. It was a great success by any measure. At the time, its price tag was huge: $13.3 billion in nominal 1948-1951 dollars, equivalent to approximately $150 billion in today’s dollars.

Since a trillion is such a large number, let’s divide $20 trillion by an inflation-adjusted Marshall Plan of $150 billion, and we have 133 Marshall opportunities. Money was not the problem. To give a sense of the comparative bang for buck, by the Marshall program’s end, the aggregated gross national product of the participating nations rose by more than 32% and industrial output increased by a remarkable 40%.

President Trump has been on the global funding rounds and has secured more than $18 trillion in foreign investment. That’s roughly the equivalent of 120 Marshall Plans — just 13 shy of $20 trillion — to be invested here and nowhere else.

Unlike NAFTA, through which the rich got richer under the banner of free markets in exchange for cheaper consumer goods, Trump’s policy is a recipe for prosperity for all Americans.

RELATED: Trump administration saves billions in simple move globalists and climate activists alike will hate

Photo by David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Making these investments a reality in America will require a growing army of blue- and white-collar workers. With the wealth that it creates, our debt could be paid down and, finally, retired. Social Security and Medicare would be placed on a solid footing for time immemorial. All our public obligations to one another would be met by ever-growing prosperity, not by borrowed money and suffocating debt service.

Nothing approaching this level of intentional investment in a single country has ever been done. Yes, a similar tranche of greenbacks was burned with no discernible environmental benefit and great economic hardship for all. And yes, the American economy, under the guise of comparative advantage, sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.

Trump’s plan is the opposite of both failed experiments. Like the original Marshall Plan, Trump’s is a recipe for the reindustrialization of the American economy and military, and it is not going to be fueled by windmills and solar farms but with hydrocarbons and uranium. That’s the Trump plan. It has merit.

Yet if we look at the polls, Trump is under water, and his base is showing signs of stress fractures. You bring peace to the Middle East, stop six other wars, and bring in some $20 trillion in America First investments within your first year, and you come home to find yourself under water and called a “lame duck.” Democracies are known to be fickle and hard to please, but this is still rich — and it will result in poverty if it continues.

Without the use of Trump’s tariffs and dealmaking, there would not be $20 trillion looking to onshore in the United States. You can blame Trump for higher costs on bananas and coffee, but it is the cost of electricity and health care — not the cost of coffee and bananas — that is roiling kitchen-table economics.

Vice President JD Vance recently made the right call for popular and populist patience. Those who are impatient should look at the offsets already passed, such as no taxes on Social Security, tips, and overtime. That helps pay for bananas and coffee and then some.

The sovereign wealth funds that are presently lining up on our shores are coming here based on promises made by a can-do president speaking for a can-do nation. While Trump is a can-do guy, are “We the People” still a can-do people? Or do we at least want to return to becoming a can-do people again?

The “can’t-do” forces are legion, and they are the ones now championing the affordability crisis they caused. When America was a can-do nation, we built the Empire State Building in a year. Today, it would take years to get a permit.

RELATED: From Monroe to ‘Donroe’: America enforces its back yard again

Photo by Jim WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Those willing to invest such money will require some certitude that the power they will need will be there to “build, baby, build.” If not, the money and the opportunity will pass before they have the possibility to take needed root.

And what about us, the American family, worker, and business continuing to struggle under the legacy of throttling energy privation? In short, we all have a common good — a shared interest — in righting the wrongs that control our grid and our nation’s future.

The good news is that a bill was introduced in the House during the government shutdown. It’s called the “Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act.” Unlike Obamacare, which clocked in at 903 pages, this bill is a lean 763 words. If it becomes law — and it should — it would change everything for the better, unlike Obamacare, which is a recipe for unaffordability.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act was missing this one thing. His short- and long-term America First ambitions would be significantly strengthened by making this energy bill law before the midterms. Executive orders don’t provide the energy security these investors require or the American people deserve.

$20 trillion is a lot of money. Coming to our shores is a new lease on the American experiment as we enter our 250th birthday, hopelessly divided and broke. Let us come together to solve not just the affordability crisis but also set the conditions for greatness for the next 250 years.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Will Trump’s unconventional plan to stop the UN climate elites work?



When President Trump boycotted the U.N. climate summit, many Americans who aren’t buying the elites' climate fearmongering were pleased, hopeful that Trump’s move might weaken the globalist plans.

But after the global elites appeared to use the president’s absence to push extreme climate policies, some are wondering if the president could have made a mistake.

“We’ve got Trump in the White House, and of course he actually boycotted the summit. We reached out to the State Department. They told us they deliberately chose not to send anybody. So there was no U.S. delegation for the first time in 30 years of these, and that made for a very interesting situation,” journalist Alex Newman tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.


“And you know, a lot of Americans thought that was great. Hooray. And a lot of the climate skeptics also thought so. But some of the globalists at the U.N. conference also said, ‘Hey, this is a great opportunity, because the United States is still involved in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, but they’re not here to obstruct passage of an ambitious deal,’” Newman explains.

“‘So let’s do some great stuff, and then when Trump is gone in three and a half years, we’ll impose that on Americans,’” he adds.

And the agreement they passed without Trump’s presence included “mention of a carbon budget.”

“They claim that four-fifths of the CO2 that humans can be allowed to emit has already been emitted,” Newman tells Glenn.

“I think the strategy for these people, Glenn, is ‘Hey, we’ve got Trump for three and a half more years. Let’s just keep our heads down. We know that he doesn’t believe us. We know that the American people don’t believe us. So let’s just not talk about it too loudly,’” he adds.

“So was this a mistake by not showing up?” Glenn asks.

“I don’t know,” Newman answers. “I know some of the people down at the U.N. summit thought this was a good opportunity for them, but you know, Trump’s not done.”

“I’ve spoken with people at EPA; I’ve spoke with people at the State Department, who have said that they are seriously considering the possibility of withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,” he continues.

“We have to,” Glenn interjects.

“Yeah, that seems like a no-brainer. … In fact, before he went into the White House, he said one of the top priorities for the MAGA movement and the United States needs to be to decisively crush this climate hysteria hoax,” Newman says, adding, “So he’s really serious about it.”

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.

Give thanks for the sun, the CO2, and the farmers — not the climate scolds



What if, this Thanksgiving, we offered a small tribute to global warming and the relative abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? An apparently scandalous idea. Global elites and their media partners insist that these forces promise catastrophe. Yet sound thinking demands the opposite conclusion.

Fifty years ago, the story was reversed. In the 1970s, major outlets warned of a coming ice age. Some scientists called for immediate action to stop the planet from plunging into widespread glaciation.

Abundance is not an accident. It reflects a climate far friendlier than the one our ancestors endured — and a modern economy powered by fuels that make global agriculture possible.

The fear of cold had at least a historical basis. Unlike today’s speculative climate models, past civilizations suffered through genuine cold-driven crises.

The Little Ice Age, from roughly 1300 to 1850, brought centuries of persistent chill. Historical accounts describe crops withering, growing seasons collapsing, and communities starving as food systems failed. The Thames froze solid. Frost fairs became a tradition because the cold was relentless. Entire regions fell into poverty and instability.

People living through those centuries would have welcomed the warmth we enjoy today.

Modern Americans rarely think about that history as they prepare Thanksgiving meals sourced from every climate zone on Earth. Our abundance depends on a long supply chain anchored in one fundamental reality: Plants grow best in warmth, not cold.

Warm periods fed civilizations

Warm eras have repeatedly aligned with human flourishing. During the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, farmers cultivated crops in regions that are too cold for them now. Warmer temperatures didn’t bring disaster; they supported prosperity.

The present is no exception. Earth has quietly greened since the late 20th century. Satellite data shows expanding vegetation, especially in arid regions. The drivers are straightforward: increased carbon dioxide and a slightly warmer global climate.

CO2 is not a toxin. It’s plant food — an essential input for photosynthesis. Higher concentrations allow crops to use water more efficiently and grow more robustly. This is one of the greatest environmental improvements of the past century, though you would never know it from the coverage.

RELATED: ‘Green Antoinettes’ live large, preach small

Julia Klueva via iStock/Getty Images

The other indispensable ingredient is modern fertilizer, made largely from natural gas. High-yield crops require nitrogen, and synthetic fertilizers supply it.

Energy-dense fuels — coal, oil, natural gas — power nearly every part of modern agriculture. Irrigation pumps, fertilizer plants, harvesters, delivery trucks, and refrigeration systems depend on them. Remove these fuels, and global food systems collapse. The return of famine would be swift.

A simple truth

Climate alarmists warn that warming will devastate global food security. Actual yields say otherwise. For 40 years, production of wheat, corn, rice, and other staples has climbed dramatically. Most food shortages today result from war or corrupt governance, not climate.

Earth’s climate has always shifted. Mega-droughts, severe floods, heat waves, and cold snaps have occurred throughout history. Treating every anomaly as evidence of imminent collapse ignores the long record of natural variability.

So as Americans gather around Thanksgiving tables, remember a simple truth: The feast depends on warmth, carbon dioxide, and the affordable energy that moves food from field to plate.

This abundance is not an accident. It reflects a climate far friendlier than the one our ancestors endured — and a modern economy powered by fuels that make global agriculture possible.

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.