20 years ago, An Inconvenient Truth put climate change at the center of global debate, shaping politics, influencing leaders, and inspiring a generation of activists. Two decades later, we can assess not just its impact, but its accuracy. Many of the film’s most alarming predictions did not materialize, while many of the policies it inspired have proven costly and ineffective. The lesson? Panic is a poor guide for public policy. Focusing on innovation, adaptation, and economic development can do far more to help both people and the climate—at a fraction of the cost. financialpost.com/opinion/bj…

Let’s zoom out and look at what the climate movement is actually asking of us. They’re asking us to dismantle the fossil fuel energy system that has produced the greatest abundance in human history. Because of a byproduct called CO2—a plant food that NASA satellites show has contributed to 50% more green cover across the globe. All because of a fear that extreme weather like droughts, hurricanes, and flooding will get worse, sea-levels will rise steeply, and crops will suffer. But the empirical data from the last 40 years shows none of that is actually happening. Crop yields are at record highs, extreme weather shows no change, and sea-level is rising at a steady 3mm/year. Still, the argument goes, maybe someday in the future things could get worse. So we need to spend trillions transitioning off reliable, abundant, energy-dense fossil fuels onto unreliable, land-hungry technologies like solar and wind. We have to do this with taxpayer money. Not because voters chose it—but because governments are mandating it. And here’s the kicker: it won’t even work. The countries adopting net-zero goals represent a fraction of global emissions. China and India are still developing fossil fuels as fast as they can—and cheap energy is pulling our manufacturing straight to them. Every country that guts its fossil fuel infrastructure will make itself poorer, hollow out its industrial base, and kill jobs—while global emissions keep rising. Oh, and because solar and wind are intermittent, we still need backup gas and oil infrastructure on standby for when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining. So we’re paying for both systems. And nuclear—the most energy-dense, reliable, zero-emission power source we have—is also off the table. Did I get that right?

'Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds' "From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States"

So what? Why not 1.6 or 2.5 degs? Yes, it seems there is some slight warming of the Earth but why get so worked up over it? Are you saying we couldn't live happily with temperatures 2 degs warmer in a hundred years?

We are in the Age of Humans - the Anthropocene. Our new article (open access) shows how even with a moderate future emissions scenario, global temperature will still be elevated by 3-4°C in the year 3000! Lifetime of our CO2 in the air is that long. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.…

For the umpteenth time, Al, changes in Total Solar Irradiance are not the cause of modern global warming. Over the last 80 years, Monthly mean temperatures are trending up. Monthly TSI is trending down. Please... give it a rest.

"Trump Administration to Dismantle Ocean Monitoring System -- The $368 million network of instruments collecting data in both the Atlantic and Pacific has been critical to climate and ocean research" | @eniiler for the @NYTimes: nytimes.com/2026/06/01/clima…