President Trump Ends Climate Change Hoax, Saves America Trillions

Al Gore’s Doomsday ‘Documentary’ Fails—President Donald Trump Brings Cheap Power Back.

The New York Post opinion piece by Miranda Devine celebrates the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle what it calls the “climate hoax” inspired by Al Gore, arguing that these actions have improved the world through cheaper energy, economic gains, and restored common sense.

Opening Celebration of the “Climate Hoax” Demise

Miranda begins with the declaration “Ding dong, the climate hoax is dead,” marking 20 years since Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth alarmed the public with predictions of planetary catastrophe from fossil fuel use.

Miranda’s piece claims the Trump administration has delivered the final blow to this narrative, as repeated doomsday deadlines from figures like Gore and Greta Thunberg have passed without disaster, awakening the public to what the author describes as decades of misleading alarmism.

Repeal of Key Obama-Era Climate Regulations

A central achievement highlighted is the EPA’s impending repeal of the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which enabled broad greenhouse gas regulations and is labeled the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. This move is projected to save Americans $1.3 trillion overall, including about $2,400 per vehicle by eliminating emission restrictions and halting the forced transition to electric vehicles. The administration has also ended the “war on coal,” withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, terminated “green new scam” initiatives, and preserved numerous coal plants.

Proof of Fossil Fuel Reliability During Extreme Weather

The piece points to a major recent winter storm impacting 200 million Americans across 35 states, where fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, nuclear, and oil) supplied 90% of electricity at peak demand. This is presented as clear evidence of the superiority of reliable fossil fuels over intermittent renewables like wind and solar, which the author argues cannot sustain modern prosperity during crises.

Revival and Celebration of Coal Industry

Trump’s policies have revived coal production and use, with the president honored as the “Undisputed Champion of Coal” at a White House event by the Washington Coal Club. He praised “clean, beautiful coal” as America’s most affordable and dependable energy source, criticized prior efforts to eliminate it, and noted falling electricity prices enabling industrial comebacks, such as the first new U.S. aluminum smelter in decades.

Declining Public Concern and Shifting Expert Views

Public prioritization of climate change has dropped sharply, with only 2% of Americans citing it as the top issue in a 2024 Gallup poll. The article notes figures like Bill Gates stepping back from extreme alarmism, the retraction of a flawed Nature paper exaggerating future warming costs, and waning enthusiasm for ESG investing. It contrasts this with ongoing net-zero struggles in Europe and elsewhere, where rising energy needs (e.g., from AI data centers) expose the impracticality of renewables-heavy policies.

Miranda closes with rejecting Al Gore’s fears and associated restrictive policies has delivered abundant, affordable energy, boosted living standards, avoided economic regression, and exposed what it calls pseudoscience and lies by “climate shucksters.” The Trump administration’s approach is framed as a victory for truth, prosperity, and human progress over hype-driven regulation.

New York Times

9 Errors That Killed Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth

The YouTube video “The Many Errors of An Inconvenient Truth,” uploaded in June 2023 by science communicator Simon Clark (a physicist and YouTuber), critically examines Al Gore’s 2006 documentary film of the same name. Clark recounts the film’s massive cultural impact—winning Oscars, contributing to Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize shared with the IPCC—and its role in raising global awareness about climate change.

He details the 2007 UK High Court ruling in the Dimmock case, which found nine specific errors in the film when used for educational purposes, requiring accompanying guidance notes for balance. These errors are categorized into sensationalism (e.g., implying imminent catastrophic sea level rise from melting ice sheets without timelines, overstating polar bear drowning risks from isolated events, and claiming Pacific island evacuations that lacked evidence), problematic attribution of events to climate change (e.g., linking Hurricane Katrina, Lake Chad drying, and Kilimanjaro glacier loss directly to global warming when science at the time emphasized probabilities rather than sole causation), and oversimplifications (e.g., the CO2-temperature graph and potential Gulf Stream collapse).

Clark argues that while the film’s core message aligns with mainstream climate science and IPCC consensus on human-caused warming, sea level rise, and related risks, its errors stem from exaggeration, omitted caveats, and political framing to drive urgency. He includes insights from a guest climate scientist on attribution challenges and notes a “tenth error” not in the ruling: the film’s emphasis on individual actions (like changing light bulbs) over systemic policy solutions, which has fueled partisan divides and hindered effective progress. Overall, the video portrays the film as mostly accurate but weakened by media-style sensationalism and lack of nuance, highlighting the broader gap between scientific complexity and public communication, while promoting platforms like Nebula for deeper, ad-free discussions on climate topics.

Stop Personal Carbon Budgets Before They Control Your Life

Personal Carbon Allowances Can Be Defeated—Act Now

Out of steak carbon credits for the month? Wait until next month! In the coming decades, climate change policies could shift toward highly personalized systems like personal carbon budgets, where governments allocate strict individual emission quotas for activities such as driving, heating homes, eating certain foods, or flying. These budgets would be enforced through digital tracking via apps, smart meters, blockchain-linked IDs, and integrated payment systems, charging penalties or surcharges for exceeding limits while allowing trading of unused allowances. Proponents frame this as essential for equitable emissions cuts and meeting net-zero goals, but many view it as a step toward rationing everyday freedoms under the guise of environmental necessity—turning personal choices into state-monitored and potentially restricted behaviors.

However, this trajectory is not inevitable and can still be halted if action is taken before implementation becomes widespread or locked in through international agreements and technology rollouts. Public resistance has already derailed or delayed similar ideas in the past, with personal carbon allowances repeatedly described as “ahead of their time” due to privacy concerns, high costs, technical challenges in accurate tracking, and fears of disproportionate impacts on lower-income households or rural communities. Recent policy rollbacks on broader climate regulations—like EPA endangerment findings, SEC climate disclosures, or state-level cap-and-trade programs—demonstrate that sustained opposition from citizens, businesses, and political shifts can reverse or prevent coercive measures. By rejecting digital ID mandates, central bank digital currencies tied to spending controls, and surveillance-heavy “green” infrastructure, societies can push back against the infrastructure needed for personal carbon enforcement.The window to stop this remains open, but it narrows with each advance in tracking tech and policy trials. Grassroots awareness, vocal opposition on platforms like X, demands for transparency in climate legislation, and support for politicians who prioritize individual liberties over top-down mandates are key. If enough people recognize these budgets as a potential loss of autonomy—rather than just environmental policy—and mobilize against enabling tools like mandatory digital wallets or broad consumption taxes, the push for personal carbon rationing can be derailed before it becomes “too late” to reverse. Freedom of choice in daily life doesn’t have to be sacrificed; proactive resistance today can preserve it for tomorrow.