Anthropogenic Climate Change

This is the first year in many when the predictions for the coming hurricane season aren’t full of man-made climate-change doom and gloom. For years now, I have been posting hurricane season predictions, confidently asserting that we wouldn’t see even half the number The Science™ forecast. This wasn’t hard to figure out if you paid attention to the progressive religion of climate change. They attribute mystical powers to man-made climate change, blaming it for hot weather, cold weather, intense storms, and even a lack of intense storms.

The 2026 hurricane season is predicted to have a below-average number of hurricanes due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate cycle. Strong westerly winds generated by warmer waters in the Pacific Ocean, caused by El Niño, will hinder tropical storm development in the Atlantic. Maybe it’s a coincidence, but seeing the severity of a hurricane season prediction explained by normal weather phenomena that have nothing to do with man-made climate change seems like a sea change.

The climate change claim is that increased CO2 causes warming, and other natural greenhouse substances, including water vapor, clouds, and upper-level clouds, amplify that warming. This is an anti-scientific position because it contradicts basic scientific principles, such as Le Châtelier’s principle. That principle states that if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changes in conditions (concentration, pressure, or temperature), the system shifts its equilibrium position to counteract the disturbance and restore balance.

When a credible scientist like Dr. Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, examined the feedback loops in climate modeling, he made a shocking (not) discovery. The key to constructing the man-made climate change narrative was to establish it and pepper it with obvious errors. Critics would then seize on the errors while failing to question the basic narrative.

This week, Americans who enjoy YouTube videos of congressmen beclowning themselves as they grill senior members of President Trump’s cabinet saw this dynamic in action. Representative Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, reacted like a vampire to sunlight, while the head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, calmly explained the federal statutes and Supreme Court precedents governing the EPA budget proposal process.

Her official question about the EPA budget was that it “reads like a climate change denier’s manifesto”. When challenged to explain where in section 202 of the Clean Air Act, there was a requirement to fight global climate change, she exploded, shrieking that “climate change is real.” Exercising executive oversight by shrieking slogans based on midwit fantasy is why the approval of Congress is at an all-time low.

The basic narrative is that the climate is controlled by the greenhouse effect. That is a ridiculous assertion, as the Earth’s climate system has many regions, the two largest being the tropics (30°S to 30°N) and the extratropics outside 30°. These two systems have different dynamics. Within the tropics, the greenhouse effect is significant. But what determines the temperature change between the tropics and the poles has very little to do with the greenhouse effect. It is a dynamic phenomenon because temperature differences at extratropical latitudes generate instabilities.

These instabilities take the form of the cyclonic and anticyclonic patterns that you see on the weather map. Outside of the topics, weather systems travel from west to east. Within the tropics, they travel from east to west. Advocates of anthropogenic climate change claim that it is disrupting established wind patterns due to Arctic warming at both the North and South Poles. As Dr. Lindzen has pointed out repeatedly over the years, there is no physical basis for that statement.

The continued normalization of uninformed, anti‑scientific, almost religious zealotry over anthropogenic climate change allows climate scammers to keep grifting the most economically vulnerable members of our population. There is another revealing clip of Lee Zeldin trying to have a conversation with Bernie Sanders. In the clip below, he grandstands over his bill to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on solar panels for the poorest of the poor. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a majority of poor Americans own their homes and are convinced that installing solar panels is a good idea that will save them money. What’s the downside?

We don’t have to imagine the outcome because that experiment has already been run in Texas. Between 2018 and 2024, solar panel companies launched a campaign targeting the elderly and non-English-speaking residents of Texas. Thousands of the most vulnerable homeowners were victimized and are now stuck paying monthly for solar panels that haven’t reduced their electric bills by a single cent. And they’re the lucky ones; the unlucky ones had heavy solar panels installed on roofs that couldn’t support the weight and are now homeless.

Keep the Texas example in mind as you watch wide-eyed, always wrong but never in doubt Bernie Sanders passionately advocate for residential solar panels he knows nothing about. Too many people in todays fragmented political landscape adopt positions that have serious consequences not because they believe them to be correct but they believe their side is correct. I am sure that not everything democrats believe is based on lunatic fringe theories, but it seems that following their policies is a good way to end up victimized and sliding down, not up the economic ladder.