Before and during COP 26, I have claimed that it is not a scientific conference but a pseudoscientific, anti-human conference that is pursuing mass-genocide.
The COP 26 Agreement has proven me right. Here are the top 5 reasons the Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human.
👇
Reason 1 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It calls for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels—the source of 80% of the world’s energy—without addressing the *cost* of doing so. In fact, the word “cost” is not mentioned once in the Agreement!
Reason 2 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores the benefits of low-cost, reliable energy in general and fossil fuels in particular. The word “energy” is not mentioned once, even though COP 26 is trying to eliminate 80% of the world’s energy!
Reason 3 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It portrays the world as destroyed by human impact, even though by the standard of human flourishing today’s world is the best ever. Why? Because COP 26 is based on the anti-human dogma that human impact is evil.
Reason 4 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores any positives of CO2 emissions, treating emissions as all-negative. But this is clearly untrue given that our emissions contribute to “global greening” and prevent cold-related deaths.
Reason 5 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally denies the fact that adaptation and mastery have made us far safer from climate than we've ever been. No mention of the fact that climate-related disaster deaths are down 98% over the last century!
Here's what I said about COP 26 on the 2nd day of the conference. I was ridiculed, yet the COP 26 Agreement did exactly what I predicted: called for the mass-genocidal policy of fossil fuel elimination, invoking pseudoscience and driven by anti-humanism.
⚠️ WARNING: The secret UN carbon tax that's about to fleece America
Next week, the UN votes on an ocean carbon tax that would spike the price of food, fuel, and everyday essentials—hitting US the hardest.
Here's what the admin and Congress can do to stop this in its tracks👇🧵
The UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) is supposed to ensure safe shipping around the world.
Instead, it's pushing a carbon tax on shipping fuel, with proposals ranging from $19 to $150/ton of CO2—the equivalent of adding $1.29 to the price of gasoline!
A $150/ton carbon tax on shipping would double fuel costs for large ships.
The marine fuel oil used to power most large ships costs ~$400/ton. Since burning one ton of marine fuel oil produces ~3.2 tons of CO2, a $150/ton carbon tax adds ~$480/ton—roughly doubling today's price.
Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natgas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA's bogus "endangerment finding."
In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a "finding" that GHGs "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.
COP 29 seeks net-zero—rapidly eliminating fossil fuels—in the name of protecting us from climate danger.
In reality, net-zero would radically increase climate danger and ruin billions of lives.
Good people should condemn COP and embrace energy freedom. 🧵👇
The COP 29 climate conference has a consistent theme: previous COPs have done an okay job of restricting fossil fuels in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but this one needs to eliminate fossil fuel use far faster so as to reach net-zero by 2050.
This is 180° wrong.
COP 29’s goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to reach net-zero is deadly because:
1. Fossil fuels are making us far safer from climate along with improving every other aspect of life 2. Even barely implementing COP’s net-zero agenda has been disastrous.
Myth: Hurricanes Helene and Milton show that we’re experiencing unprecedented danger from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels.
Truth: Fossil fuels have made us much safer from extreme weather—and the recent hurricanes would’ve been far worse without them. 🧵👇
Media reports would lead us to believe that hurricanes like Helene and Milton are proof that fossil-fueled “climate change” is making extreme weather much more dangerous by virtue of being more intense and/or frequent. Mainstream data and climate science show otherwise.
Myth: We’re experiencing unprecedented danger from extreme weather.
Truth: We’re experiencing unprecedented safety from extreme weather, including a huge drop in extreme weather deaths in recent decades. All media reports on extreme weather should acknowledge this, yet none do.