Connect with us

Great Reset

Climate expert warns against extreme ‘weather porn’ from alarmists pushing ‘draconian’ policies

Published

1 year ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

Bjorn Lomborg, author and president of the Copenhagen Consensus, continues to call attention to the extreme measures being demanded by climate change activists and politicians.

A climate expert has taken aim against what he calls “weather porn” – images and stories meant to convey a false impression that the world is on the brink of cataclysmic climate disaster – in order to force unnecessary policy changes by governments across the globe that will destroy prosperity and kill, not save, human lives.

In a series of recent opinion pieces and social media posts, Bjorn Lomborg, author, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, continues to call attention to the extreme measures being demanded by climate change activists and politicians who seek to inflict policies that are far more harmful than helpful.

“Watching the news, you get the sense that climate change is making the planet unlivable. We are bombarded with images of floods, droughts, storms and wildfires,” wrote Lomborg in his recent newsletter. “But this impression is wildly misleading and makes it harder to get climate change policy right. Data show climate-related events like floods, droughts, storms and wildfires aren’t killing more people.”

“Quite the contrary. Over the past decade, climate-related disasters have killed 98% fewer people than a century ago,” said Lomborg. “If we want to achieve fewer disaster deaths, we should promote prosperity, adaptation, and resilience. But when we are inundated with ‘weather porn’ and miss the fact that deaths have dropped precipitously, we end up focusing on the least effective policies first.”

‘Six billion deaths in less than a year’

In an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Lomborg described what would happen if climate alarmists were to suddenly get their way:

The world still gets four-fifths of its energy from fossil fuels, because renewable sources rarely provide good alternatives. Half the world’s population entirely depends on food grown with synthetic fertilizer produced almost entirely by natural gas. If we rapidly ceased using fossil fuels, four billion people would suddenly be without food.

Add the billions of people dependent on fossil-fuel heating in the winter, along with our dependence on fossil fuels for steel, cement, plastics and transportation, and it is no wonder that one recent estimate by economist Neil Record showed an abrupt end to fossil fuel use would cause six billion deaths in less than a year.

Global elites have made it clear that they have judged the world to be vastly overpopulated, and have set for themselves a goal of reducing the world’s total population to just 500 million people. An “abrupt end to fossil fuel use” would come very close to achieving their utopian anti-human goal.

“Why is the environmental movement stewarded over by murderous, human-hating wackos who desire to see billions of people die?” asked James Corbett of the Corbett Report last month.

Not mincing words, Corbett continued: “Because the conservation movement (and all of the mainstream environmental organizations that grew out of that movement) was pioneered by murderous, human-hating eugenicists and funded by the eugenicist royals who wanted to keep their beautiful natural vistas clear of the riff-raff scurrying around beneath them.”

“Why do nation after nation appear to be in a race to the bottom, implementing policies that will actively hinder the productivity of their own populations and making it more and more difficult for those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder to eke out a subsistence living on the corporate-governmental fascist plantation that we call the developed world?” wondered Corbett.

‘Follow the science’ obscures truth, allows for the promotion of dangerous policies

Lomborg has said that the constant refrain of “follow the science” allows politicians to “obscure and avoid responsibility for lopsided climate-policy trade-offs.”

“More than one million people die in traffic accidents globally each year. Overnight, governments could solve this entirely man-made problem by reducing speed limits everywhere to 3 miles an hour, but we’d laugh any politician who suggested it out of office,” wrote Lomborg in his WSJ piece.

“It would be absurd to focus solely on lives saved if the cost would be economic and societal destruction,” said the climate expert. “Yet politicians widely employ the same one-sided reasoning in the name of fighting climate change. It’s simply a matter, they say, of ‘following the science.’”

Draconian net-zero climate policies are, according to Lomborg, prohibitively costly.

Recent peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost “will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100.”

“Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address,” yet this is precisely what the Biden administration is hoping to achieve by 2050.

Outgoing U.S. climate chief John Kerry, one of the chief purveyors of “weather porn,” suggested recently that if climate change is not quickly addressed, we face planetary destruction “beyond comprehension.”

UN climate change executive secretary Simon Stiell issued a similarly ominous if not shrill warning on X this week: “We have two years to save the world,” and therefore, “starting now, we need a quantum leap in climate finance [and] Bold new national climate plans by all nations.”

Lomborg fired back on X, dismissing the UN climate honcho’s hyperbolic claims.

“UN employees have been telling the same stale story for more than half a century: Now, that is right now, we have just a few years to save the world.”

“Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re ‘following the science,’” concluded  Lomborg in the pages of the WSJ.

“Don’t let them,” he urged.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 7 hours ago

Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert

Business / 8 hours ago

Carney’s European pivot could quietly reshape Canada’s sovereignty

Crime / 18 hours ago

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Censorship Industrial Complex

Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill

Published on June 14, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Senator Kristopher Wells and other senators are ‘interested’ in reviving the controversial Online Harms Act legislation that was abandoned after the election call.

A recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.

Kristopher Wells, appointed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last year as a senator from Alberta, made the comments about reviving an internet censorship bill recently in the Senate.

“In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences,” he said of Bill C-63 that lapsed earlier this year after the federal election was called.

Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online.

While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.

The Online Harms Act would have in essence censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.

Wells said that “Bill C-63 did not come to a vote in the other place and in the dying days of the last Parliament the government signaled it would be prioritizing other aspects of the bill.”

“I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets,” he said.

Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.

Wells asked if the current Carney government remains “committed to tabling legislation that will amend the Criminal Code as proposed in the previous Bill C-63 and will it commit to working with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed?”

Seasoned Senator Marc Gold replied that he is not in “a position to speculate” on whether a new bill would be brought forward.

Before Bill C-63, a similar law, Bill C-36, lapsed in 2021 due to that year’s general election.

As noted by LifeSiteNews, Wells has in the past advocated for closing Christian schools that refuse to violate their religious principles by accepting so-called Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and spearheaded so-called “conversion therapy bans.”

Other internet censorship bills that have become law have yet to be fully implemented.

Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that former Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, known for his radical climate views, will be the person in charge of implementing Bill C-11, a controversial bill passed in 2023 that aims to censor legal internet content in Canada.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Conservatives slam Liberal bill to allow police to search through Canadians’ mail

Published on June 14, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservatives are warning that the Liberals’ new border bill will allow police to search Canadians’ mail.

During a June 5 debate in the House of Commons, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Frank Caputo voiced concerns over Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, which will permit police and government officials to open and examine Canadians’ mail.

“This is something I know I am going to get mail about,” Caputo said. “We are now talking about language in the Charter, what is referred to as an expectation of privacy.”

Bill C-2, introduced by the Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney, is framed as legislation to combat drugs making their way across the border. However, many have pointed out that it severely infringes on Canadians’ Charter rights.

The Liberals have failed to address this concern in their 130-page legislation, leading Conservatives to demand accountability.

“If they can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four or five-page Charter statement,” he said. “Certainly, somebody in the government asked if it was Charter compliant — but they won’t say.”

Under Bill C-2, Canada would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to “remove barriers that prevent police from searching mail, where authorized to do so in accordance with an Act of Parliament, to carry out a criminal investigation.”

It also seeks to “expand Canada Post inspection authority to open mail.”

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, legal organizations have warned that the legislation could lead to a cashless economy as it would ban cash payments over $10,000.

In a June 4 X post, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) warned that “If Bill C-2 passes, it will become a Criminal Code offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash donations, deposits, or payments of $10,000 or more. Even if the $10,000 payment or donation is broken down into several smaller cash transactions, it will still be a crime for a business or charity to receive it.”

The JCCF pointed out that while cash payments of $10,000 are not common for Canadians, the government can easily reduce “the legal amount to $5,000, then $1,000, then $100, and eventually nothing.”

“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,” the organization warned. “Cash gives citizens privacy, autonomy, and freedom from surveillance by government and by banks, credit card companies, and other corporations.”

Similarly, Carney’s move to restrict Canadians is hardly surprising considering his close ties to the World Economic Forum and push for digital currency.

In a 2021 article, the National Post noted that “since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the ‘Great Reset,’ or the ‘Green New Deal,’ or ‘Building Back Better.’

“Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty,” the outlet continued.

In light of Carney’s new leadership over Canadians, many are sounding alarm over his distinctly anti-freedom ideas.

Carney, who as reported by LifeSiteNews, has admitted he is an “elitist” and a “globalist.” Just recently, he criticized U.S. President Donald Trump for targeting woke ideology and has vowed to promote “inclusiveness” in Canada.

Carney also said that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan.

Continue Reading

Trending

X