Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

There’s no scientific evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’ causing stronger hurricanes

Published

9 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Paul Schwennesen

The scientific consensus on hurricanes, which isn’t covered by breathless climate reporting, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. We must demand honesty and contextual complexity on climate reporting.

As Hurricane Beryl barreled its way across the Gulf of Mexico and into the U.S. mainland, the attention-getting headlines had beaten it there by a long shot – claims that it was a remarkable outlier were appearing in climate-frantic narratives more than a week earlier.

CBS News claimed it was “historic,” alongside headlines on “How to talk to your kids about climate anxiety.” The BBC reported that it was “the first hurricane to reach the category four level in June since NHC [National Hurricane Center] records began and the earliest to hit category five – the highest category – in July.” While technically true, and warranting some mention, the claims tend to misrepresent, by implication and association, the current scientific understanding of hurricanes and human impacts on climate change.

The scientific consensus on hurricanes, a consensus not covered by breathless reporting on climate, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. The National Climate Assessment published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, for instance, in Appendix 3 reads:

There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has any trend been identified in the number of US land-falling hurricanes.

So what’s actually going on? Is Beryl’s historic early arrival an indication of something fundamentally different about hurricane activity? Does it or does it not represent the bitter fruit of humanity’s ecological sins? The answer is almost certainly not. Rather, the hype around Beryl’s early arrival represents a major misunderstanding, a mass-bias phenomenon which sees evidence where evidence doesn’t really exist.

Historically speaking, of course, hurricanes are commonplace in the Gulf. “Hurricane” derives from the prehistoric Taíno name for the god of evil winds, Jurucán. The Spanish quickly adopted the name to describe the violent storms which wreaked such havoc on their exploratory efforts in the New World. Both the 1527 Narváez and 1539 De Soto expeditions, for example, were pummeled by hurricanes that may well have reached category five, had the NHC been around to classify them as such. So while it is conceivable that Beryl is a major anomaly and portent of evil tidings, it is very unlikely to be.

Instead, its media portrayal as Exhibit A in the case for anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally inaccurate. Today’s dire headlines are a perfect example of what Steve Koonin, in his book Unsettled, calls “the long game of telephone that starts with the research literature and runs through the [scientific] assessment reports to the summaries of the assessment reports and on to the media coverage.”

The media, he says, often end up distributing a narrative that is directly counter to the actual evidence. They do this partly from misunderstanding the scientific and statistical significance of observations, but mostly because extreme headlines fit a generally understood narrative. Such reports are far more likely to be recognized and absorbed by the news-reading public. This selective attention pushes a bias toward extremism in climate reporting that significantly inflames the political climate, to our collective detriment.

Instead, what happens is that reports which are technically true (like Beryl’s record early arrival) make it into the common current only if they fit the general alarmist narrative. The BBC perfectly exemplifies this in its coverage, noting that “Hurricane Beryl’s record-breaking nature has put the role of climate change in the spotlight.” It then goes on to say, toward the end of an article most people will never fully read:

The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change. But exceptionally high sea surface temperatures are seen as a key reason why Hurricane Beryl has been so powerful.

This is how the slight-of-hand works: BBC reporters, no doubt in interviews with hurricane experts, were obliged to quibble somewhat about the implications of Beryl’s record-setting classification. They properly note that it is “difficult” (impossible, in fact) to attribute Beryl’s record to climate change as such. And they are correct that high sea surface temperatures are a major factor in Beryl’s extraordinary rise. But it is the way these technical truths are presented that leads to errors in association. Very few casual readers would be likely to read the article, headlined with “How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world” and not make an inductive leap to the causal inference of human-induced warming. This is a problem, because such an inference is in fact not substantiated by any scientifically accepted observations.

Now, to be sure, this works both ways. This is not a claim that human emissions have no impacts, after all, only that we must be very careful about what the evidence actually says before channeling it into policy recommendations. Nor is my point that we can safely disregard all negative reports about the environment, since there are clearly issues that warrant our genuine collective attention. For instance, I’ve played a bit of sleight-of-hand myself: I correctly noted that major hurricanes are below the historical average, but I did not highlight the fact that overall hurricane count is up. Likewise with the Great Barrier Reef: while coral coverage is remarkably up, the kind of monoculture coral crop accounting for the rise still leaves room for ecological concern.

The real point is that we must demand honesty, including contextual complexity, on climate reporting. Especially since the stakes are so high (either in matters of our environment or individual liberty), we cannot afford to play games with half-truths and obfuscations. Intelligent free people deserve fuller, more comprehensive, less-activist reporting on climate change. Beryl has made a record of sorts, yes. What that record really means in the context of human-induced climate change is fundamentally, scientifically unknown. Maybe that would be a better headline.

Reprinted with permission from the American Institute for Economic Research.

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
COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

Business / 2 hours ago

Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Crime / 11 hours ago

Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links

International

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Angeline Tan

The 2025 Global Christian Relief Red List report has found that the deadliest region for Christians is Africa, with Nigeria taking the top spot with 10,000 deaths in 2 years.

The 2025 Global Christian Relief (GCR) Red List report, which highlighted “the 25 worst countries for Christian persecution across five categories of concern” including killings, building attacks, arrests, displacements, abductions and assaults, has found that Africa, in particular Nigeria, is the most dangerous region for Christians.

Released in January, the GCR report, which relied on data from the Violent Incidents Database, a project founded by the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF), summarized:

Africa remains the deadliest region for Christians, with Nigeria consistently being the most dangerous country for followers of Jesus. Between November 2022 and November 2024, nearly 10,000 Christians were killed, primarily by Islamic extremist groups such as Boko Haram, Armed Fulani Herdsmen, and the Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP). Similar patterns emerge in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Mozambique, and Ethiopia, where numerous armed militant groups target Christians.

The GCR report detailed how “most of the killings” in Nigeria happened in the country’s northern “sharia” states, where Christians “often live in remote villages in semi-arid landscapes, making them particularly vulnerable to attacks.” Notably, the same report highlighted the failure of the Nigerian government in stopping these anti-Christian attacks, stating that “despite government assurances that they will defeat the extremists, the violence continues to escalate.”

Ranking second to Nigeria as the next “deadliest country for Christians” was the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where “390 Christians were recorded as killed” during the reporting period of November 2022 to 2024. The GRC report singled out “Islamic militant groups like the Allied Democratic Forces” as the “main killers.”

Coming in third was Mozambique, with “262 recorded deaths.” The report declared that although Mozambique was “once a relatively peaceful Christian-majority country,” “a swarm of militants led by the Islamic State Mozambique (ISM)” has disrupted the peace of the country.

Strikingly, Ethiopia emerged as the fourth deadliest country for Christians, “with at least 181 Christians killed.” The GCR report detailed how “believers — particularly converts — faced high risks of violence in regions dominated by Islamic militants”.

Apart from killings, African Christians have to contend with the risk of displacements, assaults, and kidnappings.

“Despite the intense challenges in places like Nigeria, China, and India, we continue to see remarkable resilience in these communities,” Brian Orme, acting chief executive of Global Christian Relief, declared. “Even in the darkest circumstances, the Church not only survives but grows stronger — millions are choosing to follow Jesus despite knowing the risks they face.”

“Working closely with our partners on the ground in these high-risk areas, we provide emergency aid, safe houses, and trauma counseling to Christians facing violent persecution,” Orme said.

According to the report, “much of the violence occurred in Manipur, where unrest erupted in May 2024. Rioters, driven by Hindu extremists from the Meitei tribe, attacked predominantly Christian Kukis, systematically burning churches and setting fire to the homes of believers.”

Meanwhile, China led the world in arrests of Christians, with more than 1,500 believers detained under the communist government’s religious prohibitions. The report stated:

It is no surprise that China tops the 2025 GCR Red List for Arrests, given that the communist nation has the world’s most sophisticated surveillance mechanisms.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics.

Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article, disturbing as it is, appears to explain Trump’s bizarre threats to Canada and irrational support for Carney. We present it as a possible explanation for why Trump’s interference in the Canadian election seems to have played a large role in the Liberals’ exploitation of the Trump threat and their ultimate, unexpected success.

To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation. If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.

During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.

In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed that NAFTA was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two separate bilateral trade agreements. One between the U.S. and Mexico, and one between the U.S. and Canada.

In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.

Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the “environmental” aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.

Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement. President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.

When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80 percent of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.

When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S.-Canada.

Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the U.S. Trump would win every demand.

Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if Congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.

Realizing what was about to happen, Prime Minister Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland quickly changed approach and began to request discussions and meetings with USTR Robert Lighthizer. Keep in mind more than 80 to 90 percent of the agreement was already done by the U.S. and Mexico teams. Both President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and President Trump were now openly talking about when it would be finalized and signed.

Nancy Pelosi stepped in to help Canada get back into the agreement by leveraging her Democrats. Trump agreed to let Canada engage, and Lighthizer agreed to hold discussions with Chrystia Freeland on a tri-lateral trade agreement that ultimately became the USMCA.

The key points to remember are: (1) Trump, Ross, and Lighthizer would prefer two separate bilateral trade agreements because the U.S. import/export dynamic was entirely different between Mexico and Canada. And because of the loophole issue, (2) a five-year review was put into the finished USMCA trade agreement. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2020.

TIMELINE: The USMCA is now up for review (2025) and renegotiation in 2026!

This timeline is the key to understanding where President Donald Trump stands today. The review and renegotiation is his goal.

President Trump said openly he was going to renegotiate the USMCA, leveraging border security (Mexico) and reciprocity (Canada) within it.

Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist.

In essence, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.

To wit, President Trump then said that if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses (which it cannot), then Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process.

However, what everyone missed was the strategy Trump began outlining when contrast against the USMCA review and renegotiation window.

Again, Trump doesn’t like the tri-lateral trade agreement. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada. Multilateral trade agreements are difficult to manage and police.

How was President Trump going to get Canada to (a) willingly exit the USMCA; and (b) enter a bilateral trade agreement?

The answer was through trade and tariff provocations, while simultaneously hitting Canada with the shock and awe aspect of the 51st state.

The Canadian government and the Canadian people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics. When asked about the election in Canada, President Trump said, “I don’t care. I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.”

By voting emotionally, the Canadian electorate have fallen into President Trump’s USMCA exit trap. Prime Minister Mark Carney will make the exit much easier. Carney now becomes the target of increased punitive coercion until such a time as the USMCA review is begun, and Canada is forced to a position of renegotiation.

Trump never wanted Canada as a 51st state.

Trump always wanted a U.S.-Canada bilateral trade agreement.

Mark Carney said the era of U.S.-Canadian economic ties “are officially declared severed.”

Canada has willingly exited the USMCA trade agreement at the perfect time for President Trump.

Continue Reading

Trending

X