“I will not be bullied but will make my case for objective reporting with the above data point of Seth Borenstein’s article.” (below)

Seth Borenstein posted on LinkedIn:

Scientists in thousands of peer reviewed studies detail, calculate the public health threats, deaths and illnesses from climate change. President Trump calls it all a scam. A detailed look at what the studies and scientists say about the research. The three experts quoted are both MDs and have extra degrees and are professors of public health.

Borenstein was referring to his piece, “Scientific studies calculate climate change as health danger, while Trump calls it a ‘scam’” (AP: February 12, 2026). Read the article, which blows itself up at the end with his recognition that

The issue gets complicated when cold-related deaths are factored in.

“[Peter] Gleick’s use of deception [against the Heartland Institute] in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others…. That is his personal tragedy and shame…. – Andrew Revkin, New York Times, February 20, 2012.

Climategate and Michael Mann, et al.? We all remember that. Fakegate and climate crusader Peter Gleick? Not so much 14 years later. But corrupted science and politics in the cause of global warming/climate change should be understood in its darkest moments. One of those is described below by Friends of Science:

Prominent climate alarmist Peter Gleick admitted on February 20 [2012] that he stole private documents from the Heartland Institute by impersonating a board member using a fake email address. Gleick sent the Heartland documents and a forged fake document to journalists.…

“There is no evidence that UN COP meetings and more than $10 trillion spent on renewables over the last 30 years have affected the climate. The average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is blamed for global warming, has been rising over the last 50 years without any change to the trend.”

World leaders are in turmoil. For 30 years, the United Nations, World Economic Forum, and International Energy Agency, among business and political leaders called for a shift from hydrocarbon fuels to renewable energy. Thousands of laws were enacted to try to force a net zero energy transition. But it’s now clear that green energy is unable to meet the needs of growing developing nations or support the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution in advanced nations.

Since the founding of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the UN has led efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to try to fight human-caused global warming.…

“… the outcome of doing nothing to combat climate change [is] simply horrific. That is why I find your phrase – We are winning the debate intellectual and politically for good reasons – somewhat alarming.” (- Martin Palmer, below)

All I have wanted in the climate policy arena is open debate. And on social media, LinkedIn has provided that to me. I now have nearly 13,000 followers who seem to enjoy my posts and ‘counterpunches’ against the omnipresent alarmists and apologists for wind, solar, and battery industrialization.

From time to time, I repost exchanges I have with the other side for the historical record. The future will be interested in what is to us the present. To this end, here is an exchange with an adversary, Martin Palmer, self-described as

Passionate about the Climate Threat of human extinction.