“If I am elected president, I will put into place a massive air-conditioning plan, starting in places with the most vulnerable populations.” – Marine Le Pen, leader, National Rally Party (French National Assembly)

It is not easy being green. “Green” energy is hardly green (think wind/solar/battery industrialization), and virtually all climate mitigation activism has negatives for consumers, taxpayers, and freedom. This is less the law of unintended consequences as it is Deep Ecology’s assault on modern living and human betterment.

Fast forward to the summer of 2026. As long predicted, a warming world (natural and anthropogenic) requires adaptation. That means air conditioning, mist machines, and ice generation in increasing amounts to meet the summer peak. Yet the activists despise such basic adaptation on grounds that higher electricity demand will require more fossil-fired generation from existing or new capacity.…

Reports Bjorn Lomborg:

Climate-related disaster deaths have declined 97.5% over the century (1920-2025). Richer, smarter, and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths. This swamps any potential climate signal.

Why not reported? Instead, media only delivers climate doom

“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.

“If you are so sure that your views are correct, why not have a robust climate debate at Harvard. You know and I know that such an event would not come off well for the alarmists/forced energy transformationists.”

Jody Freeman, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, posted on LinkedIn [she blocked me–maybe you can open her links]:

Sobering assessment of our climate risk trajectory and how rising temperatures could overtake insurance markets, and lead to a credit crunch, among a cascade of other financial consequences. Watch the insurance industry. It is serious about climate change. And the canary in the coal mine.

Her link was to Joe Romm’s report of a Guardian article, “Climate crisis on track to destroy capitalism, warns top insurer,” subtitled “Action urgently needed to save the conditions under which markets – and civilisation itself – can operate, says senior Allianz figure.”…