Well, well, well—look who’s finally come around! California Governor Gavin Newsom, the Golden State’s self-styled progressive poster boy, has just declared a state of emergency to clear flammable brush from the state’s forests. And why? Because President Donald Trump’s been right all along, and Newsom knows it. POLITICO broke the story detailing how Newsom’s dramatic move suspends California’s sacred environmental regulations—those same rules the left has clung to like a security blanket while wildfires torch the state year after year. Turns out, Trump’s been sounding the alarm on this for years, and Sacramento’s finally listening.

Let’s rewind the tape. Back in his first term, Trump famously pointed out what any sensible person could see: California’s forests were a tinderbox waiting to ignite, choked with dead trees and brush that the state refused to clear. His solution? Manage the land—rake it, trim it, do something—instead of letting nature run wild under the guise of eco-piety. The response from the California elite? Sneers and eye-rolls. “Raking the forests? How simplistic!” they scoffed, as if Trump had suggested fairy dust could solve the problem. Meanwhile, wildfires kept burning, lives were lost, and billions in damages piled up—culminating in January’s Los Angeles blaze, now pegged as the costliest disaster in U.S. history.

Fast forward to today, March 3, 2025. Newsom’s emergency order isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a tacit admission that Trump’s been on the money. The governor’s suspending the California Environmental Quality Act and Coastal Act, those bureaucratic behemoths Trump and his allies have long blamed for tying the state’s hands. Newsom’s even echoing Trump’s language, promising “fuel breaks” and “prescribed fires” to protect vulnerable communities. Sound familiar? It should. Trump’s been hammering this point since at least 2018, when he first called out California’s mismanagement—despite the fact that over half the state’s forests are federally controlled, a detail his critics conveniently ignore.

And here’s the kicker: Newsom’s timing couldn’t be more transparent. With Trump back in the White House and Republicans holding the purse strings on nearly $40 billion in disaster aid for Los Angeles, the governor’s suddenly eager to play ball. POLITICO notes Trump’s January visit to LA, where he slammed the California Coastal Commission as a permitting nightmare—“the most difficult in the entire country,” he said. Now Newsom’s slashing those same red-tape rules to appease the administration. Coincidence? Hardly. This is a man who knows the aid spigot won’t flow unless he shows some spine on forest management.

The irony is thicker than the smoke over LA. For years, Newsom and his crew insisted they’d “surged” brush-clearing efforts since he took office in 2019. Yet here we are, with the governor admitting it’s not enough—implicitly conceding that Trump’s critique hit the bullseye. Even Richard Grenell, Trump’s special envoy, is piling on, calling the Coastal Commission “a disaster” and hinting at tying aid to real reforms.

So, let’s raise a glass to common sense prevailing—at least for now. California’s finally waking up to the reality that hugging trees doesn’t stop them from burning. Trump’s been vindicated, and Newsom’s eating a slice of humble pie, whether he admits it or not. The only question left is how long it’ll take the eco-warriors to forgive their golden boy for this heresy. Something tells me they won’t be raking him over the coals too hard—not when there’s federal cash on the line.

Older readers, at least, will know the rest. 

“..therefore (Climate) Science is a hoax.”

The paper so titled, by Stephan Lewandowsky et al. can be found here:

[No it can’t. After the abstract, I get a message: “View all access and purchase options for this article,” followed by a “Get Access” thing that is locked. I have the article. If someone can explain how to do a tiny URL I can provide it.]

It claims to demonstrate that climate sceptics tend to believe crazy stuff:- for example, that the moon landing never happened. 

Lewandowsky and his oeuvre have been discussed to death, you might think, particularly by me, both here and previously at

https://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/category/stephan-lewandowsky/

Not so. In the hundreds of articles that we critics of the paper wrote, not one of us, I think, drew attention to the main flaw in this flaw-filled paper. While claiming to prove that climate sceptics were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than normal people, it actually proved the opposite. The on-line survey on which Lewadowsky’s paper was based clearly demonstrates that climate sceptics are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories than the population at large. 

For example, the Wikipedia article on moon landing conspiracy theories cites opinion surveys which found that between 6 and 20% of Americans doubted that the moon landing had taken place, compared with 1% of climate sceptics in Lewandowsky’s survey. We climate sceptics, according to Lewandowsky’s paper, are far less likely to believe conspiracy theories than the average citizen. 

Which is odd, because Lewandowsky is surely right, although his research proves him wrong. Of course climate sceptics are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. We’re sceptics. We doubt the official version. And if the official version is wrong, that means that there was a cover up, which is a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Speaking only for myself of course, it seems obvious that my scepticism about the official story on climate change is linked to my perverse tendency to doubt any official story about anything. This is a psychological trait, probably linked to my distrust of parental authority. Ever since I got an adult library card, I’ve been a keen devourer of books that challenge the official version about absolutely everything. I’m a fan of all theories that claim to prove the experts wrong, from Immanuel Velikovsky’s theories of cosmic catastrophe and his alternative chronology of the ancient world, to the circumnavigation of the globe by a Chinese eunuch before Magellan, to the faking of Tacitus’s history by a Renaissance prelate.

I was intrigued to discover years ago that Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is also a student of Velikovsky and an ancient chronology sceptic. I vowed to keep this secret to myself, since, in the wrong hands, it could be used to ridicule the climate sceptical movement. Now that discussion has moved on from the psychological foibles of sceptics to soaring electricity bills, the truth can be told.   

Does anyone else share my eccentric  preferences in reading matter?

Of course, the perversity of my opinions has no relevance to their truth or falsity. There are many areas of human endeavour where scientific certainty is unattainable, and unfounded speculation is useful and even necessary. Cosmology, the chronology of ancient civilisations, and the authentification of ancient texts are pseudo-sciences, where truth is necessarily decided by consensus rather than experiment. 

Climate science is another such pseudo-science, where experimental replication is impossible -with one important difference. Climate science makes predictions. And these predictions will necessarily turn out to be true, or not. 

We may never know whether the universe started with a big bang or always was; whether a Chinese eunuch discovered New Zealand; or whether Cheops lived in the 9th century BC and not the 30th; but we sure as Hades know that Gaia is not dying, Manhattan & the Maldives are not under water, Global Warming hysteria is on its way out, and Greta Thunberg has turned into a normal protesting adolescent. 

All reasons to feel greatly relieved, on the eve of World War Three. It means I can get back to studying the important question of whether the Ludovisi throne, discovered in 1887 and supposedly carved in the 5th century BC, is or isn’t a 19th century forgery. 97% of experts say I’m wrong, so I’m optimistic.  

Essay by Eric Worrall

Would a society where climate dishonesty is unacceptable deter climate skeptics?

Why the ‘Me Too’ movement should be a warning to those lying about climate change

By Philippa Nuttall

In his latest book, author and academic Mike Berners-Lee calls for a ‘climate of truth’ from business, politicians and the media

At a glance

• Author and academic Mike Mike Berners-Lee believes dishonesty about climate change and other challenges facing the world is behind the lack of progress in reducing emissions and tackling wider problems such as pollution and nature loss
• He insists change is possible, but calls on everyone to be more truthful, and to call out the media, business and policymakers when they are being dishonest
• Regulation, in conjunction with high penalties and strict enforcement, is necessary to ensure business is delivering on environmental stewardship, he says

“A couple of decades ago, it was considered pretty normal by many celebrities that every now and then a bit of groping went on,” Mike Berners-Lee tells me. “Now, it is pretty clear to every BBC personality it would be the end of your career — and if you were found to have stood by while someone else was getting up to it, you would also be in very hot water.”

…

Berners-Lee’s latest book, A Climate of Truth, concludes that central to our inability to get to grips with the “deadly polycrisis” we are in — one that includes climate change, biodiversity loss, food security concerns and permanent pollution — is a pervasive lack of truthfulness from policymakers, business and the media.

…

He cites the greenhouse gas emissions curve, which shows that despite 29 climate change COPs and a 30th in the offing, emissions continue to rise. “This is a reality we need to face up to: the process isn’t working. The best thing that came out of COP29 is the understanding that the process is broken.” It is also being “subverted by companies that can’t be trusted”, he adds. 

…

Read more: https://www.sustainableviews.com/why-the-me-too-movement-should-be-a-warning-to-those-lying-about-climate-change-c781857f/

Mike Berners-Lee wrote “There is no Planet B” and a bunch of other climate crisis books, so I think its fair to describe him as a bit of a fixture in the radical environmental movement.

But the fact is the truth is already coming out about climate change.

Reuters recently admitted Net Zero is a failure.

Climate alarmism has also been exposed by an entire year of temperatures greater than 1.5C without any of the predicted major climate disasters.

Silicon Valley has all but stopped pretending to care about climate change.

Despite all this, I am not accusing Mike Berners-Lee of being a liar. Reading Climategate convinced me climate radicals actually believe what they are preaching.

The problem is not that they are lying, the problem is they are wrong.

One of Freeman Dyson’s great disappointments was his political fellow travellers are caught up in climate groupthink. Dyson described seeing this kind of baseless groupthink many times in the past, mostly amongst the Astronomy community. It happens when scientists fall too much in love with their models, and begin confusing models with established fact.

Given the world has now experienced 1.5C warming without any of the predicted disasters, at least no more than usual, will academics like Mike Berners-Lee find the courage to admit they were wrong? You might think the answer is an automatic never, but we have had at least one example of a high profile academic who had the courage to face the truth.

By the mid 2030s it won’t matter what climate alarmists say or believe, the world will have moved on. Climate alarmism has all but run its course, many new voices are now casting doubt on the most extreme climate predictions. But a decade of continued high energy price misery is a long time to wait for people struggling to pay their energy bills.

Every academic who adds their voice to climate skepticism will help shorten the suffering of those still trapped in societies where climate alarmism dominates government policy.

Let us hope Mike Berners-Lee and his fellow academics take inspiration from James Lovelock, and find the courage to admit they were wrong.