Worst Climate Stories of the Week—More Inconvenient Ice Growth

Jun 06, 2025
Jeff Reynolds
Energy & Environment

So many dying narratives keep showing up in this column. And we're here for all of it.

About a month ago, this very column documented several narratives repeatedly trotted out by climate cultists that have met their demise. There were updates on the phony narrative surrounding collapsing bee populations, the phony narrative that volcanos have no effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the phony narrative that populations around the world are clamoring for offshore wind power, and the phony narrative that temperature stations built a hundred years ago produced a reliable temperature record even as modern cities grew up around them, no urban heat island effect to be seen. One of the most consequential narratives revolves around the perpetual predictions of doom for the earth's polar ice caps, which should already have disappeared if Al Gore and the UN had any validity.

This is how this column read on May 9:

The Narrative states definitively that anthropogenic global warming has caused climate change that drives more weather extremes, causing more catastrophic storms, floods, fires, sea level rise, and melting polar ice caps and glaciers. Therefore, we need to extract trillions of dollars from capitalist countries and impose global communism.

The Narrative's baseline assumptions are dying, as the dogs of society howl. Take, for instance, Antarctica. The sea ice continues to refuse to shrink there. Four "key glacier basins" in East Antarctica showed ice growth from 2021 to 2023, according to a new study.

And, wouldn't you know it, we have more polar ice cap news this week.

Sorry, Mr. Gore.

To cap that off, we have several other stories from the cult this week, including a glowing review by a scientist about geoengineering projects to alter our atmosphere in the U.K.; another week, another cargo ship full of EVs on fire; the French government teams up with Brazil's communist president to call for more climate censorship; Big Philanthropy lining up to replace government climate funding cuts; and California's green utopia means $8 per gallon gas prices and regulating compost out of existence.

In our Good News segment, we have simultaneous retreats in the banking industry from climate pledges and from wind power in general; the Trump administration has shut down an eye-popping number of bogus climate change studies; and a statistical analysis of why Democrats have lost the renewable energy issue when it comes to elections.

Let's go.

(DON'T MISS LAST WEEK'S COLUMN: Maximum Octane Edition)

Icing Out the Hysterics

Our friend Tony Heller never shies away from pointing out the failures of globalists or climate hysterics. Case in point this week:

This, of course, follows all the ice cap news we previously discussed.

A climate scientist with the CO2 Coalition put it in similarly derisive terms:

In the post-2010 era, the September minimum extent of Arctic sea ice occurred in 2012, which was also the lowest since satellite measurements began in 1980. But since 2012, ice has been increasing or oscillating well above that year’s mark.

As in the Arctic, Antarctic temperature and ice coverage are refusing to cooperate with predictions of doom by the climate bedwetters. Data from Vostok and Concordia stations in East Antarctica indicate extremely cold temperatures in early May, with minimums of minus 106.6 degrees Fahrenheit at Concordia on May 12.

So much for the narrative.

Geoengineering Madness Has a Cheerleader

The Conversation is a website that bills itself as journalism for science news, with the tagline: "Academic rigor, journalistic flair." That "journalistic flair" apparently includes inventing new language, a specialty of the radical Left. They call shooting sulfur particles into the atmosphere to block the sun "solar radiation management" in a new story cheerleading for the U.K.'s studies into altering our atmosphere:

Deliberately altering the atmosphere, a shared global resource, is fraught with ethical, geopolitical and practical problems. It is and always has been a crazy idea.

However, many consider the failure to control carbon emissions means not intervening in this way is an even crazier idea. They consider it necessary to avert the collapse of ecosystems and society. Perhaps solar geoengineering is the price we must pay for our wholly inadequate climate change response to date.

They highlight five government-funded projects to alter the atmosphere and seas, including a hare-brained idea to "re-freeze" the Arctic Ocean. They may want to refer to the previous item before committing to that one.

Another Hunka Hunka Burnin' EVs

How many times will a cargo ship catch fire because of its electric vehicle payload before we reconsider this idea?

We haven't reached that point yet.

Meanwhile, in our other item in the regular segment in exploding and imploding EVs, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) published a report showing EV sales continue to flatline, while greenies have settled on hybrids as the solution of choice. Ain't the free market great?

eia-evs.png

More Totalitarian Efforts to Stifle Debate

We regularly see ideas so great from the radical greenies they want to shove them down our throats and make them mandatory to force compliance. This week's example comes in the form of a joint press release between France and Brazil in which they call for bans on anti-climate speech around the world:

We call on all actors to unite and commit collectively to achieve our climate goals—within international institutions, the financial system, and our societies. We call on other countries to join our efforts to combat climate misinformation and reaffirm the centrality of scientific knowledge and the knowledge and wisdom of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities. Collective action for the common good—this is the spirit of the "mutirão" proposed by the Brazilian Presidency of COP 30.

Trust the science! Also something about the Indians, but really trust the government science! The science apparently means simultaneously banning free speech and implementing global socialism.

Can Big Philanthropy Replace Federal Climate Funding?

A group of climate journalists that helps reporters around the world direct their global warming reporting, Covering Climate Now, has expressed understandable anxiety over the end of their gravy train under Trump 2.0 (for more on that, see below in our Good News segment). They propose Big Philanthropy to fill in the gap and keep the money rolling, saying, "As the Trump administration and DOGE are cutting everything from foreign aid to climate funding, the philanthropic community is buzzing with activity, albeit quietly."

They give some pretty impressive stats. Globally, philanthropic lending totals around $885 billion annually, but "only" $9.9 to 16.4 billon of that goes to "addressing the climate crisis." So, Covering Climate Now is trying to push this as a growth industry.

California's Vision for America: $8 Gas and Regulations on Compost

The green utopia that California Democrats have tried to craft has hit some roadblocks. Gas prices are about to explode, while they seem paradoxically about to regulate composting into oblivion.

Now for our Good News Segment.

Retreat! Retreat!

As bubbles burst, banks retreat:

In a slow but steady retreat, the world’s most powerful financial institutions are abandoning their once-lauded climate pledges in the beginning of a long-overdue correction.

From BlackRock’s quiet exit to the mass defection of U.S. banking giants, the climate bandwagon is losing passengers. And what replaces it could finally bring a necessary focus on real-world developmental finance for both Western economies and the Global South.

Maybe they've finally begun to realize that Net Zero doesn't pencil out. In 2024, before Donald Trump even won the election, America's six largest banks quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, over legal and fiduciary concerns.

Speaking of not penciling out, the Florida Municipal Power Agency sent a letter this week to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee urging them to cut the bloated subsidies for wind and solar generation in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Wasteful Climate Spending Grinds to a Halt under Trump

Speaking of not penciling out, again, the MIT Technology Review sounded the alarm this week: "Tens of millions of dollars in NSF grants have been slashed, and scientists fear the US is about to lose a generation of climate researchers."

Maybe those scientists should learn to code.

The Left Has Lost the Debate with Voters

Speaking of retreating, Democrats have gone awfully quiet on green energy this year. Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, tells us why:

It’s because Americans, in poll after poll, and now election after election, have shown that their views on a rapid renewable energy transition oscillate between indifference and outright hostility.

Cost and reliability is what voters really care about when it comes to energy. Given four choices of their energy policy priorities in a 2024 YouGov climate issues survey, 37 percent of voters said the cost of the energy they use was most important to them. Another 36 percent said the availability of power when they need it was most important. Meanwhile, just 19 percent thought that the effect of their energy consumption on the climate was most important.

He goes on to note that non-college voters—the ones Trump seems to have permanently captured away from Democrats—hate green energy even more than the average voter. Cost is far more important than climate. This after decades of fear-mongering by the radical greens. It's never connected with the voters. As Teixeira summarizes, voters just don't care very much about climate change.

Besides, why would voters choose theoretical doom over current, proven progress? HumanProgress.org, a project of the CATO Institute, crunched the numbers this week and revealed that the price of electricity per kilowatt-hour (kWh) has declined since 1980, when tracked against blue-collar wage rates:

Another way to understand electricity prices is to ask: how many kWh can you buy with one hour of work? This chart illustrates that relationship. In 1980, an hour of US blue-collar labor could buy 152 kWh; today, it buys 207 kWh—a 36 percent increase in energy abundance. 

More and more voters have had enough with the green doom and gloom, when the overall economy and purchasing power of the basic household needs has only improved over time.

(READ MORE: New Film 'Blown Away' Wrecks the Myth of Wind Power)

Jeff Reynolds is Senior Editor for Restoration News, specializing in energy and science policy, as well as dark money. Jeff is an author, editor, strategist, and public speaker. A prolific researcher and writer, he authored the book Behind the Curtain in 2019, which details the billionaires and foundations responsible for the radical left's ascension in American politics. Jeff graduated from Connecticut College with a bachelor's in Zoology.

Email Jeff HERE

Related Articles

Get Involved

Join Restoration of America today and receive the latest updates, news, and ways to get involved with our efforts!

By  providing your phone number and checking this box, you are consenting  to receive calls and text messages, including autodialed and automated  calls and texts, to that number from Restoration of America. Message and  data rates may apply. Reply "STOP" to opt-out. Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions apply.