Connect with us


Greta Thunberg says it is ‘strange’ Biden is considered a leader in climate change



Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg slammed Joe Biden in an interview Monday, saying it’s ‘strange’ to consider the president a climate change leader ‘when you see what his administration is doing’.

Thunberg, 18, alleged Biden’s Administration has actually taken actions that worsen the climate crisis despite having promised to combat climate change as part of his Clean Energy Revolution plan.

‘The US is actually expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. Why is the US doing that?’ Thunberg questioned, speaking to KK Ottesen of the Washington Post.

The outspoken Swedish student also blasted the world’s climate leaders for putting the responsibility of fighting for the environment on the youth.

‘It should not fall on us activists and teenagers who just want to go to school to raise this awareness and to inform people that we are actually facing an emergency,’ she added.

The Biden Administration has set out ambitious goals to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, including reaching 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2050.

However, the president has been battling a pandemic-caused surge in gas prices, which has led to an increase in global oil production. He also has not yet followed through on his campaign promise to crack down on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands. 

Climate activist Greta Thunberg (pictured at the COP26 summit in Nov. 2021) slammed Joe Biden is an interview Monday, saying it’s ‘strange’ to consider the president a climate change leader ‘when you see what his administration is doing

Thunberg’s anger at world leaders is not limited to the Biden Administration.

She blasted last month’s United Nations climate summit, known as COP26, as being a ‘PR event’ and a ‘failure’.

Thunberg cited how leaders were unable to secure funding for the Green Climate Fund, which was created to support the efforts of developing countries in responding to the challenge of climate change.

‘The money that has already been promised, the bare minimum that the so-called global north have promised that they will deliver, they failed to come to any conclusions, and it’s been postponed once again,’ argued Thunberg, who has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in each of the past three years.

She noted that UN leaders made some progress at the summit – citing how they included fossil fuels in their final document for the first time – but still need to do more.

‘Of course it’s a step forward that, instead of coming back every five years, they’re doing it every year now,’ Thunberg said. 

Thunberg alleged Biden's Administration has actually taken actions that worsen the climate crisis despite the having promised to combat climate change as part of his Clean Energy Revolution plan (Pictured: Joe Biden on Dec. 27, 2021)

Thunberg alleged Biden’s Administration has actually taken actions that worsen the climate crisis despite the having promised to combat climate change as part of his Clean Energy Revolution plan (Pictured: Joe Biden on Dec. 27, 2021)

She blasted the United Nations climate summit, known as COP26 (pictured), as being a 'PR event' and 'failure'

She blasted the United Nations climate summit, known as COP26 (pictured), as being a ‘PR event’ and ‘failure’

She added: ‘But still, that doesn’t mean anything unless that actually leads to increased ambition and if they actually fulfill those ambitions.’

Thunberg also argued that ‘we need to fundamentally change our societies now,’ alleging that people are too focused on the present and not motivated to find solutions for the future.

‘Right now, what’s holding us back is that we lack that political will. We don’t prioritize the climate today. 


Joe Biden has devised a plan to combat climate change, according to his website

He believes America can become the world’s clean energy superpower and that the nation can export clean-energy technology across the globe, as well as create high-quality, middle-class jobs here at home.

‘Getting to a 100% clean energy economy is not only an obligation, it’s an opportunity,’ he touts online.

 He says his plan will:

  1. Ensure the US achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions by 2050. 
  2. Build a stronger, more resilient nation.
  3. Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change. 
  4. Stand up to the abuse of power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. 
  5. Fulfill America’s obligation to workers and communities who powered the industrial revolution and subsequent decades of economic growth. 

‘Our goal is not to lower emissions. Our goal is to find solutions that allow us to continue life [as it is] today,’ she said.

Thunberg continued: ‘And, of course, you can ask, “Can’t we have both?” But the uncomfortable truth is that we have left it too late for that. Or the world leaders have left it too late for that.’

‘We need to fundamentally change our societies now. If we would have started 30 years ago, it would have been much smoother. But now it’s a different situation.’ 

Despite Thunberg – who led a 100,000-strong march through the streets of Glasgow during the first week of the COP26 summit – dismissing the two-week meet as a ‘greenwashing festival,’ some experts are applauding the work UN leaders achieved.

But dedicated experts in the negotiating arena hailed solid and historic advances in beating back the existential threat of global warming. 

‘The Glasgow Climate Pact is more than we expected, but less than we hoped for,’ Dann Mitchell, head of climate hazards at Britain’s Met Office, told AFP

Some argue gauging the efficacy of measures announced at the summit is dependent on the lens they’re examined through.  

For example – in comparison to what was achieved before – the first-ever call by 196 countries to draw down coal-fired power or a promise to double financial aid each year to roughly $40 billion so poor nations can brace for climate impacts, are giant steps forward.

As is the new provision obliging countries to consider setting more ambitious targets for reducing carbon pollution every year rather than once every five years.

‘As a lifelong optimist, I see the Glasgow outcome as half-full rather than half-empty,’ said Alden Meyer, a senior analyst at climate and energy think tank E3G.

‘But the atmosphere responds to emissions – not COP decisions – and much work remains ahead to translate the strong rhetoric here into reality.’

‘Make no mistake, we are still on the road to hell,’ said Dave Reay, head of the University of Edinburgh’s Climate Change Institute.

‘But Glasgow has at least created an exit lane.’ 

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Hailey Bieber Details Terrifying ‘Life-Altering’ Mini-Stroke She Suffered And Procedure To Close Hole In Her Heart



Hailey Bieber has spoken out in her “own words” about the “life-altering,” “scariest moment” of her life she had after suffering what she called a mini-stroke, and later underwent a procedure to close a hole in her heart.

The 25-year-old supermodel and wife of superstar singer Justin Bieber took to her YouTube channel Wednesday and opened up about the terrifying experience of being hospitalized last month after she suffered a blood clot to her brain that traveled through a hole in her heart between 12 and 13 millimeters, reported People magazine.

“I had, like, a very scary incident on March 10, basically,” Bieber shared. “I was sitting at breakfast with my husband, having a normal day … and all of the sudden, I felt this really weird sensation that kind of like traveled down my arm from my shoulder all the way down to my fingertips. And it made my fingertips feel really numb and weird.”

“Justin [her husband] was like, ‘Are you okay?’” she added, as she explained that she tried to respond to him, but she “couldn’t speak.” “The right side of my face started drooping; I couldn’t get a sentence out.”

“Obviously, immediately, I thought I was having a stroke,” the supermodel continued. “He thought I was having a stroke. Right away, he asked for somebody to please call 911 and get a doctor.”

Hailey said that where they were, there happened to be a medic who started asking her lots of questions and testing her arms, calling it definitely the “scariest moment” of her life. The model talked about how the “facial drooping lasted for probably like thirty seconds.” Her speech did came back, but her “anxiety” about what was happening just made “everything worse.”

“By the time I got to the emergency room, I was pretty much back to normal – [I] could talk, [I] wasn’t having any issues with my face or my arm,” Bieber explained.

She said scans revealed she had, in fact, suffered a “small blood clot” to her brain which was labeled a “TIA” [Transient Ischemic Attack]. Hailey told her followers it was basically like having a “mini-stroke.”

Doctors still weren’t sure what caused it, but she said it was widely believed it was a combination of birth-control issues, recently having COVID-19, and having just traveled “to Paris and back in a very short amount of time,” calling it a “perfect storm.”

Further testing at the University of California, Los Angeles, revealed Bieber had a Grade 5 PFO [a small opening in the heart that usually closes after birth]. The outlet said the hold measured between 12 and 13 millimeters. She later underwent a procedure to close the hole, and said it went “very smoothly” and she’s recovering.

“The biggest thing I feel is I just feel really relieved that we were able to figure everything out, that we were able to get it closed, that I will be able to just move on from this really scary situation and just live my life,” Hailey shared.

“If there’s anybody that watches this that has gone through the same thing or something similar, I definitely really empathize with you,” she concluded. “And I understand how life-altering and scary it is.”

Bieber, who’s the daughter of actor Stephen Baldwin and Kennya Baldwin, married her husband Justin in 2018.

Related: Hailey Baldwin Credits Christian Faith For Marriage To Justin Bieber

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies for breaking news, investigative reporting, sports, podcasts, in-depth analysis, books, and entertainment for a reason: because we believe in what we do. We believe in our country, in the value of truth and the freedom to speak it, and in the right to challenge tyranny wherever we see it. Believe the same? Become a member now and join our mission.

Source link

Continue Reading


Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias



I love Wikipedia. I donated thousands of dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias—out of date by the time we bought them.

Then libertarian Jimmy Wales came up with a web-based, crowd-sourced encyclopedia.

Crowd-sourced? A Britannica editor called Wikipedia “a public restroom.” But Wales won the battle. Britannica’s encyclopedias are no longer printed.

Congratulations to Wales.

But recently, I learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now says Wikipedia’s political pages have turned into leftist “propaganda.”

That’s upsetting. Leftists took over the editing?

Sadly, yes. I checked it out.

All editing is done by volunteers. Wales hoped there would be enough diverse political persuasions that biases would be countered by others.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Leftists just like to write. Conservatives build things: companies, homes, farms.

You see the pattern comparing political donations from different professions: Surgeons, oil workers, truck drivers, loggers, and pilots lean right; artists, bartenders, librarians, reporters, and teachers lean left.

Conservatives don’t have as much time to tweet or argue on the web. Leftists do. And they love doing it. This helps them take over the media, universities, and now, Wikipedia.

Jonathan Weiss is what Wikipedia calls a “Top 100” Wikipedian because he’s made almost half a million edits. He says he’s noticed new bias: “Wikipedia does a great job on things like science and sports, but you see a lot of political bias come into play when you’re talking current events.”

Weiss is no conservative. In presidential races, he voted for Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Barack Obama. Never for a Republican. “I’ve really never identified strongly with either political party,” he says.

Maybe that’s why he notices the new Wikipedia bias.

“People on the left far outweigh people on the center and the right … a lot [are] openly socialist and Marxist.” Some even post pictures of Che Guevara and Lenin on their own profiles.

These are the people who decide which news sources Wikipedia writers may cite. Wikipedia’s approved “Reliable sources” page rejects political reporting from Fox but calls CNN and MSNBC “reliable.”

Good conservative outlets like The Federalist, the Daily Caller, and The Daily Wire are all deemed “unreliable.” Same with the New York Post (That’s probably why Wikipedia called Hunter Biden’s emails a conspiracy theory even after other liberal media finally acknowledged that they were real).

While it excludes Fox, Wikipedia approves even hard left media like Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin, a socialist publication.

Until recently, Wikipedia’s “socialism” and “communism” pages made no mention of the millions of people killed by socialism and communism. Even now, deaths are “deep in the article,” says Weiss, “treated as an arcane academic debate. But we’re talking about mass murder!”

The communism page even adds that we cannot ignore the “lives saved by communist modernization”! This is nuts.

Look up “concentration and internment camps” and you’ll find, along with the Holocaust, “Mexico-United States border,” and under that, “Trump administration family separation policy.”

What? Former President Donald Trump’s border controls, no matter how harsh, are very different from the Nazi’s mass murder.

Wikipedia does say “anyone can edit.” So, I made a small addition for political balance, mentioning that President Barack Obama built those cages.

My edit was taken down.

I wrote Wikipedia founder Wales to say that if his creation now uses only progressive sources, I would no longer donate.

He replied, “I totally respect the decision not to give us more money. I’m such a fan and have great respect for you and your work.” But then he said it is “just 100% false … that ‘only globalist, progressive mainstream sources’ are permitted.”

He gave examples of left-wing media that Wikipedia rejects, like Raw Story and Occupy Democrats.

I’m glad he rejects them. Those sites are childishly far left.

I then wrote again to ask why “there’s not a single right-leaning media outlet Wiki labels ‘reliable’ about politics, [but] Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC” get approval.

Wales then stopped responding to my emails.

Unless Wikipedia’s bias is fixed, I’ll be skeptical reading anything on the site.


The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. 

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email, and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. 

Source link

Continue Reading


Public Health England to blame for sending patients to care homes without Covid tests



Speaking on condition of anonymity, Whitehall officials alleged that Prof Duncan Selbie, the former PHE chief executive, was ultimately responsible for informing Mr Hancock of the risks.

Prof Selbie is working as a senior adviser to the DHSC. Neither he nor the department responded to requests for comment on Wednesday.

Mr Hancock, who was replaced by Sajid Javid last year, claimed the High Court ruling had exonerated him and the had been cleared “of any wrongdoing” because PHE “failed to tell ministers what they knew about asymptomatic transmission”.

The High Court judges concluded that care home policies in March and April 2020 were “irrational” because they failed to advise that those discharged from hospitals “should, so far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for up to 14 days”.

“Since there is no evidence that this question was considered by the secretary of state, or that he was asked to consider it, it is not an example of a political judgment on a finely balanced issue,” they said. “Nor is it a point on which any of the expert committees had advised that no guidance was required.”

After the ruling, Boris Johnson said he wanted to “renew my apologies and sympathies” to relatives who lost loved ones, adding: “The thing we didn’t know in particular was that Covid could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was.”

However, the risks of asymptomatic transmission had been highlighted by Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s chief scientific adviser for England, who said it was “quite likely” as early as March 13 2020. Varying levels of risk had been outlined in papers from late January, the ruling said.

The judicial review was brought by Dr Cathy Gardner and Fay Harris, whose fathers, Michael Gibson and Donald Harris, died after testing positive for Covid.

‘Opens the floodgates for potential claims’

Paul Conrathe, a solicitor at Sinclairslaw who was instructed by both women, said: “It’s possible that care home providers and relatives who lost loved ones in the first wave could bring compensation claims. The Government was found to have acted ‘irrationally’ – that’s a very high legal hurdle.”

Nadra Ahmed, who chairs the National Care Association, said the ruling “opens the floodgates for potential claims to be brought against government policy”.

“This will be especially pertinent where the individual was not given a choice,” she said. “There will be a lot of people assimilating to the information as they consider if the loss of their loved one was premature, and holding the Government to account is the only way forward for them.”

Helen Wildbore, the director of the Relatives and Residents Association, said that the ruling proved “the protective ring around care homes was non-existent” and that older people were “abandoned at the outset of the pandemic”.

A government spokesman said it had been a “very difficult decision” to discharge hospital patients into care homes, taken when evidence on asymptomatic transmission was “extremely uncertain”.

The spokesman added: “We acknowledge the judge’s comments on assessing the risks of asymptomatic transmission and our guidance on isolation, and will respond in more detail in due course.”

‘He was in a home and should have been safe’

They stood outside the Royal Courts of Justice, two women unknown to each other before the Covid pandemic but brought together by tragedy, writes Tom Ough.

Cathy Gardner spoke first, delivering a steely reading of a statement. Matt Hancock’s boast of a “protective ring” encircling care homes, Dr Gardner said, was “a despicable lie of which he ought to be ashamed and for which he ought to apologise”.

Fay Harris, more downcast in demeanour but no less forthright, told journalists: “I have lost precious years with my wonderful Dad.”

Both women lost their fathers in early 2020, arguing that they might still be alive were it not for hospital patients having been discharged into care homes without having been tested for Covid.

Michael Gibson, born in 1931, had been a superintendent registrar of births and deaths. “He was in a home and should have been safe,” Dr Gardner told The Independent after his death.

Mr Gibson, who had advanced dementia, had fallen ill a couple of weeks before the first lockdown. Staff at his care home were unable to procure tests for Covid, but the virus is believed to have struck him down.

Source link

Continue Reading