My talk today at Climate Week about how promoting climate fears in academia have endlessly scared the youth.

CFACT has no "off" season 😎 Check out who our students met and where our collegiate staff went this summer here: cfact.org/2026/09/23/cfacts-… #rondesantis #kevinsorbo #tomwoods #CLS #YALCON

From yesterday's UN Week protest: The left has three "isms": communism, antisemitism and climatism. Pics courtesy of @cfact.

What caused the landslide and flood in Nepal last week? Here are the facts we know as opposed to the fairytales being spread online in less than five minutes.

My oped in today's New York Post/California Post on how the Golden State and UN are developing a cockamamie scheme to create insurance to protect forests/nature from natural disasters caused by manmade climate change. nypost.com/2026/08/23/opinio…

My appearance on Real America's Voice with Steve Gruber discussing voter lack of interest in the climate change issue this morning. rumble.com/v7egrqa-do-voters…

Alarmists: “World on fire!” Reality: By Aug 5, global burned area likely never lower than 2026 Disasters in France, Spain & Canada are tragic—but climate is global. Cherry-picking isn’t science Climate policy does near-nothing for fires We need better fire policy (prescribed burns, let some burn) and better climate info gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/g… You can see all the references in my Twitter thread: nitter.net/BjornLomborg/status/20…

For years we’ve been told offshore wind is the future of reliable energy 🙄. But in a sworn court declaration, Vineyard Wind CEO Klaus Skoust Møller painted a very different picture. According to Møller’s declaration filed in Massachusetts Superior Court: “The wind farm continues to produce less than half of its expected capacity, which is well below what is needed for the Project to comply with its financing obligations.” He also warned: “The Project cannot survive at its current levels of actual power production.” Those aren’t the words of offshore wind opponents, they’re the words of the CEO of Vineyard Wind in a court filing. The declaration was filed as part of Vineyard Wind’s legal dispute with GE Vernova over turbine performance. Vineyard Wind argued the project was producing far below expectations and that its financial viability was at risk. BOEM’s own Vineyard Wind 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement states: “Overall, it is anticipated that there would be no collective impact on global warming as a result of offshore wind projects.” If BOEM concluded there would be no collective impact on global warming, why are we industrializing our ocean with offshore wind projects? Court: Suffolk Superior Court (Massachusetts) Case: Vineyard Wind 1 LLC v. GE Renewables US LLC Docket No.: 2684CV01041 Declaration of Klaus Skoust Møller (filed May 7, 2026) #StopOffshoreWind #ProtectOurCoastNJ

Huge 2025 Rise in Ecuadorian Balsa Exports to Feed Wind Turbine Demand Raises Fears of Increased Illegal Logging - Nothing says ‘saving nature’ like chopping down nature climateskeptic.org/p/huge-20…

Western CO₂ matters little: Rich World net zero 2050 cuts just 8.4% of remaining 21st century emissions Costing $100s of trillions, it will reduce temps by just 0.1°C The vast majority of future emissions come from China, India, Africa, and other non-rich countries data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/ngfs, live.magicc.org, worldscientific.com/doi/10.1… You can see all the references in my Twitter thread: nitter.net/BjornLomborg/status/20…

Peer-review is not a part of the scientific method. Period. The peer-review system, as it exists in its current form, has only existed since the 1970s (maybe 1960s in some cases). It is a relatively modern academic gatekeeping process, it’s not an ancient pillar of science. Issac Newton, Galileo, Charles Darwin, and even much of Einstein's work (specifically his four Annus Mirabilis papers in 1905) were published without “peer-review.” Science advances with new evidence, replication, and falsifiability. “Peer-reviewers” typically do none of the above things when reading over a paper that is submitted to an academic journal. Reviewers are anonymous “experts” who often just stamp approval for any papers they happen to agree with and reject ones that challenge their own biases or research because they want to be right. Just because something has been “peer-reviewed” does not necessarily mean it is accurate. And just because something hasn't been subject to the academic circle jerk does not necessarily mean it is invalid. Your peers agreeing with your ideas does not automatically make your ideas valid. “Peer-review” approval not the arbiter of truth. It can be. Sure. But it can also be gatekeeping.

Communist China is funding US NGOs to wreck our country. The Trump administration has yet to investigate, much less to do anything about this dangerous attack. Let's get on it.

The world is burning less Despite breathless climate reporting of ever-more fire Total area burned across the world has declined over past 125 years Reduced more than 25% over last two decades alone Entirely uncontroversial, mostly because more people (humans don't want fire near their houses) and more agriculture (farmers don't want their crops on fire) agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.…, earthdata.nasa.gov/data/cata… You can see all the references in my Twitter thread: nitter.net/BjornLomborg/status/20…

Bravo, Mr. President! @realDonaldTrump

On this date in 1966, Central Park (NYC) reached 103°F. It was 100°F in both 1898 and 1911 as well. Despite the supposedly “unprecedented climate-fueled heat dome” overhead, Central Park only managed to match the 100°F mark today.

Monuments created under the Antiquities Act are subject to judicial review, an appeals court ruled, allowing Utah’s challenge to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments to proceed. news.bloomberglaw.com/enviro…

READ: "The Trump Environmental Protection Agency’s repeal of the Endangerment Finding – which asserted carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare – is one of the most consequential actions of President Trump’s second term. Now, however, Department of Justice bureaucrats are sabotaging the legal basis for the repeal." breitbart.com/politics/2026/…

restoration-news.com/the-cli… My interview with Restoration News