Global Warming and the PSC

Is Global Warming a Hoax? A Scam? Is the PSC Serious?

Share this article


A hoax is a humorous or malicious deception.  A scam is a dishonest scheme or swindle.  It’s a hoax for profit.  Hoaxes have made fools of the unwary, and scams have taken unwitting victims for a long time.  How do you avoid getting taken?

Cicero asked: Cui bono — Who benefits?  Today you should ask:  What’s the hustle and who’s the mark?  If you are in a rigged game and don’t know who the mark is, it’s probably you.  But what if you are in a rigged game and don’t know it’s rigged?

Say the hustle is there’s an imminent global catastrophe and you have to do something or stop doing something (like using fossil fuels) for the good of humanity.  Beautiful people, experts, the media, politicians, and other shills are virtue signaling for it.  You might think they know something you don’t.

But you see the sky isn’t falling.  And they aren’t doing what they want you to do.  So you wonder is Global Warming a hoax?  A scam?  Looks like both.

Global Warming, aka Climate Change is the idea that the earth’s climate is warming or changing unnaturally due to human activities — specifically the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas).

The argument is that burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide or CO2 (true).  And that as this gas increases in the atmosphere it increases a greenhouse effect that reduces outgoing energy radiation to space (true), and the “trapped energy” causes the earth’s temperature to rise (theoretically true).  And that the rate of increase is unnatural (too fast) and the higher temperature is undesirable.

This implies that there is a natural slower rate of temperature increase (untrue) and an optimum earth temperature that all can agree on (doubtful).  And that humans can control it (untrue).

The temperature increase attributable to increased CO2 is small, hard to measure,  and  impossible to isolate from changes due to other variables.  That’s because  CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere, and there are many other natural causes of temperature and climate changes.

Geologic records show wide variations in climate and temperature.  Recorded temperature measurements show wider natural variations than recent increases that have alarmed global warmers.  And those increases have slowed.  So alarmists now hype Climate Change and equate it with weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, rainfall, droughts, heat waves, cold spells, and with natural disasters like locust swarms, plagues, and contagions real or hyped.

Former Vice President Al Gore is one of the loudest shills for the greenhouse effect.  In 2006, he produced “An Inconvenient Truth” video which correlated CO2 in ancient ice cores with temperature and showed that temperature was higher when CO2 was higher.  He therefore said: higher CO2 causes higher temperatures.  And started the Global Warming catastrophe industry for profit.  Cui bono?  Professional Chicken Little’s.

It didn’t matter that the ice cores showed that the rise in temperature preceded the rise in CO2 by hundreds of years.  So careful observers say: higher temperatures cause higher CO2.  The former VP ignored this inconvenient truth and made sky-will-fall predictions.  Icebergs would melt, sea levels would rise, coastal cities would flood unless governments acted to reduce CO2 emissions.  Cui bono?  Big government in partnership with Green Energy.

Others joined in to promote the scam and to share the profits from government mandated solutions to imaginary problems.  Who are some of those scammers and their scams?  Well, right here in Mississippi there’s: Hello Kemper My Old Friend.  I’ve come to talk with you again…

There are lots of scammers in federal and state agencies.  Also in Congress and in state legislatures which create, fund, and abdicate their legislative responsibilities to those agencies (which become law into themselves).  Also in presidents and governors who appoint Global Warming and Green Energy zealots to run the agencies.  And who promote projects like Kemper to make the oceans stop rising and to spin straw into gold — or lignite into natural gas.

And to enrich their political supporters and corporate cronies.  Cui bono?  Politicians and their supporters.

Scammers in colleges and universities do made-to-order “research” about how many CO2 molecules can dance on the head of a pin.   And why windmills and solar panels should supplant cheaper electricity from more reliable gas turbines.   And not to worry about their intermittency.  Cui bono?  Global Warming / Climate Change / Green Energy experts and advocates.

Windmills don’t generate electricity when there’s no wind, and neither do solar cells when there’s no sun.  This intermittency requires gas turbine backups to produce electricity when windmills and solar cells don’t.  This redundancy increases utility spending and customer cost.  Utilities like that.  As noted in prior articles, the more they spend, the more they make.  They get a guaranteed return on their spending.  Cui bono?  Regulated utility monopolies.  (Incidentally, Mississippi’s don’t want us to comment on their scams.)

The state agency that regulates Mississippi’s electric utility monopolies is the Public Service Commission.  Its 2:1 hand-picked Republican majority approved the $2 billion Kemper experiment in 2012 instead of a $700 million natural gas plant using proved technology.

It didn’t work.  Its cost ballooned to $7+ billion.  Following the 2015 election, two new commissioners voted with the hold-over commissioner to kill it.  Mississippi Power and its parent wrote off $6+ billion and the customers pay for an extra $600 million or so to convert the plant to natural gas.  Could have been worse.

Could have been better too — if the PSC had done its job.  We think a customer advocate in the PSC will help when the next scam comes along.  The Legislature could and should approve this.

The PSC has two new commissioners following the 2019 election.  It now wants to add a swat team — ostensibly to go after robocallers (but broader authority).  Is the PSC serious?

A PSC WITH BADGES AND GUNS.  That’s frightening.  The Legislature should quash this.  (You might like to see robocallers frog-marched before the PSC High Commissioner.  But you wouldn’t want to be there yourself.)


To sign up for updates from BPF, subscribe here.




  1. Julia O'Neal on March 4, 2020 at 12:57 pm

    Wrong. Just wait and see. It’ll be fun for your kids and grandkids.

    • Joemama on October 22, 2020 at 9:23 am

      Because Al Gore told you so? Typical liberal sheep. This is all a big scam brought to you by the democrat party. In MN we are 20-30 degrees below average in weather right now. We just had a large snowfall on the 20th of Oct., which never happens. We are getting winter weather a month early, and the springs have been getting a lot shorter due to cold weather. I have read a lot about this man made global warming nonsense, and it is alarming the information that is out there that contradicts everything the democratic party is telling everyone. Along with the liberal media. When something becomes this politicized, you know something is rotten in Denmark.

      • Mark on January 8, 2021 at 10:57 pm

        Who wins if you believe that global warming isnt real? Gas and oil companies. Who’s got an army of lobbyists, lawyers, money and the G.o.p in their pocket? Gas oil and chemical companies. Who pay off politicians to pollute.

        It’s their if you follow the real money.

        Climate change is here, the evidence is overwhelming. You just literally said “We just had a large snowfall on the 20th of Oct., which never happens. We are getting winter weather a month early, and the springs have been getting a lot shorter due to cold weather” but its made up?

        Watch the documentary and they explain why your getting more snowfall, lower lows and warmer highs. They explain it all.

        • Pep De Pop on January 24, 2021 at 6:58 am

          Man-made global warming is The Hoax. What’s next, a movement to stop the rotation of the earth because it give people vertigo? “Climate change”? When does climate NOT change? These are common sensical things that ought to raise a red flag as far as I’m concerned. Do you need data? Ok.

          1. The climatic/weather data climatologists and paleo-climatologists have to play with is sporadic and dates back 150 years AT THE MOST. So, when you year ” this is the highest in the history of the planet” you know they are lying to you.
          2. The climatic/weather data we have is only for less than 0.001% of the planet.
          3. Most climate models are utter shit, made up (see Michael E. Mann vs. Tim Ball and the “hockey stick” graph.) These models are reconstructions based on estimates, averages and smoothed out exponential averages. So, for example, take your estimated ConEdison bill, multiply it by 400,000,000 years and extrapolate it to the whole of the Milky Way. These climatologists use a similar method to “guess” (in reality they’re just pulling it right out of their asses) what the weather was 10, 20 or 20,000 years ago.
          4. Current weather predictions are useless beyond the 3-day forecast. ANY sane weather forecaster will tell you that the level of confidence in forecasts drops off precipitously after the 3rd day (albeit they are getting better.) So, it goes without saying: If they can’t even predict the weather four days out, what makes us all think they can tell you what the average temperature was in France in the year 873. I’ll tell you: THEY CAN’T!
          5. “97% of scientists agree.” We’ve heard this one before. By the way, the line was first uttered by a reporter in the 90s and was entirely made up. This one defies logic, not because it’s absurd on its face but because everyone keeps on repeating it AS IF. The scientific method IS NOT based on agreement or consensus or anything of the sort. Real scientists (and climatologists/paleo-climatologists are very close to losing all face in the scientific community if they keep up this charade) develop a theory and submit it to peer review. Not to your friends and/or other IPCC members, to the entire field. These scientists then review the data and look for wrong assumptions or conclusions and then report them back to you. When this process is exhausted and your hypothesis still stands, it becomes part of the scientific record. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: the more isolated the reviewers of the work are the more validated the work will be. A very large amount of work being churned out in the field is currently being reviewed ONLY within a very close group of academics who all share the same goals.
          6. CO2. No other gas has ever been more vilified than CO2. Thanks to the field of meteorology and climatology too. Did you know that trees LOOOOOOOOVE CO2? Did you know that if CO2 were to double tomorrow, the Sahara desert would look like Alabama? Truth of the matter is that CO2 makes up a miniscule part of the suspended particles in the atmosphere, but the goal has ALWAYS been economic, hence no one else is allowed to look at the remaining 96% because it doesn’t suit their goals.
          7. Did you know that human-derived gases in the atmosphere only amounts to 0.0016% of all gases? Did you know that only ONE in every 77,000 CO2 particles in the atmosphere is of human origin? Yet, out of the 77,000 particles, they are telling us all that that ONE FREAKING PARTICLE is the one causing global warming.

          Why is it so difficult to understand that the planet has undergone warming and cooling multiple times in the past? Or that the icecaps have come and gone multiple times in the past? ALL without ANY human intervention. Vikings used to grow barley and vegetables in southern Greenland. Brits used to grow grapes for wine making as far north as Scotland. Again, BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.

          We may very well be undergoing a warming trend, A NATURAL trend. Best of all, there isn’t jack shit we can do about it, other than adapt of course.

          And finally, Big Oil is currently financing most of the studies coming out on the matter. Everyone with 2+ brain connections understand how they are going to play this: Big Oil wants to influence the government into forcing people to accept global warming as a science and reality. Once people internalize that this is going to happen and that IT IS THEIR FAULT, the government will be able to impose an orgasmic amount of green taxes and finance the very programs that Big Oil does not want to pay for (infrastructure) but are SOOOO looking forward to reap benefits from.

          My two cents.

          • Drkts on February 5, 2021 at 10:41 am

            1) they usually say “on record” or “in recorded history”, so dont overstate your case. The LIA started in 1350 and ended in 1850. So any temperature record that beats that probably beats anything in the last 700 years.
            2) “The climatic/weather data we have is only for less than 0.001% of the planet.” where do you get that nonsense from. Just making crap up does make your case. The satellite data covers the entire planet.
            3) “Most climate models are utter shit” Odd then that the forecasts by Wallace Broecker and James Hansen in the 1970’s and 1980’s are still on track today. The Mann Hockey stick has now been verified by over a dozen independent studies. See
            4) “Current weather predictions are useless beyond the 3-day forecast” weather forecasting is a different science (different equations and different input data. You are comparing apples to combine harvesters.
            5) there is a scientific consensus on this issue because the evidence for it is so overwhelming, not the other way around.
            6) “Truth of the matter is that CO2 makes up a miniscule part of the suspended particles in the atmosphere, but the goal has ALWAYS been economic, hence no one else is allowed to look at the remaining 96% because it doesn’t suit their goals.” The % of the atmosphere that is CO2 is irrelevant as 99% of the gases in the atmosphere play no role in trapping the escaping heat (IR) energy. N2 and O2 are transparent to both incoming and out going energy. See
            7)”Did you know that human-derived gases in the atmosphere only amounts to 0.0016% of all gases” No, I did not know that because it is not true.
            Current CO2 concentration of CO2: 414 ppm (0.04%)
            Pre industrial level: 270 ppm (0.027%) – stable for the previous 10,000 years.
            Increase due to human activity: 144 pmm, so that is a 53% increase in CO2 due to human activity.

            “Vikings used to grow barley and vegetables in southern Greenland.” Myth – see

            “Brits used to grow grapes for wine making as far north as Scotland.” Myth – there has been no archeological evidence of grape growing in Britain during Roman times. However nowadays there are hundreds of vineyards scattered across the UK, including Scotland!

            “Why is it so difficult to understand that the planet has undergone warming and cooling multiple times in the past?” Its not. Every past warming and cooling period has a natural explanation, it is just that none of those (or any combination of them can explain the warming of the last 50-100 years.

            “A NATURAL trend” – what specific natural factor(s) are causing the warming?

            So the fossil fuel companies are behind this? LoL! Why have they spent $Ms to pump out anti AGW propaganda?

  2. Carey Varnado on March 13, 2020 at 8:17 pm

    I am curious about where the funding for BPF comes from. Please send me the details on that. The old saying “follow the money “ generally is good advice. There are a lot of organizations funded by the companies that may lose money if carbon emissions are limited. Are you one of them? Serious scientists all say that carbon emissions are warming the earth in a way that has never happened before. I look forward to seeing the funding information. Regards, Carey Varnado

    • Hue on November 28, 2020 at 2:15 pm

      Black money most likely

  3. James Esselman on July 25, 2020 at 2:06 am

    Hi Kelley, your article is excellent in describing the basic flaws in the global warming argument hoax. I just cringe when I hear Al Gore or John Kerry talk about anything scientific. Analytic, scientific thinking is not their strong suit. The biggest problem with debunking this hoax is the total willingness of the average global warming believer to put their complete faith in weak climate science propaganda. The believers are OK with Michael Mann fudging graph data, NASA and NOAA altering temp data, believing in wind mills and solar panels to replace fossil fuels, seeing Al Gore and John Kerry living hypocritical life styles, John Cook and his phony consensus study, etc etc….. You would think after all this climate change BS your average citizen would tell these clowns to take a hike but there is always another clueless fool in line to believe in this crap. Keep up the good work Kelley…. Expose these frauds for what they are.

  4. Bla bla on August 12, 2020 at 11:59 pm

    No I don’t think so

  5. kurt gandenberger on October 25, 2020 at 3:42 am

    in 1988 we were warned of a climate catastrophe in 12 years if drastic were not taken. it seems every 12 years we have another dire again we are told the earth will be completely finished in 12 years unless we take drastic action. the response in california has been to phase out fossil fuels in 2035. duh, if the earth will be totally wrecked in 2032, what earthly good will it do to ban hydrocarbons three years afterward? in the meantime, we are having absolutely typical weather despite all the rich liberals living in palaces and using private jets.

  6. Tony on November 10, 2020 at 6:13 pm

    This whole thing started with Gore. It was all a lie if I remember right I watched a documentary of the scientist that Gore hired years later. They said they were told to say Global warming was real but it wasn’t. And the reason was because the government was wanting to put a carbon tax on all of us American people. That the tax you would pay was going to be based on how many was in the family how many cars you had and anything that caused carbon. But it never happened I’m not sure why it didn’t. But Biden said today he was going to start a carbon tax. Well we’ll see but remember you heard it here first. It’s just another Democrat party lie.

  7. John Fiske on November 28, 2020 at 7:37 pm

    We all use fossil fuels to go to work and heat our homes, to travel and to live. If Democrats are successful in taxing this necessary life commodity, then that’s the ballgame. Even electric powered cars, trucks and planes require power to charge their batteries – you gonna get that from a Kansas wind farm? The world will change with supply and demand, but an overwhelming, crippling tax is not called for.

    • drkts on February 5, 2021 at 10:45 am

      No I get all my power needs from the solar panels on my roof. I dont pay electricity bills any more and every now and then get a check. Paid for them selves in less than 5 years. Now I have at least another 20 years of free energy. Try it, you’ll like it.

Leave a Comment