Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

There’s no scientific evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’ causing stronger hurricanes

Published

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Paul Schwennesen

The scientific consensus on hurricanes, which isn’t covered by breathless climate reporting, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. We must demand honesty and contextual complexity on climate reporting.

As Hurricane Beryl barreled its way across the Gulf of Mexico and into the U.S. mainland, the attention-getting headlines had beaten it there by a long shot – claims that it was a remarkable outlier were appearing in climate-frantic narratives more than a week earlier.

CBS News claimed it was “historic,” alongside headlines on “How to talk to your kids about climate anxiety.” The BBC reported that it was “the first hurricane to reach the category four level in June since NHC [National Hurricane Center] records began and the earliest to hit category five – the highest category – in July.” While technically true, and warranting some mention, the claims tend to misrepresent, by implication and association, the current scientific understanding of hurricanes and human impacts on climate change.

The scientific consensus on hurricanes, a consensus not covered by breathless reporting on climate, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. The National Climate Assessment published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, for instance, in Appendix 3 reads:

There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has any trend been identified in the number of US land-falling hurricanes.

So what’s actually going on? Is Beryl’s historic early arrival an indication of something fundamentally different about hurricane activity? Does it or does it not represent the bitter fruit of humanity’s ecological sins? The answer is almost certainly not. Rather, the hype around Beryl’s early arrival represents a major misunderstanding, a mass-bias phenomenon which sees evidence where evidence doesn’t really exist.

Historically speaking, of course, hurricanes are commonplace in the Gulf. “Hurricane” derives from the prehistoric Taíno name for the god of evil winds, Jurucán. The Spanish quickly adopted the name to describe the violent storms which wreaked such havoc on their exploratory efforts in the New World. Both the 1527 Narváez and 1539 De Soto expeditions, for example, were pummeled by hurricanes that may well have reached category five, had the NHC been around to classify them as such. So while it is conceivable that Beryl is a major anomaly and portent of evil tidings, it is very unlikely to be.

Instead, its media portrayal as Exhibit A in the case for anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally inaccurate. Today’s dire headlines are a perfect example of what Steve Koonin, in his book Unsettled, calls “the long game of telephone that starts with the research literature and runs through the [scientific] assessment reports to the summaries of the assessment reports and on to the media coverage.”

The media, he says, often end up distributing a narrative that is directly counter to the actual evidence. They do this partly from misunderstanding the scientific and statistical significance of observations, but mostly because extreme headlines fit a generally understood narrative. Such reports are far more likely to be recognized and absorbed by the news-reading public. This selective attention pushes a bias toward extremism in climate reporting that significantly inflames the political climate, to our collective detriment.

Instead, what happens is that reports which are technically true (like Beryl’s record early arrival) make it into the common current only if they fit the general alarmist narrative. The BBC perfectly exemplifies this in its coverage, noting that “Hurricane Beryl’s record-breaking nature has put the role of climate change in the spotlight.” It then goes on to say, toward the end of an article most people will never fully read:

The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change. But exceptionally high sea surface temperatures are seen as a key reason why Hurricane Beryl has been so powerful.

This is how the slight-of-hand works: BBC reporters, no doubt in interviews with hurricane experts, were obliged to quibble somewhat about the implications of Beryl’s record-setting classification. They properly note that it is “difficult” (impossible, in fact) to attribute Beryl’s record to climate change as such. And they are correct that high sea surface temperatures are a major factor in Beryl’s extraordinary rise. But it is the way these technical truths are presented that leads to errors in association. Very few casual readers would be likely to read the article, headlined with “How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world” and not make an inductive leap to the causal inference of human-induced warming. This is a problem, because such an inference is in fact not substantiated by any scientifically accepted observations.

Now, to be sure, this works both ways. This is not a claim that human emissions have no impacts, after all, only that we must be very careful about what the evidence actually says before channeling it into policy recommendations. Nor is my point that we can safely disregard all negative reports about the environment, since there are clearly issues that warrant our genuine collective attention. For instance, I’ve played a bit of sleight-of-hand myself: I correctly noted that major hurricanes are below the historical average, but I did not highlight the fact that overall hurricane count is up. Likewise with the Great Barrier Reef: while coral coverage is remarkably up, the kind of monoculture coral crop accounting for the rise still leaves room for ecological concern.

The real point is that we must demand honesty, including contextual complexity, on climate reporting. Especially since the stakes are so high (either in matters of our environment or individual liberty), we cannot afford to play games with half-truths and obfuscations. Intelligent free people deserve fuller, more comprehensive, less-activist reporting on climate change. Beryl has made a record of sorts, yes. What that record really means in the context of human-induced climate change is fundamentally, scientifically unknown. Maybe that would be a better headline.

Reprinted with permission from the American Institute for Economic Research.

espionage

Hong Kong Police Detain Relatives of Canadian Candidate Targeted by Beijing Election Interference

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Move follows aggressive PRC disinformation against Joe Tay, RCMP security warnings, and raises pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney after White House meeting

In a striking escalation of Beijing’s interference in Canada’s Parliament and its global campaign to silence dissent, Hong Kong police have reportedly detained and questioned relatives of former Conservative election candidate Joe Tay—who was targeted by aggressive Chinese cyber and ground operations during the recent federal campaign, according to The Bureau’s intelligence sources.

The move to detain and question Tay’s cousin and the man’s wife in Hong Kong—reported by multiple sources, including Hong Kong Free Press—appears aimed at ramping up pressure on Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose campaign plausibly benefited from Beijing’s interference and the Liberal pledge to fight President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime.

Tay, who lost by roughly 5,000 votes to his Liberal opponent in Don Valley North, has yet to comment on the detentions. As The Bureau previously reported, the RCMP advised Tay to suspend in-person campaigning during the final week of the election due to credible threats tied to foreign interference.

The reported detentions occurred Thursday morning in the Fo Tan district of Hong Kong, where Tay’s relatives were taken to a police station for questioning. While Hong Kong police have not publicly confirmed the operation, the tactic aligns with the Chinese Communist Party’s growing use of family-based intimidation to suppress overseas dissent—a strategy documented across multiple countries by rights monitors and Western intelligence agencies.

Thursday’s detentions came just 48 hours after Carney’s closed-door meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in Washington. Carney has not publicly commented on the content of the meeting, but according to a U.S. intelligence community source, the agenda likely included PRC political interference, trade, espionage, fentanyl trafficking, money laundering, and Chinese national security threats across North America.

Tay, 62, became a top target of Chinese interference networks during the 2025 campaign. Federal intelligence officials and The Bureau identified a coordinated foreign interference operation that promoted disinformation against Tay and other Conservative candidates across PRC-linked channels, particularly on WeChat, with the goal of depressing Chinese-Canadian voter turnout for the Conservative Party.

The SITE Task Force assessed that Tay was subject to a broader transnational repression campaign. PRC-linked accounts circulated narratives portraying Canada as a refuge for fugitives if Tay were elected—rhetoric that was echoed publicly by Liberal MP Paul Chiang, who was supported by Prime Minister Carney after those comments were publicized. Chiang’s campaign collapsed under international pressure after the RCMP announced it would review the matter.

That Beijing appears resolved to continue persecuting Tay and his family—even after his electoral defeat—points to a broader and deeper strategic objective behind this singular, confirmed case of interference. It also presents an early and consequential test for Prime Minister Carney, who campaigned on defending Canadian sovereignty while opposing Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. The timing of the escalation—detaining relatives of a defeated Canadian dissident just days after Carney’s May 6 White House meeting—suggests the PRC may be actively probing Ottawa’s resolve under new leadership.

The Bureau has extensively documented this repressive strategy. On April 10, 2025, The Bureau confirmed that Hong Kong activist Frances Hui’s parents were detained by Hong Kong national security police, following Hui’s testimony before Canada’s Parliament. Hui, now based in Washington, had previously revealed she was allegedly stalked and threatened by a suspected PRC agent.

Tay’s case fits an increasingly global pattern. The Bureau has learned that a report reviewed by Toronto police during the campaign involved a suspected stalking threat against members of Tay’s team. And now, even after democratic outcomes, the Chinese state appears determined to punish political critics through surveillance, coercion, and intimidation directed at family members—sending a clear message to diaspora communities and foreign governments alike.

The formal charges against Tay were issued by Hong Kong police in December 2024. According to official documents reviewed by The Bureau, Tay—born 12 December 1962—was charged with:

  1. Incitement to secession
  2. Collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security

Authorities allege that between July 2020 and June 2024, Tay operated a platform called HongKonger Station, through which he published “numerous videos inciting secession” and “repeatedly urged foreign countries to impose sanctions” on officials in Beijing and Hong Kong.

The SITE Task Force confirmed that these charges were disseminated and amplified by Chinese intelligence-linked networks during Canada’s 2025 campaign, as part of a broader information warfare effort to delegitimize Tay and portray his candidacy as a national security threat to China.

At the time the charges were announced, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly condemned them, warning that Beijing’s extraterritorial use of its National Security Law undermined international norms and democratic principles. Since Tay’s defeat—and her party’s electoral victory—Joly has not made any further public comment.

The Bureau will seek comment from Carney and his government today and update this story.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

Trump announces UK will fast-track American products under new deal

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Donald Trump on Thursday announced the framework of a new trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, calling it a breakthrough that will eliminate red tape and fast-track American exports.

Key Details:

  • President Trump told reporters the UK would be “opening up the country” to American goods, particularly U.S. beef and other agricultural exports.

  • Although the current 10% tariff rate on the UK will remain, the agreement offers Britain some flexibility on imports like auto parts and aircraft components while laying the foundation for an “economic security agreement.”

  • Trump emphasized that the UK has agreed to speed up the customs process for American products: “There won’t be any red tape—very fast approvals.”

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump on Thursday revealed that the United States and the United Kingdom have finalized the framework for a new bilateral trade deal, marking the first formal economic pact since his administration’s imposition of “Liberation Day” tariffs last month. Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said the deal would ease trade barriers and accelerate customs clearance for American exports, with a particular focus on agricultural products like beef.

“They’ll also be fast-tracking American goods through their customs process, so our exports go to a very, very quick form of approval, and there won’t be any red tape,” Trump said. While a 10% tariff on British goods remains in place, the agreement grants London some relief on imports of automobile and aircraft components and extends an invitation to join a broader “economic security agreement.”

Prime Minister Keir Starmer joined the announcement via speakerphone and praised the negotiating team for their work. “This has been under discussion for weeks,” Starmer said, highlighting the roles of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in brokering the deal.

The announcement underscores the growing rapport between Trump and Starmer, who previously met at the White House on February 27th. While the final terms of the deal are still being worked out, the Trump administration has positioned this framework as a significant win in its broader push to restructure global trade in favor of American producers.

Continue Reading

Trending

X