South American countries’ pragmatic reassessment of ties with China amid US hegemonism, protectionism
Global Times | February 8, 2026
A quiet but profound shift is reshaping the geopolitical map of South America, as revealed by an exclusive Reuters report, “Brazil signals new openness to Mercosur-China talks as Beijing seeks deeper ties”: For the first time, senior Brazilian officials are considering a push for a “partial” trade agreement between the Mercosur bloc and China.
This represents a major shift for Latin America’s largest economy. While Washington is busy raising tariffs and fortifying protectionist walls, countries in the Western hemisphere are recalculating their survival strategies. The result? A pragmatic reassessment of ties with Beijing.
We are already seeing the ripple effects of US pressure on neighbors like Mexico and Panama, but the shifting mood in the wider region is far more significant. The degree to which Latin American nations are pivoting is directly correlated to the economic squeeze they feel from the North.
Mercosur is the customs union comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and newcomers Bolivia and Venezuela (currently a suspended member).
For decades, Brazil acted as the bloc’s protectionist “gatekeeper” against Chinese influence. Fearing that its domestic manufacturing sector would be hollowed out by Asian imports, Brasília consistently vetoed formal negotiations with Beijing. However, what Reuters describes as a “new global scenario” is forcing a change. This is a diplomatic euphemism for a stark reality: the rise of US protectionism coupled with the undeniable allure of Chinese opportunity. Facing the headwinds of American unilateralism, Brazil has done the math. Traditional allies offer no alternative market access, only higher tariff barriers.
Meanwhile, however, China is not only offering a market but also bringing tangible industrial investment, from BYD to Great Wall Motor. When Washington offers only sticks without carrots, Brazil has little choice but to turn toward a pragmatic East. Uruguay’s president, who recently visited China with a large business delegation to demand faster trade talks, is a clear testament to this regional impatience.
Historically, a Mercosur-China deal was viewed as “mission impossible” due to the bloc’s Common External Tariff rules, which forbid members from negotiating individual trade deals. Politics also posed a formidable barrier. Paraguay, a member of Mercosur, maintains “diplomatic ties” with China’s Taiwan region, creating a legal deadlock to any comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Beijing under the one-China principle.
Furthermore, Argentina’s political pendulum – swinging from protectionist Peronism to Javier Milei’s pro-US stance – has made a unified strategy difficult.
This is why the proposed “partial agreement” is a masterstroke of political pragmatism. It serves as a strategic bypass around these obstacles.
Unlike a full FTA targeting zero tariffs, a partial deal sidesteps the sensitive issue of tariff reduction that terrifies Brazilian manufacturers. It also navigates around Paraguay’s diplomatic dilemma. Instead, it would focus on non-tariff barriers, such as harmonizing sanitary regulations, streamlining customs procedures and setting import quotas.
By shifting the focus from tariffs to regulatory cooperation, Brazil is doing more than just clearing the path for soy and iron ore. It is paving the way for deeper integration of Chinese capital.
The China-Brazil relationship has already evolved from simple trade to manufacturing. With Chinese EV makers taking over shuttered Ford factories in Bahia, the two economies are moving toward supply chain symbiosis. This partial agreement could provide the institutional framework needed to secure those investments.
From a macro perspective, this is a snapshot of the Global South’s increasing autonomy. If these talks proceed, they will mark the opening of a new path – one where pragmatism supersedes ideology.
This serves as a stark reminder to policymakers in Washington: trying to block economic gravity with pressure tactics often accelerates the search for new partners. The shifting winds in South America are not merely a passive reaction to fading hegemony; they represent an active and powerful response from nations determined to define their own economic destiny.
Epstein case reveals ‘satanism’ of Western elites – Lavrov
RT | February 9, 2026
The decadent lifestyle of disgraced US financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his entourage is a testament to the moral decay of Western elites, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Last month, the US Department of Justice released a large trove of emails, photos, and videos from the Epstein state, prompting renewed scrutiny of high-profile individuals who associated with Epstein despite his conviction for sex crimes.
The files “have revealed the face of the West and the deep state, or rather a deep union that rules the entire West and seeks to rule the whole world,” Lavrov said in an interview with NTV aired on Sunday.
“Every normal person knows this is beyond comprehension and pure satanism,” Lavrov added.
Epstein died in a New York jail cell in 2019 in what was ruled a suicide. His ex-girlfriend and close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 for trafficking and abusing underage women alongside Epstein.
Throughout his life, Epstein associated with politicians, diplomats, businessmen, and royals, several of whom visited his private Caribbean island.
The newly released documents contain claims that Epstein and his associates participated in occult rituals involving human sacrifice. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced last week that his government would examine whether Polish children were abused as part of Epstein’s so-called “satanic circle.”
What is AZAPAC? Why is it important?
If Americans Knew | February 6, 2026
AZAPAC Founder Wants to “De-Zionize” The U.S. Government.
Author Michael D. Rectenwald is the founder of AZAPAC (The Anti-Zionist America PAC). Ana Kasparian interviews him on The Young Turks.
See the entire interview here: 
• AZAPAC Founder Wants to “De-Zionize” The U…
Read more here: https://www.aza-pac.com/
“Zionism has taken over the U.S. government, as the constant subservience to Israel in word and deed makes eminently clear. Opposing Zionism in America means ridding the government of Zionists who serve Israel over the United States. This demands, among other measures, confronting and competing with entrenched lobbies like AIPAC, CUFI, and J-Street. These groups bend U.S. policy to favor foreign agendas. Zionist influence drains American resources, undermines U.S. sovereignty, and runs counter to the interests of the American people.”
Join AZAPAC, IAK, and the many other orgs in the VAB coalition.
The Toxic Border: How Israel’s Chemical Spraying is Reshaping Life in South Lebanon
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 8, 2026
Reports that Israeli aircraft sprayed chemical agents along the Lebanese border — later identified as toxic defoliants — have intensified concerns over environmental damage, civilian harm, and possible violations of international law, with similar incidents also reported in southern Syria.
Key Takeaways
- UN peacekeepers suspended patrols after being warned that aircraft would spray chemical agents near the Blue Line.
- The sprayed substance was later identified as a toxic herbicide linked to cancer.
- The campaign is seen as serving both military land-clearing and civilian displacement purposes.
- Similar chemical spraying incidents have been reported in southern Syria.
- Rights groups say targeting farmland may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.
- Spraying along the Blue Line
Israel is waging chemical warfare against both Lebanese and Syrian lands, a campaign that may not only have dire environmental repercussions but also inflict long-term health problems on local civilian populations.
On February 1, the United Nations peacekeeping forces stationed in southern Lebanon – UNIFIL – were forced to suspend their patrols along what is known as the Blue Line that demarcates the de facto Israeli-Lebanese border. They did so out of safety concerns for their soldiers, after Israel informed them it would be using planes to spray chemical agents in the area.
Tel Aviv initially informed UNIFIL that the chemical agent was “non-toxic.” Nevertheless, the UN reiterated its “concerns” about flight movements in the area, stressing that such activities violate UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
It wasn’t long until it was discovered that the agent being sprayed was, in fact, toxic. Allegedly, the specific agent used, for which a toxicology test was conducted, is a defoliant and herbicide that is linked to cancer.
Israel is currently on its way to violating the Lebanon ceasefire, which went into effect on November 27, 2024, nearly 10,000 times. This makes it the most violated ceasefire deal in recorded history.
Israeli strikes, targeting north to south and even the capital city of Beirut, have killed hundreds. Despite this, there have been no recorded violations by Hezbollah or the Lebanese Army.
A Strategy of Erasure
What is so consequential about Israel’s use of chemical agents in southern Lebanon is that it has two primary purposes. The first is to kill everything it touches, to clear the land for military purposes. The second is that it is being used as a form of collective punishment, a likely intention behind which is to drive Lebanese citizens from their homes.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of this is that there is a dark history of such chemicals being used for the same purposes elsewhere. The most infamous case is that of the US military spraying Agent Orange, also a herbicide and defoliant, during the Vietnam War.
As a result of the callous use of Agent Orange, both the civilian population of Vietnam and US soldiers alike ended up contracting serious chronic health problems. One of the results was birth defects, cancers such as Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and even neurodegenerative diseases. This was in addition to what was labeled ecocide in the country.
While some may argue that the Israelis are simply using chemical agents to clear the land, as a security precaution, this is not plausible. Israel has the capability and has historically used heavy equipment to clear the land.
Deploying chemical agents, which it is of note that they haven’t done so on their side of the Blue Line, is clearly a malicious attack on Lebanese lands and the civilian population living there.
Beyond Lebanon
Israelis have frequently expressed their dismay over the immediate return of Lebanese villagers to their destroyed homes in the south, particularly near the unofficial border, as Israel has never declared its borders.
Meanwhile, a considerable percentage of Israelis, formerly living in settlements like Kiryat Shimona, that were hit the hardest by Hezbollah during the last war, have refused to return.
It has not only been Lebanon that has been subjected to such chemical agent attacks, but southern Syria has also fallen victim to the Israeli military spraying similar chemical agents on its lands.
While the Lebanese government has come under criticism for often ignoring the plight of its citizens in the south, the Syrian government completely refrains from addressing the ongoing occupation and war crimes committed in the south of their country.
The refusal of Damascus to even voice its concern about the chemical warfare being waged against its people and lands has made it less of an issue than in Lebanon, as Beirut has raised its voice.
“The deliberate targeting of civilian farmland violates international humanitarian law, particularly the prohibition on attacking or destroying objects indispensable to civilian survival,” commented the Switzerland-based Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
It also demanded accountability for Israel’s “large-scale destruction of private property without specific military necessity amounts to a war crime and undermines food security and basic livelihoods in the affected areas.”
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Zelensky tried to kill the chance for Russia-Ukraine peace, again
The attempted assassination of a high-ranking Russian general is an attempt to sabotage talks and extend the Kiev regime’s stay in power
By Nadezhda Romanenko | RT | February 8, 2026
The assassination attempt on Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseyev, first deputy chief of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) is clearly the Zelensky regime’s latest desperate bid to sabotage the emerging Russia-Ukraine-US negotiations channel in Abu Dhabi and prolong the war.
When negotiations gain traction, spoilers surface. That’s Negotiations 101. And this week’s second round in Abu Dhabi was precisely the kind of movement that unnerves actors who fear ballots, reforms, and accountability more than inevitable defeat on the battlefield.
The target choice reinforces the point. Alekseyev is the second-in-command of GRU chief Igor Kostyukov – who sits on the Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi. Striking the No. 2 as the No. 1 shuttles between sessions is both a very deliberate message and an attempt to rattle Russia’s delegation, inject chaos into its decision loop, force security overdrive, and ultimately, provoke Moscow’s withdrawal from the talks.
Nor is this the first time kinetic theater has tracked with diplomatic motion. Recall the attempted drone strike on President Vladimir Putin’s Valdai residence in late 2025, which coincided with particularly intense US-Russia exchanges. You don’t have to be a cynic to see a pattern: whenever the diplomatic door cracks open, someone tries to slam it shut with explosives, drones, or bullets – then retreats behind a smokescreen of denials and proxies. Call it plausible deniability as policy.
Why would Kiev’s leadership gamble like this? Start with raw political incentives. Vladimir Zelensky extended his tenure beyond the intended March 2024 election under martial law. If hostilities wind down and emergency powers lift, the ballot box looms. His standing has eroded amid war fatigue, unmet expectations, and a massive corruption scandal swirling around the presidential administration that has infuriated many Ukrainians and dealt his image a blow. End the war without a narrative of total victory, and he risks owning a messy peace, grueling reconstruction, and a reckoning at the polls. Facing voters at a stadium famously worked well during Zelensky’s initial presidential campaign, but now endlessly moving the goalposts is his only hope of clinging to power.
Then there’s the strategic logic of spoilers. Negotiations compress time, clarify tradeoffs, and create deadlines – none of which benefit maximalists. If an agreement would force Kiev to accept hard limits or expose fissures with its more hawkish backers, creating a pretext to stall makes sense from a narrow survival lens. A brazen hit inside Moscow during talks does exactly that: it dares the Kremlin to harden its stance, fractures trust at the table, and lets Kiev posture as unbowed while keeping the war‑time rally frame at home. Even if direct authorship can be obfuscated (at least on paper – because nobody will buy claims Kiev had nothing to do with it at this point), the practical effect is what counts.
Predictably, defenders will object: Kiev has every incentive to keep US support flowing, so why risk alienating Washington with an operation that screams escalation? But ‘incentives’ aren’t monolithic. They’re filtered through domestic politics, factional competition within security services, and the temptations of a successful spectacle. And remember: spoilers don’t have to be centrally ordered to be useful. A wink, a nod, and a green light to ‘make pressure’ can travel a long way in wartime bureaucracies.
The most important thing for Russia and the US at this stage is to firewall the talks from such bloody theatrics. For the negotiation process to provide real results, it must be built to survive shocks – because the shocks will keep coming. That means insulating prisoner‑exchange and humanitarian working groups from headline provocations, revalidating military deconfliction channels, and demanding verifiable behavior changes rather than trading barbs about attribution in the press.
The larger point is simpler: if we let every well‑timed bullet dictate the pace of diplomacy, we are outsourcing strategy to those who most fear peace. The Alekseyev attack fits a familiar script – choose a symbolically loaded target, hijack the narrative, and hope negotiators flinch. The right response is the opposite: call the bluff, keep the calendar, and raise the cost of sabotage by refusing to let it reset the table.
Zelensky’s regime may calculate that its political survival depends on endlessly throwing up hurdles for peace and call it ‘resistance’. If so, the fastest way to test that proposition is to keep pressing at the negotiating table. Talks are not a favor to one side; they are a filter that separates leaders who can face an endgame from those who can only survive in the fog of “not yet.”
Somalia president warns against Israeli interference, vows to prevent any military base in Somaliland
Press TV – February 8, 2026
The president of Somalia has strongly denounced the Israeli regime’s interference in his country’s internal affairs and vowed to “confront” any Israeli military presence in the breakaway region of Somaliland.
In an interview on Saturday, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud said Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as an independent state is a “reckless, fundamentally wrong and illegal action under international law.”
Somaliland is a breakaway region in northwestern Somalia, covering territory that was once part of the British Protectorate. Despite its unilateral separation, it remains internationally recognized as part of Somalia.
The region occupies a strategic position along one of the world’s most vital maritime choke points, an area already surrounded by overlapping conflicts in the Horn of Africa and West Asia.
In recent years, Somaliland has sought foreign support by developing ties with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a signatory to the Abraham Accords with Israel, as well as Taiwan, in an effort to gain international acceptance outside Mogadishu’s authority.
Israel’s move followed reports that the regime had contacted actors in Somaliland to discuss using the territory for the forced displacement of Palestinians during its genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians and wounded another 172,000, most of them women and children.
While Israeli and Somaliland authorities rejected those reports, a Somaliland official told Israel’s Channel 12 in January that an Israeli military base is “on the table and being discussed,” with its establishment tied to specific conditions.
Somalia has described Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as a direct assault on its territorial integrity and national unity, a position endorsed by most African and Arab countries, and has demanded that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reverse the decision.
Mohamud also made clear that Mogadishu will resist any Israeli military presence on Somali soil: “We will fight in our capacity. Of course, we will defend ourselves … And that means that we will confront any Israeli forces coming in, because we are against that and we will never allow that.”
He said Israel’s actions, which are “interfering with Somalia’s sovereign and territorial integrity,” also “undermine stability, security and trade in a way that affects the whole of Africa, the Red Sea and the wider world.”
Mohamud stressed that Israel’s deadly use of force against Palestinians in Gaza cannot be separated from developments in Somaliland, saying both reflect the erosion of global norms and restraints.
“Key among the global concerns is the weakening of the established rules-based international order. That order is not intact anymore,” he said.
He warned that institutions created after World War II “are under grave threat,” as the idea that “the mighty is right” increasingly replaces respect for international law.
The administration of US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has yet to signal a significant change in its position on Somaliland.
Iranian FM says uranium enrichment to continue ‘even at cost of war’
The Cradle | February 8, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 8 February that the Islamic Republic will not give up uranium enrichment, as Israel and the US are demanding – stressing that Tehran will continue to pursue a peaceful nuclear program even at the cost of war.
Araghchi also reiterated that talks with the US will not focus on anything except the nuclear issue, as Israel continues to push Washington to double down on demands for curtailing the Iranian missile program and halting support for regional resistance groups.
“Iran has paid a very heavy price for its peaceful nuclear program and for uranium enrichment,” the foreign minister said on Sunday.
“Why do we insist so much on enrichment and refuse to give it up even if a war is imposed on us? Because no one has the right to dictate our behavior,” he added.
Iran will never abandon enrichment even “if war is imposed” on the country. “Their military deployment in the region does not scare us.”
“There was no direct meeting, we had a diplomatic courtesy meeting, which amounted to a handshake. This has been done in the past, this is common,” Araghchi went on to say, referring to the recent talks, which were the first since Iran was attacked by Israel in the middle of negotiations last year.
“The place and time of the next meeting will be determined in the next consultations. It may be another place, but the form of negotiations will be indirect.”
“We will only negotiate on nuclear issues. If it is to continue, it will continue in the same way,” Araghchi affirmed.
Reports said that, as the talks began, the US CENTCOM chief would attend the negotiations.
“The US delegation in Muscat had asked if the CENTCOM commander could participate in a diplomatic greeting with us. We rejected the request, saying we do not accept the presence of a military person within the negotiation,” Araghchi clarified.
He also said the “future of negotiations is unclear,” adding: “We neither trust them nor rule out the possibility of deception and trickery. In fact, we fully anticipate it.”
The foreign minister’s comments come as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to visit the US in the coming days for talks with Donald Trump.
The premier is expected to push Washington not to give up on the demand that Iran abandon the Resistance Axis, as well as its missile and nuclear program.
“The Prime Minister believes that any negotiations must include limiting ballistic missiles and halting support for the Iranian axis,” Netanyahu’s office said on 7 February.
Israeli news site Ynet reported that Netanyahu’s goal for the US visit is “to ensure that Israeli interests are safeguarded in the negotiations.”
The report says Tel Aviv wants Iran’s missiles to be limited to 300 kilometers only, making them incapable of targeting Israel.
“Israel also wants the agreement to stipulate that Iran will no longer be able to provide support to its proxies in the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.”
A senior political source is cited by the outlet as saying that [Netanyahu] “urgently advanced” his visit to the US “to influence the acceptance of Israel’s conditions in the negotiations, with an emphasis on ballistic missiles.”
The report adds that Israel is demanding a return of surprise inspections and “high-quality” monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which Tehran accuses of serving Tel Aviv’s interests.
Additionally, Israel wants Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium to be removed from the country’s territory.
Ynet also confirms other reports that Washington expects significant Iranian concessions in the next round of talks.
Iran has signaled a willingness to potentially limit enrichment in previous negotiations, as it agreed to in the 2015 deal, which Trump scrapped during his first term.
Yet the Islamic Republic refuses to give up support for its allies and says its missile program – a major part of the country’s defense – is non-negotiable.
The negotiations nearly fell apart over Iran’s insistence on discussing only the nuclear issue.
Axios reported last week that the US agreed to meet the Iranians only “out of respect” for its Arab allies who had lobbied to save the talks from cancellation.
Right after the talks, the US imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry.
The last time Tehran negotiated with Washington, it was attacked by Israel in the middle of the talks.
Trump had pretended to be in favor of diplomacy for months prior to the attack, while secretly plotting the 12-day war with Israel.
The talks coincide with a massive US military buildup across the region, and follow numerous threats against Iran made publicly by Trump. Iran has vowed to confront any attack by striking back at Israel and US bases across West Asia.
No, Al-Jazeera, Climate Change Hasn’t Altered African Flood and Drought Patterns
By Anthony Watts | Climate Realism | February 3, 2026
Al Jazeera (AJ) recently published an article titled “Drought in the east, floods in the south: Africa battered by climate change” by Haru Mutasa, in which the reporter details recent experiences of drought in East Africa and flooding in southern Africa, asserting that those weather events are proof that climate change is battering the continent. This is false. The article relies on flimsy content such as personal observation, interviews, and evocative imagery to imply causation, ignoring data and trends that show no appreciable changes in flood or drought patterns over time.
Mutasa asserts that “rising seas and intensifying storms” and shifting rainfall patterns are already devastating livelihoods, citing the author’s personal field observations as evidence of a broader climate crisis. Readers are shown photos of dry riverbeds, dead livestock, submerged neighborhoods, and distressed residents, then invited to connect these scenes directly to global warming. The emotional impact is real, but emotion is not evidence.
Let us start with AJ’s most basic error: weather is not climate. Climate is defined by long-term patterns measured over decades, typically 30 years or more. A drought in one region followed by floods in another over a few weeks or months says nothing about a durable climate trend. Africa’s climate has always been highly variable, with sharp swings driven by ocean–atmosphere cycles such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole. Short-term extremes—sometimes back-to-back—are a known feature of the region, not a recently discovered diagnostical proof of climate change.
The historical record bears this out. Southern and eastern Africa experienced severe droughts and catastrophic floods long before modern greenhouse gas emissions rose. Mozambique’s Limpopo River basin, featured prominently in the article’s flood imagery. The area has a long history of major inundations, including the devastating 2000 Mozambique floods, which displaced hundreds of thousands and occurred during a strong El Niño year. East Africa’s Horn has likewise seen repeated, multi-year droughts throughout the twentieth century, interspersed with episodes of extreme rainfall. These precedents matter because they show that today’s events are consistent with a long pattern of variability rather than proving a novel climate regime.
In fact, science has shown a 50-year seasonal variability across centuries in East African droughts and floods recorded in lake sediments.
When measured data are consulted instead of anecdotes, the alarm bells fade. Climate at a Glance summarizes the global evidence in “Floods” and “Drought,” explaining that there is low confidence in any increasing trend of global flood frequency or magnitude and that drought trends are regionally mixed, not universally worsening. These conclusions align with the cautious language used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), which emphasizes uncertainty and regional variability rather than blanket claims of intensification.
The AJ article substitutes interviews for analysis. Quoting local residents and aid workers about hardship may document suffering, but it does not diagnose cause. Infrastructure deficits, land-use changes, deforestation, river management, dam releases upstream, population growth in floodplains, and limited early-warning systems all play decisive roles in disaster outcomes across Africa. Climate Realism has repeatedly shown how media coverage overlooks these factors while attributing complex events to climate change by default, as catalogued in its Africa-related reporting and extreme-weather analyses accessible via Climate Realism’s search on floods and droughts and Climate Realism’s coverage of drought claims.
Even within the article’s narrative, local management issues loom large. Mutasa notes dam releases in South Africa’s Mpumalanga province sent additional water downstream into Mozambique—an operational decision with immediate hydrological consequences that has nothing to do with global temperature or climate change. Treating such factors as footnotes while elevating climate change as the primary driver of flooding misinforms readers about where real risk reduction lies.
Serious climate reporting distinguishes between events and trends, and between personal experiences and measured evidence.
By presenting interviews and moment-in-time scenes as confirmation of a continent-wide climate verdict, Al Jazeera is misleading its audience by making a causal connection where data show none. Africa’s vulnerability to climate and weather extremes is real, but the causes are multifaceted and long-standing. Ignoring historical precedents and measured trends in favor of an alarming narrative certainty does not inform the public; it misleads it with false headlines.
Bad Science, Big Consequences
How the influential 2006 Stern Review conjured up escalating future disaster losses
By Roger Pielke Jr. | The Honest Broker | February 2, 2026
For those who haven’t observed climate debates over the long term, today it might be hard to imagine the incredible influence of the 2006 Stern Review on The Economics of Climate.1
The Stern Review was far more than just another nerdy report of climate economics. It was a keystone document that reshaped how climate change was framed in policy, media, and advocacy, with reverberations still echoing today.
The Review was commissioned in 2005 by the UK Treasury under Chancellor Gordon Brown and published in 2006, with the aim of assessing climate change through the lens of economic risk and cost–benefit analysis. The review was led by Sir Nicholas Stern, then Head of the UK Government Economic Service and a former Chief Economist of the World Bank, from the outset giving the effort unusual stature for a policy report.
As the climate issue gained momentum in the 2000s, the Review’s conclusions that climate change was a looming emergency and that virtually any cost was worth bearing in response were widely treated as authoritative. The Review shaped climate discourse far beyond the United Kingdom and well beyond the confines of economics.
One key aspect of the Stern Review overlaps significantly with my expertise — The economic impacts of extreme weather. In fact, that overlap has a very surprising connection which I’ll detail below, and explains why back in 2006 I was able to identify the report’s fatal flaws on the economics of extreme weather in real time, and publish my arguments in the peer-reviewed literature soon thereafter.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
I have just updated through 2025 the figure below that compares the Stern Review’s prediction of post-2005 increases in disaster losses as a percentage of global GDP with what has actually transpired.
Specifically, the figure shows in light grey the Stern Review’s prediction for increasing global disaster losses, as a percentage of GDP, from 2006 through 2050.2 These values in grey represent annual average losses, meaning that over time for the prediction to verify, about half of annual losses would lie above the grey bars and about half below.
The black bars in the figure show what has actually occurred (with details provided in this post last week). You don’t need fancy statistics to see that the real world has consistently undershot the Stern Review’s predictions over the past two decades.
The Stern Review forecast rapidly escalating losses to 2050, when losses were projected to be about $1.7 trillion in 2025 dollars. The Review’s prediction for 2025 was more than $500 billion in losses (average annual). In actuality losses totaled about $200 billion in 2025.
The forecast miss is not subtle.
How did the Stern Review get things so wrong?
The answer is also not subtle and can be summarized in two words: Bad science.
Let’s take a look at the details. The screenshot below comes from Chapter 5 of the Review and explains its source for developing its prediction, cited to footnote 26.
As fate would have it, footnote 26 goes to a white paper that I commissioned for a workshop that I co-organized with Munich Re in 2006 on disasters and climate change.
That white paper — by Muir-Wood et al. — is the same paper that soon after was played the starring role in a fraudulent graph inserted into the 2007 IPCC report (yes, fraudulent). You can listen to me recounting that incredible story, with rare archival audio.
But I digress . . . back to The Stern Review, which argued:
If temperatures continued to rise over the second half of the century, costs could reach several percent of GDP each year, particularly because the damages increase disproportionately at higher temperatures . . .
The report presented its prediction methodology in the footnote 27, shown in full below, which says: “These values are likely underestimates.”
Where do these escalating numbers come from? Who knows.
They appear to be just made up out of thin air. The predictive numbers do not come from Muir-Wood et al., who do not engage in any form of projection.
The 2% starting point for increasing losses — asserted in the blue highlighted passage in the image above — also does not appear in Muir-Wood et al. which in fact says:
When analyzed over the full survey period (1950 – 2005) the year is not statistically significant for global normalized losses. . . For the more complete 1970-2005 survey period, the year is significant with a positive coefficient for (i.e. increase in) global losses at 1% . . .
The Stern Review seems to have turned 1% into 2% and failed to acknowledge that over the longer-period 1950 to 2005, there was no increasing trend in losses as a proportion of GDP. The escalating increase in annual losses from 2% to 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% every decade is not supported in any way in the Stern Review, nor is it referenced to any source.
When the Stern Review first came out, I noticed this curiosity right away, and did what I thought we scholars were expected to do when encountering bad science with big implications — I wrote a paper for peer review.
My paper was published in 2007 and clearly explained the Muir-Wood et al. and other significant and seemingly undeniable errors in the Stern Review.
Pielke Jr, R. (2007). Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 17(3-4), 302-310.
I explained in that paper:
This brief critique of a small part of the Stern Review finds that the report has dramatically misrepresented literature and understandings on the relationship of projected climate changes and future losses from extreme events in developed countries, and indeed globally. In one case this appears to be the result of the misrepresentation of a single study. This cherry picking damages the credibility of the Stern Review because it not only ignores other relevant literature with different conclusions, but it misrepresents the very study that it has used to buttress its conclusions.
Over my career in research, I’ve had some hits and some misses, but I’m happy to report that I got this one right at the time and it has held up ever since. Of course, perhaps a more significant outcome of this episode, and a key part of my own education in climate science, is that my paper was resoundingly ignored.
One reason that science works is that scientists share a commitment to correct errors when they are found in research, bringing forward reliable knowledge and leaving behind that which doesn’t stand the test of time.
I learned decades ago that in areas where I published, self-correction was often slow to work, if not just broken. Over the decades that pathological characteristic of key areas of climate science has not much improved (e.g., see this egregious example).
The Stern Review helped to launch climate change into top levels of policy making around the world. Further, we can draw a straight line from the Review to the emergence of (often scientifically questionable) “climate risk” in global finance a decade later. It still rests on a foundation of bad science.
1 My ongoing THB series on insurance and “climate risk” in finance prompted me to revisit the 2006 Stern Review, hence this post.
2 Note that the Review explicitly referenced the tabulation of global economic losses from extreme weather events as tabulation by Munich Re, which is the same dataset that I often use, such as in last week’s THB post on global disaster losses. The comparison here is thus apples to apples.
New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
By Kenneth Richard | No Tricks Zone | February 6, 2026
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has for decades advocated net-zero governmental policies to reduce anthropogenic CO2 (aCO2) emissions.
This advocacy is rooted in the non-physical assumption that aCO2 molecules are special, as they remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.
Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative even claim aCO2 removal can “take up to several hundreds of thousands of years.”
While AGW proponents insist that “once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years,” they (and the IPCC) simultaneously acknowledge the residence time of “natural” or non-anthropogenic CO2 is only about 4 years.
In reality, a new study references the Equivalence Principle in emphasizing nature’s sinks indiscriminately and equivalently absorb both aCO2 and natural CO2 in about 4 years (Müller, 2025). There is no physical reality for IPCC claims of “specialized” absorption time for aCO2 vs. natural CO2 molecules.
The IPCC assumes exactly 50% of aCO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades to millennia. It is consequently assumed net-zero policies that propose to halve aCO2 emissions will lead to the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Because “anthropogenic CO2 has the same [4-year] residence time of natural CO2,” this assumption is physically invalid.
Net-zero policies will literally have no detectable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In sum, “the IPCC’s assumptions and fundamentals are wrong.”
Racketeering Scheme?: Vaccine Makers Profit Twice by Selling Drugs to Treat Vaccine Injuries
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 5, 2026
A lawsuit filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) alleges that the AAP’s aggressive promotion of childhood vaccines created a “closed-loop” business model that set up pharmaceutical companies to profit from vaccines and from drugs used to treat vaccine injuries.
The lawsuit alleges the AAP violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, by running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.
A “racket” exists when a service creates its own demand, according to the complaint.
In this case, the same companies that make pediatric vaccines have also acquired companies that develop treatments for autoimmune disorders, allergies and neurodevelopmental conditions — conditions recognized in vaccine package inserts as adverse events that occurred during clinical trials or in post-marketing studies.
The complaint cites Pfizer’s 2016 acquisition of Anacor Pharmaceuticals for $5.2 billion. Anacor makes Eucrisa, a drug that treats eczema. At the time, Eucrisa was approved for 2-year-olds. It was later approved for babies as young as 3 months.
Post-marketing data have linked vaccines — including GlaxoSmithKline’s ENGERIX-B hepatitis B vaccine — to eczema, according to the complaint. Research studies have also linked the condition to the COVID-19 and measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccines.
In another example, Sanofi in 2020 spent $3.7 billion to acquire Principia Biopharma, developer of an experimental therapy for immune thrombocytopenia, an autoimmune blood disorder.
Immune thrombocytopenia is listed as an adverse reaction to vaccines manufactured by other companies that the lawsuit alleges are part of the same vaccine racketeering enterprise. Those vaccines include Merck’s MMRII and GlaxoSmithKline’s Pediarix.
Other examples include GlaxoSmithKline’s 2012 acquisition of Human Genome Sciences in 2012 for $3.6 billion, which brought the lupus drug Benlysta into its portfolio, and Merck’s 2021 purchase of Pandion Therapeutics for $1.85 billion, which expanded its pipeline of inflammatory bowel disease treatments.
Not included in the lawsuit, but widely discussed in 2024, was Pfizer’s acquisition of Seagen. The biotech company makes drugs that use monoclonal antibodies to deliver anti-cancer agents to tumors while limiting damage to surrounding tissue.
Pfizer spent $43 billion to acquire Seagen, which in 2023 had projected sales of $2.2 billion. Studies have linked Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines to sharp rises in cancer rates.
The lawsuit argues that these types of acquisitions by vaccine makers create a revenue cycle in which vaccines function as a “customer acquisition mechanism” — because treatments for chronic conditions provide long-term pharmaceutical revenue.
“The enterprise profits from the vaccines, and profits again from the treatment of the vaccine package insert documented side effects,” the complaint states.
The filing also alleges that the AAP helps maintain this system by promoting expanded vaccination schedules and discouraging research that could explore potential links between schedule changes and chronic illness.
The allegations come amid ongoing public debate over vaccine safety, corporate influence in medicine and the transparency of postmarketing surveillance systems.
Health officials have long maintained that childhood vaccination programs are “safe and effective” and that adverse event reporting alone does not establish causation.
However, public trust in those authorities is at a historic low, as more people question the long-held positions of mainstream public health.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Featured Video
Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:
How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. … Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?
The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard of science is littered with the bones of theories that were once thought “certain” (e.g., that the continents can’t “drift,” that Newton’s laws were immutable, and hundreds if not thousands of others).
Science progresses by the overturning of theories once thought “certain.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
- Why don’t UK media mention the Israel lobby?
- New US shipment of 6,500 tons of military aid arrives in Israel
- Military aid to Ukraine vital for ‘US hegemony’ – Republican senator
- Zelensky’s favorite drone company at center of Ukrainian corruption alert
- The Broken Contract
- US CENTCOM’s Request for Dark Eagle Missiles Shows Shortage of Weapons and Limited Options
- Iran consolidates Strait of Hormuz control in post-war power shift, leaving US in dark
- A pause, not a ceasefire: Washington stalls, Tehran recalibrates
- US blockade crumbles as Iran turns to overland routes
- If Americans Knew
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- Nun assaulted in Jerusalem amid ‘pattern’ of anti-Christian attacks by Israelis
- Former Tik Tok official describes massive pressure from Israel lobby
- Amid ceasefire violations and genocide, Israel commits piracy – Daily Update
- Five Laws and Standards That Require the US Cut Off Weapons to Israel
- Israel’s diabolical killing machine and how it targets journalists.
- The Global Sumud Flotilla to Gaza — A cry at sea to the world’s dormant conscience
- Politico’s powerful parent company tells Politico they must support Israeli narrative
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 