Climate Alarm and “Green” Energy: Protest from San Antonio

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

San Antonio attorney Stanley Bernstein posted on social media (July 6, 2026) about the feelings of many of his neighbors about electric rate inflation from (not-so) “green” energy. “San Antonio has spent and lost billions chasing the green energy hype,” he began. “During that time, electric rates have increased, the City of San Antonio is facing millions of dollars in budget deficits, and thousands of potential jobs have been lost.”

Bernstein also shared a testimonial from respected local meteorologist, Steve Brown, stating:

Many people in the San Antonio area have trusted and relied on Steve Brown as their go-to meteorologist for decades. I hope you’ll take the time to read what he has to say [below] as he speaks the truth.

A Meteorologist Protest

“I [Steve Brown] have been following the global warming er climate change story closely for half a century. I’ve heard all the hyperbole from politicians who keep predicting apocalypse right around the corner. Those milestones (the ice caps will melt, our cities will be underwater) keep coming and the doomsayers keep shouting. In 2018 one politician declared this is our World War 3! The world will end in 18 years! That end is less than 4 years away and little has changed.

There is no question CO2 levels have risen. We’re at 430 ppm and climbing every year. Global temps have warmed too by about 2° F in the past century. I accept that some of that warming is related to CO2 levels. But I also know that global temps have changed both up and down in the past. There absolutely was a medieval warm period and also a little ice age in the past 2,000 years. Both of those periods are well documented and had zero to do with CO2 levels. I also know that 430 parts per million sounds scary but in reality it means CO2 levels are now at 0.04%. That’s up a whole 0.01% in the last century.

Children, like Greta Thunberg have been brainwashed to believe that 0.01% means the end is near. She shouts shame on us but the real shame is on her brainwashed teachers, our brainwashed media and our brainwashed politicians. It pains me to see so many of our children and young adults have been fed a diet of doom and gloom for all of their young lives. That’s the real shame.

I’m happy to see that more and more scientists came out this past year and went on the record to say this climate change thing is out of control. This is not apocalypse now. Let’s cool the rhetoric. The world is not going to end in 2030.

We all know that most of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels and when you burn them you raise CO2 levels. The world is slowly changing to more renewable sources of energy and that’s okay but there is no imminent threat to life on earth. Chill out already.

How do I know that there is no imminent threat? Earth’s climate history. 200 million years ago CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher than they are today. The planet was warmer by 10-15°F. There were no ice caps. The earth was teeming with life. Plant life flourished everywhere, on land, at the poles and even in the ocean. The herbivores, the animals that ate the plants were huge. Dinosaurs ruled. Life was abundant and it was all possible because CO2 levels were extremely high.

Over millions of years the plants slowly used up the CO2 in the atmosphere and died. They sank to the bottoms of oceans and got buried. CO2 levels dwindled. Plants had to adapt to utilize the CO2 left. They developed more and more stomata to do so. The increased stomata gave off more water vapor, so the plants needed more water just to survive. Many did not. The deserts expanded.

Along came humans. First, we tamed wood fires. Then we discovered these vast fossilized plant deposits we call coal and gas that burned even better. They burned hotter and longer. We burned them to make steam and electricity to power our factories. We burned them in internal combustion engines to move our cars, boats and planes. We dug up these buried carbon deposits and burned them to fuel our entire civilization. We unleashed CO2 back into the ecosystem. Is this all bad? I say it’s good.

All the life around us depends on atmospheric CO2. All of our food comes from CO2. Through the miracle of photosynthesis, it gets converted to grass to cows to our dinner plates but it all comes from CO2. Without CO2 in the air we’d all starve. CO2 is the gas of life.

I wish the negative nellies in our media, our schools and our politicians would listen to what the real scientists are finally admitting. This is not the end of the world folks. In fact, it may be just the beginning of a much greener world. Cheers”


AI profile: “Steve Brown is a legendary retired Chief Meteorologist who served South Texas at KSAT 12 in San Antonio for 26 years. He officially retired from television in June 2018. Known for his infectious laugh, colorful weather commentary, tuba playing at Christmas, and passion for gardening—particularly growing legendary weather tomatoes—he remains a beloved local figure.”

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 18 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Scarecrow Repair
August 7, 2026 10:11 pm

Arithmetic a little off. 2018 + 18 is 2036, 10 years away, not 4.

Temperatures 200 million years were higher, so was CO2, but correlation is not causation.

Otherwise fine, and we’ll be a lot better off when society gets rid of its addiction to climate hysteria and governments stop wasting so much money and productivity on it.

August 8, 2026 12:13 am

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. This is 0.0431% by volume. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 grams and contains a mere 0.85 grams of CO2 at STP. This small amount of CO2 in the air is 0.0659% by weight of the atmosphere.

I would like to believe that if the people and especially the politicians learned about the above basic physical chemistry of the atmosphere, they would question and ask the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists to explain how this tiny amount of CO2 in the air causes “global warming” and is the “control knob” of climate change.

How do we get the word out to the people and politicians that CO2 is no menacing molecule and there is no need to control the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels?

AWG
Reply to  Harold Pierce
August 8, 2026 10:47 am

How do we get the word out to the people and politicians…”

AI and Data Centers seems to be teaching the people and especially politicians that CO2 is no menacing molecule.

Look! Another dragon to slay! Says the people who have forgotten how to slay dragons.

D Sandberg
August 8, 2026 1:13 am

One argument I find unconvincing is that the repeated appearance of roughly 280 ppm atmospheric CO₂ during recent interglacial periods proves that 280 ppm is somehow an optimal or ideal concentration. To me, the evidence supports a different interpretation. For much of the last several million years Earth has cycled between glacial and interglacial conditions, with CO₂ often falling to levels that place severe constraints on plant productivity. Rather than viewing 280 ppm as a paradise engineered by nature, I see it as the upper end of a natural cycle that repeatedly drove CO₂ downward and then partially recovered before the next glaciation began.

From that perspective, the fact that several interglacials peaked near 280 ppm does not automatically mean that 280 ppm is the best possible level for life. It may simply reflect the balance of natural processes operating during those periods. Nature does not optimize for human prosperity, agricultural output, or ecosystem productivity. It merely follows the physics, chemistry, and biology of the Earth system.

If higher CO₂ concentrations improve plant growth, water-use efficiency, and crop productivity, then doubling the preindustrial level from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is not obviously a catastrophe. One could argue that humanity has moved the atmosphere farther away from the low-CO₂ conditions that repeatedly accompanied advancing ice ages. In that interpretation, increasing CO₂ is not a departure from an ideal state but an escape from a recurring pattern that repeatedly pushed the biosphere toward relative carbon scarcity.

LT3
Reply to  D Sandberg
August 8, 2026 5:17 am

Based on decades of observed bias, my guess would be that the 280 PPM was on the mind of the teams creating the proxies. When the Greenland proxies started showing higher CO2 levels than what the Antarctic proxies where showing, the exercise was abandoned and a pitiful excuse was concocted about chemical impurities in the ice, yahh rrright. Fix it, don’t run away sniveling.

August 8, 2026 3:50 am

This is pretty good.

But consider this part:
“I accept that some of that warming is related to CO2 levels.”

Why the word “accept?” Let’s look at the potential IR influence in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. Oh wait, it’s vanishingly weak!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing

It is more correct to state that NO ONE KNOWS that CO2 has had anything to do with ANY trend of climate variables.

Thank you for listening.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  David Dibbell
August 8, 2026 4:38 am

I “accept” that some of the SLR is related to people peeing in the ocean.

Reply to  David Dibbell
August 8, 2026 5:44 am

From the late John L. Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse”, available at http://www.john-daly.com, I learned that CO2 has had no effect on temperature at over 200 weather stations located around the world up to 2002.

Since China and and India are building many thousands of electrical power plants using coal, the scientists and engineers have obviously concluded that CO2 can have no effect on air temperature.

Currently one cubic meter of air contains a mere 0.85 g of CO2. The reason there is such a low amount of CO2 in the air is that the CO2 released from all sources is absorbed by the oceans and surface fresh water.

LT3
August 8, 2026 4:53 am

If you could cool the world, what would be the ideal amount? If you cool it too much and shorten the growing season for some continents this rock will not support 8 billion of us.

oeman50
August 8, 2026 4:56 am

Greta’s teachers were her parents.

22GeologyJim
August 8, 2026 7:14 am

Good straightforward summary – with the exception of “I admit that some of that warming is related to CO2”. At every timescale examined, temperature change in the actual atmosphere precedes a corresponding change in CO2 concentration.

Cause-Effect only works in that direction in the real (not modeled) world.

Fortunately for all of us, the Earth has stored away all of this fossil solar energy (coal, petroleum, natural gas) for our use.

Allen Pettee
August 8, 2026 10:03 am

Overall a good essay by Steve Brown. One quibble is that he implies that the Earth’s paleoclimatology suggests correlation between historically much higher than modern CO2 levels 5 times higher than present and 10-15F higher temps 200 million years ago. Actually most proxies suggest anti-correlation or no correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 500 million years. I would post the graph, but I assume it’s been posted on WUWT many times before and don’t want to get in trouble with the moderators for reposting….

Bob
August 8, 2026 6:54 pm

Very nice, we need more posts like this short and easy to understand.