Sanity Check

In The Village, the elders keep children afraid of monsters in the woods that don’t exist. Today, many young people are growing up with a similar fear about climate change. A University of Utah survey found that 60% of undergraduates feel “no hope” about their future. This video looks at how schools and media drive climate anxiety, and why teaching science, context and solutions would serve the next generation far better than fear.If none of these work, tell me what put you off the first ones: the movie references, the length, or the tone. That will help me get closer.https://attheu.utah.edu/students/how-anxiety-over-climate-change-affects-students/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00278-3/fulltexthttps://www.imdb.com/video/vi113377561/Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

Billions of dollars are flowing into climate finance, but how much of that money represents new investment, and how much is existing spending simply relabeled as climate action?In this episode, Dr. David Legates follows the money behind global climate finance, the Inflation Reduction Act, and international development aid. Drawing on data from the OECD and Our World in Data, he examines how much money governments and private investors are directing toward climate initiatives, where those funds go, and how much actually reaches developing nations.The episode also explores how climate funding increasingly overlaps with traditional development priorities, including healthcare, education, nutrition, and infrastructure. With more than half of climate-tagged bilateral aid treating climate change as a secondary objective, are governments creating new funding streams or simply rebranding existing development programs?What does the data reveal about the scale of climate spending, and what are the consequences for other development priorities? Follow the money and examine the numbers behind the global climate finance industry.Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

Hypocrisy in climate politics raises questions about fairness, accountability, and the standards applied to public officials. In this episode, Dr. David Legates examines the controversy surrounding Justice Samuel Alito’s recusal from a Supreme Court case involving climate litigation against oil and gas companies, alongside the Senate’s rejection of legislation aimed at restricting congressional stock trading. Why do some officials face demands for impartiality while others appear exempt from similar expectations? And how should Christians respond when political opponents apply inconsistent standards? Drawing on history, political philosophy, and Scripture, Dr. Legates challenges listeners to consider whether fighting hypocrisy requires adopting an opponent’s tactics or holding fast to Biblical principles of integrity, righteousness, and overcoming evil with good.Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

Can Christians glorify God through conventional agriculture, or does faithful stewardship require regenerative or small-scale farming? In this episode of Sanity Check, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner responds to a Christian farmer who feels discouraged by claims that conventional agriculture is incompatible with Biblical stewardship.Dr. Beisner examines the tradeoffs between conventional and regenerative agriculture, asking how farmers should weigh land, labor, capital, environmental impacts, and food production when evaluating different agricultural methods. He explains why no single farming method should be treated as inherently Christian and why faithful stewardship requires farmers to consider the particular land, resources, and constraints they face.Dr. Beisner also recommends resources for Christians seeking a balanced perspective on agriculture and encourages farmers to pursue their vocations with excellence while continuing to improve their stewardship of God’s creation. Whatever agricultural methods they use, Christian farmers can glorify God through their work and serve their neighbors by helping provide the food people need.https://cornwallalliance.org/is-conventional-agriculture-incompatible-with-the-christian-worldview/Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

What does Diet Coke have to do with America’s energy supply? In this episode, Dr. David Legates explores that question through a surprising comparison from James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. Taylor’s Diet Coke analogy exposes the flaw in politicians’ “all-of-the-above” approach to energy: when expensive sources enter the electricity mix, consumers can end up paying more for power while receiving less reliable service.As coal and natural-gas plants close, electricity demand continues rising from data centers and other energy-intensive industries. Meanwhile, policymakers are investing in wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen, offshore wind, and other alternatives while treating fossil fuels as a problem rather than a source of reliable energy. Dr. Legates examines what those choices mean for electricity prices, grid reliability, taxpayers, and ratepayers—and why America’s energy policies could leave households paying more to keep the lights on.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEXOVoyyo7chttps://epsa.org/understanding-the-costs-of-integrating-energy-resources-in-pjm-analyzing-full-cycle-levelized-costs-of-electricity/Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

For nearly two decades, the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has served as a legal foundation for federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Its history begins with the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, continues through the Obama administration’s Endangerment Finding, and extends through the greenhouse gas regulations adopted under subsequent administrations.In February 2026, the Trump EPA rescinded the Endangerment Finding as it applied to motor vehicles and repealed the federal greenhouse gas standards that followed from it. In September, EPA finalized a major repeal of greenhouse gas requirements for fossil-fuel-fired power plants while proposing to rescind the remaining greenhouse gas findings and regulations governing the power sector.What does all of this mean for federal climate regulation?In this episode, we trace the legal history behind the Endangerment Finding, examine the scientific and regulatory arguments surrounding it, and explain how a provision of the Clean Air Act became the foundation for decades of federal greenhouse gas regulation. We also examine what the 2026 EPA actions actually changed, what remains in place, and what Congress, the courts, states, and future administrations could still do.The Endangerment Finding has been at the center of the legal battle over greenhouse gas regulation for years. Understanding its history helps explain why its reversal represents such a significant shift in federal environmental policy—and why the future of that policy remains unsettled.https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202ahttps://apnews.com/article/epa-power-plants-trump-coal-gas-climate-cac1c2c75f8656d8eaf5f0a240edae15Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

What can a devastating Himalayan avalanche teach us about climate change—and about the growing role of artificial intelligence in scientific research?In this episode, Dr. David Legates examines claims that a catastrophic 2026 avalanche in Nepal was caused by human-induced climate change. He explains why individual weather and climate events cannot simply be attributed to climate change and puts the disaster in historical context by comparing it with other major glacial and rock-ice avalanches.But the discussion takes an unexpected turn when Dr. Legates examines the research paper that prompted his investigation. The paper was generated entirely by AI and explicitly acknowledged that it had not undergone peer review or human verification. That raises a much larger question: When AI conducts research and produces convincing scientific prose, who is responsible for the claims it makes?Dr. Legates discusses both the promise and limitations of AI as a research tool, arguing that AI can be a powerful force multiplier—but that human expertise, critical thinking, and verification cannot be outsourced.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/413842707_The_Nepal_Avalanche_26_Aug_2026_an_unprecedented_event_A_comparative_historical_assessmenthttps://www.stimson.org/2026/a-cascading-disaster-on-the-china-nepal-border-what-to-know-about-the-august-2026-rasuwa-flood/Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear one of the most consequential climate-related cases in the country this October: Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. At issue is whether cities and counties can sue oil and gas companies for alleged damages caused by climate change, or whether federal law prevents state courts from hearing these claims.Boulder County and the City of Boulder are seeking damages they say are needed to address flooding, wildfires, drought, and other costs they attribute to fossil fuel use. The energy companies argue that climate change is a global issue that cannot be addressed through a patchwork of local lawsuits that could effectively dictate national energy policy.In this episode, Dr. David Legates examines the history of the Boulder case, the arguments before the Supreme Court, and what the justices' decision could mean for dozens of similar lawsuits across the country. He also takes a step back to ask a more fundamental question: Who should be responsible for the costs attributed to climate change, and can we really attribute every flood, fire, drought, or other environmental event to fossil fuel emissions?Whatever the Court decides, this case could have enormous consequences for the energy industry, local governments, and the future of climate litigation in America.https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/4675555/supreme-court-next-term-cases-climate-immigration/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2026/25-170https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/suncor-energy-inc-v-county-commissioners-of-boulder-county/Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

Millions of Americans believe that everything from groceries and cars to homes and vacations has become impossibly expensive. But are things actually less affordable than they were in the past, or are we measuring affordability the wrong way?In this episode of Sanity Check, Cal Beisner revisits a question raised during his recent appearance on David Wheaton’s The Christian Worldview: Why are so many Americans, particularly younger generations, increasingly attracted to socialism? One commonly cited reason is the perception that the American economy no longer provides an affordable path to a good life.Beisner examines that claim by looking beyond sticker prices and comparing the cost of goods over time in inflation-adjusted dollars, quality, quantity, amenities, and—most importantly—the amount of time an average worker must labor to afford them. Using housing as a primary example, he shows how dramatically the size, quality, comfort, and amenities of the average American home have changed over the past 75 years.From housing and automobiles to air travel, clothing, food, and technology, the evidence tells a more complicated story than the popular narrative of an ever-worsening affordability crisis. Beisner also considers the notable exceptions of education and medical care and explains why their rising costs deserve particular attention.What does this mean for Christians thinking about economics, socialism, and the state of American prosperity? And what should we make of the widespread belief that the good life is increasingly out of reach?Listen to this episode of Sanity Check to examine the “affordability crisis” from a different perspective.https://thechristianworldview.org/https://humanprogress.org/u-s-housing-became-much-more-affordable-over-the-last-40-years/Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

Could rising carbon dioxide levels actually be changing the chemistry of our blood? A new study makes the startling claim that increasing atmospheric CO₂ could eventually make the atmosphere toxic—but does the evidence really support such a dramatic conclusion?In this episode, Dr. David Legates takes a critical look at the study behind the headlines. He examines its analysis of more than two decades of U.S. health data, which finds that blood bicarbonate levels increased as atmospheric CO₂ rose, and asks the obvious question: does correlation really mean causation?Dr. Legates then looks at the basic physiology of carbon dioxide and blood chemistry. Given that the human body constantly produces CO₂ at concentrations vastly higher than those found in the atmosphere, is it actually plausible that a relatively small increase in outdoor CO₂ could produce the changes the researchers claim?He also examines the study’s reliance on observational data, the many other factors that can affect blood chemistry, and the assumptions involved in projecting a relatively short-term trend fifty years into the future. The result is a useful reminder that an alarming headline is not the same thing as scientific evidence—and that extraordinary claims require more than a correlation and a straight-line projection.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260814235845.htmhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.14066Visit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate.