Dogger Bank Wind Farm, set to be the world’s largest offshore wind farm, could soon have another growth spurt. The owners of the giant North Sea wind farm have submitted plans to kick off another phase of development in a push that could provide a further 2 gigawatts (GW) of capacity to the project.Located off the east coast of England, the 3.6GW wind farm is currently under construction in the three build-out phases: Dogger Bank A, B, and C. The project won’t be completed for a few years, although Dogger Bank A started pumping clean energy in October 2023, marking a major milestone for the colossus.Now, its owners – Britain’s SSE Renewables and Norway’s Equinor – have submitted a Scoping Report to build a fourth array: Dogger Bank D. The proposed Dogger Bank D will effectively be an extension on the east side of Dogger Bank C, situated around 210 kilometers (130 miles) off the northeast coast of England. It's planned to hook up to a new 400-kilovolt substation back on the mainland in Yorkshire, where it will be used to power thousands of homes and more. To get the go-ahead, they’ll have to reach an agreement with The Crown Estate, who manage the land and seabed owned by the British monarch around England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. They also have to pass numerous environmental checks, plus face a public consultation on the proposals in Autumn 2024.          "The Scoping Report is an important milestone for Dogger Bank D and is a key part of the development of an offshore wind farm. The report lays out the scope of the project proposals and identifies key environmental factors," Rob Cussons, Project Director for Dogger Bank D at SSE Renewables, said in a statement. Even before this latest addition was mentioned, Dogger Bank Wind Farm was pitted to be “the world’s biggest wind farm.” Dogger Bank A, B, and C is set to have 277 wind turbines and, once operational, would be more than two and a half times the size of the largest offshore wind farm currently in operation. According to the latest Scoping Report, Dogger Bank could add a maximum of 122 turbines to that total. The site features turbines with a height of 260 meters (853 feet) and blades that are 107 meters (351 feet) long – which is pretty huge, although not quite as big as the turbines off the coast of China’s Fujian Province, which have blades measuring 123 meters (403 feet) long.As the world attempts to wean itself off fossil fuels, huge wind farms have sprouted up across many parts of the world in recent years. The largest in the US is the Alta Wind Energy Center in the windswept Tehachapi Pass of California, boasting a capacity of about 1.55GW. However, the efforts of the US and Britain are dwarfed by one in China – the Gansu Wind Farm Project or Jiuquan Wind Power Base on the outskirts of the Gobi Desert – that has a planned capacity of 20GW.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has announced that last year’s Cyclone Freddy was the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record, having spent 36 days at tropical storm status.Between February 4 and March 14, Freddy started off the coast of northwest Australia and made its way across the Indian Ocean Basin before making landfall in southeast Africa. In that time, it was classified as a tropical system for 36 days – beating the previous record holder, Typhoon John, by 6.75 days, bringing an end to a streak it had going since 1994.Freddy also traveled around 12,785 kilometers (7,945 miles) whilst holding its tropical storm status. That’s where it falls short of beating John, but it’s certainly not a distance to be pooh-poohed – it’s nearly 33 percent of the Earth’s circumference. But its duration and distance traveled aren’t the only things that make Freddy an exceptional event; the cyclone also has the highest all-time accumulated cyclone energy (a measure of the storm’s strength over time) in history and was the first in the Southern Hemisphere to rapidly intensify in strength on four separate occasions. At its most intense, it had maximum wind speeds of 257 kilometers (160 miles) per hour, putting it in the highest-strength group of tropical cyclone classification. In Atlantic hurricane terms, it’d be a Category 5.     The most tangible evidence for such statistics can be found in the devastating impact that Cyclone Freddy had on the places it hit.“Freddy was a remarkable tropical cyclone, not only for its longevity but also for its ability to survive multiple land interactions, which unfortunately had significant consequences for southeast African populations," said Chris Velden – a tropical cyclone and satellite expert who formed part of the WMO committee making the decision on the record – in a statement.Some of the hardest-hit areas were Madagascar, Mozambique, and Malawi, where Cyclone Freddy brought not only catastrophic winds but also storm surges and torrential rains, causing widespread destruction. The cyclone also looped back two weeks later, adding to the damage. It’s thought that over 1.3 million people were affected by Freddy in Mozambique, with more than 180 deaths, and more than 1,200 people were reported as either dead or missing in Malawi.However, the WMO believes the death toll may well have been higher if it weren’t for advanced warnings giving people in the countries affected a chance to prepare and evacuate.“Tropical Cyclone Freddy was a text book example of the importance of the UN Early Warnings for All initiative to ensure that everyone is protected in the next five years,” said WMO Tropical Cyclone Programme scientific officer Anne-Claire Fontan.Freddy also may not be the last record-breaking storm we see, according to those who’ve added it to the ranks of the WMO’s Archive of Weather and Climate Extremes.“It is possible, and indeed likely, that greater extremes will occur in the future,” said Randall Cerveny, Rapporteur of Climate and Weather Extremes for WMO.And if the start of the Atlantic hurricane season is anything to go by, it’s a prediction that seems to be coming true already.

The modern world has plenty of advantages, but nobody would say it comes without any drawbacks. Take computers, for example: it’s awesome having the sum total of human knowledge at your disposal, being connected to the world via wireless signals, and having a machine that you can write essays and calculate sums and play solitaire on – but the carpal tunnel and back problems that result from using such futuristic miracle-machines? Not so great.Except, as it turns out, those are far from modern inconveniences. According to a recent study, which looked at the skeletal remains of ancient Egyptian scribes buried in Abusir between 2700 and 2180 BCE, sitting and working with the foremost technology of the day like this has been messing with our bodies for eons.By examining the skeletal remains of 69 adult males – 30 scribes, identified by their tomb style and decoration, plus 39 other ancient laborers – the team were able to isolate some 40 statistically significant differences. Chief among these was an increased degeneration in the neck vertebrae – meaning these ancient scribes probably got the same kind of neck pain as you after a long day at the office.“In a typical scribe’s working position, the head had to be forward, and the spine flexed, changing the center of gravity of the head and putting stress on the spine,” the researchers write – a position that they note is “characteristic of many modern occupations.” When sitting like this – hunched over, with the head bent forward to look at something horizontally in front of you – the center of gravity of your head is moved, with stressful results: “the load moment for the [neck vertebrae] induced by the weight of the head and neck increases 3.6 times in comparison to the neutral position,” the authors explain.Also suffering were the right shoulder and clavicle, and the right thumb. Like the neck changes, these are all things that a modern worker might be familiar with: “Stress to the rotator cuff […] usually occurs when the arm is in an elevated position, such as among painters. However, it could also be related to a static sitting position with arms unsupported, such as during typing,” the authors explain.Of course, not all the changes point to such relatable problems – we are talking about people living 5,000 years ago, after all. This was well before the invention of ergonomic desk chairs, and the scribes’ knees and hips show signs of wear and tear associated with sitting cross-legged or squatting on the right knee. But perhaps the furthest departed from our modern occupational gripes: the changes to the temporomandibular joint, or TMJ – that is, the hinge where your jaw meets your skull. While the incidence of osteoarthritis in the TMJ generally tops out at about 40 percent in both modern and archaeological samples, among the scribes it was more than twice as prevalent as in the rest of the skeletons – nearly two out of every three scribes showed wear in the TMJ. What caused such a specific injury? Well, it all comes down to the specific method these ancient scribes used to write: “The tools that scribes used to write were made from rush […] which was cut at a slant and chewed at the end to form a brush-like head,” the authors explain. “When the pen became ragged or clogged with ink, the scribe cut off the end again and chewed the next section.”The results aren’t definitive. There are no modern populations with whom to compare the scribal cohort, so we can’t really draw causal links between the scribal profession and the skeletal changes noted in the study; moreover, as the authors themselves point out, scribes would live longer, on average, than manual laborers, and therefore had more time for their joints to degenerate simply through old age. But it nevertheless paints a picture of an ancient world that was, at least when it came to office work, more like our own than we might assume.“They were high-ranking dignitaries who belonged to the ancient Egyptian elite,” Petra Brukner Havelková, an anthropologist in the Department of Anthropology at the National Museum in Prague and lead author of the study, told Live Science. “[But] they suffered the same worries as we do today and were exposed to similar occupational risk factors in their profession as most civil servants today.”The paper is published in the journal Scientific Reports.

A George Soros-funded fact-checking organization heads up a coalition arguing that fact-checks are … free speech. Huh? The director of the Soros-funded International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at the leftist Poynter Institute announced a statementgaslighting on behalf of 130 organizations at a global fact-checking summit.  “World’s fact-checkers issue ‘Sarajevo statement’ supporting fact-checking as free speech, not censorship,” IFCN director Angie Drobnic Holan proudly announced. However, this is false, as multiple social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have actively partnered with IFCN affiliates to deboost any content that has been fact-checked. Poynter is also notorious for trying to blacklist right-leaning media. Holan, in effect, is attempting to twist around the meaning of what censorship really is, even though it received grants from one of the most prolific funders of censorship in America today.  Morever, fact-checking often operates as a harsh form of censorship online. For instance, fact-check interstitials on Facebook stop users from clicking through to view the content 95 percent of the time, according to the tech company. Facebook’s parent company Meta partners with Poynter. Soros gave $492,000 to Poynter for IFCN between 2016 and 2019 alone. In light of Soros’s $80 million investment in groups pushing Big Tech to censor speech ahead of the 2024 U.S. election, it is particularly concerning that the so-called “Sarajevo statement” highlighted election interference as supposedly important to “give the public accurate information.” Holan was spinning herself silly trying to paint censorship zealots as victims of smear campaigns.“In the United States, political and legal attacks on the misinformation research community have pressured academic researchers to curtail work that aids the fact-checking community and widespread efforts to improve election voting processes,” she railed. She mourned the unpopularity of the infamous and faltering federal government censorship proxy Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of a government-tech-researcher cabal targeting online speech in 2020 and 2022. Holan was adamant about deluding readers into thinking that its leftist variant of a Ministry of Truth behemoth was in fact the hero of the free speech story in America.  Holan claimed, “it is time to restate our longstanding commitment to access to information and freedom of expression, for all people and across borders.” MRC Free Speech America Assistant Editor Luis Cornelio contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Ahead of the historic 2024 election, Big Tech is back to its old tricks of censoring the political ads of the opposition of their apparent candidates of choice. Google and Facebook (now Meta) have targeted candidates or campaigns ahead of elections in seven major instances since 2018. In both America and the United Kingdom, these tech giants have engaged in election interference by shutting down ads for candidates whose political views do not align with the companies’ ideology. Below are seven occasions when the tech giants went all out on ads censorship, censoring dozens of political ads. 1) In May 2024, Google was caught censoring an ad supporting former President Donald Trump’s campaign multiple times. The pro-Trump ad depicted a fictional phone call between a Biden campaign worker and a voter, highlighting Biden’s disastrous economic and border policies. The ad was scheduled to run from May 1 to May 3, according to screenshotsof Google’s Ad Library posted by Andrew Arenge, director of operations for the Program on Opinion Research and Election Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Google reportedly restored the censored ad the following day, asserting the ad was flagged “in error.” MRC President Brent Bozell argued this was an insufficient excuse. “This is unacceptable. Why did Google remove the ad from Trump's Super PAC in the first place? This is a continuation of a campaign against conservatives,” Bozell stated.  2) In 2020, Facebook targeted ads from Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump in a frenzy of censorship. Facebook censored posts and ads from then-sitting President Donald Trump no fewer than four times. Furthermore, the platform took down seven political ads that were paid for by the political right. Facebook killed one ad campaign comparing Democrats’ open borders and COVID-19 lockdown policies about a month before the 2020 election. The Washington Post reported at the time, “There were more than 30 versions of the ad running on the social network, according to Facebook’s ad transparency library. It had gathered between 200,000 and 250,000 impressions.” 3) Meta’s Facebook went on a 2020 ad censorship spree. Facebook censored a staggering 5,100 ads with the key words, “Dangerous mobs of far left groups are running through our streets and causing absolute mayhem.” These included thousands of ads, and over a dozen ad campaigns from Trump, his team, his supporters and his then-Vice President Mike Pence. 4) Google targeted Joe Biden’s Democrat primary opponent in 2020. Google disabledthen-presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s Google Ads account just as she became the most searched-for candidate following the first Democratic Party primary debate during that cycle. Gabbard’s campaign said the censorshipoccurred “without any explanation” from Google. “For hours, Tulsi’s campaign advertising account remained offline while Americans everywhere were searching for information about her,” the campaign accused. 5) In 2018, Facebook censored multiple candidates for the U.S. Congress. Facebook removed ads for then-Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT). Besides these candidates, The platform reportedly removed another video that promoted an AR-15 giveaway that Senate candidate Austin Petersen (R-MO) was conducting on his website. 6) Facebook targeted at least one state legislator before the 2018 election. Michigan Republican state Senate candidate Aric Nesbittfound his ad was rejected by Facebook “because it doesn’t follow our Advertising Policies. We don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence.” Nesbitt’s ad simply promised, “I will work to strengthen our economy, limit government, lower our auto insurance rates, balance the budget, stop sanctuary cities, pay down government debt and be a Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment leader for the people.” 7) Google censors anti-globalist UK political party a month before major 2024 election.Reform UK Party leader and political candidate Nigel Farage tweeted June 22, “ELECTION INTERFERENCE ALERT ? Big Tech giant @Google has BLOCKED our Ad Accounts. They are trying to stop the Reform message.” The account was restored later that day, according to Farage, who did not note if Google had provided an explanation. As MRC Vice President for Free Speech Dan Schneider said, “Google's reach is truly global, including how it meddles in elections.”

Former President Donald Trump's legal team filed a letter Monday seeking permission from acting Justice Juan Merchan to file a motion to overturn the jury's guilty verdict in the New York criminal case, the New York Times reported.The letter was sent shortly after the Supreme Court ruled on Trump's presidential immunity motion. In a 6-3 vote, the justices determined that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts.'Evidence of those acts cannot be used.'The Supreme Court did not define what constitutes an official act, which will be left up to the lower courts to determine.In response to the ruling, Trump wrote on Truth Social, "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the New York criminal case. The alleged illegal acts occurred during Trump's 2016 campaign before he became president. Merchan is expected to hand down sentencing in the case on July 11. Trump is facing up to four years in prison.In previous court filings, Trump's legal team argued that some of the evidence used in the New York trial — including Trump's social media posts about his former attorney Michael Cohen — were from his time in office and, therefore, should have been excluded.Merchan implemented a policy requiring the prosecution and the defense to provide a one-page letter summarizing their arguments before submitting court filings. According to Merchan, the policy ensured he would not become inundated with paperwork.If Merchan allows Trump's team to file the motion, sentencing would likely be delayed. However, it is unclear if Merchan will do so since the deadline to file post-trial motions has already passed.The letter is expected to be made public on Tuesday. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's (D) office will be given an opportunity to respond to the request.Will Scharf, Trump's attorney, told CNN that the Supreme Court's recent ruling "absolutely" impacts the New York case. He argued that the prosecution used a "substantial number of official acts of the presidency" as evidence in its case against Trump."The Supreme Court was very clear that for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution, that evidence of those acts cannot be used to try essentially private acts," Scharf told the news outlet.Scharf added, "At the very least, we deserve a new trial where those immune acts will not come into evidence, as the Supreme Court dictated today."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A shotgun-toting homeowner in San Antonio, Texas, fatally shot an intruder who allegedly refused to leave his property and lunged at him and his wife.Police were called to a residence in the 800 block of Allende Drive in the city's west side around 1 a.m. Sunday for a report of a shooting, KEYE-TV reported.The homeowner reported fearing for his and his wife's safety when the male lunged at them, the station said.A male came to the home's door, after which the homeowner asked him to leave, investigators told the station.The male returned a short time later and again was asked to leave, KEYE reported.Soon after, the homeowner heard noises coming from the back yard, officials told MySanAntonio.com. With that, the homeowner grabbed a shotgun, checked the yard, and again saw the same male, the outlet said.The homeowner asked the male to leave their yard, but the male lunged at the homeowner and his wife, after which the homeowner fired a shot that hit the male in the stomach, MySanAntonio.com reported. Police and medical personnel attempted lifesaving measures, but the male, believed to be around 47 years old, was pronounced dead at the scene, KEYE reported. The homeowner reported fearing for his and his wife's safety when the male lunged at them, the station said, adding that no charges have been filed against the homeowner as police continue their investigation.Reportedly neither the homeowner nor his wife were injured during the incident, KEYE said.How are observers reacting?Commenters underneath the KEYE Facebook post about the incident were divided regarding the outcome. Some sided with the homeowner who fired the fatal shot:"Yep won't try that again," one commenter said."Good," another commenter noted. "Reimburse the man for the ammo expended.""F around and find out," another commenter stated."This is the way," another user wrote.But two commenters didn't see it that way:"This should NEVER be the way," one user said. "Call the police and homeowners don't go outside placing yourselves in danger. This loss of life should have never happened. Taking a life should only be up [to] GOD [no one] else. Prayers to everyone.""Probably didn't have to shoot to kill," another commenter wrote. "Typical."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Yesterday, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for actions related to the core powers of their office. This will send Trump’s case back to the lower courts where it will be determined whether or not his January 6 actions were official or unofficial. How should we interpret this ruling, and what does it mean going forward? Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Alan Dershowitz discuss the case. Trump Immunity Case EXPLAINED: Alan Dershowitz's Biggest Takeaways youtu.be “I think it’s a win for the republic,” says Glenn. Dershowitz agrees and adds that it’s likely a win for Donald Trump too, as “it probably means there won't be a trial before the election.” However, “I think [the ruling] is going to be hard to implement in practice because everything the president does, he does as president. That's very hard to separate out private acts from public acts,” he explains. Further, “There is no actual official process to figure out whether these are official acts or not, so this is a maze of legal rulings and challenges,” adds Stu. And there’s another potential problem. “It's going to be implemented by the lower courts, and the lower court of the District of Columbia [is] completely biased against Trump,” says Dershowitz, adding that “it may come back to the Supreme Court." But Glenn has a prediction. If “President Trump loses this election ... these cases will just disappear,” but “if [Trump] wins this election, they'll fight it tooth and nail, and they'll drag him all the way through.” Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Rev. Clemmie Livingston Jr. is the 71-year-old pastor of New Zionfield Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee. On Feb. 25, Livingston attempted to stop thugs from stealing a car just feet away from the doors of his church. One of the thugs shot him in the face while driving away, leaving the pastor for dead. After multiple surgeries, Livingston told WREG-TV, "Laying there, I kept saying to myself that I'll be dead in a little while. Well, what would a person say when they bleeding in the manner that I was bleeding?" "While I was down on my knees, let me tell you what [God] said. He said to me, 'Stop trying to die and start back living,'" said the pastor. "In my spirit and in my heart, I know that Jesus brought me through this." Gwendoline Livingston, the pastor's wife, indicated Friday that Livingston is still wearing a face brace and may have to either undergo a bone graft or have a metal plate inserted in his jaw. "I am still not able to eat like normal people, and, of course, my bone is still shattered down there," he told WHBQ-TV. The Shelby County District Attorney's Office has given the pastor one more thing to be sore about. R'Shunio Greer, 18, was arrested in May in connection to unrelated car theft and aggravated assault cases. WHBQ reported that investigators found photos of Greer in the victim's 2019 Corvette. He allegedly admitted to being at the scene of the robbery when the pastor was shot and driving one of two Camaros spotted at the scene by witnesses. The same Camaro was later wrecked during a police chase. Greer was slapped with various charges including aggravated robbery and theft of property. However, the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office — helmed by Steve Mulroy, a Democrat with a reputation for being soft on criminals who has reportedly received donations from Soros-linked organizations — dropped all but the theft charge against Greer in Livingston's case. 'I don't let things disappoint me such as this.' Mulroy's office tried to blame the dismissal of the charges on witnesses failing to show up in court, but the pastor insisted that was simply not true, reported WHBQ. "I was stunned when they said there were not any witnesses there, knowing that we were there," said the pastor. "That was the thing that shocked me." "I don't let things disappoint me such as this," said Livingston. "I feel like the judicial system, they do what they want to do anyway." After the pastor refuted the claim about witnesses showing up in the press, Mulroy's office effectively confirmed it had misled the public, indicating the aggravated robbery charge had been dropped despite witnesses having been present for the hearing. Livingston indicated he will continue to pray about the situation, holding out hope that the accomplices referenced in Greer's statement will be brought in. The pastor expressed an interest in the rehabilitation of his attackers while in custody. Livingston's case is far from the only one in Shelby County in which Mulroy's office has sought to let off criminals lightly. Mulroy recently indicated he would lean toward rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration for felons caught with illegal firearms, citing the need to address racial disparities. Tennessee state Sen. Brent Taylor (R) told WMC-TV in a statement, "In a city plagued by gun violence, the thought that our DA will not aggressively prosecute felons in possession of a firearm is not only nonsensical, but it is dangerous. Our county is being targeted by restorative justice scheming groups because they know our DA is weak, compliant, and acquiescent. Not only is it harming our community, but it's harming law enforcement across the state." Taylor notified Tennessee Lt. Gov. Randy McNally (R) last month of his intent to remove Mulroy. "Public welfare demanding it, causes for such removal will be set forth in the Senate Joint Resolution, but shall include 'dereliction of duty' for failing to properly prosecute convicted felons in possession of a firearm," Taylor said in his letter. McNally responded with words of encouragement, indicating he "wholeheartedly" supports the removal effort, reported the Tennessee Lookout. "DA Mulroy's record of refusal to prosecute laws he does not personally care for is long-standing and clear. I believe it is time for him to go," said McNally. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH As Obama DHS Sec Johnson Makes Case for Biden on Morning Joe: 'Presidency Is More Than One Man'