Day: October 13, 2025

CLIMATE CRITICS POUNCE! How the Media Turned “Questioning a UN Bureaucrat” Into a Hate Crime Against Science

Stop the presses. Summon the fact-checkers. Alert Greta’s yacht. Because, dear reader, the climate heretics have pounced again.

A dramatic scene depicting a giant, horned figure holding a burning globe, symbolizing environmental catastrophe, while four scientists in lab coats kneel in prayer, evoking themes of scientific ethics and modern environmental debates.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Screenshot of an article titled 'Climate critics try to discredit IPCC author for linking disasters to global warming' from E&E News, featuring a photograph of a woman discussing research at a computer.

Stop the presses. Summon the fact-checkers. Alert Greta’s yacht. Because, dear reader, the climate heretics have pounced again.

Yes, that’s the headline this week from the stenographers over at E&E News, a Politico-adjacent publication that reads like the employee newsletter for the Church of Saint Carbon Credit. The story begins in the key of outrage: “Climate critics try to discredit IPCC author for linking disasters to global warming.”

Translation from Journo-speak: “Someone noticed the emperor’s new lab coat is made of recycled grant money.”

Apparently, Roger Pielke Jr. — a political scientist with the unfortunate habit of reading data instead of chanting slogans — wrote an op-ed questioning whether Dr. Friederike Otto, an activist who co-founded World Weather Attribution, might not be the most neutral person to help lead the next United Nations climate report. Otto’s research, you see, keeps showing up in lawsuits against the oil and gas industry. Big ones. The kind of lawsuits where the legal fees could buy an entire Tesla fleet and still leave room for a virtue-signaling dinner at Davos.

Now, any normal reporter might think, Hmm, that sounds like a potential conflict of interest worth exploring. But we’re not dealing with normal reporters here. We’re dealing with the High Clergy of the Narrative. So instead of “UN installs activist whose work is fueling climate lawsuits,” we get, “Fossil fuel industry allies attack a scientist.”

Because in modern media theology, questioning the priest is a greater sin than whatever the priest did.

This is the “Republicans pounce” phenomenon, that magical incantation journalists deploy whenever someone on the left does something indefensible. A Democrat governor gets caught vacationing mask-less during lockdowns? Republicans pounce. The FBI loses another laptop? Republicans pounce. And now, when a UN scientist with open activist ties takes a key seat in the IPCC, what happens? Climate critics pounce.

The Holy Narrative Must Be Protected

The E&E News piece begins in high moral tones, as if announcing an indictment at The Hague:

“Critics of mainstream climate science and allies of the fossil fuel industry are taking aim at a prominent expert…”

Did you catch that? The critics aren’t people with questions. They’re “allies of the fossil fuel industry.” Because in the catechism of climate journalism, every skeptic has a secret Exxon logo tattooed behind the ear.

Then we learn that Pielke’s concerns — namely, that putting an activist whose studies are used in billion-dollar lawsuits at the helm of a supposedly neutral IPCC chapter might hurt credibility — are just part of an “attack.”

Imagine the scene in any other field. Suppose a tobacco company lawyer suddenly became the lead author on a World Health Organization report about lung cancer. Think anyone at Politico would write, “Tobacco critics try to discredit WHO expert”? Of course not. They’d be live-tweeting the bonfire.

But when it’s climate science, rules don’t apply. The journalist’s job is not to ask questions but to shield the narrative from contamination.

The Church of Settled Science

Dr. Otto, the subject of this crusade of sympathy, runs a group that specializes in what’s called “attribution science” — studies claiming to show how much a given weather event was worsened by human-caused climate change. The key word there is claiming, because the math behind those models makes astrology look like accounting. But the media treat it as gospel.

Her work has been “used in lawsuits against polluters,” E&E News notes approvingly, without a hint that this might raise eyebrows. It’s like announcing that your forensic expert moonlights as the plaintiff’s attorney — and expecting applause.

When Pielke pointed out that turning every heat wave into a press release for class-action lawyers might erode scientific neutrality, the authors reacted as if he’d denied gravity. The piece solemnly informs us that Otto will, quote, “be assessing peer-reviewed science,” which apparently is supposed to calm the masses. Because as everyone knows, the phrase “peer-reviewed” is the modern equivalent of a papal seal.

The article then adds Otto’s own reassurance: “There are many, many peer-reviewed studies that show how climate change has affected extreme weather events.” Sure. And there are many, many medieval scrolls proving witches cause crop failures. Quantity is not the same as quality, but that nuance never makes it through the newsroom filters.

“The Critics Are Coordinated!” (Because They All Read)

Once the piece establishes Otto’s sainthood, it pivots to the villain: the Trump administration. Because you can’t write about climate without invoking the Orange Man.

We’re told that Trump officials have “worked to discredit established climate science.” The evidence? They released their own report that concluded the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios were exaggerated. The horror. Apparently, doing your own research is now an act of war.

Then, right on cue, the article quotes Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists — a name that sounds like a 1970s garage band but functions as the Vatican of climate activism — who assures us that the criticism of Otto is a “deliberate mischaracterization.”

Cleetus adds that “no individual scientist hijacks the IPCC process.” That line alone deserves an award for unintentional comedy. Bureaucratic hijacking is practically the IPCC’s house sport. The organization has been producing consensus-by-committee reports for decades, with “consensus” defined as “whatever the politicians agree to in the summary.”

But E&E News dutifully prints her words as gospel, unchallenged, because climate journalism isn’t about reporting — it’s about catechism reinforcement.

How Dare You Ask About Bias!

Halfway through the story, E&E News finally concedes the real issue: Otto’s “extreme event attribution” work has been cited in multiple lawsuits, including a $51 billion claim by Multnomah County, Oregon. The plaintiffs’ lawyers literally use her studies as ammunition.

That’s the kind of revelation that, in sane times, would lead to tough follow-ups: Does this create a conflict of interest? Should the IPCC separate itself from litigation-linked research? What safeguards exist?

But instead of questions, the journalists sprint to mop up the spill. We’re reassured that the IPCC’s author-selection process is “balanced” and “protected from the influence of special interests.” Because if there’s one thing the UN is known for, it’s the absence of special interests.

It’s all boilerplate — the bureaucratic equivalent of “trust us, we’ve got this.”

Otto, for her part, insists that her work has “absolutely nothing to do with litigation.” Right. And my gym membership has absolutely nothing to do with my expanding waistline.

She also complains that her critics “took her comments out of context.” That’s the universal defense of anyone caught saying something inconvenient. The context, presumably, is that she meant to say something else entirely while articulating exactly what she said.

The Media’s Favorite Sport: Pretend Objectivity

The last quarter of the article plays clean-up like a press secretary. We’re told that Otto’s co-author in Germany has “absolutely no concerns,” that other scientists call her methods “fundamental science,” and that the World Weather Attribution project is “super transparent.”

Of course it’s transparent — you can see right through it.

But the best part is the tone: a mixture of solemn authority and parental disappointment. The reporters write as though they’re explaining to a confused child that Santa Claus is real and the mean old skeptics are just trying to ruin Christmas.

The message: The science is settled, the lawsuits are righteous, and if you disagree you probably own a pickup truck.

The Pattern of “Pounce” Politics

The structure of this story could be used to teach Journalism 101 — assuming the class was called Narrative Protection for Fun and Profit.

Step 1: Identify a left-wing actor engaged in dubious behavior.
Step 2: Shift focus from the act to the reaction.
Step 3: Smear the critics as extremists or industry shills.
Step 4: Quote a couple of “neutral experts” who all work for activist NGOs.
Step 5: Conclude with a reassurance that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along.

That’s the “Republicans pounce” formula, now re-branded as “Climate critics attack.” The only variable is the noun. The structure never changes.

It’s the same muscle memory that led CNN to write “Republicans seize on Biden gaffe” instead of “Biden forgets where he is again.” The sin is never the action — it’s the noticing.

The Cult of Credentialism

One reason this works so well is that climate reporting runs on credentialism. The journalist’s worldview is built around deference to “experts.” If someone has a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Feelings from the University of Virtue, the press treats their statements as immutable law.

So when Otto says her research is “fundamental science,” no one asks, “Fundamental to what?” The answer, of course, is “fundamental to keeping the grant money flowing.”

Meanwhile, Pielke Jr. — who has actual experience analyzing disaster data — gets dismissed as a “critic allied with the fossil fuel industry.” His sin is not ignorance; it’s independence.

In this world, there are only two categories: believers and deniers. And if you’re in the second group, no amount of evidence will redeem you.

Why This Matters (and Why It’s Funny)

Underneath the farce is something serious. The IPCC isn’t just a scientific body; it’s the policy backbone for trillions of dollars in spending and regulation. When its authors have visible activist ties, that’s not a minor footnote — it’s a legitimacy crisis.

If the people writing the “objective” climate chapters are also producing studies weaponized in court, the line between science and advocacy disappears. And once that happens, the entire enterprise becomes politics with equations.

The media should be the first to demand transparency. Instead, they circle the wagons, shielding the activists with headlines that imply criticism equals conspiracy.

It’s the same pattern we’ve seen in every other issue where the left’s ideology collides with reality. Question the lockdowns? You hate grandmothers. Question DEI? You’re racist. Question the IPCC? You’re a fossil-fuel shill.

That reflex — the automatic demonization of dissent — is what turns journalism into propaganda.

Satire Writes Itself

To appreciate the absurdity, imagine E&E News covering any other controversy this way:

“Critics of mainstream dietary science try to discredit USDA official for linking obesity to sugar subsidies.”

Or:

“Legal ethicists pounce on judge for presiding over cases involving her own family.”

But because it’s climate, we’re supposed to nod solemnly and thank the journalists for defending truth against the barbarians.

The funniest part is that they think this framing works. They don’t realize how transparent it’s become. Every time they write “critics attack” instead of “questions arise,” normal readers see the bias glowing like a solar panel in a desert.

Even people who accept the climate narrative instinctively sense the propaganda. It’s too heavy-handed. Too self-righteous. You can almost hear the subtext whispering: Don’t ask questions. We already did the thinking for you.

The Bureaucracy of Belief

The IPCC itself is the perfect symbol of our technocratic age — a sprawling committee of bureaucrats claiming to speak for Science Itself while issuing reports so dense that politicians can twist them into anything.

Its real product isn’t knowledge; it’s authority. Every report becomes a cudgel to justify whatever policies the climate clergy already wanted — carbon taxes, ESG mandates, bans on gas stoves, you name it.

So when someone like Otto, whose research directly supports climate litigation, is elevated to lead author, it’s not a coincidence. It’s the system working as designed.

The journalists’ job, therefore, is to bless the process, to reassure the faithful that the priests are pure and the heretics are evil. That’s why the E&E News story feels like liturgy — repetitive, solemn, and immune to evidence.

Meanwhile, in the Real World…

Outside the echo chamber, people are dealing with actual problems — skyrocketing energy costs, unreliable grids, and food inflation caused by policies dreamed up by the same bureaucrats who lecture us about “sustainability.”

They don’t care whether Friederike Otto or Roger Pielke wins the latest academic spat. They care that their utility bills look like mortgage payments. But for the press, those concerns are irrelevant. The only crisis that matters is the one that justifies more control.

So the beat goes on: every new storm, flood, or drought becomes another sermon in the endless homily of climate catastrophe. And every skeptic becomes a villain to be anathematized.

The Punchline

In the end, E&E News accidentally produced a masterpiece of unintentional self-parody — a story not about science but about the media’s own reflexive obedience.

They could have written, “Debate Erupts Over IPCC Author’s Activist Ties.” Neutral. Informative. Balanced.

Instead, they wrote, “Climate Critics Try to Discredit IPCC Author.” Because to them, the story isn’t that an activist infiltrated the IPCC. The story is that anyone noticed.

And that’s the real scandal: in modern journalism, skepticism itself has become the crime.

So congratulations to E&E News for pioneering a new genre. Forget “Republicans pounce.” The future is “Climate critics pounce.” Coming soon to a headline near you:

  • “Skeptics attack scientist after another record warm Tuesday.”
  • “Drivers pounce as gas prices rise to save planet.”
  • “Homeowners criticize blackouts caused by grid savior policies.”

Because in the religion of climate, there’s only one commandment: Thou shalt not question the narrative.

And as always, the media will be there to enforce it — clipboard in hand, halo slightly crooked, wondering why the rest of us keep laughing.

Washington Times Catch Up With Met Office Shenanigans

The Washington Times has now caught up with the shenanigans at the Met Office, thanks to our Ray Sanders:

Abandoned temperature measurement site with a wooden sign indicating its purpose, surrounded by overgrown grass and trees, featuring an old building in the background.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

A concrete building with a prominent thermometer and globe symbol on its exterior, surrounded by several uniformed guards.

Well done, Ray!

The Washington Times has now caught up with the shenanigans at the Met Office, thanks to our Ray Sanders:

Screenshot of an editorial headline from the Washington Times, discussing the U.K. weather office deleting inconvenient climate data.

It is becoming harder to get away with lying in the age of independent media. Progressives in particular are struggling to safeguard the sacred belief that the planet is on the verge of melting because naughty plebeians keep driving SUVs and using air conditioning.

Climate change devotees are willing to lie to defend this article of faith. Ray Sanders, an engineer by trade, realized this as he double-checked the calculations of the Met Office, the U.K. government agency responsible for guessing whether it will rain in Blighty tomorrow.

The Met is also known for making bold prognostications about the conditions expected half-a-century from now. “Heatwaves, like that of summer 2018, are now 30 times more likely to happen due to climate change,” it asserts.

Mr. Sanders investigated each location the Met relied upon to gather temperature readings in making its assertion. He found a bit of mischief that would skew readings, such as thermometers placed in the middle of a parking lot or surrounded by a heat-generating solar panel farm.

That’s nothing compared to his conclusion that a third of the 302 stations used to compute the country’s average temperature didn’t exist. The Met’s public website included 103 climate stations as the basis for the nationwide average, even though these had closed years or decades ago.

To make up for the shortfall, the Met says it created “comparable data” from up to six nearby sites that were “well correlated” to the original spot. Mr. Sanders took a seaside town called Lowestoft to question the validity of this method. The only viable “comparable” regions would be located more than 25 miles distant—far from the ocean breeze.

Full story here.

Karen naming underscores the call to overhaul hurricane classifications

The naming of Karen in the North Atlantic as a subtropical storm is laughable to me, but it has now become a talking point for people pushing missives about climate change — this, despite a season that has fallen short of the means of the last five seasons, one of them with a strong El Niño.

Satellite image of a subtropical storm with a defined circulation pattern over the ocean, surrounded by clouds.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

Map of the Atlantic Ocean showing Hurricane Jerry and a monitored area of potential storm development indicated by a yellow dashed outline.

The naming of Karen in the North Atlantic as a subtropical storm is laughable to me, but it has now become a talking point for people pushing missives about climate change — this, despite a season that has fallen short of the means of the last five seasons, one of them with a strong El Niño.

It underscores what I have been trying to push for close to two decades. If you want to name these systems that develop a warmer core within the realm of a colder environment, then you need a two-tier season. That you would have something like this, which has a nice structure but is a warmer feature within the colder environment

Satellite image of a subtropical storm swirling in the North Atlantic, showcasing a well-defined spiral structure against a backdrop of blue ocean and wispy clouds.

and over water temps that are 2-4°C below the threshold of 26°C we use for storms, is a joke to me.

We are naming storms that never would have been named before, and it skews the numbers. I have to actually try to account for how many storms will be named that I would not name when I put out my numbers, so they are always a bit above what my raw score gives me.

In the meantime, look at this from September 16 — from a storm that developed over the Gulf Stream:

Weather radar map showing rain intensity over the North Atlantic, highlighting areas around Norfolk and Kitty Hawk.

It did this to SE Va, along with causing the collapse of houses into the ocean on the Outer Banks.

A table displaying wind speed and rainfall data from various locations in Virginia Beach, including measurements from time and date.
A flooded street with submerged vehicles and fallen power lines, indicating severe weather conditions.
Two workers in bright yellow rain gear use chainsaws to clear a large fallen tree blocking a residential street, surrounded by rain-soaked grass and mailboxes.

It was totally ignored by the National Hurricane Center. This has been going on since I can remember. I will watch storms get named in the middle of nowhere (we call them “ham sandwiches” at weatherbell.com) where no one can actually see what they do. But then we see features like this — which are enough to feed back and convert rapidly to at least subtropical systems and hit people — and no one says boo.

But an overhaul has to be done at the National Hurricane Center (NHC). There is too much subjectivity, and that shackles people relying on their expertise — which, by the way is considerable — on these matters. It’s akin to having a football team with immense talent, but the game plan is not being used right.

I have been pushing the power and impact scale overhaul for years, and you saw that call in previous blogs. Each storm has to be reanalyzed, where the message of the power and impact scale THAT SIZE MATTERS is taken into account.  There is simply too much snapshot propaganda involved with the climate change agenda — not by NHC, but by people who take what they say and twist it. To be fair, while it’s mostly from alarmists, my side plays the game also (cherry picking this hurricane season because of no landfalls is an example). So now alarmists get to use Karen as the furthest north a storm has ever been named, when it was named over waters that are 2-4°C degrees lower than the objective threshold.

We see storms all the time that become so intense that, relative to the surroundings, they develop a warm core. Which looks better to you, the Karen in the North Atlantic or this storm?

Satellite imagery of a hurricane approaching the Texas coast, showing a well-defined circular structure and cloud formations.

This IS THE PRESIDENTS DAY BLIZZARD OF 1979 (which btw did have gusts near hurricane force on the coast to go along with 2 feet of snow).

This is too much like being in a classroom where the teacher gets to dictate what is said and done and can not be questioned. Why is that important? Well, suppose your insurance policy has a provision for a tropical storm or hurricane and your house falls into the ocean on September 16 because of a storm with an eye that was not named by the government agency? Or you are covered for a hurricane but not a “Superstorm,” even though Sandy was a hurricane while it was causing much of its damage until two hours before landfall? And what of the actual historic record?

So, my proposal is simple. If you have a feature with a closed circulation over water at or over 26 °C, you classify it and keep the classification until it’s no longer producing those gales. Even when it comes over colder water, the call to it being “non-tropical” is so subjective that we keep it on. I like to use the Florida State cyclone phase chart, because it has no dog in the fight. For Karen, which is being looked at as a record-breaking storm since it got named so far north, the phase diagram said it was cold core (the pink to the right is the warm core)

Diagram illustrating cyclone phases with circular and triangular shapes representing different stages of a storm.

This way,  you don’t have Sandys that were certainly warm core (for instance, the 100-500 mb thickness at Atlantic City was over 600 with the pressure and height consideration and that is comparable to what a major hurricane has) that get downgraded at the last minute.

That same Florida State Product, from Dr Robert Hart is my go-to for determining objectively what should be named and what should not be.

https://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/It

First of all, I want it over warm water — greater than 26°C — when we classify, not something in the middle of nowhere over cooler waters.

But take this storm that is rearranging some beaches in the Sunday-Tuesday period.

https://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase

The model shows it has warm core features for a time:

Forecast model chart showing the expected intensity and path of a weather system, with temperature gradients indicated.

It tracks right over the heart of the Gulf Stream and is going to batter the coast.

Map showing the Gulf Stream and temperature gradient along the East Coast of the United States, with markers indicating a storm's projected path.

It’s likely to develop an eye-like feature. We all know that rapid feedback with the MJO is in the correct phases, where it is now.

Chart showing multiple weather model tracking paths with marked data points, indicating storm trajectory and intensity.

But no one is looking for this.

Map displaying the Atlantic Ocean with the position of Hurricane Jerry marked and an area indicated for potential tropical development.

Yet we have some models with the eye-like feature.

Map showing weather data along the East Coast of the United States, with emphasis on temperature and pressure readings.

Right over the outer banks:

Map showing mean sea level pressure across the southeastern United States, with a low-pressure system indicated off the coast.

And another storm that may send houses into the ocean with this kind of wind.

Weather map showing maximum 10m wind gusts (in mph) across the southeastern United States on October 11, 2025.

So you mean to tell me there is not a 20% chance this could acquire at least the same characteristics as the record-breaking Karen in the cold north Atlantic, except it’s over warmer water and actually battering our coast?

This hurricane season has been very interesting in that the red zone we outlined has seen a lot of action but no landfalls. But you pay the price, whether named or not, as the pattern has been ripe for storminess between the coast and out toward around Bermuda, with some major systems moving through there. These unnamed features (which I would have named, but not Karen) are taking their toll.

But there has to be some kind of overhaul. My proposals are for a two-tiered season to allow for these storms, where there is room for discussion — not just a yes or no, depending on whatever is being dictated at the time. Above all, you need to serve the public, and naming storms in the middle of nowhere over cold water while ignoring similar evolution storms that actually hit people is unacceptable, IMO.

You replace the Saffir-Simpson Scale with our Power and Impact Scale.

The classification of the storm status is based on an objective scale, and like I said, I love what Dr. Bob Hart at FSU has done and use it.

But you can see not only is this practical for improving information to the public, but also in countering the kind of spin you hear when storms develop so far north they would have never been named before.

‘Green Antoinettes’

Politicians, celebrities, and billionaires who lecture ordinary people about their carbon footprints live by another set of rules. They travel by private jet, dine in excess, and retreat to mansions powered by the very energy sources they want banned. It’s a spectacle of hypocrisy so pervasive, the media barely blinks.

A man in a suit walks towards a private jet against a sunset background.

From Leo DiCaprio to AOC, the new nobility moralizes about austerity while refueling their private jets. Their creed: ‘Do as we say, not as we emit.’

A dramatic illustration featuring a private jet flying above industrial smokestacks, symbolizing the hypocrisy of climate advocates, with a close-up of a man looking serious in the foreground.

From Blaze Media

By Vijay Jayaraj

A collage featuring a private jet, luxury mansion, sleek sports car, and a yacht, with a central black-and-white portrait of a prominent male figure, highlighting themes of wealth and hypocrisy in climate activism.

Politicians, celebrities, and billionaires who lecture ordinary people about their carbon footprints live by another set of rules. They travel by private jet, dine in excess, and retreat to mansions powered by the very energy sources they want banned. It’s a spectacle of hypocrisy so pervasive, the media barely blinks.

Even scientists who scold the public about emissions fly thousands of miles to United Nations climate conferences — racking up the same greenhouse gases they claim will destroy the planet. This is two-tiered climate morality: Those with power indulge, while everyone else is told to sacrifice. Preaching austerity from a private jet has become the “let them eat cake” of our age.

Hypocrisy that pays

The real question isn’t whether the hypocrisy exists but why it’s so tolerated. The answer, in part, is that too many people have found ways to profit from it — through subsidies, grants, and the ever-expanding green grift.

According to data from Yard, celebrities such as Taylor Swift and Leonardo DiCaprio emitted between 3,000 and 4,400 tons of carbon dioxide in 2022 from private jet travel alone — hundreds or even thousands of times the annual emissions of an average citizen.

For perspective: Bangladesh emits about 0.71 tons of carbon dioxide per person annually. Ghana emits 0.74, Ethiopia 0.13, and Kenya 0.4. A single year of indulgence by an American climate icon outweighs the lifetime footprint of entire villages in the developing world.

The climate elite

Filmmaker Steven Spielberg, who condemns “climate deniers” as morally deficient, has a carbon footprint equivalent to nearly 280 average Americans or more than 2,200 Indians. DiCaprio built his global brand on climate activism — then took a private jet from Europe to New York to collect an environmental award.

If the hypocrisy of celebrities is glaring, the behavior of politicians is worse.

Records show that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign spent over $221,000 on private jets in just one quarter — even as the Vermont socialist voted for laws that punish fossil fuel use and floated the idea of criminal charges for energy executives.

A close-up of a man with gray hair and glasses expressing concern, with a white private jet flying in the background.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Fighting Oligarchy tour, meant to challenge wealth and privilege, relied on carbon-intensive travel of its own. The Bronx Democrat later scaled back her private jet use after criticism — by switching to first-class flights instead.

A close-up of a woman with long dark hair and a serious expression, speaking passionately, with a private jet flying above her in the background.

The priesthood of carbon

At United Nations climate conferences, the hypocrisy reaches liturgical heights. The gatherings are usually held in luxury destinations like Dubai, Glasgow, or Sharm El Sheikh. Each transcontinental flight emits roughly 2 tons of carbon dioxide per traveler — the annual output of a citizen in many poorer nations.

Yet these same scientists and bureaucrats push for energy restrictions in developing countries, demanding that millions forgo affordable electricity to meet arbitrary “net-zero” targets. Their supposed moral authority rests not on sacrifice but on self-congratulation.

An illustration depicting the COP30 climate conference, featuring a large crowd gathered outdoors in a lush, green setting, with the title 'COP30' prominently displayed in blue.

A reckoning awaits

The hypocrisy would be merely irritating if the consequences weren’t so destructive. The push for “net-zero emissions” — a fantasy that defies both physics and economics — is driving up the cost of gasoline, electricity, and food while shrinking personal freedom. Families pay more and travel less, while the jet-setters congratulate themselves for “saving the planet.”

They’re not leading an energy transition. They’re entrenching a new aristocracy — one in which elites keep their privileges while the working class bears the pain in the name of the “greater good.”

The rise of Donald Trump and other skeptics has interrupted this march toward a green oligarchy, but the climate faithful persist. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s alliance with the Vatican to “terminate” global warming is only the latest display of moral vanity.

Eventually, voters will see through this 21st-century version of aristocratic corruption. The public may not wield guillotines, but the electoral version will do just fine. Off with their subsidies!

A large group of people in formal suits is seated at desks with laptops, attending a conference or presentation outdoors, with colorful tents and a stage in the background.

The Doughnut Delusion: A Case Study in How to Turn Data into Ideology

It’s fitting that a pair of academics from Oxford and Leeds have decided the best way to save humanity is to bake a giant metaphorical pastry. The Doughnut of Social and Planetary Boundaries, recently published in Nature (October 2025), offers us what its authors, Andrew Fanning and Kate Raworth, describe as a “renewed Doughnut framework” — 35 indicators tracking “social deprivation” and “ecological overshoot.” The paper’s premise is that the world is “out of balance” because we’ve failed to meet “the essential needs of all people within the means of the living planet”.

A circular diagram illustrating the Doughnut framework, featuring green and red sections. It highlights social foundations and ecological ceilings, with labels for various indicators like climate change, biodiversity breakdown, and social cohesion.
Current global status of shortfall and overshoot in the Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries. | Nature

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

It’s fitting that a pair of academics from Oxford and Leeds have decided the best way to save humanity is to bake a giant metaphorical pastry. The Doughnut of Social and Planetary Boundaries, recently published in Nature (October 2025), offers us what its authors, Andrew Fanning and Kate Raworth, describe as a “renewed Doughnut framework” — 35 indicators tracking “social deprivation” and “ecological overshoot.” The paper’s premise is that the world is “out of balance” because we’ve failed to meet “the essential needs of all people within the means of the living planet”.

In other words: capitalism bad, GDP evil, and you should feel guilty for owning a refrigerator.

This is the third “iteration” of Raworth’s famous doughnut model, originally sold to a generation of university students as “a compass for humanity.” If that phrase sounds like the sort of thing printed on a Whole Foods tote bag, that’s because it is. The “Doughnut” has evolved into a moral framework disguised as economics — a colorful wheel that pretends to quantify both poverty and sin, where overshooting an arbitrary “planetary boundary” is the ecological equivalent of gluttony.

Illustration showing the Doughnut framework, representing the status of shortfall and overshoot in social and ecological indicators across three country clusters: the poorest 40%, middle 40%, and richest 20% of countries. Each cluster is visually depicted in circular charts with various indicators labeled.
Current global status of shortfall and overshoot in the Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries. | Nature

But now, armed with regression models, acronyms, and just enough math to intimidate the uninitiated, the authors assure us their pastry is “science.” Let’s take them at their word and see what’s really cooking.

The Premise: Saving the Planet by Redefining Progress

The study opens with a lament about the twentieth century’s “predominant conception of progress,” which, horror of horrors, focused on raising living standards through economic growth. In the authors’ words, we must replace that with a “twenty-first century conception of progress” — not growth, but “well-being,” “prosperity,” and “planetary health.”

You might recognize that last one — planetary health — as the new catchphrase used to justify policies that once needed to be debated democratically. Now it’s an article of faith: the “planet” has needs, and human flourishing must be rationed accordingly.

They claim global GDP “more than doubled” between 2000 and 2022, yet we have achieved only “modest” progress in reducing deprivation. The implication is that economic growth has failed. The problem is, the authors never stop to ask what would have happened without that doubling. How many billions would still lack food, clean water, or electricity if the market economies they dislike hadn’t grown?

Apparently, that’s not the right kind of question — because the answer might remind readers that capitalism has been history’s most effective poverty-reduction mechanism.

The Model: A Pastry of Pseudo-Precision

At the “conceptual core,” we are told, the Doughnut has two rings: the “social foundation,” below which lies “critical human deprivation,” and the “ecological ceiling,” beyond which lies “critical planetary degradation”.

Sounds profound — until you realize both rings are defined by arbitrary numbers. “Critical planetary degradation” depends on the still-controversial “planetary boundaries” theory, which divides Earth’s complex systems into nine “limits,” from carbon dioxide to nitrogen use. These boundaries are described, even by sympathetic scientists, as approximations with “considerable uncertainty”. But the authors admit they don’t “provide a critical assessment” of that framework — because that would undermine the pastry before it left the oven.

So, rather than dealing with the messy complexity of natural systems, Fanning and Raworth normalize everything into a tidy 0–100% scale. For instance, global CO₂ concentration is pegged at 416 parts per million — a “94% overshoot” beyond the planetary boundary of 350 ppm. Why 350? Because someone picked it. There’s no scientific law that says 351 ppm tips us into chaos while 349 ppm keeps us safe.

Likewise, they quantify “chemical pollution” as “production of hazardous chemicals, millions of tonnes per year” and declare the world 3,174% over the limit. Think about that. If your metric shows humanity exceeding its safety threshold by thirty-one times, maybe your model isn’t describing the world — it’s describing your priors.

The Method: Regression Lines and Righteousness

To lend this spiritual crusade a statistical veneer, the authors run linear regressions on global datasets and produce “annual percentage changes” in social and ecological indicators. Social “shortfall” — poverty, illiteracy, lack of electricity — has improved by 0–1 percentage points per year. Ecological “overshoot” — everything from nitrogen use to land conversion — has worsened by 1–5 percentage points per year.

From this they conclude that humanity is “far from securing” the “safe and just space” and that progress would need to “accelerate fivefold” socially while reversing ecological damage “two times faster” than history allows.

This is where science quietly exits and moral arithmetic enters. The authors calculate that to “eliminate social shortfall by 2030,” the world must improve five times faster than ever before, while to “eliminate ecological overshoot by 2050,” it must not only stop current trends but reverse them at twice the rate they worsened.

In other words: physics, biology, and economics must all behave according to the deadlines of UN PowerPoint slides.

And if they don’t? Well, the conclusion is baked in: “Economic policymaking that assigns priority to perpetual economic growth has been failing to bring humanity into the Doughnut’s safe and just space”.

The Inequality Narrative: Blame the Rich, Pity the Poor

The authors divide the world into three “country clusters”: the poorest 40%, the middle 40%, and the richest 20%. Predictably, they find that the “richest 20% contribute more than 40% of annual ecological overshoot,” while the “poorest 40% experience more than 60% of social shortfall.”

Translated: rich countries use more resources; poor countries have more poverty. Stop the presses.

A diagram illustrating the status of 'shortfall and overshoot' within a disaggregated Doughnut framework for three country clusters: the poorest 40%, middle 40%, and richest 20% of countries. Each cluster is represented in a circular format showing various ecological and social indicators.

The moral is clear — the rich must shrink so the poor can grow. But there’s a catch: the same data show that as income rises, social deprivation plummets. The poorest nations suffer the most “shortfall” precisely because they lack the energy, infrastructure, and industrialization that the rich are now told to feel guilty for having.

Fanning and Raworth call this a “disparity” that “reaffirms the case for overcoming the dependence of nations on perpetual GDP growth.” That’s like saying a starving man’s hunger reaffirms the need to eat less.

And yet, with straight faces, they argue that “no country is meeting the needs of all its residents with a level of resource use that could be sustainably extended to all people”. Which is another way of saying: prosperity itself is unsustainable.

This is the heart of the post-growth ideology — a moral economy where success becomes sin, and deprivation becomes virtue.

The Theology of Degrowth

The paper’s conclusion reads like a manifesto:

“Economic policymaking that assigns priority to perpetual economic growth has been failing… This reaffirms calls from post-growth scholars—ranging from degrowth to well-being economy—for a deep renewal of both economic theory and practice.”

Translation: abandon the economic system that lifted billions out of poverty, and replace it with one that makes everyone equally miserable — but sustainably so.

The authors even cite the “Doughnut Economics Action Lab,” which has been busy embedding its philosophy into “more than 50 city and district governments worldwide”. Think about that: an ideological model, built on subjective thresholds and moral symbolism, is already influencing public policy from Amsterdam to Melbourne.

The irony is rich. A framework that condemns “extractive production and overconsumption by the affluent” is itself a product of affluent Western academia, published in Nature, backed by taxpayer-funded institutions, and promoted through glossy “action labs” that depend entirely on the wealth of the capitalist economies they condemn.

The Data Gap They Don’t Want to Talk About

Buried deep in the methods section, the authors quietly admit that their analysis is “necessarily limited by the quality and availability of global time-series data”. Translation: some of the numbers are guesses. They also acknowledge that “several of the indicator thresholds… lack officially recognized standards,” such as their homicide-rate boundary or their “racial equality” measure, which lacks data altogether.

But these caveats don’t stop them from drawing sweeping conclusions about planetary destiny. Instead, they propose to “continue refining and measuring the Doughnut on an annual basis,” promising that regular updates will help “transform the dominant growth-based approach”.

This is where the academic project becomes a bureaucratic one. Every update means another justification for policy intervention — more regulation, more targets, more metrics that can never quite be met. Because if the Doughnut were ever achieved, what would the Doughnut economists do?

They need the crisis to continue.

The Disguised Politics of “Science”

Let’s be clear: this paper isn’t science. It’s advocacy wrapped in data visualization. Its underlying message — that markets and growth are inherently unsustainable — is not a testable hypothesis. It’s a worldview.

Every major variable in their model is politically loaded. “Social shortfall” is measured by indicators chosen to fit a narrative of global inequality — “youth unemployment,” “autocratic regimes,” “perceptions of corruption” — metrics that have as much to do with political preference as with human welfare. Meanwhile, “ecological overshoot” includes everything from CO₂ to “green-water disruption,” an ill-defined measure of soil moisture deviation that most soil scientists would struggle to operationalize.

But the authors treat them all as commensurable — as if corruption and carbon were both just “overshoots” on a single moral dashboard. That’s not science; it’s numerology with a social-justice spreadsheet.

Then there’s the not-so-subtle suggestion that inequality itself is an environmental problem. The wealthy, they say, are “disproportionately responsible” for overshoot. The solution? “Ecologically regenerative and socially distributive economic policies” — i.e., the global redistribution of wealth under an eco-moral banner.

Marx would recognize the rhetoric. He might even envy the data visualization.

The Fantasy of Central Planning 2.0

What’s most striking is the authors’ confidence that they — or someone like them — could steer global civilization toward “a regenerative and distributive economy.”

That’s a familiar dream: technocratic planners designing a “just space” where everyone’s needs are met and no boundary is crossed. It’s the dream that gave us the five-year plan, the sustainability target, and the carbon credit — bureaucratic tools that promise harmony and deliver scarcity.

The Doughnut’s authors insist they’re merely “making visible” the data, not prescribing policy. But then they immediately praise the governments “embedding the Doughnut framework in their local strategies”. That’s the tell. The point isn’t to study; it’s to control.

They even describe themselves as part of a “global community… putting the concepts of ‘Doughnut Economics’ into practice… engaging in strategic policy influence”. One can almost hear the hum of a Brussels committee drafting your next lifestyle regulation.

The Numbers Behind the Rhetoric

To get a sense of just how arbitrary this whole thing is, consider their Table 2 of “ecological indicators.” Here’s a sampling:

  • Carbon dioxide: 416 ppm, labeled as “94% overshoot.”
  • Nitrogen fertilizer use: 193 million tonnes, “212% overshoot.”
  • Chemical production: 1,964 million tonnes, “3,174% overshoot.”
  • Ozone: still within the boundary — the only good news, apparently.

Here’s the whole table

Table 2 The ecological ceiling and its indicators of overshoot

From: Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries monitors a world out of balance

nIndicator (and planetary boundary)Value (and % overshoot beyond boundary)Historical trendTo eliminate overshoot by 2050
2000–20012021–2022(%pt per year)(%pt per year)
Climate changeAtmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, parts per million (at most 350 ppm CO2)370 ppm(28%)416 ppm(94%)+3.1** (worsening)−3.4
Human-induced radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere, Watt per square metre (at most 1 W m−2)1.8 W m−2(78%)2.8 W m−2(183%)+5.5** (worsening)−6.5
Ocean acidificationAverage saturation state of aragonite at the ocean surface (at least 80% of pre-industrial saturation state of 3.44 Ωarag)2.99 Ωarag(−34%)2.80 Ωarag(−6%)+1.3** (worsening)(within boundary)
Chemical pollutionProduction of hazardous chemicals, millions of tonnes per year (at most 5% of the 1,200 Mt of total chemicals produced in year 2000)933 Mt(1,455%)1,964 Mt(3,174%)+81.8** (worsening)−113
Nutrient pollutionPhosphorus applied to land as fertilizer, millions of tonnes per year (at most 6.2 Mt per year)14 Mt(123%)23 Mt(273%)+7.1** (worsening)−9.7
Nitrogen applied to land as fertilizer, millions of tonnes per year (at most 62 Mt per year)134 Mt(116%)193 Mt(212%)+4.6** (worsening)−7.6
Air pollutionAsymmetry between Earth’s hemispheres of sunlight reaching the surface, owing to differences in atmospheric particle concentration (at most 0.1 inter-hemispheric difference in Aerosol Optical Depth)0.08 AOD(−29%)0.08 AOD(−29%)–(not known)(within boundary)
Freshwater disruptionProportion of land area with human-induced disturbance of blue-water flow deviating from Holocene variability (at most 10.2%)18.2% dev.(78%)18.2% dev.(78%)–(not known)−2.7
Proportion of land area with root-zone soil moisture deviating from Holocene variability (at most 11.1%)15.9% dev.(43%)19.3% dev.(74%)+2.5** (worsening)−2.6
Land conversionArea of forested land as a proportion of forest-covered land before human alteration (at least 75% of 64 million square kilometres)39 Mkm2(55%)38 Mkm2(61%)+0.3** (worsening)−2.2
Biodiversity breakdownRate of species extinctions per million species years (at most 10 E/MSY)100 E/MSY(900%)100 E/MSY(900%)–(not known)−32
Human appropriation of net primary productivity, billions of tonnes of carbon per year (at most 10% of 55.9 Gt C)15 Gt C(162%)17 Gt C(204%)+2.0** (worsening)−7.3
Ozone-layer depletionConcentration of ozone in the stratosphere, Dobson units (at most 5% decrease with respect to 1964–1980 value of 290 DU)283.0 DU(−50%)283.4 DU(−53%)+0.1 (no change)(within boundary)
  1. Values in the ‘2000–2001’ and ‘2021–2022’ columns are reported as two-year averages except for stratospheric ozone concentration values, which are reported as five-year averages owing to high annual variability (2000–2004 and 2018–2022). Historical trends are estimated using ordinary least squares regression and two-sided hypothesis tests with statistical significance indicated at the 99% (*) and 99.9% (**) levels. Pathways to eliminate overshoot by 2050 are calculated as the percentage change between 2020–2021 levels of overshoot and zero. See Supplementary Discussion 2 for indicator details and Supplementary Table 2 for sources.

These percentages are entirely dependent on their chosen “safe” values, none of which are empirically determined. The “boundary” for CO₂ (350 ppm) comes from political advocacy, not climatology; the nitrogen limit (62 million tonnes) is derived from a single modeling exercise; and the “chemical” threshold is essentially invented — “at most 5% of 2000 production.”

So, when they say we’re “3,174% over the limit,” what they really mean is: we defined the limit as so low that any modern economy must be over it.

That’s like setting a speed limit of 1 mile per hour and declaring that civilization is in catastrophic “velocity overshoot.”

The Moral of the Story: Guilt as Governance

Fanning and Raworth’s framework is not about measurement; it’s about moral leverage. By defining the entire world as “beyond the safe and just space,” they justify perpetual intervention. Every human act — from farming to driving to building a house — becomes an act of planetary trespass.

They warn that “no country is meeting the needs of all its residents with a level of resource use that could be sustainably extended to all people.” That sounds ominous until you realize it’s just a tautology: if you define “sustainable” as “a level that everyone could have without increasing total resource use,” then of course no one qualifies. The model is built to fail, so that its authors can claim the moral authority of saving us from it.

This is the essence of what passes for environmental economics today — a secular priesthood using spreadsheets instead of scripture. Their gospel: we are fallen, the planet is fragile, and redemption lies in renunciation.

The Reality They Refuse to Admit

The irony is that the world has already achieved unprecedented improvements in almost every social indicator they track — thanks not to degrowth, but to the very economic expansion they condemn.

Between 2000 and 2022, global extreme poverty fell from over 30% to under 8%. Child mortality halved. Access to electricity jumped from 78% to 91%. Literacy, sanitation, internet access — all surged. These are not “modest” gains; they’re civilizational leaps. And they happened while global GDP doubled.

Fanning and Raworth see that correlation and declare it proof of failure. A sane observer would see it as proof of success.

Meanwhile, their ecological hysteria ignores humanity’s proven adaptability. Forest cover in much of the developed world is increasing; agricultural yields are up while fertilizer use per unit of output declines; and the air in rich nations is cleaner than it’s been in a century. None of this fits the apocalypse narrative, so it gets airbrushed out of the doughnut chart.

The Punchline

After nearly two decades of “Doughnut” development, the grand insight remains: we must stop growing, stop consuming, and start obeying the moral geometry of academics who draw circles in PowerPoint.

It’s an impressive feat of self-importance — to turn the miracle of modern civilization into a planetary emergency because it doesn’t fit your spreadsheet’s calorie count.

What this paper really measures isn’t ecological overshoot; it’s intellectual overreach. It’s the arrogance of technocrats who believe they can define “enough” for eight billion people from an office in Oxford.

The rest of us might prefer to live in the messy, adaptive, unpredictable world that built hospitals, computers, and sanitation systems — the world that works.

As for the doughnut? Let them eat it. We’ll keep the engines running.

The Technocrats Are Falling as Their Ideology Fails

In a panel discussion and book launch on The War on Science hosted by the Free Speech Union on Saturday in London, Richard Dawkins reminded his audience of the Lysenko saga in the Soviet Union. The famed British evolutionary biologist noted the parallel between today’s pseudoscience regarding gender and Soviet pseudoscience regarding plant genetics.

A cartoon bird with a bow tie raises its wing while standing next to two books labeled 'doctrine' and a red button, emphasizing a sense of urgency or alarm.

From Tilak´s Substack

By Tilak Doshi

A stylized portrait of Vladimir Lenin, depicted with a raised fist and a green background, symbolizing his revolutionary spirit.

In a panel discussion and book launch on The War on Science hosted by the Free Speech Union on Saturday in London, Richard Dawkins reminded his audience of the Lysenko saga in the Soviet Union. The famed British evolutionary biologist noted the parallel between today’s pseudoscience regarding gender and Soviet pseudoscience regarding plant genetics.

In the annals of scientific infamy, few episodes rival the Lysenko tale. Under the iron patronage of Joseph Stalin and later Nikita Khrushchev, the pernicious Soviet doctrine subordinated biology to Marxist-Leninist ideology. The charlatan agronomist Trofim Lysenko peddled the delusion that acquired traits could be inherited — a scientific fantasy dressed in proletarian garb. He promised bumper harvests through “vernalisation” of seeds and other quackery, rejecting the “bourgeois science” of Mendelian genetics as elitist sabotage.

The result? Purges of genuine scientists, like the tragic Nikolai Vavilov, who starved in a gulag for daring to defend empirical truth; famines that claimed millions of lives; and a generation of Soviet biology crippled by dogma. Lysenkoism wasn’t mere error; it was the weaponisation of science for political ends where dissent was treason and evidence was expendable.

Fast-forward to our own era, and the parallels are as chilling as they are uncanny. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed an ideological capture of science no less insidious, though cloaked in the virtuous robes of DEI, ‘climate justice’ and public health. In the realms of climate policy and COVID-19 response, institutions that were once bastions of rigorous inquiry — the United Nations, the European Union, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and peer-reviewed journals — have been co-opted by a progressive ideology.

Here, ‘consensus’ trumps data, alarmism supplants scepticism and dissenting voices are not imprisoned but ‘cancelled’, smeared as ‘climate deniers‘ or “fringe epidemiologists“. The human toll? Skyrocketing energy prices that impoverish the working classes while denying fossil fuels to the energy-starved in the developing world; Covid lockdowns that ravaged economies and children’s futures; and mRNA ‘vaccines’ rushed to market without full transparency, now linked to mounting reports of adverse events. Billions worldwide have borne the brunt, from African villages ‘leapfrogging’ onto unreliable green energy at the behest of Western moralisers, to schoolchildren masked and isolated in the name of a virus that posed them negligible risk.

Yet, in a twist that history’s ironists might appreciate, the re-election of Donald J. Trump in 2024 has ignited a counter-revolution. His Executive Order issued in May 2025, ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science in America‘, is no mere bureaucratic flourish. By mandating transparency, reproducibility and the open exchange of ideas in federal science, the Trump administration has begun dismantling the edifice of politicised expertise. Emerging data on the harms of Net Zero dogma and Covid interventions — grounded in physics, economics and evidence-based medicine — bolster this fight.

For the first time in many years, there is genuine hope. The populist revolt may yet vanquish the forces that held science hostage in many realms of contentious public policy, restoring it as a tool for human flourishing rather than elite control.

The Ghost of Lysenko: Ideology Over Evidence in Modern Dress

To grasp the depth of our contemporary Lysenkoism, one must revisit its archetype. Lysenko’s rise in the 1930s was greased by Stalin’s hunger for rapid industrialisation sans ‘Western’ genetics, which he deemed incompatible with ‘dialectical materialism’. Lysenko’s ‘Michurinist’ biology posited that the environment could swiftly remake organisms — crops ‘toughened’ by cold exposure, for example. Dissenters were branded ‘wreckers’, their careers ruined, their lives often forfeited. Agricultural output plummeted, exacerbating the Holodomor famine and other disasters. Khrushchev, succeeding Stalin in 1953, doubled down, turning arable steppes into dustbowls. Only after Khrushchev’s 1964 ouster did the Politburo, under Brezhnev, allow modern genetics’ quiet revival — Lysenko retired in obscurity, dying in 1976, his legacy a scar on Soviet science.

Today’s variant is subtler, yet no less destructive. In climate science, the alarmist cult of anthropogenic global warming is epitomised by Michael Mann and his concocted ‘hockey stick’ graph which has been de-bunked as a statistical sleight-of-hand. Mann himself has been exposed as someone who “acted in bad faith” in court when he and his lawyers “presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury”. Yet, his alarmist hockey stick chart has been enshrined by powerful institutions such as the UN and its agencies such as the IPCC. Net Zero by 2050 isn’t policy; it’s dogma, enforced through subsidies for intermittent wind and solar that balloon energy costs.

The UK’s pursuit of this mirage has saddled households with electricity prices four times those in the US, driving de-industrialisation and £220 billion in excess consumer costs since 2006. Green levies added $17 billion to UK bills in 2023-24 and are projected to hit $20 billion by 2029-30.

This isn’t science; it’s Lysenkoism redux. The IPCC’s RCP8.5 model scenario is now admitted as being extremely implausible by its own authors. Yet it is pushed by billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg among others to justify hamstringing fossil fuels, the bedrock of human progress.

Developing nations fare worse: the illusion of African countries ‘leapfrogging‘ into renewables denies them coal and gas for power plants, condemning billions of people to energy poverty. Meanwhile, the larger developing countries such as China and India which are not at the mercy of climate-related financial vetoes imposed by the World Bank and the IMF build coal-fired plants unabated at a sharp pace.

Chris Wright, US Energy Secretary, has argued that fossil fuels have lifted billions of people from destitution and that blocking coal plants in Africa is hypocritical and tantamount to “carbon colonialism”. The UN’s globalist agenda, seeded by billionaire foundations like the Gates and Soros foundations and assorted front organisations, funnels billions to NGOs like Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of Earth, which lobby for policies that enrich the ‘climate industrial complex‘ while pauperising the masses.

No less egregious is the Covid saga, where Lysenko-like figures — Anthony Fauci, former head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health — orchestrated a censorship blitz against evidence-based dissent. The Great Barrington Declaration, published in October 2020 by Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford), Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), advocated “focused protection” for the vulnerable over blanket lockdowns in keeping with pre-2020 public health orthodoxy. Fauci and Collins, in leaked emails, plotted to “take down” this “fringe” threat, smearing its authors as dangerous quacks. Further lockdowns ensued: schools shuttered, economies cratered and children — forcibly face-masked and socially starved — suffered developmental delays, mental health spikes and learning losses equivalent to half a year’s progress according to UNESCO data.

The global Covid hysteria was fuelled by a March 2020 bombshell report by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London, which forecast 510,000 deaths in the country without immediate lockdowns. Within a few weeks, Ferguson’s predicted half a million fatalities in the UK was adjusted downward to “unlikely to exceed 20,000”, reducing the fearful statistic by 25 times. It was later found that Dr Ferguson’s model was not fit for purpose.

This modern-day British Lysenko later resigned his governmental advisory position after being busted for breaking the very same lockdown rules he helped impose on the country. His junk model played a key role in the rationale for lockdowns around the world, particularly after the United Kingdom and United States governments explicitly invoked his report as a justification for lockdowns.

The cost of the Covid lockdowns runs into trillions. According to IMF data, global GDP declined by 3.0% in 2020, a stark reversal from the 2.8% growth recorded in 2019. In absolute terms, with global GDP at approximately $84.9 trillion in 2020, the 3.0% contraction equates to roughly $2.5 trillion in lost output — equivalent to the combined economies of several major nations. The IMF projected a cumulative impact over the two years 2020-21 of an estimated $9 trillion. The human toll, especially in the developing countries without welfare nets from broken supply chains, loss of trade and livelihoods can only be guessed at.

These policies were not born of evidence but of ideology. They were a technocratic fusion of precautionary panic and fanciful model-building. As in Lysenko’s era, the epidemiological modelers and bureaucrats working in captured regulatory agencies such as the CDC and the NIH ascended, while sceptics – such as Robert Malone who played a role in inventing mRNA technology – were exiled to Substack purgatory.

The Populist Reckoning: Trump’s Gold Standard for Scientific Research

Enter Trump 2.0 — a populist bulldozer against the modern Lysenkoist edifice. Trump’s 2025 executive order on “gold standard science” isn’t ‘anti-science’ as Left-liberal outlets like Nature and Science charge. When the act of exposing ideological science is branded ‘ideological’, psycho-political projection is complete. Reinstating scientific integrity policies, mandating data transparency and protecting dissenting views are antidotes to weaponised science. Agencies must now disclose uncertainties, falsify models rigorously and eschew political meddling.

For instance, it is not ‘anti-science’ to ensure that the farce of the extended Covid school closures, imposed by CDC guidance which was influenced by the country’s second largest teachers’ union, does not ever occur again. Making implausible climate modelling scenarios like RCP8.5 no longer credible in publicly financed climate research is not ‘Right-wing’ science. Rather it keeps scientists honest, however committed they might personally be to tell the ‘noble lie‘ for a greater cause.

Lysenko fell amid continued crop failures after the protection Khrushchev’s patronage ended. Anthony Fauci now faces continued Congressional probes and possible charges for perjury and other offences in his role over public health policy during the Covid hysteria despite his pre-emptive pardon by President Biden.

History saw rehabilitations of Soviet scientists who followed Lysenko like Andrei Sakharov and others who quietly preserved genetic research. In our times, we see Jay Bhattacharya, once accused of being “fringe” and cancelled by mainstream media, is now the NIH newly appointed Director. He is guiding the agency towards evidence-based medicine and vowing probes into mRNA transparency lapses. Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the scourge of Big Pharma and now US Health Secretary, champions vaccine injury compensation and transparent, randomised and placebo-controlled trials to measure vaccine efficacy.

The Restoration of Reason

Trump’s re-election does not guarantee a new golden age of science. Bureaucracies are resilient; vested interests die hard. The climate-industrial complex — banks, consultancies, NGOs and subsidy-hungry, rent-seeking corporations in the renewables space — will not surrender easily. Nor will Big Pharma, whose financial windfalls from the Covid pandemic fuelled intense lobbying in the US Congress and bought political loyalty across both parties.

Yet there is something profoundly hopeful in the moment. For the first time in decades, the presumption of infallibility that shielded technocrats is cracking. The dogma of ‘settled science’ is being replaced by renewed curiosity, even humility. Physicists, economists and epidemiologists are reclaiming the terrain of open inquiry. Social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook are now openly claiming that they will now not censor dissenting voices with ‘fact-checks’ like they did under the previous administration.

In energy, this means acknowledging physical realities: that wind and solar cannot replace dense and reliable fossil fuels without catastrophic costs; that hydrocarbons remain indispensable to modern life; and that innovation, not prohibition, drives environmental progress. In medicine, it means demanding long-term safety data, transparent trials and honest communication about health risks and benefits.

These are not partisan demands. They are the foundations for human flourishing. When societies abandon them, suffering follows — whether in Stalin’s Ukraine or in the self-inflicted energy crises of Europe.

The New Enlightenment or the Last Stand?

The parallels between Lysenko’s Soviet Union and the Western technocracies of the early 21st century are sobering. Both replaced empirical inquiry with ideological certainty. Both persecuted dissenters as enemies of the state. Both sacrificed the well-being of millions on the altar of utopian theory.

Despite censorship, truth eventually emerges. The physics of energy, the economics of growth, the biology of disease — these are realities that cannot be legislated away. As evidence accumulates on the failures of Net Zero policies and the harms of pandemic overreach, the edifice of progressive technocracy is crumbling under its own contradictions.

The great art historian Kenneth Clark, reflecting on the fragility of civilisation, remarked that Western man had survived the Dark Ages “by the skin of our teeth”. We might say the same today. The victory of a populist coalition over the globalist establishment — symbolised by Trump’s return — has bought us time. We can also perceive a wider populist wave in the resurgence of parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, Reform UK and the National Rally in France. The momentum of the populist wave in the collective West can also be seen in the recent election victory of the conservative-populist Andrej Babis – a self-proclaimed “Trumpist” — in the Czech Republic and the shock win in Japan’s LDP party elections by “conservative” leader Sanae Takaichi – an admirer of Margaret Thatcher – who is set to be the next Prime Minister of Japan. We also see the Rightward shift in politics in the continued opposition of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico against the globalist policies pushed by Brussels’ sprawling EU bureaucracy.

The battle, however, is far from over. The same foundations and billionaires — Gates, Soros, Bloomberg, Rockefeller — continue to pour billions into NGOs that propagate climate alarmism and pandemic fears. The modern-day clerics of virtue will not yield easily. But the tide seems to be turning. Independent journalists, scientists and citizens are reclaiming the narrative. Platforms once silenced are now flourishing. The public appetite for truth, after years of manipulation, is insatiable. The explosive growth of X, reaching over 560 million active users, attracts users weary of censored platforms and is one indicator of the public’s desire for un-curated news.

The story of Lysenkoism is a warning from history: when science serves ideology, catastrophe follows. The 20th century paid that price in blood and famine. The 21st has flirted with a softer, subtler version — one that replaced gulags with cancellation, executions with de-platforming, but sought the same end: control.

Trump’s re-election represents a repudiation of that control in the West. For now, at least, reason has a fighting chance.

This was first published at the Daily Sceptic ( https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/10/the-technocrats-are-falling-as-their-ideology-fails/ )

Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.

Bird-torching Mojave solar facility shutting down

The sun will soon be setting on the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California’s Mojave Desert. Boosted by $1.6 billion in taxpayer-backed loans in 2011, the gargantuan project was hailed by President Obama’s first energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, as “an example of how America is becoming a world leader in solar energy.”

From CFACT

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

The sun will soon be setting on the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California’s Mojave Desert. Boosted by $1.6 billion in taxpayer-backed loans in 2011, the gargantuan project was hailed by President Obama’s first energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, as “an example of how America is becoming a world leader in solar energy.”

Instead, it has become yet another example of central planners squandering taxpayer money on an ill-conceived green-energy boondoggle. Covering five square miles of the sun-drenched Mojave Desert, 65 miles southwest of Las Vegas, Ivanpah features three 459-foot towers and 173,500 computer-controlled mirrors known as heliostats. “The mirrors reflect heat from the sun to a receiver mounted on top of the tower,” energy consultant Edward Smeloff told the New York Post.  “That heats a fluid. It creates steam [that spins] a conventional steam turbine. It is complicated.”

So complicated, in fact, that the project ran with breathtaking inefficiency. Since going into operation in 2014, Ivanpah, built at a cost of $2.2 billion, never came close to meeting its boosters’ lofty expectations. In the world of solar energy, Ivanpah found itself unable to compete with conventional photovoltaic installations, which themselves are unable to meet the soaring demands of electricity-hungry artificial intelligence (AI).

But whatever its shortcomings in producing electricity, Ivanpah has been a super-efficient killer of birds. The light generated from the mirrors’ reflection of the sun can reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees. Birds unfortunate enough to fly over the “clean-energy” facility could be burned alive in the intense heat. According to the Association of Avian Veterinarians, Ivanpah is believed to be responsible for at least 6,000 bird deaths each year,” the Post reported.

News of Ivanpah’s impending demise coincides with President Trump’s recent address before the United Nations in New York, in which he lambasted green energy. “We are getting rid of the falsely named renewables,” he told the assembled U.N. delegates in September. “The primary effect of brutal green energy policies has not been to help the environment, but to redistribute manufacturing from developed countries … to polluting countries that are making a fortune.”  Lest anyone miss the message, he added:

“The entire globalist concept of asking successful industrialized nations to inflict pain on themselves and radically disrupt their entire societies must be rejected completely.”

Taking A Backseat To China?

The Trump administration’s rejection of wind and solar energy, along with the accompanying narrative of fossil fuel-driven climate change, has sparked concerns in the investment community that the U.S. runs the risk of ceding global leadership in green energy to China. “America has given up its effort to challenge China in the renewable energy industries that increasingly power the global economy,” The Wall Street Journal recently warned.

“Companies in the second quarter cancelled more green-manufacturing projects than they announced for the first time on record, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Rhodium Group,” the Journal added. “Clean-energy investment plunged 51% from the previous quarter.”

Such concerns assume that wind and solar power, battery storage, and electric vehicles will spearhead global energy use in the decades to come. If so, then China will indeed be the top dog in energy production and infrastructure, because it has an iron grip on these sources’ global supply chains. But what if the tide is already running out on green energy?

This is precisely the message Trump delivered at the U.N., and his administration’s embrace of fossil fuels, nuclear power, and even geothermal energy plays to America’s strengths — and underscores China’s weaknesses. Bereft of domestic oil and natural gas thanks to unfavorable geology, China seized the opportunity presented by short-sighted decarbonization policies adopted elsewhere in the world. Beijing became the supplier — not of choice, but of necessity — for the raw materials found in wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries. And it did so with an economy whose chief source of power is coal, the much-demonized fossil fuel targeted for extinction by the Obama and Biden administrations, as well as by camp-following governments in Britain, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere.

This is a game the Trump administration refuses to play. America’s creaky electric grid desperately needs reliable baseline energy to power the nation’s homes and businesses. Energy-hungry, AI-driven data centers require gobs of electricity 24/7/365 that is best generated on-site by small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Furthermore, the U.S. can flex its muscles by exporting its abundant oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), and even coal, to eager customers worldwide. In this emerging world, there should be no place for subsidized, intermittent wind and solar power, much less the soon-to-be shuttered Ivanpah monstrosity in the Mojave Desert.

And if the powers that be in Beijing still want to be the global leaders in green energy, let them.

This article originally appeared at The Daily Caller

About Sea Surface Temperatures

Satellite instruments measure sea surface temperature—often abbreviated as SST—by checking how much energy comes off the ocean at different wavelengths. Computer programs merge sea surface temperatures from ships and buoys with the satellite data and incorporate information from maps of sea ice. To produce the daily maps, programs invoke mathematical filters to combine and smooth data from all three sources.

A serene ocean view at sunset, with gentle waves reflecting the warm colors of the sky.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Map of global sea surface temperatures (°F) on June 21, 2025, showing varying temperature ranges highlighted in colors from blue (cooler) to orange (warmer).
Background from NOAA Climate.gov

Q:  What’s the temperature of water at the ocean’s surface?
A:  Colors on the map show the temperature of water right at the ocean’s surface. The darkest blue shows the coldest water: floating sea ice is usually present in these areas. Lighter shades of blue show temperatures of up to 80°F. White and orange areas show where surface temperatures are higher than 80°F, warm enough to fuel tropical cyclones or hurricanes.

Q:  Where do these measurements come from?
A:  Satellite instruments measure sea surface temperature—often abbreviated as SST—by checking how much energy comes off the ocean at different wavelengths. Computer programs merge sea surface temperatures from ships and buoys with the satellite data and incorporate information from maps of sea ice. To produce the daily maps, programs invoke mathematical filters to combine and smooth data from all three sources.

Q:  Why do these data matter?
A:  While heat energy is stored and mixed throughout the depth of the ocean, the temperature of water right at the sea’s surface—where the ocean is in direct contact with the atmosphere—plays a significant role in weather and short-term climate. Where sea surface temperatures are high, relatively large amounts of heat energy and moisture enter the atmosphere, sometimes producing powerful, drenching storms downwind. Conversely, lower sea surface temperatures mean less evaporation. Global patterns of sea surface temperatures are an important factor for weather forecasts and climate outlooks.

Q:  How did you produce these snapshots?
A:  Data Snapshots are derivatives of existing data products: to meet the needs of a broad audience, we present the source data in a simplified visual style. NOAA’s Climate Data Records Program produces the Opitimum Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature files. To produce our images, we run a set of scripts that access the source files, re-project them into desired projections at various sizes, and output them with a custom color bar.

With the federal government shutdown, dataset updates are uncertain, but OISST is current and shows how presently the ocean is cooling down from its 2024 high temperatures.

Line graph showing daily global sea surface temperatures in Fahrenheit for the years 1982 to 2025, with data points highlighting a record temperature in 2024.
Note: Daily SST Ocean Temperature Graphic, 1982-2025

Use the options below to generate graphics of daily sea surface temperatures since 1982 using data from NOAA’s Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature (OISST) v2.1 dataset. [The chart above defines Global as 60°N to 60°S.]  These graphics will update daily, or as data becomes available on the Climate Reanalyzer website. Note the most recent two weeks of data are considered preliminary. Specific information about the data can be found here.

My Comment:

The chart shows how 2025 is tracking ~half a degree F cooler than 2024. That may not seem significant, except that the ocean covers 71% of the Earth’s surface, and any SST warming is reported in numbers of zettajoules.  This is explained at the EPA website Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Heat:

The top 700 meters of the ocean contain 63% of the ocean’s heat content. The data shows that ocean layer has warmed about a zettajoule (1×10^22 joules) yearly since 1990.

For reference, an increase of 1 unit on this graph (1 × 10^22 joules) is equal to approximately 17 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year (based on a total global energy supply of 606 exajoules in the year 2019, which equates to 6.06 × 1020 joules).

It appears that presently we may be about to lose that amount of energy through oceanic cooling.  And the sun could be to blame:

Graph displaying the progression of solar cycles through F10.7cm radio flux measurements from 2000 to 2030, with observed, smoothed, and predicted ranges.