Tag: Misinformation

Aussie Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy Delivers their Final Report

Campaigners, I mean senators, are horrified that people don’t believe government climate warnings, and blame a conspiracy of big oil interests for this lack of trust in Green claims.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Campaigners, I mean senators, are horrified that people don’t believe government climate warnings, and blame a conspiracy of big oil interests for this lack of trust in Green claims.

Australia has to fight back against misinformation about climate change, Senate report says

By business reporter Gareth Hutchens

…

The Senate’s select committee on information integrity on climate change and energy released its final report last week.

It sounded an alarm about the health of Australia’s digital town square and the erosion of trust in society, and said we have to clean up our online debates. Climate disinformation, the Atlas Network and Dr Karl

…

“A robust information ecosystem is critical to the health of Australia’s democracy and to its ability to meet the challenges arising from climate change — including the need to transition to renewable energy sources,” the report argued.

“However, the committee heard that the integrity of Australia’s information ecosystem is threatened by a proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, which is polarising public discourse and eroding trust in science and knowledge institutions.

…

With that in mind, the report has recommended that the federal government explore ways to improve transparency of political campaign activities in Australia, such as the creation of third parties, that are resourced by commercial and corporate interests.

It says the government should explore funding models for independent monitoring support (for example, via the Australian Internet Observatory) to track hidden digital influence ecosystems and provide independent transparency and accountability of online platforms.

…Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-29/senate-report-misinformation-climate-change-recommendations/106497978

The final report is available here.

The section on bad actors follows the usual green playbook, citing Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s inquiry into alleged big oil misinformation, and included a demand that big oil be held accountable for their deception;

…

Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid

Accountability for Climate Change

1.40 In April 2024, US Congressman Jamie Raskin and US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse released a joint staff report Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak: Big Oil’s Evolving Efforts to Avoid Accountability for Climate Change. The report was the result of a three-year investigation by Democratic Party staff in the US House Oversight and US Senate Budget Committee.

1.41 The report explores the efforts large fossil fuel companies—including ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation and Shell—allegedly undertake to deceive the public and investors about the effect of fossil fuels on climate change and how they undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

1.42 Key observations within the report include:

 Fossil fuel companies have understood the effects of fossil fuels on the climate since at least the 1960s but have worked to undermine public understanding of this.

The campaign against climate action waged by these companies has evolved from outright denial of climate change to undermining action using a playbook of deception and disinformation.

The fossil fuel industry uses intermediaries like trade associations and thinktanks to spread false and misleading narratives against climate action.

The industry strategically partners with universities to lend credibility to its deception campaigns while silencing or attacking opposing voices.

1.43 The report did not make recommendations, but noted that the investigation and report had ‘set out new evidence about the extent of the fossil fuel industry’s evolving efforts to avoid accountability for climate change’ and concluded that it was ‘long past time to hold Big Oil accountable for its deception campaign and to take action to undo the harms it has perpetrated‘

…Read more: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/RB000675/toc_pdf/TheIntegrityGapRestoringTrustintheClimateandEnergyDebate.pdf

The report contained a complaint that disinformation had turned people against wind turbines;

…

1.46 The report found that bad faith actors had weaponised mis/disinformation to exacerbate community concerns and resistance to offshore wind. In particular, mis/disinformation about the effect of wind turbines on ocean life was said to have circulated through posts on social media platforms, thus amplifying community opposition and creating polarisation. The report highlighted links between this mis/disinformation and fossil fuel companies.

1.47 Recommendation four of the report states that ‘the Australian Government and DCCEEW [the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water] [should] proactively ensure that foreign actors, spam engagement, and misinformation and disinformation do not overpower local community voices from being heard in local public debate’

…Read more: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/RB000675/toc_pdf/TheIntegrityGapRestoringTrustintheClimateandEnergyDebate.pdf

The committee provided the following recommendations. Naturally they are mostly about handing out money to leftist causes;

List of recommendations

Recommendation 1

9.23 The committee recommends the Australian Government support and adopt the United Nations Global Principles on Information Integrity and work to coordinate the application of these principles across government.

Recommendation 2

9.26 The committee recommends the Australian Government officially endorse the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change launched at COP30 in Belem, Brazil.

Recommendation 3

9.33 The committee recommends the Australian Government ensure the adequacy of resourcing for regulators such as Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to combat and expose corporate greenwashing.

Recommendation 4

9.34 The committee recommends the Australian Government explore ways to ensure greater transparency of campaign activities, such as the creation of third parties, that are resourced by commercial/corporate interests in the lead up to a federal election.

Recommendation 5

9.40 The committee recommends the Australian Government continue to provide funding support for regional and independent media outlets.

Recommendation 6

9.41 The committee recommends the Australian Government increase funding for social sciences research relating to threats to climate and energy information integrity including potential solutions.

Recommendation 7

9.42 The committee recommends the Australian Government explore funding models for independent monitoring support (for example, via the Australian Internet Observatory) to track hidden digital influence ecosystems and provide independent transparency and accountability of platforms.

Recommendation 8

9.45 The committee recommends the Australian Government, through the regular Education Ministers’ Meeting curriculum review cycle, broaden the Australian Curriculum ‘digital literacy’ general capability to strengthen media literacy.

Recommendation 9

9.46 The committee recommends the upcoming National Media Literacy Strategy incorporate the information integrity framework with examples from the climate and energy domain.

Recommendation 10

9.47 The committee recommends the Australian Government, coordinated through the Education Ministers’ Meeting, establish stronger oversight and disclosure requirements for corporate engagement within school systems, with clear policies regulating philanthropic or corporate relationships that may interfere with educational integrity.

Recommendation 11

9.55 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider legislative or regulatory reform which identifies psychosocial harms, places the onus of responsibility in addressing these harms onto digital platforms and monitors effectiveness of their mitigations through regulatory and civic oversight.

Recommendation 12

9.56 The committee recommends the Australian Government improve the quality of data reported to the Australian Communications and Media Authority from the digital platforms to include for example, thematic breakdown of their reporting inclusive of climate and energy data, denominator data, removal actions and paid advertising related to climate and energy.

Recommendation 13

9.57 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider how researchers could be provided adequate legal protection to undertake their work in the digital platform space.

Recommendation 14

9.58 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider how to improve the complaints resolution process, including about false and misleading information online.

Recommendation 15

9.64 The committee recommends the Australian Government ensure the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner is adequately funded for community engagement.

Recommendation 16

9.65 The committee recommends the Australian Government require the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to provide a summary of threats to climate and energy information integrity in their annual report.

Recommendation 17

9.66 The committee recommends that the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation consider social licence on renewable energy projects. This could include:

hiring new staff with expertise in social science, behavioural science, and community engagement, and;

ensuring their decision making and advisory bodies have social licence expertise represented.

Recommendation 18

9.67 The committee recommends that the Australian Government task the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to provide advice on the costs and benefits of renewable energy creation, storage and transmission alongside clean manufacturing to create data needed to address local social licence concerns.

Recommendation 19

9.68 The committee recommends the National Health and Medical Research Council fund new research on the effects of wind energy on human health.

Recommendation 20

9.69 The committee recommends the Australian Government continue to strengthen communication and social licence capability across government agencies and departments. Improved information flow between jurisdictions and across departments will help address knowledge fragmentations across multiple sectors of the economy (e.g. transport, electricity, agriculture, emergency services).

Recommendation 21

9.70 The committee recommends the Australian Government resource community led engagement driven by organisations with proven track records in local communities. These models may include capacity building for local leaders in rural and regional areas, support for local governments that are contingent on their engagement with community organisations or groups with a proven track record.Read more: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Information_Integrity_on_Climate_Change_and_Energy/ClimateIntegrity/Report/List_of_recommendations

The worst part of this sad green senate kabuki performance, Australia desperately needs fossil fuel investment, to rebuild our extraction and refinery capacity. Back in the 1970s Australia produced 98% of its own fuel – we could have laughed off the Iran war oil crisis. But with today’s diminished refinery capacity, thanks to decades of political hostility towards fossil fuel, there is a very real risk the Australian economy could grind to a halt.

The greens throwing their weight around in the senate and demanding fossil fuel companies be held accountable has confirmed Australia’s status as uninvestable.

Is Public Stupidity Behind Climate Change Apathy?

“Humans aren’t rational…. How, then, can we combat misinformation when simply presenting the facts is no longer enough – and may even backfire?” – Nate Hagens

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Humans aren’t rational…. How, then, can we combat misinformation when simply presenting the facts is no longer enough – and may even backfire?” – Nate Hagens (below)

Climate messaging is in turmoil. “Maybe the problem is not climate denial,” Gilad Regev observed:

Maybe it’s climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We’ve spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed.

Joe Romm in a comment dissed Regev, complaining about a huge, well-funded public disinformation campaign by Big Oil. (If only some of that mega-money was really flowing to think tanks such as IER or CEI or Heartland….)

Another Take

Enter Nate Hagens, Director of The Institute for the Study of Energy & Our Future (ISEOF). His article, “Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation” The Great Simplification (February 27, 2026) follows.

Humans aren’t rational. We don’t evaluate facts objectively; instead, we interpret them through our biases, experiences, and backgrounds. What’s more, we’re psychologically motivated to reject or distort information that threatens our identity or worldview – even if it’s scientifically valid. Add to that our modern media landscape where everyone has a different source of “truth” for world events, our ability to understand what is actually true is weaker than ever. How, then, can we combat misinformation when simply presenting the facts is no longer enough – and may even backfire?

In this episode, Nate is joined by John Cook, a researcher who has spent nearly two decades studying science communication and the psychology of misinformation. John shares his journey from creating the education website Skeptical Science in 2007 to his shocking discovery that his well-intentioned debunking efforts might have been counterproductive. He also discusses the “FLICC” framework – a set of five techniques (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories) that cut across all forms of misinformation, from the denial of global heating to vaccine hesitancy, and more. Additionally, John’s research reveals a counterintuitive truth: our tribal identities matter more than our political beliefs in determining what science we accept – yet our aversion to being tricked is bipartisan.

Continuing:

When it comes to reaching a shared understanding of the world, why does every conversation matter – regardless of whether it ends in agreement? When attacks on science have shifted from denying findings to attacking solutions and scientists themselves, are we fighting yesterday’s battle with outdated communication strategies? And while we can’t eliminate motivated reasoning (to which we’re all susceptible), how can we work around it by teaching people to recognize how they’re being misled, rather than just telling them what to believe?

Sorry, but ground zero is the proven benefits of CO2 versus the speculations of untestable, causality-deficient climate models. And the fact of positive warming during certain months of the year vs. the summer peak. And so on. Let the debate and messaging continue.

The severe socio-economic costs of solar and wind

A heightened crescendo of voices reverberating across the world, to aggressively promote renewable energy, will continue to miss the point about the need to have a sustainable energy mix. Such a mix has to include baseload power. This typically includes coal and nuclear. A sustainable energy mix cannot be maintained if baseload energy in the form of coal-fired power stations is phased out in favor of renewable energy in the form of solar and wind. Here in South Africa, we are being misinformed about the danger of phasing out coal as a reliable energy source.

African woman holding a solar panel with her community in the background, promoting renewable energy in rural areas

From CFACT

By Sethakgi Kgomo

A heightened crescendo of voices reverberating across the world, to aggressively promote renewable energy, will continue to miss the point about the need to have a sustainable energy mix. Such a mix has to include baseload power. This typically includes coal and nuclear. A sustainable energy mix cannot be maintained if baseload energy in the form of coal-fired power stations is phased out in favor of renewable energy in the form of solar and wind. Here in South Africa, we are being misinformed about the danger of phasing out coal as a reliable energy source.

We are, as a result of this misinformation by the greenie lobby groups, becoming vulnerable as a country, concerning our current and future energy security. There is no empirical evidence to advance a positive case for renewable energy, in the form of wind and solar, as sustainable alternatives to coal power. In addition to coal, you need nuclear energy to ensure that the wheels of industry will turn on a sustainable basis for now and in the future.

South Africa is being inundated with inducements from foreign countries, including, but not limited to, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom motivating us to cut CO2 emissions. We are bombarded with their vociferous calls to “save the planet.” It is due to that pressure on South Africa that one large coal power station has already been prematurely closed. The result of this decision has been a disaster for the inhabitants of the nearby town. This town depended on the operation of the local coal mining industry and on that particular power station. This premature government action didn’t only lead to job losses in coal mining and the power station but resulted in the destruction of the local economy. The flourishing local convenience stores, restaurants, and other business enterprises also closed down because their patrons had disappeared.

Please also note that South Africa has an enviable record of caring for the planet. People from all over the world come here to see our wonderful massive wildlife reserves and to visit our mountains, coastlines, and deserts to appreciate the incredible natural wonderland.

It is irritating that we are, in a myopic way, being induced to introduce huge wind and solar installations in South Africa with all sorts of false promises. Usually the inducements come with the promise of all the jobs which will be created. But it turns out that the jobs are only menial in nature and only exist during the construction phase. One sad reality, which is hidden from the holistic picture of wind and solar energy systems, is that the promised jobs disappear when the short construction phase is completed. It is important to state that since all solar and wind hardware is imported, there are no manufacturing jobs created. This reality defeats the government’s stated localization and industrialization objectives. Furthermore, the number of jobs required to actually run the solar and wind in the longer term are minimal. An important socio-economic case to make is that there is a net job loss if coal is closed and replaced by wind and solar, a fact that the greenies and other protagonists of renewable energy are avoiding.

It is also important to note that wind and solar energy have the net result of increasing electricity costs. This is particularly bad for the poor. The serious message to the United States is that the authorities must not think that their “Aid” is helping South Africa, particularly poor people. That “Aid” is the opposite of what is intended. Also of great importance to note, is that usually, the “Aid” is merely a loan which has to be repaid with interest. In the final analysis we, as South Africans, have our arm twisted, merely to push us further into a debt bracket.

In conclusion, I wish to submit that the result of this “aid” is to cloud the opinions of South Africa concerning the supposed goodwill of the United States. We find ourselves becoming dependent on Chinese exports of solar panels. So, in many cases, U.S. aid packages, particularly when forced on us, result in a damaged federal image of the United States of America, which is an undesirable outcome.

The Misinformation Inquisition: How Censorship Shields Approved Narratives from Scrutiny

As the year draws to a close, the guardians of climate orthodoxy have once again unleashed their ritualistic howls of indignation at the actions of the Trump administration. Last week’s op-ed in The Guardian, Bob Ward and Michael Mann—attack dogs of the alarmist establishment—likened the US government’s decision to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to tyranny, “paid for” by fossil fuel interests. Their op-ed opens with the astonishing claim that the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “would have understood and even appreciated” Trump’s actions.

A scene depicting a large projection of a stern-looking figure with the words 'ENJOY YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHILE YOU STILL CAN' over a gathering crowd, set against a backdrop featuring propaganda symbols.

From Tilak´s Substack

From Tilak Doshi

A close-up portrait of a woman with striking features, intense expression, and visible wrinkles, set against a red background.

As the year draws to a close, the guardians of climate orthodoxy have once again unleashed their ritualistic howls of indignation at the actions of the Trump administration. Last week’s op-ed in The Guardian, Bob Ward and Michael Mann—attack dogs of the alarmist establishment—likened the US government’s decision to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to tyranny, “paid for” by fossil fuel interests. Their op-ed opens with the astonishing claim that the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “would have understood and even appreciated” Trump’s actions.

They accuse President Trump of suppressing climate science, evoking the spectre of Lysenkoism, that infamous episode where ideology trumped empirical inquiry under Stalin’s regime. The irony is exquisite even if lost on its progenitors. Here are two figures who have spent their careers calling for the cancelling of dissenters, now projecting their own sins onto a political leader intent on liberating science from ideological captivity.

An Orwellian Malignancy

This latest salvo is no aberration but a symptom of a deeper malaise. The climate alarmist narrative, much like its twin in the COVID-19 hysteria, relies on a censorship complex that brands any deviation as “misinformation.” Ward, a fixture in the environmental NGO circuit, has long specialized in ad hominem attacks on respected academics like Richard Lindzen and Richard Tol, dismissing their peer-reviewed critiques as heresy. Mann, infamous for his “hockey stick” graph that conveniently erased historical climate variability to fabricate a crisis, has faced courtroom rebukes for his litigious zeal. In his defamation suits, judges have accused him and his legal team of misleading tactics, underscoring the fraudulence of his claims. Yet, in the pages of The Guardian—that reliable echo chamber for green ideologues—the pair inverts reality, portraying Trump’s defunding of activist institutions as censorship, when it is precisely the opposite.

Consider the economic and institutional realities underpinning this charade. NCAR, after over five decades, has devolved into a taxpayer-funded propaganda mill, churning out models that predict apocalyptic futures while ignoring the stubborn facts of atmospheric physics and human adaptation. The Trump administration’s move to shutter it aligns with a broader push to restore scientific integrity, as outlined in the president’s “Gold Standard Science “executive order. This directive mandates transparency in federally funded research, ensuring that models and data are replicable and free from the biases that plague alarmist projections. Far from Stalinist suppression, this is a reclamation of science from the clutches of unelected bureaucrats and their NGO allies, who funnel billions into “climate education” grants that invariably promote one-sided advocacy. NOAA, for instance, routinely awarded multimillion-dollar sums to nonprofits peddling green dogma, all under the guise of environmental stewardship.

The parallels with the COVID-19 debacle are striking, revealing how the misinformation label serves as a blunt instrument for silencing debate across scientific domains. Just as climate skeptics are tarred as “deniers,” COVID dissenters were branded spreaders of falsehoods. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, a leading epidemiologist, recently highlighted this hubris in a post on X: the notion that a cabal of bureaucrats and activist scientists can infallibly discern truth from error on complex matters is not just arrogant—it’s delusional. Bhattacharya himself endured censorship orchestrated by Anthony Fauci who among others in the medical establishment pressured social media platforms to throttle views challenging lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union’s censorship regime under European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen exemplifies this technocratic overreach. The unelected Eurocrat boasts of safeguarding free speech against “harmful and illegal activities” online with its Digital Services Act. It aims to restrict media platforms which host “disinformation” and critical views on mass immigration, the Ukraine conflict, or the ruinous costs of the green agenda in Europe.

In a rant that would impress Orwell, Ms. Von der Leyen speaks about how “pre-bunking” is preferable to “de-bunking” alleged untruths and where alleged “misinformation” is a virus:

“…we need to build up societal immunity around information manipulation, because research has shown that pre-bunking is much more successful than debunking. Pre-bunking is basically the opposite of debunking. In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Perhaps if you think of information manipulation as a virus—instead of treating an infection once it has taken hold, that is debunking—it’s much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated.”

Where have we heard that vaccination/inoculation story before? Perhaps we should not digress into Ms. Von der Leyen’s missing SMS phone messages which sealed the EU’s deal for 1.8 billion doses of corona “vaccine” costing €35 billion negotiated with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

In New Zealand, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went further, declaring government sources the sole arbiters of COVID truth, effectively criminalizing legitimate critiques from sceptical doctors and scientists upholding their Hippocratic oath. This Orwellian stance—where state-approved narratives are sacrosanct—mirrors the climate arena, where questioning net-zero fantasies invites professional ruin.

The Trumpian Pushback

The EU’s Digital Services Act plans to coerce social media giants into suppressing content that challenges Brussels’ orthodoxies, leading to a chilling effect on open discourse throughout the world. Earlier in the month, the European Commission fined Elon Musk’s X $140 million for “failing to comply” with regulations. But it is now a Trumpian world which frustrates Eurocrats to no end. America’s commitment to First Amendment principles clashes with Europe’s slide into regulatory authoritarianism. The US house judiciary committee describes the digital regulations as censorship which is “largely one-sided, almost uniformly targeting political conservatives.”

The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shot back last week:

“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship. Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.”

The U.S. state department’s sanctions on NGO leaders and a former EU official involved in these efforts underscore the geopolitical rift. Under Secretary Sarah Rogers detailed the individuals and the reasons why they have been barred. On the US state ban list are Imran Ahmed (Centre for Countering Digital Hate), Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg (HateAid), Thierry Breton (former EU Commissioner) as well as Clare Melford (Global Disinformation Index).

Let’s go through each of these censors. Thierry Breton was a key architect of the Digital Services Act. In August 2024, as European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, he issued a letter to threaten Elon Musk ahead of his live stream interview with candidate Trump who was campaigning for his second term. The hubris of an EU functionary to warn Mr. Musk that his platform could be charged for amplifying harmful content in the EU can only be described as bizarre.

Undersecretary Rogers accused the UK citizen ImranAhmed of collaborating “with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens” in a social media post on December 23rd, writing that his organization published the “infamous ‘disinformation dozen’ report” that spurred a campaign to de-platform those questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines including the current Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. . “Leaked documents from CCDH show the organization listed ‘kill Musk’s Twitter,’ and ’trigger EU and UK regulatory action’ as priorities…The organization supports the UK’s Online Safety Act and EU’s Digital Services Act to expand censorship in Europe and around the world.” It is interesting and not coincidental that Imran Ahmed’s CCDH was founded by Morgan Sweeny, Kier Starmer’s chief adviser. Clare Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, another British NGO that vigorously pursues anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers

Anna Lena von Hodenberg is the leader and founder of Hate Aid, a German NGO founded after the 2017 German federal elections to counter conservative groups such as the AfD. Ms. Anna and her NGO is an official “trusted flagger” under the EU’s digital services act. Clare Melford. Ahmed is the CEO of The Center for Countering Digital Hate, and Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, both two entities extremely active in anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers,

Morally Bankruptcy of the Eurocrats

Von der Leyen’s pronouncements on “inoculated information” ring hollow amid Europe’s deindustrialization, where energy policies driven by climate ideology have shuttered factories, spiked power prices, and eroded competitiveness. Germany’s Energiewende, once hailed as a model, now stands as a cautionary tale of economic self-harm, with manufacturing output shares plummeting and GDP growth stagnating.

At the heart of this EU-led censorship complex lies a modern Lysenkoism, where ideology masquerades as science. Today’s climate Lysenkoists similarly dismiss empirical inconveniences: satellite data showing no acceleration in sea-level rise, historical records of globally warmer periods like the Medieval Warm Period, or the economic models demonstrating that net-zero targets would cost trillions while yielding negligible climate benefits. But Eurocrats will condemn as “misinformation” self-evident arguments that cheap, reliable energy is the bedrock of human welfare. Witness Asia’s ascent, where coal, oil and gas have fueled GDP growth rates averaging 7% over decades, slashing poverty from 60% to under 5% in regions like East Asia.

The institutional incentives behind climate alarmism are pernicious. Multilateral agencies like the IMF and World Bank, alongside green lobbies, perpetuate myths of “fossil fuel subsidies“ that distort markets, penalizing hydrocarbons while subsidizing intermittent renewables to the tune of $1.3 trillion annually globally. In Africa, the push for “renewable leapfrogging“ ignores the continent’s dire need for baseload power, condemning millions to energy poverty under the banner of climate justice. Western elites, insulated from the consequences, preach degrowth while developing nations in BRICS+ reject such masochism, opting for pragmatic energy mixes that prioritize growth over virtue-signaling.

The contradictions of the censors of “misinformation” are glaring: alarmists decry “misinformation” while propagating doomsday scenarios that fail to materialize—recall the 50 years of apocalyptic predictions. Europe’s precipitous industrial decline exposes the folly of subordinating energy policies to ideology. In the U.S., the virtue signalling ESG investment drive — pushed by BlackRock’s Larry Fink among others — which funnelled trillions into underperforming green assets, is unravelling as returns lag and lawsuits mount over fiduciary breaches.

A New Year’s Gift

Yet, there is cause for optimism in this twilight of technocratic hubris. President Trump’s re-election signals a pivot toward evidence-based policy, unshackling science from the misinformation inquisition. By defunding activist enclaves like NCAR and enforcing transparency via executive order, the administration paves the way for genuine inquiry. Imagine a world where debates on climate sensitivity, the role of solar cycles, or the costs of adaptation are conducted openly, without fear of cancellation.

As Jay Bhattarcharya reminds us, free speech and replication as the standard of truth are necessary conditions for science to flourish. We need rational argument and data, not the censorship of state-defined “misinformation”. The US state department censoring the censors is good news as the New Year beckons.

A version of this article was published in the Daily Sceptic https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/31/the-misinformation-boondoggle-how-the-eu-led-censorship-industrial-complex-shields-approved-narratives-from-scrutiny/

Panic-Stricken Climate Alarmists Resort to Bolder Lies

The panic is real among climate alarmists as their scaremongering of the past three decades loses its power over a public awakening from a spell induced by a corrupt political class and sustained by a compliant business community and media.

A dramatic landscape depicting a turbulent sky with lightning, swirling clouds, and a rocky terrain. On one side, dark storm clouds loom over tall pine trees, while on the other side, waves crash against a rocky shore, with icy formations visible.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

The panic is real among climate alarmists as their scaremongering of the past three decades loses its power over a public awakening from a spell induced by a corrupt political class and sustained by a compliant business community and media.

So, what is the response of those holding onto the fantasy that humankind is driving the planet to an overheated apocalypse and that politicians who struggle to manage public services could control something as complex as the climate? They attempt to spice up warmed-over lies with more outrageous ones.

This theater of pathetic prevarication was encapsulated perfectly in humid, overcrowded halls of the recent COP30, the 30th version of the United Nations’ annual climate conference. Year after year, celebrities of politics, business and entertainment fly to exotic locations, burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel, to admonish working people who insist on driving to their jobs and to pressure the Third World to accept energy poverty for the sake of a world that theoretically might be cooler by a degree or two. The hypocrisy is matched only by the thirst for power and other people’s money.

Held this year in Belém, Brazil, with the Amazon providing a lush backdrop, the smell of desperation was in the air. And speaking of public services, so was the occasional stench of cranky indoor plumbing.

Al Gore, the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stood before cameras warning of imminent catastrophe, never acknowledging that previous predictions had failed to materialize.

Here is a sampling of falsehoods:

  • The Lie: “The transition away from fossil fuels is inevitable and accelerating.” The Truth: Global demand for oil, gas, and coal is at an all-time high. The “transition” lives only in press releases of Western governments. The rest of the world is drilling and mining.
  • The Lie: “Climate action creates jobs and wealth.” The Truth: “Green mandates destroy industry.” Look at Germany’s deindustrialization and the wreckage of the automotive sector in the U.S. and Europe. “Green jobs” are subsidized mirages that vanish the moment government subsidies disappear.
  • The Lie: “We are running out of time.” The Truth: “We have heard this for 50 years and counting.” In the 1970s, it was a coming ice age. In the 2000s, it was Arctic ice that would be gone by 2013. The timeline of doom makes the promise of a used car salesman look like a Boy Scout’s pledge.

Gore attacked President Donald Trump’s move away from the cultic climate movement, knowing that without the checkbook of the U.S. taxpayer the U.N.’s redistribution schemes are dead.

Gore even turned his fire on one of his own, Bill Gates. Why? Because Gates dared to suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, more immediate threats like hunger and disease should be prioritized over the climate crusade’s nebulous, ever-shifting goalposts. Members of the climate elite have become so intoxicated by their own dogma that any deviation – even from a fellow traveler like Gates – is considered treason.

Something as ambitious as COP30’s “Global Ethical Stocktake” – an initiative to create a governance structure superseding national sovereignty – can ill afford dissent among the faithful. Their vision is to direct countries away from coal plants, oil drilling, meat consumption and so on to “save the planet” from a made-up crisis.

To manage dissent, COP30 advanced a “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change.” While framed as a defense of truth, it would be Orwellian worldwide censorship.

The real misinformation has been repeated predictions of apocalypse, fabricated links between bad weather and a harmless gas necessary for life on Earth and attacks on the reputations of those who question climate orthodoxy.

Gore ended his main COP30 speech urging data-driven action. Following that advice would include examinations of crop harvests, changes in standards of living and deaths from natural disasters. All have been trending in a positive direction for decades – good news that only adds to the panic.

This commentary was first published by Townhall on December 6, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

Freedom Melts Faster Than Glaciers: COP30’s Declaration on ‘Information Integrity

The bureaucrats have outdone themselves this time. Having failed to win the war of ideas, they’ve now decided to outlaw dissent — politely, of course, wrapped in the usual bureaucratic gauze of “integrity,” “trust,” and “information ecosystems.” The “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change” signed at COP30 in Belém reads like something George Orwell would have rejected for being too on-the-nose.

A large screen displays a stern face while a crowd of people gathers below, with 'ENJOY YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHILE YOU STILL CAN' written in bold text at the bottom.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Graphic featuring stylized eyes with the phrase 'MAKE ORWELL FICTION AGAIN' in bold red and yellow colors.

The bureaucrats have outdone themselves this time. Having failed to win the war of ideas, they’ve now decided to outlaw dissent — politely, of course, wrapped in the usual bureaucratic gauze of “integrity,” “trust,” and “information ecosystems.” The “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change” signed at COP30 in Belém reads like something George Orwell would have rejected for being too on-the-nose.

“Recognizing that the urgency of the climate crisis demands not only decisive action by States, but also the broad engagement of all segments of society…”

The document opens with this predictable invocation of “urgency,” that tired incantation meant to suspend reason and justify whatever comes next. Then, in a breathtaking act of cognitive dissonance, it demands the “broad engagement” of everyone — right after announcing that only one kind of engagement will be tolerated: the kind that affirms the “accurate and evidence-based” line approved by the United Nations and its friends at UNESCO.

That phrase — “accurate and evidence-based” — appears repeatedly, as if repetition alone could substitute for the messy, disputatious process of actual science. The authors claim they are:

“Concerned by the growing impact of disinformation, misinformation, denialism, deliberate attacks on environmental journalists, defenders, scientists, researchers and other public voices…”

Translation: anyone who asks awkward questions about climate models, data uncertainties, or policy failures is now guilty of “denialism” — a term borrowed straight from the lexicon of religious heresy.

If this were merely another puff of diplomatic hot air, it would be laughable. But this Declaration goes further. It openly calls on governments to:

“Create and implement policies and legal frameworks… that promote information integrity on climate change, and respect, protect and promote human rights, including the right to freedom of expression…”

A breathtaking contradiction — the kind that only international bureaucrats can deliver with a straight face. How do you “promote freedom of expression” while crafting laws to decide which expressions are acceptable?

It even instructs technology companies to:

“Assess whether and how platform architecture contributes to the undermining of climate information ecosystem integrity, providing researchers with access to data to ensure transparency and build an evidence base.”

This is not science. It’s surveillance with a moral halo.

The Declaration also proposes that funders:

“Donate to the Global Fund for Information Integrity on Climate Change, administered by UNESCO on behalf of the Initiative.”

The same UNESCO that has spent decades producing feel-good propaganda about “education for sustainable development” will now sit atop a global information czardom, deciding which facts are fit for public consumption. You could not invent a better parody of bureaucratic overreach if you tried.

Of course, every tyrant claims to be acting in defense of “truth.” The Inquisition burned heretics for the purity of the faith. The Soviet Union jailed scientists for questioning Lysenkoism — all in the name of protecting “scientific integrity.” Today’s climate clerisy is no different. They’ve simply replaced the cross with the IPCC logo and the rosary with a PowerPoint deck of emissions charts.

It’s hard not to laugh when the Declaration solemnly pledges to:

“Promote the integrity of information… in line with international human rights law, including freedom of expression standards.”

The authors seem blissfully unaware of the contradiction — or perhaps perfectly aware, and confident no one will call them on it. After all, “freedom of expression” is easy to promise when you’ve already defined “wrong expression” out of existence.

The whole effort reeks of insecurity. If the science were as “settled” as claimed, why this obsession with silencing critics? Why the endless campaigns to “enhance public trust” and “reinforce confidence in climate science”? Genuine science welcomes skepticism; propaganda demands belief.

And make no mistake — this is propaganda. The repeated invocation of “trust” and “integrity” is the language of control, not inquiry. Real trust is earned through openness, debate, and evidence — not imposed by decree. You don’t need a UNESCO-managed “information ecosystem” to tell people that water boils at 100°C. You only need censorship when your “facts” are too fragile to withstand scrutiny.

Perhaps the most infuriating part of this whole charade is its paternalism. The Declaration calls on governments to:

“Promote campaigns on climate change and support initiatives that promote literacy and the public’s right to access reliable information on the matter.”

In plain English, that means: fund propaganda that tells citizens what to think, while labeling opposing views as “unreliable.” It’s the intellectual equivalent of serving baby food to adults — spoon-fed, pre-chewed, and flavorless.

The signatories — Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay — should be ashamed. These are nations that once prided themselves on open inquiry and democratic debate. Now they’ve joined hands in an effort to codify orthodoxy and punish deviation.

The irony, of course, is that the so-called “climate disinformation” they’re desperate to eradicate often turns out to be inconvenient truth. It was “misinformation” once to question the “hockey stick” graph, until it collapsed under scrutiny. It was “denialism” to point out that climate models have consistently over-predicted warming. It was “dangerous” to note that renewable mandates drive up energy costs and destabilize power grids — until blackouts forced even sympathetic governments to reconsider.

Now, instead of correcting their errors, the climate establishment is doubling down — shifting from persuasion to coercion. Their message is simple: believe, or be silent.

The real danger here isn’t to the climate — it’s to freedom itself. When governments, media, and supranational bodies conspire to determine which opinions may be voiced, science ceases to exist. In its place arises a bureaucratic priesthood — fluent in the language of “sustainability,” “integrity,” and “evidence-based policy,” but utterly blind to its own authoritarianism.

This Declaration, signed under the tropical humidity of Belém, should go down not as a milestone in “information integrity,” but as a monument to intellectual cowardice. Unable to compete in the free marketplace of ideas, the climate establishment has chosen to shut down the market altogether.

They call it “information integrity.” Let’s call it what it is: climate totalitarianism with a smile.

A large crowd of people dressed in dark clothing, all raising their arms horizontally with their fists crossed in front of them, creating a unified gesture of dissent.

The BBC’s Top 50 Pieces of Climate Misinformation – Part 2

In Part 1 we looked at 25 examples in the last couple of years or so of how the BBC is misinforming the public about climate change and climate-related policies. In Part 2 we will look at another 25 items:

A polar bear stands on a melting ice cap in a dramatic scene depicting climate change, with a fiery background and floating newspapers featuring climate-related headlines.

From The Daily Sceptic

by Paul Homewood

A polar bear walking across a snowy landscape, surrounded by ice.

In Part 1 we looked at 25 examples in the last couple of years or so of how the BBC is misinforming the public about climate change and climate-related policies. In Part 2 we will look at another 25 items:

1. Coral bleaching

A BBC report in April 2024 claimed that “coral around the world is turning white and even dying as recent record ocean heat takes a devastating toll”.

Bleaching is a perfectly natural and common event which occurs for all sorts of reasons, including when the water gets too cold. It does not mean the coral is dying. Bleaching occurs naturally when coral expels algae to switch to a type better suited to new conditions. Far from coral dying out around the world, coral scientists say that it is doing fine.

2. BBC blames European wildfires on climate change

The BBC spent most of the summer of 2023 blaming climate change for the severity of wildfires around the Mediterranean. When the EU finally published wildfire data for last year, it emerged that the area burnt was close to average. Since the 1980s, area burnt has been declining.

3. Global warming making flight turbulence worse

A long BBC article in May 2024 stated that “aircraft turbulence is worsening with climate change”.

However, a recent detailed study by the US National Transportation Safety Board examined flight records between 1989 and 2018. It concluded that there has been no increase in incidents of severe flight turbulence, measured as a proportion of flight hours.

4. BBC smears Kenyan farmer

BBC Verify, the organisation’s unit of supposed disinformation experts, decided to waste money writing a long hit piece on a young Kenyan farmer who had dared to campaign for Africa to be given full access to fossil fuels. This apparently made him a “climate denier”. Quite why the BBC saw him as such a threat is a total mystery.

5. Renewables are cheaper, say BBC

During June 2024’s election coverage, BBC Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt stated that new solar or wind projects generate power at a lower cost than new gas generators.  He was commenting on Reform party policies. At the time of the election, the contract price for offshore wind was double the cost of gas power. This is still true now.

6. Heatwave hysteria

In the summer of 2024, the BBC reported on what it described as an unprecedented heatwave in Delhi, even though temperatures at the time were normal for the time of year.

The next day, it claimed climate change made the late May/early June US Southwest heatwave 35 times more likely.

Again, the claim was absurd, as the temperatures recorded were perfectly normal for the time of year. In Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, temperatures hit 113°F, well below the record of 122°F for June which was set in 1990

7. Polar bears in decline

A BBC report on polar bears informed us “the species is in decline, and scientists attribute it to the loss of sea ice caused by global warming”.

Polar bears are frequently used by the BBC to push climate propaganda. But scientists say the opposite – that the world population of polar bears has nearly tripled since the 1960s and that numbers are now stable, a fact since admitted by the BBC Executive Complaints Unit.

8. The Day after Tomorrow!

The BBC reported a projection of potential global changes if the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapses, which it suggests could happen as early as 2050.

Icy winds howl across a frozen Thames, ice floes block shipping in the Mersey docks and crops fail across the UK. Meanwhile, the US east coast has been inundated by rising seas and there’s ecological chaos in the Amazon as the wet and dry season have switched around.

Contrary to BBC claims, data show that the AMOC has been remarkably stable for the last 40 years.

9. Child marriage? Blame climate change!

A BBC Sounds broadcast last autumn stated that extreme weather, caused by climate change, is making farming impossible in many parts of Bangladesh. This, so we were told, has increased the risk of more girls being pushed into child marriage.

But far from farming becoming ‘impossible’, agricultural output, particularly of cereals, has rocketed in recent years in the country and now stands at record levels. The same is true of the area harvested, according to official UN data.

Moreover, the share of the population living in extreme poverty in the country is now at record lows

10. Climate change turbo-charging Somalia’s problems

According to the BBC’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, Somalia recently experienced its worst drought for 40 years – an event scientists estimate was made 100 times more likely by human-caused climate change.

The BBC report omitted data indicating that Somalia has become wetter since the mid-20th century, with more severe droughts occurring in earlier periods.

11. India monsoon drying up

According to a BBC report three years ago, “for decades [India’s} monsoons have been drying up”.

The opposite is true. Severe droughts in the 1960s, 70s and 80s were catastrophic in India. Since the turn of the century, rainfall has been above average.

12. Hurricanes getting more powerful

Another tenet of faith for the BBC is that global warming is making hurricanes more powerful. As regular as clockwork, the end of the Atlantic hurricane season in November last year brought forth the usual BBC propaganda that a higher proportion of hurricanes are now turning into major hurricanes, meaning they reach the highest wind speeds.

This false claim, however, is strongly contradicted by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its latest review of hurricanes could not be clearer, stating:

There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in US landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

Even more deceitfully, the BBC included an infographic plotting major Atlantic hurricane activity since 1920 which showed the numbers ballooning in recent years. But NOAA notes that many mid-ocean hurricanes went undetected before satellites existed. The BBC is comparing chalk and cheese.

13. Valencia floods

Why let a tragedy go to waste, when you can use it for propaganda?

The tragic flooding in Valencia last autumn brought the standard BBC kneejerk response that extreme rainfall events like this one are getting more common.

However, the daily rainfall data for Valencia, which goes back to 1937, show no such trends.

14. Windy weather

Storm Darragh brought some windy weather to Britain last winter, but no worse than the sort of weather we see every year.

A few days later, however, the BBC’s Science Correspondent informed us that the winds from Storm Darragh were made 5% stronger by climate change. His so-called proof of this came from weather attribution computer models.

Maybe next time he should report the actual data instead, which, according to the Met Office, clearly show that windstorms in the UK were much more powerful in the 1980s and 90s than anything seen since.

15. A year of extreme weather

In their end of year report, the BBC told us that billions had been challenged by extreme weather brought by climate change.  The claims were based on what are known as ‘Weather Attribution Computer Models’, rather than on actual data.

The article listed a few random weather events, droughts, floods, hurricanes and heatwaves, with no attempt to show that they are either becoming more frequent or extreme, or that they were not simply run of the mill occurrences that happen every year.

Indeed, subsequent analysis demonstrated that there was nothing unusual at all about any of the examples used.

16. Hollywood wildfires

The Los Angeles fires at the start of this year were quickly blamed on “climate change charged droughts” by the BBC.

When it was pointed out that the weather in that part of California had been no drier than many other years in the months leading up to the wildfires, the BBC then said that a period of unusually wet weather had increased the growth of flammable grass earlier in 2024, which was followed by very dry conditions – what it called “whiplash conditions”, which climate models said were getting worse because of global warming.

Once again however, the computer models were thoroughly contradicted by the actual data, which show no such trends either in wet or dry weather.

17. Record breaking hurricane season?

Another BBC report claimed that last year’s Atlantic hurricane season broke records.

It was not a record season, with 11 hurricanes — three fewer than the record and matching the totals in 1887, 1933, 1950 and 1995.

Five of these were major, two less than the record high. There have been 16 other years with five or more.

18. Cheap renewable energy myth

The BBC have spent years pushing renewable energy, frequently peddling the myth that it is cheaper than fossil fuels. They were at it again earlier this year, with a report by BBC Verify titled ‘If the UK has more renewable energy, why aren’t bills coming down?’

Nowhere does their report mention the £15 billion worth of subsidies, direct and indirect, for renewable energy which is added to electricity bills this year.

Renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, not less so. That is why the UK has some of the highest electricity prices in the world.

19. Wildfire porn

The BBC always loves to use human tragedy stories to fuel its climate propaganda.

Recent summers have seen continuing apocalyptic coverage by the BBC of Mediterranean wildfires, often accompanied by claims that they have been made worse by climate change.

At the end of the year, official data from the EU showed that wildfire activity was below average last year, and only slightly above in 2023.

20. Weather alchemy

You may have noted in some of the earlier items the BBC’s reliance on ‘Weather Attribution’ to back up claims that climate change is making weather worse. Dressed up as ‘science’, weather attribution is merely computer modelling which can be programmed to come up with whatever daft conclusions you want.

Often, they are contradicted by real world data. Unsurprisingly, they have been rubbished by many proper scientists, dismissed as “weather alchemy” designed to generate quick headlines.

Following a complaint, the BBC Executive Complaints Unit was forced to publish a correction that the claims should not have been presented as fact and that the article failed to meet the requirements for due accuracy.

21. Cheap renewables (again!)

Another example of the BBC’s bias towards renewable energy took place in a World at One interview in April between the BBC’s Sarah Montague and Adam Berman of the renewable lobby group Energy UK

The topic was why UK electricity prices are so high. Berman went on at great length to put the blame on the high price of gas, while claiming that renewables were cheaper, without any challenge from the interviewer.

During the interview, the significant direct expense involved in subsidising renewable energy was never brought up.

When these subsidies are taken into consideration, electricity generated from wind, solar, and biomass facilities continues to be significantly more costly than that produced by gas power stations.

This little episode underlines the repeated failure of the BBC to get a broad range of opinions on topics like these. An independent energy expert would quickly have dismantled the false claims of the industry lobbyist.

22. Flight turbulence getting worse

You may recall reading this same story earlier!

Yes, just like clockwork, the BBC wheeled it out again in August, following an incident on a Singapore flight, in which some poor chap died. Flight turbulence is getting more frequent and severe because of global warming, shrieked the BBC.

The US National Transportation Safety Board has thoroughly examined turbulence. Having examined flight logs for all US flights between 1989 and 2018, it concluded that there are no increasing trends in the frequency of severe turbulence.

23. Great Barrier Reef in decline?

Yes, another story wheeled out each year! According to the BBC:

Parts of the Great Barrier Reef have suffered the largest annual decline in coral cover since records began nearly 40 years ago. AIMS warns the habitat may reach a tipping point where coral cannot recover fast enough between catastrophic events and faces a “volatile” future.

What the BBC failed to report was that coral cover on the GBR was at a record high last year. Even after losses this year, it still stands as the fourth highest on record.

Hardly evidence of a “tipping point”!

24. Save our trees!

Sometimes the BBC runs such absurd stories that I can only assume its journalists think we are idiots!

Last month it told us that English forests were struggling to keep pace with climate change and increasing extreme weather.

The solution was to plant resilient species, such as oak, birch and alder.

What, like the same trees that have been growing here for thousands of years?

25. Maldives to drown

I must apologise for cheating here, because this final BBC report comes from 2004. But it was too good to resist!

It told us that the Maldives would soon be underwater.

Since then, 12 new airports have been opened on the Maldives, plus a new passenger terminal at the Velana International Airport.

Tourist numbers have tripled to more than two million last year. Tourism now drives 28% of GDP, supported by more than 170 resorts. Last year alone, another seven new resorts were opened.

Far from disappearing beneath the waves, the Maldives seem to be thriving!

Read Part 1 here.

Michael Mann’s “Fire Hose” of Misinformation: Projection at Its Finest

In his latest op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle — melodramatically titled “I’m a climate scientist. Trump’s U.N. address is a fire hose of misinformation”— Mann plays the role of truth-teller, warning the public about Donald Trump’s supposedly dangerous rhetoric at the United Nations. According to Mann, nearly “every single word [Trump] spoke drips with mendacity.”

A man with long, dark hair and a beard, sitting at a table with a glass of milk in front of him, looking contemplative while saying 'Really?'

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

Dr. Michael Mann is at it again.

In his latest op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle — melodramatically titled “I’m a climate scientist. Trump’s U.N. address is a fire hose of misinformation”— Mann plays the role of truth-teller, warning the public about Donald Trump’s supposedly dangerous rhetoric at the United Nations. According to Mann, nearly “every single word [Trump] spoke drips with mendacity.”

But when you peel back the grandiose framing, Mann’s essay reads less like the sober analysis of a scientist and more like the polemic of an activist. Worse, much of what he accuses Trump of doing — cherry-picking, exaggerating, revising history, and fearmongering — is precisely what Mann himself has perfected over the last 25 years.

So, if Mann wants to talk about “fire hoses of misinformation,” then let’s have that conversation. But let’s do it honestly.

Mann the Politician, Not the Scientist

Early in the piece, Mann frames Trump’s speech as part of an “anti-science agenda”. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand he’s used for decades: conflate “science” with “Michael Mann’s opinions about climate policy.” Anyone who questions him is not engaging in debate, but waging war on science itself.

This is not how science works. Science is not a political loyalty oath, nor is it a courtroom drama (though Mann has spent more time in the courts than most scientists). It is about predictions, testing, and falsification. And this is where Mann’s own record collapses under scrutiny.

Mann’s Hurricane Prediction Debacle

If Trump’s speech was a “fire hose” of questionable claims, then Mann’s hurricane predictions over the past decade are a burst water main.

Let’s look at his hurricane forecast record: (h/t to WUWT reader RelPerm)

  • 2024: Predicted 33 storms. Actual: 18. Missed by nearly half.
  • 2023: Predicted 15.9 ± 4. Actual: 20. Missed again.
  • 2022: Predicted 14.9 ± 3.8. Actual: 14. Close only because the error bars are wide enough to drive a truck through.
  • 2021: Predicted 11.9 ± 3.4. Actual: 21. Almost double the forecast.
  • 2020: Predicted 19.8 ± 3.4. Actual: 30. Off by 10 storms.
  • 2019: Predicted 10.9 ± 3.2. Actual: 18. Way off.
  • 2018: Predicted 10.2 ± 3.2. Actual: 15. Miss.
  • 2017: Predicted 15.3 ± 3.9. Actual: 21. Miss.
  • 2015: Predicted 6.9 ± 2.6. Actual: 11. Miss.
  • 2014: Predicted 9.3 ± 3.0. Actual: 6. Miss.

For a man so fond of lecturing others about accuracy, his record predicting storms is nothing short of embarrassing. You shouldn’t be predicting hurricanes to a tenth of a storm in the first place — the false precision itself is absurd. But to then miss repeatedly, year after year, while still posturing as an unimpeachable authority? That takes gall.

And yet, this is the same Mann who denounces others as “anti-science” for questioning climate models. If he held himself to the same standard he applies to Trump, he’d be out of the business.

The 1970s Cooling Scare: A Case of Selective Memory

Mann sneers at Trump for referencing the 1970s cooling scare, calling it a “myth promoted by climate deniers”. According to him, no serious scientists predicted global cooling — only a few isolated speculations about aerosols.

This is revisionist history.

In fact, a survey of the peer-reviewed literature from that era shows that roughly two-thirds of climate papers published between 1965 and 1979 predicted cooling. Titles like ““Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age” (Science Digest, 1973) and “The Cooling World” (Newsweek, 1975) weren’t invented by skeptics decades later; they reflected real scientific debate at the time.

Even America’s most trusted news anchor at the time, Walter Cronkite of CBS News, told viewers in 1972 that “British professor Hubert Lamb says that a new ice age is creeping over the Northern Hemisphere.”

Hilariously, the New York Times ran a contradictory 1992 headline: “Scientists Suggest Global Warming Could Hasten the Next Ice Age.”

To erase this history — to insist that “the scientific community never predicted cooling” — is itself misinformation. Mann’s own students, if they were taught honestly, could find these papers in any library archive.

Mann also recycles one of his favorite talking points: that Exxon’s scientists in the 1980s “secretly predicted the precise planetary warming that has occurred”.

This claim has been debunked time and again. Exxon’s internal memos explored scenarios — not predictions. They acknowledged wide uncertainty and explicitly cautioned that outcomes were speculative. That’s what responsible research does: it brackets possibilities.

But in activist hands, those memos have been twisted into prophecies of doom, weaponized as “Exxon Knew” talking points. What Mann calls “precise predictions” were in reality rough sketches. Presenting them otherwise is deliberate misrepresentation.

Perhaps the most brazen claim in Mann’s op-ed is that climate impacts are “actually exceeding the scientific predictions”.

Let’s check the facts:

  • Wildfires: U.S. burn acreage has declined dramatically since the 1930s. Global wildfire trends are downward.
  • Hurricanes: No increase in global frequency. Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) fluctuates but shows no long-term rise.
  • Tornadoes: U.S. strong tornado counts (EF3+) have trended downward since the 1970s.
  • Floods: Deaths from flooding worldwide are at record lows thanks to better infrastructure and warning systems.

Mann ignores all of this. Instead, he cherry-picks every bad-weather headline and presents it as proof that the apocalypse is here. This isn’t science; it’s confirmation bias with a press pass. Mann ends with a flourish, warning that Trump is carrying out a “plan laid down by plutocrats and polluters”.

This is Mann’s trademark move: anyone who disagrees with him is not just mistaken, but corrupt. They’re oil-funded shills, anti-science zealots, existential threats to humanity. It’s an intellectually lazy way to shut down debate, and it’s a tactic he has used on fellow scientists as well as politicians.

The irony, of course, is that Mann’s own career has been a masterclass in politicizing science — from the infamous “hockey stick” graph (produced with dubious statistical tricks) to his ongoing legal crusades against critics. He is not the impartial defender of truth he pretends to be; he is a partisan warrior, wielding “science” as a cudgel.

In the end, Mann’s essay is not a sober takedown of Trump’s speech. It’s projection.

  • He accuses Trump of misinformation while spreading his own.
  • He mocks Trump for imprecision while missing his own forecasts by miles.
  • He accuses Trump of rewriting history while doing precisely that with the 1970s cooling scare.
  • He accuses Trump of serving plutocrats while himself serving the political machinery of climate alarmism, where research grants, media attention, and policy influence flow only to those who stay on message.

If the public today is drinking from a “fire hose of misinformation,” it’s because Michael Mann has had his thumb on the spigot for decades.

The Bottom Line

Michael Mann has built his career not on scientific precision, but on the art of narrative control. He takes a kernel of science, strips away the nuance, exaggerates the worst-case scenarios, and then uses the result to bludgeon his opponents. As I’ve always said, channeling Carl Sagan: Manntastic claims require Manntastic evidence. Yet, all the supposed evidence is only in his head.

This is not science. It’s advocacy dressed up as inevitability.

So, when Mann declares himself the authority on misinformation, we should remember: this is the same man whose hurricane forecasts flopped year after year, who rewrites climate history, and who has turned science into a weapon for political warfare.

If anything in this debate deserves to be called a “fire hose of misinformation,” it’s Michael Mann’s op-ed itself.

The Hurricane Hoax: Exposing The Data the IPCC Ignores

For the media and the climate-industrial complex, every low-pressure system is an opportunity to push a fear-driven narrative: that hurricanes are getting stronger, more frequent, and more deadly due to human-caused climate change.

A dramatic and swirling storm cloud formation over the ocean, with a striking ray of light shining through the clouds and lightning visible, accompanied by a solitary tree in the foreground.

A Storm Surge of Misinformation

June 1st has arrived, marking the official start of hurricane season… and, like clockwork, the beginning of another season of climate propaganda.

For the media and the climate-industrial complex, every low-pressure system is an opportunity to push a fear-driven narrative: that hurricanes are getting stronger, more frequent, and more deadly due to human-caused climate change. Irrational Fear.substack.com has the story.

But here’s the problem: warming itself is not especially dangerous. On its own, a gradual increase in global average temperature doesn’t inspire panic… it doesn’t justify emergency declarations or trillion-dollar policies. That’s why the IPCC and its media allies must link warming to disasters. It’s not the thermometer that scares people… It’s the hurricane footage.

This connection between climate change and bad weather isn’t just casual… It’s strategic. The climate crisis, as we know it, depends on linking human emissions to catastrophic events, even when the data doesn’t support it. And nowhere is this more obvious than in how hurricanes are presented to the public.

Case in point: 2025 has kicked off with a conspicuous lull in storm activity. According to a recent FOX Weather article, the Atlantic basin remained uncharacteristically quiet for a fourth year in a row, a trend never predicted by IPCC models.

Where are the early-season superstorms we were told to expect?

The models said they’d increase… but they haven’t. If the narrative were based on actual data, we might be rethinking the entire premise of “climate-fueled hurricanes.” Instead, the silence is ignored.

Headline announcing the start of the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, highlighting the absence of named storms for the fourth consecutive year.
https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/tropical-weather-outlook-forecast

It doesn’t matter that the data says otherwise… It doesn’t matter that the scientific literature is filled with caveats, uncertainty, and counter-evidence… All that matters are the climate crisis headlines.

The IPCC has long predicted a rise in both the frequency and severity of tropical cyclones, offering convenient fodder for media outlets looking to dramatize every storm.

But these claims have not been borne out by observations. In fact, quite the opposite: there is growing evidence that hurricanes are not increasing in frequency, are not becoming more destructive, and that some of the most recent seasons—like the one we’re entering now—begin with historic lulls, not record-breaking activity.

The disconnect between what’s predicted and what’s happening isn’t just a minor detail… It’s the central flaw in the climate hurricane narrative.

If the IPCC’s models and assumptions can’t even account for a basic feature like seasonality or storm frequency, why should we trust them on matters of long-term risk, funding, or global policy?

Read the full story here.

Line graph showing the number of major hurricanes in the Atlantic from 1851 to 2020, with a red trend line representing the 10-year running average.
Bar graph depicting the number of major landfalling hurricanes in the US from 1900 to 2020, highlighting trends over the years with a red dotted line showing the average frequency.

Angry Michael Mann Isolates Himself (climate exaggeration backfires)

Michael “Climategate” Mann cannot get out of his own way. His arrogant, condescending social tweets speak for themselves–just as the words, sentences, and paragraphs of the East Anglia emails did. He is not the kind of person you would want in just about any endeavor, much less as a climate scientist trying to present a case.

A man passionately speaking into a microphone while standing in the rain, wearing a dark raincoat, with a city backdrop.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“And yes, there is empirical, peer-reviewed support for the conclusion that climate deniers, in general, are truly awful human beings.” (- Michael Mann, below)

Michael “Climategate” Mann cannot get out of his own way. His arrogant, condescending social tweets speak for themselves–just as the words, sentences, and paragraphs of the East Anglia emails did. He is not the kind of person you would want in just about any endeavor, much less as a climate scientist trying to present a case.

This post traces Mann’s angst on X and then at BlueSky, his successor to X.

This is my final post on this platform (aside from my social media team’s pro forma posts noted below) until it is no longer owned by Elon Musk. “But on X, my social media team is reposting things” [Joe Romm?]. The idea is to make twitter truly “ex” with BlueSky emerging as the medium of choice for all but the trolls & bots, who are then left barking into the ether. Jan 20 [2024] is the date for my X-odus.”

And how has that gone Michael?

Here are a sampling of Mann’s anger and despair at his critics, and even the Left that is weakening in the face of utter rejection from the political majority. Start with this one:

“A note to trolls who comment on my posts: I hide your comment so nobody sees it, then I block you, mute you, and report you appropriately (e.g. “hateful entities”), which is a 4x hit to your account based on twitter’s algorithm.” (here)

And then his headlines:

“Scientists brace ‘for the worst’ as trump purges climate mentions from website…”

“The keys to the car have been given to the polluters and fossil fuel plutocrats and they intend to drive it off the climate cliff.”

“Conservative and Concerned about Climate Change? You’re Not Alone – A Conversation with Bob Inglis and Michael Mann”

“Humans brought the heat. Earth says we pay the price”

“‘They Know They’re Lying’: The Fossil Fueled War on Science, Humanity: Latest #BradCast“”The US is poised to become an authoritarian state ruled by plutocrats and fossil fuel interests.”

The US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is unfortunate, but multilateral climate action has proven resilient and is stronger than any single countries politics and policies.”

“I just reported [X] as a ‘violent & hateful entity’. You can too.”

Mad at Allies

“@HuffPost has offered no explanation of why it has chosen to act as an enabler of fascism, racism, bigotry, misogyny, and authoritarianism.”

“The sad irony of an account that purports to speak for science (a) referring to the overwhelming evidence for human-caused climate change as a matter of “belief” while (b) ignoring what the science actually says here

“To save the planet, stop reading The [Washington] Post.”

“Note to journalists: If you are writing about these wildfires and not mentioning climate change at all, you are complicit w/ an agenda-driven campaign of misinformation by the right.”

“one of the more dangerous forms of trollbot, the ‘divider’. They pose as climate activists but they are actually ‘agent provocateurs’, whose m.o. is to create conflict, discredit experts, and divide the community of climate advocates. Make sure to report and block!” (January 11, 2025 on X)

“A reminder, Bjorn Lomborg & the WSJ editorial page habitually team up to promote disinformation about climate change and extreme weather events, especially wildfire.”

“MAGA is everything that is evil in this world. And they must be viewed and dealt with as such.”

“These people constitute a threat to us and the planet: #PeterThiel #ElonMusk #VladmirPutin #MBS #RupertMurdoch #LeonardLeo #DonaldTrump #CharlesKoch“

“Actually, the greed of a small number of malicious plutocrats & autocrats we can count on the fingers of our hands: #Thiel #Musk #Putin #MBS #Murdoch #LeonardLeo #Trump.”

“The malicious lies spread by Musk, Putin, Trump & their MAGA parrots represent an existential threat to us and the planet.”

“Self-styled climate “centrists” deflecting attention from the PRIMARY underlying contributor to these disasters (fossil fuel burning and human-caused warming) are a free gift to polluters and petrostates.” January 11, 2025

‘Wildfires will get worse as the planet gets warmer.”

“Trump continues to be one of the most despicable people on the planet. He hates America and Americans (unless they bend the knee). An utter disgrace.”

“Well, @WSJ/Murdoch are a central cog in the fossil fuel disinformation machine, and Lomborg is their chosen liar-for-hire.”

“And yes, there is empirical, peer-reviewed support for the conclusion that climate deniers, in general, are truly awful human beings.” here

“The United States is now poised to become an authoritarian state ruled by plutocrats and fossil fuel interests. It is now, in short, a petrostate.”

More Recently (BlueSky)

“Scientists decry Trump energy chief’s plan to ‘update’ climate reports: ‘Exactly what Stalin did’ [yeah, that was me]” (12 days ago)

“Zeldin and EPA doing ‘opposite’ of protecting Americans from environmental threats with rollbacks. Lee Zeldin parrots discredited fossil fuel industry climate denier talking points.” (5 months ago)

“To be fair, the reputation and credibility of those five individuals [of the DOE science study] was already in tatters.” (17 days ago)

“There’s a reason it’s called the “enDANGERment finding”. Carbon pollution from fossil fuel burning represents a danger to both us and our planet.” (19 days ago)

“I don’t understand how any parent could so willingly serve as an enabler of the destruction of our world.” (20 days ago)

“I can’t think of anymore more qualified to present antiscientific climate denial propaganda than these five. And I can’t think of anyone more likely to seek out these fossil fuel apologists than Christopher Wright.” (22 days)

“It’s naive and unhelpful to argue this is just about some old man and his grudge against wind turbines. In fact, it’s in service of an agenda promoted by his deep-pocketed plutocrat backers. To ignore that connection is to play into their disinformation campaign. (23 days ago)

“Wondering why Trump is suddenly spending all his time bashing renewable energy? It’s to placate the petrostate actors & fossil fuel interests who installed him in the first place. He’s begging them to stand by him, knowing the very worst is yet to come….” (24 days ago)

“Sadly, it’s young American males who are buying into a really warped sense of masculinity (with plenty of help of course from a full court press by polluters, petrostates, plutocrats, and yes in many cases our press). Don’t simply blame the messenger.” (June 26, 2025)

“Trump (and more to the point, the polluters whose decades-old, focus-group-tested climate denial talking points he’s parroting) aren’t this ignorant. They’re banking on the fact that the American public is.” (2 months ago)

Final Comment

This is enough to keep a psychologist busy. Mann stepped into his own manhole, and he keep digging down. Like Al Gore, he hurts his cause more than helps it, as 97 percent of his colleagues (just an estimate) are more rational and quieter than he is on the same subject.