Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The broader controversy concerns the Federal Judicial Center’s fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The climate chapter was withdrawn in early 2026 following criticism from Republican attorneys general and conservative organizations. Separately, some conservative legal groups have argued that Kagan’s foreword raises questions about whether she should participate in certain climate-related Supreme Court cases, although Kagan has rejected calls for recusal.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s admission at a July Senate hearing raises troubling questions about accountability in judicial education. Kagan confirmed she had written the foreword for the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence without reading a chapter on climate change that was eventually removed because of objectionable biases – and has yet to read it.
Her foreword vouches for the manual as an objective resource for judges handling cases involving complex science, ranging from epidemiology to emerging technologies. Yet her high-profile endorsement of material that later required major corrections jeopardizes the judiciary’s credibility.
The fourth edition of the influential reference manual, used by thousands of federal judges, faced immediate pushback. The climate chapter was withdrawn in February following objections from state attorneys general citing imbalances and potential conflicts.
Sadly, remaining in the manual is a chapter that drifts into pseudoscience in describing the nature of science. Regrettably, also still intact is Kagan’s foreword attesting to the volume as a reliable aid grounded in impartiality.
The retained material with its skewed explanation of the scientific method is a noticeable pivot from earlier editions of the manual. They featured physicist David Goodstein’s concise discussion of empirical testing, falsifiable predictions, the primacy of reliable data, and other tenets of scientific inquiry.
In contrast to the Goodstein presentation, the new science chapter disregards traditional scientific rigor as it embraces social considerations and stresses achieving a consensus within expert groups. While scientific collaboration matters, elevating “widespread agreement” as a top indicator of reliability risks sidelining disciplined scrutiny that defines reliable evidence under the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard.
Daubert requires judges to assess whether expert testimony rests on testable methods, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance – always tethered to observable reality. Nobel laureate Richard Feynman captured the spirit plainly: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
History is littered with cases where dominant but erroneous views yielded to better evidence — or, in darker times, where political power enforced consensus. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, biologist Trofim Lysenko’s rejection of genetic science in favor of politically favored ideas about biological inheritance became official doctrine. Dissenting scientists were marginalized or worse, and Soviet agriculture suffered devastating setbacks that led to deaths by starvation. Recovery only began when evidence and empirical reality could no longer be suppressed. Such episodes underscore why judicial guides must prioritize falsifiability over sociological notions of consensus.
Concerns about the revised science chapter extend to authorship. Lead contributors include individuals with ties to climate policy negotiations about issues such as international financial mechanisms. In an era of sprawling climate litigation – with over a thousand active cases active and potential liabilities in the trillions – such backgrounds can create at least the appearance of imbalance, even if unintended.
Prominent scientists, including physicists with extensive publication records, have urged Chief Justice John Roberts and the FJC to revisit the science chapter. They argue that the manual should prioritize clear explanations of hypothesis testing over sociological descriptions, preserving its value as a nonpartisan tool.
With courts increasingly asked to adjudicate scientific disputes that carry the weight of policy affecting the lives of millions – even billions – reference materials must be able to withstand strict tests of objectivity. Kagan’s experience serves as a reminder that diligence is a matter of personal responsibility, no matter the rank of the individual, if the integrity of the judicial process is to be maintained.
The Federal Judicial Center has an opportunity to strengthen the manual by restoring emphasis on empirical verification, ensuring diverse input from experts free of policy entanglements, and reaffirming the manual’s role as a procedural guide. Judges, in turn, should cross-check such resources against primary studies and adversarial presentations
Endorsing a manual without examining its most contentious sections compromises due diligence. Fortunately, it is not too late to correct course. The Federal Judicial Center should act now to restore the manual’s credibility by strengthening its commitment to empirical evidence, falsifiability, and viewpoint diversity. The integrity of judicial decision-making demands nothing less.
Originally published on The Blaze on July 21, 2026.
Angela Wheeler is executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. She is a cum laude graduate of Emporia State University, Kansas, where she studied communication, with additional biology and pre-medicine coursework.
Few in the crowd watching the Wimbledon tennis, or enjoying strawberries and cream between matches, were aware of the silent killer lurking among them: another heatwave, allegedly caused by the bogeyman of our age, human-induced climate change.
Few in the crowd watching the Wimbledon tennis, or enjoying strawberries and cream between matches, were aware of the silent killer lurking among them: another heatwave, allegedly caused by the bogeyman of our age, human-induced climate change.
Midsummer madness is a recognised medical condition. Typical symptoms include irrational behaviours, dodgy rituals, popular delusions, etc. It can occur in any season, of course, but especially in high summer on planet Hyperbole. The expression has been around a long time. In Shakespeare’s 1601 play, Twelfth Night, or What You Will, Olivia says to the love-sick Malvolio: “Why this is very midsummer madness”.
Here it refers to less amorous activity, such as: (i) speculating about complex natural systems in a state of continuous change, such as the weather or cognitive ability of homo sapiens; (ii) using computer models to conjure up “counterfactual” worlds and climates; (iii) cleverly designing them to achieve desired outcomes, possibly influenced by pecuniary or other conflicts of interest; (iv) using United Nations agencies, academic activists, climate litigators, social justice worriers and the media to dupe the public into believing they are accurate descriptions of reality; and (v) ignoring compelling critiques of their assumptions and uncertainties, some ironically made by the modellers themselves, and recently artificial intelligence (AI).
Consider the following case study of climate alarmism. On 30 June this year, nine days after the northern hemisphere summer solstice, Mark Poynting, a BBC News climate reporter, asked the inevitable question: How unusual is this UK heat and is climate change to blame? How, indeed?
A second spell of temperatures well over 30C before we’ve even got to the end of June – how unusual is this and how much is [human-induced] climate change to blame? Temperatures of 34C are possible on Monday or Tuesday in south-east England. They’ve been triggered by an area of high pressure getting “stuck” over Europe, known as a heat dome.
Some people might feel these temperatures are “just like summer” – and it’s true they are a lot cooler than the record 40C and more the UK hit in July 2022. But climate scientists are clear that the heat will have inevitably been boosted by our warming climate.
Dr Amy Doherty, a UK Met Office climate scientist: “Recording 34C in June in the UK is a relatively rare event, with just a handful of days since the 1960s.” The hottest June temperature recorded since 1960 is 35.6C in 1976. The next years on the list are 2017 with a June high of 34.5C and 2019 with 34.0C.
Other data from the Met Office quoted by Poynting indicated that over the decade 2014-2023, days exceeded 32C more than three times as often in the UK as during the 1961-1990 period. What about the 1990-2015 period? Were all the MO readings taken at statistically valid locations? Did they correct for the well-known heat island effect, especially where cities have been growing and so on?
It was “the first rapid study to estimate the number of deaths linked to climate change for a heatwave”. Another summer, another super rapid climate trick.
The release made some extraordinary claims: that “human-caused climate change [HCC] intensified the recent European heatwave and increased the number of heat deaths by about 1,500 in 12 European cities.” Focusing on ten days of heat from June 23 to July 2, 2025, it “found [human-caused] climate change nearly tripled the number of heat-related deaths, with fossil fuel use having increased heatwave temperatures up to 4°C across the cities.”
HCC apparently caused 317 of the estimated excess heat deaths in Milan, 286 in Barcelona, 235 in Paris, 171 in London, 164 in Rome, 108 in Madrid, 96 in Athens, 47 in Budapest, 31 in Zagreb, 21 in Frankfurt, 21 in Lisbon and 6 in Sassari. Dear reader, such precision!
Otto and her research team also issued a warning: “heatwave temperatures will keep rising and future death tolls are likely to be higher, until the world largely stops burning oil, gas and coal and reaches net zero emissions.”
Poynting also noted it was “well-established that [human-induced] climate change is making heatwaves stronger and more likely.”
As humans burn coal, oil and gas and cut down forests, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, warming the Earth. [There was no mention of the most abundant atmospheric greenhouse gas, water vapour.]
It will take time to work out exactly how much [human-induced] climate change has added to this heatwave’s temperatures. But scientists are clear that it will have boosted the warmth.
We absolutely do not need to do an attribution study to know that this heatwave is hotter than it would have been without our continued burning of oil, coal and gas.
Countless studies have shown that [human induced] climate change is an absolute game-changer when it comes to heat in Europe, making heatwaves much more frequent, especially the hottest ones, and more intense. (Dr Friederike Otto, BBC News, 30 June, 2025)
WWA’s main benefactor is The Grantham Institute. Its mission: “to lead on world-class research, policy, training and innovation that supports effective action on climate change.”
WWA, incidentally, was founded in 2014 with Climate Central. It helped to secure initial funding and to “change the narrative on links between climate change and individual extreme weather events.”
A physicist with a philosophy of science doctorate from the Free University Berlin, Dr Otto joined the Grantham Institute in October 2021, after a decade as director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. She appeared on the 2021 TIME100 list for co-founding WWA. The journal Nature mentioned her as one of the top ten people in science that year. In 2024 she received an honorary doctorate from Montreal’s Concordia University and another from Edinburgh University in 2025.
Dr Otto is now a superstar in the climate space. The author of two non-fiction books: Angry Weather: Heat Waves, Floods, Storms, and the New Science of Climate Change (2020) and in March this year a “gripping, provocative manifesto”: Climate Injustice: Why we need to fight global inequality to combat climate change; she is not only on a crusade to ensure fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emitters pay developing and underdeveloped countries for alleged climate “loss and damage” under the United Nations Warsaw International Mechanism.
For her, the so-called climate crisis is “not about saving the climate or humanity. Quite simply, it is about saving human dignity and rights – for all of us.”
Today, the neglect of most of the world’s population means they suffer the most from the climate crisis. Climate change can only be understood against this backdrop. We won’t be able to manage [human-induced] climate change unless we eliminate the historic dynamic of injustice, of domination and dependence between the countries of the Global North and Global South.
Researching weather – and thus, the role of [human-induced climate change – in the way I do is always political, and that makes it an uncomfortable topic for many scientists. (Climate Injustice, 2025)
It seems there is another agenda here. Has Dr Otto’s cabal of climate scientists and supporters weaponized “attribution” to validate other controversial objectives? Surely not. If so, it would be another “absolute game changer”, wrecking Net Zero aspirations everywhere.
There are, unfortunately, no independent auditors of climate model simulations and projections, as is the case with companies in the highly regulated corporate world. All we have is a fallible peer-review process and research papers with multiple authors.
While at the Oxford University Environmental Change Institute a decade or so ago, Otto was a co-author of this paper: The science of attributing extreme weather events and its potential contribution to assessing loss and damage associated with climate change impacts. It might be possible, “to make a scientific association between anthropogenic climate change and loss and damage” using a probabilistic event attribution (PEA) approach. While PEA was an “emerging science with many uncertainties”, perhaps it could be relevant in the Warsaw mechanism and “contribute to the policy process.” More on that later.
The Concordia University presentation on July 16 last year was for Dr Otto’s “leading research, communication and justice work on humanity’s role in climate change”.
Otto is co-founder and lead of World Weather Attribution (WWA), an international effort to track and communicate the role human-induced climate change has on extreme weather events such as droughts, heat waves and storms.
By providing irrefutable evidence quickly on the likelihood of such events occurring with and without climate change, Climate Change Attribution [CCA] has helped shift the global conversation, influencing adaptation strategies and aiding sustainability litigation against polluters.(media release here)
“Although she spends her days examining apocalyptic events, Dr Otto remains optimistic,” quipped the MC in a twelve-minute video of the event. The gowned audience smiled and clapped in appreciation and possibly relief, knowing climate anxiety can be contagious and have a negative impact on mental health, especially in young people.
Dr Otto: The emphasis on climate change in reports on these extreme events have led many to believe now that climate change somewhat has replaced acts of God and that human-induced climate change is responsible for the disaster. (video; at 6 min.)
Dr Otto: Climate change is a consequence of inequality – of putting the profit of the few against the most essential human rights….There is no solution to climate change without increasing inequality. (video; at 7.30 min.)
Do climate model simulations provide “irrefutable” evidence?A deep dive into the issue suggests otherwise. Newton’s laws are irrefutable because we use them to put earthlings on the moon. Einstein’s laws likewise, because earthlings use them to make atomic bombs. There are no similarly verifiable laws of allegedly human-caused climate change, but plenty of earthling assertions, simulations and storylines.
Most unfortunately, in the climate sciences, no such sample of Earth-like climate systems is accessible to natural observation and even less so to experimental testing….. With such strong limitations on the natural observation side and with in situ experimentation inaccessible, we are left with the only remaining alternative: so-called in silico experimentation [performed solely on a computer or using computer modelling.] (A Hannart, et al., American Meteorological Society, January, 2016) Reference
It was time to reach for my copy of the Darrell Huff classic: How to Lie with Statistics. A cartoon sketch on the cover depicts two characters. One asks: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” The answer: “45.6% of the time.” As Disraeli said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
If Huff (1913-2001) was writing a sequel, it is more than 45.6% likely he would include WWA’s rapid and super rapid climate tricks; and revise his chapter on How to Statisticulate: “misinforming people by the use of statistical material might be called statistical manipulation: in a word statisticulation.”
Given many countries are now sacrificing their energy security and economic health in pursuit of Net Zero fantasies based on dodgy computer simulations, Huff probably would use another word today. Perhaps he would ask AI for advice too. So here it is: an AI critique of WWA.
World Weather Attribution (WWA) has faced criticism for its methods and conclusions regarding the link between extreme weather events and [human-caused] climate change. Critics argue that WWA’s approach oversimplifies complex climate systems and can lead to overstating the impact of human-caused warming on specific events. Some raise concerns about the use of climate models, which may not accurately represent the complexities of regional weather patterns and the influence of natural climate variability.
As for PEA, probabilistic event attribution in climate science, which WWA now claims can quantify the extent to which [human-induced] climate change influences extreme weather events, AI is similarly sceptical. It too relies on climate models which have “inherent biases and uncertainties” and can “lead to overly confident statements about the influence of [human-induced] climate change”. So PEA results must be “communicated accurately, acknowledging their limitations and uncertainties.”
Roger Pielke Jr. at The Honest Broker is one of WWA’s most damning critics. In what should be an “absolute game changer” for politicians and international agencies that believe they can control the weather, “limit climate change”, or “protect the climate system”; and for alarmist climate litigators, judicial activists and social justice worriers, Pielke pulls back the curtain on attribution “alchemy”. He shows why WWA’s methods are pseudoscience. They are, however, unlikely to accept his forensic critique, especially at this stage of the climate game.
Extreme event attribution is alchemy conjured up largely outside the peer-reviewed literature and promoted via press releases.
WAA is surely one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the history of climate advocacy. I call it a marketing campaign based on how they describe their goals: “Increasing the ‘immediacy’ of climate change, thereby increasing support for mitigation”; and “unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind”. [The Honest Broker, April 5, 2025]
Nevertheless WWA will be celebrating today. It seems to have achieved one of its primary objectives. On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion on the “obligations of States in respect of climate change”. The ICJ’s interpretation of the issue “is consistent with Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Paris Agreement, which requires that mitigation measures be based on the “best available science””. (page 13)
What if the best available science is pseudoscience?
Michael Kile
This article first appeared at Quadrant Online in Australia on July 25, 2025, as Sweaty Brits and Fever Dreams: “are climate models ‘irrefutable’ evidence? We know the answer to that even if the International Court of Justice doesn’t.”
The politicians have used the pseudoscience and malinformation campaigns to sell their “green energy” schemes on the promises of affordability and job creation. When carbon-based energy like gasoline or natural gas outcompete wind or solar in the marketplace, they fall back on the old excuse that Big Oil gets too many government subsidies for “green energy” to compete. Meanwhile, activist legal groups use the court system to punitively pursue Big Oil and electricity producers for all sorts of novel legal theories of liability, reflected in the #ExxonKnew social media campaign and other activist strategies to hold large corporations accountable for the climate.
Public demonstration on the street against global warming and pollution. Group of multiethnic people making protest about climate change and plastic problems in the oceans
The fearmongering about man-made global warming has failed, and the movement is dying.
It’s implausible, impractical, and the opposite of urgent. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has proven to hold little importance for the citizens of the world, and now that Donald Trump has reascended to the White House and targeted green energy boondoggles for elimination, the world has started to take his lead. Perhaps the UN hasn’t noticed, but the Trump effect is real and has given cover for leaders across the globe to quietly back away from the insane spending required to make green energy remotely comparable to conventional combustion-based energy production.
This process has also revealed a truth as the tide goes back out: Nobody believes the fundamental premise of global warming anyway, despite the decades of panic fomented by globalists, totalitarians, and grifters hoping to cash in.
We may very well be witnessing the death of the green panic as a meaningful societal and political movement.
The People Never Bought the Theory
In The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway described the process of going bankrupt: Gradually, and then suddenly. The same description holds for the death of the climate narratives. Ever since then-Sen. Al Gore (D-TN) brought up the concept of global warming at the U.S. Senate hearing in 1988, it has been marked by myth-making more than science. To commemorate this “birthday”—the hearing was held on July 23, 1988—the CO2 Coalition recounted the story of how it came to be:
This first hearing was convened by former Senator Timothy E. Wirth, along with a young Senator from Tennessee named Al Gore. It was no coincidence that the hearing was held on this date.
“We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer,” explained Senator Wirth. “So, we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”
That hearing began a nearly 40-year run of unimpeded misinformation linking carbon dioxide to unusual and unprecedented warming.
Consensus science replaced the scientific method.
Censorship of contrary evidence was nearly complete.
No debate was allowed because the science was settled.
Born of a PR stunt and backing by a few fringe scientists, the theory then morphed into a driving principle of the professional Left. Massive pseudoscience campaigns emerged to support the spurious claims of impending planetary doom in the media, which has incentivized politicians to adopt punitive and confiscatory public policies. The voters routinely ranked climate change near the bottom of their priorities in public opinion surveys, but that didn’t matter to the power- and money-hungry politicians and bureaucrats.
The history of public climate policy from that point on has involved ever increasing spending by federal and state governments, ever tighter industrial regulations, and “investments” in financially foolhardy projects—remember Obama’s failure with Solyndra?
Fast forward to 2019, a banner year for climate hysteria. In February, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the Green New Deal, a deliberate throwback to another massive federal spending boondoggle. And then in September, the teenage Swedish activist Greta Thunberg addressed the UN Climate Action Summit, accusing world leaders of stealing her future and saying we could only ever add 420 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere before we start seeing “chain reactions beyond human control.” She gave us 8 ½ years from that point.
The murals of St. Greta started popping up in blue cities almost immediately, representing the high-water mark for the movement.
Media outlets, corporate board rooms, and Big Philanthropy ramped up their all-out campaigns. ZeroHedge reported that media stories about climate change skyrocketed in 2019 and beyond.
Green Energy and Climate Lawsuits Expand the Grift
The politicians have used the pseudoscience and malinformation campaigns to sell their “green energy” schemes on the promises of affordability and job creation. When carbon-based energy like gasoline or natural gas outcompete wind or solar in the marketplace, they fall back on the old excuse that Big Oil gets too many government subsidies for “green energy” to compete. Meanwhile, activist legal groups use the court system to punitively pursue Big Oil and electricity producers for all sorts of novel legal theories of liability, reflected in the #ExxonKnew social media campaign and other activist strategies to hold large corporations accountable for the climate.
None of these baseline assumptions hold water. But they do share a common feature: Extensive funding via leftist dark money. From the foundations funding the pseudoscience and media campaigns, to the leftist legal megafirms filing nuisance lawsuits, the resources thrown at this know no limit. Billionaire Tom Steyer went so far as to buy his way into the Democratic National Committee and use his position to add the climate change plank to the party platform in 2016.
These campaigns use their expansive resources to impede progress in every aspect of the energy sector. From protests to shut down pipelines, to lawsuits against fracking, to overregulating the expansion of America’s electrical grid, vast wealth has been expended on loud but unpopular campaigns to hinder our energy sector, vital for a life in modern America that even most environmentalists don’t want to give up. After all, how could they foment all those protests without the rare earth elements that run their social media accounts on their cell phones?
Americans have gotten increasingly sick of all of it.
Panic Only Works for So Long
No matter how much money the professional Left spends to buy access to media, corporate policies, and party platforms, they have failed to move the needle among a sufficient segment of the voting populace. The more they’ve failed, the more outlandish their claims of doom. UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres expressed this frustration when he declared in a 2023 speech that the world had surpassed global warming and had officially (from his telling) entered the era of “global boiling.”
The needle stubbornly continued to fail to move.
That needle probably noticed all the failing narratives around global warming when it decided to stay stuck in neutral. I’ve documented the collapsing narratives surrounding bee populations that have failed to decline, polar ice caps that stubbornly refuse to shrink, the idea that natural sources don’t affect atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the myth of increasing numbers of more intense weather events, and many more.
As the narratives collapse, the public panic continues to refuse to take hold. Meanwhile, the demand for more and more electricity continues to grow across residential and commercial sectors. Especially considering the rapid growth and development of the artificial intelligence sector, power demands have ramped up significantly as we begin the second quarter of the 21st century.
And as that demand grows, it becomes more obvious by the day: Green energy cannot sustain the current demand, never mind a near-term future of massive server farms, a renewed focus on domestic manufacturing, and growing residential populations.
The Iberian Nightmare—the nationwide blackout in both Spain and Portugal—proved this on April 28. Less than two weeks after boasting that they had reached 100% renewable energy on their electrical grid, Spain experienced a 100% blackout, which caused a cascading effect in Portugal as well. The rest of Europe was spared from a similar fate only by automated systems kicking in to protect France from the power surge.
“Renewable” energy fails because it cannot provide the baseline power load required by residential and industrial uses. Depending on wind and solar can never provide consistent, steady production on a stable frequency. Battery storage comes with a host of problems that don’t appear to have solutions. And since dams are out of favor with fish biologists, we can’t include hydroelectric in our suite of renewable options. (Apparently ornithologists and marine biologists are cool with wind, though.) Anyway, voters see through the cognitive dissonance and contradictory messages by conservationists about the supposedly environmentally friendly sources of electricity and have largely rejected the nonsensical premise.
One industry report suggests over half of North America faces the risk of blackouts in the next decade due to skyrocketing demand and the retirement of gas and coal power plants. So, independent of the funding issues with the new administration, state power regulators have retreated from their zeal to achieve net-zero goals (net-zero carbon emissions) in favor of reliable power supply.
This, along with a host of other failures in green energy and predictions of doom that have never come true, have forced even some Democrats to start backing away from their net-zero plans. Ruy Teixeira, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently took note of this, and gave the reason:
Cost and reliability is what voters really care about when it comes to energy. Given four choices of their energy policy priorities in a 2024 YouGov climate issues survey, 37% of voters said the cost of the energy they use was most important to them. Another 36% said the availability of power when they need it was most important. Meanwhile, just 19% thought that the effect of their energy consumption on the climate was most important.
They also see through the promises that wind and solar are free, or at least cheap. The land footprint of wind and solar farms is far larger than that of a nuclear or coal plant; the materials used in turbines, blades, and panels often cannot be recycled or safely disposed of; and the infrastructure—especially the amount of reinforced concrete in wind turbine bases—can create a so-called carbon footprint larger than that of conventional power plants.
For many reasons, the Trump administration has pulled back on the government’s commitments to the green movement. In place of massive subsidies for failing green energy projects, Trump and his team have refocused the federal government on reliability and energy independence. These issues resonate with voters in the 21st century who see the AI revolution currently underway and who realize that America’s aging energy grid needs massive upgrades—upgrades that have been held back for decades by overregulation by bureaucrats.
As this new focus on energy independence progresses, government grants have dried up, causing green stocks to tank. The rest of corporate America has quickly followed suit. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that annual shareholder reports have gone silent on climate issues:
American Airlines highlighted its focus on “ambitious climate goals” in a report last year.
In a similar filing a few weeks ago, that phrase was gone.
The airline is among a wave of companies across industries tweaking—sometimes overhauling—what they say about their sustainability and climate efforts in proxy statements, an investor filing released every year ahead of a business’s annual shareholder meeting.
The writing is on the wall. State governments, corporations, and stock markets are all following the lead of the Trump administration’s more rational, America First approach to energy. The purveyors of climate panic haven’t realized it yet, but the billions poured into this movement by Big Philanthropy haven’t made a dent in public opinion. Public policy is poised to make an about face, cheered on by a majority of voters. People just don’t buy the faulty premises of the supposed problem, or the purported solutions to it.
In short, we are witnessing the end of the green panic and the dawn of a new age of energy and environmental rationalism.
A spate of stories in the media recently provides a remarkable illustration of how the globalist policy agenda of the climate-industrial complex has captured key international institutions and perverted their original organizational aims. From initially serving broad, laudable objectives for the welfare of their constituents, these institutions have been subverted over the years to serve the insistent pseudoscientific claims of climate alarmists.
Since 1660, Nullius in verba was the Royal Society’s motto. “Don’t take anyone’s word for it.”
Yesterday’s post showed how American science societies have taken to parroting climatist suppositions rather than applying critical intelligence to claims of a “climate crisis.” That unquestioning attitude betrays the science method expressed in the Royal Society’s motto. Today presents Tilak Doshi describing how the same pattern appears in international institutions supposed to be objective reporters of natural conditions. His Daily Signal article is The Climate Agenda’s March Through the Institutions: Can It Be Stopped? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
A spate of stories in the media recently provides a remarkable illustration of how the globalist policy agenda of the climate-industrial complex has captured key international institutions and perverted their original organizational aims. From initially serving broad, laudable objectives for the welfare of their constituents, these institutions have been subverted over the years to serve the insistent pseudoscientific claims of climate alarmists.
The corruption of global institutions has, in turn, led to significant opposition that is becoming apparent. There is the prospect of an incoming Trump administration that is avowedly skeptical of the claims of an alleged climate crisis and is intent on exiting the U.N.’s Paris Agreement and its “net zero by 2050” policy target for a second time. This presents a welcome challenge to these corrupt institutions.
Will President Donald Trump and some of the populist parties in Europe be capable of countering the entrenched globalist climate agenda?
The World Bank
On Oct. 17, Oxfam published a report that shockingly found that up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance—nearly 40% of all climate funds disbursed by the World Bank over the past seven years—is “unaccounted for between the time projects were approved and when they closed.” In other words, no one knows how the money was used. There is no paper trail revealing where the money went or what the accomplished results were.
Green cronyism, ranging from the Solyndra debacle—the waste of almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on a failed solar farm project under President Barack Obama’s watch—to President Joe Biden’s duplicitously-named Inflation Reduction Act, which will unleash an estimated $1 trillion deluge of subsidies on favored “green” industries, is nothing new. But it is instructive to trace the World Bank’s decline from its honorable founding objectives to its current status as yet another institution advocating green causes.
Dr. Jim Yong Kim, reflecting the progressive virtues of Obama, who appointed him as president of the World Bank in 2012, imposed a ban on the financing of coal-fired power stations in 2013. This was followed by a ban on investments in all new upstream oil and gas resource development projects.
The distinguished economist Deepak Lal, a former research administrator of the World Bank, remarked that Kim incredulously “over-ruled the cost-benefit estimates of coal-based power over solar and wind-based power generation produced by his own economic staff, justifying this by reference to a wish to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.”
The World Bank’s objections to the use of fossil fuels despite their importance to economic growth and poverty alleviation—which constitute its foundational institutional objectives—can be traced to the intellectual evolution of its management under James Wolfensohn during his decade as president (1995-2005).
Wolfensohn traced the arc from the old regime to the new. The old was represented by the “Washington consensus” of free markets, liberal trading regimes, sound money, and entrepreneurship associated with the classical liberalism of Adam Smith.
The new intellectual environment of the World Bank’s management—personified by Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000)—was defined by the theoretical failures of the free market, especially in accounting for the alleged negative climate impacts of fossil fuel use.
Stiglitz, a climate alarmist, wrote in a 2015 court brief for a failed climate lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of children against the U.S. federal government that “fossil fuel-based economies imposed ‘incalculable’ costs on society and shifting to clean energy will pay off.” [See Climatists Make Their Case by Omitting Facts]
Rupert Darwall, a former adviser to the United Kingdom’s chancellor of the exchequer and author of “Green Tyranny,” encapsulates the betrayal of the World Bank to its founding objectives as follows:
The World Bank’s mission has been subverted by green ideologues who assert that a low-carbon world benefits the world’s poor but fail to acknowledge that making energy much more costly increases poverty. The World Bank tags itself as ‘working for a world free of poverty’ … In making its choice between development and sustainability, the World Bank has decided it is going to try and ‘save the planet’ on the backs of the poor.
By abdicating its founding principles for alleviating global poverty, the World Bank has taken a lead role among multilateral financial institutions in denying vast financial resources to poorer countries. It has hypocritically vetoed the right of developing countries to adopt the path of economic growthand environmental improvement that the now-rich countries had taken up successfully since the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago. The World Bank’s obsessive support for intermittent, low-yield renewable energy such as solar and wind power comes at the cost of its central charter to help the poor, an outcome that can only be described as egregiously unjust.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The U.N. IPCC issued a news release on Dec. 6 prior to the start of a “scoping” meeting in Kuala Lumpur of over 230 experts from 70 countries to draft outlines of working group contributions to the U.N. IPCC’s seventh Assessment Report (to be completed in 2029).
In the press release, the IPCC claimed that human combustion of fossil fuels “has resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world.” This is contrary to the IPCC’s position hitherto, which is that almost all types of extreme weather events cannot be attributed with confidence to human activity.
The position of the IPCC regarding the lack of any link between climate change and extreme weather events is contrary to the almost daily headlines in the mainstream media attributing specific adverse weather events to “climate change.”
The work of eminent climate policy analysts Steve Koonin and Roger Pielke Jr. has done much to expose the pseudoscientific nature of what has been called “attribution studies.” These typically involve researchers who apply their climate models and historical observations to conclude that any particular weather event (say a hurricane or a drought) was made “more likely” or “more severe” by some magnitude in percentage units due to “human influence” (referring to the combustion of fossil fuels).
Based on the dubious claims of “attribution science,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a climate law last week that will require companies operating in New York state responsible for large amounts of planet-warming pollution to contribute to climate damage repair efforts. Under the new state law, companies responsible for the bulk of emissions from 2000 to 2018 will be on the hook for some $3 billion a year over the next 25 years.
Koonin cites the World Meteorological Organization that states that “any single event, such as tropical cyclone cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the state of scientific understanding.” The IPCC’s “Special Report on Extreme Events” states that “Many weather and climate extremes are the result of natural climate variability … Even if there were no anthropogenic changes in climate, a wide variety of natural weather and climate extremes would still occur.”
Nonetheless, international organizations such as the World Bank and the IPCC have been increasingly politicized to serve climate hysteria. In this context, Chris Morrison of The Daily Sceptic finds that “[f]ears are growing that the IPCC could water down or even ditch its current finding that almost all types of extreme weather events have little or no sign of past human involvement, or any going forward to 2100.”
International Energy Agency
On Dec. 23, U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, released a report documenting how the International Energy Agency “has moved away from its energy security mission to become an “energy transition” cheerleader.”
The report finds that “French President [Emmanuel] Macron’s observation that IEA has become the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement’ is regrettably true. With the many serious energy security challenges facing the world, however, IEA should not be a partisan cheerleader. What the world needs from IEA—and what it is not receiving now—is sober and unbiased analyses and projections that educate and inform policymakers and investors. IEA needs to remember why it was established and return to its energy security mission.”
The divergence of the IEA away from its original mission to advise policymakers in its member countries with sound analysis of trends in global energy supply and demand to becoming a “cheerleader” for radical net-zero emission policy targets has not gone unnoticed over recent years. I have written on the ideological approach adopted by the IEA in its advocacy for green causes here, here, andhere.
When ideological advocacy becomes the measure of achievement for the IEA, the loss of credibility and soundness of its policy advice is only to be expected. The IEA’s messianic fervour for green technologies such as solar and wind power, “green” hydrogen, batteries, and electric vehicles prevents it from asking basic questions.
If it is true that drastically cutting back on fossil fuels is consistent with higher economic growth and increased productive employment, why does the IEA recommend policymakers force countries along “net-zero” pathways? Surely, if replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar energy and electric vehicles promotes growth and employment, then wouldn’t countries such as China and India naturally race toward this best of all possible worlds without expensive green subsidies and punitive anti-fossil fuel policies?
The Trumpian Revolution Looms
Nonprofit organizations reflect the needs of their funding members, and organizations such as the World Bank, IPCC, and IEA are no different. As their funding is primarily from the U.S. and the EU, it is not surprising that they manifest the “climate emergency” predilections of the Biden administrationand the largely left-socialist West European governments that see climate change as an existential threat and a national security priority. In taking up the mantle of green advocacy on behalf of their paymasters, these organizations have lost all credibility as independent and objective advisors for their member countries.
The climate-industrial complex fears the prospect of the Trump administration’s pullout of the Paris Agreement for the second time. Politico, a reliable mouthpiece for the climate establishment, expressed these fears soon after Trump’s election victory: “The world is bracing for President-elect Donald Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement for the second time—only this time, he could move faster and with less restraint.” In Europe, the emergence of populist parties has been partly propelled by the widespread rejection by EU citizens of the onerous fiscal burdens imposed by green policies.
The seismic change in policy direction that a second term “drill, baby, drill” Trump administration promises for the global climate juggernaut—represented by the three leading international agencies covered here—can only be seen as hopeful as we look forward to positive developments in energy policy in 2025.
The celebrities and media who lend any support or comfort to those who manipulate the young to commit crimes based on flawed science are worse than those who encouraged flagellation to cure the Black Death in medieval times.
The celebrities and media who lend any support or comfort to those who manipulate the young to commit crimes based on flawed science are worse than those who encouraged flagellation to cure the Black Death in medieval times.
Today, I am going to add a mother’s perspective on “climate crisis” pseudoscience” to address an issue I think is essential: Who, exactly, do we punish for fake science upon which poor policy choices are made?
But beyond that, how can we crack down on science fraud poisoning our children’s futures?
Last October, we reported two women in their early 20s were arrested in London for throwing soup over Vincent Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” painting during a protest against fossil fuels.
Phoebe Plummer, 23, and Anna Holland, 22, from the protest group Just Stop Oil were imprisoned for two years, and 20 months, respectively, according to PA Media.
These are the latest in a string of prison sentences handed to climate activists in the UK for engaging in disruptive protests against the use of fossil fuels. Two relatively new, controversial laws have boosted the powers of police and courts to crack down on protests that are disruptive, even when they are peaceful.
The sentences appeared to do little to deter Just Stop Oil: Hours after they were handed down, three more Just Stop Oil activists threw soup over two other Van Gogh paintings of sunflowers in the Poets and Lovers exhibition at the National Gallery, the same venue the 2022 protests was staged, according to the group.
Those years those girls are going to lose are essential. They are the years to complete an education or gain important work experience for a career. That is the time to make life-long connections and perhaps meet a future spouse. It is also the age at which many women are starting their families.
Because of climate hysteria driven by agenda-driven pseudoscience and pushed by a media that silences critics and ignores counter-evidence, progressive educators are enabled to push this dogma. Cult-like-leaders arise to encourage young people to ruin their futures to protect an Earth that is not in jeopardy from its carbon dioxide levels.
As Reynolds notes, the issue is complex. Determining what real science fraud is versus typos and misinterpreting data can be difficult. However, as it relates to climatology, massaging data to produce temperature spikes and ignoring urban heat island effects to support the green energy agenda should have consequences. And, as we have seen with COVID-19, poor science used to promote disastrous rules and regulations isn’t confined to climate.
Reynolds reviewed a wide array of potential options to prevent science fraud. Based on his analysis, perhaps the best place to focus is “revising incentive structures.”
I like requiring researchers to specify ways of ensuring reproducibility in their applications, and evaluating researchers based on long-term reproducibility.
…Requiring data-sharing – and data “archiving,” as it’s surprising how often data for crucial studies turns out of have been lost in a move or a flood when requested later – would also help.
And – and this was suggested by a commenter to an earlier blog post – not relying on scientific research for public policy purposes until it has been successfully replicated by someone else is not a bad idea. That would slow down the connection between research and public policy, but would that really be such a bad thing?
This might be the best direction to head. Currently, it seems science that gets social media clicks, softball interview questions, academic rewards, and generous funding is the science that can occur. Research isn’t done for knowledge’s sake but for personal gain.
If punishing fake science is difficult, and completely removing incentives for fake science to be published is not practical. Preventing it from taking root by showing the data can be replicated before new rules are created would be the logical path forward.
Another option would be a return to the Renaissance approach to science, with those passionate about real research funding institutions specifically devoted to such study, as we clearly can no longer trust our elite universities and colleges to do so. For example, like the one SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has planned.
The charity, called The Foundation, plans to use a $100 million gift from Musk to create and launch a primary and secondary school in Austin focused on teaching science, technology, engineering and math. Once it is fully operational, the filing states, the school will focus on creating a university. The school intends to seek accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, a necessary first step to launch the school.
Finally, making pseudoscience cult leaders who brainwash young adults into committing crimes pariahs rather than making them celebrities would be helpful. Of course, the elite media (in this case, the BBC) attempts to make these villains into martyrs.
I give you its last report on Roger Hallam, founder of Job Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion.
When five activists who brought chaos to the M25 motorway were jailed last week, some thought the law had finally caught up with Just Stop Oil.
Celebrities spoke out in anger at the lengthy sentences – and a United Nations official described their treatment as “not acceptable in a democracy”.
With Roger Hallam, the architect of the modern environmental protest movement, and his co-conspirators now behind bars, this might have been “checkmate” in a five-year long game of legal chess between the state and a group of increasingly bold direct action environmental groups.
But at least for some Just Stop Oil activists, it doesn’t appear to have worked.
The celebrities and media who lend any support or comfort to those who manipulate the young to commit crimes based on flawed science are worse than those who encouraged flagellation to cure the Black Death in medieval times. At least the men and women in the Dark Ages hadn’t already learned germ theory and did not know how to apply the scientific method.
I must admit that I don’t have much compassion for eco-activists who commit crimes and disrupt other people’s lives. But, as a mother, I hate seeing young lives sacrificed on the altar of pseudoscience, and I would like to save others from similar fates.
After all, “it’s for the children” is supposed to be a reason respected by progressives.
According to a review of a book by Kings College Professor Daniel Susskind, President Trump is the harbinger of a new age of superstition and prejudice, which threatens to derail science driven economic growth.
According to a review of a book by Kings College Professor Daniel Susskind, President Trump is the harbinger of a new age of superstition and prejudice, which threatens to derail science driven economic growth.
Long-term growth is more vulnerable than it looks
A new book argues the belief that economies should always expand is relatively new, and threats to the future of growth are as large now as any time in the post-Industrial Revolution era.
Guy Debelle Former Central Banker May 23, 2024 – 5.00am
…
We have taken economic growth for granted for much of the past century. When the economy isn’t growing it dominates the news cycle, because those periods of decline have very much been the exception, not the rule. Even the slightest prospect of a recession can generate reams of tomorrow’s fish and chip wrappers.
…
Daniel Susskind provides a timely and thought-provoking book on the history of economic growth in Growth: A Reckoning. Timely, because a number of the critical factors that Susskind argues underpin growth are currently under threat. This is most apparent in the US in the form of Donald Trump, where science is being supplanted by superstition, reason by assertion, experience by prejudice.
…
This bears on the Future Made in Australia debate. The government can provide the policy framework to support the market in taking advantage of Australia’s comparative advantage. The market will not always provide the right price signals. The market will not embody all the things that society cares about, though it can be shaped that way.
The “Future Made in Australia debate” is a reference to the pushback against an absurd far left attempt to kickstart Aussie manufacturing, without addressing any of the fundamental factors which led to the original decline, such as Australia’s expensive and increasingly unreliable energy.
My question – what if the climate crisis is pseudoscience, like the many great pseudoscience movements which came before it, and the rise of Donald Trump is a desperate attempt to restore an age of evidence based decision making, before the rise of climate superstition plunges us into a new dark age?
Obviously this is pretty much the opposite position to that expressed by Guy Debelle, who wrote the article above, and I assume Daniel Susskind have taken. SO how do we tell who is right?
Weight of numbers is no defence against the suggestion the climate crisis is superstition – pseudoscience movements don’t rise to prominence because they lack support. When Einstein was told about the book “100 authors against Einstein”, Einstein is reported to have replied “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”.
The real tell of a pseudoscience is the inability of the pseudoscience to make worthwhile predictions, and the desperation of advocates to excuse away its failures.
As for the desperation to excuse away failures, we see that every day, as politicians pour billions into failed green energy policies which are designed to address a non problem, or the way climate modellers urge we accept their predictions as a source of truth, despite the decades long failure of climate models to accurately predict future climate trends.
This failure is easy to demonstrate – the diagram at the top of this page, which shows the divergence between reported confidence levels and climate model predictive failure, was created by former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer.
But I doubt professor Daniel Susskind or former merchant banker Guy Debelle will be moved by any of the arguments I just presented. If I am right, they are deep in the grip of pseudoscientific superstition, a superstition which ironically convinces them that they are actually the champions of reason, and are therefore all but impervious to arguments based on logic and reason which contradict their prejudices.
Of course, in our world it doesn’t matter what the Daniel Susskind and Guy Debelles of the world believe.
What matters is what voters believe. One of the great strengths of the US Republic and other nations where people get to vote for their leaders is protection from elitist groupthink. We don’t have to accept the prejudices of people who call themselves experts, we can make up our own minds who we believe.
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this new law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directiy with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”
— Dr Richard Phillips Feynman, Nobel Laureate, The Character of Physical Law (1999)
Would that we had Dr Feynman’s ethical approach today! His thinking about the scientific process went beyond comparing theory with experiment. He was also well aware of other ways science could go wrong. In 1974 he gave the CalTech commencement speech. He titled it “Cargo Cult Science.” This speech is arguably the greatest speech on science ever presented. Why? Because in it, he examines completeness. Sadly, I have not found a video of him presenting it.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Cargo Cult, it appeared in various forms in Melanesia during the early to mid-20th Century. The best known, and the one to which Dr Feynman refers, was the John Frum Movement. During World War II, these cultists observed the belligerents using aircraft to move cargo, either by air-drop or landing on airstrips. Wanting this wealth for themselves, though knowing nothing about aviation, they tried to replicate factors they had observed. As Dr Feynman put it:
During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas — he’s the controller — and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.
Dr Feynman then goes on to explain researchers should not only describe their findings; they should also report anything they know of that might make their findings invalid.
And that is the link to the Climate Cargo Cult. Global Climate Warming Change alarmism is replete with examples of cherry-picked data, irrelevant data, bad logic, deception, and stuff that is just plain wrong. There is also a lot of wishful thinking and, of course, fear-mongering. Alarmist claims are often ridiculously easy to debunk.
A recent example relates to Greenland. A University of Leeds team, as described in a press release, claims melting ice is causing all kinds of problems there:
An estimated 11,000 sq miles or 28,707 sq kilometres of Greenland’s ice sheet and glaciers have melted over the last three decades, according to a major analysis of historic satellite records.
The total area of ice loss is equivalent to the size of Albania, and represents about 1.6 % of Greenland’s total ice and glacier cover.
Where there was once ice and snow, there is now barren rock, wetlands and areas of shrub.
The press release publicizes this paper, which contains a lot of whining about climate change and its effect on Greenland. The paper opens, “Land cover responses to climate change must be quantified for understanding Arctic climate, managing Arctic water resources, maintaining the health and livelihoods of Arctic societies and for sustainable economic development. This need is especially pressing in Greenland, where climate changes are amongst the most pronounced of anywhere in the Arctic.”
How fast is the ice melting? 30 years to melt 1.6% is 0.000533% 0.053% per year. That does not seem very fast. Indeed, at that rate it will take 18,750 187,500 years for the ice to disappear; but only if the ice is not replaced during future winters.
That is Climate Cargo Cult science.
Julius Sanks is an engineer and manager with experience developing weather forecasting systems and environmental satellites, among other things.
On a recent cold winter day, residents of Munich were surprised to see people skiing in the street. Yes, that is how much snow fell in the German city and other parts of Europe during the early winter of 2023-2024.
Despite a disruption to both ground and air travel, the Germans survived the freezing weather with access to heating and basic utilities. But not everyone in our world is as fortunate as those living off reliable energy sources in Western economies.
Billions of people all over the world do not have access to secure sources of heat and electricity. For these, winter can be a death blow. A political war against fossil fuels is making matters worse for those unprotected from frigid temperatures.
Snow is deadly and is not going away
The gravity of winter’s hazard has been overshadowed by the prevailing discourse on purported man-made climate change. We have been inundated with warnings about the perils of warming. But historically, it is the cold that has been disastrous. It has altered the course of history across the world and left people scrambling for food as plant life dwindled.
Winter’s icy chill claims far more lives than scorching summer heat, according to global analyses of fatalities caused by various natural hazards. In fact, a 2023 health study conducted across 854 European cities reveals that an estimated annual excess of 203,620 deaths were due to cold while just 20,173 were attributed to heat. In comparative terms, only 1 in 10 excess deaths from extreme temperatures were attributable to heat while a majority were due to cold.
The fearmongering around warming aside, winter’s cold bite is going nowhere and will continue to test humankind’s survival mechanisms. Since August 2023, snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has remained at or above the 57-year mean.
Pseudoscience endangers people with impractical energy policies
With climate science co-opted by a worldwide political crusade against allegedly human-induced global warming, communities may find themselves ill-equipped to face upcoming winter weather.
In regions with particularly harsh winters and limited access to reliable heating sources, the threat of death and illness due to anti-fossil fuel policies is grave.
In places like Mongolia, where economic hardship and energy converge, staying warm is a continual wintertime focus. This year, the country’s imports of electricity from Russia were disrupted, resulting in load shedding to millions of people in the middle of winter.
At minus 35-degrees Fahrenheit, the people of Mongolia were left to fend for themselves. To brave this harsh climate, they rely on just two crucial energy sources: internal electricity generation from their plentiful coal reserves and the direct use of coal for heating homes. When faced with below-freezing, snow-blanketed winter days, neither wind nor solar power can guarantee a steady energy supply.
In other countries of the region, the scenario is similar. Destitute communities in Afghanistan rely on coal to endure the winter. In Kyrgyzstan, the unreliability of hydropower results in a continuous need for coal. Likewise, people in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan depend on coal for warmth, although the latter is also increasing its reliance on gas.
It is easy for hypocritical politicians who fly in private CO2-emitting planes across the Western world to champion the elimination of fossil fuels. But their activism blatantly ignores the bone-chilling grip of winter on faraway communities.
It is long past time for the western media to boldly report the critical role of fossil fuels in supporting human life during harsh winter conditions. Such fact-based reporting would put to rest the false narrative of a world doomed by warming.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
2022 Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser declares his climate dissent: ‘There is no real climate crisis’ – Warns ‘climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience’
Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily canceled. According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”
Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled. According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”
Dr. Clauser had previously criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming and told President Biden that he disagreed with his climate policies. Dr. Clauser has developed a climate model that adds a new significant dominant process to existing models. The process involves the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds that cover, on average, half of the Earth. Existing models greatly underestimate this cloud feedback, which provides a very powerful, dominant thermostatic control of the Earth’s temperature.
More recently, he addressed the Korea Quantum Conference where he stated, “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis” and expressed his belief that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.” Dr. Clauser, who is recognized as a climate change skeptic, also became a member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition last month, an organization that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial to life on Earth.
Dr. John F. Clauser, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics…received the Nobel Prize, along with two others, for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light. …
According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
First Published JoNova; Physicist Dr John Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has slammed the climate crisis as “pseudoscience”.
NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”
Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
Along with two others, Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist, was the 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light.
He has criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming, according to a coalition of scientists and commentators who argue that an informed discussion about CO2 would recognise its importance in sustaining plant life.
In a statement issued by the CO2 coalition, Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors – CO2 Coalition Dr. Clauser said that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world”
You must be logged in to post a comment.