{"id":237671,"date":"2023-01-04T14:09:04","date_gmt":"2023-01-04T13:09:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=237671"},"modified":"2023-01-04T14:09:05","modified_gmt":"2023-01-04T13:09:05","slug":"the-pied-piper-has-no-clothes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=237671","title":{"rendered":"The Pied Piper Has No Clothes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roger Caiazza<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I recently noted<\/a> that the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act<\/a> (Climate Act) Scoping Plan<\/a> framework for the net-zero by 2050 transition plan was approved by the Climate Action Council on December 19, 2022.  In the last article I quoted a portion of Dr. Robert Howarth\u2019s statement<\/a> in which he more or less claimed credit for the Climate Act.   This post uses two children\u2019s tales to illustrate my concerns about his claimed basis for the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate Act Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Climate Act established a \u201cNet Zero\u201d target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council<\/a> is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to \u201cachieve the State\u2019s bold clean energy and climate agenda.\u201d  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible and power the electric gride with zero-emissions generating resources by 2040.  The Integration Analysis<\/a> prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan<\/a> that was released for public comment at the end of 2021 and approved on   December 19, 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Children\u2019s Stories<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I believe that two children\u2019s fables illustrate the false presumptions of the Climate Act.  According to Wikipedia<\/a>, the Pied Piper of Hamelin <\/a>is a Middle Ages tale from the town of Hamelin, Germany.  The pied piper, dressed in multicolored (\u201cpied\u201d) clothing, was a rat catcher hired by the town to lure rats away with his magic pipe. When the citizens refuse to pay for this service as promised, he retaliated by using his instrument\u2019s magical power on their children, leading them away as he had the rats. The phrase \u201cpied piper\u201d has become a metaphor for a person who attracts a following through charisma or false promises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other fable is the Emperor\u2019s New Clothes.  This Danish fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen was first published in 1837.  In this story, swindlers convince the emperor, who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters, that they can provide magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor and his court don\u2019t see any clothes but pretend otherwise to avoid being thought a fool.  When the emperor marches through the city to show off his new clothes the townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled.  The phrase \u201cThe Emperor Has No Clothes\u201d is often used in political and social contexts for any obvious truth denied by the majority despite the evidence of their eyes, especially when proclaimed by the government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pied Pipers of the Climate Act<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statement of Robert W. Howarth<\/a>, Ph.D., the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University was very illuminating relative to the motives of the Climate Act authors.  He reiterated his claim that he played a key role<\/a> in the drafting of the Climate Act, developed the irrational methane<\/a> requirements, and credited one politician for getting the Act passed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Assembly Person Steven Englebright was hugely instrumental in the passage of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act that established the Climate Action Council. I thank him for his leadership on this, and particularly for his support of the progressive approach on greenhouse gas emissions that is a central part of the CLCPA. I originally proposed this to Assembly Person Englebright in 2016, and he enthusiastically endorsed and supported it through multiple versions of the bill that finally led to passage of the CLCPA in 2019. In this accounting for greenhouse gases, a major government for the first time ever fully endorsed the science demonstrating that methane emissions are a major contributor to global climate change and disruption. Further, in passing the CLCPA New York recognized that consumption of fossil fuels (and not simply geographic boundaries) is what matters in addressing the climate crisis. New York wisely banned the use of high-volume hydraulic fracturing (\u201cfracking\u201d) to develop shale gas in our State. But since the time of that ban, the use of fossil natural gas has risen faster in our State than any other in the Union. Methane emissions from this use of shale gas are high, but much of that occurs outside of our boundaries in the nearby states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. Through the CLCPA, the citizens of New York are taking responsibility for these out-of-state emission caused by our use of fossil fuels, particularly for fossil natural gas. The way to reduce these emissions is to rapidly reduce our use of fracked shale gas.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Based on the work of David Zaruk<\/a> I recently wrote an article<\/a> describing his analysis of the motives of people like Englebright and Howarth who insist on reducing their perceived priority risks to zero.  One of Zaruk\u2019s articles<\/a> explained that the use of definite articles is \u201cabused by activists needing definite truths to win policy debates on complex problems.\u201d  Dr. Howarth\u2019s monomaniacal vilification of natural gas is well described by that statement.  During the discussions at the Climate Action Council meetings, he constantly referred to the science and his background as a scientist.  Zaruk writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In declaring: \u201cThis is the science on XYZ<\/em>\u201d an activist is attempting to own the issue and shut down any discussion or analysis. In a policy framework where there may be uncertainty or grey areas, imposing a \u201cthe\u201d provides a wedge between others\u2019 false opinions and \u201cthe\u201d truth.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

With all due respect to Dr. Howarth, it is appropriate to consider why a \u201cProfessor of Ecology & Environmental Biology\u201d is qualified to be an expert on methane emissions from fracking.  In my opinion, scientists getting paid to deliver a specific result from trust fund philanthropic organizations, no matter how noble the perceived motive, is the same as the much vilified \u201ctobacco industry\u201d scientists.  The funding stream ends when the results don\u2019t match the funder\u2019s requirements so their arguments are biased.  They may be right but the arguments must be considered in that context and debated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a member of the Climate Action Council, Howarth was considered a saint and most unquestioningly accepted whatever he said as gospel.  This deference to his concerns is also apparent in the Integration Analysis and Scoping Plan.  However, his views are not universally accepted.  For example, the Climate Act requires New York to account for upstream emissions from fossil fuel used in the state because Howarth has claimed in a 2020 paper<\/a> that \u201cSome evidence indicates that shale-gas development in North America may have contributed one-third of the total global increase in methane emissions from all sources over the past decade (Howarth 2019<\/a>).\u201d  This paper and other similar papers claim that \u201cmethane emissions can contribute significantly to the GHG footprint of natural gas, including shale gas\u201d and form the rationale of the Climate Act vilification of natural gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the Climate Act mandate to provide a \u201cdetailed explanation of any changes in methodology or analysis, adjustments made to prior estimates, as needed, and any other information necessary to establish a scientifically credible account of change\u201d any contradictory information has been ignored.  No comments on the Integration Analysis numbers that formed the basis for the Scoping Plan were mentioned at any of the Climate Action Council meetings.  For example, I noted that there is a high quality, long-term monitoring network that measures methane (Lan et al., 2019<\/a>) over the period when Pennsylvania shale-gas production increased tremendously.  According to the plain language summary for the report:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In the past decade, natural gas production in the United States has increased by ~46%. Methane emissions associated with oil and natural gas productions have raised concerns since methane is a potent greenhouse gas with the second largest in\ufb02uence on global warming. Recent studies show con\ufb02icting results regarding whether methane emissions from oil and gas operations have been increased in the United States. Based on long\u2010term and well\u2010calibrated measurements, we \ufb01nd that (i) there is no large increase of total methane emissions in the United States in the past decade; (ii) there is a modest increase in oil and gas methane emissions, but this increase is much lower than some previous studies suggest; and (iii) the assumption of a time\u2010constant relationship between methane and ethane emissions has resulted in major overestimation of an oil and gas emissions trend in some previous studies.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The fact that the relevant high quality, long-term monitoring network does not show a trend consistent with the work of Howarth is a fatal flaw in his claims.  In addition, those measurements unequivocally support another contradictory analysis by Lewan<\/a> that concludes his ideas, perspectives, and calculations on methane emissions from shale gas are invalid.  The bottom line is that two pied pipers are responsible for the Climate Act\u2019s irrational war on natural gas.   The Climate Act\u2019s elimination of natural gas is based on the false promises of one biased individual supported by one charismatic motivated politician.  These pied pipers are going to lead New York over an energy cliff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Climate Act Has No Clothes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Howarth\u2019s statement went on to claim that the Scoping Plan development process \u201dbrought in a large number of experts and key stakeholders who worked diligently to advise the Council on our Scoping Plan\u201d.  After extolling the success of the stakeholder process and the staff members who contributed, he explained why everything will work out:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I further wish to acknowledge the incredible role that Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford has played in moving the entire world towards a carbon-free future, including New York State. A decade ago, Jacobson, I and others laid out a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013). In that peer-reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro. We further demonstrated that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs. I have seen nothing in the past decade that would dissuade me from pushing for the same path forward. The economic arguments have only grown stronger, the climate crisis more severe. The fundamental arguments remain the same.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I believe that this is the fundamental basis for the Climate Act\u2019s aggressive schedule.  The Jacobson analysis approach unfortunately is pretty much the same as the Integration Analysis modeling approach for the Scoping Plan.  Both modeling efforts project future load requirements, then list a bunch of control strategies, estimate the energy they could produce, and presume everything will work together if we cross our fingers.  Neither includes a feasibility analysis that considers reliability, affordability, or cumulative environmental impacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Howarth appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed science to provide credibility to the Jacobson analysis. However, science is a continuous process where hypotheses are constantly challenged and confirmed.  In this instance Howarth neglects to mention the analyses that discredit the Jacobson work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Jacobson analysis cited was a continuation of previous work.  For example, in a widely publicized November 2009 Scientific American article, Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi, suggested all electrical generation<\/a> and ground transportation internationally could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources as early as 2030. However, other contemporary projections were less optimistic. Two examples<\/a>: the2015 MIT Energy and Climate Outlook<\/a> has low carbon sources worldwide as only 25% of primary energy by 2050, and renewables only 16% and the International Energy Agency\u2019s two-degree scenario<\/a> has renewables, including biomass, as less than 50%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Howarth\u2019s statement cites a specific plan for New York (Jacobson et al. 2013<\/a>) that he and Jacobson laid out a decade ago.\u00a0 He says that \u201cIn that peer- reviewed analysis, we demonstrated that our State could rapidly move away from fossil fuels and instead be fueled completely by the power of the wind, the sun, and hydro.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Table 2 from that report follows.\u00a0 This analysis includes power from exotic resources such as waves, geothermal, tidal turbines, and concentrated solar power but no energy storage.\u00a0 It is significantly different than the projections in the Integration Analysis and the\u00a0New York Independent System Operator (NYISO)\u00a0<\/a>2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook<\/a>\u00a0that exclude all the exotic renewable generating capacity, contain significant amounts of energy storage, and include a new dispatchable, emissions-free resource for a set of resources that they think can provide sufficient electrical power for the future. \u00a0Furthermore, it claims that end-use power demand can be decreased by 37%.\u00a0 \u00a0In my opinion, any analysis that suggests that concentrated solar power is a viable source of energy in New York is simply not credible because that resource would never work in New York.\u00a0 It is too cloudy to operate enough to cover costs and the environmental impacts would be too great.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There was a formal rebuttal paper<\/a> to this analysis. The rebuttal paper argued that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The feasibility analysis performed by Jacobson et al. (2013) is incomplete and scientifically questionable from both the technical and economic perspectives, and it implicitly assumes, without sufficient justification, that social criterion would not produce even larger feasibility barriers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Jacobson et al. responde<\/a>d to that rebuttal claiming  that \u201cThe main limitations are social and political, not technical or economic.\u201d  Given the significant differences between that analysis and the most recent projections by the organization responsible for keeping the lights on, I agree with the conclusion cited above.  I do not believe that the 2013 analysis includes a defensible feasibility analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using Jacobson as the basis for the Climate Act transition gets worse.  Unmentioned by Dr. Howarth is that in a 2015 article<\/a> for a different iteration of the wind, water, and solar roadmap Clack et al, 2017<\/a> discredited the Jacobson approach:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In the scientific process, when issues with your work are noted, the proper response is to provide more evidence supporting your modeling tools, explain why the claimed errors are not errors, and defend your assumptions.  Instead, Jacobson filed a lawsuit<\/a>, demanding $10 million in damages, against the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the authors for their study showing that Jacobson made improper assumptions in order to make his claims that he (and by extension Howarth) had demonstrated U.S. energy could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily wind, water, and solar. In my opinion this is an appalling attack on free speech and scientific inquiry but want to emphasize that the bad actions by Jacobson in no way should be attributed to Howarth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In February 2018, following a hearing at which PNAS<\/em> argued for the case to be dismissed<\/a>, Jacobson dropped the suit<\/a>.  The defendants then filed, based on the anti-SLAPP \u2014 for \u201cStrategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation\u201d \u2014 statute in Washington, DC, for Jacobson to pay their legal fees. In September 2022<\/a>, he was ordered to pay the defendants\u2019 legal fees based on a statute \u201cdesigned to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights<\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my opinion Jacobson\u2019s attempted lawsuit was because his work could not stand on its own.  Therefore, it is unsettling that it is claimed to be the basis of the Climate Act.  Howarth\u2019s statement explicitly lays out his position for the Jacobson analysis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We further demonstrated that it could be done completely with technologies available at that time (a decade ago), that it could be cost effective, that it would be hugely beneficial for public health and energy security, and that it would stimulate a large increase in well-paying jobs<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, Howarth\u2019s technology demonstration is not supportable.  Nonetheless, it forms the basis for the Climate Act schedule and zero-emission electric system by 2040 mandate.  The Climate Action Council has embraced it despite the projections in the Integration Analysis and the NYISO Resource Outlook that reject it.  The Council is denying the majority opinion despite the evidence presented in their own analysis.  The Climate Act has no clothes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pied piper Dr. Robert Howarth stated that \u201cOur final Scoping Plan from the Climate Action implicitly endorses the vision of the Jacobson et al. paper and is quite clear: we can meet the goals of the CLCPA and we can and will do so in way that is affordable and that will benefit all New Yorkers.\u201d  Unfortunately, that vision has no clothes.  The implementing regulations and additional legislation necessary to implement this vision must include independent, unbiased feasibility analyses to determine if the proposed plans can maintain current standards of reliability, will preserve the affordability of energy, and not create environmental impacts to New York State that are greater than the alleged impacts of climate change.  Failure to do so will ensure that the state ends up as badly as the children\u2019s stories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York<\/a>.  More details on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act are available here<\/a> and an inventory of over 250 articles about the Climate Act is also available.   This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the last article I quoted a portion of\u00a0Dr. Robert Howarth\u2019s statement\u00a0in which he more or less claimed credit for the Climate Act.\u00a0 \u00a0This post uses two children\u2019s tales to illustrate my concerns about his claimed basis for the Act.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":237675,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-ZPp","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":411725,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=411725","url_meta":{"origin":237671,"position":0},"title":"NY Politicians Face Climate Act Consequences","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"There has been a new development for New York\u2019s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero plan. On Oct. 24, 2025, the New York Supreme Court issued a decision and order in a case pitting environmental organizations against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQPUqJ2BPYmaGqwSShpVng-Y6DsMzqHe9L0-Uud2RerLLnhuZ0QhmbpJKcCrRXURNvMZWK107l8FRCtqa5eZuki6Nc637dOEVxsxdYbJwwFHDm2fpAvvPPne6QnD0Uw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQPUqJ2BPYmaGqwSShpVng-Y6DsMzqHe9L0-Uud2RerLLnhuZ0QhmbpJKcCrRXURNvMZWK107l8FRCtqa5eZuki6Nc637dOEVxsxdYbJwwFHDm2fpAvvPPne6QnD0Uw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQPUqJ2BPYmaGqwSShpVng-Y6DsMzqHe9L0-Uud2RerLLnhuZ0QhmbpJKcCrRXURNvMZWK107l8FRCtqa5eZuki6Nc637dOEVxsxdYbJwwFHDm2fpAvvPPne6QnD0Uw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQPUqJ2BPYmaGqwSShpVng-Y6DsMzqHe9L0-Uud2RerLLnhuZ0QhmbpJKcCrRXURNvMZWK107l8FRCtqa5eZuki6Nc637dOEVxsxdYbJwwFHDm2fpAvvPPne6QnD0Uw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQPUqJ2BPYmaGqwSShpVng-Y6DsMzqHe9L0-Uud2RerLLnhuZ0QhmbpJKcCrRXURNvMZWK107l8FRCtqa5eZuki6Nc637dOEVxsxdYbJwwFHDm2fpAvvPPne6QnD0Uw-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C597&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293163,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=293163","url_meta":{"origin":237671,"position":1},"title":"New Year\u2019s Resolution \u2013 Methane Response","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/30\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"As part of New York\u2019s\u00a0Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act\u00a0(Climate Act) methane is irrationally disparaged as part of the war on natural gas. \u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act\u00a0(Climate Act)\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act\u00a0(Climate Act)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-leadership-and-community-protection-act-climate-act"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00new-york-1745089.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00new-york-1745089.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00new-york-1745089.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00new-york-1745089.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/00new-york-1745089.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255746,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=255746","url_meta":{"origin":237671,"position":2},"title":"The Conversation: \u201cIs acting on climate change as important as love and bedtime stories?\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/03\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Unless we challenge this outrageous narrative, it is only a matter of time until some deep green politician advances a plan to \u201crescue\u201d children from those unfit climate denier parents, by placing \u201cpredatory deniers\u201d into the same legal category as pedophiles.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0AdobeStock_123574115.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":425446,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425446","url_meta":{"origin":237671,"position":3},"title":"My report: Severe climate act impacts threaten New York State","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/10\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"The Net Zero Reality Coalition has published my research report on the looming devastation from New York\u2019s Climate Act.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u2018cap and invest\u2019\"","block_context":{"text":"\u2018cap and invest\u2019","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cap-and-invest-3"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Wojick-climate-report-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C756&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Wojick-climate-report-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C756&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Wojick-climate-report-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C756&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Wojick-climate-report-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C756&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0Wojick-climate-report-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C756&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":407770,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=407770","url_meta":{"origin":237671,"position":4},"title":"Climate Lawfare Circus\u00a0Update","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/12\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In 2025, climate activists experienced several major litigation defeats in the United States, especially in their attempts to challenge President Trump\u2019s climate and energy policies at the federal level and to anchor climate protection as a constitutional right.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate activists\"","block_context":{"text":"climate activists","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-activists"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOr5-QZ2RnwGNlbJ-NXSZvWsOa_i1XEtmIyPqKTyjtQgVdoVVCoz0kQw1xaUPdf7iHHyT2m4t4Egvk9ukunDK96HP0XX4Xhq6UITnP3FiqQL7iTMWphRnBmJS9AOLiS-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C661&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOr5-QZ2RnwGNlbJ-NXSZvWsOa_i1XEtmIyPqKTyjtQgVdoVVCoz0kQw1xaUPdf7iHHyT2m4t4Egvk9ukunDK96HP0XX4Xhq6UITnP3FiqQL7iTMWphRnBmJS9AOLiS-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C661&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOr5-QZ2RnwGNlbJ-NXSZvWsOa_i1XEtmIyPqKTyjtQgVdoVVCoz0kQw1xaUPdf7iHHyT2m4t4Egvk9ukunDK96HP0XX4Xhq6UITnP3FiqQL7iTMWphRnBmJS9AOLiS-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C661&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOr5-QZ2RnwGNlbJ-NXSZvWsOa_i1XEtmIyPqKTyjtQgVdoVVCoz0kQw1xaUPdf7iHHyT2m4t4Egvk9ukunDK96HP0XX4Xhq6UITnP3FiqQL7iTMWphRnBmJS9AOLiS-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C661&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQOr5-QZ2RnwGNlbJ-NXSZvWsOa_i1XEtmIyPqKTyjtQgVdoVVCoz0kQw1xaUPdf7iHHyT2m4t4Egvk9ukunDK96HP0XX4Xhq6UITnP3FiqQL7iTMWphRnBmJS9AOLiS-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C661&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245803,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=245803","url_meta":{"origin":237671,"position":5},"title":"Climate Uncertainty & Risk: the presentation","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/27\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"But the researchers don\u2019t appear to have considered this option.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-867.png?fit=1080%2C1080&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-867.png?fit=1080%2C1080&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-867.png?fit=1080%2C1080&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-867.png?fit=1080%2C1080&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/image-867.png?fit=1080%2C1080&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/image-109.png?fit=1051%2C828&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=237671"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237671\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":237677,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237671\/revisions\/237677"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/237675"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=237671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=237671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=237671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}