{"id":425289,"date":"2026-02-09T08:36:52","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T07:36:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425289"},"modified":"2026-02-09T08:37:20","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T07:37:20","slug":"this-book-by-a-dissenting-climate-scientist-is-the-perfect-red-pill-for-the-curious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=425289","title":{"rendered":"This Book by a Dissenting Climate Scientist is the Perfect Red Pill for the Curious"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"Cover<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

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

From Tilak\u00b4s Substack<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Tilak Doshi<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Crisis or Hoax? Climate Change in Science, Media and Politics<\/a><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0by Jules de Waart (Bookbaby, 372 pages)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a recent article entitled \u2018The Devil\u2019s Algorithm: Unplugging from the Climate Matrix\u2019, I wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The world is trapped in a digital Matrix, not unlike the one depicted in the\u00a0iconic 1999 film<\/a>\u00a0(The Matrix<\/em>) where Morpheus offers Neo a choice: take the blue pill and remain in a comforting illusion or the red pill and confront the unsettling truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The blue pill, in our case, is the dominant narrative on climate change, peddled relentlessly by mainstream media, tech giants like Google, social media sites like YouTube and artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This narrative \u2014 man-made global warming, caused by fossil fuel use, is an imminent existential threat \u2014 has achieved near-total dominance, suffocating dissent and sidelining credible scientists who dare question it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

One such credible scientist is Dr Jules de Waart. Born in Amsterdam, he studied physical geography with climatology as a minor at university. In 1971, he obtained his doctorate with a thesis on the landscape development of southern France over the last 60 million years. In the 70s, he worked as an exploration geologist in Uganda and Congo for several years, then returned to the Netherlands and became a civil servant at the Ministry of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene. He was politically active, a member of the Labour Party and served as spokesman for the environment and for development cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He published Crisis or Hoax? Climate Change in Science, Media and Politics<\/em> and, except for a short entry by Marcel Crok<\/a> in the contrarian website Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/em>, one looks for reviews of his book in the mainstream papers in vain. Quite unlike the book How To Avoid Climate Disaster<\/em> by Bill Gates, who never earned a degree in the social or physical sciences and made his fortune developing software. Adulatory reviews of the Gates book abound in the media (here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>), despite the obvious shortcomings of the amateurish attempt<\/a> by one of the world\u2019s richest men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crisis or Hoax?<\/em> arrives not as another pamphlet in the overcrowded literature of climate polemics, but as a long, reflective and unusually self-aware intervention by a scientist-politician. It is a book written less to persuade than to understand \u2014 and therein lies its \u2018red pill\u2019 strength. In an era where climate discourse has hardened into moral catechism, de Waart insists on returning to first principles: what science can say, what it cannot, how uncertainty is managed \u2014 or abused \u2014 and how politics and media have come to dominate \u2018settled science\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

De Waart is engaged in the essential task of disentangling empirical climate science from the ideological superstructure erected atop it. His method differs from Steven Koonin\u2019s book\u00a0Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn\u2019t and Why It Matters<\/a><\/em>. Where Koonin writes as a physicist correcting public misrepresentation of data, de Waart writes as a reflective chronicler of a long institutional drift \u2014 away from falsification, scepticism and open debate, towards consensus-by-acclamation and fear-driven policy. While both are scientists, Koonin\u2019s role was as a professional science advisor as under- secretary for science under the Obama administration, whereas de Waart became a politician himself.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A book about climate \u2014 and about science itself<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crisis or Hoax?<\/em> is expansive, almost encyclopaedic. It is divided into three broad parts: the first situates the modern warming period within geological and historical context; the second surveys the scientific foundations of climatology and related disciplines; and the third turns to climate policy in what de Waart calls the \u201cModern Warm Period\u201d. This architecture mirrors the author\u2019s core contention: that climate change cannot be understood in isolation from deep time, from the philosophy of science or from the political institutions that mediate knowledge into policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What distinguishes the book is not merely its scepticism toward the IPCC\u2019s claims, but its sustained inquiry into why<\/em> dissent has become taboo. De Waart is explicit that scepticism does not mean denial. He accepts recent warming. He disputes its attribution, magnitude and projected harms. Above all, he rejects the extraordinary policy certainties claimed on the back of probabilistic models and contested assumptions. In this sense, the book stands squarely in the tradition of Koonin\u2019s Unsettled<\/em>, which similarly documented how assessment reports, media headlines and political rhetoric progressively distort the underlying science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But de Waart goes further back than Koonin, both intellectually and historically. He draws on the Royal Society\u2019s founding motto Nullius in verba<\/em> \u2014 take nobody\u2019s word for it \u2013 to frame his argument: science advances not by authority or consensus, but by doubt, replication and falsification. The climate debate, he argues, has inverted this ethic. Consensus is treated not as a provisional sociological outcome, but as proof itself. Doubt is re-described as disinformation. Scepticism becomes heresy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alarmists, sceptics and the missing middle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the book\u2019s most valuable contributions is its refusal to caricature. De Waart describes both \u201calarmists\u201d and \u201csceptics\u201d as genuine scientists, often separated less by data than by priors, incentives and institutional pressures. His de-bunking of the so-called \u201897% consensus<\/a>\u2018is measured but devastating. He dissects its methodological origins, its rhetorical uses and its near-total irrelevance to the actual scientific questions at stake \u2014 how much warming, driven by what causes, at what cost and with what human consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here the book resonates strongly with my earlier review of Koonin\u2019s work, where the central indictment is not climate science\u00a0per se<\/em>\u00a0but its politicised communication. Koonin showed how the IPCC\u2019s own reports \u2014 when read carefully \u2014 undercut the apocalyptic headlines they inspire primarily through the IPCC\u2019s politically-approved \u2018Summary for Policy Makers<\/a>\u2018(SPM) as amplified by the mainstream media\u2019s alarmist soundbites. De Waart reinforces this point repeatedly, noting the IPCC\u2019s Working Group reports that use careful language of likelihoods and confidence intervals. This is contrasted with the absolutist pronouncements of the SPR, politicians, UN officials and their stenographers in the mainstream media. The result is a widening credibility gap that erodes public trust not only in climate science but in science itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tragedy, as de Waart sees it, is the disappearance of the middle ground: those uncomfortable with alarmism yet remaining to be convinced by radical scepticism. It is for this audience that the book is written. His tone is calm, occasionally weary, never shrill. He does not promise revelation or salvation. He promises context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Models, media and the manufacture of fear<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recurring theme is the over-reliance on climate models \u2014 tools that are indispensable for hypothesis-testing, yet dangerously misused when converted into policy oracles. De Waart echoes a critique familiar from the sceptical literature: models \u2018tuned\u2019 arbitrarily to reproduce past temperature trends do not thereby acquire predictive authority over complex, multi-decadal systems. Their uncertainties compound, their outputs diverge wildly, and yet policy is increasingly framed as if these projections were engineering tolerances rather than speculative scenarios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The media\u2019s role in amplifying worst-case storylines receives sustained scrutiny. Extreme weather attribution as a basis for climate litigation<\/a>, image-driven shock narratives and the uncritical repetition of activist claims all serve to short-circuit rational debate. The result, de Waart argues, is not informed consent but climate anxiety \u2014 particularly among the young \u2014 used to legitimise policies whose economic and social costs are rarely examined with rigour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This analysis complements and in some ways deepens the criticism I levelled at Bill Gates\u2019s How to Avoid a Climate Disaster<\/em>. Gates, for all his technocratic optimism, largely sidestepped empirical evidence from real-world energy transitions \u2014 Germany, California, the UK \u2014 where costs, instability and deindustrialisation have been anything but trivial. De Waart is candid: climate policy, as currently designed, risks becoming more disruptive than the climatic changes it seeks to avert.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science, politics and the \u2018double ethical bind\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most striking section of the book is de Waart\u2019s discussion of Stephen Schneider\u2019s infamous \u2018double ethical <\/a>bind\u2018 otherwise known as the \u2018noble lie<\/a>\u2018- the claim that scientists may need to exaggerate risks to mobilise public action. De Waart treats this not as a marginal curiosity but as a moral faultline. Once persuasion supplThis article was first published in the Daily Sceptic https:\/\/dailysceptic.org\/2026\/02\/05\/this-book-by-a-dissenting-climate-scientist-is-the-perfect-red-pill-for-the-curious\/<\/a><\/em>ants truth-seeking, science forfeits its authority. Fear may win short-term compliance, but it corrodes the foundations upon which democratic legitimacy rests. The need for an objective weighing of costs and benefits for public policy formulation by politicians is thus dangerously obviated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This argument aligns closely with Alex Epstein\u2019s critique<\/a> of what he calls the \u201canti-human\u201d narrative of environmentalism. Epstein\u2019s moral framework puts the focus on human flourishing, energy abundance and resilience. De Waart is less overtly philosophical, but the convergence is unmistakable: policies that impoverish societies in the name of speculative future harms violate both empirical prudence and moral proportionality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strengths \u2014 and limits<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crisis or Hoax?<\/em> is not a book for the impatient. It repeats itself at times, it ranges widely and it assumes a reader willing to follow long chains of argument. Those seeking a polemical knockout blow will not find it here. What they will find is something rarer: an honest attempt to restore intellectual hygiene to a debate poisoned by moral grandstanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there is a weakness, it lies perhaps in the book\u2019s very moderation. De Waart documents censorship, career risks and institutional bias, but stops short of a full political economy of climate science \u2014 the funding incentives, regulatory capture and rent-seeking dynamics that increasingly shape research agendas. Others such as Tim Ball<\/a> have ventured further down that path. Yet de Waart\u2019s restraint is also his credibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Good Red Piller<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To \u2018red pill\u2019 someone is to set him or her free from the manufactured climate consensus, to be open to contrarian views and, in the process, to restore science to its proper place as a field of sceptical inquiry, not ideology. Jules de Waart has written a serious, humane and necessary \u2018red- pilling\u2019 book. It belongs alongside Koonin\u2019s\u00a0Unsettled<\/em>\u00a0and Epstein\u2019s\u00a0Fossil Future<\/em>\u00a0as part of a growing counter-literature that does not deny the climate changes but refuses to surrender science to ideology. In reminding us that uncertainty is not a bug but a feature of genuine inquiry,\u00a0Crisis or Hoax?<\/em>\u00a0performs a service not only to the climate debate, but to the Enlightenment tradition itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a time when dissent is pathologised and consensus fetishised, de Waart\u2019s quiet insistence on thinking \u2014 slowly, critically, independently \u2014 may prove to be the most radical gesture of all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article was first published in the Daily Sceptic https:\/\/dailysceptic.org\/2026\/02\/05\/this-book-by-a-dissenting-climate-scientist-is-the-perfect-red-pill-for-the-curious\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The world is trapped in a digital Matrix, not unlike the one depicted in the iconic 1999 film (The Matrix) where Morpheus offers Neo a choice: take the blue pill and remain in a comforting illusion or the red pill and confront the unsettling truth. The blue pill, in our case, is the dominant narrative on climate change, peddled relentlessly by mainstream media, tech giants like Google, social media sites like YouTube and artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT. This narrative \u2014 man-made global warming, caused by fossil fuel use, is an imminent existential threat \u2014 has achieved near-total dominance, suffocating dissent and sidelining credible scientists who dare question it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":425296,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"Explore 'Crisis or Hoax?' by Jules de Waart, a reflective dive into climate science, dissent, and the role of media and politics.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Crisis or Hoax? Understanding Climate Change and Science","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI2XC8wMlwvMDA3MWcxUHNmNlFaTC5fU0wxNTAwXy02ODN4MTAyNC5qcGciLCJ0eHQiOiJUaGlzIEJvb2sgYnkgYSBEaXNzZW50aW5nIENsaW1hdGUgU2NpZW50aXN0IGlzIHRoZSBQZXJmZWN0IFJlZCBQaWxsIGZvciB0aGUgQ3VyaW91cyIsInRlbXBsYXRlIjoiaGlnaHdheSIsImZvbnQiOiIiLCJibG9nX2lkIjoxNTU4MTI0NDl9.ccDBdwVw_wBjdNAnXUUVtSLd9WUcglx6iGWGeBoaYTUMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691822359,691841280,691818153,691841276,691841275,691818514,691841277,691841279],"class_list":{"0":"post-425289","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-97-consensus","9":"tag-anti-human-narrative","10":"tag-climate-models","11":"tag-crisis-or-hoax","12":"tag-dr-jules-de-waart","13":"tag-extreme-weather","14":"tag-modern-warm-period","15":"tag-science-is-not-settled","17":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/0071g1Psf6QZL._SL1500_.jpg?fit=1000%2C1500&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1MDv","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":406588,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=406588","url_meta":{"origin":425289,"position":0},"title":"The Devil\u2019s Algorithm: Unplugging from the Climate Matrix","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/10\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The world is trapped in a digital Matrix, not unlike the one depicted in the iconic 1999 film (The Matrix) where Morpheus offers Neo a choice: take the blue pill and remain in a comforting illusion or the red pill and confront the unsettling truth. The blue pill, in our\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Big Tech\"","block_context":{"text":"Big Tech","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=big-tech"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQMnagNEVDqHY_Rt1xaGZjcxOuyzdT4XmAE2RsXmOH8P7XN1aSRS69epyK6xmnq2VlKZ5-2UQRqN7pl_ZSxg_mH95j0WydnStrVOdqQ2aV5plEvPTTns71vbbFMVGf8R-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQMnagNEVDqHY_Rt1xaGZjcxOuyzdT4XmAE2RsXmOH8P7XN1aSRS69epyK6xmnq2VlKZ5-2UQRqN7pl_ZSxg_mH95j0WydnStrVOdqQ2aV5plEvPTTns71vbbFMVGf8R-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQMnagNEVDqHY_Rt1xaGZjcxOuyzdT4XmAE2RsXmOH8P7XN1aSRS69epyK6xmnq2VlKZ5-2UQRqN7pl_ZSxg_mH95j0WydnStrVOdqQ2aV5plEvPTTns71vbbFMVGf8R-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQMnagNEVDqHY_Rt1xaGZjcxOuyzdT4XmAE2RsXmOH8P7XN1aSRS69epyK6xmnq2VlKZ5-2UQRqN7pl_ZSxg_mH95j0WydnStrVOdqQ2aV5plEvPTTns71vbbFMVGf8R-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/0AQMnagNEVDqHY_Rt1xaGZjcxOuyzdT4XmAE2RsXmOH8P7XN1aSRS69epyK6xmnq2VlKZ5-2UQRqN7pl_ZSxg_mH95j0WydnStrVOdqQ2aV5plEvPTTns71vbbFMVGf8R-1.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214985,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=214985","url_meta":{"origin":425289,"position":1},"title":"About Red and Blue Pills","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/08\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The terms \u201cred pill\u201d and \u201cblue pill\u201d refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-952.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-952.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-952.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-952.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image-952.png?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324431,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=324431","url_meta":{"origin":425289,"position":2},"title":"Legal Absurdities in Climate Policy: A Critical Review of Tilak Doshi\u2019s Analysis","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/04\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In his recent Forbes article,\u00a0Tilak Doshi criticizes a landmark ruling by Europe\u2019s highest human rights court, which mandates countries to protect their citizens from the consequences of climate change.","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\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0njmptva.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":337700,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=337700","url_meta":{"origin":425289,"position":3},"title":"I Wrote an Article for Forbes Defending J.D. Vance From Accusations of \u2018Climate Denialism\u2019. Forty Eight Hours Later, Forbes Un-Published the Article and Sacked Me as a Contributor","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/07\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Within a day of ex-President Trump\u2019s announcement of \u201cclimate denier\u201d Mr. J. D. Vance as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, the climate industrial complex and supportive mainstream media had the knives out.","rel":"","context":"In \"cancel culture\"","block_context":{"text":"cancel culture","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cancel-culture"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0TS_EP08_PREM.01_28_54_14.Still016.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0TS_EP08_PREM.01_28_54_14.Still016.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0TS_EP08_PREM.01_28_54_14.Still016.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0TS_EP08_PREM.01_28_54_14.Still016.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0TS_EP08_PREM.01_28_54_14.Still016.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":317521,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=317521","url_meta":{"origin":425289,"position":4},"title":"\u201cI Am Going To Lecture You On Climate Change:\u201d BBC Reporter Gets Schooled for Hypocrisy","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/04\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On March 28, President Mohamed Irfaan Ali of the South American country of Guyana became an instant hero to many as he refused to take lectures on climate change from a BBC reporter during an interview.","rel":"","context":"In \"BBC\"","block_context":{"text":"BBC","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bbc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0I-Am-Going-To-Lecture-You-On-Climate-Change-BBC.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0I-Am-Going-To-Lecture-You-On-Climate-Change-BBC.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0I-Am-Going-To-Lecture-You-On-Climate-Change-BBC.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0I-Am-Going-To-Lecture-You-On-Climate-Change-BBC.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0I-Am-Going-To-Lecture-You-On-Climate-Change-BBC.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":193630,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=193630","url_meta":{"origin":425289,"position":5},"title":"Covid Pandemic and Climate Change Facts: Fact Checking the Fact Checkers","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"28\/03\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Originally posted at Forbes Tilak Doshi\u00a0ContributorEnergyI analyze energy economics and related public policy issues. Fact checking is a growth industry. According to the\u00a0latest annual fact-checking census\u00a0compiled in October 2019 by Duke Reporters\u2019 Lab, there are at least 210 fact-checking platforms currently working in 68 countries. This nearly quintuples the number\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/0200902-fact-checkers-feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/0200902-fact-checkers-feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/0200902-fact-checkers-feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/0200902-fact-checkers-feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/0200902-fact-checkers-feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425289","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=425289"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425289\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":425299,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425289\/revisions\/425299"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/425296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=425289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=425289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=425289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}