{"id":450970,"date":"2026-06-18T06:27:57","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T13:27:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=450970"},"modified":"2026-06-18T06:27:59","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T13:27:59","slug":"can-you-see-the-climate-scare-slowly-fading-away","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=450970","title":{"rendered":"Can You See The Climate Scare Slowly Fading Away?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From The Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have often noted that the climate scam and the associated forced energy transition would of necessity go away at some point because the proposals being advocated to \u201csave the planet\u201d could never possibly work. But the open question has always been, when that happens, what will it look like? Would all the big enviro groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club all go on national TV one night and admit that the whole thing was a fake scare from the beginning? In the real world, that\u2019s not how these things happen. People who have staked out absurd positions somehow need to save face. So there would have to be some sort of gradual process of backing down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And thus we come to the key role of the New York Times for the Left, which is to mold and convey the official talking points to the team\u2019s candidates and influencers. How about sharing some instruction on how to quietly back away from the Green New Deal?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today on page A-12 of the print edition there is a piece with the headline \u201cDemocrats Once Vowed to Stop Oil and Gas. Now They\u2019re Not So Sure.\u201d<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>The subheadline is \u201cAs the midterm elections approach, many leading Democrats are rethinking their approach to climate change.\u201d<\/em> The online version indicates that the piece first appeared there five days ago, June 11. They held it for the print edition until today, and then buried it deeply on page A-12. The casual reader may not get that far, but the person who will see it is the party apparatchik who needs direction from central headquarters. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With voters worried about spiking gas prices and inflation, some [Democratic Party] leaders argue that they should stop trying to throttle oil and gas, which heat the planet when burned. It\u2019s a rejection of the approach taken during the Biden administration, which treated climate change as an existential threat and tried to stop new drilling and pipelines. . . . The result could be a less ambitious climate agenda if the party returns to power in Washington. . . . Now many Democrats argue that the path back to power means abandoning some of their most aggressive stances on climate change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The piece is filled with useful pointers in how to tone down the catastrophism. Most of that seems to involve an end to vilifying oil and gas, while continuing to promote wind and solar as the \u201ccheapest\u201d ways to produce electricity. (They still haven\u2019t figured out that by the time you include costs of integrating wind and solar into the grid, those things are a far more expensive way to produce electricity than fossil fuels.). Here are some of the pointers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n