CLIMATE DATA REFUTES CRISIS NARRATIVE: ‘If you concede the science, & only challenge the policies…You’re going to lose’

From Climate Depot

Edward Ring: “If you concede the science, and only challenge the policies that a biased and politicized scientific narrative is being used to justify, you’re already playing defense in your own red zone. You’re going to lose the game. Who cares if we have to enslave humanity? Our alternative is certain death from global boiling! You can’t win that argument. You must challenge the science…”

By Marc Morano


On September 16, with great fanfare, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced his office had filed a lawsuit against five major oil companies. Accusing them of knowingly misleading the public regarding the alleged harm that fossil fuels would inflict on the climate, Bonta’s office seeks billions in compensatory damages. But the climate change theory that Bonta’s case relies on must ultimately be validated by observational data. And the data does not support the theory.

Suing oil companies is becoming big business. Along with California, state and local government climate change lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry have been filed in Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Hawaii. Alleging these companies have directly caused global warming and extreme weather, they seek damages for consumer fraud, public nuisance, negligence, racketeering, erosion, flooding and fires.

These cases will take years to resolve, and even in victory, will cost oil companies hundreds of millions (or more) in legal fees, costs that will be passed on to consumers. The plaintiffs were handed a huge advantage in 2007 in the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency case, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, gave the EPA authority to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant. In 2009, the EPA did just that, paving the way for litigation.

It’s no certainty the oil industry will aggressively fight these lawsuits. If a broad settlement can be reached, that is probably their preference. Not only will a settlement avoid bad publicity, there is scant economic motive for oil companies to challenge the alleged consensus on climate change. As regulations, restrictions, and litigation disrupts oil and gas development, demand outpaces supply and prices go up much faster than production costs. A rational choice by oil and gas executives would be to collect market-driven record revenues and split the windfall profits with the government. That is a lot less messy.

That’s also a shame. By sidestepping the question of whether CO2 is indeed a dangerous pollutant, and instead leaving that decision up to a politicized EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA case issued a deeply flawed ruling. Without CO2, life on earth as we know it would not exist. CO2 is plant food, and without it, plants die. There is evidence that more atmospheric CO2 would have a primarily beneficial impact on planetary ecosystem health. If oil and gas companies defended themselves on this basis, they might take a case all the way to the Supreme Court and force a reversal of Massachusetts v. EPA.

An aggressive defense against Bonta’s lawsuit by Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips,, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute would attack the core premise of the plaintiffs, the alleged evidence of global warming and extreme weather. Because what is being presented as “evidence” supporting a climate “crisis” is consistently misleading and often outright fraudulent.

Earlier this month in Orange County, California, at an event attended by water industry executives, a debate between two climate experts offered a revealing look into the tactics and the mentality of the climate alarmists, as well as the beleaguered integrity of climatologists still willing to challenge the narrative.

In a session with the unsubtle name “Is it fair to blame climate change for everything?,” two very divergent points of view were on display. To represent the alarmist perspective, a professor from a world-famous university – who shall remain anonymous – presented a series of maps of the U.S., with a specific focus on the Southwest and on California. The maps depicted “before climate change” and “after climate change” scenarios, using the now familiar technique of benign blue and green overlays in areas with normal cool temperatures, and scary orange and red overlays in areas suffering alarming heat. Predictably enough, without delving into the details, the “after climate change” maps were a sea of red and orange.

The only thing about this presentation that was certain was the certainty of the presenter. We are in a climate crisis, human activity has caused this crisis, and “the evidence is overwhelming.” We only later learned that the maps being displayed weren’t based on actual temperature observations, but had been produced by a computer simulation.

After this first presenter finished, Dr. John R. Christy stepped up to offer a different conclusion. With a Ph.D in Atmospheric Science and currently serving as the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama, Christy is eminently qualified to share his views on our climate future. As a native of California, Christy assured the audience that he has been giving that state special attention his entire life. He then presented a series of slides that unequivocally contradict what we hear every day. California, to say nothing of the rest of the world, is not experiencing rapid warming, nor is it experiencing unusually violent weather.

Christy’s message might be summarized as follows: There may be some warming occurring over the past century in California, but it is not extreme, nor is it accompanied by unusually severe anything: droughts, extreme wildfires, heavy rainfall, diminished snowpacks, reduced river volumes, or drier air. Readers are encouraged to scroll through Christy’s charts, which are reposted (with permission) following this text.

The data that Dr. Christy used in his presentation did not come from hypothetical climate models, but were compiled from actual climate and weather observations gathered by weather stations and satellites and extracted from databases maintained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and other internationally recognized official sources.

If you haven’t heard of John R. Christy despite him being one of the preeminent climate scientists in the world, that’s no accident. Along with Dr. Richard LindzenDr. Judith Curry, and hundreds of others, his work is marginalized and his press and online coverage is either nonexistent or negative. Back in 2019, back when President Trump’s regulatory reforms had the climate industrial complex fearing for its life, Dr. Curry published an expose of what she dubbed “consensus enforcement.” In it, she described how the world’s most prestigious climate journals were yielding to pressure – mostly supported by their own editorial management – to refuse to publish anything by climate “contrarians.”

As we know, suppression of unwanted facts and analysis regardless of credibility or intent is not restricted to climate contrarians. In March 2023, Michael Shellenberger – once honored in 2008 as a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” testified before the U.S. Congress on what many have joined him in calling the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” a coalition of corporate special interests, government agencies, and major online platforms that smothers honest dialog on topics of urgent national importance.

Attempting to compile information on climate that doesn’t support a crisis narrative is demonstrably challenging, as anyone attempting to use a mainstream search engine will quickly attest. For every analysis or declaration that may exist, claiming there is not a climate crisis, search engines will offer a page full of reports debunking the analysis and discrediting the source. Often it is almost impossible to even find a link to the analysis or the declaration itself. The World Climate Declaration, a petition signed (so far) by more than 1,800 experts who assert there is no climate emergency, is an example of a suppressed and unfairly stigmatized document. But with or without great numbers, the presence of scientists like Christy, Lindzen, Curry, and many others with extraordinary credentials who make this claim should put to rest the notion that the science is settled. Science is not a democracy. It is a search for truth through trial and error.

One of the saddest examples of suppression is the reluctance of conservative editors to challenge the scientific arguments used to support the climate crisis narrative. An article I recently wrote for American Spectator, “California AG Sues Big Oil for Telling the Truth About Fossil Fuels,” was refused by two conservative publications that have frequently accepted my work. Both of them have significant reach and credibility among mainstream conservatives. Rather than identify them, which is not necessary to make the point, here are verbatim excerpts from the rejection emails I received from each editor:

“We’ll pass on this, but thanks for showing it in. On the question of climate change, there’s no editorial line, but I tend to be uneasy about publishing anything directly on the science (mainly because I am not a scientist). Much more interesting to me is how climate policy is being abused (SEC, Fed) and how much of it makes no sense even by its own lights.”


“Ed—we generally avoid getting too deeply into climate science, as it is very hard for me to judge. That is different than the economic trade-offs, absurd mandates, the unavoidability of fossil fuel energy to meet the needs of a growing, ever-more technology-driven society, etc. So I think we should pass on this one, as it does contain some strong climate claims…”

Got that? “Because I’m not a scientist,” and “it is very hard for me to judge.”

But that does not stop any of the crisis mongers. Is Rob Bonta a scientist? Gavin Newsom? Joe Biden? Al Gore? Greta Thunberg? How many of the in-house editors at the Los Angeles Times are scientists, much less climate scientists? But none of these people have any reluctance to hector us with their opinions, often not even derived from those climate scientists who are part of the “consensus,” but lifted from other pundits who got their material directly from press releases that featured cherry picked “impactful” nuggets taken from abstracts and summaries which in turn were exaggerations and misrepresentations of studies that even in their totality were paid for, inherently biased exercises.

If being a scientist is not a requirement for being a climate alarmist, it should not be a requirement for anyone skeptical of climate alarmism. Our capacity as intelligent non-scientists to assess competing scientific analysis may be limited, but no more so than the Bontas, Newsoms, Bidens, Gores, and Thunbergs of the world. And it isn’t hard to see an agenda at work, when every time the climate so much as hiccoughs, every mainstream news source in the world is regurgitating precisely the same terrifying soundbites and images, and repeating the same phrases and admonitions over and over and over again. Confronting such obvious and coordinated propaganda should raise skepticism in anyone with common sense and a sense of history.

If you concede the science, and only challenge the policies that a biased and politicized scientific narrative is being used to justify, you’re already playing defense in your own red zone. You’re going to lose the game. Who cares if we have to enslave humanity? Our alternative is certain death from global boiling! You can’t win that argument. You must challenge the science, and you can, because scientists like John Christy and others are still available.

The following charts were presented by Dr. Christy on October 13 at a conference in Southern California:

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

*   *   *

This article originally appeared in American Greatness.

Edward Ring: “If you concede the science, and only challenge the policies that a biased and politicized scientific narrative is being used to justify, you’re already playing defense in your own red zone. You’re going to lose the game. Who cares if we have to enslave humanity? Our alternative is certain death from global boiling! You can’t win that argument. You must challenge the science…”

4.9 24 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 13, 2023 6:11 am

It’s not the job of the courts to rule on matters of science. That’s for scientiists but, oh dear, look where that got us!

Reply to  atticman
November 13, 2023 7:24 am

Courts do rule on technological and scientific matters very often. As the author of this piece notes, it’s big business.

Joseph Zorzin
November 13, 2023 6:36 am

“The plaintiffs were handed a huge advantage in 2007 in the Massachusetts Wokeachusetts, v. Environmental Protection Agency case…”

Fixed it. 🙂

I wonder if there is any way I can formally petition to have the name of the state changed. I suspect current state leaders will like the new name. 🙂

William Howard
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 13, 2023 7:39 am

that opinion should not stand given the other SC opinions regarding major legislation that conclude that it is not the job of regulators but Congress – and certainly declaring CO2 to be a pollutant is a major issue that should not be decided by anti-capitalists regulators

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 13, 2023 9:33 am

….and the lights all went out in Massachussets

At least make that the state anthem?

Steve Case
November 13, 2023 6:54 am

If climate science is correct about something, then they are correct. Mealy mouth confessions or admission aren’t necessary, and should be avoided. The flip side is don’t lose credibility by making false claims your self. When climate science is wrong, never let up on pointing it out. Repetition isn’t a bad thing, commercial advertisers know this, and so should you. The problem is getting a platform to carry that policy out.

Reply to  Steve Case
November 14, 2023 6:01 am

They already have the schools top to bottom and have for years. That is one platform that never should have been conceded, on purpose of otherwise.

Reply to  starzmom
November 14, 2023 6:47 am

or otherwise

Joseph Zorzin
November 13, 2023 6:58 am

“Our capacity as intelligent non-scientists to assess competing scientific analysis may be limited, but no more so than the Bontas, Newsoms, Bidens, Gores, and Thunbergs of the world.”

Though non-scientists are somewhat limited to judge the science (most non scientists have taken some science in their education) – they are not limited in any way to judge or at least evaluate the politics of the so called climate “emergency”.

This struggle is in no way mostly about “the science”. It’s about money and resources of all sorts. It’s about some groups benefiting at the expense of other groups- or what Karl Marx called “class war”. Of course Marx’s call for violent revolution was nuts- but he was a sociologist and his study of class war is not without merit. (dodging for cover daring to mention his name here).

Because it’s a class war- the current winners of this war refuse to allow open discussion of the science- the same as any religious organization will refuse to discuss it’s preferred revelations and scriptures. Verboten! Challenge the science and be canceled- the modern version of burning at the stake.

So when Edward Ring says “You must challenge the science”– he’s spot on.

Here in Wokeachusetts, we now see the greens complaining about solar “farms” destroying fields and forests- but not because “the science” is wrong- but because they prefer to lock up all the forests to do nothing but sequester carbon to “save the planet”. They’ve got the right idea to save the forests but for the wrong reason. There is ZERO resistance to “the science” here. Well, yes, I do see some people commenting on some media web sites against the climate emergency- mostly just “regular folks”- certainly never any government, industry or academic leaders. Much too cowardly. I find that kind of cowardice disgusting. It’s one thing to be fearful in a war zone- but it’s not OK when it’s essentially a political struggle. It’s time to “man up”.

Mr Ed
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 13, 2023 7:36 am

If you want to see some mismanaged forests come out west to Montana and I’ll give you the cooks tour. The greens run the whole show, and bank some serious cash in the process. A couple of local
appointed federal judges rubber stamp their lawfare without hesitation. Back in the 80’s these radical greens were considered “domestic terrorists” but after Ruby Ridge and Waco which led to the OK City bombing everything changed. The Earth First!! ers became board members of
outfits like Alliance for the Wild Rockies and here we are. My sister clerked for a federal judge in that era and I had a front row seat to the entire scene. We had holiday dinners with federal and,
supreme court judges along with federal marshals around the table. We used to have some serious
players hunting/fishing on the family ranch. These greens are the same bunch that are part of the
climate change hoax racket. I can name names…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mr Ed
November 13, 2023 9:24 am

Mr Ed, on private or government land? I know that the USFS cutting allowance is way down from decades ago. It’s a shame to not produce valuable wood from forests- private and government.

Mr Ed
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 13, 2023 10:37 am

A bit of both. Some of the larger private timber company’s restructured as REITS
then stripped off the timber and sold the land or put it into a conservation holdings.
They did that after decades of receiving very favorable tax treatment from the legislature.

We have very little left in timber infrastructure eg. sawmills/loggers.
The mills have been forced to travel out of state to find timber. A local mill
has reportedly over a dozen trucks without drivers. Seems no one wants
to work anymore.

On the NF side there seems to be mostly women in the ranger positions and controlled burns seems to be their choice management practice. The women are products of the University system and they have no actual timber work background…eg woke rangers. Same as the climate science types.
Even the burns are being stopped by the radical tree huggers and the federal judges. Big money in lawfare, said to be in the $Billions. Mike Garrity the head
of a Alliance for the Wild Rockies lives in a high end house in Helena as do
the other board members. In the doctor/lawyer neighborhoods.

Some of the private timber tracts are looking good but
much of the NF is a huge mess. The beetle kill was widespread and is now
“jackstrawed” and the regen is now 15-20 ft high. That was the pine and now
there is a new bug hitting the fir, some areas are dead as far as you can see in
all directions. When it burn it becomes a ” stand clearing fire” and there won’t
be any trees for hundreds of years as the soil is destroyed by the fuel load on
the ground. I can show you many examples from hundreds of years ago.

The few guys that I know that
are still logging are tired of dealing with all the dead stuff and the enviros.
One unit near me was valued over $1million when they won the bid but the greens lawfare tied it up for several years and was worth less than $50k when they finally got to clean it up.

. Years ago each NF Unit was self financed via timber sales,
grazing fees and mineral royalty’s . Now it’s all run out an Ivory Tower
back in Washington DC.
It used to be no money traded hands on a FS timber sale till the logs
were delivered at the mill
When the logs came in the government , local state and federal got their cut off the top and the loggers got what was left. That’s how
these small timber towns financed their roads, schools and such. Now the loggers
have to pay up front before the projects starts. When that policy took place the poverty rate in a local town went up to over 20%, those were the ones who couldn’t
afford to move..
I can go on for a long time….

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mr Ed
November 13, 2023 11:19 am

“I can go on for a long time….”

I can appreciate that- I’ve been a forester for 50 years. Seen lot of nasty stuff. I’d write a book about it but nobody would read it. 🙂

though I’m starting to talk about it on my YouTube channel

having fun doing it to- with more to come

William Howard
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 13, 2023 7:45 am

you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows – and you don’t need to be a climate scientists to know that a trace molecule, the vast majority of which is naturally occurring, can’t possibly have any significant effect on the weather or the climate – it’s called common sense

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  William Howard
November 13, 2023 9:36 am

As some may recall- not long ago in a Senate hearing- one Senator asked top environmental leaders (I think EPA and others) what percent of the atmosphere is CO2. Not one of them could answer- not even close. Some said something like 5%- another something like 10%. I found it hard to believe that they could be that stupid. It’s OK if the ordinary citizen doesn’t have a clue, but that group certainly should have come close. If they don’t know that- they obviously known nothing about “the science”. Not only did they not know- but they mostly froze like deer in the headlights- knowing that not having an answer was unforgivable, at least to the politicians and anyone watching- with any brains.

November 13, 2023 7:13 am

In the Oregon climate case, the court conceded the “facts” of climate damage before hearing any evidence. That needs to be challenged. The court has an obligation to verify standing and claims. There needs to be a concerted effort to force the courts to address this in all of the climate lawsuits. Challenge any decision that does not first confirm the “reality” of asserted climate damages. They simply can’t confirm it based on reality, and judges need to know that.

Reply to  KentN
November 13, 2023 1:00 pm

And who pays to challenge?

November 13, 2023 7:27 am

“”You must challenge the science…””

Absolutely, but challenging is one thing

“”If you haven’t heard of John R. Christy despite him being one of the preeminent climate scientists in the world, that’s no accident. Along with Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry, and hundreds of others, his work is marginalized and his press and online coverage is either nonexistent or negative. “”

And getting the message across is quite another.

Reply to  strativarius
November 13, 2023 8:55 am

Putting this here since you are talking about climate scientists. Who is the “unnamed” scientist in the article and why is the name not mentioned?

Richard Page
Reply to  Bill_W_1984
November 14, 2023 5:19 am

Or the name of their University. Y’know, it’s almost as though naming either would be enough to give the game away, like ‘blah blah of blah state U’ is so well known to all of us.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bill_W_1984
November 14, 2023 6:45 am

Actually not too difficult to find out and not an obvious suspect (although most of the obvious ones are too afraid to debate now) – it was the OC 2023 Water Summit and you can google who was in that debate. It was Dr. Rong Fu, Professor, Dept. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, UCLA.

November 13, 2023 7:51 am

So sad. Arguing facts. This is a losing approach. The facts have never supported the climate crisis scenario.
Like Ronald Reagan said, ‘If you are explaining, you are losing.”
Without celebrity and media backing, the anti-climate crisis people are going to keep losing. The level of knowledge in the general population regarding the climate is very low. My intelligent and educated friends/family are completely ignorant. They have course simply believed NPR/NYTimes. They don’t have to think. Thinking about this would be very difficult for them. If the NPR/NYTImes were wrong about the climate, their entire understanding of the world would be shaken. In fact, their entire world would be shaken.
The average person just doesn’t care until it hits their pocket book. Then, they might vote in some other brand of crooked politician. Or not.
The courts are as political as Congress, btw. They will insist they have to follow precedent and:

  1. Accept the EPA’s authority.
  2. Accept that climate change is real in a legal sense, since other courts have accepted that claim, without having to prove it. What the real world is like is irrelevant.

Maybe a more productive approach would be to insist that the climate crisis people actually prove there is a climate crisis. For example, taking a vote is not proof.

Krishna Gans
November 13, 2023 7:52 am

Story Tip

An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative Richard Lindzen

The one-dimensional picture of the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide in this mechanism dominates current de-pictions of climate and global warming. We briefly review this pic-ture. We then discuss the shortcomings of this approach in deal-ing with the three-dimensional climate system. One problem is determining what temperature on the real Earth corresponds to the temperature in the one-dimensional treatment. This, in turn, leads to the traditional recognition that the Earth has, in fact, many climate regimes at present. Moreover, there have been pro-found changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and polar regions over millennia, but at the same time the tem-perature of the tropical regions has remained little changed. The popular narrative assumes that small changes in the tropics are amplified at high latitudes. There is no basis for this assumption. Rather, the difference is determined by dynamic heat fluxes in the atmosphere and oceans, with the controlling flux due to baroclin-ic instability in the atmosphere. Changes in mean temperature are primarily due to changes in the tropic-to-pole difference, and not to changes in the greenhouse effect. The stability of tropical temperatures in the face of strongly varying heat fluxes out from those latitudes points to the existence of strong negative feed-backs in the radiative-convective response of the tropics. Finally, we will comment on the so-called impacts of climate change.

With a comment by Nic Lewis and the answer by Richard Lindzen.

Boff Doff
November 13, 2023 7:54 am

If CO2 really does help warm the planet Big Oil has as likely as not assisted in delaying the end of the current interglacial period that looked as if it had started at the end of the 30’s.

In any event how many ppm of the 400 result from these 5 companies products? Have there been any benefits? Proving liability and quantifying resultant damages is obviously impossible.

As the State AG contends he is certain that petroleum etc is harmful does the state not have the obligation to ban the sale of such products in all areas under its jurisdiction? Surely regulating and taxing the revenue from this polluting trade must render the state culpable too.

The use of law by Polscum is just one further example of the end of a free democracy.

Richard Page
Reply to  Boff Doff
November 13, 2023 5:51 pm

It doesn’t. The end.

Frank from NoVA
November 13, 2023 7:57 am

‘It’s no certainty the oil industry will aggressively fight these lawsuits. If a broad settlement can be reached, that is probably their preference.’

Therein lies the problem. If the industry doesn’t fight to win, they’re inevitably going to go down, along with the rest of us and Western civilization for that matter.

Maybe the industry is hoping for regulatory relief pursuant to the 2024 election. If so, they better get off their backsides and start organizing, since the only presidential candidate I’m aware of that has shown any inclination to roll back the Left is under attack by same.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
November 13, 2023 8:56 am

The oil industry is simply trying to avoid NATIONALIZATION which has happened to them in many countries, over an issue of which they have virtually no control, which is the public demand for their product.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 13, 2023 10:21 am

Ultimately, the Left’s agenda includes the NATIONALIZATION of everything. Whether it’s energy or autos or any other industry, they’re all eventually going to go down as long as they believe they can feed the crocodile in the futile hope that it eats someone else first.

I’m old enough to remember when oil executives did extensive due diligence re. the risk of confiscation before investing in ’emerging markets’. Ironically, the real risk of confiscation is here and it’s now.

Andy Pattullo
November 13, 2023 8:04 am

I wish I knew the solution but I fully agree with the identified problem. In the entire arena of public discourse there is very little activity dedicated to exposing what science really tells us about climate and the role, if any, that fossil fuels have in observable trends in climate. Of the latter there are none of any major concern other than the inevitability of a return to glaciation when the current interglacial period ends.

Climate, of course, is only one field where science should provide the foundational guidance that leads to public policy, but where we are way off track because of a failure to identify clearly what that scientific foundation tells us. CoVID, much of mainstream highly profitable medical practice, DEI, ESG investing, and many other areas of “progressive” thought are now based on mythical “scientific findings” that are not the result of science but rather propaganda. I fear however that the energy climate fiasco is the one with the most dire consequences for modern society unless we return to the basics and reveal to all what the natural world is actually telling us.

We must have an open, widely disseminated and rules-based discussion about the science and what we know, what we don’t know and the risks of continuing on this ill-considered path of unscientific superstition and magical thinking. If we don’t the return to the Stone Age awaits.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
November 13, 2023 9:39 am

Don’t worry about a return to Stone Age conditions of human life. The BRICS-type countries will continue to ignore the fancifil Western fixation on the climate being in crisis. Those countries will lead the natural human proclivity to improving its wellbeing and enviornmental conditions. The ongoing fading of Western social, economic, technicial, industrial and military leadership will continue. Teach your children Manidran.

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 13, 2023 5:58 pm

Manidran? To paraphrase Eric Morecambe ‘You’re using all the right letters but not necessarily in the right order.’
Time will tell as to whether Russian or Mandarin Chinese will be the best choice.

Reply to  Richard Page
November 14, 2023 5:59 am

If you live in the west, Arabic might be a good choice too.

B Zipperer
Reply to  starzmom
November 16, 2023 9:42 pm

Arabic? – yes, especially if you are in the EU.
But in the Middle East they are learning Farsi. Iran scares them all.

USA yard sign:
“If you can read this, thank a teacher.
“That it is in English, thank a soldier.”

November 13, 2023 8:06 am

In addition to staying within the realm of real world measurements to do good science….

1. it is also important to keep stressing how many important data sets are being manipulated for political reasons, especially to make the mild warming of the last two centuries look more ominous.

Christy did this by exposure the inherent fraud of the color schemes in the maps. Exposing the ex post facto adjustments of the temperature record, as has been here at WUWT is another important example.

2. Additionally, pointing out the money at stake for the various players in the alarmist crowd is important. For example, when automakers invest billions in EV’s, they are incentivized to exaggerate the climate alarmist case.

Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 13, 2023 1:11 pm

This is a new 2023 study that says that depending on the surface temperature and solar irradiance datasets that one uses, one can show anything from mostly human-caused warming to mostly natural warming.

‘Challenges in the Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Trends Since 1850’

The datasets are historical so there is not much that can be done about them.

November 13, 2023 8:19 am

So, if a state/group/individual is suing oil companies for causing “climate change”, shouldn’t the oil companies base their defense on “Okay, PROVE IT!”.

I can’t think of a better way to challenge the narrative other than simply challenging the so-called “science” at the heart of their claims.

Reply to  R.Morton
November 13, 2023 10:46 am

When a biased judge takes “judicial notice” of certain “facts”, one side of the argument is preempted. It is already taken as proven and evidence to the contrary is barred.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  R.Morton
November 13, 2023 10:48 am

That’s what I would say: Prove it.

Then I would explain to the judge that all the “proof” they presented was not proof at all but was speculation, assumptions and assertions and nothing more.

Bruce Cobb
November 13, 2023 8:46 am

The “I am not a scientist” excuse is as intellectually dishonest as it is cowardly.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 13, 2023 9:30 am

Scientists like old time Catholic priests demand obedience! They and only they can decide the truth.

Dave Andrews
November 13, 2023 9:12 am

Even the IEA acknowledges that fossil fuels are still going to be essential for years. In their ‘World Energy Outlook 2022’ they said

“From 80% today – a level constant for decades- fossil fuels fall to 75% by 2030 and just over 60% by 2050”

In ‘Energy Technologies Perspectives 2023’

“The world still relies on fossil fuels for its energy supply. The growth in clean energy supply since 2000 has been dwarfed by that of coal, oil and gas, especially in emerging and developing economies”

“Oil is the single largest source of primary energy (29%), followed by coal (26%), natural gas (23%), nuclear (5%), solar and wind (2%), hydro (2%)”

Then in their recent ‘World Energy Outlook 2023’ they brought ‘peak oil’ forward from the mid 2030s in their 2022 Outlook to 2030 itself and of course the media went wild about this and paid little attention to what the rest of the document said.

Oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation and shipping continues to increase through to 2050. This does not offset the decline elsewhere… oil demand peaks by 2030 but the reduction is a slow one all the way to 2050″

“Continued investment in fossil fuels is essential in all our scenarios”

“Both over investment and under investment in fossil fuels carry risks for secure and affordable energy transitions.”

November 13, 2023 9:27 am

This is why I am not a fan of folks like Lomberg who accept man made climate change, but wants different policies.

It doesnot add up
November 13, 2023 9:32 am

The reality is that belief in climate alarmism is a religion. Ultimately sidelining it is a matter of picking tactics that work. A head on approach that tries to convert fanatics only really works if you can run indoctrination camps Chinese style. If anyone has the power to run indoctrination camps it is the climate priesthood via its control of education and media and the organs of the state, including the judiciary.

That does not mean that the war is lost. It will likely take a long time before there is enough contrary evidence to undermine the catastrophists. They ignore the ever lengthening litany of failed projections. Indeed, perhaps only a real climate catastrophe would do so quickly: Yellowstone caldera with a massive eruption or a large meteor generating a nuclear winter – or indeed a nuclear war. But the battle continues on other fronts.

We should look to history to see how regimes were overturned in the past. Violent popular revolution à la Française seems a long way off, although the possibility of tribal civil wars is perhaps closer, though they would likely cause a societal collapse in much the same way as net zero policies are likely to do. Communism was overthrown without much violence, as the result of new leadership throwing out the old dictators, whether it was Gorbachev or Deng. But the key is the support network that allows such people to be in position to overturn the previous orthodoxy.

It is a much easier proposition to show that net zero is doomed to failure and that plans for it do not work. From there it is easier to show that the aims of the Malthusians are actually genocide, with we the people as the targets. That gives us the reason not to kowtow to these catastrophists. Then we can overturn the tables of the money hangers in their temples.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  It doesnot add up
November 13, 2023 10:42 am

‘It will likely take a long time before there is enough contrary evidence to undermine the catastrophists.’

There is no evidence that our emissions of CO2 have caused any warming. The sad thing is that the burden of showing such evidence is supposed to be shouldered by the ‘catastrophists’.

There are only two outcomes going forward – Either we continue schlepping down the road to serfdom or we elect leaders who are willing to call the catastrophist’s bluff and publicly demonstrate the inadequacy of their claims.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  It doesnot add up
November 13, 2023 10:54 am

“It is a much easier proposition to show that net zero is doomed to failure and that plans for it do not work.”

This is true, but it won’t serve to absolve the oil companies of guilt, if it is conceded that CO2 is changing the Earth’s atmosphere.

The oil companies need to knock down the “CO2-is-dangerous” narrative.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 13, 2023 12:00 pm

I think they need to show that the suits are aimed at securing an outcome as for the tobacco industry: that is, using the judgement to impose what are in effect large taxes on consumption, while claiming they are a “punishment”. The reality is that this form of back door carbon taxation is an attempt to institute a massive subsidy for renewables via a massive tariff on their competition. Yet, despite that protectionism, the renewables energy system will never work, and will incur massive costs – demonstrated by the size of the penalties they are calling for. This is not about protecting the planet. It is about a protection racket for the renewables industry.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
November 13, 2023 1:15 pm

The Grand Solar Minimum that the Sun has entered may cool the Earth enough to stop the “climate crisis.”

Krishna Gans
Reply to  scvblwxq
November 14, 2023 2:53 pm

They will sell it as a success of their policies.

The Dark Lord
November 13, 2023 10:47 am

Extraordinary Measures (Net Zero, other CO2 scams) require Extraordinary Proof of a crisis … the scaremongers have managed to avoid providing this proof … (models aren’t proof of anything …)

November 13, 2023 5:34 pm

I think it is time to charge some attorneys general for abuse of power.

November 14, 2023 3:49 am

It is a regular warning to people being blackmailed that if you pay up, your blackmailer will come back again, asking for even more.

November 14, 2023 5:38 am

I fear the battle has been lost, through the chokehold the woke agenda has on the school systems from bottom to top. The science has been entirely settled in those hallowed halls, and no amount of addressing actual facts will change that. We are going to have to see a great deal of pain and suffering before anybody in a position of authority anywhere wakes up to the fact the fossil energy is the lifeblood of our economy, livelihoods and our very lives.

Verified by MonsterInsights