Oh Guardian, thou unerring oracle of elite anguish and latte-laced righteousness, what have you conjured this time? A new revelation from the high temple of emotional climatology: climate change is no longer about physics, but “a crisis of justice.” Yes, really. The headline of Friederike Otto’s latest opus in The Guardian shrieks like an undergraduate activist with a bullhorn: “Climate change is not just a problem of physics but a crisis of justice.” Because when your models don’t model reality, and your predictions flop harder than a tofu burger at a Texas BBQ, simply pivot the narrative—from science to sociology.
When in Doubt, Moralize
The opening line is a tour de force in climate sanctimony:
“My research as a climate scientist is in attribution science. Together with my team, I analyse extreme weather events and answer the questions of whether, and to what extent, human-induced climate change has altered their frequency, intensity and duration.
In other words, Otto is in the business of telling us that every flood, drought, or oddly warm Tuesday is your SUV’s fault. Attribution science, for the uninitiated, is the art of retroactively blaming the atmosphere’s every sneeze on Western industry, by way of probabilistic hand-waving wrapped in opaque jargon. What used to be called weather is now “anthropogenic signal detection.”
From Equations to Emotions
The article quickly departs from any pretense of physics, diving into the deep end of social justice with a straight face. Otto writes that early scientists didn’t address these questions not because the models were junk (which they were), but because of a sinister silence born from… wait for it… “colonialism.” I kid you not.
Why grapple with the pesky uncertainties of nonlinear dynamics when you can just call the jet stream racist?
Magical Thinking in the Church of Climate
As always, The Guardian isn’t content to merely spread alarmism—it needs to moralize. The piece does not present testable hypotheses or falsifiable predictions. No, it sermonizes. It’s less a scientific article and more a secular encyclical. Climate policy, per Otto, must now revolve around “inequality,” “justice,” and probably crystal chakras and composting feelings too.
Why stop there? Let’s redefine thermodynamics as a tool of oppression. After all, who’s to say entropy isn’t just a white cis-male construct?
And Speaking of The Guardian…
Ah yes, The Guardian, the newspaper that treats every bout of drizzle as a sign of impending planetary doom and every economic policy as a chance to redistribute guilt. This is the same outlet that warns of “climate collapse” while offering 30% off annual subscriptions in the same breath.
It’s the news equivalent of a street preacher shouting about the apocalypse, then handing you a coupon for organic lentils.
Their entire climate section reads like a steampunk Bible study group—high on drama, low on data. They’re obsessed with “justice” not in the classical sense (you know, crime, evidence, courts), but in the modern performative sense, where “justice” means whatever the loudest graduate student in the room says it does.
Virtue First, Questions Never
So here we are, folks. In 2025, climate science—at least as defined by The Guardian and Dr. Otto—is no longer about testable claims or rigorous skepticism. It’s a morality play. A political campaign. A never-ending guilt-trip wrapped in a rainbow flag and printed on recycled hemp paper.
And the next time a cyclone hits Bangladesh, don’t ask about air pressure or ENSO oscillations. Just nod solemnly and chant the new gospel: It’s a crisis of justice.
Because in the Church of Climate Wokeness, science has left the building—and feelings now run the thermostat.
Otto is the high priestess of World Weather Attribution (WWA) .
“WWA’s chief scientist, Friederike Otto, explains, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.”
Pielke Jr. has written a whole series on this particular anti-science movement – anti-science designed to enforce the climate cabals preferred policy solution – end all use of fossil fuels — through legal actions in courts.
Her book — touted in the Guardian article — is just more and worse propaganda.
Speaking of books, I seem to recall reading somewhere that “He causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike”.
Sounds fair to me.
The rain it rains upon the just,
And also on the unjust fella,
But chiefly on the just because
The unjust steals the just’s umbrella.
Scientific = NO
Scientologic = Signs Point to Yes
People like this are just charlatans. Everything they spout is blatantly untrue.
Ahhh, a book sales campaign. That explains it. With that image as the back cover blurb portrait, how could it fail to appeal to the dirty barefoot shower once a week crowd?
As Eric Hoffer noted, mass movements tend to follow the same path. Political parties and preaching religions act in a very similar manner. Climate change is a secular religion. It stopped being anything about science over thirty years ago.
Yes –
Was it ever thus?
A false accusation – a.k.a. attribution of harm, whether the harm was real or not – is the most basic of injustices.
Worse, the accused molecule has been framed by the prosecution with fabricated evidence. The suspect has been identified in a lineup of models pretending to show no effect otherwise, so the molecule must be responsible! Attorneys for the defense are not even allowed to bring witnesses. Guilty! (“Hey, if CO2 were not guilty to begin with, we wouldn’t have brought the case!”)
Climate “justice?” Sure, stop blaming the innocent! Free the prisoner being unjustly restrained!
A scimitar will put things in proper perspective.
Not to mention blatant witness tampering and bribery of the judges.
“…retroactively blaming the atmosphere’s every sneeze on Western industry…” But of course its the non-western Chinese and Indians (Indians are only “western” in the US) that emit the vast majority of CO2 these days and have done so for decades.
The 5 namesake BRICS nations
Brazil
Russia
India
China
South Africa
Are responsible for 50% of GLOBAL emissions (China produced more than a third of global emissions alone) with the other 203 nations responsible for the other half
When the science doesn’t support your claims, then call on feelings and blame colonialism.
The entire CO2 climate change edifice is a house of cards built on pure unadulterated hubris, that humans have the power to change the climate with CO2 emissions.
The only part of the climate that I can accept has been changed by emissions is the leaf area growth that is partly due to the approximently 39% man-made CO2 total net contribution to the accumulated net ML CO2 flux since 1959.
The real climate, ie temperature, does not respond to CO2, it’s the other way around:
The belief that our CO2 emissions control the climate is secular humanism on steroids.
If Ms. Otto etal have any doubts, let them see how little the 2020 reductions affected CO2:
Bob, while I do agree that there is little effect of our CO2 on climate, near all of the observed increase in the atmosphere, ocean surface and biophere is from human emissions, as one can see if one plots emissions, temperature and increase in the atmosphere with the same level of the variables: temperature with CO2, derivatives of temperature with derivatives of CO2. Not temperature with the derivative of CO2…
Human emissions, CO2 increase in the atmosphere plotted with the temperature influence calculated with the formula of Takahashi (∂ln pCO2/∂T=0.0423/K):
And the plot of the derivatives, with the temperature influence increased with a factor 3.5 to show the same amplitude as for the variability as the CO2 derivative:
All the variability is caused by temperature variability, but that is in net sink (not net source!) capacity, or you violate the carbon mass balance. Temperature has zero trend in the derivative and thus is not responsible for the trend in CO2 rate of change in the atmosphere. Human emissions show twice the trend, thus are responsible for the bulk of the increase in the atmosphere…
The carbon mass balance is the main reason why humans are responsible for the increase, but all observations support the human cause. See our elaborated work for the CO2 Coalition:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Human-Contribution-to-Atmospheric-CO2-digital-compressed.pdf
Attribution science has just replaced jumbo shrimp as my go to example of an oxymoron.
Sadly for Otto, EPA just canceled all its Climate Justice grants. Like the $2 billion Stacy Abrams new organization was going to get.
The ignorance of history by Dr. Otto and the Guardian regarding colonialism is stunning. In fact, the age of colonialism started with Columbus in 1492 and began to decline in 1776 with the American Revolution. It ended almost entirely shortly after WWII with most all former colonies achieving independence.
The disconnect between “colonialism” and atmospheric CO2 increasing could not be more stark. CO2 didn’t start increasing until colonialism essentially ended. One might even suspect that there was a causation involved – if one happens to be scientifically illiterate.
The Guardian was founded in 1821 by John Edward Taylor, who had made his fortune selling cotton grown in the Southern States of the US. Need I specify who cultivated and picked his cotton?
It just shifted focus. The new colonialism is done through entities like USAID and the World Bank by limiting developing nations to “renewable” energy targets and stifling access to affordable, abundant energy development.
Attribution science … is the art of retroactively blaming the atmosphere’s every sneeze on Western industry, by way of probabilistic hand-waving wrapped in opaque jargon.”
OK, so why is a study that reaches conclusions based on probability, assumptions and modeling called a science? Where is application of the scientific method?
It’s not science, it’s guesswork, based on nothing.
Weather Attribution “Science” is a bastardization of Science.
The Bhola Cyclone in 1970 killed 300,000 – 450,000 mostly desperately poor Bangladeshis.
Good thing the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has prevented any more hurricanes like THAT one!
Net zero is a political soundbite invented by the WEF. It’s purpose is managed decline of the West. The aim is poverty and control. Net Zero cannot be defined, as it’s complete nonsensical ideology. There is no climate emergency, in fact the planet has been cooling for some time. The 1930′ were the warmest years in modern times. Far warmer than today. Northern Hemisphere snowpack this Winter was an all time record high. The trend in temperatures is downwards. This will be a real concern, when crops are affected and food production falls.
That’s why I keep coming to this website. There’s so many unhinged, unsupported conspiracy theories you could write several novels with them. I see, the World Economic Forum, a grouping of rich countries, is enacting a plot to see their own influence decline. Pass the tinfoil hat!
Conspiracy theory?
From Wikipedia:
You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” (alternatively “You’ll own nothing and be happy”) is a phrase published by the World Economic Forum (WEF).[1] The phrase is based on a 2016 essay by Ida Auken of Denmark, published by the WEF, about a future in which a hypothetical person relies on the sharing economy for many of their needs.[2] The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property.
So, this conspiracy hangs on an obscure essay, in a long forgotten report, 9 years old. I’m convinced. Yes, WEF, a meeting of the very rich countries, and rich people are secretly plotting to abolish property. Makes sense to me. The link you didn’t include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum
So who funds it? Those well know communist, green lefties. To quote the article: “The foundation is mostly funded by its 1,000 member multi-national companies.[2]“
Obscure? The WEF had the quote on their website for months until people started objecting.
I bet you still think Covid 19 had a natural origin and Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian fake.
The WEF is not a grouping of rich countries, it’s a club for rich people.
A club of rich, authoritarian people.
OLIGARCHS !! Nearly all of them with a far-left totalitarian bent.
The US Democrat Party worships them! (except one name Elon)
No, the plot, as such, is the dismantling of the structures of freedom and individuality in order to solidify the influence and dominance of the elite class by convincing the subject class to facilitate their own subjugation. More simply, it is the normalization of corruption to remove obstacles to that dominance.
It is well illustrated by Omar Khayyam in The Rubaiyat.
“Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire, To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits-and then–Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire?”
That passage was even adopted as a sort of mission statement by the Fabian Socialist Society.
Very nice Charles, it is refreshing to finally read here at WUWT an article that doesn’t soft pedal what we are up against. The CAGW cult knows that they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims scientific or otherwise. All that is left for them is sensationalism, lying, cheating and promoting every version of leftwing government power and control conceivable. They are pathetic.
You summed it up nicely, Bob: “All that is left for them [climate alarmists] is sensationalism, lying, cheating”.
Charles, it’s timely that you’ve called out the Grauniad’s shift of outrage from climate armageddon to social justice depredation.
In Australia, with a federal election due in a few weeks, The Greens party (which never gets more than 10 – 12% of the votes) has now moved its main raison d’etre from salvation from planetary disintegration to social justice pursuits.
Climate & environment are almost footnotes in their agenda now.
The old “climate catastrophe” schtick just doesn’t pull the punters in like it used to I guess.
Climate activism, Social Justice (sic), transgenderism, DEI and the other causes are all different heads of the same Hydra.
When F. Otto says:
“””My research as a climate scientist is in attribution science. “””
her homework is immediately laid out for her:
the transition from CMIP5 and CMIP6 means that a huge part of her published work was done with lower resolution models and incorrect cloud physics as these are two changes from CMIP5 to CMIP6 shown to be very relevant.
She needs to withdraw all her findings done with wrong models until access their validity.
(just like Mann, Bradley and Hughes need to withdraw their hockestick publication until the solid criticism is addressed!)
S. Rahmstorf had an article on realclimate how his Altantic ocean current slowing is not present in the newer models, which can serve as an example how these findings change with model improvements.
It is quite telling that his statement “Thus I consider CMIP6 models as less suited to test how well the ‘cold blob’ works as AMOC indicator than the CMIP5 models”
still stands in their flagship webpage uncorrected:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/01/the-amoc-is-slowing-its-stable-its-slowing-no-yes/
Him and F. Otto come from the same stall and it is showing, if the new models do not show Rahmstorf´s expected features, it is not that they are wrong, but CMIP5 models had a low resolution and missing cloud physics, they show additional features just like a bad copy!
And his recent article can serve as a bad example, why his and F. Otto´s old research is invalid until scrutinized!
(there is something else to learn here as how could they possibly publish their faulty results to start with? Clearly, their uncertainties were understated and this is probably still true for many current publications involving global climate models)
There seems to be broad agreement that the their all published older results used models lacking resolution and physics, but potentially show additional features because of that.
Both of them also have a track record for bending the scientific method in their successful (!!) attempt in prevent a critical paper as described by R. Pielke Jr.:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
The names driving the censoring effort of Alimonti et al., circumventing any scientific process are:
Greg Holland,
Lisa Alexander,
Steve Sherwood,
Michael Mann,
Richard Betts,
Friederike Otto,
Stefan Rahmstorf and
Peter Cox
Whatever they are doing is not science IMHO!
Alimonti got published after all: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2023.2239807
This is what mental illness looks like, the total divorce from reality and then display it in the open, she is in full delusion that may have no ending until she goes the suicide route.
She needs to be in a mental hospital.
Does anyone actually pay any attention to the alarmist proclamations of whatever The Guardian, the BBC, the CBC and a multitude of leftist media organizations say? These outfits get generous donations from governments, environmental groups, and green-product peddlers to promote their climate crisis agendas so that they can profit from subsidies and sales even if they’re perfectly aware that only a tiny minority of consumers/voters worldwide buy into their propaganda. A good current example of how climate and environmental issues are being largely ignored is in polls regarding priorities in the upcoming Canadian election. Those issues are ranking far down the list of priorities, particularly since both front-running parties have vowed to cut or eliminate the hugely unpopular carbon taxes.
Legislators and other Government officials pay attention. Time for their constituents to sort them out.
It has always been the case that climate change is a political movement. Only a voter shift (Trump?) will alter the direction.
For the Guardian, the end is nigh.
The Guardian is financially supported by the elite, hardly anyone in their right mind would pay to read it.
From the article: “My research as a climate scientist is in attribution science.”
Should read: My research as a climate scientist is in [weather] attribution “science”
[Weather] Attribution Science is not real science, it is pure speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. Presenting speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions as established facts, is not science. It’s either delusional, or dishonest.
Great writing, Charles! You had me laughing. 🙂
We now have the “me too” movement pointed at a molecule.
Best question of the day! 👍