Abstract
The Apocalyptic climate narrative is a seriously misleading propaganda tool and a socially destructive guide for public policy. The narrative radically overstates the risks to humanity of continued global warming, which are manageable, not existential. It prescribes large-scale near-term suppression of fossil-fuel use, while failing to recognize the huge costs that such suppression would inflict on humans because fossil fuels are currently irreplaceable inputs for producing food (via ammonia-based fertilizer), steel, cement, and plastics. This paper details the flaws in the Apocalyptic narrative and articulates nine principles for sensible U.S. policies on energy and global warming.
In an era where fear sells faster than facts, a refreshing gust of sanity has arrived in the form of a new paper by Dr. Judith Curry and economist Harry DeAngelo. Titled “A Critique of the Apocalyptic Climate Narrative,” the paper dismantles, brick by shaky brick, the popular belief that humanity teeters on the edge of climate-induced extinction and that salvation lies in the urgent abandonment of fossil fuels.
Curry and DeAngelo open with a sober reminder: “Alarming narratives that have an aura of plausibility can be highly effective tools for shaping public opinion and public policies.” That, in a nutshell, is the story of climate politics over the last 30 years. A narrative has been spun, polished, and weaponized—not to inform public understanding, but to shepherd it toward economically and politically ruinous policies.
The paper doesn’t just question the urgency of decarbonization—it eviscerates it.
The Real Climate Record: More Prosperity, Not Doom
In what amounts to a firm statistical rebuke to doomsayers, Curry and DeAngelo highlight:
“Since the late 19th century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by about 1.3°C… During the same period… there has been little or no detectable change in most types of extreme weather events.”
Meanwhile, global population has surged, agricultural output has quadrupled, and lifespans have more than doubled. Cold-weather mortality—ten times deadlier than heat—has plunged, while Earth’s green leaf area has grown by 5% thanks to CO₂ fertilization.
If this is a crisis, one is tempted to ask: can we have more of it?
The Net-Zero Boondoggle
Dr. Curry’s critique is especially lethal when aimed at the fantasy land of net-zero. As the authors note:
“Today, the world gets 81% of its energy from fossil fuels… In absolute terms, global use of oil, natural gas, and coal have all increased.”
Billions are being poured into solar and wind—not to displace fossil fuels, but merely to add capacity on top of them. Emissions haven’t gone down; they’ve gone up. The Green New Deal? A Green New Dud.
The Myths of Imminent Catastrophe
The paper also tackles the pet specter of climate alarmists: tipping points.
“There is also low confidence in any conclusions surrounding possible tipping points owing to deep (Knightian) uncertainties in our understanding of the complex climate system.”
In plain terms, we don’t understand the system well enough to confidently predict catastrophic flips. Yet that hasn’t stopped the technocratic priesthood from demanding trillions in tithes.
Rational Energy Policy: First, Do No Harm
Instead of chasing the green dragon of net-zero, the authors propose common sense:
“We should not eliminate fossil fuels before we have technologically viable and cost-effective replacements for the critical inputs they provide in the production of food, steel, cement, plastics, and electricity.”
Their nine principles for rational energy policy—ranging from investment in innovation to a revival of nuclear power—deserve to be posted on the office door of every policymaker who still clings to the fantasy of controlling the climate through legislation.
The Bottom Line
“Is an undetectable reduction in the warming trend worth a huge sacrifice in the quality of life caused by an urgent move to net-zero? … There is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming.”
Dr. Curry’s work delivers the much-needed antidote to climate hysteria. Her message is clear: The supposed cure—immediate fossil fuel suppression—is far more dangerous than the disease.
As the paper concludes, “Attempts to suppress fossil-fuel use aggressively are socially destructive… [and] would impose significant avoidable costs on humanity.”
In a world overrun by ideological climate theater, Dr. Curry has handed us a playbill with a rare commodity: the truth.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tithes to the priesthood. How appropriate with the scene in Rome.
Has the CO2 Coalition Conclave settled on Cardinal Pell as its papal candidate ?
Judith Curry does not condemn the nonsense that CO2 causes global warming. She accepts the BS.
The rise in average surface temperature since the 1850s is thoroughly consistent with changing seasonal solar intensity.
The next tipping point for Earth’s climate is on the horizon but you need a really good telescope to see it. The most visible aspect is the upward trend of early season snowfall and snow extent:
How many climate models predicted this back in 2000? And as they are tweaked to match observation, how long does this upward trend continue? At some point there will be so much snowfall that it does not melt in the following year like what is being observed already with increasing ice extent on Greenland.
Snowfall extend across the northern hemisphere may be increasing but the quantity/depth of snow is not increasing in New England- but I think that’s just fine. Though, in my early years as a forester, I loved snowshoeing- the deeper the snow the better. I sometimes see people snowshoeing when the snow is about 2″ deep. That’s dumb. My old rule was if the snow is so deep you can’t get in the woods or fields without snowshoes- then you use them. The only time I found snowshoeing is a problem is going down a steep slope because if you fall forward you’re going to find yourself buried in the snow with your head and arms beneath the surface while your snowshoes are now pointing down- pinning you in place. Not fun. But I haven’t seen that kind of snow in many years- that was back in the ’70s and ’80s, mostly. It’s also a bit warmer in winter and I think that’s also great. As a kid and young adult I remember many days below zero F. Not so much in recent years. So, the climate has IMPROVED! And that’s just my take on winter. The other seasons seem improved to me too.
“Judith Curry does not condemn the nonsense that CO2 causes global warming. She accepts the BS.”
Does seem that way. It probably is contributing to some degree but that’s what we don’t know and it’s also likely other variables are involved too. So going along with the idea that it’s all about CO2 is not thinking clearly.
It is really not the snow that gets you but the ice creeping down the slopes. Any low altitude land below 60N will increasingly see rainfall as opposed to snowfall. But look at the mountain peaks. When the glacier start moving down again, that will be time for future generations to look south.
Keeping an eye on the high northern slopes along the Arctic Ocean is where to look for the start of the next phase.
No climate model of 2000 vintage predicted any glaciers on Greenland would be advancing. Now the claim is that they are advancing due to natural variation but the retreating trend will return.
So natural variation causes anything that the models did not predict but only CO2 is causing the average surface temperature of the globe to warm.
“So natural variation causes anything that the models did not predict but only CO2 is causing the average surface temperature of the globe to warm”.
Thats the theme, yes’.
It begs the question: how much is the warming due to CO2 as opposed to other factors? It makes warministas think about other elements, their variables and their influence upon the system. If they then answer: most if not all the warming is due to higher (human caused) CO2 emissions, what about cooling or if it stays flat despite higher CO2 levels? The answer ‘ natural variability’ does not count because something must have caused it. They are often reluctant or incapable of stating precisely which factor because they then have to admit other factors play a role. So, ‘natural variability’ is used to cover up talking about it.
They also often say: ‘we never said CO2 is the ONLY factor’, obviously because H2O is considered a GH gas. But then they always need to state that everything related to H2O, oceans, clouds etc is stable. Like the sun.
I actually use this argument when in discussion with climate alarmists who are usually not scientists. Then they go into ‘consensus’ mode which is a non answer..
The simple fact is, they build models not to understand the climate and all of its amazing characteristics.
The built models to demonstrate CO2 causes temperature rise with CO2 being the primary input to those flawed models.
Wrong. Judith Curry neither supports nor condemns that nonsense.
It is tactical. Judith Curry does not want the debate side tracked, so she carefully avoids certain items to keep the focus on the valid points to be made.
I think she is aware of the Nick Stokes type who will lead down a rabbit hole over a typo.
Here’s another example of promoting an exaggeration or outright lie by greasing the palms of the media, politicians, bureaucrats, public educators, academics and green product producers. All these stood to make some sort of profit from the climate crisis myth, and since the public initially never looked hard enough at the facts, they fell for it to a certain degree. But when it became increasingly obvious that all they were seeing was the normal weather variations while the alarmism was essentially a scare tactic that was costing them money and convenience they began to scoff more and more at it and have rejected most it as just another form of urban mythology on a grand scale.
Not enough people have reached that tipping point.
Excellent, this exactly the kind of work we need. Plain language and coming right out and saying the other side is flat out wrong. Share this far and wide.
There is no “disease”. The climate is fine, and even if it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be a thing we could do about it except adapt, and we now have that capability in spades.
I disagree, Bruce. There is a disease, but it has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with alarmism.
+10
“and we now have that capability in spades”
Thanks to fossil fuels.
Alarmingly, the voices of rationality like Dr Curry et al in these self-inflicted, politically induced troubled times are few & far between.
For every grounded, informed and rational contributor here there seem to be legions of gormless climate catastrophist cult members who detach from the taxpayer teat just long enough to publish another version of the climate armageddon bullshit.
There’s even now a centralised distribution hub needed for all the climate bullshit that’s being excreted into the public discourse –
https://coveringclimatenow.org/
If this is a crisis, one is tempted to ask: can we have more of it?
____________________________________________________
Yes the western world has been bamboozled into believing that a warmer world with more arable land, more rain, longer growing seasons, warmer weather, and CO2 greening constitutes a crisis. And they believe it ! Why?
If the alarmists agreed the climate is improving in many regions- they’ll be forced to say why- but no, they will go to their graves before they’d ever say maybe CO2 emissions may be a good thing for humanity. So instead, they’ll start to claim “there must be other variables effecting the climate”- exactly what they’re currently denying.
In other words, it really isn’t about climate, right?
UN officials have stated on multiple occasions that this is not about the environment it is about (a) control, (b) transforming the world economy, and (c) achieving a One World Order.
“You will have nothing and you will be happy.”
— WEF
As Musk might say, we are the boot loaders for a better, more benign Earth by using fossil fuels. They have certainly made the human existence vastly better and longer than ever.
On a Met Office video today the statement by the ( otherwise lovely) presenter: ” variability is the result of Climate change”. Im NOT joking.
She was comparing spring 2025 to spring 2020 when it was equally warm/ nice in the UK as opposed to 2024 when it was cold and miserable.
So, drier or wetter than normal: climate change, variability: Climate change. Is there anything left that is NOT Climate change? Is it simply…CHANGE?
The BS is astonishing.
Def.: Climate: the long term average of weather (30 years, millennia, whatever) for a locale or region. Average those micro climates to get a global climate. A statistical construct divorced from reality.
Climate change: the long term change in the average of climate. By definition, climate is always changing. The weather this moment is not the same as 30 years ago, so the averages change.
It is puzzling how a statistical construct can cause anything.
By overhauling massive rules on the endangerment finding, the ‘social cost’ of carbon and similar issues, we are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age — Lee Zeldin – Administrator EPA
Today, Trump gave a beat down to climate clown car Carney of Canada.
Trump: “We want to make our own cars. We don’t want any from Canada.”
Got a video / link to that? Like to see Trump whack the globalist Carney
Trump didn’t whack Carney too hard. Trump did say he didn’t want any cars from Canada. Trump wants them all made in the United States.
Carney said Canada was not for sale. “Never, never”, he said.
Trump said: “Never say never. 🙂
Trump also said the United States would defend Canada against external enemies, and money was NOT a consideration, he would be doing it because it is in both our interests. I thought that was a nice touch.
Trump had Carney squirming over a number of things Trump said. Carney was wanting to take part in the conversation, but Trump wasn’t paying attention to him, but was talking to the reporters, and Carney kept trying to get Trump’s attention so Carny could weigh in.
It was a short public question and answer session, and I thought it went about as good as you can expect under the circumstances. Trump did complement Carney for running a good election and a good debate.
Trump also said he estimated that there was about nine TRILLION dollars being invested in the United States. He said the Artificial Intelligence manufacturers were already breaking ground. He said they could do this so quickly because they were very rich and didn’t need to go to a bank to get a loan, which slows things down.
They just announced that the Untied States and China will be meeting in Switzerland this weekend. I imagine the stock market is going to do well tomorrow.
Trump is also teasing a BIG announcement in the next few days. He said it didn’t necessarily have anything to do with tariffs or new trade agreements.
Whether Carney or Canadians like it, Canada is likely to become part of the US by mid-century. This likelihood is largely due to a lack of resolve on the part of its government and population. It claims it should be respected as a sovereign state; yet it hasn’t made the effort during the past half-century to spend enough for a maintain a credible military that could protect this sovereignty. Nor are its citizens willing to elect a government that would take such steps. Instead, it likes to talk a good game and attach itself to fashionable but unattainable issues like Net Zero or being a NATO member without pulling its weight in being one. The government and populace seem to have deluded themselves into believing someone else will do the dirty work for them. It believes it can pass itself off as a progressive, peace-loving country by embracing the goal of fighting the mythical climate crisis with higher taxes and more environmental restrictions and mandates while productivity and living standards decline. Good luck with this game except if it continues its ten provinces are a good bet to become the 51st to 60th states by 2050.
I read that the Premier of Alberta has suggested a referendum on Alberta leaving Canada. That might be how parts of Canada become part of the US.
I think that’s the way it would work if it ever happened.
Alberta is very friendly to the United States.
What the U.S. doesn’t want is to incorporate Canadian voters who thought it was a good idea to elect Trudeau and Carney.
This ^
I think Canada is a country in peril. It allows the killing of its new generation via abortion. The killing of its older generation via euthanasia. Its medical system is nothing but time delay. And now it has a PM that with his love of net zero will get rid of fossil fuel use in one of the coldest countries. People will die. I agree with Retired Jim below about Alberta. Why would they stay in a place they are hated, but asked to pay for damn near everything else.
If you still believe in the Trump Dream you are delusional.
And all the DOGE money is going to the Pentagon. Nice one! What a joker..
No, the one being delusional is you
All the DOGE money is going to the Pentagon? Which Socialist International handout did you get that from?
Oh, Trump increased the Pentagon budge, primarily to develop the Golden Dome missile defense concept.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/05/06/the-best-press-availability-ever-held-in-the-oval-office/
Amazing comment from Zeldin. No wonder there is so much “wailing and gnashing of teeth” in alarmist circles. 🙂
The social BENEFIT of carbon is something that needs to be pushed really hard.
There is very little, if any, real “cost” to the use of carbon based fuels and energy.
But there are MASSIVE BENEFITS. !
The social cost of carbon.
To reduce that to zero requires eliminating every carbon based life form on the planet.
I’ll bet there are armies of purple-haired they/thems looking desperately for something they can pin on Zeldin that may or may not have happened 40 years ago.
You can bet money on that.
That’s the radical Left’s first objective when attacking an opponent: Find something to smear them with. If they can’t find anything, then they just make it up and lie.
Zeldin is turning out to be an amazingly blunt and clear-minded leader. What a story this is turning out to be at the EPA!
But not even then! It implies that once we’ve found “technologically viable and cost-effective replacements”- then it’s OK to “eliminate fossil fuels”. But why?
“ But why?”
Fake climate models, producing fake warming, which will create a fake climate crisis… of course.
Yeah, why? There is no evidence CO2 has any effect on the Earth’s weather.
But I think the authors think CO2 does have an effect, however slight, so this is enough for them to call for the end of coal, oil, and natural gas. That’s my guess anyway.
CO2 is a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Plenty of evidence in support of CO2 being “a benign gas, essential for life on Earth,” though.
Technology and economics change all the time. If there are better substitutes for any process or materials then they should be advanced. Keep politics out of the mix.
In free markets, they will “advance” themselves.
When the government feels the need to put its Godzilla-sized foot on the scale to “advance” something, you know it is *NOT* something “better.”
If they are cheaper and equally useful the market will then replace fossil fuels. That’s how we have always operated.
+10
If nothing more, a calculated phase in over many years so the unintended consequences, if any, are not too severe.
Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology.
Is this a return to academia?
Probably ‘former’.
No surprise there, although saying “Earth’s average temperature” is misleading. The average temperature of certain thermometers has risen. The Earth itself has cooled, and currently loses about 44TW – more energy out than in, if you like.
Population has multiplied fourfold in the last 120 years, and per capita energy useage has increased. All energy produced eventually degrades to “waste heat”, which eventually flees to outer space, never to be seen again, warming thermometers as it goes.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. No GHE.
“No surprise there, although saying “Earth’s average temperature” is misleading.”
So is saying that the Earth has warmed by 1.3 degrees C since the Little Ice Age ended.
Yes, the temperatures did rise after the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, and the temperatures did rise 1.3C during that time up through the 1880’s. Since the 1880’s, the temperatures have not risen. The high point of the 1930’s and the high points of 1998 and 2024 are no warmer than they were in the 1880’s, so saying the temperatures have risen by 1.3C is true, but misleading, as the initial temperature increase occurred long ago, and has not increased since that time.
The temperatures have been flat since the 1880’s.
In your opinion, the Earth is constantly cooling.
So, in your opinion, what was the temperature of the Earth 100 million years ago.
If your belief in this 44TW was accurate, the Earth would have been too hot for any life to have survived.
Energy is in joules. 1 J = 1 W second.
The question is, is the 44TW over 1 second, 1 day, 1 month, 1 year? What time interval.
Just like W/m^2 is not energy, it is power density. It is used in the flat earth energy imbalance models to hide the fact that different forms of energy transport happen at different speeds.
Sparta, a watt is a joule per second – a rate. 44 TW is a rate – instantaneous. If you are interested in the total energy transmitted, just multiply the rate by the time. I’m not sure why you would want to do that, though.
I suppose climate nutters might calculate the total amount of energy delivered by the Sun to the Earth over the last four and a half billion years, in joules or ergs or something, A 12 year old could do it, but it is a pointless exercise. From memory, a nameless “climate scientist” figured that the Earth’s surface temperature “should be” 720,000 K, due to “trapped heat” from a “positive energy budget”. He was perplexed by the fact that the Earth’s surface is what it is. No joking.
Dim and dimmer. Hotter thermometers are due to increased heat – not CO2, “carbon”, pollution, or “energy budgets”. Just plain old heat.
The Earth itself has cooled, and currently loses about 44TW – more energy out than in, if you like.
TW is not a rate. If it is instantaneous it would be infinite.
W is power
W/m^2 is power density.
W-s = J is energy.
If you are using the arithmetic of 1 W = 1 J/s, then… each second the earth loses 44 TJ?
Ok. The math is that equates to ~0.086 W/m^2 (per second) using flat earth energy imbalance notation.
By the way, the 44 TW is energy lost from the earth’s core upwards to the surface.
So technically you are correct. The earth’s interior is cooling due to energy loss from the core.
That does not mean the planet is cooling by that one single factor.
If you are interested in the total energy transmitted, just multiply the rate by the time. I’m not sure why you would want to do that, though.
I was inquiring on your point. Representing the total core loss in one humongous number is interesting, but it does invite questions. You obviously got the number from Google.
The planet is not and never will be in thermal equilibrium, at least not in the foreseeable future. So claiming the core loss defines the earth energy loss is about as bogus as those claiming CO2 is the “control knob.”
Sparta,
A watt is defined as a joule per second. I worked from memory, and luckily Google provides the same definition.
To me it is a rate – a joule per second. One hundred joules in one hundredth of a second, is still energy transfer at a rate of one watt. So yes, in one second the Earth is losing 44 Tj – which is 44 TW (give or take, I know it’s an estimate – so shoot me! <g>).
You say –
Technically is good enough for me. Thanks.
Yes it does. Cooling is losing more energy than absorbed. A single factor.
The Earth is cooling – losing about 44 TW. The rate was greater in the past, and will be less in the future, in all probability.
Hopefully, we agree that the surface has cooled along with the rest of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years, that adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, and thermometers respond to heat by indicating their degree of hotness.
No necessity for a mythical GHE.
I am very happy to see Curry and DeAngelo publish this paper and I hope it has a big impact.
My only quibble is my objection to using IPCC style statements of probability – i.e. “low confidence” for miniscule probability.
“There is also low confidence in any conclusions surrounding possible tipping points…”
No one should ever say that buying lottery ticket results in low confidence that you’ll win the jackpot. One should say that there is extremely high confidence that you will not win. Even better, if you’ve managed to actually quantify the probability of an event, just state it numerically – “your chance of winning the lottery is less than 1 in 3 billion.”
I believe that the IPCC concocted their confidence rating scheme specifically to avoid every having to state that some negative event is not going to happen.
Yup, they cynically omitted any “zero confidence” level.
I went and read the whole paper. Mixed feelings.
On one hand, assuming there is actually some plausible contribution of warming and climate risk from emissions of CO2, the paper uses sound reasoning and makes good suggestions.
On the other hand, that assumption is incorrect. The potential influence of incremental CO2 on sensible heat gain on land, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere itself, is readily seen to be negligible.
So I keep posting this time-lapse video of plots of the ERA5 parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion” to make the point. https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY There is a Readme description for the full explanation.
In any case, there are good reasons for deep respect for Dr. Curry.
And her book is very good..
True. I bought it on Kindle and read it all the way through.
From post:” The potential influence of incremental CO2 on sensible heat gain on land, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere itself, is readily seen to be negligible.”
Instead of negligible I think you mean nonexistent or zero.
Not quite. The specific heat of air changes with varying concentrations of CO2 and H2O also. It is negligible, but not zero.
The Cp does change but so does the mass. The increased mass of CO2 over rides the slight decrease in Cp.
Thanks for your reply. I do not have a solid basis to claim precisely “zero.” However, I hold that the influence of CO2 on any reported trend cannot be reliably distinguished from zero by any means we have available to us.
If you cannot measure something to show it exists then it doesn’t.
David, I accept that there is no minimum change to a chaotic system which may result in unpredictable outcomes.
The influence of CO2 in that respect is unquantifiable, rather than zero. I hope you don’t take offence at my nittery. No offence is intended at all.
However, John Tyndall measured to ability of CO2 to block certain wavelengths of IR from reaching a radiation sensing device (thermopile), resulting in a lowering of temperature – not an increase.
No gas is completely transparent to IR. As a result, the atmosphere prevents about 35% of the Sun’s radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface. Tyndall’s initial measurements of this phenomenon are surprisingly close to NASA’s, more than 150 years later.
Just one more reason I say that adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
Negligible. I agree. Negligible is not zero.
Negligible includes the possibility of zero, Also, this doesn’t get much attention, but the possibility of a slight negative influence of incremental CO2 on warming overall, is not ruled out by anything we know. Dr. Curry has said that ECS “cannot be negative” but I disagree on that point. We will likely never know for sure.
If she is trying to say that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not reduce the amount of radiation reaching the surface, resulting in lower temperatures, the good doctor is just simply denying reality, and wrong.
I don’t know what “ECS” is, and neither does anybody else who uses the term. Here’s Wikipedia –
Unspecified “other radiative forcing” – just meaningless word salad. Or is the fact that the surface loses 44TW “other radiative forcing”? Who knows?
Who cares?
Years ago, I dubbed this the Unique Solution Syndrome. It affected engineers in particular who had handbooks for everything they did. The idea was that there is only one correct or best solution to any problems. Once a smart and knowledgeable person had found “the’ solution, all others by definition must be less good or actually wrong and should be dismissed.
It’s a reliance on authority: if it’s in a textbook, it must be right (otherwise it wouldn’t be published!). The Syndrome encourages the authority seeking masses to believe everything in the legacy media: if it weren’t demonstrably true, the New York Times wouldn’t publish it! Because you have to be really smart and knowledgeable and honest and politically neutral to work at the New York Times …
As an engineer I used to rely on The Machinist Handbook a lot. It was essential I rely on the information in it as I couldn’t possibly have sat down and figured out everything that was in that book.
Your comparison between handbooks engineers use and the New York Times is flawed. A “smart person” figured out F=ma and all other solutions are less good.
Everything on the internet must be true.
It says so on the internet.
Sparta, I checked with perplexity AI, who assured me that not everything on the internet was true, and advised (amongst other things) to use fact-checking tools. Unfortunately, when I queried the accuracy of fact-checking tools, I received the following response –
Dang! Can’t even believe the fact-checking tools!
What’s a sceptical fellow like me supposed to do? Actually think for myself?
Perish the thought!
“There is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming.”
There is evidence, but runs the other direction.
The world was 3 to 5 degrees warmer during the Holocene Optimum. Life thrived.
Millions of years ago, CO2 levels were 5000 to 7000 ppm. Life thrived.
Eliminating fossil fuels to stop “climate change” is like undergoing chemotherapy to cure the common cold.
It won’t work and does more harm than good.
I would have used hangnail, but that’s me.
Climate hysteria is the illegitimate offspring of weather amnesia.