Colorado Public Radio (CPR) News posted an article, titled “Don’t call it ‘climate denial,’ Secretary of Energy Chris Wright claims he’s preaching ‘climate realism,’” discussing U.S. Energy Secretary Wright’s nuanced position on the theory of human-caused climate change and fossil fuel use. The story provides fairly balanced coverage of Wrights position and reasoning, leaving the arguments for climate alarmism towards the end of the piece. On the whole CPR accurately describes Wright’s “climate realist” positions, without commentary.
CPR’s story begins by describing Wright’s history of combatting anti-oil and gas activism as a hydraulic fracturing business CEO, and how he has repeatedly stood up for the industry. After describing one such instance where he poked fun at clothing company The North Face over their refusal to make corporate jackets for an oil company despite using fossil fuels to make their products, CPR notes that Wright says “fossil fuels contribute the raw material and energy behind almost everything good about living in the 21st Century.” Wright also pointed out in a Greg Gutfeld interview that it is impossible to make “a windmill, a solar farm, a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam, for that matter, without oil and gas,” writes CPR.
Wright is absolutely correct here, and CPR should get some credit for admitting it. To ignore the implications of a “leave it in the ground” approach to fossil fuels is dangerously short sighted. This is not just the case because fossil fuel generation, like gas or coal, are necessary to back up intermittent renewables for electric power production, as Climate Realism has explained before, but also because the materials that comprise every wind turbine and solar panel, along with more than 6,000 other products and items in daily use, are derived from oil and gas.
CPR goes on to say that Wright has “developed a distinct view on climate change during his career,” in that he believes that human emissions of carbon dioxide do contribute to the modest warming of the past century, but that “scientists have vastly exaggerated the consequences of climate change, and that continued human progress requires more oil, gas and coal development, not less.”
Wright calls himself a “climate realist” – a title Climate Realism is happy to share. The CPR story does not spend a great deal of time trying to dispute Wright’s position. How could they and be honest? It is absolutely the case that scientists and the media have exaggerated the effects of modern climate change, particularly in in discussions of extreme weather. Data simply do not back up the alarmist claims made by media outlets every day.
Wright seemingly practices what he preaches, CPR points out, having “approved new LNG export terminals, undone efficiency rules for home appliances, and trumpeted the benefits of alternative energy sources like geothermal and nuclear,” while maintaining that “fossil fuels are essential to help the vast majority of the human population improve their lives.”
Wright is absolutely correct here. Each of the efforts CPR listed that Wright advanced, are policies The Heartland Institute has endorsed in the past; many were listed in the “TOP 10 Climate and Energy Action Items for President Trump” compiled in conjunction with other climate realist organizations and allies.
Near the close of the story, CPR begins to push back against Wright’s position, in particular allowing some scientists to assert, contra Wright, that the recent wintertime wildfires which burned large swaths of Los Angeles were due to climate change, an opinion that Wright does not share and has spoken publicly about. Yet Wright is right again and CPR and the alarmists are wrong. As explained in the post “Wright Is Right, Washington Post, Climate Change Did Not Fuel or Cause California’s Wildfires,” weather conditions aligned for bad fire potential, but they were not part of a long-term trend. Long term data show Los Angeles has actually seen an increase in winter precipitation, and has not been drying out.
Much to the consternation of climate alarmist media, Wright seems to have a good grasp of the issues and is working in his capacity as Secretary of Energy to enact policies not driven by the misplaced and unwarranted fear that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Instead, Wright is working to advance U.S. and global prosperity on the basis of a factual assessment of energy and climate change realities. Colorado Public Radio should be applauded for publishing Wrights views without much slant.

Oh how I envy the USA having this sensible chap calling the energy shots, rather than the zealot Millibrain that the UK has to put up with.
Wright seems to have a good grasp of the issues
Unlike Mad Ed – and our political class as a whole. Doublethink is the order of the day.
The UK, the nation that once had brilliant philosophers who had a hard headed, reality based view of the world- and which led the world in science and the industrial revolution.
Nice article, Linnea! Clear, concise, and entirely too filled with facts to provide for the emotional needs of your day-to-day environmentalist wacko, but I repeat myself!
It is to be hoped that the recent election in the US will be the beginning of the end of the Climate Apocalyse religious hoax! With commentators like you battling in the front lines, I have renewed hope that the Climate Hoax will soon be relegated to the ash heap of history; right next to Piltdown Man, where it belongs!
I even have hope that socialist states like England, Germany, and Commifornia can be pulled back from the brink of economic destruction due to their insane commitment to Unreliable Energy, but in this case I have to be both skeptical and realistic!
I agree. Well done article, Linnea.
Climate Caterwaulers are Climate Reality Deniers.
” ….. Wright’s nuanced position on the theory of human-caused climate change and fossil fuel use.”
When did it become a theory? I thought it was still just a hypothesis. If it is now a theory, what does the theory state?
But whatever it is called, good for Secy. Wright and I hope he keeps up the good work.
Don’t lose sight of the fact that in colloquial use, theory and hypothesis are synonyms. Hypothesis is not a common word for the general public.
Your point is valid, but I suspect that the choice of the word ‘theory’ rather than the more accurate ‘hypothesis’ was just a matter of style considerations. He was trying to use a junior high school vocabulary accessible to the general public, not claiming that a hypothesis has been demonstrated and replicated.
Climate alarmism is not a theory or a hypothesis. It’s a completely imaginary systematic travesty and egregiously ridiculous notion (CISTERN).
As usual, the anti-fossil fuels contingent gets the Marshall Fire story mostly wrong.
Boulder and the front range of Colorado were suffering a dry season in December 2021 when the fire erupted, but as Wright says, climate change had nothing to do with it.
The fire likely started in the underground coal seams in the foothills above the city of Boulder – acreage which is largely “open space” designation. Such land in Colorado is undeveloped except for hiking trails, so of course native and other grasses are allowed to propagate and spread in these areas to encourage natural wildlife, especially migratory birds. In a personal e-mail to the open space park service which maintains this acreage, the manager was asked whether she had considered allowing the grasses to be grazed by goats and other stock to remove the fire hazard. She replied that they use grazers only minimally, preferring to let the site revert to its natural state.
Such must have been its condition in the winter of 2021 when the well-known and regularly recurring Chinook winds fanned the fires to life. The winds, compressed in the down draft are hot and dry and in this event reached and exceeded speeds of 100 miles per hour. The role of the Chinook winds are often underestimated by environmentalists as they point to the Marshall Fire story as an example of global warming.
The other thing worth mentioning is that the foothills grasses enjoyed a generous boost from a wet summer in 2019. Again, details omitted by the “fire expert” from CU’s Earth Lab.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/historical-palmers/maps/psi/201901-202504
“She replied that they use grazers only minimally, preferring to let the site revert to its natural state.”
Nothing unnatural about grazers. I’m rather sure that centuries ago- there were grazers in those mountains.Probably mountain goats, buffalo, pronghorn, etc. I know that the NPS rangers hate goats which they call “hoofed maggots” – but that’s when there are just too many. It’s amazing that these rangers fail to comprehend what is really natural and not. It’s not natural to have no grazers where there is food that could be grazed.
The adults are back in charge, for now.
He believes that “human emissions of carbon dioxide do contribute to the modest warming of the past century”. Yes indeed, they probably have. The same way that if I spit in the ocean, I have contributed to sea level rise.
So YOU’RE to blame!!!
Very nice Linnea.
It’s about time that the US government gets with the climate realism program!!!
More of these realists need to be given the exposure they deserve except too much of the mainstream media is still taking bribes from the climate alarmists fearful of losing government subsidies in the first place. In addition, the governments themselves still want to hold on to their usually discredited theories about manmade environmental damage so that they can try to justify carbon pricing and green product mandates. So until we get properly balanced reporting on the mythological climate crisis, we can expect people like Wright to be muzzled.
Maybe it’ll try to muzzle Wright but I think the tide has changed under Trump- sooner or later other nations and bureaucracies will change their tune. We’re already seeing more conservative governments in Europe- and of course Argentina. The burro-ocracies do what they’re told- so now they must be told – either change or find a real job. The enviro groups and fanatics won’t change of course- not much anyway.
Intrigued by this article
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/05/how-to-deny-climate-change-using-the-ipcc-report/?utm_source=Weekly+News+from+Yale+Climate+Connections&utm_campaign=fdd545054b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_05_08_03_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-fdd545054b-59326565&fbclid=IwY2xjawKMOHRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFISzZUMkpqbWE0YldtQzllAR7J94vFpn40c06WI6WU0GVf5TGMkTTbxbTeeqAt079cJ3WhFWX7PJfuoC1yfg_aem_GwjuArf2rEX0We6kgqr_nQ
>> The new Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts – but Wright is wrong.
I had some fun with chatPG.. well my finding is that Wright really insisted that the IPCC6 says that there was no increase, he would be wrong!
However, if he said something like
>> the IPCC does not claim an increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts
(which I think is more likely)
ChatPG states:
Wright’s refined claim is accurate:
Thus, Wright’s statement aligns with the IPCC’s findings: it does not claim a global increase for any of these extreme events.
(Note again, this is for me putting words into Wright mouth! )
Either way, it seems that various observation based claims in the IPCC6 report are worded rather carefully and easily give a misleadingly alarming impression!
If Wright did not worded his statement carefully, he should and alarmists should also carefully spell out what is written and what is not there!
(And of course we all know that as soon the report leaves the real world and make model based statements all hope is lost!)
With that in mind the article linked by me (sorry) can only be characterized as wrongful hit piece!
Here is a very well done 2024 report from Chris Wright’s company that is also a great climate & energy policy review. Also has good graphics.
https://libertyenergy.com/esg/bettering-human-lives/
It’s a sad state of affairs when you have to applaud common sense as a positive exception.
Only SOME scientists- and certainly nothing like 97%
Not sure nuclear ought to be included with alternative energy sources!
In present time with all the NO NUKES that has been ongoing for decades, it certainly is not mainstream, hence the moniker of alternative is applicable.