The Sky Is Still Falling! A Retrospective on Climate Alarmist Panic as Trump Returned

Charles Rotter

For a bit of lighthearted fun, we’re taking a trip down memory lane to revisit the fevered writings of climate activists at the outset of President Trump’s return to the White House. The following piece offers a look at their rhetoric, anxieties, and calls to “resistance” as they geared up to face what they saw as an existential threat—not to their policy agenda, but to the planet itself. No need to bring popcorn; the drama is provided free of charge.

The spectacle put on by the climate activist class at the dawn of Trump’s second term reads like the world’s most sanctimonious comic opera, except with less self-awareness and worse writing. With Trump about to retake the White House, the self-styled “climate movement” braced for what they saw as an apocalypse, as if Washington D.C. had just installed the Antichrist instead of a guy who likes golf and cheeseburgers. The amount of catastrophism, virtue signaling, and emotional histrionics on display in “Advice From Climate Experts as Trump Is Sworn In” deserves its own spot in the Smithsonian—right next to the collection of failed doomsday predictions and broken hockey-stick graphs.

From the opening paragraph, we’re treated to the familiar drama: “Donald Trump will be marching back into the White House today. Against the backdrop of the raging and deadly Los Angeles wildfires, his proposed environmental policies feel especially alarming”. That’s right, wildfires have become a spiritual weather-vane for these folks. Any natural disaster is immediately a sign of climate Armageddon—never mind that the U.S. had wildfires, droughts, and floods long before the first coal-fired plant or that, for most of recorded history, the forests of California burned whether humans wanted them to or not.

Next, the hand-wringing over Trump’s plans to “withdraw the United States from the international Paris Agreement, expand gas exports, and stymie clean energy markets” arrives with the kind of theatrical dread once reserved for incoming Mongol hordes. The activists declare: “The climate emergency is no longer in the rear-view mirror: It’s at our front door. The climate crisis in 2024 was responsible for an estimated 11,500 deaths, according to the International Disaster Database.” If this number sounds suspiciously precise, that’s because it’s supposed to. The media, and by extension activist groups, love their “databases,” preferably international and disaster-related. Never mind the statistical trickery or the fact that the “disasters” included are often cherry-picked, exaggerated, or conveniently attributed to climate change by the same agencies that exist to find climate change in every thunderstorm.

Perhaps my favorite line is the rallying call: “Across the country, climate workers are gearing up for the fight of a generation. Many will shift their priorities to local efforts where they expect to have the most impact. Some will turn to controversial tactics, such as civil disobedience, to protect their communities at whatever cost necessary. Others will zero in on taking Trump to court.” In other words, the real work of “climate action” consists mostly of lawsuits, street theater, and the never-ending invention of new bureaucratic job titles like “climate worker,” presumably funded by the very fossil fuels they claim to abhor.

Let’s pause to appreciate the moral urgency: “These next several years will determine the future of our planet: Will we have the decency to prevent our planet from burning to the ground? If federal governance removes environmental protections and fails to reduce carbon emissions, then it’s up to us to mobilize and organize. Local organizing will be essential this year, and putting pressure on global policy is more important than ever. We have no time left to waste.” For all the sound and fury, what’s missing here—what is always missing—is any meaningful acknowledgment of uncertainty, humility, or actual evidence that the planet is teetering on the edge because of federal energy policy. The activists are so convinced of their own righteousness, so certain that their cause is not only just but existential, that they openly call for bypassing democratic processes, harassing their fellow citizens, and “building visible, relatable campaigns of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience that target elites and politicians who side with polluters over the well-being of people and the planet”.

Of course, “civil disobedience” sounds so much nobler than “public nuisance,” which is what most of these protests become—blocking highways, defacing property, and generally making life miserable for ordinary people just trying to get to work. And the idea that the only people standing between “the well-being of people and the planet” and total destruction are a cadre of activists who specialize in Instagram campaigns is, frankly, laughable.

The parade of quotes continues with Michelle “Meech” Carter touting “creative solutions and innovations in solar, wind, and battery storage to reduce our region’s high energy burden.” She also assures us that “federal grants and rebates made possible under President Joe Biden are game changers, providing access to renewable energy and home repairs that will improve lives and lower bills.” Funny how these “game changers” are always one more spending bill away from finally working as promised. The reality, as every ratepayer in California or Texas can attest, is that these subsidies mostly result in rolling blackouts and skyrocketing utility bills.

Marlena Fontes, for her part, describes Trump’s election as “a major setback for our movement” but insists they will keep “building visible, relatable campaigns of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience” and targeting “elites and politicians who side with polluters over the well-being of people and the planet.” They demand that “progressive politicians…leave behind a losing pro-fracking strategy and, instead, take clear, decisive action on ending fossil fuel projects, making polluters pay, and protecting immigrants.” Because nothing says “science-based policy” like lumping immigration, fossil fuels, and climate in one big rhetorical blender and hitting purée.

No climate activist gathering is complete without invoking the supposed moral superiority of “Indigenous wisdom” and the collective, mystical “solidarity” of resistance. Tara Houska delivers: “Indigenous peoples hold teachings of our individual roles in community. We each carry unique gifts and walk in mutuality with all living beings…Our existence is resistance. Our solidarity is our survival.” As always, the activism is less about practical outcomes and more about spiritual theater—a ritual for the faithful.

Mustafa Santiago Ali, whose title at the National Wildlife Federation could double as a character in a post-apocalyptic sci-fi flick, proclaims: “Trump’s plans read like a poorly crafted dystopian novel. This destructive blueprint is marked by reckless abandonment of the protections that safeguard our air, water, and ecosystems, leaving a nagging sense of uncertainty about the future of our planet and our most vulnerable communities.” He continues: “These rollbacks aren’t just political decisions—they’re putting profits ahead of the planet, ignoring the rising seas, worsening storms, and devastating wildfires we see all around us. The crisis hasn’t paused, but the leadership to face it has.” There’s that “leadership” again—code for “let us technocrats, activists, and grant-writers run the world.”

And what’s the solution? “Mobilize locally to protect what national leaders will not. We will organize communities to transition to renewable energy, push corporations to decarbonize, encourage philanthropic organizations to commit to more substantial investments to protect clean air and water, and demand climate reparations for those already bearing the brunt of the crisis.” The word “reparations” slips in with the usual lack of clarity about who, exactly, is supposed to pay, or what evidence exists that the payments will accomplish anything beyond more paperwork.

Jean Su, Energy Director at the Center for Biological Diversity, laments that she spent four years “pushing President Biden to declare a climate emergency to phase out fossil fuels and establish resilient clean energy for communities suffering the most from our dirty, racist energy system.” Not only is the U.S. energy grid “dirty,” it’s now “racist,” a word tossed about so freely it has lost all meaning. Now she is worried Trump will “declare false energy emergencies—a farcical abuse of presidential powers to drill for more oil and gas.” In her mind, drilling for oil is “farce,” but giving the federal government dictatorial control over energy production is “real action.” She’s also determined to “take these utilities on” at the state level and “build local people power to turn our climate and democracy crises around”.

The sheer arrogance is breathtaking. These are people who cannot keep the lights on in their own states but want to reorder the global energy system.

The most revealing part of the entire performance comes from Tamara Toles O’Laughlin, who announces: “Organizers are a crucial part of how we will win. They are literally dealing with issues of life and death. Organizers are a necessary part of converting demands into policies…Win, lose, or draw, we are focused on raising the collective appetite for change in people’s everyday lives and livelihoods. Everything is different this time around, including the emotional and psychological capacity of everyone involved. We are doing essential work at a time when our planet is in distress, whether that shows up as melting ice, flash floods, or wildfires. Our organizing continues to be about big ideas and making change—every day. But the messaging has to get better. In this next political moment, our work is to get good at organizing our message and our messengers for a future that will surely look different than the past.”

Translation: “We must become more effective at propaganda because the facts aren’t on our side.”

Now, if you set aside the groupthink, the pseudo-messianic fervor, and the thinly veiled contempt for ordinary people who have the gall to prefer functioning economies and affordable energy over yet another Save The World campaign, what remains is a movement terrified of public opinion and democratic processes. These activists don’t fear Trump because he’s uniquely “anti-science”—they fear him because, like millions of voters, he refuses to genuflect before their altar of climate hysteria.

As history grinds on, the climate movement’s inability to accept skepticism, uncertainty, or even basic cost-benefit analysis has become its greatest weakness. The “resistance” they lionize is less a bulwark against destruction and more a testament to their own isolation from the real world—the world that keeps running, building, and, yes, emitting, no matter how many wildfires they blame on carbon or how many grants they collect from “philanthropic organizations.” When the train finally arrived—whether in the form of a populist backlash, a market correction, or simply the reality of physics and economics—the “climate experts” were left standing on the tracks, holding signs about “solidarity” and “resistance,” wondering why the world refused to listen to the apocalypse that never came.