Wrong, The Guardian, Oil Company Operations Aren’t Making Heatwaves Worse

In The Guardian’s article, “Carbon emissions from oil giants directly linked to dozens of deadly heatwaves for first time,” Damian Carrington reports on a study claiming that the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from just 14 major fossil fuel companies were enough to cause more than 50 heatwaves that “would otherwise have been virtually impossible.” This is false. heatwaves were far worse in the past than today and it is impossible to link any particular heatwave to emissions from any company or group of companies, since data show no causal connection between emissions and changes in heat waves, at all.

The piece frames the research they reference as a legal turning point, arguing that oil producers could now face liability for specific extreme weather events. The article quotes researchers as stating that “the emissions from any one of the 14 biggest companies were by themselves enough to cause more than 50 heatwaves that would otherwise have been virtually impossible.” It goes further, citing campaigners who assert: “We can now point to specific heatwaves and say, ‘Saudi Aramco did this. ExxonMobil did this.’”

The claim that “global heating is making heatwaves more frequent and more intense across the globe” ignores historical records, runs contrary to peer-reviewed evidence, and lacks any evidence of a causal connection in data.

Studies published in peer reviewed journals like the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology show that U.S. heatwave frequency peaked in the 1930s Dust Bowl era, long before modern emissions rose dramatically. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. Climate Extremes Index confirms that while recent decades have seen notable heatwaves events, there is no clear, consistent upward trend surpassing the 1930s. This graph, shown below, using that data and published by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, discussed in Climate at a Glance: U.S. Heat Waves, underscores just how unsupportable the claim made by The Guardian is:

There is no upward or worsening trend in heatwaves in recent decades. Nor is there a trend of heatwaves that tracks the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, much less a trend linked to greenhouse gas emissions from particular oil companies or the industry as a whole.

The attempt to pin specific weather disasters on particular companies stretches science far beyond its limits. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 report acknowledges that while attribution science can estimate probabilities, many categories of extreme weather, including droughts and tropical cyclones, cannot yet be definitively linked to incremental global warming. The IPCC itself warns that uncertainties remain high, particularly when applying global climate models to regional, short-term events. If the leading authority on climate science admits the limitations, it is implausible that a handful of researchers can leap directly from model outputs to courtroom-ready claims of individualized corporate culpability.

Attribution studies rely heavily on counterfactual scenarios produced by computer models rather than actual observed and measured climatic changes. The Guardian itself admits the method compares today’s world to a “world before mass burning of fossil fuels” by simulating what the world might have looked like absent industrial emissions. This counterfactual world is not observable—it is generated inside computer climate models that remain riddled with uncertainties about clouds, aerosols, and ocean cycles, and the biases of the modelers whose assumptions about how the climate responds rising greenhouse gas emissions are built into the models. Linking ExxonMobil or Saudi Aramco to a single heatwave is pure speculation dressed up in scientific language, but it has no basis in fact. It is nothing more than science fiction, dressed up as scientific fact in furtherance of a political/lawfare objective.

Even legal scholars cited in the article concede that the road to liability is “littered with legal and evidentiary potholes.” Those potholes exist for good reason: because weather is influenced by countless factors including natural climate oscillations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Niño–Southern Oscillation. The study referenced by The Guardian tried to assign corporate responsibility for a specific 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave which has been thoroughly debunked in the Climate Realism article: Expert Analysis: ‘Climate Change’ Had No Significant Role in Pacific Northwest Heatwave. The claims made in the study ignore the long history of extreme events in that very region, such as the record-setting 1941 heatwave, which occurred when the Earth was cooler and when CO2 concentrations and emissions were lower.

Even if, contrary to the evidence, COemissions could be linked to a trend in worsening heatwaves, which they can’t since no such trend exists, it is not the oil companies that are producing the emissions, but rather the governments, industries, companies, and people using fossil fuels to power modern society that are actually producing the emissions. Emissions are the result of our individual and collective choices in the modes of transportation and products we use, and the way we generate electricity, not oil companies making fossil fuels available for such uses.

By highlighting the assertions made in this false attribution study, The Guardian abandoned journalism in favor of activism. Instead of soberly reporting the limits of attribution science, it stages a morality play where oil companies become convenient villains and every heatwave a courtroom exhibit. This isn’t science—it’s propaganda masquerading as news. Readers who should be able to expect their media outlets to inform them by discussing evidence and revealing hidden truths, got theatrics instead from The Guardian, which, with some regularity,  produces baseless alarmism in furtherance of a scary narrative for political ends when the facts don’t cooperate.

Originally published at Climate Realism

5 7 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 15, 2025 10:14 pm

The Guardian, universities, and journals should practice what they preach and give up using the products they claim are responsible for global warming.

For printed newspapers, petrochemicals are used in ink solvents, synthetic resins, coated paper, lubricants for printing presses, cleaning solvents, plastic wrapping, and adhesives.

On websites, petrochemical-derived plastics and synthetic materials are found in computers, servers, cables, office furniture, cleaning products, and stationery contain petrochemical ingredients.

How about we sue them for their part in global warming?

September 15, 2025 11:42 pm

Lies, damned lies, and computer models.

Bruce Cobb
September 16, 2025 2:00 am

In the not-too-distant future, Climate Liars like the Guardian will be held accountable for their lies. Then, I suppose they will cry “but we were only reporting on what researchers and consensus science was telling us”! Not unlike the Nazis claiming they were “only following orders”.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 16, 2025 2:59 am

From a Google search:

Truth in advertising laws prohibit deceptive or misleading claims about products and services, requiring advertisers to possess reliable evidence to substantiate their claims. Enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (FTC) and state-level bodies, these laws cover both explicit and implicit claims and mandate disclosures of potential dangers. Violations can result in law enforcement actions, monetary penalties, and requirements for corrective advertising. 

September 16, 2025 2:55 am

That EPA Heat Wave chart is great. I’m sure climate cult members grit their teeth every time it’s put up. And you know what? It’s still on the EPA site. You can link to it here.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 16, 2025 5:01 am

Not only the EPA Heat Wave chart, but the NOAA state summary reports show this with “hot days” data through 2020 for the 655 long-term GHCN stations in the contiguous US. Figure 2 here.
https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/wy/

Using data through 2024 from those same 655 stations, I produced these similar charts in early 2025. Same idea.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fssK0Rijse5t3mM5JX4BFD0rnH7Bp-qn?usp=sharing

September 16, 2025 4:06 am

And the problem with suing oil companies over attribution studies is how to prove damages. It could be easily argued that more lives were saved by the use of fossil fuels through air conditioning and heating than being exposed to the elements. Where would we be if oil companies ceased production back when “they knew”.

September 16, 2025 4:51 am

“Carbon emissions from oil giants

Do petroleum companies have much in he way of carbon emissions? I didn’t think so.

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 16, 2025 7:59 am

There is a long standing principle in US law, that companies are not responsible for how customers use their products.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 16, 2025 7:26 pm

Yes, but they are minor compared to the CO2 emissions that its customers emit.
See “Scope I & II emissions” from the (fortunately!) canceled Biden era SEC requiring corporations to document their I & II emissions [like company owned vehicles & industrial processes, and energy purchased by the company from say, a power plant, respectively]. There were Scope III regulations as well that would have been a nightmare to tally.
Good riddance to all !

September 16, 2025 9:05 am

In other news, chicken farmers are being sued in a class action suit by a consortium of breakfast clubs across NA and Europe….who have determined that their breakfast eggs for the last four decades did not have the correct ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol …..and attribution studies show the statistical deaths of their members ….etc….etc…blah…blah….

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 16, 2025 10:51 am

Chicken Farmers Knew.

Edward Katz
September 16, 2025 2:19 pm

Here we go again. Either The Guardian, the BBC, the CBC, CNN or their ilk have to throw in their weekly or more often climate alarmist story; otherwise, they could suffer cutbacks of their probable funding from governments with a climate agenda or from enviro-organizations whose donations to those media outlets hinge on their regular scare stories of how human activity entailing fossil fuel use is destroying the planet, civilization and everything in between. Meanwhile, the odds of any of these outlets reproducing the above graph is essentially non-existent.

Bob
September 16, 2025 5:34 pm

It goes without saying the grant making process must be put on hold because it has been abused for too long. Once the money stops flowing solutions will magically manifest themselves. Stop financing this crap, it is that simple.

Reply to  Bob
September 16, 2025 7:29 pm

Yes.
Gvie them the “GISS of death”. Hey! The science is settled, right? Lol