Recent Dust Storm Panic Is Just More Hot Air From Climate Alarmists

In Inside Climate News’ article, “Dust Storms Surprise the Midwest and Raise Worries About Climate Risks”, published September 21, 2025, Nikita Ponomarenko reports on recent dust storms in Illinois and Kansas that resulted in tragic accidents. The story frames these storms as a possible “new normal” tied to climate change, warning that the Midwest faces rising risks as warming intensifies.

The article declares that “dust storms have always swirled through parts of North America, but they are becoming more unexpected and destructive and landing in places unfamiliar with the danger, scientists warn”. It goes on to link drought, wind, and farming practices with climate change, quoting one researcher as saying, “there’s no question that climate change is one of the major drivers of dust”.

Dust storms, however, are not new phenomena. They have long been part of the weather in the Great Plains and Midwest, often tied to spring planting, dry fields, and high winds. The most famous example remains the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, when prolonged drought and poor land management created catastrophic storms across Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and beyond.

Dust storms in the Midwest have been documented repeatedly since then, including major events in Illinois in 1985 and again in the early 2000s. NOAA’s storm event database shows dust storms occurring sporadically across the Plains for over a century. To imply that their appearance in 2023 or 2025 is something new is to disregard both meteorological history and common sense.

It is also misleading to claim climate change “drives” dust storms. Dust storms are weather events, not climate trends. They occur when specific conditions align: dry soils, freshly tilled fields, and strong winds. As the National Weather Service explains, the mechanism is mechanical, not thermal—winds lift loose soil into the air, reducing visibility. While drought may be one precondition, the leap from a seasonal drought to anthropogenic climate change as the driver of a dust storm is unjustified. Blaming CO₂ for a 60 mph wind gust sweeping across a dry field confuses correlation with causation.

Historical context matters. The tragic 2023 Illinois dust storm cited by Inside Climate News was deadly, but it pales in scale compared to the storms of the 1930s. On May 11, 1934, a dust storm carried an estimated 350 million tons of soil across the Plains, darkening skies as far east as Washington, D.C., and New York City. In 1935, the infamous “Black Sunday” storm turned day into night across the Plains, forcing thousands from their homes.

Those events were far more severe than today’s short-lived traffic accidents, and they occurred decades before “climate change” was a political talking point.

Moreover, agricultural practices—not global temperature trends—remain the key driver of modern dust storms. As Inside Climate News itself notes, “dry-tilled fields, notably before spring plantings, are vulnerable to more intense seasonal winds”. When farmers leave fields bare, soil is exposed. Strong spring storms can then whip the ground into the air. By contrast, conservation tillage, cover crops, and windbreaks dramatically reduce dust risk. The difference between dust storm or no dust storm often comes down to farming practices, not carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

The article further cites speculative links between dust storms and climate change-driven megadroughts. But again, this is an attempt to shoehorn ordinary weather into an apocalyptic narrative. The Midwest is not undergoing desertification, nor is it experiencing anything resembling the 1930s multi-year droughts that fueled the Dust Bowl. U.S. Department of Agriculture drought records show year-to-year variability, with wet and dry cycles alternating as they always have. To elevate one bad season into evidence of a “new normal” is narrative-driven journalism, not science.

Even Inside Climate News concedes that “complex factors” caused the 2023 Illinois storm: a cold spring, late planting, drought, high winds, and even the positioning of a tree line. Yet despite listing all these local, mechanical drivers, the story insists on pivoting back to climate change. That leap requires ignoring the fact that significant dust storms also occurred in 1901, 1934, 1955, 1977, and many other years with no connection to modern carbon dioxide emissions.

In the end, dust storms are tragic when they claim lives, but they are not proof of a “climate crisis”. They are part of the natural variability of weather, exacerbated at times by land use and farming decisions. By attributing them to global warming, Inside Climate News misinforms readers and deflects attention from practical, local solutions such as conservation tillage, soil moisture management, and windbreak planting.

Rather than educating the public on how to mitigate dust risk, Inside Climate News offered yet another attempt to force a local weather event into the climate change narrative. The result is not journalism, but agenda-driven storytelling. Readers deserve to know the difference.