Essay by Eric Worrall
First published JoNova; Are you or have you ever been a climate denier?
Climate Deniers Are Increasingly Hiding in Plain Sight
Donald Trump isn’t the only world leader backtracking on green policies.
October 2, 2025 at 1:30 PM GMT+10
Opinion
Lara Williams, Columnist
- Prime Minister Keir Starmer is reportedly planning to skip the COP30 United Nations climate conference in Brazil, despite previously stating his climate ambitions.
- Starmer’s decision is seen as hypocritical, as he criticized Rishi Sunak for skipping COP27 in 2022, and would make his climate ambitions look insincere or weak.
- Other leaders, including US President Donald Trump and EU members, are also being criticized for not following through on their climate promises, with many countries still fighting over emission-reductions targets and delaying implementation of anti-deforestation rules.
…
Other leaders are also still talking the talk while neglecting to walk the walk. After Trump’s ranting UN speech last week, more than 100 countries have either announced new goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or promised to submit updated climate plans, known as NDCs, before the Brazil climate summit. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, spoke at the UN the day after Trump, reassuring us that “the world can count on the European Union’s continued climate leadership.”
Those soothing words aren’t backed up by recent events. Mere weeks away from COP30, EU members are still fighting over their 2035 and 2040 emission-reductions targets. In just the last week, the bloc has once again delayed the implementation of new anti-deforestation rules for another year — the Commission blamed technical issues — while a forest monitoring law, which would have helped protect the continent from wildfires, was rejected by a right-wing coalition on Wednesday. The ongoing simplification regime, via a series of “Omnibus” packages, essentially waters down a whole host of green regulations.
…
Could this be the chilling effect of the US’s war on environmentalism? That seems unlikely to be the only reason. A report published last week by research institute Stockholm Environment Institute found that governments globally plan to produce 120% more fossil fuels in 2030 than what’s required to limit warming to 1.5C. And some 74% of Paris Agreement signatories have failed even the very basic task of submitting new NDCs with targets for 2025.
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-02/brazil-cop30-climate-deniers-are-increasingly-hiding-in-plain-sight?embedded-checkout=true
…
The hilarious part is author Lara Williams fails to identify one leader who lives up to her ideals of what a green champion should be, and appears confused about why her beloved green movement is falling to pieces.
President Trump was pivotal to collapsing the climate movement in the English speaking world. But that movement was already dead in non-English speaking Asian nations, especially China.
If Trump hadn’t won the last election, Asia would have pulled ahead of the English speaking world in the AI race, possibly developing an insurmountable lead, and I would have signed up for a course on how to speak Mandarin.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see:
Power Point 101 should be required.
I don’t believe the predictions of being dead by now due to excessive heat have come to pass. What I “deny” is not that climate changes (it always has cycles). It is the climate “science” which I’m skeptical of.
I deny there is a climate crisis.
I deny there is a single, solitary climate control knob.
I deny that humans can control the weather, therefore the climate, therefore climate change.
Valid points, which seem very unproven to me…maybe I am a “climate denier” after all?
Polar amplification is primarily caused by heat transport, rather than albedo.
People should be required to study electro magnetic fields and waves and, in particular, radar before abusing the term albedo.
I’ve been most brazen on my views on climate since at least 1990. I’ve never tried to hide behind anything. I’ve been aware that at some stage oil and gas reserves may become too expensive to extract and hence there must be thoughts about how to generate energy and electricity using other technologies, but it’s been pretty clear to me for decades that that is a 21st century process, not a first 20 years of the 21st century process.
I’ve also been pretty clear that it’s a good idea to build homes in a thermally-efficient manner (construction technologies have improved immensely the past 40 years); it’s a good idea to keep improving the manufacturing technologies for aeroplanes (they again have improved steadily each decade); it’s a good idea to keep investing in mass transit systems, provided that there are populations to sustain them in economically realistic ways.
I”ve always said that it’s a good idea not to engage in ‘slash and burn farming’ aka chopping down forests and replacing them with cattle. That’s got zero to do with oil and gas politics, to be brutal. I’ve also said that innovating in farming to reduce dependencies on fossil-fuel products is going to ensure that food remains affordable and healthy for centuries to come.
I’ve focussed on hydrological cycles rather than rainfall statistics as how you manage the rainfalls you receive is infinitely more important for most than the absolute levels of rainfall falling. I’ve been most interested in those who have developed strategies to return barren desert to thriving green oases without shipping in water from hundreds of miles away. Even if some of those folks worry about carbon dioxide, I put that to one side and focus on the good they do to the soils they regenerate, the food they produce and the management of such rainfall as they do receive.
I”ve come to the firm conclusion that all the technologies necessary to create an appropriate level of green-ness on earth are already out there, in the public domain (i.e. in the totality of skills and transferable skills in the globe’s population of environmentally responsible farmers, foresters, landscape managers, market gardeners, vintners etc etc).
I’ve come to the conclusion that trees, the soil, the oceans are all remarkably good at turning carbon dioxide into glucose plus oxygen, when there is sunlight and water to hand.
I”ve noted the ‘greening of the earth’ demonstrated through ongoing satellite-based monitoring of the earth and it says that, if there has been a desertification crisis, it passed it’s peak between 1980 and now.
I’m almost certain that fixating on carbon dioxide is a sure-fire way to become emotionally unhealthy, not to mention neurotic and vindictive. It’s far better to focus on more practical things like restoring 10-20sqm of land to productive health via feeding the soil, creating ecosystems that match the soil etc etc.
As for ‘urban heat islands’, well, perhaps the next piece of ‘innovation’ should concern ‘designing 21st century cities to include the cooling effects of tree cover’??
Perhaps another consideration is building down, not up for urban areas. The thought being you have a nice park with entrances to subterranean structures. We already have a toe hold with subways stations. Entire shopping centers are also underground at some subway stations.
The deeper you dig, the more stable the temperature.
It is something to mull over and study.
>> Are you or have you ever been a climate denier?
For me that would depent on what exactly is denied.
For example I do not think that the uncertainty in the causality chain
anthropogenic CO2 -> global warming -> (local) climate change
is properly discussed, starting from how much of the current CO2 level is natural to how much warming did the anthropogenic part cause adn how muhc climate changed as a result.
I deny that models before CMIP6 are anything but opinions expressed in numbers
I deny that any proxy studies which does not provide a mathematical quantification of the uncertainty from the selection criteria has any scientific meaning.
I deny that it is shown that current temperature measurements sufficeiently consider the Tonga erruption. i have seen simulation based estimates by Dessler and others, but I am not conviced. The lower Stratospheric warming pattern looks too destinct to arm wave it away – just my opinion!
Don’t quit now. You are on a roll and batting 1000.
Thx.
I saw your bullet points too, a different approach, but valid point to question;)
Denying “climate” is like denying “elephant”. Both are words. Knowing the difference between weather and climate is something else.
Knowing the difference between an elephant and a climate model is also important.
Hopefully a few remember the quote.
Depends on how many “parameters” the climate model uses.. Does the tail wiggle or not?
🙂
I have been a proud CAGW denier since the 1990’s.