An article in the Carbon Brief (CB), “UK newspaper editorial opposition to climate action overtakes support for first time,” documents a clear shift towards climate realism in the United Kingdom: for the first time since CB began tracking editorials, more UK newspaper editorials are expressing skepticism towards the climate alarmist narrative and questioning the wisdom of various policies imposed to fight climate change, than are endorsing climate disaster claims and restrictions on energy use. Whatever one thinks of CB’s framing, the underlying trend it reports is real—and it aligns with a broader, global rise in climate realism.
The figure below from CB clearly shows the shift.
Note that shift began in 2022, with the steepest drop in alarmist articles and the biggest increase in articles endorsing a more realistic assessment of climate change and climate policies beginning in 2024 with the crossover complete in 2025.
Internationally, The Heartland Institute’s expanding global footprint has played a visible role in that change. The formal launch of Heartland UK/Europe, described in “The Heartland Institute Solidifies Its Global Impact by Founding Heartland UK & Europe,” reflects growing demand across the United Kingdom and Europe for fact-based critiques of climate alarmism and policy overreach. Heartland UK/Europe’s leadership under Lois Perry has emphasized transparency, cost-benefit analysis, and the difference between measured climate trends and speculative worst-case modeling—messages that resonate with editors and commentators increasingly wary of net-zero orthodoxy.
That shift did not appear out of nowhere, it a clear result of the strategies that have been introduced by Heartland UK/Europe coupled with growing international skepticism over the need for costly and disruptive “climate action” policies.
A perfect example of an event driving that shift is the recent counter to the World Economic Forum in Davos put on by The Heartland Institute, which announced:
The Heartland Institute hosts the World Prosperity Forum January 19–23 in Zurich, Switzerland, bringing together international leaders and policymakers to challenge the globalist, leftist agenda advanced each year at the World Economic Forum.
While the World Economic Forum promotes a centralized, top-down vision for the global economy, the World Prosperity Forum advances a prosperity-focused, freedom-focused vision rooted in free markets, individual liberty, and rising living standards.
In the United States, climate realism has gained ground as voters and policymakers have grown more skeptical of costly “net-zero” mandates that promised but failed to produce sweeping benefits, instead delivering higher energy prices and grid fragility. The rollback or weakening of major federal climate initiatives during the Trump years—combined with U.S. withdrawal from several symbolic international commitments—punctured the aura of inevitability that once surrounded global climate governance. Since then, debate has widened, and the assumption that “there is no alternative” to sweeping climate action has eroded.
It is notable that CB itself acknowledges in the article that most critical editorials are not disputing the existence of climate change, but rather questioning policy responses—what it labels “response scepticism.” That distinction is central to the rise of climate realism. Factual websites such as Climate at a Glance and Climate Realism are filled with data-driven examples showing that many headline claims about worsening extremes, accelerating sea-level threats, or imminent tipping points are not supported by long-term observations. The result has been a growing willingness among editors to challenge whether expensive climate policies are justified by the evidence.
Carbon Brief frames this trend as a “backlash,” but another interpretation is that it reflects either or both the triumph of truth over falsehoods over time or a normal democratic correction. As claims of impending catastrophe collide with real-world outcomes—stable or improving human well-being, declining climate-related deaths, and resilient economies—media institutions are reassessing whether fear-based messaging still holds credibility. That reassessment is visible not only in the UK, but across Europe, North America, and beyond.
In that sense, the Carbon Brief article unintentionally underscores a positive development: facts are beginning to compete with fear. Climate realism—grounded in observed data, historical context, and economic reality—is no longer confined to a handful of dissenting voices. It is increasingly part of mainstream debate, amplified by organizations like The Heartland Institute and Heartland UK/Europe and reinforced by the growing body of evidence compiled at Climate at a Glance and Climate Realism. The world is noticing, and the media conversation is finally starting to catch up.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Realism ! Something in very short supply in the UK..!
Only among the ruling elite. Ordinary people don’t fall for it.
Newspaper Editorial Shift shows Climate Realism Breakthrough in the UK
Really? I must have blinked and missed it. The Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mail etc blow hot and cold on the issue and sit politically away from the left for the most part. But the rest of the media I would argue is still ploughing the same furrow. The establishment plays its joker every now and then…
‘I wasn’t going to be diverted,’ says King Charles about campaign on the environment
Monarch says he has remained focused despite early criticisms of his beliefs, in new film Finding Harmony: A King’s Vision
The UK government didn’t want you to see this report on ecosystem collapse. I’m not surprised George Monbiot
Nature loss is a national security risk, intelligence group warns. Auntie
There’s nothing quite like natural altruism…
Whales are now ‘sharing’ food amid shortages due to climate change
Fin, humpback, and minke whales in the Gulf of St Lawrence are eating more fish and less krill than they did in the past. – The Independent
Normally one would put the Daily Express on the right of centre, and alarmists say deniers are right wing etc.
Opinion, Editorial: With increasing climate crisis globally manifesting in various ways, such as rising temperatures, extreme weather events of heatwaves and floods, and sea level rise, which impact ecosystems and human societies, this calls for an urgent need to identify innovative practices and effective humanitarian preparedness and response to ensure better healthcare for affected populations.
Empowerment of midwives in disaster response program planning and implementation is one of the vital innovations. – Daily Express
I remain sceptical.
I’m with you there, Strativarius, the faintest glimmers of common-sense are starting to appear in parts of the meejah but we’ve still got a long way to go whilst Mad Ed is in post.
I fear it has to get a lot worse before it will get any better, as Batman put it: it’s always darkest just before the dawn.
I really hope he was right. But No 10 calls the shots and until 2029 we know the direction of travel. As you rightly say, there’s a long way to go. God help us.
We have a ways to go as the left morphs into Batman’s villains, but I take solace that Batman appears to have studied philosopher Thomas Fuller.
“‘I wasn’t going to be
divertedopen minded,’ says King Charles about campaign on the environment”Fixed it.
My mind is made up. Don’t try to confuse me with facts.
Charles III is an inbred hereditary idiot.
Charles is a lightweight intellectually but his sister Princess Anne (my favourite royal since childhood – I am 79yr), is quite different.
She was always the sensible and courageous one and it led to Tony Heller saying he would rather have seen a Queen Anne than King Charles. I, of course, agree with him about that. Charles’ son William, is not much better than his father, unfortunately.
Well I am trying, albeit rather amateurishly – Just Stop Net Zero https://juststopnetzero.com/
And I did get banned from The Times for casting doubt the demon carbon dioxide.
However, there is still a long way to go. There’s been forty or so years of scare stories and doom mongering.
There’s been a good forty years of dumbing down, incrementally cohort by cohort.
I recently watched an old episode of Rising Damp. It was plastered with trigger warnings; ie how awful we were in the barbaric 1970s .
I doubt they could cope with ‘Til Death Do Us Part‘ (1965 – 1975) today. The screen isn’t big enough for all the warnings for a start.
How true! I remember the 70s fondly: that’s when I married my wife of (now) 50 years and bought my first house. In those days most of us could understand that the fun in ‘Til Death Us Do Part was being poked at the ignorance of racist bigot Alf Garnett, not at people from the ethnic groups he bad-mouthed. The world takes everything too literally nowadays.
They are too dumb to realise that the jokes are at the expense of the old bigot.
What triggers them isn’t the context of the conversation etc it is the mere use of a word. They hear it and scramble under the table. Sad.
It’s verging on autistic…
Reminds me of the fainting spells over the frequent and seemingly casual use of the “N-word” in Blazing Saddles, by those unwilling or unable to grasp how Mel Brooks–scene by scene and joke by joke–systematically robs it of its power as a slur.
That’s the power of dumbing down and groupthink.
Yes, ridicule such as Mel demonstrated in “Blazing Saddles” is the most powerful antidote to pandemics of the vapors.
Imagine even Mel trying to make “Blazing Saddles” today.
If you find it streaming or somehow come across it being broadcast on cable, it now has a “trigger warning”. I’m also not 100% sure it’s uncut, even if it claims to be.
Does it have a trigger warning for the farting scene too? Wouldn’t surprise me if it did!
“I think you boys dun had enough!”
N word has its place.
See Nicholas Jordan UCCS
“that most critical editorials are not disputing the existence of climate change, but rather questioning policy responses—what it labels “response scepticism.””
But- it’s got to be more than questioning policies, it’s got to be about questioning the cause of the slight changes in climate- because then and only then can better policies be designed.
While I agree it needs to be more, questioning policies is at least a start, especially where the more-damaging ones are concerned.
It’s harder to question the belief because you’re trying to argue people out of what is, in effect, a religious viewpoint. Worshipping at the Church of CAGW is what defines these people to themselves.
Your second paragraph, absolutely, Joseph.
Until MSM promotes the fact that CO2 isn’t dangerous or the climate control knob and keeps pushing that we are stuck with the stampede to net zero and I can’t see that yet. Everyone just pussyfoots round saying ” net zero is against the national interest ” instead of coming out with why it is a mistake.
FIFY
There is no need for “climate policies,” because the underlying assumption of ALL such “policies” is inherently WRONG.
“Climate Change” IS NOT a “human-induced problem.”
No “policy” will ever “fix” it because it was never within our control.
And never will be.
“… accelerating sea-level threats … are not supported by long-term observations.”
No problem, they will just be arrested same as others in Britain are being arrested for thoughts and speech.
Yeah imagine that and we’re somewhat perturbed that the doomster climate changers are jumping the gun the drongos-
They Warned Us: Your Lights Could Go Out Forever And This Is Why | Watch
Miserable damn ecofreaks and worryworts means the younguns aren’t getting tipsy and having sex anymore-
Australia’s fertility rate is about to plummet. We want to know why
Questioning policy is an important first step towards climate realism. It’s tough for an individual to admit they were wrong about something, and even tougher for an organization to do so. Even the ones questioning policy, but not “the science” must realize that you can’t really separate the two things, or at least not for long. Baby steps.
The problem is that many people and orgs exist only for that purpose. They can no more acknowledge reality than a leopard can switch to stripes.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
—Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
The problem is CAGW (or whatever it is called today) and the current anointed solution is Net Zero. Well, we meant well. We’ll get it right the next time
We have got to kill the idea of CAGW and the theory that non-condensing radiative gases are important.
The global elite cabal who want us enslaved won’t give up that easily.
Story tip Australia back to a carbon tax:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/29/australia-polluter-pays-levy-fossil-fuels-rod-sims-ross-garnaut-superpower-institute-report
They have no clue about basic economics.
That’s right up there with the stupidest f’ng idea of all the the stupidest f’n ideas ever hatched.
Saddling AU resources industries with another tax would kill AU exports competitive capability for the China market against the likes of Indonesia, Brazil, PNG, etc etc.
Coal exports to China are about all that’s keeping the AU financial situation afloat.
Gannet and Skims would be better off developing an ‘Institute For Grifters With Their Heads Up Their Arses’.
That makes for a snappy acronym. Not.
GWTHUTA.
Rhymes with nothing.
Which is what those climate grifters are offering.
Those of us who’ve been in this game from the start new that the alarmist mantra would not hold sway over the people once it started to bite in their pockets. The question was always would the damage to the economy be too severe before Joe Public came to his senses.
The conclusions about media may be correct.
There is an alternative that may also be valid.
People have become numb to the media histrionics and are no longer clicking on click-bait, hyperbolic, scare headlines.
The elephant in the room is Donald John Trump, who is scarcely reticent with his opinions and actions regarding the climate change cult.
“They” won’t stop pushing the CC narrative until it starts hurting at the polls.
tip: https://www.lifezette.com/2026/01/former-climate-activist-wakes-up-and-drops-truth-bombs-all-over-the-green-scam-watch/?utm_source=talkred
Good for Lucy, we need lots more like her.
Yes, and I keep saying this: You don’t see people converting from skeptics to alarmists.
“…a positive development: facts are beginning to compete with fear.”
Hmmm, like these?
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT. Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: 396 S-B BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2. / 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. Entering: 30% albedo = not BB. OLR: 17sensible & 80 latent = not BB. TFK_bams09: 97 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR. 63/396=0.16 emissivity.
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
Aha…some obvious turncosts trying to save their hides before “facing getting strung up by a lamp post”? Overly sarcastic fantasy I would admit, if it weren’t for the influx of other cultures and habits flooding the western hemisphere.
Short term thinking always turns out badly…just a reminder. I think I’ll have another beer as long as I can hold it myself.
Please stop aiding the propaganda.
THERE ARE NO “climate related” deaths, whatsoever. And there ARE FEWER WEATHER RELATED deaths, considering how many more humans exist today to BE harmed vs. how many there were in the past.
This is largely because people don’t see any major disruptions to their lives and well-being due to the supposed climate change caused by excessive fossil fuel use. Yet they do see higher living costs and more unnecessary restrictions, laws and mandates designed to fight a non-problem.
Any movement in our direction should be celebrated and encouraged. In my view this post indicates movement by the rate payer and tax payer not experts, professionals, academic, scientists or politicians. There is no reason for rate payers to pay higher prices for power claimed to be produced by generators that are cheaper than fossil fuel and nuclear. That is one thing that can’t be hidden.