When It Comes to Climate and Energy, Let’s Retire the Politics of Fear

By Gary Abernathy

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third-warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

The story added, “The conclusion came as no surprise: The past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record, according to Copernicus data. In 2025, the average global temperature was about 1.47 degrees Celsius (2.65 Fahrenheit) higher than from 1850 to 1900 — the period scientists use as a reference point, since it precedes the industrial era in which massive amounts of carbon pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere.”

As usual, our most affordable and reliable fuel sources were blamed.

“The primary reason for these record temperatures is the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dominated by the burning of fossil fuels,” according to Samantha Burgess, the “strategic lead on climate” for the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which operates Copernicus, according to the report.

Sometimes it feels like the climate change crusaders are oblivious to everything going on around them. For decades, they’ve been resorting to the same tired strategies to convince us that doom and gloom are just around the corner if we don’t change our ways. What they ignore is that their tactics aren’t working – more people than ever are tuning them out.

Americans in particular have grown wise to the predictions that don’t come true and the demands that don’t make sense. In fact, so badly has science become blatantly politicized that the number of people who have a great amount of trust in science keeps shrinking.

That fact was backed up by a recent Pew Research Center report that found that “Americans’ confidence in scientists remains lower than it was prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.” To many of us, it is now obvious that the inconsistent guidance on Covid and many pandemic edicts that were later found to be ineffective and even misleading demonstrated that science was not above being overtly politicized.

While the Pew study noted a Democrat-Republican disparagement regarding trust in science (Democrats trust it more, Republicans less), only 28 percent of all U.S. adults said they have “a great deal” of confidence in scientists “to act in the public’s best interest.”

I recently noted the welcome admission by manmade climate change believer Noah Kauffman, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, who, writing for The Atlantic, said flatly that “the full effects of climate change are unknowable, and a more constructive public discussion about climate policy will require getting more comfortable with that.” Whether in regard to vaccines, dietary guidelines or climate change, in recent years science has too often found itself at the center of partisan political debates and lost the trust of many Americans by appearing to support certain causes over others based on ideology rather than pure scientific data.

But we can’t afford to let that happen when it comes to making energy decisions. Why? Because no one can deny that affordable energy is the key to economic prosperity for American households and businesses.

When energy costs are low, manufacturers can produce goods at a lower cost, resulting in more competitive products domestically and internationally.

When fuel is affordable – whether diesel, gasoline or jet fuel – all modes of transportation, including airlines, trucking and shipping companies, can charge less, resulting in savings for all consumers.

Heating, cooling and transportation costs represent the most significant share of most families’ budgets. When energy costs are reasonable, household spending on other goods and services increases, not only helping individual families but contributing to overall economic growth.

In addition to everything else, there is real damage caused by manipulating science in a way that puts climate over people. It puts people in danger and keeps them in poverty – and ultimately only a privileged few will benefit.

Consider the billions the Biden Administration doled out to political cronies on its way out the door in the name of the climate cause. Consider also the Obama Administration giving a half billion dollars to Solyndra, the solar panel company accused of engaging in “a pattern of false and misleading assertions,” only to see it go bust – all at the expense of hardworking, taxpaying Americans.

That’s why it’s important to remove the manipulation of the energy sector from the politicization that has infiltrated the scientific community. Americans should not be pawns in the effort to frighten our people or our government into abandoning our most reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy sources.

There’s a better way. By passing the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Act (ARC-ES), Congress can codify into law the guarantee that Americans will always have access to low-cost energy, regardless of the effort of progressive political groups to weaponize science in order to funnel tax dollars to prop up “alternatives.”

Anyone can manipulate data to come up with horrifying “what if” scenarios designed to frighten or intimidate people into making their preferred choices. That’s not how to make public policy. We need to pass ARC-ES to move past the days when the science that fewer people trust is manipulated to justify changes in energy policy that few people want. When it comes to science, let’s trade the politics of panic for the integrity of facts.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cgh
February 11, 2026 10:09 am

Politics of Fear is a tried and tested tactic by the international antinuclear industry. It’s been the principal method of coercion of public opinion for more than four decades against the use of nuclear power generation and the use of nuclear technology in a host of other areas such as food purification and nuclear medicine..

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  cgh
February 11, 2026 10:37 am

It goes back millennia.

February 11, 2026 10:16 am

Americans in particular have grown wise to the predictions that don’t come true and the demands that don’t make sense.”

That’s because, as with the experience with inflation, we do believe our own eyes, not the spin. We only have to see the frozen lakes and rivers across much of the country to know that we aren’t only a few years from the next PETM. Sea level rise is still lost in the noise of the daily tidal changes and periodic storm surges. Now, I just hope the rest of us can see through the rest of the spin from the left, such as the lie that voter identification is somehow voter oppression (one of the current political battles). Who wins elections can determine the course of energy independence and affordability.

Mr.
Reply to  johnesm
February 11, 2026 11:03 am

Yes, if north America experiences the dry, hot drought conditions of the 1930s again, where is the variable “climate change” signal, if the same conditions are experienced again ~100 years later?

Paul Seward
February 11, 2026 10:17 am

Carbon pollution?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Paul Seward
February 11, 2026 10:39 am

The expression is intended to evoke memories of SMOG.
Smoke and fog.
Real pollution.

Another favorite is CO2 is a climate pollutant.
I am still trying to comprehend how one pollutes a statistical average.

Scissor
Reply to  Paul Seward
February 11, 2026 11:29 am

I’d also like to know what kind of pump is being used for that carbon. It’s likely overdue for a seal job.

Bruce Cobb
February 11, 2026 10:26 am

Modern coal power plants are “clean”, as in, minimal air pollutants. Everything is clean. So why use the word? The Alarmists have abused the word to mean free of, or low CO2 emissions, implying that the100% beneficial, life-giving gas, CO2 is somehow “dirty”.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 11, 2026 10:43 am

USA CO2 contributions have declined over the past couple of decades.

Even so we must do more!
Even if we got to zero (a tragedy for us all), the impact on the global environment would barely be measurable.
So we must do this regardless of the cost.

/s

Sparta Nova 4
February 11, 2026 10:34 am

“In addition to everything else, there is real damage caused by manipulating science in a way that puts climate over people. It puts people in danger and keeps them in poverty – and ultimately only a privileged few will benefit.”

That is the plan.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
February 11, 2026 10:44 am

Fear and intimidation driven by complicit media is what drives propaganda. Without it the alarmists would have nothing so they keep using the only formula they know. They will stop only when they sense the message hurts them more than helps them. It could be climate, immigration, wealth distribution, war, race, religion, you name it. The message is always the same only the subject changes.

Tom Halla
February 11, 2026 11:49 am

They have been crying “wolf” and it turns out to be an arthritic Chihuahua.