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.
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..
It goes back millennia.
And who do you think are the largest proponents of the antinuclear industry? Who has the most to lose if the switch to nuclear ever happened? The oil and gas industry.
Citation needed.
They have the money to move into nuclear if they wanted to, and given that nuclear electricity is logical and inevitable perhaps they already have.
How do you say you are ignorant and wrong without saying you are ignorant and wrong? You just did.
Even if the electric grid went 100% nuclear generation, the oil and gas industries would carry on.
The largest antinuke people were Jane Fonda and a few thousand anti-human environmental groups.
“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.
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?
Hey! Jamiee Raskin said SAVE Act will end women voting so of cour,,,,,,ah, hell, I couldn’t even finish typing this without laughing hysterically. Best part? The purple haired WLW who are screeching endlessly without end about protecting child molesters and rapists from ICE are taking up THIS new banner before the printing ink is even dry.
Voter identification.
Last time I voted, I was told not to show my ID.
I was asked my name.
It turns out there were more than 1 voter with my first and last name.
I was asked my address.
I was aghast. All of that can be found on the internet, easily.
Someone could have come in and voted for me and then what?
I recall in past elections where the original Voter Registration Card or a government issued Photo ID (e.g., driver’s license) was required.
This is a return to sanity.
Carbon pollution?
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.
Or how CO2, the building block of essentially all life as we know it, constitutes “pollution.”
“how one pollutes a statistical average.”
Climate alarmists do it all the time. !! 😉
As has been pointed out by the likes of Willy Soon: there is no average temperature so no average global one either. Temperature is always a local measurement. You cannot devide, stack, average them. It is a flawed trick, statistically non valid as well. It has no equilibrium.
For simple people i always ask: what is the average temperature of the moon? And then watch them trying to cope..
Good point.
I see what you did there. 🙂
I’d also like to know what kind of pump is being used for that carbon. It’s likely overdue for a seal job.
The replies to this post sum up what I was thinking. Excellent work!
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”.
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
“Even if we got to zero (a tragedy for us all), the impact on the global environment would barely be measurable.”
As confirmed by John Kerry: John Kerry, Biden’s ‘climate czar’ admits U.S. carbon dioxide emission cuts are pointless – Watts Up With That?
Do I need to post that list that shows that wind and solar are by far the least clean, and most environmentally destructive forms of electricity supply over their whole short life time. !
No. But go ahead anyway. 🙂
AI enjoys repetitions. 🙂
“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.
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.
They have been crying “wolf” and it turns out to be an arthritic Chihuahua.
With no teeth left and a case of laryngitis.
The “politics of fear” are not going away anytime soon.
Why?
Because if you don’t repent, you’ll spend eternity in hell.
Be sure to do what your TV set tells you to do for a better life.
I can’t wait for tomorrow – Doomageddon’s Day, when the Endangerment Finding gets repealed.
At that point, Chicken Little will take center stage. Bank on it.
Beer and pop corn at ready. Pizza is on order.
CAGW theory claims rising CO2 reduces energy loss to space which acts like a blanket over Earth leading warming. The obvious test is; “is Earth’s energy loss to space falling as CO2 levels rise”. Observation shows it is continuously rising not falling. Direct observational refutation of the core basis of the theory would seem to refute the theory. But warmists claim, no; its that the warming caused has impacts that raise energy loss to space. That is a feedback effect, so they are claiming the feedback reverses the driver causing the feedback (ie: the reduction in energy loss to space). But if the driver reverses, the feedback would as well so that explanation fails any reasonable basis of logic. The logical explanation is that the rising energy loss to space is not a feedback effect of rising CO2, it is the result of a completely separate driver. That means the warming we are seeing is not primarily due to rising CO2 but due to some completely separate cause (eg: Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory or some other not yet determined cause). In which case the entire theory of dangerous warming from rising CO2 is false.
With this theory in mind they expected OLR to go down..but it went up. The system adjusts as normal, as it always does.
When global polls have consistently shown over the past number of years that climate concerns and actions are low priorities among citizens in a wide variety of countries, it’s obvious that the majority of the planet has written off the whole matter and doesn’t aim to make any drastic lifestyle changes to combat a non-problem. Yet the mainstream media, thanks to generous funding from governments and environmental organizations, continues to run scare stories filled with exaggerations, distortions, and outright inaccuracies hoping to convince whatever suckers are left to accept higher taxes, unnecessary restrictions and expensive mandates to do their part to benefit no one beyond those that stand to profit from such actions.
According to my Google search, about 90% of the entire world population live on less than US$100 per day, which is well below the average income for each individual in the USA. These figures are calculated using Price per Parity (the rate at which the currency of one country is converted into another to buy the same amount of goods and services.)
Around 50% of the world population live on less than $10 per day. Imagine how much energy would be required to raise the standard of living, worldwide, to that of the average US citizen, and to also maintain that standard of living, and continue improving it.
Fossil fuels would soon become too scarce and expensive, so we need alternative sources of energy.
Demonizing fossil fuels by fabricating disastrous effects of CO2 emissions, is one way to encourage investment in alternative sources of energy.
And subsidizing current inefficient, intermittent, wind and solar is one way of insuring that the funds for investment in useful, reliable, future energy sources will not be available when needed.
Each of these intermittent sources of energy can be useful in optimum circumstances, especially as the technology improves.
For example, as Sodium-Ion battery technology improves, and solar tiles for roofs improve and become more durable, it could be very efficient and practical in the future, when building a new house in an area which has plenty of sunshine, to construct the entire roof area with solar tiles instead of conventional tiles, and have a room set aside for cheap, durable and safe Sodium-ion batteries to store more than sufficient energy when the sun doesn’t shine.
Current solar tiles, or shingles, are expected to produce at least 80% to 85% of their original capacity after 25 years.
All ‘noble’ ambitions Vincent, but the irrationality present in current energy ‘transition’ experiments is abandoning the reliable, affordable, dispatchable, load-following energy production & distribution solutions already in place –
coal, gas, nuclear, even hydro in some areas.
Sailors are trained to not start abandoning a craft at the first panic attack of collision or sinking by a passenger.
The crew apply their experience to securing flotation of the craft and adapting to sea conditions. Transferring to puny life boats is a last resort.
You should step UP into a lifeboat from a sinking vessel.
“All ‘noble’ ambitions Vincent, but the irrationality present in current energy ‘transition’ experiments is abandoning the reliable, affordable, dispatchable, load-following energy production & distribution solutions already in place –coal, gas, nuclear, even hydro in some areas.”
Some countries are abandoning coal, gas, and nuclear, but other countries, especially China and India, are increasing their use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Didn’t you know that?
Overall, worldwide, the use of fossil fuels has been increasing, year by year, at an enormous rate since the early 1950’s, and continues to do so. Look at the attached graph.
We are aware and we understand the motivations.
Give it a rest, Vince. You’re on a hiding to nothing.
It has been 2 weeks now and not a single solar panel in my neighborhood is free of ice and snow, although the roof shingles are.
There is no optimum circumstance for SV on a rotating planet.
There is no optimum circumstance for WTG.
While the sun shines and the wind blows somewhere on the planet, unlike coal, a fuel co-located with the generator, getting those “free” fuels to the generators is impossible.
Sodium-ion batteries have less capacity that LI-ion. You need 3-10 times as many with all the encumbered weight, materials, disposal issues associated with LI-ion, which we do not have a basic recycling method. Toxic landfill ingredients all.
“Sodium-ion batteries have less capacity that LI-ion. You need 3-10 times as many with all the encumbered weight, materials, disposal issues associated with LI-ion, which we do not have a basic recycling method. Toxic landfill ingredients all.”
Disposal of all types of waste is a general problem worldwide because of the cost and because the average person doesn’t seem to care enough about the issue.
However, according to my internet search, recycling sodium-ion batteries is generally less problematic and more environmentally friendly than recycling lithium-ion batteries because Sodium-ion batteries use more abundant and less toxic materials (no cobalt/nickel) and offer improved safety with less risk of thermal runaway, making their end-of-life handling simpler and less hazardous.
Regarding your claim that ‘You need 3-10 times as many with all the encumbered weight’ does not apply to the latest sodium-ion technology. You should always search the internet for details, before rebutting someone’s comment.
Here’s what I found:
“CATL’s Naxtra sodium-ion batteries are in production and have entered the passenger vehicle market as of early 2026. Following their unveiling in 2025, mass production and integration into vehicles, such as those from Changan and GAC Aion, began in Q1 2026, offering 175 Wh/kg density and superior cold-weather performance.
Key details about CATL’s Naxtra production:
Mass Production Status: Naxtra sodium-ion batteries have reached the stage of mass production and are being integrated into new electric vehicle models in 2026.
Initial Applications: The batteries are powering mass-market vehicles (such as GAC Aion), light commercial vehicles, and battery-swapping systems, offering high power discharge and excellent low-temperature performance (up to -40°C).
Performance Metrics: Naxtra batteries achieve an energy density of approximately 175 Wh/kg, which outperforms conventional Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) in cold weather, charging speed, and longevity.
Advantages: Naxtra provides a cheaper alternative to LFP batteries, aiming for a “Dual-Star” strategy with lithium-ion to dominate different market segments.
The technology is no longer in the prototype phase, with production scaling rapidly to meet the demands of commercial vehicles, passenger cars, and energy storage systems.”
Got it?
The only reliable, dispatchable alternative source of any worth, with the ability to substitute for fossil fuels in the electricity sector, and capable of world-wide application, is Nuclear.
The world has WASTED oh so much money on low-level non-technologies that can never work…
… and would have been far better served by using the Coal, gas and oil to their total ability while working on getting widespread nuclear established.
But because of the nonsensical anti-CO2 idiot agenda, that is becoming more and more difficult to do.
I feel really sorry for those people having to cope with the aftermath of these incredibly stupid decisions, in the not too distant future.
Many places, such as UK, EU, Australia, Califormia etc etc etc are already starting to feel the all too predictable outcome.
I am waiting for Scotty to beam down a matter-antimatter reactor. 🙂
I am also waiting on fusion. Maybe in my lifetime? Who can say.
“The only reliable, dispatchable alternative source of any worth, with the ability to substitute for fossil fuels in the electricity sector, and capable of world-wide application, is Nuclear.”
I agree. The invention of electricity was a marvelous step forward for human society, and it should be applied wherever it is practical.
I don’t understand why so many people are obsessed with sticking to gas-heated stoves and gas heaters to warm their homes when electricity can do the job much easier and safer.
I guess people just get stuck in their ways, and refuse to progress.
Despite all the claims on this site that nuclear fusion will never become practical, I find it interesting that the private sector is now investing more money in the research than the government.
From an internet search:
“The research began in the early 1950’s during the Cold War, and was almost entirely funded by government agencies to develop thermonuclear weapons and the potential for new energy sources.
However, in recents times there has been a surge in private sector investment in nuclear fusion research which has surpassed US$10 billion as of late 2025, whereas government investment was only US$2.6 billion.”
In the future, when everyone is driving BEVs and heating or cooling their homes with electric-operated airconditioners, a reliable and affordable supply of electricity will be essential.
However, it’s likely that solar tiles or panels on roofs, combined with battery storage, will still be practical in certain areas with plentiful sunshine.
The problem with your conjecture is the vast amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas consumed in the resource extraction and refinement, and the production, delivery, installation, maintenance, and reliability augmentation associated with SF and WTG.
While is is possible demonizing carbon fuels to encourage investment, it is documented that the real purpose is to alter global economies and potentially achieve a One World Order with unelected power brokers and rich elites telling us, poor deplorables, what we can’t do.
“The problem with your conjecture is the vast amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas consumed in the resource extraction and refinement, and the production, delivery, installation, maintenance, and reliability augmentation associated with SF and WTG.”
I’m not suggesting solar farms should be built on arable land, nor that forests should be cut down in order to build windmills.
I think, generally, that windmills are a bad idea, but I see potential for roof top solar because no additional land is used.
Fear and alarm is what drives the EU, especially ever since the positive outlook at the start turned negative by reality over time.
In the early 1990s it got firmly behind the US hegemon and even more so after 911 and they are paying the price now. They have created their own dependency.
The only thing for the EU leaders is to forever sound the alarm bell: climate alarm forst and ongoing, then after the 2008 financial crash they fully cooperated w the financial elites and fully integrated their systems and forever borrowing ( still ongoing), pushing federalisation and centre control w Covid and now the ‘conquering, invading’ Russians as the next ‘enemy’ to battle, much to the advantage of US hegemon/ foreign policy who pushed this thing forward.
The EU doubles then triples down on flawed policies. As a european it is profoundly disconcerting..
Really wish you had not diverted to unrelated world political topics.
Until we physically and permanently remove these enemies of America and the human race from all political systems it will continue.
Retire the politics of fear? Not on your nellie they won’t as dooming sells-
Point of no return: a hellish ‘hothouse Earth’ getting closer, scientists say | Climate crisis | The Guardian
Continued global heating could set irreversible course by triggering climate tipping points, but most people unaware
What!! Most people unaware of climate tipping points? Nonsense the doomsters have been banging on about tipping points for years and there’s even eggsperts on tipping points like-
Prof Tim Lenton, an expert on tipping points at the University of Exeter in the UK…
There’s big money in tipping points and soon we’ll have whole university degrees in tipping points and higher degrees in minutes to doomsday clocks and the like. The Guardian has to stop spreading fake news people don’t know about tipping points and the opportunities tipping points present as a career choice.
The Guardian…. first laugh.
Tipping points…. second laugh.
Your points are valid and not humorous.