89 Comments
Their problem is that they start out lying, and informed intelligent listeners know they are lying. Their Term ” climate change ” doesn’t mean changes in the climate, it means catastrophic global heating caused by burning fossil fuels. Catastrophic means it needs an immediate solution, and ending the burning of fossil fuel means no more gasoline, natural gas, and fuel oil. Rational people can see that such drastic methods are not needed immediately. They experience weather and are not convinced that a few warm days are a catastrophe. If the establishment could provide a feasible argument to establish their cause, lying wouldn’t be necessary. That’s why they have to lie in order to get the uninformed to agree. Fortunately, a sufficient member of the masses see through the lies.
Bingo. The proper acronym is CAGW. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am a 20 plus year veteran of this debate. I finally wrote this article to cover the rudimentary basics of the debate. It very simply covers what the theory is, dismantling the “consensus” argument, effective covers ” Where’s the Emergency” ( Thank you Willis) Outlines the decades of failed predictions and reveals, in their own words, the political motivation of the proponents. It has been very effective with anyone with a little bit of an open mind. Here it is if you know anyone you can still talk to. https://anderdaa7.substack.com/p/global-warming
Rational people can see that such drastic methods are not needed immediately.
I’d take it a step further and say rational people can see that no “action” is necessary whatsoever. The “climate” is improving, not getting worse, and humans have no control over it and don’t exert any measurable influence on it either.
To look at a small change WELL WITHIN the range of NATURAL climate variability which is on the COLD end of the natural range and declare it to be both a “catastrophe” AND “human induced” is irrational fear mongering.
It’s even worse than that. Irrespective of the supposed “cause,” the notion that warming of the climate is a “problem” is a gigantic LIE to begin with.
Essentially, they’re telling people to panic when they should be telling them to celebrate. Herr Goebbels would be proud of them. “If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it…”
The Earth is in an INTERGLACIAL period DURING AN ICE AGE. Global COOLING is what should concern people. Global warming is “change” FOR THE BETTER. They didn’t call all the previous warm periods during the Holocene “climate OPTIMUMS” for nothing – and those warm periods were all warmer than now.
March 23, 2026 11:07 am
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/up-and-down-with-ecologythe-issue-attention-cycle
Back in 1972 the life cycle of ecology, etc, any public type project was analysed and explained.
“AMERICAN public attention rarely remains sharply focused upon any one domestic issue for very long—even if it involves a continuing problem of crucial importance to society. Instead, a systematic “issue-attention cycle” seems strongly to influence public attitudes and behavior concerning most key domestic problems. Each of these problems suddenly leaps into prominence, remains there for a short time, and then- though still largely unresolved—gradually fades from the center of public attention. A study of the way this cycle operates provides insights into how long public attention is likely to remain sufficiently focused upon any given issue to generate enough political pressure to cause effective change.”
“a systematic “issue-attention cycle””
Now the big one, other than the climate thing, is that AI will take everyone’s job. I’m skeptical of that. It’ll take some in the short term but in the long term, I think it’s fantastic. Playing with ChatGPT, still learning new tricks. One is to feed it some ancient black and white photos- family photos from the early 20th century. Some are in terrible condition. The AI does a fantastic restoration of those images including colorizing them and removing defects. I’m sure sending those old photos to a lab for restoration would be very expensive. So, those labs will lose work, but then I can spend the money on something else. There won’t be any economic loss in the long term- instead, probably a tremendous increase. I just subscribed to their Plus plan but they’re rolling out the video feature so i don’t have it yet, but should get it soon. I am going to have fun with that, mocking climate nut jobs and people/organizations that hate forestry, my life’s work.
All AI is, is pattern matching/replication. It is not really intelligent. I use AI in my video making, but only for small things. It still needs me. There is definitely an AI bubble that will burst. It is the typical, capitalist cycle. Someone starts making money with something new, everyone rushes in till there are too many, and then it crashes and a few remain making money
You are right and wrong. The person who expects to ask one question and get one answer is generally treated to a clever pattern matcher. That is not the only way to use the chat tools. I researched the subject just over a year ago, then gave a talk on the prompt engineering for my engineering lab. AI tools can now perform at least eighty types of reasoning (the number keeps growing). My takeaway was that these AI tools are a new form of programming language. If you know how to phrase your queries and break the problem into pieces, you get astonishing results. With a decent understanding of prompt engineering, you can tap into the features that are not leveraged by most people’s questions. Once you experience this, you will realize that it is not AI that will put people out of a job. It is the massively increased productivity of those who become fluent in this new language that will put people out of a job. Already, I am able to write computer software at least four times faster than before. My hobby is writing nonfiction. In that, my writing speed has doubled while simultaneously I am more aware of supporting and contradicting information on my topic, allowing me to better defend my ideas. Is the tech hyped? That is the problem. While people are looking in one direction and seeing hype that is real and overblown, they are failing to look in the direction where massive, seismic shifts in society will actually occur.
There is definitely an AI bubble that will burst.
One thing people aren’t paying much attention to is that most (if not all) of these AI ventures are venture funded – they are not currently profitable. I see a looming bubble like the dot-com bust, where many of them are going to collapse because they can’t turn a profit. (I think that’s what you’re referring to)
March 23, 2026 11:12 am
Physician, heal thyself.
It’s not the skeptics who turned “rational” into just another tribal identifier.
And it’s always the one’s who virtue-signal the strongest about being egoless truth-seekers who react with the most indignance when it’s their own sacred cows being gored.
“We don’t evaluate facts objectively; instead, we interpret them through our biases, experiences, and backgrounds.”
Well, I think many people are close to being objective. But, what he’s saying is the skeptics are morons and only THEY are smart enough to know the difference- then they can inoculate the public from the skeptics.
March 23, 2026 11:24 am
Basically reinforcing what the point was in my days-old March 18 WUWT guest post “What the Climate Issue Is All About” — the top-end pushers of CAGW are a tiny minority group which intuitively feels they are the smartest people in the room. Since they are the only people with the ‘correct’ attitude on the issue, all others must conform to their way of thinking, either via outright indoctrination or by legal action lawfare forcing energy providers, and by default the public, to comply with, well …. how things are going to be.
March 23, 2026 11:30 am
John Ridgway provided an excellent framework for skeptics to examine and respond to claims from believers in global warming/climate change. His essay at Climate Scepticism is Deconstructing Scepticism: The True FLICC.
“I have modified slightly the FLICC components to serve as a list of actions making up a skeptical approach to an alarmist claim. IOW this is a checklist for applying critical intelligence to alarmist discourse in the public arena. The Summary can be stated thusly:
♦ Follow the Data
Find and follow the data and facts to where they lead
♦ Look for full risk profile
Look for a complete assessment of risks and costs from proposed policies
♦ Interrogate causal claims
Inquire into claimed cause-effect relationships
♦ Compile contrary explanations
Construct an organized view of contradictory evidence to the theory
♦ Confront cultural bias
Challenge attempts to promote consensus story with flimsy coincidence”
Comment: The backlash against the climate doomsters is not stupidity or apathy, but more and more people getting wise to the gaslighting by alarmists. It’s not a messaging problem they can patch over. Their credibility is shot and their claims are no longer taken at face value.
It is not just that he has been always wrong….
.. its that he has deliberately fabricated his wrongness with lies and fake surveys and low-level attempts at psycho-illogical surveys and information manipulation.
He is a total charlatan/snake-oil salesman. And most people have seen right through his scams.
March 23, 2026 12:11 pm
Stand before a blazing campfire on a chilly evening.
Lift up a blanket between.
Cooler or warmer?
Drop the blanket.
Cooler or warmer?
That’s what Earth’s atmosphere & albedo produce, cooler not warmer.
That is not a GHE.
GHE says w/o it Earth becomes -18 C ball of ice.
Clearly wrong.
No GHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW & $E12 global scam instantly unemployed.
No PhD needed.
Oh dear, it’s the sky dragons again.
Haha…Schroeder Physics in its full misdirecting splendor…the proper scenario is….the planet is the warm object…equivalent to the ground heated by yesterday’s and today’s sunshine….hold up a blanket (the atmosphere) protecting you from -273 C outer space…..and OMG you feel warmer walking about on that ground !
Conflating the sun with a campfire in your scenario is just misapplying the pertinent principles.
March 23, 2026 12:20 pm
Let’s play the game of science, and assume that these are rational, unbiased people pushing the catastrophic climate change theory.
1. Greenhouse gasses absorb outgoing longwave IR and reemit it back to the surface, delaying cooling and keeping the surface warmer than it otherwise would be. OKAY
2. CO2 is one of these gasses. OKAY
3. Until the Industrial Revolution and concurrent population boom, GHGs were fairly constant around 280 ppm or so. Then, the concentration steadily increased to the present ~420 ppm. OKAY
4. Computer models, incorporating said GHG’s downwelling-IR effect, indicate that this should lead to some warming over the natural perindustrial temperatures that were assumed to be fairly constant (This is where theory, prediction, and observation begin to diverge significantly)
5. This warming should lead to a variety of effects (too many to mention here, other than to say that about the only thing models have gotten correct is that it has warmed modestly)
6. Those effects are dangerous to potentially an extinction-level event
Our issue in the debate over climate change isn’t about the points 1-4 above. No one is denying basic science. You know and they know that the legitimate disagreement and debate is over points 5 and 6 in the list above. This has nothing to do with spending or protecting one industry or another. The messaging of the warmunists is loud and clear. The messaging isn’t the problem. Our ability to understand the science isn’t the problem. The problem is with their conclusions that Mother Nature and science aren’t entertaining. The next time someone warns of Earth dying because of climate change, ask if they were around during the Eemian, or better yet, the Eocene. Why did life survive that?
A thought experiment gave the answer of -18C for naked Sol 3 bathed one third in incoming sunlight and two thirds black-body radiating out into non-reflective deep space at our current distance from the corona at the present energy output.
The atmosphere was deduced to account for the real average surface temperature. We now know the vast majority of the difference is produced by water – water as vapour and water as ice crystal collections called clouds. A portion of the wavelengths of water vapour and carbon dioxide which did not overlap means that it adds a little to the “greenhouse” reflective glass roof and sides effect. Any added carbon dioxide produces diminishing additional effect.
The earth’s water based air-conditioner function is so complex it cannot be modelled, not least because of the three states solid, liquid and gas and the unavoidable problem of turbulent fluid flow in oceans and atmosphere so far not subject to mathematical representation.
No models come anywhere near being able to calculate the heat flow by conduction, convection and radiation that supercomputers running for shorter than centuries could give us just one result, let alone a dynamic profile.
March 23, 2026 12:33 pm
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
– John Adams
The climate industry’s problem is that they are arguing against the facts. The inconvenient facts are that the best scientific evidence shows that manmade climate change is modest and benign, CO2 emissions are beneficial, and the “social cost of carbon” emissions is negative.
March 23, 2026 12:37 pm
Humans aren’t rational. We don’t evaluate facts objectively; instead, we interpret them through our biases, experiences, and backgrounds. What’s more, we’re psychologically motivated to reject or distort information that threatens our identity or worldview – even if it’s scientifically valid.
That whole line of reasoning needs to be applied to the pseudoscientists preaching about a “climate crisis.” The notion that the warming of the climate compared with the Little Ice Age constitutes a “crisis” is ludicrous. The Little Ice Age climate WOULD BE a “climate crisis.” They couldn’t reliably feed ONE billion humans during The Little Ice Age, but we can feed EIGHT billion today. “Crisis,” my ass.
We should be celebrating and they are telling us to panic. Then they whine when their preaching is ignored.
March 23, 2026 12:55 pm
The “smell test” has proven prescient in recent years when public intuition clashed with polished official narratives on high-stakes issues. Here is one example from 2024-2026 where average citizens’ gut suspicions—that something felt “off”—were later validated by evidence or shifting realities.
Climate Doom PredictionsAlarms of immediate tipping points and mass extinctions felt exaggerated amid real-world adaptations like greening deserts from CO2 fertilization. Recent Antarctic ice growth and failed doomsday forecasts (e.g., no ice-free Arctic by 2013) matched public doubts over endless crisis hype.
March 23, 2026 1:39 pm
Classic case of overthinking the issue.
In 1988 mad Jimmy Hansen introduced the fearful global warming notion and decades later no definitive cause and effect evidence has been produced.
Add in every predicted catastrophe has failed together with the duplicity of bastardising the term “climate change” to mean “dangerous man made climate change and joe public are rightly contemptuous of an idea beginning to cost them money.
It really is that simple.
March 23, 2026 2:05 pm
Separate observation. Warmunists increasingly say their credibility problem is the messaging rather than the message. They somehow cannot grasp that their message has been proven faulty by the passage of 4 decades during which none of their dire ‘expert’ predictions happened. Arctic summer sea ice didn’t disappear (Gore, Wadhams). Extreme weather didn’t increase (Mann). Sea level rise didn’t accelerate (Hansen). They cannot now pretend those messages weren’t clearly sent, or that skeptics somehow ‘misunderstood’ them. Black or white; yes or no. Nothing to ‘misunderstand’.
That said, they will not go quietly. Too many vested careers and too much money at stake. Three things need to happen—and now are.
- General ‘voter’ realization that they were just wrong.
- Systemic grid failures caused by proposed renewable solutions.
- Significant economic pain, such as is happening in Germany now. And in the global auto industry, with over $70 billion in EV investment write offs to date since subsidies were removed, despite ‘mandates’.
March 23, 2026 2:08 pm
I can help these guys. Number one stop talking about climate change, sustainability, social justice and all the other issues dragged into the argument. Your concern is humans adding CO2 into the atmosphere. You believe that the CO2 humans add to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic run away global warming. Let’s stay on track here this is the issue. It is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is a minor greenhouse gas. Not only that but its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas is logarithmic meaning that each additional unit of CO2 is less effective than the previous unit. That is a big deal that you are not dealing with. You are also not dealing with the fact that CO2 is an essential gas for life on this earth as we know it without it we wouldn’t be here. At 150ppm CO2 we don’t have enough CO2 for life as we know it. The preindustrial level was 286 I believe, that was just 136ppm from disaster. Today’s level is around 420 I believe, 134ppm more than pre-industrial times, a nice little buffer from where we were in the mid 1800s. Until your side takes these issues seriously it is hard to see you as anything more important than a court jester.
No, you cannot. You cannot help idiots because they are idiots and they do not really care. You should not be wasting your time helping liars because they are dedicated liars and they do not care either. All the human history may be described by three words – adaptation, adaptation and adaptation again. People have proven to be capable of adapting to anything, and the changing climate is only one out of many other challenges. Let alone the climate propaganda… And this is their [alarmists’] main problem. Idiots would not understand this because they are idiots, while liars would aggressively deny this because they are liars. JMHO. Thank you.
March 23, 2026 2:23 pm
People dislike being told what they should be doing to solve a non-existent problem. When they see that climate alarmism is essentially exaggerated because they don’t see any major weather changes beyond the usual fluctuations, they get suspicious. And when they see governments trying to tax them, and impose new restrictions and mandates to fix a phantom crisis, they realize their pockets are being picked and for whose benefit? So it’s not a case of climate apathy at all; it’s a case of shrewdness. There’s a strong realization that the whole climate alarmism philosophy is essentially a large scale scam.
March 23, 2026 2:36 pm
People get very smart when there are dollar signs in front of numbers. The states mandating the most renewable energy are finding the price per KWhr charged to customers is much higher than it is in states without mandates. It’s hard to “trust the science” when the renewable advocates say wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, but their energy bills say otherwise.
Lets also not forget that after $10 trillion dollars have been spent over the last 30 years, CO2 emissions have not only not fallen, they have continued to rise at the rate of half a billion tons per year.
March 23, 2026 3:31 pm
“You know, we own the science and we think that the world should know it and the platforms themselves also do.”
And “You know, we partnered with Google, for example, if you Google climate change, you will, at the top of your search, get all kinds of UN resources.”
Yeah, we know.
The speaker was Melissa Fleming, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications (a senior UN official), at a WEF panel titled “Tackling Disinformation.” Date: September 30, 2022.
This is one of the top reasons to be extra alert when “the science” is invoked to control information.
March 23, 2026 5:01 pm
Quote: “Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability?”
I agree. Next time start with some objective facts.
Now go away and have a good think on your own time. And if you do have some really good ideas for how everybody must live, try them out on yourselves and tell us how you go in say 50 years or so.
March 23, 2026 5:57 pm
It starts with the fact that fossil fuels were convicted based on circumstantial evidence. The data says that there are two inputs into the atmosphere that drive increasing atmospheric CO2. 40 gt / yr of emissions and 280 gt / yr of natural input from the oceans. The natural input is 7 times as large as anthropogenic input. Which input do you think is the predominate cause of increasing atmospheric CO2?
The ocean has always been there, doing what it does. The new variable in the picture, beginning in the latter 19th century, is mankind and the industrial revolution. Before then, CO2 was pretty level. Post-revolution, and after the global population took off rapidly, then CO2 increased. Yes, we’ve made CO2 concentrations go up. My response is: So what? More CO2 has helped the biosphere. We have global greening now, and slightly warmer winter nights. What’s the big deal?
March 23, 2026 5:59 pm
From the article: “In this episode, Nate is joined by John Cook, a researcher who has spent nearly two decades studying science communication and the psychology of misinformation.”
Well, John Cook is certainly an expert at misinformation.
John Cook is infamous for creating and promoting the “97 percent” Lie, which claims that 97 percent of climate scientists think human-produced CO2 is causing the Earth’s weather and climate to change.
John Cook is a liar and propagandist.
The actual percentage of scientist who think humans are causing climate change in the survey was more like three percent than 97 percent. So John was way off the mark. He had to do a lot of lying to get it up to 97 percent.
John Cook was successful with this lie/propaganda though, as it became a common trope of climate alarmists and President Obama even repeated this lie on national television.
If Climate Alarmists didn’t have lies, they would have nothing at all.
Is Public Stupidity Behind Climate Change Apathy?
From MasterResource
By Robert Bradley Jr.
Climate messaging is in turmoil. “Maybe the problem is not climate denial,” Gilad Regev observed:
Joe Romm in a comment dismissed Regev to complain about a huge, well-funded public disinformation campaign by Big Oil. (If only some of that mega-money was really flowing to think tanks such as IER or CEI or Heartland….)
Another Take
Enter Nate Hagens, Director of The Institute for the Study of Energy & Our Future (ISEOF). His article, “Why Science Communication Fails: How to Break Down Misleading Arguments and Inoculate Against Misinformation” The Great Simplification (February 27, 2026) follows.
Humans aren’t rational. We don’t evaluate facts objectively; instead, we interpret them through our biases, experiences, and backgrounds. What’s more, we’re psychologically motivated to reject or distort information that threatens our identity or worldview – even if it’s scientifically valid. Add to that our modern media landscape where everyone has a different source of “truth” for world events, our ability to understand what is actually true is weaker than ever. How, then, can we combat misinformation when simply presenting the facts is no longer enough – and may even backfire?
In this episode, Nate is joined by John Cook, a researcher who has spent nearly two decades studying science communication and the psychology of misinformation. John shares his journey from creating the education website Skeptical Science in 2007 to his shocking discovery that his well-intentioned debunking efforts might have been counterproductive. He also discusses the “FLICC” framework – a set of five techniques (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories) that cut across all forms of misinformation, from the denial of global heating to vaccine hesitancy, and more. Additionally, John’s research reveals a counterintuitive truth: our tribal identities matter more than our political beliefs in determining what science we accept – yet our aversion to being tricked is bipartisan.
Continuing:
When it comes to reaching a shared understanding of the world, why does every conversation matter – regardless of whether it ends in agreement? When attacks on science have shifted from denying findings to attacking solutions and scientists themselves, are we fighting yesterday’s battle with outdated communication strategies? And while we can’t eliminate motivated reasoning (to which we’re all susceptible), how can we work around it by teaching people to recognize how they’re being misled, rather than just telling them what to believe?
Sorry, but it’s ground zero with the proven benefits of CO2 versus the speculations of untestable, causality-deficient climate models. And the fact of positive warming during certain months of the year vs. the summer peak. And so on. Let the debate and messaging continue.
Share this:
Like this: