By Robert Bradley Jr.
“These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate writers and editors are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.”
The New York Times op-ed, “Democrats Don’t Have to Campaign on Climate Change Anymore” (May 9, 2026) is yet another marker that the debate is widening over the economic and political feasibility of climate alarm and forced energy transformation. [1] Matthew Huber wrote:
For the past several months, Democratic elites have been debating how much to talk about climate change, if at all — in part because these new candidates have narrowed their focus to energy affordability to win back the working class. It is a striking shift from a few years ago, when many Democratic politicians thought the promise of a Green New Deal would build a coalition based on green jobs and fighting inequality.
So how did the Progressive Left take this (small) dose of reality? New York Times climate opinion editor Eliza Barclay invited comments on social media:
Love to see all of the chatter about Matt Huber’s provocative essay about why Democratic candidates campaigning for the midterms should focus on affordable (and clean) energy rather than the climate crisis.
A hard line was taken by David Fenon:
This headline: Pearl Harbor Bombed. Democrats Shouldn’t Talk About it…. This is a big part of why the public doesn’t make it a top voting issue. This essay is capitulation to catastrophe…. Don’t talk about it, then the public won’t know about it, then you can’t run for office on it and the country won’t act on the emergency. And if a Democrat wins without a public mandate for action, she won’t be able to get legislation passed to deal with the crisis. Suggest you look at Senator Whitehouse’s response. And this kind of essay keeps appearing–urging Democrats to be “moderate” and support fossil fuel production, you know, Moderate Destruction. With respect but now exasperation too.
Scolding (bullying?) Barclay, Jim Bernfield, a communications expert for the alarmist cause, commented:
The author’s historical analysis was at best questionable, his political bona fides weak, and his argument fairly mundane, even for a NYT op-ed. But the clickbait headline — likely your responsibility, Eliza Barclay — was unadulterated garbage. You’re the climate editor, l am going to assume you can do better than this.
Michael Shank was less critical:
A variation on this theme, my piece for POLITICO Europe. Instead of leading with climate, flip the script: Rather than leading with data and promoting health, safety and economic “co-benefits” as bonus add-ons, climate advocates need to flip the script.
I added:
These are very interesting times–and at the New York Times. The climate editors and writers are daring to ask or allow hard questions about a politically losing narrative. It’s a start.
——————–
[1] My own op-ed in the Houston Chronicle is a smaller marker of a new era of open debate on the underlying science, economics, and public policy of a once closed mainstream media.
The Democrats may be scaling back their climate crisis narratives because they see that they’re experiencing an increasing degree of backlash as their potential supporters realize the whole issue is largely just a gimmick that will increase living costs even more. In addition, those former supporters may be asking more probing questions about whether any “existential threats” are really being posed by what little change is occurring when all they see are the usual annual weather fluctuations and nothing close to either an advancing ice age or runaway temperature increases.
Matthew T. Huber appears to be a card-carrying member of the ClimateCult but I don’t have a NYT’s subscription so don’t actually know his views. Democrats do talk about other issues, usually from the 20-side of 80/20 kerfuffles.
If he works for the New York Times, he is a climate cult Democrat. But he does recognize that selling wind and solar backed by batteries as the solution to energy affordability issues to low information voters concerned about the cost of electricity is a winning election strategy for the upcoming 2026 mid-terms.
Can a Leopard change it’s spots? NO!
Can a Demoncrat change their message for votes? Definitely!
Just remember their lies during the last midterms.
Demoncrats don’t change their spots only the fake promises made to get votes!
Like Student Loan Forgiveness. How many student loans were forgiven??
Current debt $1.8T Debt forgiven $188b or about 15%
How can you tell when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
What is your best course of action when a politician says, “Trust me?”
Grab your wallet and run like hell.
Politics today has devolved to a simple, tell the public what they want to hear so to sway public opinion to enhance the odds of reelection.
G. Washington warned us about political parties 250 years ago.
What we are seeing is an attempt by both the Democrat and Republican parties to establish 1 party autocracies. Speaker N. Pelosi was very instrumental in accelerating this for the Democrats, but she did not start it.
We will be in much better sharp when Congress starts representing their constituents and their States in lieu of towing the party line.
translate better sharp to better shape.
Apologies for the typo.
Student loan forgiveness is a giant F U to anyone that worked their way through a little state school or paid off loans before forgiveness.
Having not read the original piece I can only suggest the politicians involved will say anything to get or remain in office, then revert back to their climate alarmist positions.
Biden ran as a moderate Democrat, but then governed [or at least the autopen did] from the far Left].
If the Dems retake Congress this Nov. they will completely erase from memory the reasons they lost in 2024, and will redouble their climate efforts regardless of the damage to the economy & society.
Basically, every climate scare story for the last 25 years has been based on the UN IPCC scary predictions which they have now admitted are impossible.
Those readers here and elsewhere who have been called heretics or deniers should not rest on their laurels at having been proved right.
Make sure every editor or journalist is told how they peddled lies and exaggerations. They shut down the truth tellers for misinformation when it was they and their publications and programs that were actually spreading misinformation.
People were cancelled (I was banned from commenting in The Times of London 4 years ago for saying they were writing nonsense) and many scientific careers have been blunted or ended because of the need to comply with the consensus when it is now clear that the consensus was a fabrication.
You have every right to be angry at your MP or Congress representative for going along with the nonsense of Net Zero and impoverishment it causes.
You could write a short note along the lines of:
“There is no climate emergency.
The UN IPCC has admitted its scary predictions of climate change are impossible.
You were fooled and lied to.”
And you could nail it to the front door of the offices of your local politicians just like Martin Luther did to start the Reformation.
I like it!
I designed this one to put on anything you like.
Or add your own text.
I like it!
I like it but I’d be skeert to put it on anything lest I become a victim of targeted violence.
” ….. every climate scare story for the last century has been based on the false story that CO2 is the control knob of the temperature of the Earth.”
There.
Fixed it for you.
BTW, why not just say ” CO2 is not dangerous ” ?
Technically, half century, but no need to quibble. 🙂
“Make sure every editor or journalist is told how they peddled lies and exaggerations.”
I’ll be happy enough if they quietly move on to the next thing. They know by now.
We are witnessing the death of the Climate Cult Ideology. The climatists are in the denial and bargaining phases of their grief process, but deep down, they know it’s dead.
The sooner we bury the corpse, the better for us all
Unfortunately the Mummy is bound to return.
Don’t wait till it’s completely dead, just burn it, then bury the ashes.
Yes but there’s still all those juicy suckers and Treasuries to fleece-
Peter Thiel is leading investment in an ocean data center powered by waves—and the startup is reportedly worth $1 billion
Ok.
If this is purely a capital investment project, devoid of government (aka tax payer) subsidies, then let the experiment proceed.
BUT
With all the appropriate and responsible environmental issues addressed and properly resolved.
All of the major technological and industrial breakthroughs over the past several hundred years occurred when someone had an idea and invested his own sweat and coin into it and demonstrated to others that they could profit by tossing their coins into the hat.
There are exceptions, of course, but mostly no so much breakthroughs as they building on the breakthroughs.
So we will no longer witness Trans-Reality Activists, but now Climate Zombies.
Consumers being hit with astronomical energy bills due to the costs of transitioning to intermittent “Green Energy” sources are abandoning the climate alarmism for common sense concerns about affordability. Saving the planet from a potential 1 degree temperature increase a century from now no longer appeals to people who can’t afford their energy bills TODAY.
The usual subjects are changing the narrative to “The data center did it”.
Ironically, AI is writing their articles.
That’s not an accurate assessment of the politics surrounding the ongoing advocacy of wind and solar backed by batteries.
The climate cultists have reworked their energy messaging strategy to focus on the alleged affordability of the renewables versus natural gas, coal, and nuclear. That kind of messaging appeals to a much broader voter constituency than does pure climate alarmism.
Their revised messaging strategy which focuses on energy affordability rather than climate alarmism worked reasonably well for them in the 2025 off-year elections. They expect to do as well if not better in the 2026 mid-terms.
Climate alarmism is not a dying political force. It is simply adjusting itself to better fit emerging political realities. The climate cult will be with us for a long, long time to come.
Just don’t talk about the weirding!
Something weird and worrying is happening with rain, study finds
So, either the conjecture is valid -OR- they are observing a portion of a longer term cycle.
Analysis of alternatives: What else could be a possible explanation?
When he was president, Joe Biden had legal authority to declare a climate emergency and then to impose a scheme of carbon fuel rationing on the American people. But he didn’t do that for fear of the political backlash it might generate.
Gavin Newsom is the Democrat’s likely 2028 nominee for president. Someone should ask him if he is willing to do what Joe Biden wasn’t willing to do, declare a climate emergency and then impose a scheme of carbon fuel rationing on the American people.
“legal authority” not equals “mental capacity”
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Congratulations!
Green power was sold as reducing energy costs. Instead that has turned out to be a lie.
It turns out it costs money to replace all your generators with something that has never been shown to work