Originally published in The Western Journal
For years, Americans have been told that we face an existential climate emergency aka the so-called “climate-crisis.” That claim has reshaped public policy, transformed education, redirected enormous public and private investment, and justified sweeping government intervention into nearly every sector of the economy.
If the public was misled, whether intentionally or through reckless disregard for evidence, it is time to ask a difficult question: Who should be held accountable?
For nearly a decade, climate activists have pursued lawsuits against energy companies under the banner of #ExxonKnew, arguing that corporations should be financially liable for allegedly misleading the public about climate change. That raises an obvious question.
What if the same legal standard were applied to everyone?
If accountability is the standard, then it should apply equally to every institution that shaped public understanding of climate change.
If evidence exists that institutions knowingly exaggerated risks, relied on implausible scenarios while presenting them as likely outcomes, ignored contradictory observational data, or blurred the distinction between scientific inquiry and political advocacy, then they deserve the same scrutiny they demanded of others.
That scrutiny should extend to universities, researchers, advocacy groups, public education, renewable energy interests, politicians, and media organizations that blurred the line between reporting and advocacy.
But the greatest cost wasn’t measured in federal budgets. It was measured in classrooms.
An entire generation of children was taught that civilization was approaching collapse and that they might never enjoy a stable future because of climate change. Schools, documentaries, social media, and news coverage routinely presented Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5’s most extreme projections as though they were the expected outcome rather than a worst-case modeling exercise. Even after leading researchers concluded the scenario no longer represented a plausible baseline, it remained embedded in textbooks, classrooms, government reports, and popular media.
Studies now document rising climate anxiety among young people, with many believing humanity is doomed or questioning whether they should have children. Presenting an increasingly implausible worst-case scenario as their expected future has consequences.
The financial consequences have also been enormous.
Since 2021 alone, Congress has enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and clean energy spending through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, with the latter now projected to exceed $1 trillion over its lifetime. Utilities and consumers have absorbed billions more in costs associated with grid restructuring, renewable mandates, transmission expansion, and related policies.
Federal agencies also directed billions of dollars into climate research built around RCP8.5, even after many researchers concluded it was out of touch with reality and no longer represented a plausible “business as usual” future. Yet it continued to underpin government assessments, climate litigation, financial stress tests, educational materials, and thousands of scientific papers.
If the underlying scientific claims were exaggerated, if worst-case scenarios were repeatedly presented as the most likely outcomes, or if advocacy became indistinguishable from objective science, then accountability should follow.
That accountability should begin with congressional investigations and independent scientific reviews. It should include audits of federal grant programs, greater transparency in research funding, and a careful examination of how climate science has been communicated to policymakers, educators, journalists, and the public.
Where evidence supports it, civil litigation, including class action lawsuits, should also be on the table.
Discovery alone could prove invaluable. Internal emails, grant proposals, and communications among researchers, advocacy organizations, government agencies, philanthropic foundations, educators, and media organizations could reveal whether scientific uncertainty was honestly conveyed or deliberately minimized in pursuit of political, financial, or institutional objectives.
Climate activists established an important principle: those who knowingly mislead the public can be held legally accountable for the harm that follows.
If that principle has merit, it cannot apply only to fossil fuel companies. It must apply equally to every institution that shaped public understanding and influenced public policy.
Science advances by questioning assumptions and correcting mistakes. Continuing to promote claims after their weaknesses become clear, especially when those claims shape legislation, litigation, classrooms, and public opinion, deserves careful scrutiny.
If discovery in the #ExxonKnew lawsuits was intended to reveal who knew what and when they knew it, then the public deserves the same transparency from the institutions that built and promoted the climate emergency narrative. Internal communications, grant proposals, policy discussions, and media strategies should receive the same scrutiny that activists demanded of the energy industry.
Accountability should not depend on politics. It should depend on evidence.
If the legal standard is that knowingly misleading the public carries consequences, then it is time to ask not simply whether Exxon knew, but who else knew, what they knew, when they knew it, and why the public wasn’t told.
Only then can we begin to restore the public trust upon which both science and journalism depend, and ensure that climate science once again informs public policy rather than climate alarmism driving it.
It’s Time to Ask Who Should Be Held Accountable for the Damages of the ‘Climate Crisis’
Originally published in The Western Journal
For years, Americans have been told that we face an existential climate emergency aka the so-called “climate-crisis.” That claim has reshaped public policy, transformed education, redirected enormous public and private investment, and justified sweeping government intervention into nearly every sector of the economy.
If the public was misled, whether intentionally or through reckless disregard for evidence, it is time to ask a difficult question: Who should be held accountable?
For nearly a decade, climate activists have pursued lawsuits against energy companies under the banner of #ExxonKnew, arguing that corporations should be financially liable for allegedly misleading the public about climate change. That raises an obvious question.
What if the same legal standard were applied to everyone?
If accountability is the standard, then it should apply equally to every institution that shaped public understanding of climate change.
If evidence exists that institutions knowingly exaggerated risks, relied on implausible scenarios while presenting them as likely outcomes, ignored contradictory observational data, or blurred the distinction between scientific inquiry and political advocacy, then they deserve the same scrutiny they demanded of others.
That scrutiny should extend to universities, researchers, advocacy groups, public education, renewable energy interests, politicians, and media organizations that blurred the line between reporting and advocacy.
But the greatest cost wasn’t measured in federal budgets. It was measured in classrooms.
An entire generation of children was taught that civilization was approaching collapse and that they might never enjoy a stable future because of climate change. Schools, documentaries, social media, and news coverage routinely presented Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5’s most extreme projections as though they were the expected outcome rather than a worst-case modeling exercise. Even after leading researchers concluded the scenario no longer represented a plausible baseline, it remained embedded in textbooks, classrooms, government reports, and popular media.
Studies now document rising climate anxiety among young people, with many believing humanity is doomed or questioning whether they should have children. Presenting an increasingly implausible worst-case scenario as their expected future has consequences.
The financial consequences have also been enormous.
Since 2021 alone, Congress has enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and clean energy spending through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, with the latter now projected to exceed $1 trillion over its lifetime. Utilities and consumers have absorbed billions more in costs associated with grid restructuring, renewable mandates, transmission expansion, and related policies.
Federal agencies also directed billions of dollars into climate research built around RCP8.5, even after many researchers concluded it was out of touch with reality and no longer represented a plausible “business as usual” future. Yet it continued to underpin government assessments, climate litigation, financial stress tests, educational materials, and thousands of scientific papers.
If the underlying scientific claims were exaggerated, if worst-case scenarios were repeatedly presented as the most likely outcomes, or if advocacy became indistinguishable from objective science, then accountability should follow.
That accountability should begin with congressional investigations and independent scientific reviews. It should include audits of federal grant programs, greater transparency in research funding, and a careful examination of how climate science has been communicated to policymakers, educators, journalists, and the public.
Where evidence supports it, civil litigation, including class action lawsuits, should also be on the table.
Discovery alone could prove invaluable. Internal emails, grant proposals, and communications among researchers, advocacy organizations, government agencies, philanthropic foundations, educators, and media organizations could reveal whether scientific uncertainty was honestly conveyed or deliberately minimized in pursuit of political, financial, or institutional objectives.
Climate activists established an important principle: those who knowingly mislead the public can be held legally accountable for the harm that follows.
If that principle has merit, it cannot apply only to fossil fuel companies. It must apply equally to every institution that shaped public understanding and influenced public policy.
Science advances by questioning assumptions and correcting mistakes. Continuing to promote claims after their weaknesses become clear, especially when those claims shape legislation, litigation, classrooms, and public opinion, deserves careful scrutiny.
If discovery in the #ExxonKnew lawsuits was intended to reveal who knew what and when they knew it, then the public deserves the same transparency from the institutions that built and promoted the climate emergency narrative. Internal communications, grant proposals, policy discussions, and media strategies should receive the same scrutiny that activists demanded of the energy industry.
Accountability should not depend on politics. It should depend on evidence.
If the legal standard is that knowingly misleading the public carries consequences, then it is time to ask not simply whether Exxon knew, but who else knew, what they knew, when they knew it, and why the public wasn’t told.
Only then can we begin to restore the public trust upon which both science and journalism depend, and ensure that climate science once again informs public policy rather than climate alarmism driving it.
Share this: