• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

by Michael Shellenberger
November 26, 2019, 3:10 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 10 mins read
A A
14
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

large sun city climate apocalypse disasterEnvironmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change.

Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.”

Extinction Rebellion said: “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.”

Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The latter said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Says Thunberg in her new book, “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”

Sometimes, scientists themselves make apocalyptic claims. “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that,” if Earth warms four degrees, said one earlier this year.

“The potential for multi-breadbasket failure is increasing,” said another. If sea levels rise as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts, another scientist said, “It will be an unmanageable problem.”

Apocalyptic statements like these have real-world impacts. In September, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change.

In October, an activist with Extinction Rebellion (”XR”) — an environmental group founded in 2018 to commit civil disobedience to draw awareness to the threat its founders and supporters say climate change poses to human existence — and a videographer, were kicked and beaten in a London Tube station by angry commuters.

And last week, an XR co-founder said a genocide like the Holocaust was “happening again, on a far greater scale, and in plain sight” from climate change.

Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years.

Over the last four years, my organization, Environmental Progress, has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists to prevent carbon emissions from rising. So far, we’ve helped prevent emissions from increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.

I also care about getting the facts and science right and have in recent months corrected inaccurate and apocalyptic news media coverage of fires in the Amazon and fires in California, both of which have been improperly presented as resulting primarily from climate change.

Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public.

There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people.

And exaggerating climate change risks is distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.

I feel the need to say this up-front because I want the issues I’m about to raise to be taken seriously and not dismissed by those who label anyone as “climate deniers” or “climate delayers” who push back against exaggeration.

With that out of the way, let’s look at whether the science supports what’s being said.

First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. “‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.’

What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” BBC’s Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month.

“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” she said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying it’s not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”

“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through IPCC reports and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children in 20 years. How would they die?”

“Mass migration around the world already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, Siberia, the Arctic,” she said.

But in saying so, the XR spokesperson had grossly misrepresented the science. “There is robust evidence of disasters displacing people worldwide,” notes IPCC, “but limited evidence that climate change or sea-level rise is the direct cause”

What about “mass migration”? “The majority of resultant population movements tend to occur within the borders of affected countries,” says IPCC.

It’s not like climate doesn’t matter. It’s that climate change is outweighed by other factors.

Earlier this year, researchers found that climate “has affected organized armed conflict within countries. However, other drivers, such as low socioeconomic development and low capabilities of the state, are judged to be substantially more influential.”

Last January, after climate scientists criticized Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for saying the world would end in 12 years, her spokesperson said: “We can quibble about the phraseology, whether it’s existential or cataclysmic.” He added, “We’re seeing lots of [climate change-related] problems that are already impacting lives.”

That last part may be true, but it’s also true that economic development has made us less vulnerable, which is why there was a 99.7% decline in the death toll from natural disasters since its peak in 1931.

In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did.  And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.

What about sea-level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?

Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that the Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor.

But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.

What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing by 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

Nobody is suggesting climate change won’t negatively impact crop yields. It could. But such declines should be put in perspective.

Wheat yields increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 models found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature.

Rates of future yield growth depend far more on whether poor nations get access to tractors, irrigation, and fertilizer than on climate change, says FAO.

All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today.

Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.

Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Not at all.

One of the reasons I work on climate change is because I worry about the impact it could have on endangered species.

Climate change may threaten one million species globally and half of all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in diverse places like the Albertine Rift in central Africa, home to the endangered mountain gorilla.

But it’s not the case that “we’re putting our own survival in danger” through extinctions, as Elizabeth Kolbert claimed in her book, Sixth Extinction. As tragic as animal extinctions are, they do not threaten human civilization.

If we want to save endangered species, we need to do so because we care about wildlife for spiritual, ethical, or aesthetic reasons, not survival ones.

And exaggerating the risk and suggesting climate change is more important than things like habitat destruction is counterproductive.

For example, Australia’s fires are not driving koalas ‘extinct,’ as Bill McKibben suggested.

The main scientific body that tracks the species, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, labels the koala “vulnerable,” which is one level less threatened than “endangered,” two levels less than “critically endangered,” and three less than “extinct” in the wild.

Should we worry about koalas? Absolutely! They are amazing animals and their numbers have declined to around 300,000. But they face far bigger threats such as the destruction of habitat, disease, bushfires, and invasive species.

Think of it this way. The climate could change dramatically — and we could still save koalas. Conversely, the climate could change only modestly — and koalas could still go extinct.

The monomaniacal focus on climate distracts our attention from other threats to koalas and opportunities for protecting them, like protecting and expanding their habitat.

As for fire, one of Australia’s leading scientists on the issue says,

“Bushfire losses can be explained by the increasing exposure of dwellings to fire-prone bushlands. No other influences need to be invoked. So even if climate change had played some small role in modulating recent bushfires, and we cannot rule this out, any such effects on risk to the property are clearly swamped by the changes in exposure.”

Nor are the fires solely due to drought, which is common in Australia, and exceptional this year. “Climate change is playing its role here,” said Richard Thornton of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, “but it’s not the cause of these fires.”

The same is true for fires in the United States. In 2017, scientists modeled 37 different regions and found “humans may not only influence fire regimes but their presence can actually override, or swamp out, the effects of climate.”

Of the 10 variables that influence fire, “none were as significant… as the anthropogenic variables,” such as building homes near, and managing fires and wood fuel growth within, forests.

Climate scientists are starting to push back against exaggerations by activists, journalists, and other scientists.

“While many species are threatened with extinction,” said Stanford’s Ken Caldeira, “climate change does not threaten human extinction… I would not like to see us motivating people to do the right thing by making them believe something that is false.”

I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”

But don’t scientists and activists need to exaggerate in order to get the public’s attention?

“I’m reminded of what [late Stanford University climate scientist] Steve Schneider used to say,” Wigley replied. “He used to say that as a scientist, we shouldn’t really be concerned about the way we slant things in communicating with people out on the street who might need a little push in a certain direction to realize that this is a serious problem. Steve didn’t have any qualms about speaking in that biased way. I don’t quite agree with that.”

Wigley started working on climate science full-time in 1975 and created one of the first climate models (MAGICC) in 1987. It remains one of the main climate models in use today.

“When I talk to the general public,” he said, “I point out some of the things that might make projections of warming less and the things that might make them more. I always try to present both sides.”

Part of what bothers me about the apocalyptic rhetoric by climate activists is that it is often accompanied by demands that poor nations be denied the cheap sources of energy they need to develop. I have found that many scientists share my concerns.

“If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070  you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today,” MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said.

“It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they make themselves wealthier, and by making themselves wealthier they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070.”

Emanuel and Wigley say the extreme rhetoric is making any political agreement on climate change harder.

“You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” said Emanuel. “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”

Happily, there is plenty of middle ground between climate apocalypse and climate denial.


Michael Shellenberger was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. He is also the author of several bestselling books.

Read more at Forbes

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

Democrats’ Massive Climate Agenda Loses Support With Most Americans

Jun 13, 2025
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

Four GOP Senators Call For Fewer Cuts To Biden’s Green New Scam

Jun 13, 2025
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

11 States Led By California AG Sue Trump To Save California’s EV Mandate

Jun 13, 2025

Comments 14

  1. Private CItizen says:
    6 years ago

    You mean this isn’t a consequence of global warming?
    “Rise in Americans dying ever younger: Mortality rates creep up 6% among under-65s as life expectancy falls for the third year in a row, study finds”
    How will we explain it, then?

    • David Lewis says:
      6 years ago

      Private Citizen, it is amazing, you have just done exactly what Michael Shellenberger was talking about in his article. That is to take something that primarily has other causes and blaming it on climate change. I’m curious about one thing. Most of the time when climate change is being blamed, there is no explanation as to how. I am wondering if you have an explanation on how a one degree increase in the Earth’s average temperature is lowering life expectancy?

      My two oldest kids, both well educated, have been interested in and following the subject of life expectancy for a few years. One of the biggest impacts is deaths from drug over doses. These have increased significantly and some have even called it an epidemic. Life style choices are a huge factor. Many youth are in very poor physical condition. My physical therapist told me that she had patients almost 50 years young than me that couldn’t come close to being able to do what can. Obesity is a big factor. It is on the increase and stresses the circulatory system and has caused an increase in type II diabetes. Diabetics do not live as long. There are also cases of poor nutritional choices. There have even been a few cases of Scurvy.

  2. Roger Payne says:
    6 years ago

    “Climate change” is really about the human “climate”. As part of Earth and Earth processes, product of it, subject to all its processes and laws, we “echo” what happens. Climate changes, always has, always will, warming to cooling, related to orbital changes, polar shifts, gravitational effects of the sun, moon, large planets interacting, cosmic forces. Increase of a tiny degree or two is always quoted as “since the Industrial Revolution”. But that occured not only at a time of huge human changes, but in the Dalton minimum and closing times of the Little Ice Age, which had followed the medieval warm period. The warming of the medieval warm periods went along with a massive start of advance in human culture and learning and building. It has been warmer of cooler long before then. Did humans cause it to warm up as the great Ice Age ended?
    Extinction of species happens without human intervention, but where humans cause it, it is due to factors other than climate shifts. We did not cause dinosaurs and many other creatures to become extinct. The climate change of cold in the “Dark ages” was closely linked to apocalyptic doom scenarios of a sinful humanity from the controlling church. a very similar doomsday scenario is now obsessing us from a new controlling factor – politicised scientism. The UN IPCC itself made this clear: they stated it was a big mistake to think environmentalism was the main concern, and their aim was now quite separate from it – to redistribute money from the wealthy nations to the poor ones. End result: poorer ones go for development and use fossil fuels. Hysteria reigns in the west, while an autistic schoolgirl from the background of a highly developed and wealth nation, able because of the thing she preaches against to do what she does, hypnotises an uninformed media and ignorant politicians waving do good banners.

  3. Spurwing Plover says:
    6 years ago

    We all want t o conserve the Wildlife and stop the extinction of wildlife but we need some common sense which is not common with the Eco-Freaks and the Greens

  4. David Lewis says:
    6 years ago

    It is nice to read an article from an alarmist who can use common sense. He mentions time and again examples of events that alarmist are attributing to climate change that have their primary causes in other areas.

    Preventing species extinction is a very worry motivation of Michael Shellenberger. However, he needs to remember that every species we have on earth is here because it survived warmer climate in the past. One of the greatest threats is loss of habitat.

    Mr. Shellenberger should review a historical comparison between carbon dioxide levels in the earth temperature history. For example, there was not only the Medieval Warm Period which happened without elevated CO2, but 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly.

  5. Sonnyhill says:
    6 years ago

    Note to the Extinction rebels: Everything dies. Mountains, pyramids, glaciers, you, me. 99% of the species that ever roamed Earth are no more. XR is a fruit fly.

  6. Joseph Repas says:
    6 years ago

    I would be slightly more worried about all out nuclear war than man made climate change. BTW.. why are so many of these climate change people claiming to be so worried about billions of people dying the same ones saying abort the babies; kill the children and we need to cull the population?
    Is that not a bit hypocritical?

  7. Paul Stacey says:
    6 years ago

    Extinction Rebellion said: “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.”. They’re right. And you disgusting idiots are the shills for or the dupes of the people causing it.

    • David Lewis says:
      6 years ago

      Paul, it is good to hear from you. A diversity of view points is good for this web site.

      In one interview members of the extinction rebellion admitted that there was no science behind the claims, “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” and “collapse of civilization may have already begun.” In the interview they admitted to making extreme statements as a means to stir public reaction. Use logic for moment. The earth has warmed a maximum of one degree since the industrial revolution. The natural variations in temperature from one year to the next are often greater than that. If the increase in earth’s temperature so far is already having such an extreme impact, shouldn’t have always seen such extreme impacts as the temperature changed one year to the next?

    • Randy Verret says:
      6 years ago

      OK Paul, so what is your SOLUTION? If we are in a climate “crisis” and fossil fuels must be ERADICATED to solve the purported problem, then YOU and all the other environmental “activists” only have to answer ONE fundamental question to fully transition the U.S energy system: “What CLEAN, SCALABLE & SUSTAINABLE alternative do you suggest to REPLACE 95% of our transportation fuel/industrial heat & 65% of our electricity generation?” It is REALLY that simple. Except, it’s not. I don’t see ANY constructive SOLUTIONS being offered by the myriad of environmental NGO’s other than VILIFICATION of energy providers. Slogans like “100% renewables by XYZ Date” have no basis in REALITY if you look at the energy imperatives of density, scale & cost. Just fact. So, as a retired oil & gas regulatory professional, I take “umbrage” to characterization of being a “SHILL” because thousands of dedicated professionals RESPONSIBLY put a gallon of gas in your SUV and the myriad of petroleum based products that support YOUR modern lifestyle. You are WELCOME!.

      • David Lewis says:
        6 years ago

        Randy, your questions are very valid for an Extinction Rebellion pawn, but don’t forget the leadership has a different agenda. They have actually stated that their motivation is to punish society for being capitalistic and not accepting homosexuality. They want to eliminate and not replace 95% of our transportation fuel/industrial heat and 65% of our electricity generation and not replace it as our punishment. The dead line for net zero of 2025 clearly shows this.

      • Jon Bathmaker says:
        6 years ago

        Good one! Attacking Paul for his lack of a solution to a problem you think does not exist is hilarious!

  8. Bob says:
    6 years ago

    CO2 is not causing climate change or “global warming” Its all a big lie. Humans have such a small impact on climate change its almost negligible. We are however heading for an extinction with massive climate change. But it will be caused by solar cycles which control our planet and the magnetic pole shift and weakening of our magnetosphere. Its all happening now at an alarming rate. Do yourself a favour and look up ben davidson from suspicious observers…Ge explains it all well.

  9. Spurwing Plover says:
    6 years ago

    Global Warming/Climate Change is the biggist scam in world history its being used to change the way we live and force us all to live in caves or grass or mud huts Vice is just another bunch of idiots just like the rest of the Back to Nature freakos only they want to use kids and fake news to get their task done for them

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • it's ot easy being greenDemocrats’ Massive Climate Agenda Loses Support With Most Americans
    Jun 13, 2025
    Democrats face growing backlash as many Americans reject Biden’s costly climate agenda and Trump rolls back key policies. […]
  • solar panel workerFour GOP Senators Call For Fewer Cuts To Biden’s Green New Scam
    Jun 13, 2025
    Four GOP senators break ranks, warn against full repeal of green energy subsidies in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. […]
  • Driving electric will now be a consumer choice.11 States Led By California AG Sue Trump To Save California’s EV Mandate
    Jun 13, 2025
    California and 10 other states sued Trump over 3 Congressional resolutions blocking the Golden State’s de facto ban on new gas-powered cars. […]
  • Ice Harbor Dam snake riverTrump Revokes Biden’s Snake River Dam Order, Citing Energy And Salmon Recovery
    Jun 13, 2025
    Trump revokes Biden’s executive action on Snake River dams, drawing praise from salmon supporters and criticism from environmentalists. […]
  • President Trump signs resolutions against California's electric vehicle mandates.It’s Official! Trump Nixes California’s Electric Vehicle Mandate
    Jun 12, 2025
    Trump ends Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, restoring consumer choice and rolling back California’s influence on national transportation policy. […]
  • cnn photo essayCNN Blames Climate Change For Man-Made Disasters In Deceptive Photo Essay
    Jun 12, 2025
    CNN uses emotional photos to push a climate narrative, but the real causes are poor policy, bad planning, and human neglect—not climate. […]
  • Ivanpah Solar FarmCalifornia’s Ivanpah Solar Plant Shutting Down Over High Costs, Low Output
    Jun 12, 2025
    California’s $2.2B solar gamble flops as Ivanpah shuts down early, while the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant quietly powers on. […]
  • Sierra Club protestSierra Club, Major Green Groups Cut Jobs As Trump Scraps Climate Programs
    Jun 12, 2025
    Sierra Club and other green groups have cut jobs as Trump kills green energy policies amid a shifting climate activism landscape. […]
  • Lee ZeldinTrump EPA Overturns Biden-Era Rules That Would Close Coal, Gas Plants
    Jun 12, 2025
    Trump’s EPA scraps Biden-era rules targeting coal and gas plants, citing energy costs, grid risks, and regulatory overreach. […]
  • NASA MSU satelliteClimatologist Details How NASA GISS And Climate.gov Drain Taxpayer Dollars
    Jun 11, 2025
    Taxpayer-funded agencies like NASA GISS and NOAA are pushing climate fear to secure funding, blurring the line between science and advocacy. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch