The New Climate Narrative….
The Past Frozen Climate Emergency Narrative May Be Over!!
The recently published DoE report “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” clearly reverses the frozen climate emergency narrative.
History
The UN for almost 30 years using the scientific clout of their IPCC has used strong fear based PR that has bordered on propaganda to force a strong message of a climate crisis using a frozen narrative that climate science is settled, and its an emergency driven by the irresponsible release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels by humankind. They developed a political consensus that nations must take panic action to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by adopting NetZero policies to stop the destruction of the planet.
The subjugation of climate science and the religious fervor
Unfortunately, due to this forced political consensus the climate science has become politically subjugated and significant funding has injected compliance for the emergency narrative into the scientific process. Also, some have suggested that the emergency narrative may be driven by more nefarious agents with agendas bordering on control of the population or their economies, which although hard to prove, but keeps being an active conspiracy theory.
Many in mainly the western population have adopted the climate alarmist position as a form of religious belief that has little to do with scientific truth or facts.
The continuous fear mongering of a climate emergency has conditioned many young people to believe that their future is dire and so joining the climate emergency consensus has become a noble cause and an opportunity for the promotion of self virtuousness. The “religion” has attracted significant social justice warriors who have mobilized into self perpetuating climate activists who are convinced it’s a fight to avoid an Armageddon to save humanity and the planet.
This religious fanaticism makes the task of realigning the climate science with a fresh look at the facts to reach a more practical facts based non-emergency conclusion much more difficult, and for those who have been fully indoctrinated into the climate emergency religion perhaps an impossible task.
To some extent even science minded individuals find it hard to move away from a long ran scientific consensus that has been adopted by most of the traditional scientific organizations that have institutionalized the climate emergency narrative due to the ongoing pressure and subjugation of consensus politics as well as the opportunity for endless funding, as long as such a scientific consensus is maintained.
Unfortunately, climate scientists are human…. and unlike some other scientific disciplines have very limited ability to connect measured events to a measured impact and then be able to run validation experiments to confirm any causation hypothesis. So…. they are forced to guess with sometimes questionable logic what the relationship is …and they may choose the one with the least risk to careers and the best funding 😊
The polarized scientific debates
Due to this subjugation any climate scientific debates so far have been very polarized.
The “Climate Alarmists” keep working hard to protect the consensus of a climate emergency narrative and have actively resisted any communication or open debates with the climate realists.
It’s also interesting to note that most of the current articles and communications that aim to continue to support a climate crisis avoids scientific review of the physics of the climate, and just focuses on short term weather extremes and impacts to try to create causation with a more systemic climate emergency that unfortunately is clearly not happening, based on solid facts using climate impact metrics. Or climate models are used that predict all kinds of severe impacts but get proved wrong when the future climate turns out to be far more benign.
The other approach taken by the protectors of the climate emergency consensus are character assassination attacks or fabricated conflict of interest arguments against the individuals or organizations attempting to get to the scientific truth. This has evolved into a deplorable level of personal attacks on the ethics, intellect, intelligence and knowledge of anyone that disagrees with the climate emergency consensus. Such attacks have nothing to do with science and just look more like the desperate protection of a religion.
Another tactic was to arrogantly tell anyone who disagreed with the emergency consensus to “only submit information to demonstrate scientific proof via clearly subjugated peer reviewed sources or shut up”. Well… we are way beyond that now with the past experience of political subjugation, information suppression, and twisted conclusions from the IPCC and the peer reviewed reporting process and its amplification via sensation seeking media. Hence the necessary actions taken by the new US government and the need for a reset and a review process via the DoE report to get to the truth!.
Another tactic is to send any scientific suggestions or facts to so-called independent fact checkers who are clearly fully integrated with the climate emergency consensus. Or that such suggestions are not new and have already been debunked….. sorry… these tactics just wont work anymore!
Then we have the alarmist risk management argument that its better to be safe than sorry so let’s undertake climate mitigation action even when its clearly not warranted.
These alarmists still appear oblivious to the emerging situation with the DoE report that the Frozen Climate Emergency Narrative is now being professionally, politically and public-ally questioned and reviewed, and its clear that the past climate alarmist methodology of blocking, censoring and shame-ing to protect the so-called scientific consensus just wont work anymore.
The “Climate Realists” have organized into many groups that have seen massive increase in membership due to the realization that the climate science is far from settled and that policies may need a reset.
These groups have in the past tried with little support from the media or their governments to convince the policy makers and the population that we don’t have an climate emergency and that they should move away from policies that are not needed and will destroy the energy systems the industrial base and prosperity.
But we now have a national government and a general population that now wants to review the truth because they are wising up to the clear facts that at worst they have been conned by the UN that we have a climate emergency, or at least its worth a reset and review before they see prosperity continue to decline if the past foolish NetZero policies are followed.
The Climate realists do have solid scientific facts and arguments to support their position that we don’t have a climate emergency, and this is outlined in the New Climate Narrative…..
The New Climate Narrative
The DoE report resets the climate science narrative and declares that the science is far from settled. Its agreed that some slight warming is taking place but that its not unprecedented, and although we may be a participant its far from an emergency and CO2 has little impact on temperature but is improving the food supply, and the current climate changes are improving human flourishing with no negative impacts on weather and no adverse trends in storms and hurricanes, glaciers melting sea level rise etc..
We do not have a climate emergency on this Planet!
The DoE report provides justification for the action already taken by the current US administration to declare that the climate science is unsettled and that it is far from ready to provide advice on policy actions and therefore the prosperity killing NetZero policies foolishly set by the previous US government are to be halted.
The DoE report offers a reset opportunity that will allow for much more open debate from what we have been able to undertake with the polarized climate science of the past. The science has been hidden behind a frozen narrative and has generated a so-called consensus that according to some scientists has censored the scientific review process and prevented the truth from being exposed… lets hope that problem gets avoided going forward. To facilitate this the DoE will arrange for the Climate report to be publically reviewed and debated to ensure a far higher level of transparency and involvement will improve the final version of the report.
Also, much more information and data and facts are being assembled by fast growing climate realist organizations who hope to be much more engaged in an open review process to support the publication of the next IPCC report. They want to ensure it provides a more realistic platform for future international policies that strikes a better balance between adaption to climate change and ongoing human prosperity and flourishing.
It promises to be an exciting period of review in the climate science community.
In the next few weeks, we expect to see these talking points for ongoing review and debate….…...
The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record needs review….It is believed to clearly overstates global warming with much review on data measurement and integrity being requested. Global average temperature data sets are deemed by some scientists to be corrupted by the UHIE and so-called “corrections” have been made that appear to have been doctored to make an alarmist case stronger.
Many facts point to current temperatures not being unprecedented in the history of civilizations in the last 10,000 years. (The Mann Hockey stick is being disputed)
Theories that CO2 is the main temperature control knob have never been validated with an ongoing argument of weak correlation but no causation proof.
Many alternative scientific theories contest the anthropogenic argument and must be reviewed further. The closest to reality on CO2 is work done by Happer and Wijngaarden that shows how weak the impact of that GHG is and how quickly it has saturated…. And how water vapour that has yet to be fully understood is a far stronger climate change mechanism … then we have the wide views on what controls clouds… the sun …. gamma rays. atmospheric pressure? ….maybe NOT humans?
Climate models overstate the impact of CO2 on the climate and are not fit for policy setting as stated by the DoE report.
CO2 is a net benefit as stated by the DoE report. and the food supply and growing seasons are benefiting from the increase in CO2.
No adverse climate impact metrics exist with much data to support this outlook. some impact metrics are even showing reducing severity,
No firm climate mitigation action is required, and the best course of action is focused adaption until the science is more settled… exactly what the DoE is suggesting. So, NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
Future policies should only focus on localized adaptation to a slowly warming planet, and that any panic mitigation action effecting our energy systems is unnecessary and detrimental to our prosperity and future flourishing.
NetZero will fail to gain any result as most of the global participants liberating CO2 are not planning to participate in the mitigation effort. So why should any nation embrace this painful NetZero journey and damage economic prosperity and in some cases the ability to flourish for no good outcome.
Climate policies must support an energy supply system that is reliable, abundant and lowest possible cost to support our industrialized economies. The need for abundant and affordable energy has been and will continue to be the life blood of a modern industrialized economy that can continue to offer ongoing prosperity. The new industrial strategies of INDUSTRY 4.0 and the related move to host the Artificial Intelligence installations will drive increased power demand that will most probably be provided by nuclear power rather than other forms of renewables that are proving to be unhelpful.
Many politicos and the general population are now wising up and questioning if we have a climate emergency.
A war on pollution and unsustainability issues that face humankind is not in dispute or disagreement and should be our main focus.
The Next Steps…
I suggest that future climate policy will depend on the final outcome of the DoE report.
The new baseline for scientific review is the recently published DoE report “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” clearly reverses the frozen climate emergency narrative.
It’s clear that we have significant scientific polarization, and some scientists are taking offence at even the questioning of the long-term emergency consensus, but it’s necessary to undertake such a review, and we must ensure total involvement by all sides of the position, so that clear democratic policies result from the effort.
I strongly wish for a reset ….but I also firmly agree we need to listen to both sides of the arguments to get to the truth and realistic climate management policies so that total involvement is achieved so that clear democratic policies result from the effort.
We must understand that it’s not about who is right or wrong or winning or losing but about seeking the truth for the benefit of all.
And let’s hope both sides of the climate debate …..alarmist and realists …can reach enough of a joint position that science can proceed productively toward improving our understanding of our climate.
So, let’s listen to both sides of the arguments to get to the truth and realistic climate management policies.
More articles on the subject….
The Great Climate Science RESET. - by Nigel Southway
No Hockey Stick = No Climate Emergency! - by Nigel Southway
New Climate Report from the US DOE - by Nigel Southway
A Climate Reality Awakening …..… - by Nigel Southway
Climate Change… The Truth? - by Nigel Southway
NetZero…. The Existential Treat! - by Nigel Southway
Climate links Aug 2025
http://www.nigelsouthway.org/storage/01K3KQSBWVPEJM21PJMD74DZB4.pdf
………………………….