Climate Alarmists Gone?

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Transcript (with my bolds and added images)

Who is still panicking about climate catastrophe?

The Davos crowd? European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn’t mention the climate even once in her 2026 annual address—unlike in the past.

U.S. voters? Americans rank climate change at number 28 of 30 problems, and according to the Searchlight Institute, voters in battleground states are prioritizing pocketbook issues over climate.  

Canada? Prime Minister Mark Carney once championed radical climate policies but now wants to increase oil production.

The Europeans? After worrying intensely about climate change for a decade, they have other things to worry about: sky-high energy prices, low growth and the war in Ukraine. In their latest ranking, climate hit a new decade low.

How about global warming poster child Greta Thunberg? She has moved on to other causes.

Certainly, not people in poorer countries. They’re primarily concerned about the necessities of life — health, food and education. According to a recent survey of Africans, climate ranks near the bottom of their priorities, at number 31 of 34. That’s behind unemployment, the economy, health, education, poverty, roads, electricity, hunger, and corruption.

Even media outlets that once peddled climate alarm have backed off. According to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change in three years.

What led to this global change of mind? How could so many people
be so worried just a few years ago, and care so much less now?

First, everyone has started to realize that there are many other challenges in the world. 

After the end of the Cold War, people claimed that climate change was the last big challenge to fix. That was a common idea at Davos and among many global leaders. Now, everyone recognizes that climate change is just one of many issues: wars, budget deficits, immigration pressures, declining educational achievements, artificial intelligence, and demographic changes are just a few.

Second, you can only cry wolf so many times. 

How many “the end is nigh” predictions over the last 50 years?

One peer-reviewed study counted at least 78 specific claims, like when King Charles insisted that the world only had 18 months left to fix climate change. That was in 2019. So, that statement was wrong. And every statement by every well-known climate alarmist that has been resolved by 2026 turned out to be wrong. Not to mention when Al Gore told us in 2008 we only had 10 years left.

Third, climate policies are incredibly expensive and do little. 

The world has spent more than 16 trillion dollars to curb climate change, and governments are looking to spend hundreds of trillions more in the future.

A Science study of 1,500 climate policies in 41 countries across the last two decades showed that only 4% worked. In total, they cut less than a quarter of one percent of total emissions. If a private company had this kind of record, they’d be out of business.

Fourth, the alarmist claims are often blatantly misleading. When you’re told that sea level rise could force 187 million people to move, that claim unrealistically assumes nobody will do anything to address the problem for a century. But when people adapt — for example, by building levies — that number goes down 99.8%.

The Dutch solution to floods: live with water, don’t fight it. The same thing applies to climate change.

We’re constantly told more people will die from heat waves. But nobody ever reveals that the cold kills many more. Right now, warming temperatures actually save lives. And of course, when there’s cheap and reliable power, more people can afford air conditioning. As the US warmed in the 20th century, heat deaths declined significantly, exactly for that reason.

Climate economists have consistently shown that by the end of the century, climate change will cost 2-3% of global GDP. It is a real problem, but nowhere near Armageddon.

In fact, as the UN expects the average person to be 450% richer in 2100, climate change simply means it is going to feel like we’re ‘only’ 435% richer than now. That’s still a much better world — just not quite as good as it could have been.

We still need to fix climate change, but we can do so smarter. Don’t pour trillions into policies that don’t move the needle, but billions into green energy R&D. This will help develop cheap green energy alternatives that can eventually outcompete fossil fuels on price.

Ending the climate panic means our kids won’t be needlessly scared, and neither will we. Being frightened without reason doesn’t lead to smart policies.

Rather, we can start focusing more on the many other pressing problems we need to fix now. Putting the climate panic behind us makes that possible.

I’m Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of False Alarm, for Prager University.

July 2026 SH Ocean Cools, Land Warms, Global UAH Stable

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots.  It is as though the anti-hydrocarbon band wagon hopes to drown out the data contradicting their justification for the Great Energy Transition.  Yes, there was warming from an El Nino buildup coincidental with North Atlantic warming, but no basis to blame it on CO2.

As an overview consider how recent rapid cooling  completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016).  The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021, and in February and June 2022  At year end 2022 and continuing into 2023 global temp anomaly matched or went lower than average since 1995, an ENSO neutral year. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020). Then there was an usual El Nino warming spike of uncertain cause, unrelated to steadily rising CO2, and now dropping back toward normal values.

For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa.  While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~66 ppm, an 18% increase.

Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

gmt-warming-events

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. And in 2024 we saw an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean air warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping well below its peak.

Chris Schoeneveld has produced a similar graph to the animation above, with a temperature series combining HadCRUT4 and UAH6. H/T WUWT

image-8

See Also Worst Threat: Greenhouse Gas or Quiet Sun?

July 2026 UAH Temps: SH Ocean Cools, Offsets Land Warming banner-blog

With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea.  While you heard a lot about 2020-21 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling set in.  The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino had fully dissipated with chilly temperatures in all regions. After a warming blip in 2022, land and ocean temps dropped again with 2023 starting below the mean since 1995.  Spring and Summer 2023 saw a series of warmings, continuing into 2024 peaking in April, then cooling off to the present.

UAH has updated their TLT (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for July 2026. Due to one satellite drifting more than can be corrected, the dataset has been recalibrated and retitled as version 6.1 Graphs here contain this updated 6.1 data.  Posts on their reading of ocean air temps this month are ahead the update from HadSST4 I posted recently on May 2026 SSTs Cease Warming. These posts have a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.

Sometimes air temps over land diverge from ocean air changes. 2025 showed a sharp contrast between land and sea, first with ocean air temps falling in January recovering in February.  Then in November and December SH land temps spiked while ocean temps showed litle change. In February 2026 NH land temps doubled, from Dec. 0.53C up to 1.14C last month.  Despite SH land changing little, and Tropical land cooling, the Global land anomaly jumped up from 0.53 to 0.93C.  That reversed in March with both NH land and Global land anomaly back down to 0.63C. That cooling offset SH Ocean warming doubling from 0.19C to 0.38C. In May was a warming spike in Tropics and SH ocean air while NH ocean air was flat. At the same time, Land air temps warmed in Tropics and NH while dropping in SH.  The unusual end result for May was Global, Land and Ocean air temp anomalies all showing the same 0.53C. In June SH land dropped sharply along with some SH ocean cooling, pulling down Global anomalies. Now in July, SH ocean cooled offsetting Global land warming.

Note:  UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021.   v6.1 data was recalibrated also starting with 2021. In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values changed with the baseline reference shift.

Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system.  Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy.  Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements.  In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates.  Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.

Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST.  Thus cooling oceans portend cooling land air temperatures to follow.  He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months.  This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

After a change in priorities, updates are now exclusive to HadSST4.  For comparison we can also look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6.1 which are now posted for July 2026.  The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the revised and current dataset.

The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI).  The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean air temps since January 2015.

After sharp cooling everywhere in January 2023, there was a remarkable spiking of Tropical ocean temps from -0.5C up to + 1.2C in January 2024.  The rise was matched by other regions in 2024, such that the Global anomaly peaked at 0.86C in April. Since then all regions have cooled down sharply to a low of 0.27C in January.  In February 2025, SH rose from 0.1C to 0.4C pulling the Global ocean air anomaly up to 0.47C, where it stayed in March and April. In May drops in NH and Tropics pulled the air temps over oceans down despite an uptick in SH. At 0.43C, ocean air temps were similar to May 2020, albeit with higher SH anomalies. In November/December all regions were cooler, led by a sharp drop in SH bringing the Global ocean anomaly down to 0.02C. In 2026, ocean warming was evident, with Tropics and SH pulling up Global ocean air temps despite little rise in NH ocean. Now in June and July that has reversed with SH cooling and pulling down the Global ocean anomaly, even despite tropical warming.

Land Air Temperatures Tracking in Seesaw Pattern

We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly.  The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground.  UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps.  The graph updated for July is below.

Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures by SH land.  The seesaw pattern in Land temps is similar to ocean temps 2021-22, except that SH is the outlier, hitting bottom in January 2023. Then exceptionally SH goes from -0.6C up to 1.4C in September 2023 and 1.8C in  August 2024, with a large drop in between.  In November, SH and the Tropics pulled the Global Land anomaly further down despite a bump in NH land temps. February showed a sharp drop in NH land air temps from 1.07C down to 0.56C, pulling the Global land anomaly downward from 0.9C to 0.6C. Some ups and downs followed with returns close to February values in August.  A remarkable spike in October was completely reversed in November/December, along with NH dropping sharply bringing the Global Land anomaly down to 0.52C, half of its peak value of 1.17C 09/2024. In 2026 January and February Global land rebounded up to 1.14C, led by a NH warming spike. That NH spike was reversed in March and April back down to 0.43C.  In May the Global land anomaly went back up to 0.53C with all regions around that value. Then in June land temps in SH plunged nearly 0.6C down to 0.2C, pulling Global land anomaly down more than 0.1C. July saw Global land temps up again with warming in all regions.

The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1980

The chart shows monthly Global Land and Ocean anomalies starting 01/1980 to present.  The average monthly anomaly is -0.02 for this period of more than four decades.  The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20.   An upward bump in 2021 was reversed with temps having returned close to the mean as of 2/2022.  March and April brought warmer Global temps, later reversed

With the sharp drops in Nov., Dec. and January 2023 temps, there was no increase over 1980. Then in 2023 the buildup to the October/November peak exceeded the sharp April peak of the El Nino 1998 event. It also surpassed the February peak in 2016. In 2024 March and April took the Global anomaly to a new peak of 0.94C.  The cool down started with May dropping to 0.9C, later months declined steadily until  August Global Land and Ocean was down to 0.39C. then rose slightly to 0.53 in October, before dropping. to 0.3C in December.  By May 2026 the anomaly was back up to 0.53C, now holding at 0.48C in July.

The graph reminds of another chart showing the abrupt ejection of humid air from Hunga Tonga eruption.

TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps.  Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak.  Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force.  TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST4, but are now showing the same pattern. Despite the three El Ninos, their warming had not persisted prior to 2023, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995.  Of course, the future has not yet been written.

Canada Govt. Aids and Abets Forest Fires

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Traffic moves along One World Trade Center in New York City amid smokey haze from wildfires in Canada.Andy Bao / AP June 2026

Dr. Joseph Fournier explains the situation in his Daily Wire article Blame Canada’s Terrible Regulations For Wildfires Ruining America’s Summer.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It’s a perfect storm of the decline of local lumber industries
and the policies put in place to (mis)manage Canadian forests.

Americans often picture Canada as a vast northern forest — an endless expanse of pristine wilderness. But the truth is far more complex and increasingly relevant to U.S.–Canada policy debates. Eighty‑nine percent of Canada is Crown land, owned by federal or provincial governments. Yet only about 10–12% of that land receives detailed ecological monitoring.  This matters because U.S. trade policy, Canadian conservation policy, and federal herbicide permitting are now combining to reshape North America’s forests in ways few Americans recognize.

Over the past 20 years, Canada’s sawmill and pulp‑and‑paper sectors have entered a steep decline. Statistics Canada and industry reports show that mill closures have accelerated, especially in western Canada, where over 30% of softwood lumber capacity has disappeared. Employment has dropped sharply. Entire forestry towns have hollowed out.

And while multiple factors contribute — mountain pine beetle damage, wildfire losses, transportation bottlenecks — the most overlooked driver is the federal government’s long‑standing approval of spraying Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide across millions of hectares of Crown forests. For decades, glyphosate has been used to kill broadleaf species — birch, aspen, poplar — so that commercially valuable conifers can dominate.

But this practice has consequences. Roundup creates monoculture conifer stands, which are more resin‑rich and significantly more flammable than mixed‑species forests. Instead of diverse, moisture‑retaining ecosystems, Canada is producing vast tracts of single‑age, single‑species pine and spruce — exactly the kind of forests that burn explosively under extreme fire weather.

The result is a continental paradox: Policies meant to “manage” forests
have instead created more combustible landscapes,
contributing to the anomalous rise in total annual area burned.

The deterioration of Canada’s forests is also being accelerated by domestic policy. Rising carbon taxes on diesel and gasoline — critical fuels for logging, hauling, and mill operations — have increased costs across the supply chain. New layers of regulation slow approvals and reduce harvest flexibility. And when pulp mills close, sawmills lose buyers for residual chips and sawdust, further undermining their economics.

But the most consequential impact of this industrial contraction is ecological. Canada’s parklands — where monitoring exists — show a clear trend of rapidly aging boreal forests, with large stands now reaching 70 to 120 years old.

In Alberta’s eastern foothills, provincial parks contain dense, overmature, fuel‑loaded forests primed for high‑intensity wildfire. Decades of fire suppression, beetle kill, drought, and heavy recreational pressure have created extreme fire risk. As Parks Canada itself warns, “the reduction or exclusion of fire as a natural process … leads to increased risk of wildfires.”

The consequences are here. Alberta’s Jasper National Park recently nearly burned to the ground when extreme fire weather collided with decades of fuel accumulation, beetle‑killed forests, a highly vulnerable townsite, and infrastructure failures.

Nonetheless, long‑term fire data tell a more nuanced story.  According to Canada’s National Burned Area Composite and Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre wildfire statistics, forest‑fire frequency has declined since the 1980s. Canada is experiencing fewer fires overall.

What has changed is the total area burned, which had remained relatively moderate for decades but then spiked dramatically in 2023 and again in 2025, producing two of the worst years for fires in modern Canadian history.  These spikes reflect the dangerous combination of aging forests, heavy fuel loads, glyphosate‑driven monoculture, and extreme fire weather — not an increase in ignition frequency.

Meanwhile, federal biodiversity reports show that parks are not experiencing net improvement. Most ecosystems are stable, but among those changing, declines outnumber gains. And crucially, non‑park Crown lands are not monitored at all, meaning there is no empirical basis to claim that conservation designations improve biodiversity.

Yet Ottawa is moving ahead with its flagship 30×30 agenda — a plan
to place 30% of Canada’s land and water under conservation status by 2030.

In practice, this means restricting forestry across vast areas as forests age, become fuel‑loaded, and become increasingly prone to extreme fire behavior. By limiting private‑sector utilization, 30×30 will increase fuel loading, exacerbate forest aging, and reduce thinning and harvesting activities that mitigate catastrophic wildfire risk.

For Americans concerned about lumber prices or wildfire smoke drifting south, the lesson is simple. Canada’s forests are increasingly unmanaged, aging, and burning, not because Canadians don’t care, but because the economic and policy frameworks governing those forests are pushing the country toward less active management.

North America needs forestry — not just parks — to remain resilient.

Joseph Fournier, Ph.D., has worked in the energy industry and environmental sciences and is a member of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He writes from his family’s ranch east of Calgary.

See Also:

Canada Wildfires: Manage Forests or Lose Them

 

 

 

 

2026 July Arctic Ice Extents Return to Mean

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Russian Nuclear Icebreakers on the Northern Sea Route, March 2025

The arctic ice extents are now reported through July 2026, and as noted previously the wavy polar vortex has hampered ice formation with incursions of warmer southern air into the Arctic circle.  This factor receded in May and June, with extents closing the gap with the averages. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) goes through the Russian shelf seas of Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi seas on the way to Bering Strait in Beaufort Sea.

As the image from July 31 shows, the Arctic Ocean core is still solid, while parts of the Eurasian NSR have open water on the left vertical side. Ice persists in Laptev (top left) and Chukchi (bottom Left).  As usual in July, Hudson Bay (bottom right) is full open water, as is Baffin Bay (middle right).  Canadian Archipelago retains considerable ice cover.

The chart below shows the 20-year July averages for Arctic ice extents, along with 2026, 2025 and 2007 as well as SII v.4. Note that on average during this period 2.7M km2 of ice extent is lost. MASIE tracked average throughout, slipping below mid month, before ending July with a slight surplus.  SII v.4 continues to underestimate Arctic ice extent, ending July 0.4M km2 in deficit to MASIE, and down 338k km2 for the July month average.

The table below shows the distibution of ice extents on day 212 across regions of the Arctic ocean.

Region 2026212 Day 212 AVe 2026-Ave. 2007212 2026-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 6931831 6921789 10042 6344860 586971
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 996685 800758 195927 760576 236109
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 749028 558330 190698 382350 366678
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 668170 748092 -79922 445385 222785
 (4) Laptev_Sea 508311 368784 139527 314382 193929
 (5) Kara_Sea 113891 160107 -46216 239232 -125340
 (6) Barents_Sea 36 28134 -28098 23703 -23667
 (7) Greenland_Sea 131468 293251 -161783 324737 -193270
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 107049 149072 -42023 94179 12870
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 561573 543590 17983 510063 51510
 (10) Hudson_Bay 114812 136490 -21678 93655 21158
 (11) Central_Arctic 2978659 3133437 -154778 3154837 -176178

The table shows that many regions are close to or above the 20-year average. The Eurasian shelf seas of Laptev, Chukchi and Beaufort are in surplus. The only sizeable deficits are Greenland Sea and Central Arctic. Bering and Okhotsk seas are left off the list since they are open water now as usual.

 

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring ice and snow extents.

 

Decoding the Flailing Climate Alarm Story

Posted on by Ron Clutz

There have been various reports, including some reposted here, about the Climate Crisis narrative losing its grip on the public and leaders.  Signs the fad is waning include some advocates like Bill Gates recanting, ESG financiers like Larry Fink backtracking, falling media coverage and closure of some climate units, and the recent admission of implausible climate model scenarios.

Even so, there are still many in its thrall, and it’s important to understand how climate doomster culture took over and continues to demand attention and deference.  Garry Rogers provides a brief and insightful analysis of how this happened, and why its influence is rightfully dwindling.  His blog article is Why So Many People Fall For The Climate Crisis Narrative. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some added images.

You’ve seen them. Earnest young activists shouting at clouds, gluing themselves to museum walls, and blocking traffic with coroplast signs warning that the world will end in twelve years unless we obey their vision of salvation—complete with windmills, solar panels, and vegan diets. They’re the same people Xing and Instagramming about carbon footprints from their iPhones made in Chinese factories run on sulphur and lignite coal-fired electricity.

It’s easy to dismiss them as naive or misguided, but the uncomfortable truth is this: many of these people are neither stupid nor insane. They are simply caught in a powerful psychological, cultural, and financial machine that has turned “climate change” into a form of religious belief—a doctrine too sacred to question and too profitable to abandon.

Let’s set something straight. I’m not a climate change denier. Climate change is real. The Earth’s climate has always changed. And it always will—human-contributed through emitted greenhouse gas or not.

But the apocalyptic narrative that dominates headlines, policy, and corporate strategy today isn’t just about facts. It’s about framing—about controlling how people think, feel, and act in relation to a deeply complex system they barely understand. And that makes the climate crisis one of the most successful psychological operations in modern history.

In this post, we’ll take a hard look at why so many people have bought in—blindly and without skepticism—to the idea that we’re on the brink of planetary collapse, and that the only solution is top-down control, mass compliance, and the destruction of energy systems that built the modern world.

Some of what I’m going to say may be uncomfortable to some, and I know some
will unsubscribe. But that doesn’t make it untrue, and this needs to be said.

The Climate Crisis as a Religion (aka The Church of Carbon)

First, let’s call it what it is. For a growing number of people—especially in the West (Europe particularly included)—the climate crisis has become a belief system. It functions just like a fundamentalist religion, complete with original sin (industrialization), prophets (Greta, Gore, Gates), sacred texts (IPCC reports), rituals (recycling, carbon offsets), heretics (climate skeptics), and a promised apocalypse for those who fail to convert.

It’s not about science anymore. It’s about meaning.  People—especially young people raised in secular cultures—are starving for purpose. They want to feel morally righteous, socially important, and part of a grand, redemptive story. The climate narrative offers all of that in a tidy, emotionally satisfying package. It turns ordinary people into saviors. It makes them matter.  You can’t underestimate how powerful that is.

Fear is the Fuel

The second driver is fear. For decades, we’ve been bombarded with doom-laden, global-warming headlines: ice caps melting, oceans rising, hurricanes and tornados worsening, apocalyptical flooding, forests burning, deserts parching… The messaging is relentless—and expertly crafted to trigger our limbic systems. When people are afraid, they don’t reason. They react.

This isn’t new. Back in the 1970s, experts warned of an imminent ice age. Then came acid rain. Then ozone depletion. Each time, the world was supposed to end unless we handed over more power to government, more money to NGOs, and more control to unelected technocrats.

It’s always the same pattern:

  1. Declare a crisis.
  2. Blame human behavior.
  3. Offer a sweeping solution that just happens to consolidate control.

The only difference now is scale. The climate crisis is global,
not regional. And the proposed solutions are systemic, not marginal.

 The Collapse of Critical Thinking

But fear alone doesn’t explain the blind belief. There’s another piece of the puzzle: the steady erosion of critical thinking. Schools no longer teach logic, debate, or how to evaluate competing hypotheses. Instead, they promote conformity, activism, and groupthink. You don’t learn how to think. You learn what to think.

By the time students hit university, the programming is complete. Professors reinforce the dogma. Campus culture punishes dissent. Climate change isn’t a topic for exploration—it’s a moral litmus test. Students who question it risk grades, reputation, or worse. Being cancelled.

So, they comply. They absorb. They repeat. And when they graduate into journalism, academia, NGOs, or politics, they carry that unexamined belief system with them—passing it on like gospel.

The Media Echo Chamber

The next layer is media. Legacy outlets like CNN, BBC, CBC, and the New York Times frame climate change in religious terms: “Climate emergency,” “existential threat,” “code red for humanity.” Any nuance is treated as heresy. Any questioning is framed as denialism.

Science itself has been rebranded. Instead of a method of inquiry, it’s now a set of conclusions—conveniently aligned with elite interests. The phrase “The science is settled” is a dead giveaway. No real scientist would ever say that.

Meanwhile, dissenting voices—many with serious credentials—are marginalized, shadowbanned, or censored outright. Their data doesn’t fit the narrative. Their views make people uncomfortable. So, they are erased.

And most people? They never notice.They assume if something was true, they’d hear about it. But when every channel is playing the same tune, they don’t realize they’re listening to a carefully curated soundtrack.

Social Conformity and Virtue Signaling 

But here’s the deeper truth.  Most people don’t believe the climate crisis because they’ve studied the data. They believe it because everyone else does. That’s the power of social conformity. Nobody wants to be the outlier—the one who raises their hand and asks the uncomfortable question.  Especially in a culture obsessed with virtue.  Believing in the climate crisis is a modern form of moral signaling. You drive a Tesla. You compost. You use a keep-cup. You care. You’re not like those backward Boomer-deniers who love oil and hate penguins.

  • You’re evolved
  • You’re ethical
  • You’re better

That’s what this has become—not a conversation about climate,
but a competition for social status.

And once belief becomes part of your identity, it becomes non-negotiable. Any challenge feels like a personal attack. Facts don’t matter. Feelings do.

Follow the Money

Now let’s talk about power.

The climate industry is worth trillions—yes, trillions of dollars. It’s the perfect grift: a never-ending crisis that justifies endless funding, regulation, and surveillance.

  • Governments rake in carbon taxes.
  • Universities secure research grants.
  • Corporations get ESG ratings and subsidies.
  • NGOs fundraise on fear.

It’s an entire ecosystem of incentives, none of which reward skepticism or moderation. And when that much money is on the table, the truth becomes secondary to the narrative.

Even energy companies play along. They don’t want to be regulated out of existence, so they slap green labels on their products and talk about “net zero” while quietly hedging their bets. It’s theater. Everyone’s pretending.   But the costs are real.

China’s Role in the Global Equation

While the West ties itself in knots trying to decarbonize, one country is playing a different game entirely: China

Beijing talks green, but burns black. Coal remains its dominant energy source, powering steel, manufacturing, and military growth at a staggering scale. As of 2024, China alone consumes over half the world’s coal supply—and shows no sign of slowing down.

They’re not stupid. While we argue over wind farms and carbon credits,
they build aircraft carriers, drones, and power grids.
While we teach kids to fear climate collapse,
they teach theirs to master engineering and geopolitics.

They make the solar panels we install. They mine the rare earths we need. They profit from the very policies we impose on ourselves.  And we call that progress.

Weaponized Guilt

So why don’t people wake up?

Because they’ve been trained to feel guilty. Every gas-guzzling SUV trip, every propane-grilled burger, every jet-fueled flight—is framed as a moral failing. You’re killing the planet. You’re harming future generations. You’re part of the problem. It’s exhausting, and it’s effective.

People internalize this guilt. They try to cleanse themselves through ritualistic consumption: reusable straws, oat milk, biodegradable trash bags, canvas totes at the farmer’s market. None of it makes an infatismal sub-fraction of a surface dent in global emissions—but it feels redemptive.

That’s the point. It’s not about fixing the planet. It’s about managing the soul.

The Useful Idiots

Now we come to the crux.

The term “useful idiot” originated in Soviet times. It referred to Western sympathizers who unknowingly supported the goals of a regime they didn’t understand. They weren’t evil—just naive, manipulated, and eager to be on the “right side of history.”

That’s where we are today. Millions of well-meaning people have been seduced by a narrative that exploits their fears, flatters their vanity, and blinds them to the larger game at play. They march, post, and protest—believing they’re saving the world, while unwittingly aiding those who want to dominate it.

They’re not villains. They’re pawns. And when you try to wake-the-wokes, they look at you like you’re the crazy one. Then they viscerally turn on you.

What’s At Stake

Here’s what’s really at stake. If we continue down this path, we don’t just risk economic collapse or energy poverty. We risk civilizational suicide. We are dismantling the very systems—energy, industry, sovereignty—that made the modern world possible.

And we’re doing it not for the planet, but for appearances.

Meanwhile, the nations that reject this ideology are gaining power, leverage, and independence. They’re not afraid to use fossil fuels while experimenting with futuristics. They’re not ashamed of their ambitions. And they’re not held hostage by narratives designed to make them feel guilty for existing.

They’re playing to win. We’re playing to look virtuous. That’s a losing hand.

So, what do we do?

First, stop apologizing. There is no shame in using energy. Civilization runs on it. Human flourishing depends on energy, regardless of how it’s generated. Without it, we return to darkness—literally and figuratively.

Second, think for yourself. Ask questions. Follow incentives. Trace the money.
Be skeptical of anything presented as a one-sided moral truth.

Third, reclaim courage. Don’t be afraid to speak the truth, even when it’s unpopular. Especially when it’s unpopular. History doesn’t remember those who went along to get along. It remembers those who stood up, pointed at the naked emperor, and said, “This is madness.”

And finally, understand this: We are not in a climate crisis. We are in a clarity crisis. Clarity—real, hard-won, human clarity—is the first step back to sanity.

The next time someone tells you the world is ending, ask who’s funding the message—and what they’re selling with it. Because if you look closely, you’ll find it’s not about saving the planet. It’s about controlling the people on the planet by getting them to fall for the climate crisis narrative.

Background Resources

Why Climate Alarm is Fading (Matt Ridley)

No, WSJ: 9 Reasons Why “Green Energy” Makes Even LESS Sense Today

Charles MacKay: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard (Pielke Jr.)

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Roger Pielke Jr. has created a monitor at his THB (The Honest Broker) blog applying scientific and statistical rigor to detection of US Extreme Weather and Climate Change.  All the details and methodology are provided in his blog post US Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard.

Overview

The THB US Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard follows the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) framework for detecting a change in climate in the context of internal variability. This dashboard tracks 32 variables associated with 7 types of extremes: heat waves, tornadoes, flooding, drought, winter storms, wildfire, and hurricanes. The site presents data for the full range of data judged to be of sufficient quality for trend analysis, and on each page for each phenomena, users can choose the time frame over which to observe the data. This is ongoing work in progress – Suggestions welcome!

Detecting a change in climate is not the same as spotting a trend in a time series — it’s demonstrating that a trend is unlikely to have arisen from natural internal variability by chance alone. Here that means two things:

♦  First, detecting a trend at IPCC’s stated example threshold of below 10% (via the nonparametric Mann-Kendall test).

♦  Second, because a long, low-noise record can show a statistically significant trend as a result of internal variability, this dashboard adds another check before identifying a detected change: the trend’s magnitude must also be a meaningful share (this site’s threshold: at least 25%) of the variable’s historical variability. A trend can be identified in a time series and still not count as a detected change here for that reason: flooding’s trend, for example, is statistically real (p=0.011) but is only about 4% of its typical week-to-week range, and not at all unexpected.

This combined standard — IPCC’s likelihood criterion plus this site’s
magnitude check on trends — is what “detected change” means.

Each tile above shows a variable’s reliable-trend-window data at a glance and its detected-change verdict — click through to that variable’s phenomenon page for the full interactive chart, an adjustable time window, PNG/CSV downloads, and alternative metrics. Full definitions and caveats are documented on the Methodology page. A side-by-side comparison of how IPCC AR6 has characterized each hazard, and how it compares to this site’s findings, can be found on the Detection & Attribution page.

Detection and Attribution

This dashboard focuses only on detection, following the IPCC’s own framework for detecting a change in climate. The IPCC’s definitions are below (Glossary, AR5/AR6/SR15, “Detection and Attribution”), and are applied throughout this site.

  • Climate: “The average weather, or more rigorously, the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.”
  • Climate change: “A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.”
  • Detection: “The process of demonstrating that climate or a system affected by climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. An identified change is detected in observations if its likelihood of occurrence by chance due to internal variability alone is determined to be small, for example, <10%.”
  • Attribution: “The process of evaluating the relative contributions of multiple causal factors to a change or event with a formal assessment of confidence.” This dashboard performs detection only — it does not attempt attribution, which requires separate causal/model-based analysis this project hasn’t undertaken.

Background Resources

Devious Climate Attribution Studies

X-Weather Attributions by Pseudo-Scientists

US States Locking Two Zero Energy Back Doors

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Frank Lasee writes at CFACT on state legislatures acting to block climate lawfare: Shutting the two back doors to Net Zero expenses. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

For years, activists pushing net-zero energy policy have lost where it counts. Voters reject higher power bills. Legislatures refuse to ban natural gas. Congress will not pass a carbon tax, so they moved to the two venues a determined minority can still control: local governments and the courtroom.

CFACT has set out to close both doors to the Green Left.

Working directly with legislative sponsors, we advanced two model bills before ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force. Both were received warmly by the task force members at their recent meeting in Orlando, Florida (July 22-24), who will now carry them home to their states.

The first, the Energy Producers and Consumers Protection Act, led by Rep. Reagan Paul, Maine, shuts the courthouse door. Across the country, trial lawyers and city attorneys have discovered that if you cannot regulate energy producers out of business, you can try to sue them out of business instead. There are about 40 climate lawsuits around the country right now.

They file public nuisance claims, climate superfund actions, and fraud suits
that ask a single judge to blame one company for global atmospheric
conditions, all over a product that was legal to make and sell.

Our bill ends the game. It sets liability for lawful emissions at zero dollars unless a plaintiff can prove an actual violation of the federal Clean Air Act; it bars local governments from filing or funding these suits; and it prohibits the retroactive climate superfund schemes that states like New York and Vermont have used to hand energy producers enormous bills for products sold legally years ago.

This is not a fringe idea. It builds directly on laws already enacted in Utah, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Our model takes the strongest provisions from each and assembles them into one bill any state can adopt.

Suing over climate change: Taking fossil fuel companies to court

The second bill, the Local Government Net Zero Policy Prohibition Act, led by Rep. Thomas Peterson (Utah), shuts the city hall door.

Counties, school districts, and public universities have quietly become
some of the most aggressive climate regulators in the country.

They adopt net-zero targets, write carbon preferences into their purchasing contracts, pay dues to activist consortia like ICLEI and C40 Cities, and commit taxpayer money to programs that make no measurable difference to the global climate while raising costs for the families they serve.

Our bill stops it. Local governments will no longer spend public funds chasing net-zero mandates, and they may no longer join the climate lawsuits described above.  The bill protects real efficiency. Towns can still buy LED streetlights, weatherize buildings, and choose cheaper vehicles. What they cannot do is spend public money for political emissions targets. If it saves money, do it. If it only serves a political goal, do not bill the taxpayer.

Taken together, the two bills form a single strategy. One keeps activists from writing energy policy through the procurement office. The other keeps them from writing it through the courtroom. Both rest on the same principle.

In a self-governing republic, energy policy should be made by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature, not by trial lawyers seeking a payday or by unelected local boards answering to national pressure campaigns.

Every successful climate lawsuit and every local net-zero mandate lands on consumers who never voted for them. Affordable, reliable energy is not a luxury — it is the foundation of every community goal.

The momentum is real. Four states have already enacted versions of the litigation shield, and Florida has led the way on reining in local climate mandates. With these two models now in front of ALEC legislators, the path is open for many more states to follow.

CFACT will keep working with lawmakers to see these bills through. The activists changed venues because they were losing. We intend to make sure they keep losing, in the legislature, in the courtroom, and in city hall alike. This will benefit you by keeping those costs out of your wallet.

 

US Climate Law Dominoes 2026

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Energy in Depth (EID) reports on climate litigation falling cases in the current year, leading up to a major SCOTUS hearing later this year.  Most recent article is Maryland’s Climate Lawsuits Quietly Hit a Dead End. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

In 2018, climate activists hailed Baltimore’s lawsuit against energy companies as “the next in a growing wave” of climate liability lawsuits. Eight years later, that wave has crashed in Maryland.

The ordinary 90-day window to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Maryland Supreme Court’s March 24 decision has passed without fanfare, leaving the dismissals of Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County’s climate lawsuits intact.

For the climate litigation campaign, that silence is telling. These cases were once promoted as part of coordinated legal strategy to force energy companies to pay for global climate change through local courts. Instead, Maryland’s highest court delivered one of the campaign’s clearest defeats yet – rejecting the lawsuits from top to bottom.

A Major Problem for the National Campaign

Maryland’s final defeat comes at a critical moment. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s refusal to dismiss Boulder’s climate lawsuit. When granting review, the Court also asked the parties to brief whether it has jurisdiction to review the ruling at this stage in the litigation.

The Maryland Supreme Court’s now final decision answers that question.

In the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling, the justices were explicit about why: they wanted to give SCOTUS:

“the benefit of a high court’s analysis that is different from that expressed by our colleagues on the high courts of Colorado and Hawaii.”

This created a clear split between Maryland’s Supreme Court and state supreme courts in Colorado and Hawaii that ruled against the companies. Now, SCOTUS has clear jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and has an opportunity to put an end to the nationwide lawfare campaign against the U.S. energy industry.

Maryland Double Whammy: Dismissed on Federal Grounds – and State Grounds Too

Writing on behalf of the 6-1 majority, Justice Brynja M. Booth delivered a clean sweep against every theory the climate litigation campaign has thrown at the courts – ruling that these claims fail under federal law, and under state law too.

The court firmly dismissed plaintiffs’ attempts to reframe their sweeping federal claims as local matters, making clear that such claims fall squarely within the domain of federal law:

“We are unpersuaded by the local governments’ myopic view of their claims or their attempt to ignore or minimize the effect that a significant damages award would have on both domestic and international attempts to regulate pollution—matters which are solely within the purview of federal law.” (Emphasis added)

The court was equally clear that local governments lack the basic jurisdictional authority to police global conduct:

“The local governments cannot escape this inescapable conclusion: they are seeking to apply Maryland law to regulate conduct that occurs outside their jurisdictional borders, as well as within the State’s borders. The local governments’ police powers do not extend beyond their respective borders, and certainly do not authorize the policing of global conduct.” (Emphasis added)

But the majority didn’t stop at federal preemption. It ruled that even if federal law didn’t preempt these claims entirely, the plaintiffs still had no case. Their nuisance, trespass, and failure-to-warn theories each failed independently under Maryland state law, leaving plaintiffs with no viable path forward in any court:

“Even if the local governments’ state law claims were not displaced or preempted by federal law, the local governments failed to state legally cognizable claims under state law for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and negligent and strict liability failure to warn.”

The opinion also delivered a direct rebuke to the plaintiffs’ core liability theory: that the production and sale of oil and natural gas is a liability-inducing event:

“No single extraction decision, no single sale of fuel, and no single consumer transaction creates a foreseeable risk of harm to any identifiable person.”

That language echoes warnings from other courts. In South Carolina, a judge dismissed Charleston’s climate lawsuit by flagging the same problem: accepting plaintiffs’ theory would open the door to “boundless” liability.

Climate superfund bills–Retroactive Punishment with a Misnomer Name 

Climate superfund bills – which are designed and pushed by the same activists behind the litigation campaign against oil and gas companies – have been introduced in over ten states and signed into law in two, Vermont and New York. These state superfund laws are now facing steep legal challenges from industry groups, other state attorney generals, and the Trump administration.  

One of the sharpest concerns raised during the panel was the constitutional flaw at the core of these bills: retroactive liability. Climate superfund laws aim to penalize decades of past activity – activity that was lawful and, in many cases, encouraged by government policy. As GMU Professor Donald Kochan explained: 

“If every time you lose in court and can’t actually prove that someone is responsible… you just go to the legislature and say, ‘Hey, why don’t you deem them responsible without any proof’—that’s a really dangerous change and shift in our Democratic and Republican values.”

This approach raises due process concerns and opens the door to politicized, retroactive punishment across a range of industries, not just energy.  

Experts also pushed back on the “superfund” label, calling it a misleading analogy. The EPA’s original superfund program, also known as CERCLA, pooled funds for cleanup at specific contaminated sites. But, as Kochan pointed out, unlike hazardous waste, climate change is a global issue with no discrete damage sites or direct remediation:  

“There’s all kinds of reasons why these are not Superfunds. One is that there’s nothing remediated here… These labels were done for convenience sake, to make it sound like it wasn’t such a deviation from norms to do this kind of thing.”

Instead of remediation, the real purpose seems to be punitive: to create a system of endless liability that ultimately puts fossil fuel companies out of business.  

Consumer Costs and Chilling Investment 

Even if courts eventually strike these laws down, their economic effects will be felt immediately. C3 Solutions’ Ian Banks noted that companies are already reconsidering development plans in states that have proposed climate superfund laws, and that hesitation impacts consumers: 

“These companies are going to have to pay billions of dollars… It’s going to discourage them from continuing to take action in these states. And likely, these costs will get passed on to consumers.”

This dynamic is playing out in real-time in California. As EID Climate previously commented, California’s own climate superfund effort stalled earlier this year after lawmakers raised red flags about affordability and fairness. Still, California has seen a policy-driven exodus of energy companies and infrastructure, contributing to its high gas prices. This outcome suggests that even in deep-blue states, reality catches up to rhetoric when bills come due. 

The Role of Attribution Science 

One of the pillars supporting climate superfund legislation is a relatively new theory: source attribution science, which claims to link specific weather disasters to individual companies’ historical emissions. Kochan noted that this theory has yet to withstand courtroom scrutiny:  

“We’ve not yet gotten to the trial stage in any of these cases… because plaintiffs haven’t yet had to prove traceability, causation, and harm. But when we do, the scientific evidence standards should keep this science out.” 

Professor Weinkle, who holds a PhD in Environmental Studies and Public Policy, added that source attribution research is increasingly shaped by litigation and advocacy goals, instead of neutral science – a dynamic that undermines its credibility in policy contexts. 

The Writing Was on the Wall

Lawmakers in Maryland have long seen the signs that this climate litigation lacks legal merit. Recognizing this, they pivoted, joining New York and Vermont in pursuit of Rockefeller-funded “climate superfund” efforts that retroactively charge energy companies for the costs of climate adaptation projects.

Even those superfund efforts in Maryland have faced hurdles. Maryland’s own climate superfund bill was downgraded to a study amid bipartisan concern about the impact on energy affordability.  That pivot reveals the basic problem. If activists cannot get courts to impose sweeping climate liability through nuisance, trespass, and failure-to-warn claims, they will try to get legislatures to impose the same costs by another name.

But Maryland shows both paths face serious legal, fiscal, and affordability concerns.

Bottom Line: Despite activist promises, Maryland’s climate lawsuits have quietly joined the growing list of failed attempts to bankrupt the U.S. energy industry. The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling also came at the perfect time, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Boulder’s similar climate lawsuit.

ICJ Opinion and UN Resolution Turbocharge Climate Litigation

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Activists hoping the opinion from the ICJ’s judges will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change Image: Peter Dejong/AP Photo/picture alliance

The biased Advisory Opinion came down from ICJ a year ago. At the time I posted of how narrow-minded was the decision process.  For example, this from perplexity.ai:

Question: How did the ICJ address scientists disputing IPCC reports like Clintel in its climate advice?

Answer: The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory proceedings on climate change, did not address or give consideration to scientists or groups—such as Clintel—who dispute the findings of the IPCC. Instead, the ICJ relied heavily and explicitly on the IPCC as the authoritative source on climate science throughout the process.

Key points from the available evidence:

  • The ICJ held a private meeting with IPCC scientists just before hearings began, reflecting the Court’s view of the IPCC as the “scientific pillar” of the climate change regime1.

  • This meeting was not part of the formal, public hearings and did not include scientists who dissent from the IPCC—states and organizations participating in the advisory proceedings had no opportunity to question or respond to IPCC scientists1.

  • The process was criticized for lacking transparency and procedural fairness precisely because it favored a single scientific perspective (the IPCC’s), with no indication that alternative scientific viewpoints were admitted or reviewed1.

  • The UN General Assembly’s request for the advisory opinion itself referenced the “utmost concern [for] the scientific consensus expressed” in the IPCC reports, reinforcing the Court’s mandate to treat the IPCC’s findings as the foundation for its analysis13.

  • Available commentaries and summaries of the ICJ process do not mention any engagement with scientists or organizations disputing IPCC conclusions, nor do they report that groups like Clintel were referenced or invited as experts13.

  • While the ICJ has, in rare past cases, consulted technical experts informally, in this climate case it only announced consultation with IPCC figures, reinforcing the exclusion of dissident scientific voices19.

In summary, the ICJ’s approach gave exclusive scientific authority to the IPCC and provided no forum, reference, or weight to scientists disputing its reports, such as those from Clintel13. The Court did not discuss or acknowledge the existence of such scientific disagreement in its process, instead treating the IPCC’s consensus as fact. This approach has been criticized for its lack of transparency and its failure to incorporate procedural safeguards for alternative scientific views19.

Neverthless, the ICJ AO prompted headlines like these:

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change, BBC

Legal experts say International Court of Justice ruling provides ‘a clear blueprint to hold major emitters accountable’ The Independent

Opened the door for countries to sue each other over impacts of climate change, phys.org

Nations Can Sue Each Other Over Climate Inaction Under International Law, Daily Guardian

Etc., Etc. Etc.

Now on May 20, 2026 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the ICJ and suggesting implementation.

UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution welcoming the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change

RESULT
In favor: 141
Against: 8
Abstain: 28

Activists gloss over the fact that neither the ICJ Opinion nor the UN Resolution are binding, even though it’s expected for them to be referenced in all the climate warfare going on now, and soon to explode.  Thus it is important to look into the vote and the implications from those who opposed, abstained, or were absent

The table below lists the Authors, those Against, Abstained, Absent and Notables Voting for:

Authors (62) Against (8) Abstained (28) Absent (15) For (79 + 62)
Andorra Belarus Algeria Azerbaijan Notables
Angola Iran Argentina Benin Australia
Antigua and Barbuda Israel Bahrain Bolivia Austria
Armenia Liberia Brunei Central African rep Belgium
Bahamas (The) Russia Czechia Dem Rep Korea Brazil
Bhutan Saudi Arabia Quatorial NG Dominica Canada
Bosnia and Herzegovina United States Eritrea Eswatini China
Bulgaria Yemen Ethiopia Kiribati Denmark
Burkina Faso Gambie Madagascar Egypt
Cabo Verde India Nicaragua Hungary 
Chile Iraq Serbia Indonesia
Colombia Kazakhstan Trinidad Tobago Ireland
Congo Kuwait Turkmenistan Italy
Costa Rica Lesotho Uzbekistan Japan
Croatia Libya Venezuela Malaysia
Cyprus Namibia Mexico
Czechia Nigeria New Zealand
Djibouti Oman Norway
Dominican Republic Pakistan Poland
Ecuador Paraguay Singapore
Equatorial Guinea Qatar Sri Lanka
Fiji South Africa Somalia
Finland Sudan Sweden
France Syria Thailand
Georgia Tunisia Uganda
Germany Turkiye UAE
Greece Tanzania UK
Guatemala Zimbabwe Viet Nam
Honduras
Jordan
Kenya
Latvia
Lebanon
Luxembourg
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Micronesia Fed States
Monaco
Montenegro
Morocco
Netherlands
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Palau
Panama
Peru
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Romania
Samoa
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
Togo
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vanuatu

Those who voted against or abstained are likely to refuse recognizing the authority of ICJ and UN in this matter.  In addition some of those absent are also “makers” of hydrocarbon fuels and will oppose the many nations wanting to be “takers” benefiting from the legal circus coming to town.  Many of the Notables voting for are likely to be defendants in this lawfare, especially if they were stupid enough to legislate emissions reduction targets.

Background Post

ICJ Issues Biased Advice on Climate Change

July Update: Pacific El Niño and Atlantic Niña

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A map of global sea surface temperature anomalies on July 15, 2026, showing a significant region of below-average sea surface temperatures off the western coast of Africa. © NOAA Office of Satellite and Product Operations, arrow added using Canva

There’s been much ado about a strong El Niño, but less is heard about the appearance of a sister anomaly Atlantic Niña.  What happens to summer storm activity when both are on stage?  Ben Cost does a good job of pulling together the implications in his NY Post article El Niño’s sister La Niña has arrived in the Atlantic — here’s what that means for summer weather.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Update with latest Ocean SST from OISST v.2

As described in more detail below, currently we are seeing an unusual mixed signal in the ocean patterns: a surging El Nino in the Pacific and at the same time an Atlantic Nina.  Here are the latest data from OISST v.2 regarding this phenomenon.

 

The extremely strong El Niño brewing in the South Pacific isn’t the only unusual weather pattern on the horizon.  Meteorological experts warn that the oceanic anomaly’s sister —  Atlantic Niña — could be rearing its head in the tropical part of The Pond, potentially helping curtail the number of storms we’ll see this season, according to Severe Weather Europe.

A map of global sea surface temperature anomalies on July 15, 2026, shows a significant region of below-average sea surface temperatures off the western coast of Africa.

This climate pattern is similar to La Niña — the cold phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) — in that both cause temperature plunges below average. The difference is that this big chill affects the eastern equatorial Atlantic Ocean instead of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, potentially altering wind and rainfall across the tropics, per Climate.org.

These two anomalies appear to work on opposite poles (warm vs. cold), but they are actually perfectly aligned in their atmospheric impact.

Should surface temps on the Atlantic Ocean hover at 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit below average for at least two overlapping seasons, this could mark just the sixth Atlantic Niña in the last four decades.

The sibling anomaly El Niño, meanwhile, causes preternaturally warm temperatures on the Pacific Ocean’s surface with forecasters predicting that this particular version could be up to 6.5 degrees warmer than average, potentially making it the strongest El Niño on record.

Despite being polar opposites on the thermometer, these temp-affecting twins are “perfectly aligned in their atmospheric impact,” long-range forecaster Andrej Flis wrote for Severe Weather Europe.

This means that both will help curb hurricanes — but in different ways. El Niño produces high wind shear and sinking dry conditions over the Atlantic and Caribbean — where wind shear is already the second highest on record for July — potentially nipping the storm systems in the bud, according to Weather.com.

This prophylactic effect is evident in the dramatic reduction in the number of forecasted storms, which currently totals just nine, according to Colorado State University’s tropical meteorology project team.

Of these, only four are projected to become hurricanes, while just one will attain Category 3 status or stronger, marking five fewer storms and three fewer hurricanes than an average season.

El Niño’s sister system, meanwhile, literally throws cold water on cyclones. Cooler ocean temps in the Atlantic prevent the heat and moisture buildup required for thunderstorm buildup, according to The Conversation.

It will be interesting if these sibling systems have double the preventive impact come hurricane season.

Despite the forecast covering the August-January period, we are already observing this in July. If we look at the seasonal forecast, the latest data clearly shows a large area of below-normal tropical activity across the MDR and the Atlantic region. At the same time, we see enhanced activity in the Pacific, aided by the low pressure and rising air associated with El Niño.

So far, Tropical Storm Arthur was the only named storm to form in the Atlantic Basin before July 17 — one fewer than during and average year, Gizmodo reported.

And while it caused flash flooding and tornadoes to lash the south, this so-called superstorm fizzled before long.   Meanwhile, there are no signs of an Atlantic hurricane; the first one usually forms by August 11.

To enlarge, open in new tab.