Weeping & Gnashing Of Teeth From Our Paper Saying “Climate Change” Not A Big Deal

Weeping & Gnashing Of Teeth From Our Paper Saying “Climate Change” Not A Big Deal

That peer-reviewed, and therefore indisputable, paper we wrote showing, as many have showed, that “climate change” is overblown has been getting a lot of publicity.

Before we come to that, for those who still doubt the proposition that “climate change” is a pure political scam, I present to you final proof:

Anyway, our paper has caused a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth; also plenty of consternation, not to say constipation, among the usual bleaters.

The main authors at CERES are keeping track of all the publicity, which you can see here. Turns out there is an “orchestrated disinformation campaign by RealClimate.org to falsely discredit and censor our work”.

Well, the left plays hardball, and we do not. Regular readers understand this by now. Accuracy and scientific humility are not concepts known to our enemies. There’s no point shouting “Hypocrisy!” at them, because their appeals are based on emotion. Which is wise, because it works.

We can and should do the same, while also insisting on accuracy. After all, Reality is on our side.

A stringer for the Epoch Times emailed and asked me a serious of questions about the paper, which I post below word-for-word, with his questions in quotes. Pay special attention to the of joy and dearth of celebrations that our wonderful work did not engender, but should have.


“Have you experienced any retaliation, attacks, ridicule, etc?”

Nope. I was canceled long ago, and have been completely on my own for some time—I am my own boss—so there is no chance of retaliation. As for ridicule, I am immune.

Couple of midwits asked irrelevant questions about funding. Which is besides the point anyway. I received none. Zippo, nada, zilch, nothing. The people asking never disclose their own funding, incidentally. Curious, no? Or they somehow, quite mistakenly, believe funding from the government, which has an enormous financial, regulatory, and even emotional interest in the results, is somehow pure and beyond questioning.

One reporter asked about some of the authors not being official climatologists, or whatever, and so was it possible to question their judgment on the paper? But since he himself, the reporter, was not an official climatologist, how could we trust his judgment in asking questions about the paper?

“Have any of the critics made any points that have caused you or others to question your published findings?”

Nope. There have been no substantial criticisms I’m even aware of.

“What has been most surprising to you about the reaction?”

No surprise whatsoever. But it should be surprising.

Here we present, if we are right, what is very good news: the threats of “climate change” are nowhere near as bad as we keep hearing. Isn’t that fantastic? Shouldn’t we be celebrating? Shouldn’t there be rejoicing? We’re going to be fine and don’t have to implement any expensive painful liberty-removing “solutions”!

Alas, there is no celebration. There is no joy and no happiness. There is only anger, consternation, and outrage.

Why is that? I think it’s because many have an absolute need to believe in the worst predictions of “climate change”.

Bureaucrats and rulers need to believe because their belief allows them to grab greater control and power. They do not want to give this power up, which they’d have to if there was no “crisis.”

Experts need to believe because they created “The Science” from which the threats arise. No scientist likes to admit he was wrong, or was very badly over-certain.

Activists need to believe because man being a menace to “the planet” is a premise with them. Which no amount of evidence can ever disprove. The act of offering contrary evidence is seen as heretical to this sect.

“How are you handling it?”



I repeat: that there is no joy in results which show the world is not going to end because of “climate change”, and there is only hate instead, I take this to be further convincing evidence that “climate change” is yet another clown world fiasco.

I said this all better on the Meg Ellefson show on Monday, where we talked not only “climate change”, but broken science generally.

The best question Ellefson asked was How do we stop this? How do we win?

The only answer is: seize power and use it.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. JerryR

    “The only answer is: seize power and use it.”

    You still don’t understand the problem. It’s not climate change, a virus, genders, or science interpretation. It’s something much more fundamental that has reached down to the average person in the middle or upper middle class neighborhood.

    It’s the lack of an internal monitor to do what is right. The only thing in the past that provided that internal guidance is abhorrent to them. They may believe in doing right but they have no basis for knowing what is right. No manner of strength or control is going to change that.

  2. Anon

    The case can be made that the climate change mafia is using its power. Why else would politicians, funding agencies and foundations, educators, students, media, and so forth fall into line so easily? What harm would fall on them if they exhibited the smallest degree of skepticism? Every last one is afraid to be not thought of as “cool” by those around them. Some should know better. Some climate scientists who know the score are doing their best to fleece the system and line their pockets, and largely it’s working out for them. Your average person who cannot profit monetarily from “supporting the planet”–but indeed will have fewer disposible funds due to various climate taxes–still goes along with the narrative for social status and not to be thought ill of by his friends and family.

    To your point, the membership of the climate mafia is nearly identical to the gender mafia, the vaccine mafia, and so forth. Every person who is swayed by wrong thinking religiously (ha) recycles, uses pronouns, and lines up for another booster. But its power is undeniable–even if its power can be defined as beguiling stupid people. So, to retake the power, to alter the narrative, do your best to inform your kids, talk to your neighbors. Ideally, we need politicians and leaders not to support dumb-think and to start truth-telling. In normal times, such people would be elected. So, the process to gain, or regain, power will be incremental and painful, and it starts with the Truth.

  3. Hagfish Bagpipe

    ”Here we present, if we are right, what is very good news: the threats of “climate change” are nowhere near as bad as we keep hearing. Isn’t that fantastic? Shouldn’t we be celebrating? Shouldn’t there be rejoicing? We’re going to be fine and don’t have to implement any expensive painful liberty-removing “solutions”!

    Alas, there is no celebration. There is no joy and no happiness. There is only anger, consternation, and outrage.”

    It’s so weird. And telling. You get the same curious response over the ‘soap & lampshades’ event of eighty years ago — try telling them the whole thing is wildly exaggerated and they wig out. Or covid — try telling them it’s only a flu and to toss the mask and their boilers explode. Some people just need doom. Even the Right needs doom. The Overlords know it and so they supply it. Just as they supply all the other vices for which people clamor; drugs, porn, ponzis, et cetera. There is worldly power to be gained by pandering to sin. I’m not sure simply “seizing power” is going to cure what is fundamentally a moral/spiritual problem.

  4. jwm

    It occurs to me that we are not fighting a scientific, or even a political battle, but rather a holy war. The “religion” of the woke is power. They have an evangelical conviction that they are on mission to save the world, and remake it in their image: “By any means necessary.” Lies, cheating, violence, etc., Nothing is forbidden when you have an unshakable in your own righteousness. They do.


  5. Philip Anderson

    Congratulations on being totally ignored (which is even worse than being disavowed). You have entered, perhaps, the very exclusive club of those who actually have accomplished something good within the ever-changing context of this drama we call ‘History.’ Only physical martyrdom is still lacking to your witness, something no good man wishes for you. In any case, chances are very strong (as you have shown) that you will not die from climate change.

  6. > “How are you handling it?”
    > Majestically.

    This was magnificent! 🙂

  7. Incitadus

    The world has been ending for thousands of years it’s the oldest con on earth.
    Negativity is what motivates people and gets them killed, which reduces the ever
    pervasive population pressure kept foremost in our minds. This is ” the oddly utopian
    idea that human misery can end with the end of humanity.”

    The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You

  8. Jim Fedako

    How can I celebrate your paper when I was counting on the gloom models to be correct? You see, the gloom meant a rising sea that would submerge the Obama ocean-side estate. No rise, no submerge, no relishing in a hypocritical investment. So sad.

  9. john b()

    Speaking of rising seas

    I saw a click-bait article about the panama canal is running out of water and it’s our fault.

    Did anyone else see and click that article? No rising seas?

  10. Cary D Cotterman

    “…seize power and use it.”

    It’s as simple as stop voting D. Sure, R bears some responsibility for our problems, too, but it’s predominantly, overwhelmingly D that pushes climate, Kung-flu, race, and transgender hysteria, and keeps the border open, criminals out of prison, bums on the streets, energy sources shut down, gas and groceries unaffordable, and school children brainwashed. Stop voting D, and most of our problems will improve greatly and quickly.

  11. It’s always the Apocalypse. One day it will be. They will be correct at some point. It won’t matter anyway at that point. They can’t lose.

  12. Johnno

    “Stop voting D, and most of our problems will improve greatly and quickly.”

    Americans stopped voting D the last two times in a row.

    Unfortunately, the D’s fortified things a little. Then they glazed icing all over that cake when they waved you suckers into the Capitol and proceeded screamed their cherries off!

  13. Milton Hathaway

    Johnno said “Unfortunately, the D’s fortified [recent elections]”

    For a long time, my attitude was “we’ve GOT to fix newly-broken the election process”. But obviously, the Demonrats are not going to change a damn thing in the areas they control, and they get court rulings in the areas they don’t control. Then the R’s, particularly Trump’s backers, started talking about beating the D’s at their own game, with ballot harvesting and such.

    Now I’m thinking that the R’s should publicly announce a plan to build grassroots organizations to collect unvoted ballots from disinterested voters, have the voter sign their ballot, then vote that ballot and turn it in. Of course, this strikes at the very core of why mail-in voting is so horrendously bad for the country. The key here is making the plans very public, with the goal of sparking outage. Until there is some outrage, nothing is going to change.

    “Ballot Harvesting” is a just euphemism for what is really happening, which is activists voting multiple times using other people’s names, with their permission.

  14. The reaction to the study was very interesting

    The study itself, in my opinion, was tedious and nearly worthless.

    It was already known that UHI affected too many land based weather stations, but not measurements of the 71% of Earth’s surface that are oceans. In fact, rural stations can be more affected by nearby economic growth over time than urban weather stations. That point is overlooked in the study.

    The effect of solar energy starts with satellite measurements of top of the atmosphere TSI, which has not increased since the 1070s, so can not be a cause of global warming after 1975. There can be more sunlight reaching Earth’s surface from fewer daytime clouds and lower SO2 emissions, and there is some evidence of those factors increasing daytime high temperatures.

    There is more evidence of an increasing greenhouse gas effect, and more night clouds, both causing higher night temperatures.

    There’s enough evidence to prove both manmade and natural (harmless) warming are happening simultaneously, but no one knows the percentage split, or what the climate will be like in 100 years, except me: It will be warmer, unless it is colder.

  15. Mark Pawelek

    Climate alarmists seem to spend most of their time monstering ‘climate skeptics’. I think this is because alarmism is an identity movement. Like other activist movements one is as one does – one is defined by one’s activism. Left-wingers seem more prone to identity movements: e.g. transgenderism, BLM, feminism, – are all lefty movements. I presume, instead, right-wingers identify with their country, heritage, family, or local sports teams?

    Q: How did climate alarmism get so political? A: Early on, 1988, the IPCC recruited all eco- / enviro-NGOs as their propaganda foot-soldiers. Soon after 1988 Communism fell, and bereft of purpose, ex-commies found a new role in those E-NGOs, which they joined en masse in the early 1990s. So it’s been politically driven for 35 years, with 30 of those years being lefty driven. The hostility certainly seemed to ramp up a few years after the IPCC began. Those E-NGOs, became driven by politics and identity because so many of their members are. “Anti-capitalism” became synonymous with anti-fossil fuel. Hence – when they look at a climate paper, they first ID its authors. If said authors are lefties they must be hated, witch-hunted, and prevented from contaminating the Left by ‘NO PLATFORM’ing & cancellation. Anti-left tribal alarmism is like witch-hunting. Anti-right alarmism more like culture war. [Stats are with me on this. Cancellation at Unis: victims are nearly all lefts cancelled for their disagreement with whatever new fad prevails]

    So these responses are political, cultish and identitarian. Not scientific. They may be written in a sciencey langauage but they will not follow the normal rules of scientific debate.

  16. From a prior comment:

    “This is a new analysis that supports the work of Salby, Harde, Berry and others that prove humans are not the main cause of increased atmospheric CO2.”

    Salby, Harde and Berry are science frauds who can not add. They ignore the 200ppm to 250ppm of manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 and then wonder, like children, why the atmospheric level increased +140ppm from 1850 (280ppm estimated) to 2023 (420ppm measured).

    They have created a cult of deluded conservative followers who deny science. They confuse seasonal carbon flows with year over year increases of atmospheric CO2. They have no alternate explanation of where the manmade CO2 emissions went to, or what else could have caused the +140ppm atmospheric CO2 increase.

    It is sad that so many conservatives fall for their malarkey, thereby making themselves completely ineffective in the battle to refute the false predictions of rapid, dangerous manmade global warming, or CAGW.

    100% of the increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1850 was from manmade CO2 emissions.

    Nature (oceans, land and plants) was A NET CO2 ABSORBER IN THAT PERIOD.

    Those two statements are the most basic climate science with perhaps a 99.9% consensus of scientists, which will never be reduced, because those facts are correct. What is not correct is that 59% of scientists believe the future will bring rapid, dangerous global warming, or CAGW (from a 2022 survey).

    It is possible to get that 59% to decline below 50% with facts, data and logic, so there is still hope of refuting CAGW predictions of climate doom. But not by people who falsely claim only 3% to 5% of the 420ppm atmospheric CO2 had manmade origins.

  17. Forbes

    For 50,000 years, the fight for survival is what occupied and consumed mankind’s efforts and attention. For the last 200 years, this constant attention to survive has been greatly diminished, to the point that mankind needs the survival instinct to be stimulated and motivated to a fight for survival. So the climate apocalypse serves that purpose.

    As others have noted, “the end is near” has always been upon us. It’s just vastly more ripe today for more people than ever.

  18. Yonason

    For some reason the zelinsky video wouldn’t play, so I looked up another

    My son’s cat was peacefully reclining on the sofa beside me UNTIL I hot “play.” As soon as he began speaking, she jumped up snd bolted out of the room.

    True, I should play it again next time she’s on the sofa to see if she has the same reaction. But I probably won’t. I’m a firm believer in not subjecting cute defenseless animals to unnecessary cruelty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *