Climate Initiatives

Conrad’s Catchy Climate Chats

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Raymond Inauen is creating a series of light-hearted chats about CO2 and climate at his blog World of CO2.  These are conversing in plain language apart from technical complexities.  An example is above from the first four at the Youtube channel Conrad – The World of CO₂

These chats are also available at Raymond’s website World of CO2 Conrad

This is a work in progress and more content is forthcoming, and he is hoping to get suggestions for future videos. Thanks Raymond for opening up a new form of communicating about these matters.

Update: Second Youtube Podcast with Slides Download

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

The new podcast is now published at Youtube.

Overview from host Tom Nelson:

Podcast #423, 8/25/26: Ron Clutz continues a three-part framework on climate change: humans cause warming, warming is dangerous, and government can stop it. He argues observed warming can be explained by post–Little Ice Age recovery plus multidecadal oscillations and solar-orbital effects, and says “alarmists” deny these. He describes a taxpayer-funded “climate scare machine” and cites a Climate Change Business Journal estimate of a $3.4T/year global climate industry. Using Joseph D’Aleo’s materials, he disputes claims about heatwaves, storms, droughts, wildfires, ice loss, ocean acidification, health, and food, then focuses on Arctic sea ice cycles and sea-level model projections versus tide gauges. He stresses climate is local (Köppen zones) and says climate policies are wasteful, ineffective, and harmful, citing project failures, costs, and energy poverty.

This follows the first podcast available with slideshow downloads at my previous July post My Tom Nelson Podcast with Slides Download

Below are downloads of Slides from Part 2 Podcast

1. Part 2 Intro

2. Climate Impacts Arctic Sea Ice

3. Sea Level Rise Urban Flooding

4. Climates Are Local

5. Energy Transition

6. Spending Wasted on Green Energy

7. Climate Policies Do More Harm Than Good

8. Climate Change Funnies

Note:  Clicking on a red link above will download a pptx presentation file which can be opened in powerpoint or compatible application. Once opened, select the slide show menu and then “from current slide”, which will be the first one.  The slides will then be full screen, and some with gif images will display the animations.

You can also view these pptx files online for free at GroupDocsViewer.  When the file opens there, click on “Present” for full screen display including animations.

My Second Tom Nelson Podcast with Slides Download

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The new podcast is now published at Bit Chute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/hoKSRoKdv29i

Overview from host Tom Nelson:

Podcast #423, 8/25/26: Ron Clutz continues a three-part framework on climate change: humans cause warming, warming is dangerous, and government can stop it. He argues observed warming can be explained by post–Little Ice Age recovery plus multidecadal oscillations and solar-orbital effects, and says “alarmists” deny these. He describes a taxpayer-funded “climate scare machine” and cites a Climate Change Business Journal estimate of a $3.4T/year global climate industry. Using Joseph D’Aleo’s materials, he disputes claims about heatwaves, storms, droughts, wildfires, ice loss, ocean acidification, health, and food, then focuses on Arctic sea ice cycles and sea-level model projections versus tide gauges. He stresses climate is local (Köppen zones) and says climate policies are wasteful, ineffective, and harmful, citing project failures, costs, and energy poverty.

This follows the first podcast available with slideshow downloads at my previous July post My Tom Nelson Podcast with Slides Download

Below are downloads of Slides from Part 2 Podcast

1. Part 2 Intro

2. Climate Impacts Arctic Sea Ice

3. Sea Level Rise Urban Flooding

4. Climates Are Local

5. Energy Transition

6. Spending Wasted on Green Energy

7. Climate Policies Do More Harm Than Good

8. Climate Change Funnies

Note:  Clicking on a red link above will download a pptx presentation file which can be opened in powerpoint or compatible application. Once opened, select the slide show menu and then “from current slide”, which will be the first one.  The slides will then be full screen, and some with gif images will display the animations.

You can also view these pptx files online for free at GroupDocsViewer.  When the file opens there, click on “Present” for full screen display including animations.

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.

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 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

Unreliables Made US Power Grid Fragile

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Kite and Key explain how and why US and Canada electricity is on the brink of blacking out when needed.  For those prefering to read, below is a transcript with my bolds and some added images.

Five seconds.  That’s about how long you’ve been watching this video.  And in 2025, it was also the amount of time it took for 60 percent of the electricity supply in Spain … to vanish from the country’s grid.  Which led to 10 hours of darkness — in parts of four countries.  It’s a nightmarish scenario — and there’s a good chance that it’s coming to America soon.

Electricity. It’s the backbone of our entire world.

Your house. Your town. Your … excessive enthusiasm for Christmas. We build our lives around the assumption that when we flip a switch, it’ll be there for whatever we need — whether it’s controlling the climate in our homes, refrigerating our food, or just making sure the neighbors can see you’ve portrayed Santa committing a class B felony.

And, when you consider the history, you can see just how quickly we’ve gotten used to this. When Thomas Edison opened America’s first commercial power plant in 1882, it served 59 customers in lower Manhattan.ii By the time another 40 years or so had passed, America’s electricity consumption looked like this:iii

By 1929, the U.S. was generating more power than the rest of the world combined.iv And in the century since, our appetite has only grown. In 2025, the government’s Energy Information Administration reported that the country consumed 14 times more electricity than it had in 1950.v

All of which sounds like a standard story of progress: As the decades pass, and technology evolves, things that once seemed miraculous become so commonplace that we can take them for granted.

But here’s the thing: We should definitely not be taking them for granted. Because the days of assuming we know what’s going to happen when we flip the switch … may be coming to an end.

In 2023, members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — the government body that regulates electricity transmission — appeared before a Senate committee with a series of dire warnings.

One of them testified that “We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation’s electric system.”vi

Another said that “The United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability.”vii

And then he added “This problem is coming. It’s coming quickly. The red lights are flashing.”viii

And while we don’t like to editorialize here at Kite & Key … that sounds bad.

The data shows that these concerns aren’t exaggerated.

In 2026, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation — the body charged with making sure that the power grid is dependable — warned that nearly half of America’s population was going to be at high risk of rolling blackouts in the next few years.ix

In fact, by the end of the decade every single region of the U.S. and Canada is projected to be at least elevated risk … with the single exception of the Canadian province of Saskatchewanx — which makes sense because Saskatchewan literally has more cows than people.xi

So, if there’s a blackout there … well, you know what happened.

But all of this leads to an obvious question: How does this happen? It’s been almost 150 years since Thomas Edison got the ball rolling and somehow we’re getting worse at this? What’s going on here?

To unravel this mystery, go back to those officials testifying before Congress.

One of them summed up the problem in four words: “The math doesn’t work.”xii

Here’s what he meant by that: In many cases we’re actually losing power — as in, we’ll have less of it in a few years than we do now.

Take, for example, the PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest power grid operator, which serves 65 million customersxiii in 13 states.xiv

In 2023, PJM issued a report estimating that it might lose about 40 gigawatts of electricity — more than 20 percent of its capacity — by the year 2030, thanks to power plant retirements.xv

Which isn’t the end of the world, right? You just bring on new power sources! Which is what they’re doing!

Here’s the problem: The high-end estimate of those new sources … is a little over 30 gigawatts.

In other words, they’re replacing 40 … with 30.

Also known as: “The math doesn’t work.”

And similar situations are happening all over the country.

Why? Well to understand that, we have to understand how the economics of electricity works.

And you might be thinking “But, Kite & Key, that sounds excruciatingly boring.” And it is, dear viewer!

Or at least it would be if you hadn’t chosen the one channel that understands it’s so boring that you have to explain it with the assistance of adorable puppies dressed as economists.

Here’s the way this all goes down: In any given part of the country, you might have lots of potential sources of electricity — natural gas, solar, coal, wind, nuclear. And at any given moment all those sources are selling power at different prices.

Now, the decision as to which one to use is not made by you, the customer. It’s made by the people responsible for coordinating the system, who take bids from electricity producers — sometimes as often as every five minutes — and buy whatever options are cheapest at the time until they’ve got enough power to meet demand. None of which seems crazy — adequate energy at low prices is pretty much what everyone wants.

But here’s where this gets complicated: In some cases … cheap electricity comes with unintended consequences.

Here’s what we mean.

Not all energy sources are created equal.

Map of Diminishing Capacity Values for Major RTOs (Regional Transmission Operators)

Some of them like nuclear and most coal plants are what’s referred to as “baseload power” — they can essentially run all the time.

Others like natural gas plants are “dispatchable,” meaning you can quickly turn them on or off depending on demand.

Then there are sources like wind and solar which are “intermittent” — in other words, you only get power from them when the weather is cooperating.xvi

And this is where the problem creeps in.

In 2024, the government reported that wind, on average, only produces energy about 1/3 of the time.xvii For solar, it was less than 1/4 of the time.xviii By contrast natural gas was around 60 percent and nuclear was at 90 percent.xix

But when wind and solar are working they can be incredibly cheap. In fact, because they’re heavily subsidized by the government, their prices can actually go negative — they can pay the grid to take their powerxx — and still stay in business.

Needless to say, all the other electricity producers … can’t do that.

Which makes them less profitable.

Which leads an increasing number of them to close.

Which leads to a world where we’re increasingly dependent on
electricity sources that literally don’t produce any energy most of the time.

Those 40 gigawatts PJM may lose? Almost all coal or natural gas. The up to 30 gigawatts that will partially replace it? Mostly wind and solar.xxi

Which is the kind of thing that leads otherwise boring bureaucrats from places like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to yell “the red lights are flashing!” at members of Congress.

Because by privileging the energy sources that work the best some of the time
… we’re gutting the energy sources that work the best all of the time
— the ones that actually determine whether you’ll have power.

There’s no doubt that wind and solar are going to be important parts of America’s energy future. But imagining that they can carry the burden of the entire system today is risking disaster.

When wind and solar can’t produce, we rely on sources like nuclear, natural gas, and even coal to keep the lights on.xxii But if we cut out that part of the equation — if we don’t build to ensure resiliency — we’re placing our standard of living on a knife’s edge. And if we get that balance even slightly wrong, well…

 

 

Update: My Tom Nelson Podcast with Slides Download

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The podcast is available on Youtube Ron Clutz Part 1: “Highlights from 3400 Climate Blog Posts” #414 

I won’t do a transcript of the video, since many will recognize text and images from reading various postings here. Content at this blog is arranged into categories relating to the themes discussed. See Guide to Science Matters

There will be a part 2 discussion in August on two additional themes relating to global warming/climate change.

Update: Below are downloads of Slides from Part 1 Podcast

1. CC Overview Slides

2. Climate Reductionism

3. Global Temperature

4. Flawed Climate Models, Flawed Temperature Results

5. GHG Theory and Tests It Fails

6. Temps Lead CO2 Follows

7. Sun’s Role in Climate Change

8. Oceans Make Climate

Note:  Clicking on a red link above will download a pptx presentation file which can be opened in powerpoint or compatible application. Once opened, select the slide show menu and then “from current slide”, which will be the first one.  The slides will then be full screen, and some with gif images will display the animations.