The Retreat of Climate Alarmism

From 1989 to 2020, we were repeatedly told that global warming was man-made, driven almost entirely by our CO₂ emissions, and that unless drastic action was taken, catastrophe would be inevitable. Early warnings go back even further: in the 1950s, scientists cautioned Congress that the Arctic could become ice-free within 25–50 years. But the 1970s brought colder conditions, prompting talk of a looming Ice Age. When temperatures later rose again, the narrative swung back to disastrous global warming.

In 1989 the UN declared that the world had ten years to avert climate disaster, predicting that islands such as the Maldives would soon be submerged and that coastal flooding would trigger crop failures. During the 1990s, the Centre for Biological Diversity claimed the Arctic would be ice-free by 2012; the BBC suggested 2013. Al Gore predicted in both 2006 and 2009 a 75% chance of an ice-free Arctic within seven years, and that Mount Kilimanjaro’s ice cap would vanish. In 2008, NASA’s James Hansen claimed Lower Manhattan would be underwater by 2018. The world then endured the media spectacle surrounding Greta Thunberg — a troubled Swedish teenager inexplicably elevated to global authority by politicians.

Why the Retreat of Climate Alarmism

Since 2020, however, there has been a notable and welcome shift in public opinion. Several factors contributed: the dawning realisation of the staggering cost of transitioning away from coal and gas; the rapid emergence of AI and the immense electricity demand it will generate; and the simple observation that many predictions of imminent catastrophe failed to materialise. Attempts to sideline and silence dissenting scientists, especially in mainstream media, ultimately backfired, as alternative outlets, podcasts, and independent social media platforms amplified them.

Science?

Among the dissenting voices, several are worth mentioning. Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927) saw CO₂ as beneficial, noting it makes up just 0.0391% of the atmosphere. Ivar Giaever (1929–2025) dismissed global warming as a “non-problem” and climate catastrophism as “a new religion.” Kary Mullis (1944–2019) believed climate predictions were wrong “by a large factor.” John Clauser (b. 1942) asserted “there is no climate crisis.” Emeritus Professor Paul Crutzen stressed that CO₂ — fundamental to life — does not pose a serious climate threat, calling alarmism “a made-up scare story.”

Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, labelled climate hysteria “a complete fabrication,” arguing that increased CO₂ is beneficial and that future generations will look back in disbelief at the current panic. Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen claimed CO₂ is largely irrelevant. Gregg Braden pointed out that geological records show high temperatures sometimes coinciding with high CO₂ levels, and sometimes not, with around 90% of CO₂ emissions originating from the oceans due to tectonic and volcanic processes. Dr Mototaka Nakamura emphasised the roles of solar activity and cloud cover. Professor Ian Plimer argued no one has yet demonstrated that human emissions drive temperature changes, calling climate alarmism “the great CO₂ fraud.” Astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon put it simply. Climate is unsurprisingly and overwhelmingly driven by the sun!

Historical Context

Geological studies of ice-core data reaching back 125,000 years to the last interglacial period indicate that temperatures were around eight degrees higher than today, yet Greenland did not melt, and life flourished. Since the Ice Age, the Earth has warmed and cooled cyclically; the post-Ice Age “Climatic Optimum” was 2–4 degrees warmer than present. Iron Age Europe was warmer than the Roman Warm Period. Today, the world is roughly five degrees colder than it was 2,000 years ago. After the “Little Ice Age” (c. 1600–1850) ended, the planet began warming again, with sea levels rising a steady 1.8 mm per year. Measuring temperatures beginning only in 1850 — the coldest point since the Ice Age — is therefore of questionable relevance. Besides which these climate swings are in line with solar variability, not emissions. So why the ‘CO2 fraud’? Emissions are taxable which Dr Soon says has become a dogma driven by government funding, compliant scientists and media amplification, never missing an opportunity to highlight a forest fire or hurricane as evidence.

Despite dire warnings however, the Arctic, Antarctic, Mount Kilimanjaro’s ice cap, and the Maldives persist. Polar bear numbers have increased, tornado and hurricane activity has declined, and the Great Barrier Reef is thriving. Even Bill Gates has backtracked, said that the goal should be prosperity to combat any problems and has shut his climate policy office, praised by the Global Warming Policy Foundation who worry about the cost. Climatologist Professor Judith Curry notes a growing “climate alarmism fatigue.” Evidence of this is stark in Britain: in 2020, half the public told financial commentator Martin Lewis they would gladly pay more to tackle climate change; by 2025 that figure had collapsed to 13%, while opposition soared from 30% to over 72%. The Conservatives, having set net-zero targets in 2020, announced in 2025 that they would now scrap them. COP2025 was widely deemed a failure. The Net-zero banking alliance collapsed after all major US banks quit. Shell and BP have returned to oil and Ford stopped electric vehicle development. The International Maritime Organisation — unable to pass its Net-Zero Framework (NZF) — postponed the vote by a year. The IMO had encouraged shipowners to adopt costlier alternative fuels, with a promised NZF fund as compensation. Around 40 ammonia-powered ships were on order, roughly 15% more expensive than conventional vessels. Their viability is now uncertain.

Future Emissions

India, China, and Southeast Asia will soon be responsible for two-thirds of fossil-fuel emissions. AI-driven demand is growing fast. China already operates over 3,200 coal-fired power plants and plans 800 more. In 1995 fossil fuels supplied 76.6% of global energy; in 2024 they supplied 76.4%, virtually identical, despite trillions spent on alternatives. Thus the idea of global transition is implausible.

Most countries now pay lip service to the UN but pursue sensible energy policies while the EU has just abolished its decree that no new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles could be sold after 2035. Only Britain and Australia persist in the zealotry. While US fracking slashed LNG prices from $9 to $3 per cubic foot in 2008–2009, revitalising American industry, Britain poured concrete into its exploratory wells. North Sea operators faced taxes so punitive that no new drilling occurred in 2025, while Norway proceeded with nearly 40 new wells — inevitably drawing resources from the British side. Britain now imports Norwegian oil and American gas, the latter liquefied and re-gassified through processes that generate up to five times more emissions than domestic production. Even by its own standards, this policy is illogical. By normal standards it is insane.

This situation is untenable. Shipping requires regulatory certainty, Britain needs affordable energy and a new government. Whether 2025 or 2026 marks a tipping point remains to be seen but there needs to bee a sensible discussion, not a fight based on vested interests, money, propaganda and power.