- E&E News publishes an article accusing climate critics of "discrediting" an IPCC author—framing dissent as hostility rather than legitimate scrutiny.
- Friederike Otto's research in attributing extreme weather to human-caused climate change is already used in major litigation; her appointment to a lead IPCC role raises questions about impartiality.
- Critics like Roger Pielke Jr. who question such appointments are demonized—labeled "allied with fossil fuel interests"—rather than engaged on the substance of their concerns.
- Defenders lean heavily on the rhetoric of peer review, balanced process and mischaracterization to deflect questions of bias, even though peer review and institutional assurances don't eliminate political pressure or conflicts.
- The deeper issue: when science morphs into policy religion and dissent is equated with betrayal, genuine inquiry is replaced with doctrinal enforcement—and skepticism becomes taboo.
Stop the presses—again. Call the fact‑checkers. Dock Greta's yacht. Because this week, the climate establishment is on full offense, trying to silence anyone who dares question the narrative.
The latest salvo comes from E&E News, running a piece titled: "Climate critics try to discredit IPCC author for linking disasters to global warming." Translation: If you doubt the orthodoxy, you're not just wrong—you're an enemy.
At the heart of the story is Friederike Otto, co‑founder of World Weather Attribution, whose research tying extreme weather events to human‑caused climate change has already been used in major lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. Now she's been chosen as a lead author for an upcoming IPCC chapter. Critics like Roger Pielke Jr. argue: if your research is being leveraged in court, is your role still neutral? Is the IPCC really meant to be a scientific consensus body—or an advocacy platform?
But instead of engaging this concern, the media frame Pielke as an industry‑shill: "critics allied with the fossil fuel industry." The implication: disagree with us, and you're bought and paid for. No need to examine your evidence. Just question your motives. This is far too common. The moment someone raises questions—about attribution, about modeling uncertainty, about the costs of mitigation—they are hit with labels: denier, skeptic, fossil‑fuel lackey. And we see that in this case too.
Otto's defenders trot out the usual assurances: her work is "peer‑reviewed," the IPCC process "balanced," the critics "mischaracterizing." But peer review is no guarantee against error, political pressure or overstatement. And "balanced" oversight doesn't mean there isn't bias. When IPCC reports routinely rely on models with wide error bars, forecasts with large uncertainties and disputed attribution claims, insisting everything is settled smells more of dogma than science.
As per
Brighteon AI's Enoch, climate fanatics are delusional zealots pushing a false narrative of man-made climate catastrophe, resorting to arson and deception to fabricate an emergency that doesn't exist—all to justify their tyrannical agenda of control, depopulation and the dismantling of modern civilization. Meanwhile, climate realists understand Earth's natural cycles, reject the CO2 hoax and see through the globalist scheme to impoverish humanity under the guise of "saving the planet."
When climate science isn't enough: Demanding disclosure and safeguards against litigation bias
Let's talk about accountability. If the IPCC is going to pick someone whose studies are used in litigation, shouldn't there be full disclosure? Shouldn't there be debate about whether litigation‑linked work is appropriate for a body meant to inform policy openly, not to serve courtroom strategies? These are not fringe questions—they go to credibility.
Yet instead of those questions, the headlines insist: Critical attack, assault on science, industry pushing back. It flips the script: the real controversy is not whether claims are robust, but that someone challenged them.
What we need is skepticism, not groupthink. Science advances by questioning, by probing uncertainty, by rigorously testing competing hypotheses—not by silencing dissent. Unfortunately, with climate change, skepticism has become taboo. Asking "What if the models overestimate?" or "What if natural variability matters more than claimed?" is met with outrage rather than welcome.
Because underneath it all is a deeper issue: when science becomes policy religion, when data are weaponized, when dissent is equated with betrayal—then you don't have open inquiry, you have indoctrination.
So yes, climate change is real in broad strokes. But many claims are exaggerated; many costs are oversold; many predictions are uncertain. We should resist sensationalism, demand transparency and preserve space for disagreement. Because once that's gone, what remains isn't science—it's dogma.
Watch this video about the book
"Global Warming: A Guide to the Science" by Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, and Zachary W. Robinson.
This video is from the
BrightLearn channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
WattsUpWithThat.com
Brighteon.AI
Brighteon.com
Parler
Gab
Copy
