Two weeks ago (timed to come out just before the UK local elections), Tony Blair released a report calling for the climate movement to change tack. He's right - and also very, very wrong.
Look…. we do need a reset but the first and important policy point to make based on strong scientific evidence is that we don’t have a climate emergency that requires any mitigation of CO2.
All that may be needed is some very manageable and localized adaption over a long timeframe.
Until that change in policy is made its clear we won’t be happy with any of the policies.
NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!! - by Nigel Southway
Your claim that “there is no climate emergency” and that CO₂ mitigation is unnecessary ignores overwhelming scientific evidence and misrepresents both the risks and the solutions.
Scientific Consensus Is Clear:
Over 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, primarily caused by human CO₂ emissions, and poses serious risks. This consensus is documented in peer-reviewed literature and affirmed by every major scientific institution worldwide, including NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and national academies of science.
There Is a Climate Emergency:
The language of “emergency” is not hyperbolic—it reflects real-world impacts already happening:
Record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and droughts are becoming more frequent and intense.
Arctic and Antarctic ice are melting faster than predicted.
Oceans are warming and acidifying, threatening marine ecosystems.
Hundreds of millions of people are at increased risk of food insecurity, displacement, and health crises.
“Localized adaptation” alone is not sufficient. You can’t adapt to an unlivable planet.
Net Zero Is Technologically Achievable:
Contrary to your claim, Net Zero is not “technologically unattainable.” Clean energy solutions—solar, wind, battery storage, electric vehicles, and green hydrogen—are already scalable and cost-competitive. The IEA, McKinsey, and even conservative bodies like BP’s Energy Outlook acknowledge this.
Economics Favors Climate Action:
Numerous economic studies (e.g., from the Stern Review to the IMF and World Bank) show that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Climate-related disasters already cost hundreds of billions annually, and that’s projected to skyrocket.
False Framing of “No Mitigation Needed”:
Your argument implies we can safely wait or do nothing. This is a dangerous gamble. Every fraction of a degree matters. Avoiding emissions now is cheaper and more effective than adapting to more extreme scenarios later.
Conclusion:
Your piece is not grounded in current science but rather a reheated version of long-debunked climate denial talking points, wrapped in “reasonable” language. The climate emergency is real, urgent, and solvable—but only if we stop spreading misinformation and start acting on the facts.
I don’t want to be disrespectful but its clear you have foolishly swallowed the non-fact-based narrative of the climate emergency industrial complex as the sources you mention show a wide dispersion on what the scientific data set facts state and what the politicalized summary says to the media and policy makers.
Here are points to dispute your false statements..
First the notion of consensus has no place in science so anyone that uses that term clearly does not understand the scientific process.
We are not suggesting that the climate is not changing but its very far from an emergency and its far from clear we are having a significant controlling effect.
You mention Record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and droughts and arctic and Antarctic ice are melting , Oceans are warming and acidifying, threatening marine ecosystems. Hundreds of millions of people are at increased risk of food insecurity, displacement, and health crises. Look…you will have a very difficult time in convincing anyone we have any emergency using real data as almost all of these impact metrics are showing long term historical trends that show they are not trending worse or in fact are declining as an impact of concern. What you are doing is allowing the scare mongers to convince you by presenting cherry-picked weather data trends that are not climate scale trends. I suggest you pick one of these impact metrics such as drought and floods or say tornados and I will show you why they are not an emergency using the same data sources you have mentioned.
The biggest lie is the idea that causation exists between CO2 and global temperature as the scientific data and scientific calculations does not support such a causation.
The only thing CO2 is doing is improving the plant growth on our planet and the slightly increase in the lower temperatures is extending the growing seasons and improving our food supply.. hardly an emergency and mostly a benefit as the data shows..
Further all the scare projections are based on climate modeling that is proving to be unable to support any accuracy and therefore should not be used for any policy planning.
In summary both the history data and the error prone projections do not support any need for any emergency policy outside of some focused adaption to a naturally warming planet that is mostly good news.
Th really good news is that most of the political leaderships and most of the populations are now wising up to the climate emergency scam that has cost us all a significant chunk of our prosperity and are thankfully calling a halt to the bad policy direction of NetZero.
If you want I can provide data to support me position.... but it would be far better if you did your own fact review... I can explain how to do this if you wish..
Nigel, I appreciate your tone is more restrained than some, but your response still relies heavily on long-debunked climate denial tropes, many of which misrepresent how science works, misstate the data, or cherry-pick convenient narratives. Let’s walk through the main problems:
“Consensus has no place in science” is a strawman.
No one claims consensus replaces evidence. The consensus reflects the evidence. Over 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, across disciplines, nations, and institutions, agree on the basics:
Climate is warming,
Human activities—especially CO₂ emissions—are the primary driver,
The impacts are serious and growing.
This is not a political position. It’s supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, field measurements, and observational data across earth systems.
“The climate emergency” is grounded in real, measurable impacts.
You claim there’s “no emergency” and that heatwaves, droughts, floods, etc., aren’t trending worse. That’s simply not supported by the data.
Let’s pick your challenge: drought and floods. Both have regional variability, but the overall global trend is clear:
Drought: IPCC AR6 (2021) and multiple recent attribution studies confirm that anthropogenic climate change has increased the frequency and severity of droughts in parts of Africa, the Mediterranean, western U.S., and Australia.
Flooding: Warmer air holds more moisture. Observed data shows more intense short-duration precipitation events, leading to more flash floods in many areas.
These aren’t cherry-picked events. They are long-term trends documented in peer-reviewed climatology and hydrology literature.
Claiming “CO₂ isn’t correlated with warming” is flat-out wrong.
There is overwhelming evidence of the link between CO₂ and temperature:
Physics: CO₂’s radiative forcing properties have been understood since the 19th century (Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius).
Observations: Satellite measurements show energy being trapped at the wavelengths CO₂ absorbs.
Paleo data: Ice core records show tight coupling between CO₂ and temperature, though feedbacks are involved.
Models: Remove CO₂ from historical simulations and the 20th-century warming disappears.
CO₂ is not just plant food. It’s a greenhouse gas with warming potential. That’s why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
“Climate models are useless” is a distortion.
Climate models aren’t perfect, but they’re robust tools that have:
Accurately predicted long-term global temperature trends,
Helped us understand likely regional impacts,
Been improved by comparing projections with observed outcomes.
Every year we refine them, and they continue to show that if we don’t reduce emissions, the consequences become more severe and costly.
“CO₂ is only beneficial” ignores enormous downsides.
Yes, CO₂ can enhance plant growth under controlled conditions. But:
Nutrient content often declines in CO₂-rich crops.
Higher temperatures stress crops and reduce yields.
Pests and diseases spread more easily.
Water availability becomes more erratic.
Climate change undermines agriculture far more than it helps it—especially in vulnerable regions.
The “climate emergency scam” is conspiracy thinking.
You refer to the “climate emergency industrial complex” and imply coordinated deception. That’s not skepticism—that’s conspiracism. If thousands of scientists, journals, satellite data systems, oceanographers, glaciologists, meteorologists, and independent organizations were all involved in a global plot, it would be the most elaborate and leak-free conspiracy in human history.
What’s more plausible: nearly every scientific body is lying, or a few ideologically motivated contrarians are wrong?
I encourage your fact review too—but based on peer-reviewed science, not blogs or cherry-picked datasets. If you have specific studies from credible journals, I’m happy to examine them. But blanket denial, especially when it misstates basic facts about CO₂, extreme weather, and climate models, isn’t a productive path forward.
Sorry…. But unfortunately the scientific facts are on the side of the climate realists and less supportive of the climate alarmists.
The IPCC scientific reports do not support the emergency narrative pushed by the policy sections … And its clear the hunger for funding has subjugated the integrity of the scientific community … And this is fact.
So not only is the case not clear that we have any climate emergency based on both scientific theory and impact data but that the model projections keep getting proved wrong that any emergency exists.
Plus all of the mitigation solutions don’t work, and they will have almost zero effect as the main nations that generate most of the CO2 are not supportive of mitigation action.
So all we are doing is gaining nothing but squandering our prosperity… and it must stop.
So we should halt all mitigation and only focus on focused adaption which we believe can be very minimal and highly manageable and affordable.
A lot of the summary arguments you use for impact data is clearly junk science and many so called peer reviewed scientists blame climate for almost anything to get funded. A good example is Forrest fires that have actually decreased over the last 100 years and when investigated any current issues are poor management and wood industry practices and not climate at all.
I suggest we only review impact data rather than rhetoric summary reports from the tainted emergency narrative sources.
An example of an impact metric that gets pushed by the emergency narrative which anyone can measure is sea level rise.. Its currently far less than a foot a century and well within our ability to adapt with the power of fossil fuels.
There are many others that are far from a concern … So if you wish lets go through the real data for each of them and you will see why any emergency narrative is foolish.
I am well connected with many climate scientists that are climate realists and we always focus on the real data sets as this avoids the emergency narrative summary reports.
I will leave you with some of my articles with supporting material and I can field the data sets some of them from the IPCC if that will help gain reality.
Nigel, I appreciate your continued engagement, but your argument rests on a series of unsupported assertions, misleading interpretations of scientific reports, and broad conspiratorial thinking about the scientific community. Let’s address a few of the core claims:
1. You misrepresent the IPCC reports.
The idea that the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is a distortion of the underlying science is simply false. The SPM is co-written and approved line-by-line by scientists and governments, and must reflect the full report’s findings. It doesn’t overstate the risk—it often understates it to achieve political consensus.
For example, the IPCC AR6 states with very high confidence that human-caused climate change is already affecting every inhabited region and increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme events. That’s not “alarmism”—it’s a sober assessment of the data.
2. The “science is corrupt for funding” trope is baseless.
This is a textbook conspiracy theory. If scientists are just “making it up for funding,” why do oil-backed think tanks and lobbyists spend billions trying to discredit the science? Why do thousands of independent researchers in dozens of countries, many with no stake in “Western prosperity,” reach the same conclusions?
Peer review, replication, and open data are core to climate science. If fraud were occurring at the scale you imply, it would have been exposed long ago. And importantly: many climate scientists have risked their careers, not advanced them, by speaking out.
3. Cherry-picked data doesn’t disprove climate change.
Let’s take your forest fire example: Yes, global burned area has declined modestly, due in part to changes in land use and fire suppression. But in fire-prone regions like the western U.S., Canada, Australia, and the Mediterranean, fire seasons are growing longer and more severe—exactly as predicted by climate models due to hotter, drier conditions.
Sea level rise? It’s accelerating. NASA satellite data shows global sea levels rising at over 3.3 mm/year—double the 20th-century average. That adds up to over a foot by the end of the century if emissions continue unabated—and that’s a conservative estimate. Coastal flooding is already worsening in cities like Miami, Jakarta, and Lagos.
4. “Realist” climate scientists are a tiny minority—often with ties to industry.
You say you’re “well connected” with “climate realists.” I’m sure you are—but many in that group (like those from the Heartland Institute or CLINTEL) are not conducting peer-reviewed climate science. They’re publishing op-eds, blogs, and YouTube videos—not data-driven research.
The scientific method doesn’t care how connected someone is. It cares whether their work survives peer review, replication, and critical scrutiny. When climate contrarians do publish, their conclusions often fall apart under examination.
5. The argument that “China and India won’t act, so we shouldn’t either” is a race to the bottom.
First, China is investing more in renewables than any country on Earth. India, too, has ambitious targets. And second, moral leadership doesn’t depend on waiting for others to act. The same argument was once used to avoid action on slavery, pollution, and civil rights. It’s wrong now, too.
In Summary:
Your argument is built not on science, but on suspicion—of institutions, researchers, and even basic physics. You reject the consensus not because the data refutes it, but because you distrust the people gathering and interpreting it.
You’re welcome to share more links to your blog posts. But if you’d like to engage seriously with the science, I’d suggest we look at peer-reviewed studies—not opinion pieces—on specific impact metrics. I’d be glad to go through that with you, step by step.
You are clearly conditioned to not be interested in reviewing any scientific facts that does not support the emergency narrative….which is sad as its now actually the job of the climate alarmist to convince the realists as many western societies are now asking for a pause to NetZero until the true facts are better reviewed. The climate realists are starting to win the argument with many new political leaders .
Its clear that the IPCC has a credibility problem as its leadership spouts Armageddon while the risk assessments in the scientific sections are very conservative. with datasets showing no impact adversity at all.
A good example of past IPCC report rank lies would be the Mann hockey stick that has been completely debunked.
If you think that “data exists that shows high confidence that human-caused climate change is already affecting every inhabited region and increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme events”…. What are you smoking?... please provide such real collected data please….If its a future prediction using a model then it’s a total joke. Any predictions must be taken with a huge pinch of salt based on past accuracy.
We have many so called peer reviewed reports that we have torn apart that were manipulated to show an emergency narrative… I can share if you want.
I don’t refute that a slightly warming planet will have some adaptive challenges but it has been warmer than now 3 times before in the last 10,000 years and humankind thrived.. it was the cold periods where we struggled… we should fear cold not warm… plus it’s the lower temperatures that are getting milder and this is not a huge issue in most localized scenarios.
I dispute that climate realism is still in a minority.. its in a huge growth mode as it becomes clear that the science has been corrupted with more like religious fervor. The peer review process has become “pal review” that has suppressed open discussion and useful scientific review.. It’s a disgrace to science….but now the realists are operating their own peer review system and what’s interesting is that they don’t have to collect new data but just more honestly review the data already collected to get to the truth.
I would say the inability to use facts is clearly with the climate alarmist that keep getting the predictions wrong and have little adverse impact facts to support the climate emergency.
Your last comment about a race to the bottom is not accepted as it erroneously assumes we need to undertake NetZero …. and we are fast confirming that its unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish…. All it is doing is killing our prosperity to the advantage of those that avoid being a gullible boy scout to so say save the planet!
To start a data driven discussion I suggest you take the climate quiz that uses published sources for data and tell me if you have questions..…. https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/
I think Blair's arguments sound like they are straight out of the saving-fossil-fuels-from-renewables playbook, which is also the updated save-ff's-from-global-warming playbook. Which does tend to feature nuclear heavily - and why not? Too expensive, too slow to build, too unpopular (with power companies as well as public) and will never be cheaper than FF's so presents no long term threat to them.
Alarmist economic fears of RE and Zero Emissions commitments did have a lot of resonance - even only a few years ago - but is more of an echo chamber phenomena now.
As a South African who lived through the unfortunate phase of load shedding, your analysis that Africa will leap frog straight to renewables, and then using South Africa in particular as an example that demonstrates that is fundamentally flawed.
Load shedding was caused by a failure of the government to act on Eskom’s warning that a supply crunch was coming. Decision to build Medupi was taken in 2005, based on Eskom’s studies (not sure what you mean it was pushed onto RSA?). Huge coal reserves, cheapest dispatchable energy source, and still is today - it was a no brainer.
It was riddled with cost and schedule overruns and contributed to load shedding by not being available. Another contributing factor was declining reliability of the coal fleet
VREs were then implemented as a response to the energy crisis - not because they were competitive.
The reason load shedding ended is because (1) coal fleet availability has improved (2) solar behind the meter installation.
Utilities scale Solar PV+ storage is not competitive with new coal. Even Medupi with its huge cost overruns gives you a levelized cost of around $60/MWh. Scatec Kenhardt the largest Solar PV+ BESS online in Africa is contracted to supply firm power for 16.5 hours at about $108/MWh.
Facts is that switching to VRE in South Africa (even with one of the highest Solar PV potentials globally) comes at a premium and for developing countries with limited resources - would you say it is justified given we have contributed less than 1% to cumulative emissions to pay a premium for low carbon electricity and forgo our abundant cheap coal reserves?
For Northern Europe and Canada do you think geothermal heat pumps (at the district or city level) makes more sense than using air source heat pumps?
I live in Australia and I think air source heat pumps work just fine for us since we have cheap-ish electricity, moderate winters and these heat pumps double air conditioning units.
Ground source heat pumps are great if you have access to a bit of land or the ability to drill. They can deliver very good COPs, and the COP doesn't degrade in winter during cold weather. And yes, you can use pretty much any heat pump except a hydronic system for cooling too. Take a look at Kensa for an elegant solution (https://kensa.co.uk/products)
Look…. we do need a reset but the first and important policy point to make based on strong scientific evidence is that we don’t have a climate emergency that requires any mitigation of CO2.
All that may be needed is some very manageable and localized adaption over a long timeframe.
Until that change in policy is made its clear we won’t be happy with any of the policies.
NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!! - by Nigel Southway
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/there-is-no-climate-emergency
Your claim that “there is no climate emergency” and that CO₂ mitigation is unnecessary ignores overwhelming scientific evidence and misrepresents both the risks and the solutions.
Scientific Consensus Is Clear:
Over 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, primarily caused by human CO₂ emissions, and poses serious risks. This consensus is documented in peer-reviewed literature and affirmed by every major scientific institution worldwide, including NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and national academies of science.
There Is a Climate Emergency:
The language of “emergency” is not hyperbolic—it reflects real-world impacts already happening:
Record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and droughts are becoming more frequent and intense.
Arctic and Antarctic ice are melting faster than predicted.
Oceans are warming and acidifying, threatening marine ecosystems.
Hundreds of millions of people are at increased risk of food insecurity, displacement, and health crises.
“Localized adaptation” alone is not sufficient. You can’t adapt to an unlivable planet.
Net Zero Is Technologically Achievable:
Contrary to your claim, Net Zero is not “technologically unattainable.” Clean energy solutions—solar, wind, battery storage, electric vehicles, and green hydrogen—are already scalable and cost-competitive. The IEA, McKinsey, and even conservative bodies like BP’s Energy Outlook acknowledge this.
Economics Favors Climate Action:
Numerous economic studies (e.g., from the Stern Review to the IMF and World Bank) show that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Climate-related disasters already cost hundreds of billions annually, and that’s projected to skyrocket.
False Framing of “No Mitigation Needed”:
Your argument implies we can safely wait or do nothing. This is a dangerous gamble. Every fraction of a degree matters. Avoiding emissions now is cheaper and more effective than adapting to more extreme scenarios later.
Conclusion:
Your piece is not grounded in current science but rather a reheated version of long-debunked climate denial talking points, wrapped in “reasonable” language. The climate emergency is real, urgent, and solvable—but only if we stop spreading misinformation and start acting on the facts.
I don’t want to be disrespectful but its clear you have foolishly swallowed the non-fact-based narrative of the climate emergency industrial complex as the sources you mention show a wide dispersion on what the scientific data set facts state and what the politicalized summary says to the media and policy makers.
Here are points to dispute your false statements..
First the notion of consensus has no place in science so anyone that uses that term clearly does not understand the scientific process.
We are not suggesting that the climate is not changing but its very far from an emergency and its far from clear we are having a significant controlling effect.
You mention Record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and droughts and arctic and Antarctic ice are melting , Oceans are warming and acidifying, threatening marine ecosystems. Hundreds of millions of people are at increased risk of food insecurity, displacement, and health crises. Look…you will have a very difficult time in convincing anyone we have any emergency using real data as almost all of these impact metrics are showing long term historical trends that show they are not trending worse or in fact are declining as an impact of concern. What you are doing is allowing the scare mongers to convince you by presenting cherry-picked weather data trends that are not climate scale trends. I suggest you pick one of these impact metrics such as drought and floods or say tornados and I will show you why they are not an emergency using the same data sources you have mentioned.
The biggest lie is the idea that causation exists between CO2 and global temperature as the scientific data and scientific calculations does not support such a causation.
The only thing CO2 is doing is improving the plant growth on our planet and the slightly increase in the lower temperatures is extending the growing seasons and improving our food supply.. hardly an emergency and mostly a benefit as the data shows..
Further all the scare projections are based on climate modeling that is proving to be unable to support any accuracy and therefore should not be used for any policy planning.
In summary both the history data and the error prone projections do not support any need for any emergency policy outside of some focused adaption to a naturally warming planet that is mostly good news.
Th really good news is that most of the political leaderships and most of the populations are now wising up to the climate emergency scam that has cost us all a significant chunk of our prosperity and are thankfully calling a halt to the bad policy direction of NetZero.
If you want I can provide data to support me position.... but it would be far better if you did your own fact review... I can explain how to do this if you wish..
Nigel, I appreciate your tone is more restrained than some, but your response still relies heavily on long-debunked climate denial tropes, many of which misrepresent how science works, misstate the data, or cherry-pick convenient narratives. Let’s walk through the main problems:
“Consensus has no place in science” is a strawman.
No one claims consensus replaces evidence. The consensus reflects the evidence. Over 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, across disciplines, nations, and institutions, agree on the basics:
Climate is warming,
Human activities—especially CO₂ emissions—are the primary driver,
The impacts are serious and growing.
This is not a political position. It’s supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, field measurements, and observational data across earth systems.
“The climate emergency” is grounded in real, measurable impacts.
You claim there’s “no emergency” and that heatwaves, droughts, floods, etc., aren’t trending worse. That’s simply not supported by the data.
Let’s pick your challenge: drought and floods. Both have regional variability, but the overall global trend is clear:
Drought: IPCC AR6 (2021) and multiple recent attribution studies confirm that anthropogenic climate change has increased the frequency and severity of droughts in parts of Africa, the Mediterranean, western U.S., and Australia.
Flooding: Warmer air holds more moisture. Observed data shows more intense short-duration precipitation events, leading to more flash floods in many areas.
These aren’t cherry-picked events. They are long-term trends documented in peer-reviewed climatology and hydrology literature.
Claiming “CO₂ isn’t correlated with warming” is flat-out wrong.
There is overwhelming evidence of the link between CO₂ and temperature:
Physics: CO₂’s radiative forcing properties have been understood since the 19th century (Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius).
Observations: Satellite measurements show energy being trapped at the wavelengths CO₂ absorbs.
Paleo data: Ice core records show tight coupling between CO₂ and temperature, though feedbacks are involved.
Models: Remove CO₂ from historical simulations and the 20th-century warming disappears.
CO₂ is not just plant food. It’s a greenhouse gas with warming potential. That’s why Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
“Climate models are useless” is a distortion.
Climate models aren’t perfect, but they’re robust tools that have:
Accurately predicted long-term global temperature trends,
Helped us understand likely regional impacts,
Been improved by comparing projections with observed outcomes.
Every year we refine them, and they continue to show that if we don’t reduce emissions, the consequences become more severe and costly.
“CO₂ is only beneficial” ignores enormous downsides.
Yes, CO₂ can enhance plant growth under controlled conditions. But:
Nutrient content often declines in CO₂-rich crops.
Higher temperatures stress crops and reduce yields.
Pests and diseases spread more easily.
Water availability becomes more erratic.
Climate change undermines agriculture far more than it helps it—especially in vulnerable regions.
The “climate emergency scam” is conspiracy thinking.
You refer to the “climate emergency industrial complex” and imply coordinated deception. That’s not skepticism—that’s conspiracism. If thousands of scientists, journals, satellite data systems, oceanographers, glaciologists, meteorologists, and independent organizations were all involved in a global plot, it would be the most elaborate and leak-free conspiracy in human history.
What’s more plausible: nearly every scientific body is lying, or a few ideologically motivated contrarians are wrong?
I encourage your fact review too—but based on peer-reviewed science, not blogs or cherry-picked datasets. If you have specific studies from credible journals, I’m happy to examine them. But blanket denial, especially when it misstates basic facts about CO₂, extreme weather, and climate models, isn’t a productive path forward.
Sorry…. But unfortunately the scientific facts are on the side of the climate realists and less supportive of the climate alarmists.
The IPCC scientific reports do not support the emergency narrative pushed by the policy sections … And its clear the hunger for funding has subjugated the integrity of the scientific community … And this is fact.
So not only is the case not clear that we have any climate emergency based on both scientific theory and impact data but that the model projections keep getting proved wrong that any emergency exists.
Plus all of the mitigation solutions don’t work, and they will have almost zero effect as the main nations that generate most of the CO2 are not supportive of mitigation action.
So all we are doing is gaining nothing but squandering our prosperity… and it must stop.
So we should halt all mitigation and only focus on focused adaption which we believe can be very minimal and highly manageable and affordable.
A lot of the summary arguments you use for impact data is clearly junk science and many so called peer reviewed scientists blame climate for almost anything to get funded. A good example is Forrest fires that have actually decreased over the last 100 years and when investigated any current issues are poor management and wood industry practices and not climate at all.
I suggest we only review impact data rather than rhetoric summary reports from the tainted emergency narrative sources.
An example of an impact metric that gets pushed by the emergency narrative which anyone can measure is sea level rise.. Its currently far less than a foot a century and well within our ability to adapt with the power of fossil fuels.
There are many others that are far from a concern … So if you wish lets go through the real data for each of them and you will see why any emergency narrative is foolish.
I am well connected with many climate scientists that are climate realists and we always focus on the real data sets as this avoids the emergency narrative summary reports.
I will leave you with some of my articles with supporting material and I can field the data sets some of them from the IPCC if that will help gain reality.
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/there-is-no-climate-emergency
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/the-climate-change-stand-off
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-and-evs-are-not-the
Nigel, I appreciate your continued engagement, but your argument rests on a series of unsupported assertions, misleading interpretations of scientific reports, and broad conspiratorial thinking about the scientific community. Let’s address a few of the core claims:
1. You misrepresent the IPCC reports.
The idea that the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is a distortion of the underlying science is simply false. The SPM is co-written and approved line-by-line by scientists and governments, and must reflect the full report’s findings. It doesn’t overstate the risk—it often understates it to achieve political consensus.
For example, the IPCC AR6 states with very high confidence that human-caused climate change is already affecting every inhabited region and increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme events. That’s not “alarmism”—it’s a sober assessment of the data.
2. The “science is corrupt for funding” trope is baseless.
This is a textbook conspiracy theory. If scientists are just “making it up for funding,” why do oil-backed think tanks and lobbyists spend billions trying to discredit the science? Why do thousands of independent researchers in dozens of countries, many with no stake in “Western prosperity,” reach the same conclusions?
Peer review, replication, and open data are core to climate science. If fraud were occurring at the scale you imply, it would have been exposed long ago. And importantly: many climate scientists have risked their careers, not advanced them, by speaking out.
3. Cherry-picked data doesn’t disprove climate change.
Let’s take your forest fire example: Yes, global burned area has declined modestly, due in part to changes in land use and fire suppression. But in fire-prone regions like the western U.S., Canada, Australia, and the Mediterranean, fire seasons are growing longer and more severe—exactly as predicted by climate models due to hotter, drier conditions.
Sea level rise? It’s accelerating. NASA satellite data shows global sea levels rising at over 3.3 mm/year—double the 20th-century average. That adds up to over a foot by the end of the century if emissions continue unabated—and that’s a conservative estimate. Coastal flooding is already worsening in cities like Miami, Jakarta, and Lagos.
4. “Realist” climate scientists are a tiny minority—often with ties to industry.
You say you’re “well connected” with “climate realists.” I’m sure you are—but many in that group (like those from the Heartland Institute or CLINTEL) are not conducting peer-reviewed climate science. They’re publishing op-eds, blogs, and YouTube videos—not data-driven research.
The scientific method doesn’t care how connected someone is. It cares whether their work survives peer review, replication, and critical scrutiny. When climate contrarians do publish, their conclusions often fall apart under examination.
5. The argument that “China and India won’t act, so we shouldn’t either” is a race to the bottom.
First, China is investing more in renewables than any country on Earth. India, too, has ambitious targets. And second, moral leadership doesn’t depend on waiting for others to act. The same argument was once used to avoid action on slavery, pollution, and civil rights. It’s wrong now, too.
In Summary:
Your argument is built not on science, but on suspicion—of institutions, researchers, and even basic physics. You reject the consensus not because the data refutes it, but because you distrust the people gathering and interpreting it.
You’re welcome to share more links to your blog posts. But if you’d like to engage seriously with the science, I’d suggest we look at peer-reviewed studies—not opinion pieces—on specific impact metrics. I’d be glad to go through that with you, step by step.
You are clearly conditioned to not be interested in reviewing any scientific facts that does not support the emergency narrative….which is sad as its now actually the job of the climate alarmist to convince the realists as many western societies are now asking for a pause to NetZero until the true facts are better reviewed. The climate realists are starting to win the argument with many new political leaders .
Its clear that the IPCC has a credibility problem as its leadership spouts Armageddon while the risk assessments in the scientific sections are very conservative. with datasets showing no impact adversity at all.
A good example of past IPCC report rank lies would be the Mann hockey stick that has been completely debunked.
If you think that “data exists that shows high confidence that human-caused climate change is already affecting every inhabited region and increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme events”…. What are you smoking?... please provide such real collected data please….If its a future prediction using a model then it’s a total joke. Any predictions must be taken with a huge pinch of salt based on past accuracy.
We have many so called peer reviewed reports that we have torn apart that were manipulated to show an emergency narrative… I can share if you want.
I don’t refute that a slightly warming planet will have some adaptive challenges but it has been warmer than now 3 times before in the last 10,000 years and humankind thrived.. it was the cold periods where we struggled… we should fear cold not warm… plus it’s the lower temperatures that are getting milder and this is not a huge issue in most localized scenarios.
I dispute that climate realism is still in a minority.. its in a huge growth mode as it becomes clear that the science has been corrupted with more like religious fervor. The peer review process has become “pal review” that has suppressed open discussion and useful scientific review.. It’s a disgrace to science….but now the realists are operating their own peer review system and what’s interesting is that they don’t have to collect new data but just more honestly review the data already collected to get to the truth.
I would say the inability to use facts is clearly with the climate alarmist that keep getting the predictions wrong and have little adverse impact facts to support the climate emergency.
Your last comment about a race to the bottom is not accepted as it erroneously assumes we need to undertake NetZero …. and we are fast confirming that its unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish…. All it is doing is killing our prosperity to the advantage of those that avoid being a gullible boy scout to so say save the planet!
To start a data driven discussion I suggest you take the climate quiz that uses published sources for data and tell me if you have questions..…. https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/
There is no Canuting the RE tide now.
I think Blair's arguments sound like they are straight out of the saving-fossil-fuels-from-renewables playbook, which is also the updated save-ff's-from-global-warming playbook. Which does tend to feature nuclear heavily - and why not? Too expensive, too slow to build, too unpopular (with power companies as well as public) and will never be cheaper than FF's so presents no long term threat to them.
Alarmist economic fears of RE and Zero Emissions commitments did have a lot of resonance - even only a few years ago - but is more of an echo chamber phenomena now.
Can you share your data or base line about the price of power production of SMR ?
As a South African who lived through the unfortunate phase of load shedding, your analysis that Africa will leap frog straight to renewables, and then using South Africa in particular as an example that demonstrates that is fundamentally flawed.
Load shedding was caused by a failure of the government to act on Eskom’s warning that a supply crunch was coming. Decision to build Medupi was taken in 2005, based on Eskom’s studies (not sure what you mean it was pushed onto RSA?). Huge coal reserves, cheapest dispatchable energy source, and still is today - it was a no brainer.
It was riddled with cost and schedule overruns and contributed to load shedding by not being available. Another contributing factor was declining reliability of the coal fleet
VREs were then implemented as a response to the energy crisis - not because they were competitive.
The reason load shedding ended is because (1) coal fleet availability has improved (2) solar behind the meter installation.
Utilities scale Solar PV+ storage is not competitive with new coal. Even Medupi with its huge cost overruns gives you a levelized cost of around $60/MWh. Scatec Kenhardt the largest Solar PV+ BESS online in Africa is contracted to supply firm power for 16.5 hours at about $108/MWh.
Facts is that switching to VRE in South Africa (even with one of the highest Solar PV potentials globally) comes at a premium and for developing countries with limited resources - would you say it is justified given we have contributed less than 1% to cumulative emissions to pay a premium for low carbon electricity and forgo our abundant cheap coal reserves?
For Northern Europe and Canada do you think geothermal heat pumps (at the district or city level) makes more sense than using air source heat pumps?
I live in Australia and I think air source heat pumps work just fine for us since we have cheap-ish electricity, moderate winters and these heat pumps double air conditioning units.
Ground source heat pumps are great if you have access to a bit of land or the ability to drill. They can deliver very good COPs, and the COP doesn't degrade in winter during cold weather. And yes, you can use pretty much any heat pump except a hydronic system for cooling too. Take a look at Kensa for an elegant solution (https://kensa.co.uk/products)