Authored by Tilak Doshi via Substack,
As the year came to an end, the proponents of climate orthodoxy once again expressed their outrage at the actions of the Trump administration. In a recent op-ed in The Guardian, Bob Ward and Michael Mann—known for their alarmist views—compared the dismantling of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) by the US government to tyranny, alleging it was influenced by fossil fuel interests. They started their op-ed with a shocking statement suggesting that Joseph Stalin would have approved of Trump’s actions.
They accused President Trump of suppressing climate science, drawing parallels to Lysenkoism, a period in Stalin’s regime where ideology overshadowed scientific inquiry. The irony is palpable, as these individuals, who have a history of silencing dissent, are now projecting their own actions onto a political leader attempting to free science from ideological constraints.
An Orwellian Phenomenon
This recent attack is not an isolated incident but a reflection of a deeper issue. The climate alarmist narrative, similar to the COVID-19 hysteria, relies on a censorship mechanism labeling any deviation as “misinformation.” Ward, long associated with environmental NGOs, has a track record of launching personal attacks on respected academics like Richard Lindzen and Richard Tol, dismissing their peer-reviewed criticisms as heretical. Mann, infamous for his controversial “hockey stick” graph, has faced legal setbacks for his litigious behavior. Despite this, they, in collaboration with The Guardian, twist the truth, portraying Trump’s defunding of activist institutions as censorship, when in reality, it is the opposite.
Examining the economic and institutional aspects behind this facade. NCAR, after more than five decades, has transformed into a government-funded propaganda machine, generating models predicting catastrophic futures while disregarding established facts of atmospheric physics and human adaptability. The Trump administration’s decision to close it down aligns with a broader initiative to restore scientific integrity, as outlined in the “Gold Standard Science” executive order. This directive emphasizes transparency in federally funded research, ensuring that models and data are replicable and devoid of biases that taint alarmist forecasts. Far from suppression, this is a move to rescue science from unelected bureaucrats and their NGO partners, who channel billions into “climate education” grants promoting one-sided advocacy. For instance, NOAA routinely awards substantial sums to nonprofits endorsing green ideologies under the guise of environmental preservation.
The parallels with the COVID-19 crisis are evident, highlighting how the “misinformation” label is used to stifle discussion in scientific realms. Just as climate skeptics are branded as “deniers,” COVID skeptics were labeled as spreaders of falsehoods. Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya recently pointed out the arrogance in assuming that a group of bureaucrats and activist scientists can infallibly distinguish truth from error on complex matters.
Across the globe, the European Union’s censorship regime led by Ursula von der Leyen showcases technocratic overreach. The EU aims to restrict media platforms hosting “disinformation” and dissenting views on various topics, mirroring the climate arena’s silencing of opposing voices.
In a statement reminiscent of Orwell, Ms. Von der Leyen discusses the importance of “pre-bunking” over “de-bunking” alleged untruths and views “misinformation” as a virus:
“…we need to build up societal immunity around information manipulation, because research has shown that pre-bunking is much more successful than debunking. Pre-bunking is basically the opposite of debunking. In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Perhaps if you think of information manipulation as a virus—instead of treating an infection once it has taken hold, that is debunking—it’s much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated.”
Where have we heard that vaccination/inoculation story before? Perhaps we should not digress into Ms. Von der Leyen’s missing SMS phone messages that sealed the EU’s deal for 1.8 billion doses of corona “vaccine” costing €35 billion negotiated with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
In New Zealand, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went a step further, proclaiming government sources as the sole arbiters of COVID truth, effectively criminalizing legitimate critiques from skeptical doctors and scientists upholding their Hippocratic oath. This Orwellian stance mirrors the climate arena, where questioning net-zero aspirations invites professional backlash.
The Trump Administration’s Response
The EU’s Digital Services Act intends to compel social media giants to suppress content challenging Brussels’ doctrines, resulting in a chilling effect on open dialogue worldwide. The European Commission recently imposed a $140 million fine on Elon Musk’s X for “non-compliance” with regulations. However, it is now a world influenced by Trumpian ideologies that frustrates European bureaucrats. America’s commitment to First Amendment principles clashes with Europe’s descent into regulatory authoritarianism. The US House Judiciary Committee has criticized the digital regulations as censorship primarily targeting political conservatives.
Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded:
“For too long, ideologues in Europe have orchestrated efforts to force American platforms to censor American viewpoints they disagree with. The Trump Administration will not tolerate these acts of extraterritorial censorship any longer. Today, @StateDept will take action to prohibit key figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We are prepared to expand this list if necessary.”
The US State Department’s sanctions on NGO leaders and a former EU official involved in these activities highlight the geopolitical divide. Under Secretary Sarah Rogers elaborated on the individuals and the reasons for their exclusion. The list includes Imran Ahmed (Center for Countering Digital Hate), Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg (HateAid), Thierry Breton (former EU Commissioner), and Clare Melford (Global Disinformation Index).
Let’s delve into each of these censors.
Thierry Breton played a significant role in formulating the Digital Services Act. In August 2024, as the European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Digital Services, he warned Elon Musk before his live stream interview with candidate Trump campaigning for a second term. The audacity of an EU official threatening Mr. Musk that his platform could face charges for amplifying harmful content in the EU is perplexing.
Undersecretary Rogers accused the UK citizen Imran Ahmed of collaborating “with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens” in a social media post on December 23rd, stating that his organization published the “infamous ‘disinformation dozen’ report” that led to a campaign to de-platform individuals questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including the current Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“Leaked documents from CCDH show the organization listed ‘kill Musk’s Twitter,’ and ‘trigger EU and UK regulatory action’ as priorities…The organization supports the UK’s Online Safety Act and EU’s Digital Services Act to expand censorship in Europe and around the world.”
It is noteworthy that Imran Ahmed’s CCDH was founded by Morgan Sweeny, Kier Starmer’s chief adviser. Clare Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, another British NGO actively involved in anti-“hate-speech” campaigns, targeting individuals with differing views on climate change or anti-vaxxers.
Anna Lena von Hodenberg leads Hate Aid, a German NGO established after the 2017 German federal elections to counter conservative groups. Ms. Anna and her NGO are official “trusted flaggers” under the EU’s digital services act. Clare Melford, Ahmed is the CEO of The Center for Countering Digital Hate, and Melford is the founder of the Global Disinformation Index, both two entities extremely active in anti-“hate-speech” activism, in fact hunting down anyone who has views different from the official dogma on climate change or so-called anti-vaxxers.
The Moral Bankruptcy of European Bureaucrats
Von der Leyen’s statements on “inoculated information” appear hollow amidst Europe’s deindustrialization, where energy policies driven by climate ideology have led to factory closures, soaring power prices, and diminished competitiveness. Germany’s Energiewende, once praised as a model, now serves as a cautionary tale of economic damage, with manufacturing output declining and GDP growth stagnating.
At the core of this EU-led censorship regime lies a modern Lysenkoism, where ideology masquerades as science. Today’s climate advocates dismiss empirical evidence: satellite data indicating no acceleration in sea-level rise, historical records of warmer periods like the Medieval Warm Period, or economic models showing that net-zero targets would incur trillions in costs while providing negligible climate benefits. However, Eurocrats label these arguments as “misinformation,” ignoring the fundamental role of affordable, reliable energy in human well-being. The rise of Asia, fueled by coal, oil, and gas, has significantly reduced poverty, underscoring the importance of energy access in economic development.
The institutional incentives supporting climate alarmism are concerning. Multilateral organizations like the IMF and World Bank, along with green advocacy groups, perpetuate myths of “fossil fuel subsidies” distorting markets, penalizing hydrocarbons, and subsidizing intermittent renewables. In Africa, the push for “renewable leapfrogging” disregards the continent’s need for reliable power, trapping millions in energy poverty under the guise of climate justice. While Western elites endorse degrowth, developing nations prioritize pragmatic energy strategies that prioritize growth over virtue-signaling.
The hypocrisy of the misinformation censors is evident: while denouncing “misinformation,” they propagate doomsday scenarios that never materialize—remember the 50 years of failed predictions. Europe’s industrial decline underscores the folly of prioritizing ideology over energy policies. In the US, the ESG investment trend promoted by BlackRock’s Larry Fink, directing trillions towards underperforming green assets, is unraveling as returns lag and legal challenges mount.
A Positive Start to the New Year
Despite challenges, there is hope in the midst of technocratic arrogance. President Trump’s reelection signals a shift towards evidence-based policies, freeing science from the shackles of misinformation censorship. By defunding activist organizations like NCAR and promoting transparency through executive orders, the administration sets the stage for authentic inquiry. Imagine a world where discussions on climate sensitivity, solar cycles’ impact, or adaptation costs are conducted openly, without the fear of retribution.
As Jay Bhattarcharya emphasizes, free speech and replication as the standard of truth are vital for scientific progress. We need logical discourse and data, not state-defined censorship of “misinformation.” The US State Department’s actions against the censors bring hope as we enter the New Year.
Loading recommendations…