After Media Hyped ‘Global Warming’ for Years, NYT Admits Defeat in ‘Information War’
We won the “Information War” because we offered real scientific analysis based on data…not political narratives marketed as “science.”
A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump declared victory over the climate hoax industry.
Trump’s statement came shortly after Big Tech billionaire Bill Gates decided global warming was less of a threat to humanity than limited and expensive energy. But this was only one factor in the presidential assessment.
The climate hoax industry hurt itself by making every heat wave a climate apocalypse. And after years of predicting that “the Arctic sea ice will be gone”, and “the end of snow”, the U.S. is now in the midst of a deep freeze that will find few believers that the root cause is “global warming“.
Winter weather warnings have been issued in 30 states as a bone-chilling polar vortex is poised to freeze the US with record cold temperatures starting tonight.
The National Weather Service (NWS) issued winter weather advisories and winter storm watches from Maine to Nebraska, with wind chills in certain regions of the Midwest and Great Plains to make it feel between -10 to -30 degrees Fahrenheit.
The heaviest snow is expected to arrive Monday night, with parts of Ohio, eastern Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and most of New England seeing up to six inches accumulating by Tuesday.
Clearly, the Overton Window has been blasted wide open by the polar winds. Americans have become more skeptical of whether there is even a climate crisis, much less if SUV emissions and cow farts are responsible for temperature changes.
In this push to promote “global warming” and “climate crisis”, few media outlets have been as relentless or hysterical as The New York Times. However, they are beginning to admit defeat in the wake of recent developments.
Who to blame, then, for the failure? Big Oil, of course.
As delegates wrapped the annual United Nations climate talks last Saturday, those who have campaigned to reduce the use of fossil fuels expressed growing alarm that forces arrayed against them are gaining ground in the information war.
The oil, gas and coal industries continue to downplay the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating the planet. It’s a strategy that has been echoed by oil-rich countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and — under the Trump administration — the United States.
President Trump mocks global warming as a hoax, cheered on by a chorus of influencers online who regularly promote disinformation on social media platforms that once tried to curtail it. While such views have long been dismissed as conspiracy theories, their influence on the global policy debates has clearly grown.
The piece is comedy gold and reads as if a college graduate with a degree in gender studies wrote it. The article asserts that “climate‑skeptic” narratives often portray themselves as rational and masculine while casting climate advocates as emotional, alarmist, and “religious.”
Political campaigns deploy the same playbook. Republicans frequently claimed the Biden administration was trying to “emasculate” American drivers by forcing them into electric vehicles. Lee Zeldin, Mr. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has labeled climate change a “religion” instead of what it is: a matter of physics.
There is no “scientific consensus.” Science, when done properly, is driven by hard data that is reproducible. I have chronicled many science-based explanations for climate phenomena that the media has hidden from public discussion.
- Urban heat islands and their impact on temperature readings
- Greenland glacier is growing
- Arctic Sea Ice Grows…Unexpectedly
- Scientists in Prague Declare End of “Climate Crisis
- Climate Study Hints at New Ice Age
- Interaction Between Mars and Earth Orbits Drive Climate Patterns
The New York Times reports today that climate activists are losing the information war.
“[Climate skeptics] have succeeded at undermining climate action globally.”
The New York Times reports today that climate activists are losing the information war.
“[Climate skeptics] have succeeded at undermining climate action globally.”
🔗 https://t.co/WphCSAlqRw pic.twitter.com/qRbd6rc4eG
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) December 1, 2025
I have real news for the NYT: We won the “Information War” because we offered real scientific analysis based on data…not political narratives marketed as “science”.
— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) November 30, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The right result is that nobody knows if the earth is undergoing man-caused warming. There’s no valid data either way for essential mathematical reasons having to do with short data looking at long cycles. Any measurement is swamped by noise.
Called the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics but it’s the same math at large scales too. The Fourier transform reacts perversely to data cutoffs.
The law of entropy applies to every closed system, and Man’s interference only speeds up the process in his time. Disorder happens naturally but it is so slight and slow man adapts through different ways like agriculture and migration. Man is Hell-bent on “Improving” perfection in a perilously peculiar way.
Fourier transform? Wow, I doubt FFT has ever been mentioned here!
Full disclosure…I have performed vibration analysis for rotating industrial equipment for many years, and it is a fascinating aspect of a blue collar career that I thoroughly enjoyed.
What two (or more) things are being measured here at the same time such that the measurement of one makes the measurement of the other impossible?
Period (of a cycle) with data window around the present time. So time position and frequency. The two things you can’t localize at once. In QM, position and momentum (which is a FT of the wave function).
spooky action at a distance and also depending on if you see the action or if someone else sees you obseving action. Zeno was correct that movement is an illusion…and perhaps we should not peek behind the curtain.
It would be indicative of a strong content of character should the up or down voters explain the reasoning behind their simplicity. There is no need to bend ears with a long soliloquy when a mere few words can suffice….man up and keep the republic from decaying into their definition of democracy.
I’ll go one step further: simple fables such as ‘the boy who cried wolf’ and ‘henny penny’. Simple stories with common sense meanings.
Although fables are learning tools a colleague of mine limited me to one banality per day….and I’m fit as a fiddle!
Far more apt than Henny Penny would be Mencken’s observation that the job of politicians is to accumulate power by threatening the populace with a constant series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
Eh. It often does take many words, especially to explain a nuanced position, which will then often be either deliberately misinterpreted or simply misunderstood. It’s often not worth the time.
Plus some comments neither need, nor deserve a response beyond the general disapproval of a down vote or the general approval of an up vote. Some responses are the online equivalent of arguing with the crazy homeless guy shouting about whether the robot aliens currently abducting him think the dress is blue or gold.
Some people like the anonymity while others are not as verbiose. I’m merely trying to understand the ignorance of a mass up or down vote cascade.
We are winning the information war. The NYT is losing the misinformation war.
Ending the legacy media grip on the flow of information was crucial. When people can look at their phone and consume news/information from practically anyone then the ‘approved’ curated narratives lose their influence b/c they have to compete against quality data and better arguments.
And what do we win? The reason the price of housing and new cars are beyond the reach of most people is because of regulations written around energy conservation and CO2 reduction. It’s also the reason why electricity, heating oil and gas rates are through the roof — and the downstream pressure they place on food prices.
It’s not a victory when the enemy stops firing. They may have achieved their primary objective and have nothing to shoot at any more.
Electricity prices are being driven by AI data farms designed to tell us what to think. Turning off AI is harder than getting Microsoft to stop Winders updates on 10 even after the most recent threat to stop doing it.
The hoax has gone too far. Even the Marching Morons of the left can see that after multiple deadlines for doomsday passed without incidence, that summer and winter storms have actually moderated rather than intensify, that “catastrophic global warming” has actually filled the California reservoirs rather than emptied them*, something is amiss. That like Covid Hysterics, they would be idiots to continue the charade.
Of course this will generate the need for a new hoax. The self-induced panic of a liberal is addictive.
* Newsome found it necessary to empty reservoirs to create the illusion of perpetual, rather than cyclical, drought in CA. There by being responsible for a significant part of the Pacific Palisades damage.
Bear in mind, leftism=psychosis.
Skeptics are winning because we have 40-50 years of predictions and hysteria that have not come to pass. Also, the solution to AGW, global cooling, climate change, etc. is always more government control and less liberty.
I remember how awestruck with admiration I was when I first read, many years ago, about the CO2 theory of (in those days) global warming. It was brilliant! Real pollution (which was indeed horrible in the 1960’s) had been brought well under control, and it was becoming apparent that oil supplies were nowhere near as limited as had previously been forecast. A NEW ENEMY was necessary so that the environmentalist groups and the college professors whose funding depended on a deteriorating situation could continue getting paid.
CO2 is the perfect choice for an enemy – it is impossible to defeat because, we sinning against Gaia humans contribute to the problem every time we breathe! Genius! Naturally its evils will be visited on future generations (our grand children!) if we don’t act now!
Never mind that CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere and (according to ChatGTP) ” 0.013% of the atmosphere is human-added CO2″. Continuing on,
“sources estimate the U.S. share of global CO₂ emissions at ≈ 12.9%. ”
Finally then the U.S. contribution to man-caused CO2 in the atmosphere comprises (12.9% of 0.013) is 0.001677.
I struggle to understand why impacting the atmosphere by increasing CO2 by 0.001677% has been worth the impact on our country.
Especially when you consider that all life on earth is dependent on that tiny (.04%) fraction of the atmosphere. If the left wanted a real climate crusade, they’d be promoting cow farts, not condemning them.
“CO2 is the perfect choice for an enemy – it is impossible to defeat because, we sinning against Gaia humans contribute to the problem every time we breathe!”
The left would like to eliminate that CO2 source too.
Here in WA State, I paid a 25% “climate commitment act” tax on my propane. Yes, the Democratic Party is truly looking out for the common man.
Using the oxymoron “scientific consensus” is not really helpful
It appears that the science, if there ever was any, is not in fact settled.
The Oregonian used to call me on the landline and ask if I wanted to subscribe. I would respond with “why would I pay someone to lie to me?” They stopped calling and their former 2″ thick newspaper is barely a pamphlet. I was confused yesterday as we pulled off I5 into downtown and the lights were on in their entire 8 story building. Seemed like a lot of energy use for the remaining 10 employees.
Based on the evidence at hand, mammoths did not fart much, and therefore the planet cooled. And a T-bone from a mammoth would be Yuge. I say that we should bring them back.
If all your predictions about the future fail to come true, you should be thankful that the Old Testament commands to stone false prophets are not enforced in the United States!
I do believe that false prophets should be figuratively stoned, branded as liars, and driven from public discourse. Any interview with such people should always start with “Since you were wrong about X, Y, and Z, why should we take you seriously now?