Stop the presses. Summon the fact-checkers. Alert Greta’s yacht. Because, dear reader, the climate heretics have pounced again.
Yes, that’s the headline this week from the stenographers over at E&E News, a Politico-adjacent publication that reads like the employee newsletter for the Church of Saint Carbon Credit. The story begins in the key of outrage: “Climate critics try to discredit IPCC author for linking disasters to global warming.”
Translation from Journo-speak: “Someone noticed the emperor’s new lab coat is made of recycled grant money.”
Apparently, Roger Pielke Jr. — a political scientist with the unfortunate habit of reading data instead of chanting slogans — wrote an op-ed questioning whether Dr. Friederike Otto, an activist who co-founded World Weather Attribution, might not be the most neutral person to help lead the next United Nations climate report. Otto’s research, you see, keeps showing up in lawsuits against the oil and gas industry. Big ones. The kind of lawsuits where the legal fees could buy an entire Tesla fleet and still leave room for a virtue-signaling dinner at Davos.
Now, any normal reporter might think, Hmm, that sounds like a potential conflict of interest worth exploring. But we’re not dealing with normal reporters here. We’re dealing with the High Clergy of the Narrative. So instead of “UN installs activist whose work is fueling climate lawsuits,” we get, “Fossil fuel industry allies attack a scientist.”
Because in modern media theology, questioning the priest is a greater sin than whatever the priest did.
This is the “Republicans pounce” phenomenon, that magical incantation journalists deploy whenever someone on the left does something indefensible. A Democrat governor gets caught vacationing mask-less during lockdowns? Republicans pounce. The FBI loses another laptop? Republicans pounce. And now, when a UN scientist with open activist ties takes a key seat in the IPCC, what happens? Climate critics pounce.
The Holy Narrative Must Be Protected
The E&E News piece begins in high moral tones, as if announcing an indictment at The Hague:
“Critics of mainstream climate science and allies of the fossil fuel industry are taking aim at a prominent expert…”
Did you catch that? The critics aren’t people with questions. They’re “allies of the fossil fuel industry.” Because in the catechism of climate journalism, every skeptic has a secret Exxon logo tattooed behind the ear.
Then we learn that Pielke’s concerns — namely, that putting an activist whose studies are used in billion-dollar lawsuits at the helm of a supposedly neutral IPCC chapter might hurt credibility — are just part of an “attack.”
Imagine the scene in any other field. Suppose a tobacco company lawyer suddenly became the lead author on a World Health Organization report about lung cancer. Think anyone at Politico would write, “Tobacco critics try to discredit WHO expert”? Of course not. They’d be live-tweeting the bonfire.
But when it’s climate science, rules don’t apply. The journalist’s job is not to ask questions but to shield the narrative from contamination.
The Church of Settled Science
Dr. Otto, the subject of this crusade of sympathy, runs a group that specializes in what’s called “attribution science” — studies claiming to show how much a given weather event was worsened by human-caused climate change. The key word there is claiming, because the math behind those models makes astrology look like accounting. But the media treat it as gospel.
Her work has been “used in lawsuits against polluters,” E&E News notes approvingly, without a hint that this might raise eyebrows. It’s like announcing that your forensic expert moonlights as the plaintiff’s attorney — and expecting applause.
When Pielke pointed out that turning every heat wave into a press release for class-action lawyers might erode scientific neutrality, the authors reacted as if he’d denied gravity. The piece solemnly informs us that Otto will, quote, “be assessing peer-reviewed science,” which apparently is supposed to calm the masses. Because as everyone knows, the phrase “peer-reviewed” is the modern equivalent of a papal seal.
The article then adds Otto’s own reassurance: “There are many, many peer-reviewed studies that show how climate change has affected extreme weather events.” Sure. And there are many, many medieval scrolls proving witches cause crop failures. Quantity is not the same as quality, but that nuance never makes it through the newsroom filters.
“The Critics Are Coordinated!” (Because They All Read)
Once the piece establishes Otto’s sainthood, it pivots to the villain: the Trump administration. Because you can’t write about climate without invoking the Orange Man.
We’re told that Trump officials have “worked to discredit established climate science.” The evidence? They released their own report that concluded the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios were exaggerated. The horror. Apparently, doing your own research is now an act of war.
Then, right on cue, the article quotes Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists — a name that sounds like a 1970s garage band but functions as the Vatican of climate activism — who assures us that the criticism of Otto is a “deliberate mischaracterization.”
Cleetus adds that “no individual scientist hijacks the IPCC process.” That line alone deserves an award for unintentional comedy. Bureaucratic hijacking is practically the IPCC’s house sport. The organization has been producing consensus-by-committee reports for decades, with “consensus” defined as “whatever the politicians agree to in the summary.”
But E&E News dutifully prints her words as gospel, unchallenged, because climate journalism isn’t about reporting — it’s about catechism reinforcement.
How Dare You Ask About Bias!
Halfway through the story, E&E News finally concedes the real issue: Otto’s “extreme event attribution” work has been cited in multiple lawsuits, including a $51 billion claim by Multnomah County, Oregon. The plaintiffs’ lawyers literally use her studies as ammunition.
That’s the kind of revelation that, in sane times, would lead to tough follow-ups: Does this create a conflict of interest? Should the IPCC separate itself from litigation-linked research? What safeguards exist?
But instead of questions, the journalists sprint to mop up the spill. We’re reassured that the IPCC’s author-selection process is “balanced” and “protected from the influence of special interests.” Because if there’s one thing the UN is known for, it’s the absence of special interests.
It’s all boilerplate — the bureaucratic equivalent of “trust us, we’ve got this.”
Otto, for her part, insists that her work has “absolutely nothing to do with litigation.” Right. And my gym membership has absolutely nothing to do with my expanding waistline.
She also complains that her critics “took her comments out of context.” That’s the universal defense of anyone caught saying something inconvenient. The context, presumably, is that she meant to say something else entirely while articulating exactly what she said.
The Media’s Favorite Sport: Pretend Objectivity
The last quarter of the article plays clean-up like a press secretary. We’re told that Otto’s co-author in Germany has “absolutely no concerns,” that other scientists call her methods “fundamental science,” and that the World Weather Attribution project is “super transparent.”
Of course it’s transparent — you can see right through it.
But the best part is the tone: a mixture of solemn authority and parental disappointment. The reporters write as though they’re explaining to a confused child that Santa Claus is real and the mean old skeptics are just trying to ruin Christmas.
The message: The science is settled, the lawsuits are righteous, and if you disagree you probably own a pickup truck.
The Pattern of “Pounce” Politics
The structure of this story could be used to teach Journalism 101 — assuming the class was called Narrative Protection for Fun and Profit.
Step 1: Identify a left-wing actor engaged in dubious behavior.
Step 2: Shift focus from the act to the reaction.
Step 3: Smear the critics as extremists or industry shills.
Step 4: Quote a couple of “neutral experts” who all work for activist NGOs.
Step 5: Conclude with a reassurance that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along.
That’s the “Republicans pounce” formula, now re-branded as “Climate critics attack.” The only variable is the noun. The structure never changes.
It’s the same muscle memory that led CNN to write “Republicans seize on Biden gaffe” instead of “Biden forgets where he is again.” The sin is never the action — it’s the noticing.
The Cult of Credentialism
One reason this works so well is that climate reporting runs on credentialism. The journalist’s worldview is built around deference to “experts.” If someone has a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Feelings from the University of Virtue, the press treats their statements as immutable law.
So when Otto says her research is “fundamental science,” no one asks, “Fundamental to what?” The answer, of course, is “fundamental to keeping the grant money flowing.”
Meanwhile, Pielke Jr. — who has actual experience analyzing disaster data — gets dismissed as a “critic allied with the fossil fuel industry.” His sin is not ignorance; it’s independence.
In this world, there are only two categories: believers and deniers. And if you’re in the second group, no amount of evidence will redeem you.
Why This Matters (and Why It’s Funny)
Underneath the farce is something serious. The IPCC isn’t just a scientific body; it’s the policy backbone for trillions of dollars in spending and regulation. When its authors have visible activist ties, that’s not a minor footnote — it’s a legitimacy crisis.
If the people writing the “objective” climate chapters are also producing studies weaponized in court, the line between science and advocacy disappears. And once that happens, the entire enterprise becomes politics with equations.
The media should be the first to demand transparency. Instead, they circle the wagons, shielding the activists with headlines that imply criticism equals conspiracy.
It’s the same pattern we’ve seen in every other issue where the left’s ideology collides with reality. Question the lockdowns? You hate grandmothers. Question DEI? You’re racist. Question the IPCC? You’re a fossil-fuel shill.
That reflex — the automatic demonization of dissent — is what turns journalism into propaganda.
Satire Writes Itself
To appreciate the absurdity, imagine E&E News covering any other controversy this way:
“Critics of mainstream dietary science try to discredit USDA official for linking obesity to sugar subsidies.”
Or:
“Legal ethicists pounce on judge for presiding over cases involving her own family.”
But because it’s climate, we’re supposed to nod solemnly and thank the journalists for defending truth against the barbarians.
The funniest part is that they think this framing works. They don’t realize how transparent it’s become. Every time they write “critics attack” instead of “questions arise,” normal readers see the bias glowing like a solar panel in a desert.
Even people who accept the climate narrative instinctively sense the propaganda. It’s too heavy-handed. Too self-righteous. You can almost hear the subtext whispering: Don’t ask questions. We already did the thinking for you.
The Bureaucracy of Belief
The IPCC itself is the perfect symbol of our technocratic age — a sprawling committee of bureaucrats claiming to speak for Science Itself while issuing reports so dense that politicians can twist them into anything.
Its real product isn’t knowledge; it’s authority. Every report becomes a cudgel to justify whatever policies the climate clergy already wanted — carbon taxes, ESG mandates, bans on gas stoves, you name it.
So when someone like Otto, whose research directly supports climate litigation, is elevated to lead author, it’s not a coincidence. It’s the system working as designed.
The journalists’ job, therefore, is to bless the process, to reassure the faithful that the priests are pure and the heretics are evil. That’s why the E&E News story feels like liturgy — repetitive, solemn, and immune to evidence.
Meanwhile, in the Real World…
Outside the echo chamber, people are dealing with actual problems — skyrocketing energy costs, unreliable grids, and food inflation caused by policies dreamed up by the same bureaucrats who lecture us about “sustainability.”
They don’t care whether Friederike Otto or Roger Pielke wins the latest academic spat. They care that their utility bills look like mortgage payments. But for the press, those concerns are irrelevant. The only crisis that matters is the one that justifies more control.
So the beat goes on: every new storm, flood, or drought becomes another sermon in the endless homily of climate catastrophe. And every skeptic becomes a villain to be anathematized.
The Punchline
In the end, E&E News accidentally produced a masterpiece of unintentional self-parody — a story not about science but about the media’s own reflexive obedience.
They could have written, “Debate Erupts Over IPCC Author’s Activist Ties.” Neutral. Informative. Balanced.
Instead, they wrote, “Climate Critics Try to Discredit IPCC Author.” Because to them, the story isn’t that an activist infiltrated the IPCC. The story is that anyone noticed.
And that’s the real scandal: in modern journalism, skepticism itself has become the crime.
So congratulations to E&E News for pioneering a new genre. Forget “Republicans pounce.” The future is “Climate critics pounce.” Coming soon to a headline near you:
- “Skeptics attack scientist after another record warm Tuesday.”
- “Drivers pounce as gas prices rise to save planet.”
- “Homeowners criticize blackouts caused by grid savior policies.”
Because in the religion of climate, there’s only one commandment: Thou shalt not question the narrative.
And as always, the media will be there to enforce it — clipboard in hand, halo slightly crooked, wondering why the rest of us keep laughing.
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.