John Raine: Canary in a Climate World - When Political and Media Narratives Depart from Scientific Evidence

Richard Prebble commented (22^nd June in Brash and Mitchell) on the problematical operation of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The present article (updated from a Substack post https://jkr31350.substack.com/p/canary-in-a-climate-world) was intended primarily as a review of a new contrarian publication on climate change but again questions the politicisation of the current climate narrative and the very existence of the ETS. It calls again for a more realistic adaptation approach to climate change.

Political Narratives and Aspirations Towards Global Government

Back in September 2024, the Pact for the Future [1] was adopted by the UN Summit of the Future in New York City.  This affirms the 2015 UN Agenda 2030 [2] on Sustainable Development. The Pact for The Future talked of: 

1.      Transforming Global Governance - modernising international institutions to reflect today’s global realities, ensuring they are capable of delivering solutions for all nations.

2.      Sustainable Development and Financing - commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, emphasising poverty eradication, climate action, and equitable economic growth.

3.      Science, Technology, and Digital Cooperation - promoting inclusive innovation, bridging the digital divide, and fostering responsible use of emerging technologies.

4.      Youth and Future Generations - ensuring that policies consider long-term impacts, protecting the rights and interests of those yet to be born. 

5.      International Peace and Security - reinforcing multilateral approaches to conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and global security cooperation.

6.      Trade and Development - encouraging sustainable trade practices, preferential access for developing countries, and integration of climate objectives into economic policies, supporting the Global South’s role in global commerce.

At face value these goals look benign and support a more equitable and sustainable world.  But ……. dig below the surface and listen to speeches from the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, and this looks more like a manifesto for increased world government and reduced national sovereignty. Among other agendas, there is pressure to move away from meat-eating by humans, greater control over individual privacy and freedom of speech through digital technologies, and, in particular, compelled wealth redistribution through national commitments around climate change mitigation. 

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 (which will do nothing significant to reduce global emissions), are primarily about social justice and wealth redistribution from developed nations to poorer nations. As Ottmar Edehofer, IPCC Working Group III co-chair 2008-2015, said, “One must free oneself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy… We are de facto redistributing the world’s wealth through climate policy (2010).”

We had a taste of internationally-sourced but locally-implemented policies in the draconian Covid-19 policies (albeit governments had imperfect knowledge) with mandated vaccinations, needless extended lockdowns, and a determination from governments and their agencies to shut down any counter-narrative as to the long-term damage from Covid policies to national economies and citizens’ health, and whether the vaccines were in fact “safe and effective”.  Increasing evidence [e.g. 3] of MRNA vaccine injuries has given the lie to the latter for a significant number of people.

After the Covid-19 pandemic no longer seemed to be a major threat, the media refocused on climate change as an existential threat that required unified international action and effectively a ceding of at least some control to an international policy-mandating body.

Realism on Climate Change

I have just finished reading “Canary in a Climate World: Climate Realism vs. The Net Zero Myth” [4].  Its 38 authors bring a strong dose of realism back into the climate debate.  It is sobering that questioning the prevailing political climate change narrative is a fast track to being cancelled – i.e. don’t rock the boat on research funding streams or big corporate green energy interests - but many of the authors of this book are immune through being retired (e.g. emeritus professors) and can speak out with impunity. 

The comparisons drawn with the politicisation of Covid-19 are clear.  In both cases we have seen a propagandised narrative created on the basis of a politicisation of science, and a loss of honesty in the public narrative and policies.  

Despite the continuing attribution of global warming to human activity in the last IPCC report (AR6) [5], with climate change it is clear [references 4, and 6 - 22] that:

·    The climate has always been changing and always will change, with big swings in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels, sea levels and changes to flora and fauna with successive ice ages. Earth is currently warming as it emerges from a little ice age and will do so regardless of any human climate change mitigation efforts. The crux of the debate is around the extent to which the current relatively rapid rate of warming is anthropogenic.

·    Over geological time, right up until the present, temperature increase has statistically led CO₂ increase, and with some rapid temperature change periods. CO₂ has been wrongly demonised and is a vital food for plants. At ~430 ppm atmospheric CO₂ level, the planet is close to a historical low on CO₂ and agriculture would thrive with higher levels.

·    While solar irradiance variations alone do not explain recent warming, the periodic variation in penetration of cosmic rays into Earth’s atmosphere and their important role in nucleation of clouds (hence varying cloud cover and the changing fraction of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface) influence global temperature changes [Chapters 4, 5, reference 4]. Moreover, when such effects and others related to solar radiation are properly included in climate models, the temperature sensitivity to CO₂ increases falls so that a doubling of CO₂ leads to only 1 – 1.5 °C predicted temperature increase. 

·    Water vapour is by far the most important greenhouse gas, and we have no control over this. The effect of ongoing increasing CO₂, some of this from human activity, and a lot from ocean outgassing and the natural environment on land, is real but small as warming feedback, and the effects of methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are negligible, despite all the hype and efforts to stop agricultural emissions. Additionally, because of saturation of CO₂ absorption wavelengths, any future warming effect from anthropogenic CO₂(just ~5% of global atmospheric resident CO₂) will likely be less than 1° C.

·    Human activity contributes radiative warming of ~3 W/m² (~1%), to the total radiative energy flows in the atmosphere. The IPCC figure for the atmospheric energy input imbalance from human activity is a net heating of ~0.7 W/m², but Soon [23] notes that the uncertainty bands on this figure are very large, e.g. ±1 W/m². 

·    Extreme weather events are not in fact increasing in frequency, despite all the reports to this effect in the media. It is easy to mistake short term weather trends over a year or a few years for climate change-induced effects.

·    As discussed in an earlier article [24], for its 2029 AR7 report the IPCC has dropped the implausible RCP/SSP 8.5 scenarios (and the slightly less pessimistic SSP7.0) which were forecasting global average temperature increases of ~4.3°C from pre-industrial times to 2100. Whilst these models were never going to represent reality, at least some of the spin being placed on this change is that such pessimistic models are no longer necessary owing to climate change mitigation efforts to date.  This is patently untrue, as such efforts have had a negligible impact. And, looking ahead, if all 200 countries that signed to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement meet their climate mitigation commitments to 2100, Earth would be cooler by between just 0.02 and 0.07°C than if they do nothing. 

·    The repeated claim in the media and by climate alarmists, that 97% of scientists agree that anthropogenic CO₂ is very likely causing most of the current global warming, is wrong. Firstly, science is never about consensus.  Its truths are always provisional and subject to new theory, new evidence and verification or falsification. Secondly, analysis by Wrightstone [Chapter 14, Reference 2] shows that, of the 11,944 science research abstracts reviewed to reach the 97% conclusion, 64% were ignored as they did not give an opinion either way, 32.6% agreed that we have caused some of the warming, and only 0.3% agreed that we have caused most of the warming since 1950.

·    And, regarding the tendency for exaggeration, Roger Pielke Jr [25] reports on a new study which used an AI analysis to show that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers has systematically amplified climate science warming conclusions beyond what the underlying report actually says.  Additional amplification by the media has added to climate alarm in the community.

·    Net Zero 2050 is unnecessary, unachievable, causes only economic damage, and should be abandoned, along with the Emissions Trading Scheme. We should focus on adapting to a changing climate not on attempting to mitigate inevitable climate change with greenhouse gas emissions control measures.

The New Zealand government has gone along with a major international political agenda around climate change when there is no existential threat, and the real need is to adapt to ongoing climate change.  We have to keep watching latest scientific theory and evidence but distinguish between propagandised beliefs around climate change and what careful science and the measured evidence is telling us.

Climate alarmists will cite ongoing warming as proof that anthropogenic warming is the primary cause, rather than a small secondary input.  But this is like adding a cup of hot water to a saucepan of water heating on the stove and claiming that all of the temperature rise is due to the added cup of hot water.

A More Balanced Narrative

Written for the lay reader, “Canary in a Climate World” focuses on climate science in its early chapters (with limited primary references). Scientists and engineers will likely want to search the literature more widely. Later chapters include topics such as energy, policy, economics. governance, narratives and psychology, society, the human response, freedom, law, political consequences and sovereignty. 

What comes through strongly is that the mainstream climate alarmist narrative is not held together by evidence-based science that validates the climate models behind the IPCC reports. These models do not match real world evidence well. The alarmist narrative, promoted by the UN, and which has driven so much worldwide government policy, is a case of politics trumping hard science. Such creation of an atmosphere of existential fear encourages communities to cede more control to officials, as we saw during the Covid-19 period.  

Not the least of the negative effects for our society has been the psychological effect on young people who have been encouraged to believe that we are making the world uninhabitable, and the consequent decision by some not to procreate. We need a less apocalyptic narrative.

Managing energy resources [26] and emissions prudently, and better environmental care and remediation, go without saying. However, in this writer’s present opinion there is not a climate crisis, and the reality is more nuanced - ongoing objective scientific analysis and discussion is vital. Regardless, we have to learn to adapt to an ever-changing climate where humankind’s effect is real but likely small, and where CO₂ is not the enemy. 

John Raine is an emeritus Professor of Engineering, and a former wind and alternative systems researcher.  He held Pro Vice Chancellor or Deputy Vice Chancellor positions at three New Zealand universities.

References:

1. The United Nations, Summit for the Future, “Pact for the Future”. https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/pact-for-the-future 22 September 2024.
2. The United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Sustainable Development, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda 2015.
3. Lance D. Johnson, “Yale study validates COVID vaccine injuries, offering hope to millions who were silenced by medical gaslighting.” 24^th February 2025. Vaccines.News. https://www.vaccines.news/2025-02-24-yale-study-validates-covid-vaccine-injuries.html
4. “Canary in a Climate World: Climate Realism vs. The Net Zero Myth”. 38 Experts Challenge the Net Zero Narrative. Editor C. H. Klotz, Canary House Publishing. ISBN 9781069667212
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2023 Synthesis report.IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf (link to 2021 AR6 Science report Technical Summary:IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Technical Summary | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis
6. Richard Lindzen and William Happer, “Physics Demonstrates that Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or any Harm”, CO₂ Coalition, 7^th June 2025. https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Lindzen-Happer-GHGs-and-Fossil-Fuels-Climate-Physics-2025-06-07.pdf
7. John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”, Report of the Climate Working Group to U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher Wright, USA Department of Energy, July 23, 2025
8. William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, Richard S. Lindzen, Tutorial Submission on Global Warming and Climate Change to United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Case No. C 17-06011 WHA, Case No. C 17-06012 WHA. Hearing Date: March 21, 2018.
9. From Koutsoyiannis, Onof, Kundzewicz, Christofides, “On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO₂: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere”, Sci 2023, 5(3), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/sci5030035
10. Camille Veyres, Jean-Claude Maurin and Patrice Poyet: “Revisiting the Carbon Cycle”, Science of Climate Change Open Access Publishing V5.3 2025, pp 135-185, November 2025.
11. Edwin X Berry, “Human CO₂ Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO₂”, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, pp. 13-26. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13, June 4, 2019 
12. David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb, “The Impact of CO₂, H₂O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures.” International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2021, pp. 29-40. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12, August 23, 2021
13. Zaichun Zhu et al., “Greening of the Earth and its Drivers”. Nature Climate Change. volume 6, pages791–795 (2016)
14. Chris Landsea and Eric Blake: “Was 2020 a Record-Breaking Hurricane Season? Yes, But…..”, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA Dept of Commerce. Posted 30^th June 2021. 
15. Michael Kelly, “An Assessment of the NZ Resources Needed for Carbon Zero”, a presentation to Engineering New Zealand, 1 December 2020, Auckland.
16. Ralph B. Alexander, “Exposing the Pseudoscience behind Extreme Weather Attribution” The Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF, www.ICSF.ie) and Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL, www.CLINTEL.org), 20^th May 2026.
17. Theodosios Chatzistergos, Natalie A. Krivova, Kok Leng Yeo. “Long-term changes in solar activity and irradiance,” Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 3, Göttingen, 37077, Germany. Science Direct, 19^th  October 2023.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682623001487
18. Aynsley Kellow, “The Media Cartel for Climate Alarm”. The Quadrant, September 2025, pp20-23.
19. David Shelley. “Are we in the Midst of a Climate Crisis? – NO; Are our CO₂ Emissions Causing Climate Change? – NO”. Science of Climate Change, Vol. 6.1 (2026), pp. 82-89 

20. Patrick Frank, “The Clouds of Uncertainty That Render All Climate Models Useless.” The Climate Sceptic, 2 18^thMay 2026. https://www.climateskeptic.org/p/the-clouds-of-uncertainty-that-render?hide_intro_popup=true  

21. Roger Pielke Jr, “RCP8.5 is Officially Dead” The Honest Broker, Substack, 29th April 2026. https://substack.com/home/post/p-195733015
22. Michael Shellenberger, “Apocalypse Never”. Harper Collins, ISBN   9780063074767 international edition; ISBN 9780063001701 e-book.
23. Willie Soon, “The Wild Goose Chase of a Phantom Number: EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance). Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (www.ceres-science.com) “Climate Realism Rising.” Heartland Institute’s ICCC16, Washington DC, April 8-9, 2026.
24. John Raine, Michael Kelly and Bryan Leyland, “Why New Zealand Must Drop Net Zero 2050”. Brash and Mitchell, 8^th May 2026 https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/john-raine-michael-kelly-and-bryan-leyland-why-new-zealand-must-drop-net-zero-2050?utm
25. Roger Pielke Jr, “Does the IPCC Exaggerate Climate Science?”  Roger Pielke Jr Substack, “The Honest Broker, 8th June 08, 2026. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/does-the-ipcc-exaggerate-climate
26. John Raine and Bryan Leyland, “A Realistic Energy Future”, Bassett Brash and Hide, 24^th August 2025 https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/john-raine-and-bryan-leyland-a-realistic-energy-future