Inconvenient Truths: 5 Climate Experts Push Back Against Alarmist Zealotry

Fear sells. From every fire to freak weather, mainstream media and green activists tell us a climate catastrophe is upon us. But what happens when a group of seasoned climate scientists issues a reality check? That’s precisely what happened—and shockingly, most major outlets barely covered it.

A recent Sky News segment, “‘Grossly exaggerated’: Media gives ‘little attention’ to new bombshell climate report,” spotlighted a U.S. Department of Energy report authored by five esteemed scientists challenging alarmist narratives. Now let’s meet them and see what they actually claimed.

Meet the Voices of Reason

From Iowa Climate Science Education’s coverage, here’s who put their reputations on the line:

1. Professor Emerita Judith Curry – A prolific climate researcher with nearly 200 peer-reviewed papers. Once part of the IPCC, she now argues that risks are often exaggerated. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

2. Dr. Roy Spencer – A NASA Senior Scientist known for leading what’s considered one of the most accurate global temperature measurement systems. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

3. Professor Ross McKitrick – An expert reviewer for multiple UN IPCC reports, offering rigorous analysis of claim versus reality. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

4. Professor John Christie – A former lead author of an IPCC report who contends, “climate models and popular surface temperature datasets overstate real atmospheric changes.” (Wikipedia)

5. Dr. Steven E. Koonin – Physicist, ex-Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy under Obama, and vocal critic of media simplification and model limitations. (Wikipedia)

Key Findings: What Challenges the Alarmism?

According to the report and accompanying interviews:

• Climate models are unreliable—“all over the shop”—and often overpredict warming by around 1°C or more, meaning severe impacts may be overstated. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

• Extreme weather trends lack compelling links to climate change—the data do not support the mainstream assertion that climate change causes every storm, drought, or fire. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

• Even using the flawed models, the economic damage of warming is minimal, and aggressive mitigation risks doing more harm than good. (Iowa Climate Science Education)

Media Missing in Action

You’d think a report by five high-profile scientists pushing back on climate hysteria would dominate headlines. Instead? Relative silence.

Media commentators like Andrew Bolt highlighted the omission—calling it “proof that the warming scare is grossly exaggerated”. (ysb.co.NZ, Iowa Climate Science Education)

But mainstream outlets? Either dismissed the report as fringe—like The Guardian and others—or buried it without meaningful discussion. The media continues to favour alarm over analysis. (ysb.co.nz)

Why This Matters—Especially for Australia

• Australia’s emissions are just 1.1% of global CO₂. Even eliminating them entirely changes nothing.

• Yet our energy costs are soaring, industries are shutting, and households—especially the poorest—are hurt by renewable subsidies and regulatory overreach.

• Another state of emergency will only drive more of the economy and commons into the ground, while the actual impact on the global climate remains nil.

Wrap-Up

This isn’t denialism. These are heavyweight scientists demanding honest conversation. Models have limits. Headlines should reflect nuance. And policy should be driven by evidence—not fear.

Let’s stop the narrative-driven panic and insist on reasoned, balanced, and effective climate solutions.

Here is a recent interview of Dr Koonin by Andrew Bolt covering some of these arguments.

Media Bias on Display: A Tale of Two Marches

 We’ve witnessed two major demonstrations recently—the March for Humanity and the March for Australia. Both had fringe elements, both attracted ordinary people—but the media treated them in drastically different ways. 

---

1. The March for Humanity: “Mainly Peaceful” Despite Violent Chants

At the pro-Palestine March for Humanity, violent slogans were openly broadcast:

• “Kill the IDF”

• “Intifada”

• “From the River to the Sea”

These are clear calls for violence—and for the elimination of Israel. Yet mainstream outlets mostly described the event as “mainly peaceful,” glossing over the chants and framing the narrative toward sympathy. Incidentally, so did our Prime Minister!

---

2. The March for Australia: Demonised Despite Marginal Extremists

By contrast, the March for Australia had some extremist figures, including known neo-Nazis and far-right ideologues. Yet many marchers rejected them—some literally turned their backs.
Still, media outlets relentlessly painted the entire rally as an ultra-right, racist mob. Headlines seized on the fringe—ignoring the majority.

Independent media, like Rebel News, delivered another view. Their video, “Forget the Nazis — THESE Aussies Are the REAL Story of Today’s March,” highlights that most participants were neither extremist nor hateful—but rather everyday Australians voicing concerns.

3. Media Double Standards in Action

Here’s the reality:

• One rally featuring violent chants is labeled “peaceful.”

• Another, with extremists marginalised by participants, is branded racist in entirety.

That’s not journalism—it’s narrative crafted to fit bias.

---

4. What the Broader Media Said

• Reuters labeled March for Australia a far-right rally that “propagated hate and community division.” Reuters

• News.com.au focused on clashes and extremist presence, characterising the event as dominated by extremists. News.com.au

• Courier-Mail emphasised nationalist slogans like “take our country back” and clashes with counter-protesters. Courier Mail

Despite this, none of these sources interrogated the March for Humanity with the same fervor over its violent messaging.

---

5. The Bottom Line

Both marches had extremists. Both rallies included ordinary people. Both were reported—but through wildly different lenses.

This glaring imbalance isn’t fair commentary—it’s selective framing. And that distorts the public’s understanding.

---

Want a More Nuanced View?

Check out the Rebel News video “Forget the Nazis — THESE Aussies Are the REAL Story of Today’s March” for a ground-level perspective that mainstream outlets skipped.

We owe it to ourselves to look past headlines—and confront media bias head-on.

Weekly Roundup – Top Articles & Commentary (Week 36, 2025)

 

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week;

• 3D Printed Homes and Australia's Housing Crisis
  
• 10 Reasons Australia should drop its commitment to Net Zero
  
• Why Thorium Modular Reactors Could Solve the World’s Energy Crisis
  
• War of Words: The Famine That Wasn't
  
• Media Bias on Display: A Tale of Two Marches
  
• Inconvenient Truths:5 Climate Scientists Push Back Against Alarmist Zealotry
  

We welcome all feedback, so please feel free to submit your comments or communicate with me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or @grappysb on X.

War of Words:The Famine That Wasn't

The narrative of famine in Gaza has fueled global outrage—but the reality, as Pesach Wolicki argues in “The Famine That Wasn’t: How the UN, Media and Hamas Waged a War of Disinformation” (Gatestone Institute), tells a very different story.

Narrative or Reality?

Claims of a full-scale famine were largely driven by Hamas-controlled data, echoed by the UN and media—without independent verification. Israeli government figures, he notes, contradicted major famine warnings issued by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) in 2024. Yet headlines kept coming. The famine never materialized—but the global narrative became all-too real. (Lucianne)

Was There Famine—Or Failed Context?

This perspective has been mirrored elsewhere. A review by UK Lawyers for Israel found that the same famine data, upon closer analysis, actually did not support claims of widespread starvation. Issues of methodological inconsistency, data gaps, and potential bias were flagged.(The Times of Israel)

Further research, including peer-reviewed studies examining food shipments into Gaza through mid-2024, concluded that supplies were sufficient to meet basic nutritional needs—contradicting the claim of full-blown famine.

Lessons in Information Warfare

Wolicki’s article serves as a reminder that in modern conflict, misinformation can be weaponized as effectively as bombs. When humanitarian suffering becomes a narrative—and not just a condition—journalists, international bodies, and governments risk becoming complicit in spreading a skewed version of the truth.

Other outlets echo this warning. Analysts have noted how Hamas has effectively influenced media messaging by providing selective data, while mainstream organizations failed to offer balanced context.(DISA, themedialine.org)

Why It Matters

This isn’t about minimizing suffering—people in Gaza are undoubtedly struggling. The condition is grim. But conflating crisis with famine morphs policy into reaction and activism into virtue-signalling. Without measured scrutiny, the truth bends to the loudest narrative.

In today’s world, the responsibility lies with media and institutions—especially when accusations can escalate to international legal action or reshape global diplomacy.

Bottom Line

The crisis in Gaza is real—but the “famine” narrative is not backed by indisputable evidence. Whether repeated for political ends or ethical failures, misinformation damages credibility, distorts justice, and risks turning humanitarian tragedy into policy weaponry.