To be clear: we *haven’t* surely avoided the temperatures—and definitely not the impacts—that arose from the so-called “worst case scenario.” That is the point to convey now, if you don’t want disinformation to become the “common-sense” consensus on our possible climate futures.

In the first chapter of The Language of Climate Politics, I reported how fossil-fuel propaganda arose from the debate over RCP8.5 and the work saying that "we've avoided the worst-case scenario." That work was quickly weaponized by bad actors, and I'm not surprised it's now deployed everywhere.

Reminder: It's far, far cheaper and easier to not emit the stuff in the first place than it is to pluck CO2 molecules out of the air.

"Even with a lower emissions scenario you can still end up at with a forcing of RCP8.5 (~8.5 W/m² by 2100), only as a result of having "bad luck" on climate feedbacks" Listen to our conversation with @detlefvanvuuren.bsky.social about the new emission scenarios here: www.youtube.com/live/MYWokv0...

Begging all scientists to repeat this as often as possible!! Fossil-fuel interests are using “we have avoided the worst case scenario.” Remember: They watch everything we write and say to see what they can use to manufacture misinformation as consensus. Plan your climate comms accordingly!!

Right-wing governments have become the great destroyers of life. They threaten all of us. We need to stop calling them "conservative" because what they do is the OPPOSITE of "conserving."

Secondary effect of Musk taking over Twitter is that progressives who are now concentrated on Bluesky can be more conveniently ignored by many Democratic offices.

Let’s remember: (1) the fossil fuel industry is desperate to pollute for free; if they can’t pollute for free, their business model collapses. 🧵

I don’t know what bedtime stories they tell themselves about objectivity. When you’re doing stories that take 17 paragraphs to get to an opposing view, it’s not journalism. The ATU is perfectly capable of serious work, but on climate and energy in the past year it’s 🚮

“Gas prices are rising so politicians are rolling back climate policies,” makes no sense. Yet this sort of bizarro logic is common in msm coverage of Hochul’s imminent “victory” in gutting NY’s climate law. Much of the MSM’s doing pro-gas propaganda. A big reason we’re losing.

This is great. #EndFossilFuels www.nytimes.com/2026/05/12/o...

How do we make our academic work make a difference? What does knowledge production look like when it is being threatened from outside forces? Thrilled to share that NYU's Dr. Dale Jamieson will be this year's keynote speaker for our upcoming online annual conference. Register here: bit.ly/4tcdBFe

Humans need yo migrate too and already are. We need in immigration policy that recognizes both the reality of climate change and the danger of militarized borders and concentration camps. Or else today’s fascism will be just a taste of the future.

😞

A private equity firm wants to build a large new fracked gas power plant on the Gowanus/Sunset Park waterfront. We stopped it years once. Now we have to stop it again- or get higher bills & more pollution. Call Hochul to 🛑 the Gowanus fracked gas plant! Info: docs.google.com/document/d/1...

Infrastructure paid by billionaires, not people commuting to work

HEATMAP reports that Williams Co & Enbridge are building new pipelines in NY to bring PA methane gas to the northeast. As Alexander Kauffman put it, new fossil infrastructure HAD been opposed by Dem governors “in the name of” fighting climate change. (Note: “In the name of”? Come on.)

Maybe it’s jiujitsu? Like, making sure basic infrastructure isn’t supported by fossil fuel consumption but instead by taxes on billionaires is not a terrible idea when gasoline demand is basically inelastic for the rural and suburban working class.

Shared this thread with a friend in the investment space (no greenie!), and here’s what he had to say: “In ten years, no one will buy a house without thinking about climate change-induced risks and costs … It is a future that is rapidly coming into focus.” Exactly.

How are words misused and weaponized to maintain our reliance on the fossil-fuel economy? In this episode of Authors on Climate Words we speak to Dr Genevieve Guenther (@doctorvive.bsky.social) author of The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It. Link below.

Regarding the whole "don't talk about climate" shtick.

Do many people know that the ICC judges, once sanctioned by the US, almost immediately lost access to credit cards, google, amazon & microsoft cloud, etc. www.ft.com/content/4c3a...

Oh and PS. OP says "The Searchlight Institute found that 59 percent of voters in battleground states are “bothered that climate change has become such a political issue,” " Because they think caring about reality should be bipartisan, not because they think it should go away, you silly donut.

Lastly C) the people who said they do care about climate are not who the article just blithely assumes they are. The stereotype that greens are affluent latte-sipping white Brooklynites is nonsense. Ackshwally.... Poor Black people care most about climate. /15 www.brookings.edu/articles/bla...

Couple issues here. A) When you are running for office, you pursue PEOPLE YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET. The three categories I tagged red above - energy system, climate, environment - are important to 36-45% of voters. That's the D base +up to 10% indies. The Ds are open to a green+left climate message. /12

You can dial the climateness in that up or down depending on audience. Sure, don't do it in Montana, per article. But don't assume there's no audience. The bigger issue is a) weak messengers (Biden) and b) demented media ecosystem, per @volts.wtf and others' repeated point... /8

I'm a climate expert. I know 1000s of climate experts. One fact we all know: poor people care about climate more than rich people. Hardly surprising when you can't afford AC, work outside, etc. A few issues in the article... /1

"Progressive Funders Need to Reassess the #BreakthroughInstitute ...It’s significant that the Koch-aligned Stand Together Trust is a recent addition to the donor list. Clearly Breakthrough was doing things the Koch network liked." via @cleantechnica.bsky.social: cleantechnica.com/2026/03/29/p...

Please read this @nickkristof.bsky.social article. It is one of the most upsetting things I’ve ever read — so prepare yourself. But please do not look away. Gift link: www.nytimes.com/2026/05/11/o...

Climate politics is a shitshow, but my son watercolored me this bouquet of flowers for Mother’s Day, which feels like a Good Thing. There is that!

" #climate change denial is collectively reinforced by our governments and politicians, who promote the cycle of “implicatory denial” as a way to ensure social cohesion and stability" - Kari Marie Norgaard www.sydney.edu.au/sydney-envir...

What is the best book about the 2008 financial crisis? Thx in advance.

Love all the people claiming that Biden got brought down by climate, people are sick of climate framing etc when the whole programme was called the *checks notes* 'Inflation Reduction Act'

Leaving aside campaigning in red states, the argument that Democrats should drop climate is wrong. 1) It is dumb to drop a platform that the majority support & that your opponent is absolutely terrible on. 2) We do need to get to net zero now in order to halt heating at a relatively safe level. 🧵

Sure would be cool if we could fix the climate without ever having to do politics about climate. Maybe technology will save us! Or the enlightened self-interest of the energy industry! Or elected Dems, having never been pressured to make any commitments! Ah, well, nevertheless.

The implicit theory-of-change in this article is that we can accomplish all the work of averting the climate crisis without ever mentioning climate on the campaign trail. If you don’t buy the premise, then the argument is functionally identical to “the climate crisis will go away if we ignore it.”

At this point, solving climate change is cheaper than not solving it -- not only on some grand 50 year time horizon, but tomorrow, today, immediately. Soving climate change *is* affordability. Maybe Dems should tell voters about that.

Yes, but the BTI has his picture up on their website as if he’s affiliated. They do this with anyone they like who has ever interacted with them in any way. (Yes this is weird and fundamentally dishonest, but that’s par for the course with them.)

IMO talking about climate change as a matter of inflating green asset values didn’t resonate with voters and the Democrats talked relatively little about climate change itself during the Biden administration

I can barely think of an elected Democrat who has said the words "climate change" out loud in the last two years, but of course the "Dems must eat shit" takes never stop, never change.

but most of all bsky.app/profile/john...

Good thread…

Environmental concerns, including climate change, are still even fairly supported across parties--even with one party actively and massively propagandizing against it!

In the presidential campaign climate was also dwarfed by abortion and middle class tax cuts. I don't think anyone would suggest that was a climate election! americaforward.us/tvcongress/2...

This gets the problem wrong. Voters don't connect policies to jobs and savings because 1) the media ecosystem is broken 2) Dems don't do enough to provoke conflict and attention around their messaging frames. But you can't get an oped published with that argument. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/09/o...

Media coverage of climate change is at a record low. But if we work together we can bring this down to zero! Come on people, it's like we're not even trying to erase this issue from human discourse! It helps to make a jar where you deposit a coin every time you catch yourself mentioning climate

A current or past "Breakthrough Institute" affiliation is a red flag #NewClimateWar

ALL prices were high, and Biden would get angry if anyone said this to him and insist, publicly, that the US economy was the best in the world. Then there was Gaza, Biden as a muttering corpse in the first debate, and Harris’s feckless campaign. Plus nobody knew anything about IRA anyway.

Also, climate policy was not an issue in the 2024 campaign!