The professional climate alarmists aren’t fading away. They’re practically mutating. Louder, angrier, and more desperate than ever, they’ve learned that if outright activism draws too much scrutiny, the next best move is infiltration and subversion. Now they’re embedding themselves deeper inside trusted institutions and laundering their message through official channels.
Some in the media want Americans to believe Democrats are quietly retreating from aggressive climate messaging. The opposite is true. The most zealous voices in academia and government are amplifying the panic, using their credentials not as evidence of expertise but as weapons of intimidation. Their “science” isn’t about discovery. It’s about control.
Michael Mann is the perfect example. He turned a routine Olympic broadcast into a climate sermon, claiming snow conditions were proof of global collapse. That wasn’t scientific analysis—it was fearmongering presented as commentary.
Texas A&M professor Andrew Dessler follows the same script. In one moment, Dessler argued that economic models used by plaintiffs to calculate damages for the so-called social cost of carbon are “made up.” Then, in the next, he is engaged in emotional outbursts. In academia today, volume and anger aren’t liabilities; they’re virtues. The showmanship draws attention. In any other field, emotion like that would be disqualifying. That’s not science; it’s performance.
This culture of performative panic has moved into a new and more dangerous phase: subverting institutions through the bureaucratic backdoor. Look at the Federal Judicial Center (FJC), which recently and quietly pulled the climate chapter from the online version of its official Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. They did so because the chapter, written by activist scientists pushing extreme climate narratives, triggered a backlash that threatened the FJC’s credibility and funding.
But here’s the trick: the chapter didn’t disappear. It’s still live on the National Academies of Sciences (NASEM) website, where the organization has explicitly stood by itin the pages of The New York Times. The Academies, which hold the copyright, may even continue printing versions that include it. While the FJC shields itself from scrutiny, it quietly directs readers to NASEM, outsourcing climate indoctrination to a proxy. This is by no means a retreat. It is reinvention — a deliberate laundering of the same activism through new institutions to preserve the illusion of legitimacy.
The same academics who once claimed to be neutral arbiters of truth are now weaponizing institutions to hide their activism behind bureaucratic credibility. They’re embedding their ideology deeper into the machinery of government, courts, and policy schools—places the public rarely looks. This is the next phase of their radical climate crusade. When their narrative collapses under scrutiny, they simply shift it to another institution and continue the mission.
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans pay the price. Soaring energy costs, unreliable grids, and overregulation are the fruit of policies born in ivory towers and rubber-stamped by agencies too afraid to challenge the climate orthodoxy. Families choosing between groceries and heating bills don’t need another federal manual telling judges that skepticism is heresy—they need affordable, dependable energy. Climate extremism punishes the people who keep this country running.
Those who believe the climate radicals are retreating are fooling themselves. They’re not backing down—they’re burrowing in. Every time they’re exposed, they shift venues or change labels, but the mission stays the same: centralize control in the name of “saving the planet.” When power over how we heat our homes, drive to work, or grow food moves from citizens to bureaucrats, liberty vanishes with it.
The veneer of science gives this movement authority it doesn’t deserve. Scratch that surface, and it’s politics all the way down. Real science welcomes debate. Climate extremism silences it. The FJC’s quiet erasure and NASEM’s defiance show just how far this has gone—the climate cult doesn’t compromise; it adapts.
Americans need to see this clearly: the radicals aren’t losing ground. They’re evolving into something even more strategic. It’s time for those who believe in freedom, affordability, and reason to speak up before bureaucracy and ideology complete the takeover.
Mr. Isaac, a former member of the Texas House of Representatives, is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and CEO of the American Energy Institute.
For Maricopa County motorists, high gasoline prices are no longer an occasional inconvenience but a recurring hit to their wallets.
The story is the same every year. Every summer as temperatures rise, prices at the pump jump as well, often by as much as fifty cents per gallon in Maricopa County. Yet these price fluctuations, as frustrating as they have been for drivers, may soon look mild compared to what’s coming.
Arizona’s Historic Fuel Problem Will Only Get Worse In the Future
Arizona’s chronically high gas prices have been driven by two key factors. The first is that Maricopa County is required to use a specialized “clean burning gasoline” (CBG) blend that only a handful of refineries from around the country can produce. Compounding this issue is that Arizona does not have any in-state refining capacity of our own, making us reliant on imported refined fuel from high-cost California.
These complications have made our state vulnerable to price shocks. In 2003, a major pipeline failure limited gasoline shipments into Arizona and caused immediate price spikes and shortages.
In 2022, while gas prices did increase throughout the nation due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Maricopa County motorists were hit with significant price spikes, and consistently paid far above the national average. In 2023 and again in 2024, price volatility in Phoenix surged even when national averages stabilized.
On a crisp, sun-drenched afternoon in the spring of 2023, I found myself walking down Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., in front of the William Jefferson Clinton Building, headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Standing in its shadow, I wondered when, or if, sanity would ever return to the building. My mind drifted to the regulatory malfeasance that gave this agency power to treat carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
For years, this bureaucratic decree masqueraded as settled science. Climate zealots claimed CO2 and other greenhouse gases threatened public health as agents of planetary overheating, ignoring both a paucity of supporting data and contradictory evidence that inexorably accumulated.
Now, three years after my visit, EPA has rescinded the regulation as it applies to motor vehicles. The basis of its action is twofold: First, the agency has concluded that by attempting to regulate greenhouse gases, EPA exceeded its authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Second, the environmental effect of regulating tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases is negligible.
There is more to be done. Reason and good sense would have the EPA remove the Endangerment Finding’s hold over industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, like those coming from power plants, and would undertake to dismantle the rule’s flimsy scientific justifications.
Nevertheless, EPA’s action undermines an ideological foundation for the broad attacks on fossil fuels that have constrained American prosperity and choked the developing world’s aspirations for modern lifestyles.
The 2009 regulation was used to justify the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan – part of the so-called War on Coal – and tailpipe emissions standards that forced unwanted electric vehicles onto dealership lots. The rule has contributed to the closing of power plants, energy shortages, high electricity prices, and multiple billion-dollar losses for car manufacturers whose customers mostly prefer internal combustion engines. It has also fueled endless litigation against producers of hydrocarbon fuels.
Because CO2 is necessary for all life, beginning with its role in plant photosynthesis, regulation of the gas gave EPA jurisdiction over the entire U.S. economy. Climate crusaders abroad followed EPA’s lead.
Worldwide, the economic waste resulting from the rule is staggering. The Climate Policy Initiative estimates that between 2011 and 2020 that climate spending totaled $4.8 trillion. Estimates for “energy transition investment” – money dumped into the wind, solar and EV rat hole – was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone.
That is trillions diverted from healthcare, infrastructure, education and genuine alleviation of suffering and advancement of human flourishing. Imagine those resources being directed to improving carbon-intensive energy sectors that have produced the wealthiest and healthiest civilizations in all of history.
Since the dawn of the industrial age, we have witnessed an unprecedented increase in global life expectancy. We have seen a drastic reduction in deaths from natural disasters – not because the weather is milder, but because people are better protected by modern infrastructure and technology made possible by fossil fuels. We have achieved historic highs in agricultural production, feeding a population of 8 billion.
CO2 has played a pivotal role in the greening of the Earth, acting as an atmospheric fertilizer that boosts crop yields and expands forests. Even methane, demonized alongside CO2, is merely a byproduct of a livestock industry essential for providing protein to a ballooning global population. Emissions of neither gas contribute significantly to global temperatures.
Once the EPA designated CO2 a legal hazard, U.S. diplomats, aid agencies and technical experts carried that framing into global climate negotiations, development programs and financing arrangements.
Over time, the EPA’s stance became a de facto reference point for regulators elsewhere. If the U.S. “gold standard” for environmental protection treated CO2 as an endangerment, ministries from Europe to Asia would use similar language in national climate laws.
With the EPA backing away from its regulation of greenhouse gases, developing countries should waste no time in severing whatever restrictions Western climate overseers have placed on their use of fossil fuels. For too long, climate policies have impeded economic growth and denied access to reliable supplies of electricity, to safer indoor fuels for cooking and heating, to refrigeration and to clean water. The result has been higher rates of morbidity and mortality among the world’s poor.
CO2 is not the enemy of humankind. Misguided attempts to criminalize its emissions are!
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundationand Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va.He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
It’s not an accident that the top issue talked about by politicians these days is affordability. Over the last 5 years the cost of pretty much everything has gone through the roof, largely caused by the trillions in reckless spending by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Washington.
Taming inflation must remain our top economic priority, and the good news is that Arizona Republicans are taking meaningful steps to bring costs down. After adopting a 2.5% flat income tax under Governor Doug Ducey in 2022, state lawmakers have fought to slash grocery taxes, residential rental taxes and eliminate regulations that are driving up the cost of energy and housing.
Yet while the Republican controlled legislature is doing everything it can to make sure hardworking taxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, municipalities throughout Arizona are passing an avalanche of tax and fee increases that are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year…
Earlier this year, I introduced a bill in the legislature to designate one of our state’s busiest freeways, Loop 202, as the Charlie Kirk Loop 202, in honor of the life, work, and legacy of an Arizonan whose voice, energy, and commitment to civic engagement resonated across this state and throughout the nation. Charlie stood unapologetically for free speech, open debate, and civic participation. For future generations to understand and celebrate those ideals, this bill must become law.
Charlie Kirk devoted his life to public discourse and political participation. He traveled the country—and even the world—engaging Americans, especially young people, in robust discussion on the issues that shape our future. Even as opinions diverged, he believed Americans could—and must—engage one another civilly and respectfully, anchored in the principles of free speech and civic responsibility. This belief has been under serious assault, with a growing number of Americans looking to silence their opponents and disagreeable viewpoints, rather than looking for common bonds that should unite us. Charlie rejected this dangerous mindset, and he relentlessly searched for avenues and platforms to reverse this dangerous trend.
On September 10, 2025, Charlie was speaking at an event in Utah when he was fatally and tragically shot—assassinated for exercising free speech in the heart of a college campus, which he had done hundreds of times during his shortened life. His death was an act of political violence and terror that shocked our nation and renewed discussions on the importance of preserving civil discourse. Millions across the country mourned his passing and sought to understand more about his thinking and prolific writings about countless issues of moral, societal, and political importance.
Charlie understood better than most the beauty and necessity of the First Amendment—even acknowledging that he might have to pay the ultimate price for his willingness to engage the masses. He believed disagreement should be met with dialogue, not division. He believed vigorous debate strengthens our republic rather than weakens it, and that Americans can still find common ground even when deep divisions exist. His dedication to these ideals inspired millions and encouraged countless individuals to participate actively in civic life. Few public figures reached young Americans the way Charlie did, and his influence was only growing as he worked tirelessly to re-elect President Donald J. Trump to the White House in 2024.
Arizona was not only Charlie’s home. It was where he built an organizational empire with international reach as a teenager, where he raised a family, and developed a national following among young Americans. Charlie’s tremendous impact on America was evident as two large stadiums of people showed up to pay their respects at his memorial. In fact, Charlie posthumously received the honor of the largest memorial service our state had ever seen in its history. Never has an Arizona citizen received so much respect and adoration from its citizens. And all of the bestowed honors were richly and rightly earned by a man who had done so much to restore our nation to the spirit of our Founding Fathers when they fought to give us a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Designating Loop 202—the roadway that carries hundreds of thousands of drivers each day—as the Charlie Kirk Loop 202 ensures that his contribution to civic engagement, free speech, and the public square will not be forgotten. This highway winds through the Valley of the Sun, which encompasses the fifth-largest city in the United States, serving not only Arizonans but visitors from across the nation and abroad. It would be a great tragedy if this legislation failed because of partisan obstinance. Instead, let us unite across party affiliations to resolve that this name will stand as a daily reminder of the principles he lived for and the importance of peaceful civic participation. It’s only right that the state Charlie called his home gives back to a patriot who sacrificed his life to promote and defend our God-given right to free speech.
It feels like just about everywhere you turn, politicians are inventing new ways to yank more money out of your wallet. There are property taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, and more. We’ve even seen cities and towns push their own tax, utility rate, and “fee” increases. (How are those water bills treating you, Gilbert?) And now, some states—like California and Massachusetts—are pursuing a tax that would charge you a fee for every single mile you travel in your vehicle.
So much for affordability.
Earlier this month, California’s legislature advanced AB 1421. If passed and signed by Governor Newsom, this bill would create a “road user charge” pay-per-mile system for our neighbors to the west. It also includes studying how to capture out-of-state vehicles as well in case you thought your trip to Disneyland couldn’t get any more expensive.
If you don’t think such a tax is possible, think again…
