Now, will you answer a few follow-up questions? It'll take less than a minute – and your answers will inform CFACT's efforts on the battles to come.
For over fifteen years, one computer model – RCP 8.5 – was the engine behind almost every doomsday headline you've read. It was built on the flawed assumption that the world would burn five times more coal than geologists believe even exists in the ground. This year, a peer-reviewed paper from Europe finally put it in writing: the model is "implausible." No press conference. No apology. Just a quiet retreat.
Should Congress and the courts stop treating a retired, discredited model as settled science?
The earth has been swinging through warm and cold stretches for 4.5 billion years. Vikings farmed Greenland during a warm period centuries before industrial smokestacks. A "new ice age" was front-page news in the same decade Earth Day launched – from the same crowd now certain they've got the opposite apocalypse nailed down.
Should climate policy be built on models – or on the historical record?
Over $16 trillion has been poured into the global "green transition" so far, and climbing north of $2 trillion more every year – chasing a scenario scientists now admit never had a basis in reality. It's the scaffolding under tens of billions of dollars in climate lawsuits working through American courts right now, including a $51 billion claim against energy producers in Oregon.
With $16+ trillion already spent worldwide chasing this model's predictions, should that spending be paused pending an independent audit?
Real courts are deciding real, multi-billion-dollar cases using a model its own creators now call implausible. Judges were quietly trained on it as if it were settled fact. CFACT has spent more than 25 years in the room saying it out loud while the "experts" called us "deniers" – and we don't take a dime of taxpayer money to do it.
Should judges be trained on a retired, discredited climate model when they're deciding billion-dollar lawsuits?
CFACT has been calling out Climate Crisis Inc. for over four decades. They call us "deniers" for saying exactly what their own scientists just admitted. We were right – and we're not done, because Climate Crisis Inc. doesn't fold because one model got embarrassed. The question is whether CFACT is in the room when they try again.
Will you chip in to help CFACT keep exposing junk science and hold the line in the room?