Modern science is one of Western culture’s great gifts to humanity. While imperfect, especially if people mistakenly believe that scientific thinking should replace other ways of interpreting the world, the scientific method is a powerful tool that helps us understand the world and organize thoughts in a way that advances rationality and provides a more solid foundation for promoting human flourishing.
Unfortunately, because science has gained so much prestige, appeals to “science” are a key tool to push political and economic agendas. We tend to conflate scientific-looking claims with truth, and scientific-sounding arguments with authority.
The house of cards that is climate science is coming crashing down. @Nature is not a serious journal anymore. https://t.co/7zm22iGh6x pic.twitter.com/0HSjGX0dPz
— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) December 3, 2025
You see the problem, right? Not only do the scientific disciplines face the normal problems associated with human pursuits—bureaucracies, distribution of resources based on establishments trying to replicate themselves, and rivalries—but the temptation to use “science” as a tool to manipulate people is too attractive to ignore.
That’s how you get things like climate science, the capture of biology and medicine by activists, and the alliance between politicians who control resources and “scientists” who want their piece of the pie. Throw in all the economic actors trying to get a piece of the pie, and you get idiocies like “Net Zero,” and propaganda campaigns used to justify control over the economy and even the restructuring of societies to please the desires of an elite.
I’ve written a lot about the problems facing the scientific establishment (and the entire project of modern science) many times before, but it bears repeated examination, especially when the “science” being produced is part of a large effort to seize control of wide swathes of our society. And there is no place where this is more obvious than the “climate science” grift.
The latest example of how this grift distorts everything comes via a paper that was published in Nature—ever notice how Nature, once one of the most prestigious journals in the world, is the source of horrific “science,” such as the “Proximal Origins of COVID” paper. It purported to show that Western economies would be devastated by climate change.
Nature banks a lot of its prestige on rigorous “peer review,” without acknowledging that “peers” are often in on the same grift. “Peer review” often amounts to scientists scratching each other’s backs, boosting each other’s careers and prospects to get grants and promotions.
The authors of a highly publicized study predicting climate change would cost $38 trillion a year by 2049 have retracted their paper following criticism of the data and methodology, including that the estimate is inflated.
“The economic commitment of climate change,” which appeared April 17, 2024, in Nature, looked at how changes in temperature and precipitation could affect economic growth. Forbes, the San Diego Union-Tribune and other outlets covered the paper, which has been accessed over 300,000 times. It has been cited 168 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
But after two commentaries published this August raised questions about the study’s data and methodology, the researchers revisited their findings. “The authors acknowledge that these changes are too substantial for a correction,” the retraction notice, published today, states.
$38 trillion a year. That is a hefty sum, and since the climate gurus are “only” asking for $4 trillion a year (and a hefty dose of communism!), it sure is quite the bargain!
This reminds of so much of what we are told. The “green economy” will lower energy prices, spur new industries, and lead to glorious prosperity and a future where you own nothing and will be happy.
European politicians promised voters that continent’s green transition would be a win-win: Citizens would benefit from green jobs and cheap, abundant solar and wind energy, while saving the planet. But the 2 decades green revolution has driven up electricity prices and crippled… pic.twitter.com/ngaOzxbzGa
— Helen Raleigh (@HRaleighspeaks) December 3, 2025
Except it is all bunk. Europe is stagnating and deindustrializing by the day. China is building a coal plant a week, and using that energy to build solar panels and take over the industries we export to them. Western elites get more power and resources, while the rest of us get put in our place.
How does a paper that has been widely used to browbeat us into radically altering society get it so wrong? Easy—everybody in the establishment found it useful. It will continue to be used, just as renewing debunked claims gets used all the time.
The New York Times reports that east coast beaches could disappear within 25 years.
Oh wait, never mind, this was written 30 years ago.
🔗https://t.co/9NbCuHtNOE pic.twitter.com/UdUzatc8DK
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) November 21, 2025
The scientific method, in principle, should produce the opposite results. But the scientific method and the scientific establishment are two very different things.
So why has the problem gotten so much worse in recent years?
It’s actually pretty simple. Science, for most of history, was not bureaucratized or funded by governments in the way it is today. It was a relatively solitary pursuit—Einstein did much of his groundbreaking work as a Patent Office employee—and “peer review” often meant arguing your point against colleagues who were rivals.
Now, the scientific enterprise is big business and highly political. Of course, this has happened.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
