Climate crisis continues — in leftist echo chamber: New York Times hosts climate conference—no dissent allowed
By willowt // 2025-09-10
Copy
 
  • The New York Times is hosting a climate conference—but no skeptics are invited, raising questions about ideological bias.
  • The event focuses on "The Trump Effect"—framing his policies as a setback for climate action, despite no measurable impact on global CO2 levels.
  • Speakers include Democratic politicians, activists, and corporate figures—but no scientists or economists critical of climate alarmism.
  • The conference avoids debating core climate science, instead pushing political and economic narratives about "net zero" and "green energy transitions."
  • Extreme weather claims remain exaggerated, with no evidence linking recent events to human-caused climate change.
On September 24, the New York Times will host "Climate Forward", a high-profile conference in New York City aimed at addressing what it calls "one of the most consequential years ever for U.S. climate policy." But there’s a catch: No climate skeptics, scientists, or economists critical of alarmist narratives have been invited. The event, organized by Times reporter David Gelles, frames its mission around "The Trump Effect"—the idea that President Trump’s energy policies have derailed global climate progress. Yet, despite no measurable impact on global CO2 levels from U.S. policy shifts, the conference treats this as an existential crisis. "This has been perhaps one of the most consequential years ever for United States climate policy," Gelles wrote in the event’s promotional material, promising "frank discussions about what it all means." But with no opposing voices, how frank can those discussions really be?

Who’s speaking? A lineup of activists, politicians and corporate interests

The announced speakers read like a who’s who of climate alarmism and green energy lobbying:
  • Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) – A vocal advocate for aggressive climate regulations.
  • Abigail Dillen (Earthjustice) – An environmental litigation group that has sued fossil fuel companies.
  • Scott Strazik (GE Vernova) – A corporate executive from a company heavily invested in "green energy" subsidies.
  • Manish Bapna (Natural Resources Defense Council) – A longtime climate policy advocate.
  • Bob Mumgaard (Commonwealth Fusion Systems) – A fusion energy startup executive.
Notably absent? Any climate scientists skeptical of catastrophic warming, economists critical of net-zero policies, or energy experts who support fossil fuels as part of a balanced energy mix. Where are the Al Gores, John Kerrys, or Michael Manns—the usual faces of climate alarmism? Even they seem to be sitting this one out, leaving the stage to lesser-known but equally ideological figures.

"The Trump Effect": A political narrative, not a scientific one

The conference’s central theme is "The Trump Effect"—the claim that Trump’s pro-fossil-fuel policies have undermined global climate efforts. But what’s the actual evidence? Gelles wrote: "Trump has withdrawn from international efforts to address global warming while plowing ahead with a domestic agenda that will delay any transition away from fossil fuels. All of this has happened as global temperatures and planet-warming emissions continue their upward trajectories." Yet, global CO2 emissions have continued rising regardless of U.S. policy—because China, India and developing nations dominate emissions growth. Meanwhile, U.S. energy independence under Trump led to lower global oil prices, benefiting consumers worldwide. And what of extreme weather claims? The Times suggests "hurricanes wreaking havoc from Texas to California"—yet 2025’s hurricane season has been milder than predicted, and no long-term trends link storms to human-caused warming. If the U.S. pulls back on climate policies, does it even matter? The data suggests no—but the Times won’t be debating that.

The real questions they won’t answer

The Times poses five key questions for the conference:
  1. What does the Trump administration mean for climate action?
  2. How will the world move forward if the U.S. steps back?
  3. Are net-zero goals unrealistic?
  4. What can local communities do to "combat global warming"?
  5. How can climate politics survive?
But the real questions go unasked:
  • Why have climate models consistently overpredicted warming?
  • Why do renewable energy mandates increase electricity costs for consumers?
  • Why are "green" policies failing in Europe, leading to energy crises?
  • Why is CO2—essential for plant life—demonized as a "pollutant"?
  • Why are climate conferences like this one explicitly excluding dissenting voices?
The answer? Because climate alarmism is not about science—it’s about power, control and money.

The collapse of climate politics

As Robert Bradley Jr. of the Institute for Energy Research notes, "Climate politics is collapsing." The failed predictions, economic burdens of green policies and growing public skepticism are catching up with the movement. Instead of wasteful mitigation policies, Bradley argues for free-market adaptation:

"It is time to change course from (futile, wasteful) mitigation politics/policy to anticipation and free-market adaptation to extreme weather, whatever the cause. Just as before the climate scare. Just like before the era of conditioned air. Just like for all of human history in the face of danger."

The Times won’t entertain this view. Their conference is not about debate—it’s about reinforcing a narrative.

A wake for climate alarmism?

If this conference is meant to rally the troops, it may instead reveal how weak the climate movement’s arguments have become. When no opposing voices are allowed, when no real debate happens and when the focus is on politics rather than science, it’s not a conference—it’s an echo chamber. And echo chambers don’t persuade—they preach to the choir. The real climate discussion is happening elsewhere—where facts drive the conversation. The Times’ "Climate Forward" conference is not about science—it’s about control. By excluding skeptics, they reveal their fear of real debate. The question is: How long can they keep the public from noticing? Sources for this article include: ClimateDepot.com MasterResource.org
Copy