Climate alarmism is facing daunting scientific, economic and political challenges to its credibility with the public and its influence on government policy in Europe, the United States and Canada. It may finally have reached an historic turning point.

The public is constantly warned about a dangerous surge in warming since the late 1970s due to increased man-made GHG emissions. But a recent peer-reviewed article by five academicians with expertise in oceanography, mathematics and statistics contradicts that conventional wisdom. They find no statistically significant change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s — even though emissions have risen 121 per cent since then, from 24 billion metric tonnes in 1970 to 53 billion in 2023.

They are not alone. John F. Clauser, 2022 winner of the Nobel Prize for physics, is one of 1,960 scientists and professionals from around the world, including 146 Canadians, who have signed the Clintel World Climate Declaration, whose central message is that there is no climate emergency.

These results pose two basic challenges to the core beliefs of climate alarmists. If warming has not accelerated in the past half century, where is the crisis? And if a doubling of GHG emissions is supposed to directly impact temperatures, why have temperatures not shot up? The latter question also applies to the 1970’s, when go-to experts and the mainstream media were hyperventilating about a return to an Ice Age, though GHG emissions had doubled in the previous 30 years.

Meanwhile, European economic growth has stalled, in large part due to the high cost of energy, which makes industry uncompetitive and drives energy-dependent companies to the United States. Germany, now the sick man of Europe, is de-industrializing, a direct result of former chancellor Angela Merkel’s reckless abandonment of nuclear energy and her country’s consequent reliance on Russian gas. The German automotive sector is also in crisis, the loser in a failed bet on EVs.

Tellingly, the issue of climate change has been virtually absent from the American presidential campaign, even though the two candidates have opposing views on the subject. Donald Trump has made some headway condemning Kamala Harris for senseless green policies that damage the economy and hurt American workers. The one climate issue that has been high-profile is fracking. In a dramatic reversal from her position in 2019, Harris now supports it, which is important in Pennsylvania, a state crucial to her election chances. If she wins, she will back subsidies for renewables and discourage fossil fuel development. If Trump wins, it will be “Drill, baby, drill,” a rejection of climate alarmism and a retreat from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, all of which would reverberate globally.