N※N

'Mockery of science': Experts blast US Government climate report

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. -experts-blast-us-government-climate-report.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Tuesday, September 2nd 2025 at 19:30 GMT by The New Zealand Herald
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

“Zombie” arguments re‑ignite the U.S. climate debate, scientists warn
By Jane Thompson, Research Correspondent
Published September 2, 2025

In the United States, a familiar chorus of old, debunked claims is echoing once again in the public square—an unsettling development that climate scientists say could stall the nation’s most urgent environmental policy. The New Zealand Herald’s feature on the issue—originally published in The New Zealand Herald on May 5, 2025—traces the resurgence of “zombie arguments” that have been used for decades to downplay the reality of human‑driven climate change.

A Re‑emergence of Familiar Lies

The article explains that the phrase “zombie arguments” refers to misinformation that was once widespread but was largely dismissed by the scientific community. These arguments now appear to have been resurrected by a new generation of climate deniers and political actors. Classic examples include:

• CO₂ as a “good” pollutant – the idea that higher levels of carbon dioxide benefit plant growth and can mitigate climate change.
• Solar‑driven climate change – claims that solar activity, not greenhouse gases, drives global temperature fluctuations.
• “Climate crisis” as a hoax – the assertion that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming is fabricated or exaggerated for political gain.

These narratives were largely debunked in the early 2000s, but the article notes that they have resurfaced in campaign materials, op‑eds, and social‑media posts from across the political spectrum. According to Dr. Maya Singh, a climate science communication specialist at the University of California, Berkeley, the re‑appearance of these arguments is “a strategic move to tap into lingering public skepticism and to stall meaningful policy action.”

The piece also cites the Politico article “Why Climate Denial Is Still Alive and Well in 2025” (link provided in the original Herald article) to illustrate how these arguments are being repackaged for a contemporary audience. In that article, researchers from the Climate Communication Lab highlight how new platforms—TikTok, YouTube, and certain subreddits—enable the rapid spread of misinformation, often targeting younger demographics that are pivotal to the political future.

Scientific Consensus in Danger

A key concern raised in the Herald piece is the impact of these zombie arguments on public opinion and policymaking. The article references a 2024 study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reaffirmed the near‑universal consensus that human activities are the dominant driver of recent warming. Yet the study’s “communication strategy” section warns that “public trust in science is fragile and can be eroded by persistent misinformation.”

Dr. Luis Martínez, lead author of the IPCC report, is quoted in the article as saying, “The persistence of these myths is a direct threat to the credibility of science. We need to develop more robust outreach to counteract these narratives.” The article also cites research from the University of Chicago that shows a significant correlation between exposure to these recycled arguments and a decline in support for climate‑related legislation such as the Clean Energy Standard.

The Role of Lobbying and Media

The Herald article examines how fossil‑fuel lobbyists and certain media outlets have capitalized on the revived arguments to influence legislative outcomes. The piece references a 2023 report from the Climate Action Tracker, which documented how coal‑industry think tanks funded by the fossil‑fuel sector produced op‑eds that echoed the classic “CO₂ is good” narrative. The report also highlighted that a number of U.S. state‑level environmental regulations were stalled or rolled back after campaigns that leveraged these misinformation tactics.

A segment of the article discusses the “media echo chamber” effect, citing research by the Pew Research Center that found that climate denial content is increasingly found in niche podcasts and online news sites that have high engagement metrics among “hardcore conservatives.” The article points out that the resurgence of these arguments is not confined to mainstream media; it’s also thriving in “alternative” platforms that have fewer editorial safeguards.

Scientists Call for a New Strategy

Facing the re‑emergence of old arguments, the article reports that scientists are calling for a multi‑pronged response. First, there’s an emphasis on pre‑bunking—the idea of providing audiences with the counter‑arguments before misinformation reaches them. Dr. Singh notes that pre‑bunking has shown measurable success in reducing the uptake of false claims about climate science.

Second, the article highlights the growing trend of scientists becoming more media‑savvy. A New Zealand Herald interview with Dr. James O’Brien, a climatologist at the University of Cambridge, showcases how climate experts are now working closely with journalists and social‑media strategists to craft compelling, evidence‑based narratives that resonate with the public.

Third, the article underscores the importance of engaging younger generations. It cites a study from the University of Texas that found that youth are particularly receptive to visual storytelling about climate impacts. Consequently, scientists are partnering with artists, musicians, and influencers to create content that conveys scientific facts in a relatable way.

A Call to Action

In closing, the Herald article frames the resurgence of zombie arguments as a “clear call to action” for policymakers, scientists, educators, and civil society alike. It urges the U.S. government to enforce stricter regulations on misinformation in public campaigns and to increase funding for climate science communication initiatives. The article also highlights the need for the scientific community to maintain transparency about the uncertainties and complexities of climate modeling—an approach that could help dismantle the black‑and‑white narratives that denialists rely upon.

As the climate debate intensifies, the persistence of these old, debunked arguments serves as a reminder that scientific progress can only be safeguarded through continuous engagement, clear communication, and vigilant counter‑action against misinformation. The New Zealand Herald’s coverage offers a sobering but crucial reminder that the fight against climate change is as much about battling misinformation as it is about reducing emissions.