Climate Swordsman takes a blow – Watt gets along with him?

The Trump administration has issued a stop order to U.S. government scientists effectively separate them from the next major report on Climate Change (IPCC), which expires in 2029. The decision draws inspiration from the process that has long been relying on. Both support their horrible statements. For those watching IPCC stir up an overheating forecast, please be satisfied to see the climate agency being forced to take action without its biggest benefactor.

The directive ceased federal scientists’ contribution to the IPCC’s seventh assessment report, a multi-volume activity that typically mobilizes thousands of researchers to portray imminent disasters. NASA's chief scientist Kate Calvin held an international conference next week in Hangzhou, China, where the scope of the report will be phased out. Now that it's no longer on the table, the meeting itself is in trouble – the organizers must wonder how there is no star player.

“Dr. Calvin will not attend this meeting,” a NASA spokesman said. NASA denied CNN's request for Calvin's interview.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc

A scientist who asked not to be named told CNN they are not sure what it means for the planned work. When your entire career is paired with an IPCC van, one will imagine that uncertainty will increase a little.

Those involved in the report told CNN they were “not sure what this means for future planned work or whether American scientists will participate in the writing of the IPCC report.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc

Historically, the United States has been a pillar of IPCC operations, providing not only talent but also a large budget pillar needed to keep the machinery buzzing. These reports (laden) warn of high temperatures, melting ice sheets and “fatal, expensive consequences” – from the Paris Agreement (which Trump quickly abandoned on his first day) to endless rounds, This is the cornerstone of global climate policy. The United Nations summit. IPCC's influence depends on its ability to authoritative projects, and the participation of the United States makes it credible. Without these, the 2029 report risk looks like a thin, less convincing shadow of its predecessors. Climate advocate Harjeet Singh insists that the IPCC remains “just” and “based on evidence”, condemning the losses of U.S. cooperation. Meanwhile, skeptics may notice that in the real world, clothing that can amplify computer models’ nightmares may use breathing, or at least conduct reality checks.

“IPCC is the backbone of global climate science, with unbiased, evidence-based insights needed to face the climate crisis,” said Harjeet Singh, climate advocate and founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.

“The decision to exclude American scientists has seriously undermined this collaborative effort and has the potential to harm the process when strong climate action is needed,” he told CNN in a statement.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc

This is not Trump’s first rodeo among the climate crowd. His withdrawal from the 2017 Paris Agreement (and again in 2025) set the tone, a latest move that doubled the skepticism. The timing adds irony: Just as the IPCC is preparing for its Hangzhou Confab, the government pulls the plug, puts Calvin partially next to it, and the process is fighting for it. It's a dry poetic justice for those who have long questioned the IPCC's trailblazing – think about the charts of hockey sticks swaying under review, the Himalayan glaciers refuse to disappear on the prompt, or disappear on the prompt , or constantly exceed their deadlines. Of course, the group was not dead; it would come from European, Chinese and usual suspects from whatever they could call soldiers. But without Uncle Sam's approval and deep pockets, the final product may have reduced swings, which is a prospect worth tasting.

For IPCC, the road ahead is getting bigger and bigger. If that happens, the Hangzhou conference will lack a critical voice, and a years-long honing by 2029 will test the effectiveness of the organization’s functioning in a leaner diet. Trump's decision doesn't completely remove the climate machine, but it does strip it of some of its horsepower. Those who have spent decades poking holes in IPCC narratives can sit down and smile at the consequences. There is no doubt that alarmists will call for “denial” and “destruction”, but the Oval Office has not lost sleep for it. Frankly, none of us are.

Related