During my five years teaching a short course to an elite group of high school students, I emphasized the power of opposites. That is, learning is facilitated in the social sciences and unsettled physical sciences by understanding each side of the debate. And not at a shallow level but in-depth. One exercize is like in debate–be able to debate each side of the issue.

I thought of this when I received this email from Grist under the byline: “Ready to drive climate solutions for the future? Start here.,” Grist then shared this invitation from Alfred Ayoub, Senior Director of Admissions, Columbia Climate School

In a world facing urgent climate, ecological, and societal challenges, Columbia University launched its first new school in 25 years: the Columbia Climate School. Created to break down silos and accelerate innovation, we’re dedicated to preparing the next generation of climate leaders through applied, interdisciplinary programs.…

The historical record is unkind to the climate alarmists and the apologists of industrial wind and solar forcing (via government activism). A periodic look back at the litany of emotional, rash judgements is merited. A small sampling follows.

“Two weeks ago, I looked at the question of the anxiety that the climate crisis is causing our psyches. But, if you think about it, there’s an equally interesting question regarding the human mind: How is it that some people, or corporations, can knowingly perpetuate the damage? Or, as people routinely ask me, “Don’t they have grandchildren?” ( – Bill McKibben, “The Climate Crisis,” May 19, 2021)

Comment: Just maybe consumer welfare, taxpayer welfare, and energy freedom deserve a seat at the policy table. And maybe preventing mass industrialization of the living space by wind and solar projects is an ecological good.…

“Many states and businesses are backing off ambitious climate targets, and Democrats are less vocal nowadays about climate change. Tech companies are using more natural gas to meet exploding demand for data centers. The International Energy Agency, after some browbeating by Mr. Wright, is revising up its projections for how long fossil fuels will stick around.” – New York Times (below)

Brad Plumer, a “a Times reporter who covers technology and policy efforts to address global warming,” recently explained (September 23, 2026) the “energy dominance” position of the Trump Administration. “The Former Fracking Executive Selling Trump’s ‘Energy Dominance’ Vision” began with the subtitle: “Energy Secretary Chris Wright is pitching a future of fossil fuel abundance. It’s not always an easy sell while war drags on and oil prices surge.…

Classic articles are worth remembering. One in the environmental field was a prioritization of environmental issues back in 2020 by Bjorn Lomborg, “Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies“

“What is the world’s deadliest environmental problem?,” asks Bjorn Lomborg. The answer:

Not climate. Outdoor and indoor air pollution. Let’s not get so scared about climate that we forget the much bigger problems. Read more in my peer-reviewed article: https://sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S0040162520304157.

This result explains why today, climate alarm is just not resonating with the public to the chagrin of the alarmists. Bill McKibben faults the New York Times and Democrats for throwing in the political towel. “I’m saddened to see how little our representatives in DC seem to really care, even the Democratic ones,” he begins:

Too many Democratic leaders are feeling comfortable waving off climate concerns, because of a feeling that it might be a political problem for them.