One sentence for the good news. Extensive coverage of regional fire disasters and climate threats. Charles Rotter highlights the striking emphasis in the abstract of the ‘State of Wildfires’ report. Global burned area last fire season was 18% below the 2002–2024 average. Carbon emissions from fires were 20–31% below average. Nor was this an isolated result: satellite records show that global burned area has been declining for two decades. Yet that global picture gets just one sentence. Another striking point: the report presents a lower projected fire risk compared with the extreme SSP5-8.5 scenario as a benefit of climate mitigation. Yet it describes that same scenario as no longer credible. In Rotter’s view, an unrealistic worst-case scenario becomes the benchmark for policy success. Severe regional fires deserve attention. The global decline deserves more than one sentence.

Building a replacement for fossil fuels still requires fossil fuels. What if that effort consumes the very resources needed to keep civilisation running? That is the dilemma Richard Lyon explores in The Energy Trap. Wind turbines, solar panels and batteries require mining, refining, manufacturing and transport—all heavily dependent on fossil energy. Lyon argues that wind and solar cannot replace hydrocarbons at industrial scale and that building them accelerates the depletion of the fossil resources on which society still relies. With cheap conventional oil declining, he sees an “energy trap”: spending a dwindling inheritance on a replacement that cannot sustain modern industrial civilisation. His proposed escape is a major expansion of nuclear power, accompanied by a planned reduction in total energy use. Energy economist @tilakdoshi shares much of Lyon’s criticism of the renewable energy transition. But he challenges the leap from resource depletion to unavoidable economic contraction. Oil resources, Doshi argues, are not a fixed economic quantity. Technology, investment and prices change what can be recovered profitably. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing opened up resources previously considered uneconomic. Nor does a lower energy return automatically mean that an oil project cannot make money. Their disagreement matters. Both recognise the essential role of fossil fuels and the limitations of wind and solar. But Lyon sees a future that requires managing scarcity; Doshi argues that this outlook underestimates the capacity of markets, innovation and human ingenuity to overcome constraints.

A powerful funder declaring that climate science is settled and the debate can be closed. That strikes at the heart of scientific independence. In his presentation ‘The Capture of Academia – The Case of Climate Change’ for the Omniwar Symposium, Swedish researcher Jacob Nordangård describes the enormous influence of philanthropic foundations and political networks on climate science. His perspective draws on years of research. He has written several books examining the ties between philanthropy, science and political power. One revealing example: according to Nordangård, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund declared in 2006 that the science behind global warming was settled and no longer needed to be debated. He describes how the Rockefeller network helped shape research priorities by funding universities, research institutes and conferences. Research into human-caused warming gained prominence, while natural explanations and dissenting voices were increasingly marginalised, he argues. Those who fund research AND declare the debate closed wield considerable power over what counts as ‘the science’. Scientific consensus must withstand scrutiny. Money and influence must never determine when the questions stop.

During his visit to Clintel, @RogerPielkeJr experienced something too often missing from the climate debate: open disagreement without insults or exclusion. Pielke faces criticism for engaging with climate sceptics. According to him, even prominent climate scientists suggest that talking to sceptics makes him one himself. He refuses to retreat into an echo chamber. On October 11, he spoke to more than 200 people in Driebergen, the Netherlands. His position: climate change is real and serious, human emissions play an important role, and further decarbonisation is desirable. At the same time, he sees no basis in the IPCC reports for claims of a climate emergency or impending apocalypse. Clintel’s core position: there is no climate emergency. Climate science and policy deserve critical scrutiny, with attention to uncertainties, feasibility and affordability. That does not mean agreement on everything. Several audience members challenged Pielke’s starting points. People questioned, disagreed and debated. The atmosphere remained friendly. Pielke describes the exchange as refreshing — and entirely normal. Energy offers important common ground. People do not need identical views on climate science to work together towards affordable, reliable, accessible and clean energy. Pielke argues that it is time to shift the focus from debating a climate emergency to practical energy policy. The following day, he presented a more technical version of his climate scenarios lecture at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). There, too, he encountered respectful discussion and, in his assessment, far more agreement than disagreement. From Clintel to PBL, engaging in conversation helps clarify where differences actually lie and where cooperation is possible. Pielke recounts his experiences on his Substack, The Honest Broker. Clintel has republished his account.