CO2 is Winning (Mitigation fail)

by R. Bratley Jr., Aug 15, 2026 in WUWT

“The future of rational climate policy is adaptation, not mitigation that works against adaptation. Social justice demands that climate policy not increase energy prices and restrict consumer sovereignty.”

Want to prosper in the energy/climate arena? Avoid wasteful, futile climate ‘mitigation’ policy. Want to ruin your economy for no effect on climate? Rush ahead with wind, solar, batteries, EVs, and forced conservation. The UK/EU experience speaks for itself.

Examine the graph below, and ask yourself which economies are prospering and which are retrogressing. The jumps between 2014 and 2024 would be magnified today.

 …

The future of rational climate policy is adaptation, not mitigation that works against adaptation. Social justice demands that climate policy not increase energy prices and restrict consumer sovereignty.

Appendix: Prior Adaptation Articles

Adaptation Momentum, Mitigation Fatigue (August 5, 2026)

Global Air Conditioning: Adaptation in Action (July 21, 2026)

Adaptation: Think about It (July 2, 2026)

The Argument for Adaptation and Resilience (Part I: Theory) July 14, 2025

Examples of Adaptation and Resilience (Part II: Examples) July 15, 2025

Climate Adaptation vs. Mitigation Fail (June 12, 2025)

“Resilience and Adaptation”: Mitigation Demotion Ahead? (October 9, 2024)

Adaptation to Heat: Then and Now (May 3, 2024)

On the Climate Train to Destruction? Another View (adaptation, not futile mitigation) August 2, 2023

Adaptation: The Hidden Climate Strategy (May 3, 2021)

Taming Climate Change: Capitalism at Work (market adaptation, not government mitigation) January 5, 2021

Taming Climate Change: Capitalism at Work (market adaptation, not government mitigation) January 5, 2021

Henrik Svensmark fired by his university

by K.I. Dahl-Madsen,  July 21 ,2026 in Clintel.org


 Something unusual and encouraging has happened in Danish climate journalism. Berlingske, one of Denmark’s leading national daily newspapers, has published an excellent and genuinely inquisitive article about the dismissal of physicist Henrik Svensmark from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), where he has been working since the late nineties. The headline leaves no room for doubt: “Controversial Danish climate and space researcher has received the pink slip from DTU: It is ‘a death blow’ to my research”.

Here is how the article starts:

He is one of Denmark’s most internationally recognized researchers – and at the same time one of the most controversial. But now space and climate researcher Henrik Svensmark has, in his own words, been “good old-fashioned fired” by his employer, the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) in Lyngby. He does not rule out that “political considerations” – as he puts it – were involved in the years-long process that led to his final dismissal. At the same time, Henrik Svensmark does not hesitate to call it “a death blow” to a branch of research that he has largely developed single-handedly and that climate researchers around the world, including the UN’s climate panel (IPCC), have had to relate to – often reluctantly. This is mainly because Svensmark’s research points to what he sees as an overlooked natural factor behind a large part of the climate changes Earth has undergone. He finally does not rule out that the dismissal may be linked to the fact that he is perceived as a controversial researcher in wide circles: “There is nothing controversial about the research itself. But it is true that many perceive my research as controversial, even though it shouldn’t be.” DTU has no comments on the actual dismissal of Svensmark and refers to it as a personnel matter. However, the director of DTU Space, Henning Skriver, confirms that Svensmark’s overarching research area, atmospheric physics, will now “be significantly down-prioritized.”

Science journalist Lars Henrik Aagaard deserves credit for the whole article. Rather than dismissing Svensmark as merely ‘controversial’, he asks the essential question: is DTU retiring an ageing employee, or is it terminating an internationally recognized but scientifically inconvenient research program?