The international “climate science” community is dominated by hysterics. They don’t believe in data or real science. They are sure that they are right that human-caused CO2 increases are going to lead to higher temps and all kinds of climate disasters, so they just twist whatever information they can find to support that view, and they fight as hard as they can to suppress countervailing data and analysis. A recent paper demonstrates this in action at the IPCC, the main international climate change group, which is nothing but an ideological front for the renewable energy industry that makes billionaires even richer. The IPCC recently had to climb down from its absurd extremist projections about temperature change. The paper demonstrates that the IPCC has routinely taken research papers and plucked the most extreme possible scenario and interpretation from the data. The IPCC then pretends that it is re-publishing the mainstream finding, not the extremist interpretation. (SSRN Paper)
An excellent explanation of the IPCC process and how it is perverted to support the hysterical narrative about climate change is found here. (Pielke Substack)
Hyping extremes is quite common through out the advocacy world masquerading as science. Grift is the driving force of the advocacy science world.
Lancet has a study issued in oct 2025 projecting 10million to 14million pre mature deaths between 2025 and 2030 due to cuts in USAID – near the equivalent to Mao’s great leap forward.
Harvard TH Chan school of public health has a study Epidemiological modeling suggests that reductions in USAID funding led to approximately 600,000 deaths, disproportionately impacting children for just the period March 2025 through Oct 2025 .
Neither study is remotely plausible.
USAID, like many government programs has a lot of grift the flows to the various providers before any actual program services are provided.
Its the same game of grift, whether its climate science or other form of government grants.