Oh Guardian, thou unerring oracle of elite anguish and latte-laced righteousness, what have you conjured this time? A new revelation from the high temple of emotional climatology: climate change is no longer about physics, but “a crisis of justice.” Yes, really. The headline of Friederike Otto’s latest opus in The Guardian shrieks like an undergraduate activist with a bullhorn: “Climate change is not just a problem of physics but a crisis of justice.” Because when your models don’t model reality, and your predictions flop harder than a tofu burger at a Texas BBQ, simply pivot the narrative—from science to sociology.
When in Doubt, Moralize
The opening line is a tour de force in climate sanctimony:
“My research as a climate scientist is in attribution science. Together with my team, I analyse extreme weather events and answer the questions of whether, and to what extent, human-induced climate change has altered their frequency, intensity and duration.
In other words, Otto is in the business of telling us that every flood, drought, or oddly warm Tuesday is your SUV’s fault. Attribution science, for the uninitiated, is the art of retroactively blaming the atmosphere’s every sneeze on Western industry, by way of probabilistic hand-waving wrapped in opaque jargon. What used to be called weather is now “anthropogenic signal detection.”
From Equations to Emotions
The article quickly departs from any pretense of physics, diving into the deep end of social justice with a straight face. Otto writes that early scientists didn’t address these questions not because the models were junk (which they were), but because of a sinister silence born from… wait for it… “colonialism.” I kid you not.
Why grapple with the pesky uncertainties of nonlinear dynamics when you can just call the jet stream racist?
Magical Thinking in the Church of Climate
As always, The Guardian isn’t content to merely spread alarmism—it needs to moralize. The piece does not present testable hypotheses or falsifiable predictions. No, it sermonizes. It’s less a scientific article and more a secular encyclical. Climate policy, per Otto, must now revolve around “inequality,” “justice,” and probably crystal chakras and composting feelings too.
Why stop there? Let’s redefine thermodynamics as a tool of oppression. After all, who’s to say entropy isn’t just a white cis-male construct?
And Speaking of The Guardian…
Ah yes, The Guardian, the newspaper that treats every bout of drizzle as a sign of impending planetary doom and every economic policy as a chance to redistribute guilt. This is the same outlet that warns of “climate collapse” while offering 30% off annual subscriptions in the same breath.
It’s the news equivalent of a street preacher shouting about the apocalypse, then handing you a coupon for organic lentils.
Their entire climate section reads like a steampunk Bible study group—high on drama, low on data. They’re obsessed with “justice” not in the classical sense (you know, crime, evidence, courts), but in the modern performative sense, where “justice” means whatever the loudest graduate student in the room says it does.
Virtue First, Questions Never
So here we are, folks. In 2025, climate science—at least as defined by The Guardian and Dr. Otto—is no longer about testable claims or rigorous skepticism. It’s a morality play. A political campaign. A never-ending guilt-trip wrapped in a rainbow flag and printed on recycled hemp paper.
And the next time a cyclone hits Bangladesh, don’t ask about air pressure or ENSO oscillations. Just nod solemnly and chant the new gospel: It’s a crisis of justice.
Because in the Church of Climate Wokeness, science has left the building—and feelings now run the thermostat.
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
