Opinion by Kip Hansen

This essay was inspired by a phrase used by Ted Nordhaus ( and here ) in his recent  piece at The Breakthrough Journal  titled:  “The Worst Thing About the ‘Climate Crisis’ Is What It Does To Your Brain”.  Nordhaus used the phrase in this context:  

“Anyone looking for academic studies, NGO, or government sources to validate these [ Climate Crisis ] claims will, of course, easily find them, such has been the scale of narrative based evidence making over the last several decades, underwritten by billions of dollars annually in environmental philanthropy. But that literature is shot through with dubious methods, speculative modeling, and wild projections of ostensible correlations between natural climate variations and all sorts of highly overdetermined social outcomes far into the future …”).

Let me try to breakdown that phrase – narrative based evidence making –to create a clear definition of it.

Narrative:  In its simplest form, a narrative is the telling of a story, or the story itself. A narrative is just that, neither good nor bad, it is just a way of talking/writing about something.

But there is another meaning of “The Narrative”.  I have written about Editorial Narratives (and here, and by others here):  my working definition is:  “A mandated set of guidelines for the overriding storyline for any news item concerning a specified topic, including required statements, conclusions and intentional slanting towards a particular preferred viewpoint. A statement from the Editors of ‘How this topic is to be presented.’” 

Editorial Narratives are just one example.  The climate crisis news cabal running out of Columbia University, Covering Climate Now, in conjunction with  the Columbia Journalism Review,  The Nation and The Guardian, held a conference in June of 2022 to establish a National Narrative for Climate Stories for all of its members news outlets. Those 2022 mandated uber-storylines looked like this:

1.  Climate is a crisis.

2.  The Green New Deal is “a plan to mobilize the United States to stave off climate disaster and, in the process, create millions of green jobs” and “the GND has massive public support”. 

3.  Climate is the “biggest story of our time”.

4.  Journalists should push the  “…warning that humanity has a mere 12 years to radically slash greenhouse-gas emissions or face a calamitous future in which hundreds of millions of people worldwide would go hungry or homeless or worse.”  and that  “our civilization today faces the prospect of extinction”.

You may recognize these storylines from reading your local newspaper or  watching TV news or listening to your local public news station.  It is far easier for journalists, print or radio or television, to use a pre-determined storyline than to do real original journalism, easier when told by one’s editor to “write a story about the flooding in Arkansas showing how it is an example of the Climate Crisis”. 

Climate is not the only topic that is subject to mandated Narratives.  One can find examples in every topic in which there is the slightest controversy when vested interests have a stake in policy decisions.

The health field is a minefield of Narratives – mandated stories that medical/health journals want to publish, which desire informs researchers what papers to write (if they wish to get published).  This often looks like “fad science” – research done on “hot topics”. That’s a real thing, of course, but Narratives in medicine and health are far more insidious [”proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects.”].   One current example is “Plastics are bad for health. Plastics are everywhere.  Plastics found in your …. ”. 

These Narratives have become  themselves the story. 

How does this happen? How does The Narrative become the story?

Narrative Based Evidence Making

The editors, newspaper owners, the activists, the advocacy NGOs , federal  government agencies, Soros, Gates, Trump, Musk – anyone or any group with a bit of power or influence with the media – can create a Narrative.  (and, of course, others can equally create a Counter-Narrative).  Let’s ignore all of the multitude of Political Narratives (which I find boring but some find them endlessly entertaining) and stick with  Scientific Narratives – those that touch on and drive the “doing” of science.  (Readers looking for a bit of fun can list current or past Scientific Narratives in the comments).

But just creating a Narrative does not mean it will pass the test of time or catch the its field-wide or public  imagination.  In order to get a Narrative to grow and gain power over the minds of funding agencies, journals, and the general public, it is necessary to engage in Narrative Based Evidence Making.

This process is accomplished in science in a similar way it is accomplished in journalism.  One starts with the Narrative.  Let’s use “Plastics are bad.”  Then one can cast about in one’s lab and say to oneself:  How can I show that “plastics are bad” with my current research?  The current science fad is to “find” microplastics in any- and everything (really, they look for and claim to find nanoplastics – “synthetic polymers with dimensions ranging from 1 nm to 1 μm  or a single micron”).

There are so many sub-Narratives to “plastics are bad” that almost any research that touches on the topic of plastics can readily be transformed, following by the Narrative, into “narrative based evidence” that “plastics are bad”, especially now that there are so many other papers containing narrative based evidence of the ‘fact’.

You see, the Narrative comes first.  Then one creates some evidence to support the Narrative.   Epidemiology is one medical field that is most prone to Narrative Based Evidence Making – and the “plastics” examples are rife, the most recent being “Heart disease deaths worldwide linked to chemical widely used in plastics”.  I won’t bother to rip that paper to shreds – it is worthless, in my opinion, except as an example for this essay.  For more on the ills of epidemiology read or watch Matt Briggs’ series: “The Excesses & Errors Of Epidemiology” – I, II, and III.

Of course, in CliSci (Climate Science ), the vast majority of the “news worthy” science is just this:  the result of Narrative Based Evidence Making.  Think:  World Weather Attribution, an organization created for the sole purpose of Evidence Making (in support of the Climate Crisis Narratives). 

Don’t mistake the usual process of “evidence finding” with the process of “evidence making”.  They are two quite different activities. 

Normal science goes (in an extremely simplified way):

1. Make an observation – see some evidence of something.
2. Ask a pertinent question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction (or by designing experiments or observations to potentially demonstrate that a hypothesis is false – following Hopper.).
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Narrative Based Evidence Making goes more like this:

1. Having been handed a clear mandated Narrative: “X must cause Y” (“Given that Climate Change Could Cause Floods it follows that All Floods Have Been Caused by Climate Change”)
2. Ask the question, “What evidence can I find/make that will support the Narrative?”
3. Create through modelling and statistics, using existing data bases (cherry picked if necessary) or developing purpose-built data bases, evidence that seems to support the Narrative.
4. Publish a paper that asserts [ “to state (something) in a strong and definite way”  ] that your Evidence “proves” the Narrative.
5. Repeat.

How many times have you read or heard “Warmer air can hold more moisture/water” (which is true) used as evidence that some heavy rain event was caused by climate change induced warming? 

Narrative Based Evidence Making often depends on true “factoids” such as that to create so-called evidence for broader, often untrue or wildly exaggerated, Narratives. 

Bottom Lines:

1.  In many scientific fields today, Narrative Based Evidence Making has become the norm, filling scientific journals with papers presenting evidence in support of some mandated and/or preferred larger Narrative.

2.  Narrative Based Evidence Making is a pernicious and pervasive perversion of Science – and should be called out at every opportunity.

3.  Sometimes, it can be tricky and harder to detect. Your Critical Thinking Skills knob must be turned to Full On in self-protection.

4.  Scientists and Researchers must be especially careful not to get caught up in this tempting trap: If I can show evidence supporting “Narrative X”, my paper will find easy publication in a good journal, and my funding will increase.  The alternative being that if I present  evidence that refutes a mandated or popular Narrative, it will end up in the file drawer and my funding will dry up.  

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

I recommend reading Nordhaus’ Breakthrough piece.  You will not agree with some of his assumptions about climate, but his read on the science behind the Climate Crisis is terrific.

Narrative Based Evidence Making is so ubiquitous that is has become to be the [almost] accepted mode of doing science.  There is a lot of follow-on band-wagoning that takes place once momentum builds behind some Narrative.  Not all Narratives are publicly obvious – some are created and promulgated far behind the scenes for reasons and purposes not in the public interest. 

I’d like to read your examples in the comments – either generally or links to specific papers as examples.

If your comment is direct to me for reply, please begin with “Kip –“.

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

Essay by Eric Worrall

The Australian Labor Party has decisively won Saturday’s Federal Election – but support for climate skeptics rose a little.

The Greens;

Greens on track to lose several MPs as independents hold off challenges and gain votes in federal election

Greens suffer setbacks as teal independents Allegra Spender, Zoe Daniel, Monique Ryan and Zali Steggall see off intense campaigns from Liberals, while Nicolette Boele leads in Bradfield

Voters have dealt a significant blow to the Greens, with the minor party on track to lose several MPs – including potentially its party leader, Adam Bandt – and fall short in other electorates that it had hoped to win from Labor, while several teal independents retained their seats with improved margins and others are on track to win seats previously held by the Coalition.

At the Greens’ election night function in Melbourne, the party faithful had largely tuned out of the election results broadcast, as early results predicted Max Chandler-Mather and Stephen Bates would lose their respective seats of Griffith and Brisbane to Labor.

And in the Brisbane seat of Ryan, the future of Elizabeth Watson-Brown – who, with Chandler-Mather and Bates, won their seats for the Greens for the first time at the 2022 election – was unclear, with early results on a knife-edge.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/03/greens-independents-australian-federal-election-results

The lukewarmers had a really bad night – Peter Dutton, the leader of the mainstream opposition, lost his own seat. There is a firm tradition in Australian politics you cannot be party leader if you don’t have a seat in parliament.

Dutton booted from his own seat on night of misery for Liberal Party

By Yashee Sharma

Maddison Leach 10:03pm May 3, 2025

Peter Dutton has lost his own seat of Dickson, which he had held since 2001, in a night of misery for the Liberal Party.

Speaking in Brisbane, Dutton publicly conceded the election and his own seat, saying “tonight’s not the night that we wanted for the Liberal Party or for our Coalition or indeed for our country”.

“We didn’t do well enough during this campaign. That much is obvious tonight and I accept full responsibility for that,” he said.

…

Read more: https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-election-2025-dickson-election-results-what-will-happen-peter-dutton-loses-his-seat-explained/12b52a39-345a-4588-81be-9ea99bc5e4cb

Climate skeptic One Nation had a good night for a minority party, but despite the electoral setback for the greens, the greens still received twice as many votes as One Nation (see above). There is a sliver of a chance One Nation’s gains in the senate could give them a veto vote on some bills, but the senate vote count likely won’t be finalised for weeks.

It could be weeks before Pauline Hanson’s One Nation’s biggest question is answered

By Maddison Leach 11:47pm May 3, 2025

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party has scored more than 600,000 votes in the 2025 federal election as it hopes to increase its Senate representation.

With more than 50 per cent of votes counted, the party appears to have a positive 1.25 per cent swing.

Hanson has yet to comment on One Nation’s results and the biggest question – how her daughter will fare in the election – won’t be answered tonight.

…

Read more: https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-election-2025-results-pauline-hanson-one-nation/9330c797-c311-47e1-b212-0f64741c5f9d

So why did Labor do so well? Despite Labor’s hardline renewable energy stance, the Aussie federal election on 3 May 2025 was a long way from being a climate change election. Even greens didn’t talk much about climate change, they focussed more on world events, housing affordability and their economic plans.

The socialist Labor party won because they gave ordinary Australians a reason to vote for them. They presented a vision of more job security and government funded assistance with cost of living pressures and housing affordability.

Just as Trump’s economic plan to bring down inflation, cost of living and energy costs connected with ordinary Americans, so the socialist Australian Labor Party vision of flinging subsidies and government funded housing at people in need connected with ordinary Australians.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton failed to articulate a coherent competing vision which addressed issues which mattered to undecided voters, and failed to explain why his vision would deliver better outcomes. Dutton’s out of touch campaign missteps, such as his attempt to outflank the incumbents with an emissions reduction plan based on government funded nuclear power plants fell flat because it was badly explained and because the electorate has moved on – cost of living pressure and job uncertainty has driven green issues way down the list of most people’s priorities.

Prime Minister Albanese also successfully played the patriotism card, just as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did in Canada’s recent election. Australia’s Albanese made a big show of standing up to Trump on tariffs. Albanese’s appointment of a US ambassador who said lots of hateful things about Trump may have played into this narrative of standing up to Trump.

Dutton by contrast, instead of meeting this school yard posturing head on, made a weak last minute effort to distance himself from President Trump, which likely did more harm than good by alienating right wing voters whose support he desperately needed.

The leader with the plan to solve high priority problems won the election. It doesn’t matter if the plan is flawed, if those flaws go unchallenged. Nobody else presented a better plan.