American climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on Tuesday announced that she would no longer maintain her influential blog, “Climate Etc.”

“It’s time to declare victory against climate stupidity and move on,” said in her final post. The reelection of President Donald Trump came with an overall shift in the political landscape regarding climate and energy issues. Since then, major media outlets shut down their climate desks, corporations are easing back on emission-reduction targets, and polls consistently show the public rates climate change low on their list of priorities. 

Some figures like Curry who disputed the “climate crisis” narrative — often in the face of vitriol from those who support it — are now saying their efforts paid off and an era of climate hysteria is coming to an end. 

End of an era

Curry became a controversial figure in the climate debate early on when her research conclusions failed to align with the alarmist narrative. She was labeled a “climate denier,” a slur critics direct at those who don’t support the belief that climate change is not just a risk to be managed but an existential crisis demanding the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. 

Curry eventually left what she called the “craziness” of academia to go to work in the private sector. She started her blog in 2010, and it’s been a resource for research and perspectives disputing the dominant narrative ever since. 

She explained on Tuesday that she was shutting it down over the high cost of maintaining it — she spent $16,000 over the last four years — but also because the political landscape has changed. She said while the leaders of climate alarmism haven’t conceded defeat, there are many signs that the world isn’t buying into it anymore. 

“The whole issue has lost its political relevance,” Curry wrote. 

Research shows less climate coverage

Media outlets are spending less time trumpeting stories about climate change, and multiple analyses are finding outlets are responding to a shift in audience interest.  

In February, a report from the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Media and Climate Change Observatory found that global media coverage of climate change decreased 14% in 2025 over the previous year. The lead author of the report attributed the drop in coverage to financial changes in the media business and the Trump administration commanding too much attention. 

“Ongoing political economic headwinds and newsroom consolidation and reductions have contributed to this diminished coverage. Moreover, there is finite news space for competing stories, with the Trump administration flooding the public sphere with news stories across several domains,” University of Colorado professor Max Boykoff said. 

An analysis by the liberal advocacy group, Media Matters, found that television coverage of climate change and global warming is dropping precipitously. Combined, ABC, CBS and NBC had a drop in coverage of 35% in 2025 over the previous year, based on segment hours. 

Another analysis by progressive media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Media found that there was nearly 32% less coverage of climate change in 2025 than there was in 2024, based on searches of online outlets. The study also found that the trend was continuing this year, with a 42% decrease in the first three months of 2026 over the same period in 2021. 

Newsrooms reorganize

Media outlets are also downsizing their climate desks. The Washington Post in February announced it was laying off 300 journalists, which included at least 14 climate journalists, according to anti-fossil fuel activist Sammy Roth, citing unnamed sources. Roth estimates that, following the layoffs, the Post will have five reporters remaining on its climate desk. 

In May, NPR laid off its chief climate editor, Neela Banerjee, and it folded its 10-person climate desk into national coverage. This month, Politico announced that it was folding E&E News and related brands into Politco’s energy and environment coverage. 

Writing in The Western Journal, Dr. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute points out that the Trump administration’s decision to cut federal government subscriptions, including $8 million to Politico, likely played a role in the decisions at Politico and NPR as much as waning audience interest has. But he also argues outlets are responding to audience analytics. 

“By any measure, climate change just isn’t the draw it once was, which is good news for the public whom the media has misinformed and harangued on the need to change their dining, shopping, and travel habits for far too long with false claims that climate change is dooming the planet. That was never true!” Burnett wrote. 

Last gasps or regrouping? 

In her final post, Curry said that the “leaders of the climate alarmism movement have not conceded defeat” and they continue “whining” about the Trump administration and developments in climate science that have retreated from more extreme outlooks on the impacts of climate change. 

There are also journalists at left-leaning publications who remain committed to the narrative as if nothing has changed. This week, a deadly heat wave hit Europe, and outlets like The Guardian are reporting that it is “impossible” without climate change. 

The The Guardian cites the World Weather Attribution, an organization founded by anti-fossil fuel activists and that produces controversial research in service to climate advocacy and plaintiffs suing oil companies for climate change. One climate researcher compared its methodology to the ancient pseudo-scientific practice of alchemy. 

Earlier this month, the Heartland Institute asked Anthropic’s AI model Claude for help brainstorming ways for the organization to brand its climate conferences website. Claude refused, saying that it couldn’t enhance branding of something that “misrepresents climate science.”

“The Heartland Institute is an organization known for its work promoting climate change denial and disputing the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change,” the AI response stated. Artificial intelligence models often rely heavily on Wikipedia, which has received criticism for having a bias toward left-wing views on topics including climate change.  

In some pockets, it appears the legacy alarmist narrative remains heavily entrenched and may cling to life for years to come. Or these items could be indications of a movement that is merely regrouping for when the political environment is more accommodating of its demands. 

With people who have their finger on the pulse of the climate debate like Curry declaring victory, it’s unlikely that alarmists will ever regain the influence they once enjoyed.