Top Climate Research of 2025: An Analysis of the Years Most Viral Papers

1. Introduction: The Divergence of Science and Geopolitics

The year 2025 stands as a watershed moment in the history of anthropogenic climate change, characterized not by a unified global response, but by a widening chasm between scientific clarity and geopolitical regression. As the physical signals of a warming planet became louder—manifesting in record-breaking temperatures, catastrophic glacial melt, and the collapsing biodiversity of the insect world—the political machinery of the world’s largest historical emitter, the United States, ground to a halt and reversed course. This report offers an exhaustive analysis of the climate science literature that defined the public discourse in 2025, based on the annual bibliometric assessment by Carbon Brief. By examining the papers that achieved "viral" status in the media, we can reconstruct the anxieties, controversies, and legal battlegrounds that shaped the year.

The backdrop for this scientific output was grim. Carbon Brief analysis confirmed that 2025 was on track to be the second or third warmest year on record, following the shattered records of 2023 and 2024.¹ This relentless heat was not an abstract statistical anomaly; it was a visceral reality experienced by billions. From the deadly floods in Asia to the searing heatwaves in Europe that claimed thousands of lives between April and September ², the "era of consequences" had undeniably arrived.

Yet, as the atmosphere warmed, the political climate cooled. The return of Donald Trump to the US presidency ushered in a new era of isolationism. The administration’s announcement of a withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—and potentially the IPCC processes—marked a retreat from the global stage.² Domestically, the trends were equally alarming. After years of promising declines, US greenhouse gas emissions rose by an estimated 2.4 percent in 2025.⁵ This surge was driven by a confluence of factors: a 13 percent increase in coal generation due to high natural gas prices, colder winter temperatures necessitating increased heating, and the voracious energy demands of data centers and cryptocurrency mining operations.⁵

In this chaotic environment, scientific papers became more than just academic records; they became cultural artifacts. The papers that captured the media's attention were those that spoke directly to the unfolding crisis, offering explanations for the acceleration of warming, tools for legal accountability, and validation of ecological grief. This report dissects these key studies, organized into four thematic pillars: the debate over warming acceleration, the maturation of attribution science for corporate liability, the quantification of cryospheric collapse, and the documentation of the insect apocalypse.

2. The Pulse of the Planet: Filling the IPCC Gap

In the interregnum between major assessment cycles of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a dangerous "knowledge gap" can emerge. Policy moves at the speed of election cycles, while the IPCC moves at the speed of consensus, often taking five to seven years to produce a report. Recognizing this misalignment, a consortium of scientists led by Piers Forster published Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: Annual Update of Key Indicators of the State of the Climate System and Human Influence in the journal Earth System Science Data.⁶

2.1 The Methodology of Annual Updates

The Indicators paper represents a crucial innovation in climate governance. By replicating the rigorous methodologies of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) but applying them to annual data, the authors created a "living document" that serves as a real-time monitor of the Earth system. This approach allows policymakers to track the "pulse" of the planet without waiting for the next monumental UN report.

The 2024 update, which dominated media cycles in 2025, presented a sobering assessment. The study confirmed that human-induced warming had reached an unprecedented rate. It quantified the "emissions gap," revealing that greenhouse gas emissions were at an all-time high of approximately 53.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) per year over the decade spanning 2014 to 2023.⁶ This figure is significant because it starkly contradicts the narrative of "peak emissions" that many optimists had hoped was imminent. While the rate of increase in CO2 emissions had slowed compared to the rampant growth of the 2000s, the absolute level remained at a record high, meaning the atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping gases continued to climb.⁶

2.2 Deconstructing Radiative Forcing

A critical contribution of the Indicators paper was its detailed decomposition of radiative forcing—the difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing thermal radiation. The authors highlighted a complex interplay of drivers. While CO2 remains the dominant warming agent, the report shed light on the declining role of aerosols.

Aerosols, such as sulfates emitted from burning coal or heavy fuel oil, scatter sunlight and have historically provided a "cooling mask" that offsets a portion of greenhouse gas warming. The Indicators report pointed to reductions in the strength of this aerosol cooling as a contributing factor to the high rate of warming observed in recent years.⁶ This finding is particularly ironic in the context of 2025’s US emissions rise. While the US saw a temporary 13 percent spike in coal generation ⁵, the global trend—driven by air quality regulations in China and Europe—has been toward cleaner air. As we scrub the sky of pollutants, we inadvertently unmask the full ferocity of the greenhouse effect.

The report also emphasized the concept of the remaining "carbon budget." It calculated that 95 percent of the budget consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius had already been exhausted.⁴ In a year where the US—responsible for over 20 percent of historical emissions ⁴—was signaling a retreat from climate commitments, this statistic resonated as a scientific obituary for the 1.5C target.

3. The Acceleration Controversy: Hansen’s Warning vs. The Consensus

If the Indicators paper was the steady voice of the establishment, the paper Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the UN and the Public Well-Informed? by James Hansen and colleagues was the shout that shook the room. Published in Oxford Open Climate Change, this paper was arguably the most controversial and discussed scientific output of 2025.⁷

James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who famously warned the US Congress about climate change in 1988, returned with a provocative thesis: the mainstream scientific community, including the IPCC, was systematically underestimating the speed and severity of global warming.

3.1 The Thesis of Acceleration

Hansen’s team argued that global warming has accelerated significantly since 2010. Specifically, they claimed the rate of warming had increased by more than 50 percent compared to the 1970–2010 baseline.¹⁰ While the 1970-2010 era saw warming of about 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade, Hansen posited that the post-2010 rate was surging well beyond that, driven by a specific and largely overlooked mechanism: the reduction of shipping aerosols.

The central villain in Hansen’s narrative was a well-intentioned policy: the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulation. This rule mandated a drastic reduction in the sulfur content of ship fuel oil, from 3.5 percent to 0.5 percent. The goal was to reduce acid rain and respiratory illness in port cities. However, Hansen argued that this regulation inadvertently shut off a massive geoengineering experiment. The "ship tracks"—bright streaks of clouds formed by sulfate particles acting as cloud condensation nuclei—had been reflecting sunlight back into space. When the sulfur vanished, so did the clouds.

Hansen’s paper quantified this "termination shock," estimating the ship aerosol forcing at roughly 0.5 Watts per square meter.¹¹ In the delicate energy balance of the Earth, this is a massive perturbation. The paper argued that this sudden influx of solar energy, combined with the steadily increasing greenhouse gas burden and a solar cycle near its maximum irradiance, explained the "baffling" temperature spikes of 2023, 2024, and 2025.¹²

3.2 The Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI)

The most compelling technical argument in the Hansen paper concerned the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI). The EEI represents the net rate at which the planet is accumulating energy. In the early 2000s, this imbalance was estimated at roughly 0.5 to 0.7 Watts per square meter. By 2024-2025, Hansen argued it had nearly doubled to over 1.0 Watts per square meter.¹¹

To put this in perspective, an imbalance of 1.0 W/m2 is equivalent to detonating hundreds of thousands of Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs in the atmosphere every day. This energy is primarily absorbed by the oceans, creating a vast reservoir of heat that will dictate the climate for centuries. Hansen’s warning was that the "pipeline" of warming—the warming that is already locked in but hasn't yet manifested in surface temperatures due to ocean thermal inertia—was much fuller than the IPCC models suggested.

3.3 The Clash of Titans: Critique and Media Narrative

The media fascination with this paper was driven by the "clash of titans" narrative. On one side stood Hansen, the prophet of climate science; on the other, the institutional weight of the IPCC and the modeling community.

Prominent scientists expressed skepticism. Dr. Valerie Masson-Delmotte, an IPCC co-chair, critiqued the paper for relying on hypotheses that she argued were not fully consistent with all available observations.⁷ Other groups, including Carbon Brief’s own analysts, suggested that while the IMO regulations did have a warming effect, Hansen’s estimate of its magnitude was likely too high.⁷

Kevin Anderson, another leading climate voice, provided a nuanced perspective that circulated widely. He noted that even with robust data, scientists can arrive at different conclusions based on their implicit assumptions. He argued that whether one accepts Hansen’s "catastrophic acceleration" or the IPCC’s "steady dangerous warming," the policy prescription is identical: immediate and radical emissions cuts.¹³

However, for a public witnessing the extreme weather of 2025—the "deadly" Asian floods, the European heatwaves, and the unexpected warmth of the oceans—Hansen’s narrative of acceleration felt intuitively correct. It validated the sense of unease that the "official" science was too conservative, too slow, and perhaps, as the title suggested, leaving the public "ill-informed."

4. The Era of Attribution: Science in the Courtroom

While Hansen debated the physics of the atmosphere, a different group of scientists was transforming climate science into a legal weapon. The year 2025 marked the maturation of "attribution science"—the field dedicated to linking specific weather events to climate change. Two papers, in particular, fundamentally altered the landscape of corporate liability: Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability by Christopher Callahan and Justin Mankin ⁷, and Systematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors by Quilcaille et al..¹⁵

4.1 From "Global" to "Specific" Liability

For decades, the responsibility for climate change was diffuse. It was a problem caused by "humanity" or "industrialization." This diffusion provided a potent defense for fossil fuel companies in court: how could you prove that their specific emissions caused your specific loss?

The Callahan and Mankin paper, published in Nature, dismantled this defense. The authors developed a "source attribution" framework that allows for the rigorous quantification of a single entity’s contribution to global warming and its downstream economic damages.¹⁶

The methodology is modular and transparent:

1. Emissions Module: It begins by calculating the historical Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions of a specific "Carbon Major" (e.g., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP).

2. Climate Module: These emissions are fed into reduced-complexity climate models to determine the fraction of Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rise attributable to that specific company.

3. Impact Module: Using econometric damage functions, the rise in GMST is translated into specific economic losses in different regions.

Critically, the authors moved beyond using atmospheric concentrations (which are fungible) to using emissions inventories (which are traceable). This allowed them to conclude that "drawing quantitative linkages between individual emitters and particularized harms is now feasible," removing the scientific barrier to justiciability.¹⁴

4.2 Quantifying the "Impossible" Heatwaves

The Quilcaille et al. paper took this framework and applied it to extreme weather events. The authors analyzed heatwaves from 2000 to 2023 and found that emissions from the Carbon Majors contributed to approximately half of the increase in heatwave intensity observed since the pre-industrial era.¹⁵

The findings were statistically damning. The study estimated that the emissions of individual Carbon Majors were sufficient to "enable" the occurrence of 16 to 53 specific heatwaves that would have been virtually impossible in a pre-industrial climate.¹⁵ For instance, emissions linked to Saudi Aramco were associated with making over 50 specific heatwaves at least 10,000 times more likely.¹⁷

This is a profound shift in the burden of proof. It moves the argument from "climate change made this heatwave more likely" to "Company X’s emissions made this heatwave possible."

4.3 The Legal and Political Backlash

The media explosion around these papers was fueled by their immediate relevance to high-stakes litigation. In 2025, the US legal system was flooded with climate lawsuits. States like California, Hawaii, and Vermont were using consumer protection laws and public nuisance theories to sue oil and gas companies for deception and damages.¹⁸

The Callahan and Mankin paper provided the "smoking gun" methodology these plaintiffs needed. It was cited in legal briefs and expert testimonies, bridging the gap between abstract atmospheric physics and concrete tort law.

This scientific progress triggered a fierce political counter-reaction. Recognizing the existential threat these lawsuits posed to the fossil fuel industry, Republican lawmakers in states like Oklahoma and Utah introduced "liability shield" legislation.²⁰ These bills sought to bar civil lawsuits against oil companies unless specific environmental statutes were violated, effectively trying to legislate the science of attribution out of the courtroom. The "Carbon Majors" paper thus became a rare piece of academic literature to find itself at the center of a culture war, cited by plaintiffs as truth and by defendants’ political allies as a target for suppression.

5. The Cryosphere: Quantifying the Great Melt

While the atmosphere warmed and the courts debated liability, the cryosphere—the frozen parts of the planet—was undergoing a catastrophic transformation. The Community estimate of global glacier mass changes from 2000 to 2023, published in Nature by the GlaMBIE Team, provided the most comprehensive assessment of this loss to date.⁷

5.1 The GlaMBIE Consensus

Estimating the mass loss of the world’s 200,000+ glaciers has historically been plagued by methodological disagreements. Some studies used satellite gravimetry (measuring changes in the Earth's gravity field), while others used altimetry (measuring surface height) or direct glaciological observations (measuring snow stakes). These methods often yielded conflicting results, particularly in rugged regions like the Andes and Alaska.

The Glacier Mass Balance Intercomparison Exercise (GlaMBIE) was a massive international collaboration designed to resolve these discrepancies. By pooling data and reconciling methodologies, the team produced a unified consensus estimate.

The results were staggering. The study found that Earth’s glaciers lost an average of 273 gigatonnes of mass per year from 2000 to 2023.²² To visualize this, 273 gigatonnes is roughly equivalent to a cube of water 6.5 kilometers (4 miles) on each side, vanishing every single year.

5.2 Regional Hotspots and Implications

The report highlighted that glaciers are currently a larger contributor to sea-level rise than the massive Antarctic Ice Sheet. The mass loss from glaciers was found to be 18 percent larger than the loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet and more than twice that from Antarctica.²¹ This underscores that while the ice sheets are the long-term existential threat, glaciers are the immediate driver of coastal risk.

The study also identified critical regional hotspots. The most intense losses were recorded in Alaska and the Southern Andes.²² In these regions, the reconciliation of data revealed that previous estimates might have been biased, and the new consensus provided a refined baseline for future projections.

The media coverage of the GlaMBIE paper connected these abstract numbers to the visceral experiences of 2025. With reports of dwindling freshwater resources impacting agriculture and "deadly" floods often exacerbated by glacial meltwater dynamics ², the paper illustrated that the loss of ice is not just a change in scenery; it is a destabilization of the global hydrological cycle.

6. The Biosphere Crisis: The "Insect Apocalypse" Confirmed

Perhaps the most poignant narrative of 2025 was the confirmation of the "insect apocalypse." While physics and politics dominated the headlines, biology provided the year’s most distressing signal of ecosystem collapse. The paper Rapid butterfly declines across the US during the 21st century by Edwards et al., published in Science, captured the public imagination by validating the widespread anecdotal observation that the world is becoming quieter and emptier.⁷

6.1 Quantifying the Decline

The study was a landmark in the use of "big data" for conservation. The authors aggregated data from systematic monitoring programs and citizen science initiatives to analyze population trends for 554 butterfly species across the United States.

The findings were stark: total butterfly abundance fell by 22 percent between 2000 and 2020.⁷ Even more concerning was the loss of diversity; species richness (the number of different species present in a given area) fell by as much as 28 percent in some regions.²³

6.2 Climate Change as the Primary Driver

A critical insight from the Edwards et al. paper was the disentanglement of drivers. Historically, insect declines have been attributed to habitat loss (urbanization, agriculture) and pesticide use. While these factors remain important, the Edwards study pointed a firm finger at climate change as a growing and perhaps dominant driver.

The authors found that species declines were most severe in the warmest and driest parts of the US, particularly in the West and South.⁷ This suggests a "heat stress" mechanism, where rising temperatures exceed the thermal tolerance of insects or desiccate the plants their caterpillars rely on. This finding was corroborated by other 2025 studies, such as research from the University of North Carolina showing insect collapses in "untouched" remote ecosystems where direct human land use is absent.²⁴

6.3 The "Windshield Phenomenon" and Public Grief

The paper went viral because it resonated with the "windshield phenomenon"—the observation that car windshields are no longer splattered with bugs after a long drive. In the UK, the "Bugs Matter" citizen science survey reported a staggering 59 percent drop in insect "splats" over just five years.²⁵

The Edwards paper provided the rigorous academic backbone to this felt sense of loss. Butterflies, being charismatic and visible, served as the "canary in the coal mine" for the broader insect world, including the unloved but vital pollinators and waste recyclers that underpin the terrestrial biosphere. The media coverage framed this not just as a loss of beauty, but as a threat to food security and ecosystem stability.

7. Society and Health: The Human Cost of Heat

The final cluster of high-impact papers in 2025 brought the climate crisis down to the level of the human body and society.

7.1 Epigenetic Aging and Heat

The paper Ambient outdoor heat and accelerated epigenetic aging among older adults in the US ⁷ introduced a terrifying new dimension to heat exposure. It suggested that extreme heat does not just kill via heatstroke or cardiovascular failure; it accelerates the biological aging process at a cellular level.

This research implies that the population-level burden of climate change includes a "hidden tax" of reduced longevity. Even for those who survive the 50°C heatwaves of the future, the stress on their bodies may shave years off their lives. This finding was particularly relevant in 2025, as the US grappled with an aging population and a healthcare system strained by climate-induced disasters.

7.2 Inequality and Adaptation

Another viral paper, Rising temperatures increase added sugar intake disproportionately in disadvantaged groups in the US ⁷, highlighted the intersection of climate change and social justice. The study found that as temperatures rise, consumption of sugary beverages increases—a behavioral adaptation to heat. However, this increase was most pronounced in disadvantaged groups, exacerbating existing health inequalities like obesity and diabetes.

This research underscores that climate adaptation is not just about building sea walls; it is about the mundane choices people make to survive the heat, and how those choices are constrained by poverty.

7.3 The Food System

The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable and just food systems ⁷ continued to be a touchstone in 2025. With the Indicators report showing water scarcity and the Hansen paper predicting accelerated warming, the Commission’s recommendations for a "planetary health diet" (largely plant-based) became a focal point for discussions on resilience. As agricultural yields in the US and Asia faced pressure from the 2025 extremes, the link between what we eat and the stability of the climate became a central media narrative.

8. Conclusion: The Burden of Knowledge

Reviewing the scientific literature of 2025 presents a profound paradox. The science has never been clearer, more granular, or more integrated. We now possess the tools to track the planet’s vital signs annually (Indicators), to attribute specific damages to specific corporate boardrooms (Liability), to quantify the loss of the smallest creatures (Butterflies), and to debate the precise acceleration of the crisis (Hansen).

Yet, the geopolitical reality of 2025 stood in stark contrast to this scientific clarity. As US emissions rose by 2.4% and the country prepared to exit the UNFCCC ⁴, the gap between what science demands and what politics delivers widened into a chasm.

The popularity of these papers in the media suggests that the public is acutely aware of this disconnect. The viral nature of the liability papers indicates a hunger for accountability when policy fails. The fascination with Hansen’s acceleration paper reveals a fear that the official narratives might be too conservative for the reality unfolding outside the window. And the butterfly paper speaks to the collective grief for a natural world that is visibly fading.

As we look toward 2026, the trends established in these papers will likely intensify. The methodology for corporate liability will face its test in the high courts. The debate over aerosol termination shock will spur new research into geoengineering. And the Indicators report will continue to serve as the unblinking eye, recording the pulse of a planet that is being pushed beyond its limits.

In 2025, the scientists did their job. They provided the evidence. The question left hanging in the humid air of the warmest year on record is whether society has the capacity to act on it.

Table 1: Key Viral Climate Papers of 2025 (Carbon Brief Analysis)

Paper Title	Lead Author	Key Scientific Contribution	Media Narrative / Context
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024	Forster, P.	Established annual updates to IPCC AR6 indicators; confirmed 53.6 GtCO2e/yr emissions and declining aerosol cooling.	The "Pulse of the Planet"; filled the knowledge gap between IPCC reports amid US withdrawal from UNFCCC.
Global Warming Has Accelerated...	Hansen, J.	Proposed 50% increase in warming rate post-2010 due to IMO 2020 shipping aerosol reduction; highlighted Earth Energy Imbalance.	The "Clash of Titans"; controversial warning that 1.5C is dead and warming is speeding up beyond consensus.
Community estimate of global glacier mass changes	GlaMBIE Team	Consensus estimate of 273 Gt/yr glacier mass loss; reconciled gravimetry and altimetry data discrepancies.	"The Great Melt"; connected abstract sea-level rise to immediate flood/drought risks in 2025.
Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability	Callahan, C.	Developed "source attribution" framework linking individual company emissions to specific economic damages.	"Polluter Pays"; provided the scientific smoking gun for the wave of state-level climate lawsuits.
Systematic attribution of heatwaves...	Quilcaille, I.	Found Carbon Majors' emissions made specific heatwaves "virtually impossible" to occur without them (16-53 events).	The "Statistical Indictment"; moved attribution from general probability to specific corporate causality.
Rapid butterfly declines across the US	Edwards, C.	Quantified 22% decline in abundance; identified climate change (heat/aridity) as a primary driver over habitat loss.	"The Insect Apocalypse"; validated the windshield phenomenon and ecological grief.

Works cited

1. State of the climate - Carbon Brief, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-focus/state-of-the-climate/

2. Home - Carbon Brief » Clear on climate, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/

3. Weather of 2025 - Wikipedia, accessed January 13, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_of_2025

4. Analysis: World’s biggest historic polluter – the US – is pulling out of UN climate treaty, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-worlds-biggest-historic-polluter-the-us-is-pulling-out-of-un-climate-treaty/

5. U.S. carbon emissions were falling. Why did they go up in 2025?, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2026/01/13/us-emissions-increase/

6. Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence - ESSD Copernicus, accessed January 13, 2026, https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/

7. Analysis: The climate papers most featured in the media in 2025 - Carbon Brief, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-climate-papers-most-featured-in-the-media-in-2025/

8. annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence - Research Collection, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/server/api/core/bitstreams/5d871268-6bec-40c8-88df-402d26591f03/content

9. Global Warming Has Accelerated. Why? What Are the Consequences? - Columbia University, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/Acceleration.12Feb2025.pdf

10. Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, accessed January 13, 2026, https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Global%20Warming%20Has%20Accelerated%20%20Are%20the%20United%20Nations%20and%20the%20Public%20Well-Informed%20-merged-compressed.pdf

11. Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494

12. Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), accessed January 13, 2026, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250001491

13. Has Global Warming Accelerated – a short response to Hansen et al - Climate Uncensored, accessed January 13, 2026, https://climateuncensored.com/has-global-warming-accelerated-a-short-response-to-hansen-et-al/

14. Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability - PubMed, accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40269281/

15. accessed January 13, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40931153/#:~:text=The%20emissions%20of%20the%20carbon,impossible%20in%20a%20preindustrial%20climate.

16. Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability - Maine Legislature, accessed January 13, 2026, https://legislature.maine.gov/testimony/resources/ENR20250505Mankin133909252875493395.pdf

17. Study links world's top oil and gas firms to 200 'more intense' heatwaves - Carbon Brief, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-links-worlds-top-oil-and-gas-firms-to-200-more-intense-heatwaves/

18. 2025: The year in Big Oil accountability | Center for Climate Integrity, accessed January 13, 2026, https://climateintegrity.org/news/view/2025-the-year-in-big-oil-accountability

19. Who should pay billions for climate disasters? California and others target Big Oil — will that work? - CalMatters, accessed January 13, 2026, https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2025/03/climate-change-california-oil-industry-legal-strategy/

20. Red-state Republicans seek climate ‘liability shield’ for fossil fuel industry, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/republicans-climate-liability-shield-fossil-fuel-industry

21. Community estimate of global glacier mass changes from 2000 to 2023, accessed January 13, 2026, https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/community-estimate-of-global-glacier-mass-changes-from-2000-to-20/

22. Community estimate of global glacier mass changes from 2000 to 2023 - ResearchGate, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389134075_Community_estimate_of_global_glacier_mass_changes_from_2000_to_2023

23. Carsten Grupstra (@cgrupstra.bsky.social) — Bluesky, accessed January 13, 2026, https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5fldwr2d2jkwkmjniqokgrm4

24. Insects are disappearing from the last places we thought were safe | ScienceDaily, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250922074956.htm

25. New data suggest that insect life continues to decline, despite a hot summer - Buglife, accessed January 13, 2026, https://www.buglife.org.uk/news/new-data-suggest-that-insect-life-continues-to-decline-despite-a-hot-summer/