“On Behalf of Environmentalists, I Apologize for the Climate Scare”

I know: this seems like a foolish time for TruthNewsNetwork to get worked up about Climate Change and Environmentalism. “After all, there are FAR too many D.C. items that Americans are far more afraid of than Climate Change, right?” The answer to that depends on who you speak to. Greta Thunberg — the young lady who spoke so passionately about Climate Change at the United Nations — would argue that Climate Change is far more important than whether or not President Donald Trump gets re-elected in November. Remember: she refused to even shake his hand at the UN.

But we ARE speaking today about Climate Change. Let’s take a break from all the “he said — she said” in Washington and get some factual and REAL truth about Climate Change. You’ll probably enjoy this, too. Why? Because it debunks ALL of what the environment experts — ALL OF THEM — have been shoving down the throats of every person on Earth for decades! And the “debunker” is not an environmental hack, a flaming Conservative out to get the liberal-left, he’s a learned environmentalist, a scholar, and someone who has spent his life practicing his trade by actually doing all that’s necessary to get facts! (No, I doubt he will be on Al Gore’s Christmas card list this year!)

Let’s get right to it. Listen to what Michael Shellenberger has to give to us about the TRUTH of Climate Change.

Meet Michael

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as an Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  •  The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
  • The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level
  • We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s, I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27, I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years, I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed: “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress

The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land

The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium

100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%

We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities

Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did

“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions

Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon

The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism.

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it. The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever. But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe. Scientific institutions, including WHO and IPCC, have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depend on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications. Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful but an attainable future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

~Michael Shellenberger

Play

What Happens if Trump Loses in November? The “Great Reset”

How would you respond if I asked you, “Is your world one of questions without answers, fear without peace, anger without resolution, and unknowns with no way to know them?” If I asked that to most Americans today, they’d nod their heads in affirmation. I know I feel that way. What’s strangest of all is beginning in January of 2017, all such difficulties disappeared for most of us. Why? Because newly inaugurated President Donald Trump had begun fixing multiple things in the U.S. at once that we didn’t even know were broken. And even with the roadblocks he faced, he was successful at turning around the economy in dramatic fashion, reduced unemployment, and subsequently increased employments to levels never before seen. Additionally, he brought trillions of dollars of manufacturing back to the U.S., supervised the U.S. becoming energy independent and Earth’s largest producer of oil and gas, passed a comprehensive criminal reform bill, and gave Americans individually and even companies tremendous tax cuts. All of this while watching federal revenues climb to unheard-of levels in just three years!

Things were pretty darn good: until February of 2020. (They were good even in spite of his impeachment by the House)

Enter Coronavirus. And the slide down the tunnel of “Uh-Oh” began. And we haven’t stopped sliding as of the end of June.

But, never worry. The likes of John Kerry and Al Gore have a plan to fix everything: Global Warming, Coronavirus, national debt, cultural and religious differences, wrapped in a contrived economy that we in the U.S. will find it to no longer be our concern. I forgot: while we’re doing all that, we’ve got to ante-up a to global government the trillions of dollars necessary to prop-up this pipe dream.

What? You haven’t heard about the “Great Reset?” Although you are probably not familiar with it, it could be well on its way, if the World Economic Forum (WEF) and a bunch of other powerful global organizations have their way. Trust me, the Great Reset is gaining traction faster than a middle-school fashion fad—and this is not a good thing.

In case you don’t care to take my word for it, allow me to introduce the architect of the Great Reset: World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab. “A Great Reset is necessary to build a new social contract that honors the dignity of every human being,” Schwab recently announced.

Yes, Schwab wants out with the old social contract, and in with the new. But, what would Schwab’s new social contract look like?

According to Schwab, “The global health crisis has laid bare the unsustainability of our old system in terms of social cohesion, the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness. Nor can we turn our backs on the evils of racism and discrimination. We need to build into this new social contract our intergenerational responsibility to ensure that we live up to the expectations of young people.” What the heck does any of this mean?

As if his description there wasn’t enough to make you do a double-take, consider this statement from Schwab, “This global pandemic has also demonstrated again how interconnected we are. We have to restore a functioning system of smart global cooperation structured to address the challenges of the next 50 years. The Great Reset will require us to integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose, and action.”

I don’t know about you, but when I hear phrases like “integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose, and action” my internal alarm bells ring louder than Big Ben.

In reality, the “Great Reset” is just another attempt at a global government. And a global government is a farce. There are 195 sovereign countries in the world. It is laughable, not believable, to expect that 195 countries, accounting for more than seven billion people, would ever agree to a Great Reset.

The world is full of nations with vastly different cultures, political philosophies, and social-economic systems. Have we not learned over the past few centuries that these countries would rather govern themselves than be under the thumb of a faraway, big, unresponsive dragon of a government? Have we not learned that local government, which is closest to the people, and most responsive to their needs and unique circumstances, is vastly superior to a far-off, out-of-touch, bloated worldwide governing body?

The Great Reset, if ever enacted, would turn back the clock to the pre-Enlightenment era; to a time when individual freedom was more a wish than reality and elites like Klaus Schwab were unquestioned. The Enlightenment changed the world for the better. The “Great Reset” would set the world back centuries and thus should be resisted at all costs.

Understand This…

None of the noise during this year that turned into chaos and then morphed into an impeachment, a pandemic, and now social and racial protests and riots was accidental. “Oh, Dan. That’s just another conspiracy theory!” Rethink that, folks. There are too many moving pieces that have been craftily placed in their appropriate places at the exact time necessary to keep the fires of destruction burning brightly for this to be just “another strange coincidence.” If something looks too real to be unreal, you can always bet it’s real. And this is real.

The idea of a global government has been the dream of a group of world elitist individuals and governments for centuries. Their thought in hypothesizing this has always been, “With just one government, one economy, one set of laws and rules, the World would move smoother, simpler, quicker than it ever will with 195 different countries, people, and governments each trying to function all by themselves. One entity is the best solution for every ill for every person on Earth!” Of course, all who believe that think they are the individual and the group that is best suited to operate such a government.

In the U.S., we heard the whispers before Obama’s election that he was the globalist that would be anointed to lead such a transition to a globalist society. His pandering to the big names in Europe and the Middle East was a clue something like that was being planned. Then, John Kerry and Al Gore jumped onto the bandwagon and became Obama’s messengers to the Rothschilds of France and Switzerland, Prince Charles in the U.K., and the others who get together each January in Davos, Switzerland to plot their path. Their specific plans? One world currency and economy, Climate Change, a single worldwide military, and a globalized education system. Taxation would be from the Top Down and would include all nations. Every aspect of life in America as we know would be obliterated. That would be necessary to make it happen.

Many feel that the massive amount of government debt for every nation would prevent the implementation of such a model. Others think (and I fall into this category) the “closer” to make such a reset would be if “they” — whoever “they” are — would offer each nation the cancellation of their entire national debt if they participate in such a platform of one global government.

Summary

Know this: This coming January, regardless of who is in residence in the White House, global elites by the thousands will board their private jets from every quarter on the Globe to make their way to Davos, Switzerland to drink, brag, and pontificate about all that’s best for the World and who should pull it all together as the leader of such a utopia. They’ve had this same conversation numerous times over several centuries. But the stars have never aligned to facilitate such a radical and necessarily universal transition by so many countries. I cannot imagine even trying to get Xi Jinping of China on the same page as Prince Charles of the U.K., let alone Kim Jong Un with Japan’s President to agree on some type of unified entity for Japan that includes everybody on the Korean Penninsula.

Does this mass of Autocratic globalist wannabees think they could possibly pull this off? They very well might be successful — “If” this one thing happens: it will NEVER occur with Donald Trump at the helm of the United States.

These globalists know that. Why do you think there is such a concerted effort on every front to discredit him, his policies, his considerable achievements for the American people, and his plans for even more significant achievements in a second Trump term?

They MUST remove Donald Trump from office to allow any possible transition to a Globalist structure even to get started.

I won’t waste your time and start naming more names. Just imagine for a moment if something like was happening, who in power in the United States would be the likeliest of individuals who are fighting so hard to remove Donald Trump. Every person that comes to your mind is likely to be a part of it. And there are certainly just as many again who are foaming to dump this President who has done little but rain on their parade. Obama was to lay the groundwork. Hillary was to move it forward in transition. Who was to take the torch from Hillary? We’ll never know because Donald Trump destroyed their grand scheme.

Am I certain of all this? There are few things involving our government, of which I am certain. In this, just as I have poured it out to you, I cannot honestly say I’m certain of every piece of this plan. But what I am certain of is that such a utopian worldwide concept has long been just a dream and that are thousands of very powerful, very wealthy, and very politically connected individuals that certainly feel they can make this a reality.

We lowly plebes will be forced to stand on the sidelines, hope and pray for our nation, and trust God to thwart the evil schemes of these evil people and “Keep America Great.”

Play

Climate Change: It’s A HOAX!

Here we go again: Climate Change. One thing we’ve learned since the 2018 mid-term elections if we didn’t already know it: Climate Change concern on the part of most of those on the Left is real — and it’s dramatic. The P.S. to that is that for a generation now, Leftist educators in every country on Earth have been teaching our children that Climate Change is not only real, but that is also an existential threat to the future of all mankind. And our kids believe it!

Where have we been, Mom and Dad? Our kids (and my grandkids) are hearing this everyday from those to whom we have entrusted the hearts and minds of our most prized assets — our children — only to now find out that this religion of Climate Change has been shoved down their throats from those in what was formerly one of the most revered careers any person could choose: Education. We trusted them, and they taught OUR kids what their Mom’s and Dad’s from the 1960s era were taught by radicals that though were few in number, preached a magnetic message. How can we forget the Vietnam War protests, the Free Love movement, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn bombing police stations, sit-ins and the protesters killed by police at Kent State University? Now that it has been exposed to us, it all makes sense. Or does it?

16-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden set the Climate Change world on fire with the anger, certainty, and confidence in her speech to the United Nations. She has in her native Sweden been a climate change activist for some time, missing school on Fridays as her personal protest to attend various climate change events in Sweden.

The 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, who set sail from Plymouth, England, on Aug. 14, was greeted by cheers, chants and singing as her silver sailboat, the Malitzia II, cruised past the Statue of Liberty through choppy waves and rain to drop anchor in Manhattan’s yacht harbor before her UN speech.

Thunberg, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, was named one of Time Magazine’s most influential teens of 2018. She has set the Climate Change world on fire!

But, it’s a hoax!

Hmmm…….

Wait, do I know something that no one else knows? Or are climate change loyalists deluded? Are they going down the wrong path?

Several days ago, TruthNewsNet.org published a list of about 41 climate change predictions made over the past few decades. Every one of those predictions was wrong: not partially wrong, not almost wrong, flat out “wrong.” The truth is, there are far more than those we published. At latest count, 71 climate change predictions were made since the 1960s, and not one of them has come true.

No, we’re not going to exhaust you by listing them all and giving you their details. That’s all immaterial. There are a few “absolutes” that we need to express before moving on.

They shove report after report in our faces that have been prepared by pro-environmental “experts.” Some of those experts are actually scientists, but most of those “experts” are making predictions and conclusions based on “obvious and natural outcomes that we see now and have seen play out in nature,” concluding if those happened then certainly the natural results of the same factors that are only more intense will produce the same results but be worse.

Let me ask an important question: where does all this go in days and years ahead? How serious is it — Climate Change? Should we join-in the movement? And if we do not, what message does that send to our children?

The Truth

Zealots have made Climate Change more than any environmental issue. It’s become environmental, social, political, and economic in nature. Few things in our lives cross such a vast spectrum of life. The zealots know that. They also know that Science is inconclusive at best on the matter, and are using that to drive a primarily political agenda. They are hell-bent on “Power!”

Environmental issues are indeed serious — at least those that we can control. We can certainly control pollution. There are billions of pounds of waste that blot the landscape of the U.S. and other countries around the world that could be prevented, at least in part. We can lessen the impact on the environment of caustic elements and materials that commercial production now spew into the atmosphere 24/7, like factories, mills, and industrial plants. We can continue to find new types of renewable energy, get those online, all to help reduce damage caused by fossil fuel production. We can be successful at all of these and more. But even so, we cannot take control and operate the Earth’s environment. And anyone that says we can is trying to perpetrate a hoax.

The questions that are asked so often by those who are not sold out to Climate Change are “How can we afford the obvious staggering expense necessary to fund real Climate Change? Who can and who is going to take responsibility for that process? Who is going to devise the process? How long will it take? And what are the known expected results?

Let’s try to answer those:

  • Can we afford it? I’m not a scientist, but I something of a business economist. I do not know all of the factors that must go into determining an expense and if it’s affordable. But based on the little we know and that the Climate Change advocates already are certain of, we simply cannot afford the cost. For the U.S., the initial cost estimates are $10 trillion a year — which is three times the U.S. total Gross Domestic Product. In other words, the U.S. would be required to produce the exact same revenue as being produced today and add twice that amount each year, just to pay for Climate Change. That doesn’t include the current normal operating budget of the U.S.
  • Who would take responsibility for the project? Conventional wisdom is the United Nations. God forbid we would empower and trust the UN with so much of American money to spend on this or any other project! The United Nations is perpetually racked with fraudulent financial event after another: graft and corruption are rampant. And the U.S. has very little sayso over what the UN does. That would mean immediate failure.
  • Who will devise the process? Scientists from numerous countries have provided massive amounts of data supporting Climate Change. Of course, there are Scientists from numerous countries that have provided massive amounts of data discounting Climate Change. Who’s right? Who knows! The problem about “process” is that there being no real consensus on whether or not there really is anything we can do that can actually impact Climate Change. At best, no matter what these scientists say, their conclusions are conclusions not made from actual facts but are made from opinions drawn from a certain set of data facts, knowing all the while there are exactly opposite opinions from scientists based on another certain set of data facts. Knowing that, who should be tasked for the job?
  • Finally, there really are not any known expected results. There are hopes and projections made, but there are no known results.

Summary

Knowing all this, how can we launch what would be the most exhaustive, most time consuming, most expensive project in human history? No one knows how long it would take, even if mankind garnered enough proven factual information to justify doing so. And we certainly cannot afford to fund it — at least not in current world economic circumstances.

Let me ask YOU a question: knowing all this, and especially knowing that it would be impossible to do, why do the Climate Change advocates still push forward to initiate it? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking through that, and can only reach one conclusion: to take control of every part of such a process would necessitate controlling the entire political, economic, and industrial sectors of every country involved! Think about it: the necessary resources are not available without a combination of numerous if not every world country to assist in planning, implementing and operating and its funding.

Oh, there would be an absolutely necessary bi-product of this process: Power — total and unilateral power that would be given by all to some ruling entity.

Do you think I’m kidding? Do you think I’m trying to scare you? Nope. Can you think of any other way to get such a monstrosity created and put into operation? There’s never been anything like it. Doing it would require massive power to accomplish.

I’m not the first to think through and reach this result. But here’s the caveat: I’m certain that many of the leaders in Climate Change are way ahead of the majority of world citizens who have signed-on. These leaders know it will never happen; know it’s impossible, and probably know it’s not necessary. It simply will not work.

What happens then? They’ll have power — massive power — and will be in control of multinational economies, politics, government, and social functions. That’s a utopia!

Don’t laugh at me: George Orwell was thought by many to be a blathering idiot when he penned 1984. But much of what he predicted in his novel came true and, in fact, some came true before January 1 of 1984!

Play

Climate Change: It’s a Religion!

Yep, it certainly is. Originally it was a social and political cause, but no more. It’s a religion.

That shouldn’t surprise you. With the latest numbers showing that a large majority of Americans than ever do not affiliate themselves as religious, it seems only natural they’d replace religion with something that commands as much attention, devotion, and fervor as religion. Enter Climate Change.

Don’t dismiss this premise just yet. NBC has actually set up online a site for those who have “sinned” regarding not initiating or ignoring the climate change “rules” a place for them to chronicle their repentance. Some of the confessions are hilarious:

  • ”I keep my home thermostat at 75 in the Winter and 55 in the Summer. Deal with it, Hippies!”
  • ”I need to recycle more, especially since I drink 40 bottles of water a week. But the recycling truck only comes by my house on the day that I sleep in.”
  • ”I use half a roll of toilet paper when wiping.”
  • ”I run my AC 24/7. I’m not going to sweat to appease this climate religion.”
  • “I don’t do anything for the environment. I don’t care.”

Some of these are hilarious. But I think NBC may have it on something: while religious membership in the U.S. has plummeted, it appears that the religion of Climate Change is growing.

The two have much in common. Most religions are based on unscientific facts. Climate Change advocates although they claim to base each of their claims on specific scientific facts, they too cannot honestly claim so.

There certainly are a large number of scientists who claim to have factual evidence supporting climate change, there are just as many scientists who present a different set of facts disproving what the Climate Change proponents allege.

In the spirit of transparency and in the spirit of many in the U.S. leading Americans down a path of forgetfulness of American history, we have researched to find the truths regarding Climate Change that scientists have offered-up to Americans accompanied by facts that have been debunked in a dramatic way. What’s that “dramatic way?” They did not happen at all. In fact, they’re still waiting on them!

Climate “Doomsday”

Los Angeles Times, 1967

It is already too late for the world to avoid a long period of famine, a Stanford University biologist said Thursday. Paul Ehrlich said the “time of famines” is upon us and will be at its worst and most disastrous by 1975. He said the population of the U.S. is already too big, that birth control may have to be accomplished by making it involuntary and by putting sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water, and the Roman Catholic Church should be pressured into going along with routine measures of population control.

The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970

Air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century if the population continues to grow and the Earth’s resources are consumed at the present rate, a pollution expert predicted yesterday. James P. Lodge Jr. also warned that if the current rate of increase in electric power generation continues. The demands for cooling water will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States.

Washington Post, July 9, 1971

Dr. S.I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that “In the next 50 years, the fine dust that Man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees. If sustained over several years — five to 10 — such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”

Brown University Dept. of Geological Sciences, Dec. 3, 1972

Letter to the U.S. President: “Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you in the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.”

The Guardian, January 29, 1974

Worldwide and rapid trends towards a mini Ice Age are emerging from the first long term analyses of satellite weather pictures. This appears to be in keeping with other long-term climatic changes, all of which suggest that after reading a climax of warmth between 1935 and 1955 world average temperatures are now falling. But the rate of increase in snow and ice cover is much faster than would be expected from other trends.

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974: “Another Ice Age?”

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in part of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst floodings in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.

The New York Times, July 18, 1976

“The Cooling,” writes Stephen Schneider, a young climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO, reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book ” The Genesis Strategy.” His warning was th.t world food reserves are an insufficient hedge against future famines, has been heard among the scientific community for years. But Schneider had decided to explain the entire problem, as responsibly and accurately as he can, to the general public, and thus has put together a useful and important book.

Bullet Point Timeline Items Alleging U.S. and World Climate Change

  • In 1980, a story titled “Acid Rain Kills Life in Lakes” was published in the Noblesville Ledger (Noblesville, IN). But 10 years later, the U.S. government program formed to study acid rain concluded: “Acid rain no environmental crisis.”
  • January 5, 1978, the New York Times published a story titled ‘No End in Sight’ to 30-Year Cooling Trend.
  • James Hansen of NASA in the Miami Herald June 24, 1988, said this: “It is time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here. Our climate model simulations for the late 1980s and the 1990s indicate a tendency for an increase of heatwave drought situations in the Southeast and Midwest United States,” he testified. The last really dry year in the Midwest was 1988, and recent years have been recorded wet.
  • The Canberra Times on September 26, 1988, published this: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover the Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years, according to authorities. The Environmental Affairs Director, Hussein Shihab, said an estimated rise of 30 to 50 centimeters in the next 20 to 40 years could be catastrophic for most of the islands, which were no more than a meter above sea level. “But the end of the Maldives and its 200,000 people could come sooner if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.”

Climate Change in the 2000s

The Guardian February 21, 2004

“Britain will be ‘Siberia’ in less than 20 years.” According to a secret government report, Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine, and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

Associated Press, 2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013

On December 14, 2008, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted the North Polar Icecap would be completely ice-free in five years. As reported on WUWT, Gore made the predictions to a German TV audience at the COP15 Climate Conference.

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2016

An ongoing U.S. Department of Energy-backed research project led by a U.S. Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 — 84 years ahead of conventional model projections. The project, based out of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School’s Department of Oceanography, uses complex modeling techniques that make its projections more accurate than others.

May 14, 2014, French Foreign Minister: “500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos”

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, “climate chaos.” Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid “climate chaos.”

2019: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us, are looking up, and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

Summary

Honestly, I could continue to give headline after headline, quote after quote, excerpt after excerpt of the dire predictions of the end of life on Earth as we know it due directly to climate change. “Climate Change” has been known as a new “Ice Age, Earth Scorching, Permanent Flooding, and Armageddon.” You take your pick: they’re all about the same thing.

Yes, scientists are quoted time after time. Yes, they are quick to produce data to back up their claims. But, oddly, there are just as many (if not more) scientists who are just as educated, just as knowledgeable, who have just as much data to support their findings that plainly state the other side’s scientists have it wrong. Who’s right?

I won’t argue that point. But I think there’s one thing we should all mutually agree: though there is science on both sides, there are examples to support allegations of both sides, there are current and past weather occurrences which “should” prove there’s something up. But all that they prove is that weather and climate change — constantly. It further proves that hard, 100% facts do not support an absolute version of those on either side. And to believe the Earth’s about to , Climate Change advocates are forced to rely on one thing and one thing only to support their basis: Faith.

Faith is pretty much a religious term. And as defined in the Bible in the New International Version it states this: Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Climate Change zealots have turned their beliefs into a virtual religion! To commit oneself to it they must go totally all-in. No, they’re not people who believe that pollution is destroying Earth as we know it. Most people on Earth believe that pollution is horrible, takes a horrific toll on our World, and certainly can be if not eliminated, dramatically reduced by people. But that’s not enough for the zealots.

Adherent religious people go all-in on their beliefs. Most people understand and accept that they do that, and most people believe many religious folks take their beliefs too far.

I believe we have climate change all the time and every year. Weather is always unpredictable, can be devastatingly dangerous, and is extremely difficult to predict and deal with in a scientific manner. I believe Climate Change is in that same class.

We must diligently work to reduce our pollution. We must work diligently to develop different types of energy that will allow us to depend less around the World on fossil fuels. But we cannot do that by eliminating the usage of fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is here, it’s created a worldwide industry that supports billions of people and the economies of more than 100 countries. Science has led us through constant innovation to the reduction of pollution from fossil fuel by over 70%. And we can do better.

Solar energy, battery power, wind energy creation are up and coming industries. They’re still in development stages to make commercially viable. We need to keep pushing forward in developing and improving those energy sectors while at the same time finding new alternative energy sources. But while doing so, we cannot and must not destroy the energy platforms we have in place now worldwide. It’s financially and fiscally impossible. And it’s just plain stupid!

Many on the far-left politically have led the U.S. into an all-out war to do away with fossil fuel — not with facts, but with the emotion akin to a religion. That’s dangerous. Why? Not solely because of their purpose — making fuel less dangerous to the environment IS admirable — but because they’re preaching an “all-or-nothing” policy leaving us no real alternatives. And that’s what has happened throughout U.S. history in religion.

The sad thing is that their zealous attitudes and pretentious threats and demands make their idea far less palatable to most Americans. I encourage all to work on becoming more environmentally conscious in everything we do. Promote and support alternative energy research and development as you can. But please stop the demonization of fossil fuel and all who work in the industry and all that use fossil fuel energy. Help us to all amicably work together for the common cause of keeping our environment clean.

And, by the way, Al Gore famously proved to us all that “the World’s gonna end in ten years” proclamation he made more than ten years ago was a bogus fear tactic. We don’t need to go in that direction with predictions. I for one would be more open to hearing a scientist or some scientists create an environmental model to simply clean up our environment. They need to leave off the ending two words they continually slap us in the face with: “Or Else!”

Play

Is Climate Change Real?

“Another” climate change analysis has been released. They do one each year. With its release come the questions again: can we believe what’s in the report? Is climate change real? And as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez maintains, is the World over in 12 years because of climate change IF we don’t do something?

Activists tend to exaggerate the impacts of climate change while underestimating the costs of tackling it. The reception to the new climate assessment was instructive. The report largely attempts to remain soberly scientific and follows the even more careful global report by the United Nations’ climate science panel, known as the IPCC.

Sadly, accurate science doesn’t make for good television; predicting the end of times does. Among many others, widely quoted climate scientist Michael Mann talked up the report to NPR and CNN, saying its predictions are already borne out in today’s “unprecedented weather extremes.”

Actually, the assessment and science tell a different story:

  • “Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”
  • On flooding, the assessment accepts the IPCC’s finding, which “did not attribute changes in flooding to human influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration or frequency.”
  • Even more dramatic was CNN’s headline, screaming that “climate change will shrink [US] economy” by 10 percent, a figure also repeated on The New York Times front page.
  • Actually, the UN’s climate scenarios envision US GDP per capita will more than triple by the end of this century, so this 10 percent reduction would come from an economy 300 percent larger than it is today. A slightly smaller bonanza, in other words. But the 10 percent figure is itself dodgy. It assumes that temperatures will increase about 14 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This is unlikely. The US climate assessment itself estimates that, with no significant climate action, American temperatures will increase by between 5 and 8.7 degrees. Using the high estimate of 8.7 degrees, the damage would be only half as big, at 5 percent. But even the 8.7-degree warming estimate is unrealistically pessimistic. This stems from an extreme high-emission scenario that expects almost the entire world to revert to using massive amounts of coal: a five-fold increase from today. That, in turn, assumes a much higher amount of fossil fuels than are realistically available for use, according to one study. Another study likewise found the scenario “exceptionally unlikely.” So, even a 5 percent reduction in the size of the American economy only follows from picking unlikely worst-case scenarios.
  • Two-thirds of the purported 10 percent damage to the economy comes from just one category: heat deaths. While it is true that more people die when it is unusually hot, it is not true that lives are shorter in hotter places. That’s because people adapt. And studies of migrants show people do so very quickly, within weeks. Forecasting that the temperature-mortality relationship in the US would remain constant over a century is ludicrous. This assumes that even if temperatures were to increase by 14 degrees, people would die in masses, ignoring the fact that people have been shown to adjust over time to temperature changes. Then, too, over the 80 years until 2100, people can make many additional changes that reduce this risk, from getting air conditioners to changing how they build structures. So, the well-reported idea that warming will shrink the economy by 10 percent disregards huge economic growth, assumes twice the damages of the worst-case temperatures the report itself expects and even then only finds such high costs stemming almost exclusively from easily preventable heat deaths.

The Cost?

While activists overstate the costs of climate change, they suggest its reversal is simply a matter of political will. In fact, there are significant costs to climate action: It often involves replacing relatively cheap, efficient fossil fuels with still-uncompetitive green-energy sources. Climate economist William Nordhaus has shown that a globally coordinated and gradually increasing carbon tax could cut temperature rises to 6.3 degrees from 7.4 at a cost of $20 trillion in lost productivity, but more than pay for itself by lowering climate costs. But his requires a very well-designed, coordinated global policy. In the real world, climate policies are typically less effective and much costlier.

Nordhaus shows that more ambitious policies like the Paris Agreement target of 3.6 degrees would cost some $134 trillion, much more than the associated climate benefits. Such prescriptions for climate change are worse than the disease.Yes, we need to speed up the transition from fossil fuels by investing in green R&D. Even so, reporting on climate change needs to be grounded in reality. Exaggeration is understandable but dangerous, because it risks wasting resources on the wrong policy answers, and gives proponents of climate change a political football to throw into conversations and studies which seems to muddy the waters of actualities.

“Experts” Say…

It seems like “experts” on climate weigh-in left and right on the topic. Have you notice their doing so is cyclical? It is almost as if nothing in climate actually happens unless and until an expert makes a new blockbuster prediction. Al Gore started it, but it hasn’t happened yet and other “experts” don’t think it ever will. (More from Al Gore later)

Co-founder of environmental organization Greenpeace Patrick Moore said recently that the climate change crisis driving much of liberal politics today “is not only fake news. It’s fake science.”

Moore also wonders why people would be worried about global warming: “A little bit of warming would not be a bad thing, for myself being Canadian.”

Moore bounced back into the climate change debate in an online feud with New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after he blasted her Green New Deal for being not ambitious but ridiculous. 

“Well, it’s a silly plan; that’s why I suggested she was a pompous little twit, twit meaning silly in the British lexicon,” Moore said, adding, “She really rubbed me the wrong way when she said she’s ‘the boss’ because she can make up a proposal that’s completely ridiculous, and nobody else did.”

Moore, who now sits as a director on the CO2 Coalition, a group of American and Canadian scientists who refute man-made climate change, says carbon dioxide is “the main building block of all life” and that it is good for the environment. “There is nothing to be afraid of.”

He doesn’t deny climate change. “Of course climate change is real: it’s been happening since the beginning of time but it’s not dangerous and it’s not created by people … a completely natural phenomenon.”

Moore questioned why so many scientists who promote a climate change crisis receive “perpetual government grants,” insist “the science is settled and say people like myself should just shut up. On the other hand, they keep studying it forever as if there’s something new to find out.” The former Greenpeace director says the organization has been “hijacked by the extreme left.” 

Getting back to the Green New Deal, Moore insisted the plan is a recipe for catastrophe: “You cannot do agriculture for 8 billion people, produce the food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels.”

Global Warming Predicitons that Failed

There have been global warming and climate change predicitons made by purported experts and scientists for years. Dozens and dozens of them have never occurred, but their failure to materialize has been lost on members of the media who initially preached those to us but never mentioned the reasons for their failure to predict accurately.

Chief of among the global warming warners was former Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore. I’m not certain how he became a climate expert, and climate financial guru, or even a soothsayer or where he got his license. But coming from the guy who once claimed to be responsible for inventing the internet, his doing so is not too surprising. He has even released a couple of climate change movies which leftists ate up with their support. After all, he’s a Democrat. And left-leaning entertainment experts love Al Gore. Al Gore was certainly in the faces of all Americans with his earth-ending predictions. And he literally warned us against allowing our personal climate-changing habits to end the World. But things didn’t work out for Al. But so far, they’ve worked out pretty well for Mother Nature.

12 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18
years.

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3
hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10.The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

Summary

The arrogance of Man is so obvious it blinds most. Are we so naive or illiterate to think that anything we could possibly do would be sufficient to make a significant difference in the climate of this planet? Do we honestly feel we could do something so drastic, so devastating that would actually destroy Earth in just a bit over a decade? THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS!

Although we are far from being the smallest country on the planet, we’re certainly not the largest either. What things regarding the environment are just a drop in the bucket of what scientists tell us will turn Earth into another Jupiter or Mars.

How much of what we see today regarding those evolutionary changes that would simultaneously occur as our climate changes have we witnessed the last 50, 60, 70, or even 80 years? Certainly the climate changes. But it’s almost as if Mother Earth was getting a few chuckles at climate experts and their predicitons. I remember the Ice Age predictions that were rampant in the early 1990s. I remember the Global Warming predictions. Of course we hear everyday the new climate change folks scolding us about carbon emissions. Do you know how the United States carbon emissions have changed over the last couple of decades?

 

 

 

 

 

 

This bar chart may be difficult to read because of its size. But just glance across the top. Since the early 1990s, the U.S. carbon emissions on which climate change experts base ALL of their dire predictions have virtually been flat. In fact they are trending down! And this happened while the U.S. population has swelled 33%!

If you ask most people on the street they would say that the U.S. has done a pretty good job taking care of our environment.

Don’t get me wrong: taking care of the resources we have been given is a critical thing. All Americans need to be more responsible for the ways in which we can help do just that. However, alarmists have through decades continued to forecast the destruction of Earth through Man’s refusal to fix the environment. They’ve even been so naive as to predict specific times for that destruction to occur. And they’ve been wrong every time.

A thought for consideration: where do the statistics originate on which climate change experts base their predictions? “Computer models.” What are those models: mathematical equations (algorithms) that are manually prepared by “experts.” What determines the substance of each? The opinions of those who prepare them. Are we so naive as to think a mathematician’s personal and political views are not going to impact the data process they prepare? And the science of climate change as we have seen is NOT accurate, NOT factual, and is ALL opinion.

Is is smart for everyone to simply swallow predictions of these experts that (if we follow their conclusions) will dramatically change the content and directions of every part of our lives knowing every one of their cataclysmic predictions have failed miserably in the past? And their conclusions demand we permanently alter our way of existence.

Climate change specialists, Leftist politicians, and the Mainstream Media find it mesmerizing to perpetuate their climate change theories in the minds of Americans. Their doing so keeps the sob story alive. Who in the U.S. is willing to roll the dice on meat and carbohydrates in the name of  climate change?

To finalize this story, who are those experts that over and over tell us “The Sky is Falling…The Sky is Falling?” Where is the incontrovertible science that supports that hypothesis? I’ll answer that: There is none!

And there’s on little thing they forget to tell Americans: more than half the time they make weather conditions — like the ones we see in the early evening news shots — THEY ARE WRONG!

Are we going to roll the dice to pay for a government to take all of our dollars and cents to end climate change? If so, how will Americans transport themselves? Who will we feed them? How will we transport that food without fossil fuel? How can they possibly be fed without oil, carbon products to undergird production.

 Yes, it is complicated. And, no, we don’t have an absolute. But one thing we DO know: For certain if the U.S. implements programs like the “Green New Plan” crafted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we will immediately run out of money. THIS NATION CANNOT EXIST (nor can any other) without the capability to buy or barter for those things you need to survive. “NO MONEY” certainly means the Green New Deal cannot survive, nor would we.

Can we make it better? Sure. Should we make it better? Absolutely. You won’t hear that from Socialism supporters. Well, we CAN make it better according to Ocasio-Cortez, but we must stop cows from farting first!