Thirty years of continued false climate alarms have sounded since climate change scientists started making their cataclysmic predictions that global manmade pollutants will catastrophically rise global temperatures to the point of killing off crops, mankind and other species – not to mention diminishing habitable land by rising sea levels due to melting icecaps.

Institute for Energy Research (IER) Founder and CEO Rob Bradley, Jr., considers a New York Times (NYT) story by Philip Shabecoff titled “Global Warming Has Begun” as ushering in three decades of continuous prophies that would go unfilled to the dismay of climate change activists around the world.

“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050,” Shabecoff wrote in his June 24, 1988, NYTpiece. “The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

Joining the party

That year, Shabecoff’s alarmism blaming industrialized society was buttressed by two scientists’ bogus predictions – a trend that has seen one ominous climate forecast after another fail … year after year.

“[P]redictions made on that day – and ever since – continue to be falsified in the real world,” Bradley stressed in his report. “The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988 – and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff – constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

The pseudo-science based on the concept of global warming scared mainstream media connoisseurs and easily influenced students attending America’s public schools and universities, who have been taught that crops and people would soon die if society doesn’t adopt ultra-green environmentalists practices and policies to “save the Earth.”

“Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified – and by a lot – not a little,” Bradley pointed out. “Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world. Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees … at the 30-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about 1 degree – and largely holding (the much-discussed ‘pause’ or ‘warming hiatus’) – and remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.”

Surprising to many, during the last full year in office of ultra-green former President Barack Obama, NASA revealed a study proving the opposite of what climate change alarmists have been warning the world about – showing that more carbon dioxide in the air produced by pollutants is actually making vegetation flourish … not die off or shrivel away.

“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years, largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25,” NASA reported in April 2016. “An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.”

Drowning alert downsized

Photos of drowning polar bears clinging onto the last piece of floating sea ice are drawing less fearful compassion today and becoming more satirical as scientific evidence shows that beaches and islands are not disappearing due to rising sea levels – which have been greatly exaggerated.

Bradley pointed to climate scientist Judith Curry, who admitted that manmade pollutants have little to do with sea-level rise, as decades before and after the 1980s have shown increases of just a few inches – and the rate has not been getting noticeably greater of late.

“The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades,” Curry explained. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”

Former Vice President Al Gore – who has made millions as a climate alarmist after serving under former President Bill Clinton – has been one of the major proponents who has sold the world on the notion of rising sea levels.

“The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore,” Bradley noted. “Sea levels could rise 20 feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth – a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.”

Gore’s gross exaggerations didn’t stop in the sea, but extended to the skies.

“In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a ‘point of no return,’” Bradley stressed. “In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated, ‘We have at most 10 years – not 10 years to decide upon action, but 10 years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.’”

But for years, Gore has racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars per speaking event to scare environmentalists and gullible students into believing that his scare tactics are not based in profit, but in scientific fact.

“Time is up on Gore’s ‘point of no return’ and Hansen’s ‘critical tipping point,’” Bradley continued. “But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions – as if they will suddenly be proven right.”

Leaders across the globe championing climate change policies

The world’s most prestigious universities, as well as the United Nations – which Trump has parted ways with on issues from climate change to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – are also behind the climate change movement, as the lead of the U.N.’s climate panel, Rajendra Pachauri, made a “scare-and-hide” prediction the first year of Obama’s second term.

“While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet,” Bradley pointed out. “In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted ‘global disaster’ from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet. Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the U.N. claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away.”

The former leader of the United Kingdom also aired his hysterical panic about climate change.

“In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming,” the climate change cynic recalled. “But 50 days, six months, and eight years later, the Earth seems fine.”

Trump not trumped by Dem climate alarmists

One of the major issues brought up by Democrats at the last presidential election was that Trump would cause the end of the world by not casting billions of American tax dollars into climate change initiatives and projects around the world – an idea championed by Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

“The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II,” Bradley recounted.

Republicans have been blamed with starting a war against the Earth itself.

“World War III is well and truly underway,” the New Republic’s Bill McKibben wrote. “And we are losing.”

Conservatives not on board with climate alarmists have been labeled as being much worse than mere polluters.

“Those opposed to a new ‘war effort’ were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers,” Bradley explained. “Heading into the 2016 election, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson warned that ‘a vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.’ In Mother Jones, professor Michael Klare similarly argued that ‘electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.’”

Regardless, Trump won – to the chagrin of many ultra-environmentalist Democrats.

“Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” Think Progress’ Joe Romm lamented. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.”

This opinion was mirrored by others in the leftist media who complained about the president.

“Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States, [and] we’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown,” Vox’s Brad Plumer warned. “The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption. Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve ‘missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.’ Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding ‘the destruction of organized human life.’”

Bleak future to climate alarmists

Curry complained before United States Congress that climate change has sounded off false alarms and compromised science.

“In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’ the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem,” Curry declared before Congress in 2015. “This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.”

Problems behind climate change science are becoming uncovered at an ever-increasing rate.

“Even DC-establishment environmentalists have worried about a backfire,” Bradley contended. “In 2007, two mainstream climate scientists warned against the ‘Hollywoodization’ of their discipline. They complained about ‘a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data’ – to which Al Gore (the guilty party) responded: ‘I am trying to communicate the essence [of global warming] in the lay language that I understand.’”

Environmental Defense Fund’s Fred Krupp admitted that alarmists need to taper down their volume a few notches.

“There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language,” Krupp voiced in 2011. “In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.”

When all is said and done, it is argued that even though climate change apologetics might not longer be on the rise, it is here to say … at least for the foreseeable future.

“If the climate problem is exaggerated, that issue should be demoted,” Bradley concluded. “Enter an unstated agenda of deindustrialization and a quest for money and power that otherwise might be beyond reach of the climate campaigners.”

He recalled Sen. Tim Wirth’s (D-Col.) statement when the climate alarm originally sounded a few decades ago.

“We have got to ride the global warming issue,” Wirth insisted. “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Bradley commented on Wirth’s call to environmentalists.

“’Right thing’ in terms of economic and environmental policy?” Bradley sarcastically posed. “That’s a fallacy to explode on another day.”


Copyright American Family News. Reprinted with permission.

No votes yet.
Please wait...