Judging by a handful of recent reports regarding the climate, it’s been a rough week for for America’s mainstream global warming alarmists.
The Daily Caller over the weekend pointed out that “climate scientists” and the environmental activists often signing their paychecks have been telling us for at least three decades that humanity is on the verge of extinction brought on by man-made global warming.
Today, our coastal residents are supposed to be living under water and other areas should be becoming increasingly uninhabitable because of global warming sparked famine and natural disaster.
“Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster,” The DC notes. “Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.
“This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.”
One of the most dire warning of impending doom came 25 years ago when 1,700 scientists signed a letter claiming that the years ahead would be filled with famine and fiery death if the developed world didn’t slow the growth of capitalism in an effort to curb worldwide heating. This year, the same Union of Concerned Scientists, released a second letter with many of the same yet unrealized predictions for the years ahead. And though the global temperature hasn’t increased since the original letter was written, the number of signatories to the apocalyptic prediction has. The 2017 version of We’re all gonna die because hot, dirty captialism has 15,000 signatures.
Read some more unfulfilled global warming warnings via The Daily Caller.
A Documentary Recasts the Warming Debate
The American Institute for Economic Research last week pointed supporters to a Canadian documentary published earlier this year which debunks much of the official global warming narrative.
The documentary The Environment: A True Story invites us to rethink global warming and to question what the media and some influential actors say about it. Produced by Canadian history professor John Robson, the film presents historical evidence and comments from climate scientists, such as climatologist Richard Keen from the University of Colorado, Boulder, to demonstrate that “alarmism is not a good science.”
Robson, who describes himself as a passionate environmentalist, demonstrates in two hours and 40 minutes that the Earth’s climate has always fluctuated. It is, therefore, derelict to blame humans for something that already happened when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. It is even worse to study global warming with computer models originally designed to predict natural phenomenon that have, at most, only 150 years of recorded data.
Robson claims that a historical overview of the geographical and weather conditions of the planet is enough to shake up the commonly accepted belief in man-made global warming.
The interviewed specialists explain that the Earth passes through cycles of big ice ages and big melts. The Holocene epoch — the period since the last ice age — began 12,000 years back and has permitted human life, but it is actually an interglacial stage. Now the Earth is approaching the next big melt, and that explains some rising temperatures in recent years.
The documentary is extremely interesting and available for free online. Check it out:
So What Drives Continued Alarmism? ‘Garbage in, Garbage out’
Retired NASA physicist Hal Doiron recently told the Heartland Institute’s America First Energy Conference that there’s no way for new climate predictions to be accurate as long as scientists are relying on propaganda data previously compiled by global warming alarmists.
“At NASA, we have a policy: You can’t make a design decision on a spacecraft or rocket that is not validated,” he said. “You don’t make critical decisions based on ‘garbage in, garbage out.’ Yet our government has been doing that with respect to climate alarm, because too many academics in universities are writing papers, drawing conclusions from models that don’t agree with physical data.”