The global warming alarmist predictions are littered with examples of predictions that never came true as the models suggested. This is the main reason we now call it “climate change” rather than “global warming.” Even before that name change, the phenomena was changed from “global warming” to “anthropogenic global warming” when it was revealed that the earth regularly “changed climate.” Besides, climate is more long-term and this gives them a longer time frame for their predictions not to come true.
One study published in the prestigious journal Nature noted that of the 79 climate change models researchers examined since 1979, most were mainly false in their predictions. Of 117 specific claims by Al Gore of the effects of global warming cited in An Inconvenient Truth, only 3 were correct. That is a 97% failure rate. How is that for consensus?
These models predicted, for example, that the average temperature of the United States would increase by 2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2010, but they cannot explain why the average temperature has increased a negligible 0.7 degrees. They then adjusted the time time and said the increase would be 1 degree by 2015. From 2010 through 2014 the increase has been zero degrees.
We were told that parts of the earth would be inundated with droughts of epic proportions. If one looks at the NOAA world map of drought regions in 2015, it looks suspiciously like their map from 2000. We were told that certain latitudes would experience water stress. NBC News, perhaps the biggest purveyor of hysteria, was quick to blame climate change for the California drought, but were quiet when a series of storms pretty much changed all that. It never occurred to the Left that California was experiencing a water shortage due to their increased population which used more water.
One remembers the highly-publicized press conference held by officials of the Maldive Islands, a small group of islands in the Indian Ocean, who warned that their tiny nation was being inundated by a rising sea level attributable to climate change. If the situation is so dire, then why is the Maldive Islands building an international airport and embarking on a hotel building binge? Is this for people to fly in and see the effects of global warming firsthand?
We were told that 30% of all animal and plant species were threatened with extinction. “Threatened with extinction” and actual extinction are two different things altogether. Theoretically, everything is “threatened with extinction,” not just 30%. A perfect example is the polar bear, best advertised on late night television as it floats on a piece of ice while the narrator begs for a donation to the World Wildlife Fund. Of course, polar bears have been moving about on ice floes for centuries now; its how they sometimes get from Point A to Point B. Regardless, we are told they need our help because climate change is threatening their habitat and they may become extinct. This does not quite square with the fact that polar bear populations are actually increasing. This explains why Canada has increased the Inuit quota of polar bear kills.
Wildfires are another big example often trotted out. News flash: wildfires have been happening for eons. What makes them so spectacular today is that they now threaten an increasing population in the very areas historically most prone to historical wildfires. Additionally, there are more morons tossing lit cigarettes out car windows or failing to extinguish their campfire.
This is akin to the accusations that sharks are becoming more aggressive every time we hear of a shark attack. The shark is no more aggressive than it was a million years ago. What has changed is the number of people swimming, surfing, or kayaking in areas traditionally visited by sharks. We hear the same “logic” when a hurricane strikes the coast of the United States. As the population grows in areas traditionally prone to hurricanes- the Eastern coast of the United States, Florida, the Gulf of Mexico- chances are the damage caused will grow exponentially.
This is the problem in a nutshell. Human records of the climate here in the United States go back only so far- about 200 years. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that the greatest predicted calamity- rising sea levels- has been occurring for the past 10,000 years- way before humans were burning fossil fuels. The predicted loss of huge glacier fields is a problem only if one lives in a static environment, but again the fact remains that glaciers have been receding since the end of the last Ice Age. They are not supposed to be where they are forever. Even the predicted and actual decrease in the Himalayan glacier fields has alternative explanation- standard “brown cloud” pollution, not greenhouse gases.
If we step off the earth and analyze satellite imagery, we discover that despite the warnings and pictures of polar bears, the Arctic ice volume has increased 50% since just 2012. We also know that the Arctic is indeed getting warmer in the west, but it is also getting colder in the east which may explain why Boston set some records this year for temperatures and snowfall. Furthermore, we have satellite imagery dating back to only 1979 when it comes to climate change information. This is like someone declaring a 500-year flood. How can there be a “500 year flood” when we have only 200 years of records? We also know that as recently as 2008, the North American snowpack was the highest since 1966 which should not happen under these models. Just recently we were misinformed that we just emerged from the warmest decade on record. What about before records?
So, what is a global warming advocate to do given these facts? They either ignore or “pooh-pooh” them away. They are just “aberrations” or “glitches.” You change the name from global warming to “climate change” because it sounds better and it occurs over a greater period of time. Climate change scaremongers are like the crystal ball gazers of the past- reading broad clues and making grand statements. Unfortunately, this is now being taught as an absolute fact in our schools. We have politicians who are basing policy on bad science. We have people making proposals that could potentially ruin every Western economy. Climate change has evolved into the royal road to socialism.