With the conclusion of the recent G7 Summit, we have learned that President Trump did not engage in “save the planet from climate change” hysteria, declining to talk up the other heads of state on that topic. This has caused Democrat/Socialist/Communist heads everywhere to explode, as David Harsanyi at The Federalist, explains:
Last weekend, the former chairman of psychiatry at Duke University, Dr. Allen Frances, claimedthat Donald Trump ‘may be responsible for many more million deaths’ than Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong combined. Frances, author of the fittingly titled ‘Twilight of American Sanity,’ would later clarify by tweeting that he was talking about the ‘[t]errible damage Trump is doing to world climate at this global warming tipping point may be irreversable/could kill hundreds of millions of people in the coming decades.’
I’ve no idea why the good Doctor bothered to clarify it. Isn’t it obvious Trump is a mass murderer on a scale that dwarfs the mass murderers of the last century, indeed, in all of history? There’s no evidence whatever to support the assertion, but who cares, because Trump and reasons and shut up. Harsanyi continues:
All of this is a manifestation of 50 years of scaremongering on climate change. Paul Ehrlich famously promised that ‘hundreds of millions of people’ would ‘starve to death,’ while in the real world we saw hunger precipitously drop, and the world become increasingly cleaner. Yet, neo-Malthusians keep coming back with fresh iterations of the same hysteria, ignoring mankind’s ability to adapt.
Most horrifyingly to those of the “climate change is dooming us!” persuasion is the indisputable fact that no nation on Earth has done more than America to reduce pollution, even to the detriment of prosperity. It is the developed nations that have always done most in this regard, including inventing the technology, and providing the capital, that makes reducing pollution possible. No one can change the climate. We haven’t the slightest idea how to do it, nor do we possess the technology if we did, B-grade disaster movies aside. And how are we doing? How stands the climate change threat?
At a 2005 London conference of ‘concerned climate scientists and politicians’ that helped launch contemporary climate rhetoric, attendees warned that the world had as little as 10 years before the Earth reached ‘the point of no return on global warming.’ Humans, they claimed, would soon be grappling with ‘widespread agricultural failure,’ ‘major droughts,’ ‘increased disease,’ ‘the death of forests,’ and the ‘switching-off of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream,’ among many other calamities.
I suspect that you, like me, gentle readers, are tired of having to keep a renewable ten-year certain extinction countdown. I have a wonderful book, which is packed away somewhere at the moment, with an interesting premise. The author, using photographs of specific points in the Black Hills of South Dakota—a national forest—from the late 1800s and early 1900s, returned to those points and took photos from the same vantage points. The comparison was staggering.
If one listened to climate lunatics, we would expect to see lush, unspoiled forests in the old photos and deforestation, utter destruction, in the more recent. Actually, the opposite is true. In more than a century, America, including the forests, is much, much greener.
Since then, the Earth has gotten greener. This year, for the first time since we began logging data in 2000, there were no ‘extreme’ or ‘exceptional’ droughts across the contiguous United States—although we’ve come close to zero on numerous occasions over the past decade. Every time there’s a drought anywhere in the world, climate change will be blamed. But world crop yields continue to ensure that fewer people are hungry than ever. I’m not a scientist, but I assume the North Atlantic Gulf Stream is still with us.
And so it is.
It doesn’t matter. Four years after the last point of no return was reached, the noted naturalist David Attenborough warnedthe world at a United Nations climate change summit that ‘collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.’
Not long ago, candidates and mainstream media outlets like CNN were acting as if floods in the Midwest were an unprecedented environmental disaster. In reality, deaths from extreme weather have dropped somewhere around 99.9 percent since the 1920s. Tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and extreme temperatures can still be killers, but thanks to increasingly affordable fossil-fueled heating and air-conditioning systems, safer buildings, and better warning systems—among other technological advances—the vast majority of Americans will never have to fear weather in any genuine way.
Put it this way: Since 1980, death caused by all natural disasters andheat and cold is well under 0.5 percent of the total.
To listen to the media, we’d never know that, would we Gentle Readers? I wonder why?
Which reminds me of the most recent “the climate apocalypse is upon us” craze: the immolation of the Amazon rain forest, the “lungs of the world.” Does that make Texas the spleen? Kidneys?
You’ve seen the stunning photos of vast conflagrations that turned out to be photos of past fires from pretty much everywhere? What is going on in the Amazon, and does it mean the latest 10-year deadline—AOC thinks its 12; optimistic, that little socialist–for destruction is now on a fast track? Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue, at The Tennesee Star, explains:
The international news coverage of Brazil’s Amazon rainforest fires has been a complete disaster. News outlets published inaccurate yet easily verifiable ‘facts’ about the number of fires, declaring the situation ‘record-breaking’ and ‘unprecedented.’ Social media lit up with misleading claims about the loss of planetary oxygen supply (20 percent, said French President Emmanuel Macron) threatening to asphyxiate us all. Stock photos and images of forest fires from the last two decades including Peru and Bolivia were shared widely and wildly. Celebrities and politicians alike heaped condemnation upon Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro leading to an ongoing geopolitical crisis.
Wait a minute! Just how bad is it? Bloomberg reports:
Blazes burning in the Amazon have put heaton the environmental policies of President Jair Bolsonaro, but Brazil is actually third in the world in wildfires over the last 48 hours, according to MODIS satellite data analyzed by Weather Source.
Weather Source has recorded 6,902 fires in Angola over the past 48 hours, compared to 3,395 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and 2,127 in Brazil. It’s not an uncommon phenomenon for Central Africa.
Well yeah, but that’s different because you don’t criticize African nations which are full of Black people, nor water down the latest alarmist narrative, and shut up you racist climate denier! Back to Dr. Maue:
The origin of this Amazon fire crisis traces back to the beginning of August, when Bolsonaro sacked his Space Institute minister for publishing worrisome data about the 2019 fire season. The dry season in Brazil typically runs from August to November, as farmers use these months to burn dried-out timber previously cut during land clearing operations. Ranchers also prepare the land for cattle grazing.
An important point to remember about these fires, however, is that the rainforests themselves are not entirely or uncontrollably ablaze. Natural fire does not typically occur in these tropical forests due to suffocating humidity, wet dense foliage, and daily thunderstorms. What is burning right now is land near the forests where farmers and ranchers have cleared hundreds and hundreds of acres of trees. This is easily seen in satellite imagery, which scientists finally examined and compared to the past two decades.
So it’s just normal, yearly land clearing, not the extinction of the lungs of the world? Whew!
The New York Times pumped the brakes on the misinformation and published a highly informative mapshowing the location of the fires on previously cleared land obviously related to farmers and ranchers.
But wait another minute! Don’t all the media organizations have layers and layers of editors and fact checkers? Couldn’t they have figured all of this out before announcing the climate apocalypse/crisis of the week? What’s most amazing is The NYT actually, apparently told the truth about something.
The initial reports about the beginning of fire season sent the international community into a panic, led by the Europeans.
The number of fires and cumulative area burned so far in 2019, on the other hand, is on par with previous years and described as ‘near average’ by NASA.
This falls into the “no kidding” category:
The chain reaction of misinformation is easily visible in real-time especially with climate change related narratives. All it takes is one misleading headline, such as the Guardian’s ‘12-years left to avoid climate catastrophe,’ to set off an uncontrollable cascade of virtue signaling and outrage. Celebrities and politicians amplify the message on social media. Non-governmental activist organizations swoop in to manage the narrative.
Sometimes journalists are responsible for initiating misinformation, usually due to sloppy fact-checking. But often there is a more fundamental breakdown in the coverage of environmental news: the outrage and hysteria is self-reinforcing and all in the service of stated and approved goals of an agenda-driven activist media. Awards and plaudits are showered upon journalists or scientists themselves who consistently exaggerate the links between climate change and extreme weather. The next doomsday deadline is right around the corner.
And of course, it’s always Trump’s fault. Actually, it’s one of the great scams of all time. It’s about income redistribution from developed nations—almost exclusively the US—to kleptocratic dictatorships and pseudo republics around the world. It’s also a matter of political advantage for virtue signaling leftists, and a convenient club with which to beat normal Americans.
There is nothing that is not the result of climate change. Snow? Climate change. No snow? Climate change. Heat? Climate change. Cold? Climate change. Hurricanes? Climate change. No hurricanes? Climate change. And when a deadline comes and passes, that’s merely the opportunity for another, more hysterical, deadline.
But don’t worry, gentle readers, there’ll be more fires next year, or next month, or next week, somewhere. After all, those forecasting the extinction of the species have to be right sometime, don’t they?