Quote of the Day
When will there be a national reckoning for those who misled us? None of the dire predictions about carbon emissions throwing us into global catastrophe offered by scientists, politicians, or international organizations over the past 50 years have come true. In the end, the endless string of chilling forecasts failed to terrorize people out of modernity.
By the time it was all said and done — and it feels like the public is about done — there wasn’t a malady, tragedy, or human foible that wasn’t attributed to a slight variation in world climate, including mental illness, diabetes, migraines, prostitution, asthma, dementia, and sexual dysfunction. Climate change has turned us into addicts, thieves, human traffickers, refugees, and warmongers, and accentuated our political divisions.
It’s been 20 years since the release of the Academy Award-winning An Inconvenient Truth. In it, Malthusian nutjob and former Vice President Al Gore confidently popularized a slew of unhinged pseudoscientific warnings. Yet the snows of Kilimanjaro are still with us. Glacier National Park is not “formerly known as Glacier National Park.” We have not seen a dramatic increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes — we have seen fewer. There has not been a catastrophic sea-level rise flooding major areas. Despite the hopes of some, Manhattan and Miami remain above water. As do low-lying Pacific islands.
No other group of people would be treated with deference after engaging in such a massive and costly deception.
…
the notion that man-made greenhouse gases pose an existential threat to humankind has been little more than a backdoor way to institute unpopular environmentalist policies and temper economic growth. It’s about time we end the scam.
David Harsanyi
February 10, 2026
A reckoning for global warming alarmists is past due
At this point, even if the global temperature were to rise and be due to human activity, it would be a modern-day version of the story “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” There have been too many failed prophecies to get people to believe the most recent ones. Plus, one should be extraordinarily skeptical of people who make false prophecies. They have a vested interest in getting more people to believe their next prophecies.
grifters gotta grift.. . .
Perhaps this should be our standard for Respected Experts ™ who make dire predictions.
“When can we expect to see definite signs of your Dire Predictions coming to pass?”
“What, exactly, are those definite signs?”
“What do you, personally, pledge to do if these signs don’t appear when you say they will?”
Similarly, I’ve long believed than any major policy bill, proposed by our legislative branch, should have its own built-in expiry date. Spell out what we should look for, as a sign that it’s working, and what signs we should look for as an indication that it’s not working… with a promise to cancel the program, after a periodic check-in, if the program isn’t working.
I’m always perplexed at the “nothing’s happening” stance with climate change. There are lots of measurable effects, but it’s true some of them haven’t occurred as fast as predicted. But ocean acidification and warming is all measurable, glacial retreat is measurable, movement of animal species north to avoid high temps in the south is measurable…these are all well documented and clearly happening. But that’s the thing about predictions…timelines on severity are hard to get right.
And of course we have the causality problem: how exactly would one *prove* climate change was to blame for a specific negative effect? I don’t know that creating a causal link is even possible, so you’re left with evaluating probabilities, which will always be up for debate.
So we’re left with Pascal’s wager:
https://fourweekmba.com/pascals-wager/
Substitute “climate change” for “god” and you get the idea. Seems to me the smart money’s on assuming climate change is real, and if it turns out it wasn’t we just have lots of clean energy and a bunch of unused oil in the ground. And we’re going to have to go that way at some point anyway: there’s only a finite amount of oil available, so it’s not a question of *if* we’re going to hit Hubbert’s Peak, it’s just a question of *when.*