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.*
Part of the problem is cherry picking of the data. Signs in Glacier National Park, which said, “This Glacier will be gone by 2009!!” were removed in 2009 (or whatever year it was) after the Glacier grew. “More hurricanes!!” There were (supposedly anyway, I haven’t checked for myself), actually fewer hurricanes. “The global temperature has increased N degrees since the start of the Industrial Revolution!!” Yes, but the chosen date, 1850, coincides within a fraction of a degree of the minimum of the last 10,000 years. So, is it human activity if the temperature increases to something approximating the 10,000 year mean?
If I were to make a Pascal’s wager, I would place my money on preventing a mile high glacier over Seattle and risk raising the oceans by five feet.
Side note, I find it telling you openly admit you don’t know if it is possible to create a causal link. Yet, you are okay with forcing a lower standard of living on billions of people with no certain benefits and possibly inviting another ice age and all the disruption and death that would bring.
That be hilarious, Massa John!!!!
It’s amazing to hear someone try to defend something so provenly ignorant.
This is the lie you fell for.
ALL CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 400 parts per million.
Of that, humans account for less than 3 percent. Let’s be generous and call it 5%.
That’s 20 parts per million of atmosphere. (Remembering that number also includes something you can’t control. Like your own respiration.)
And you think you can change the temperature of the planet by controlling less than say 18 parts per million???
Especially when you consider that the thermal coefficient of CO2 is no different than any other gas at play in our atmosphere in realistic terms.
Plus, If you were to stand outside in one place for 24 hours. Would you not experience a larger temperature change than the dire predictions of 3 degrees in 100 years???
The sun controls the temperature of this planet. And nothing other.
All that. And the outright laughable lie that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere. As the amount of it has been proven to be one of the limiting factors in plant growth.
More CO2 would just add to the surface area of every blade of grass, trees, crops, and every other form of plant on this planet.
Ocean acidity is a monstrously stupid lie. 1 liter of water at STP, (Standard temperature and pressure, roughly 68 degrees F. at 14.7 lbs. PSI.) Absorbs 1 liter of CO2.
The colder the water, the more it will absorb. Now consider that the oceans average about 10,000 ft. in depth and cover most of the earth???
Ya, wake me up when the ocean becomes a giant bottle of club soda.
Now consider the truth.
We all know it was/is a lie. But how many scientists backed up that lie? Why did they back a lie that was so easily proven to be one?
What kind of ignorant evil would subject humanity like that? (We expect it politicians. But not science.)
And the greater point. If they feel that comfortable lying to us about all that.
What else are they lying about?
Covid was a lie. They backed it to.
Evolution is a lie. They back that also.
I could go on.
And I’m supposed to believe them when they tell me there is no God that created all this?
That alone would make me at least start searching for a God.
Cause what they have to say sounds more like Hindu chanting than science.
Climate change-OOOMMM.
Evolution-OOOMMM.
Ozone depletion-OOOMMM.
It’s all bullshit. And more like a bunch of vampire elitists playing with their food.
“I’m always perplexed at the “nothing’s happening” stance with climate change. ”
That’s because you have no interest in facts that challenge your worldview.
“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.”
Depends on which moment. “Species moving north” becomes “species moving south” becomes “species moving north” again, all well well-documented, with various studies and news articles, happening at least twice… JUST IN THE 20th CENTURY!
“Seems to me the smart money’s on assuming climate change is real”
OF COURSE “climate change” is real. The number of people who would say the climate doesn’t change is… well, I’ve never met or heard of one, including all my time online.
The claim isn’t “the climate isn’t changing”. The claim is “the CO2 theory of climate change is utter garbage”, and it has a LOT of data behind it.
Just to mention my favorite, we have several hundred thousand years of ice core data. In that time, there have been numerous instances of warming and cooling. On the warming instances, there are examples of CO2 as a “lagging indicator”, and there are instances of CO2 moving in tandem with the warming, but there are literally no instances of CO2 being a “leading indicator”.
If you understand how any of this stuff works, you’re already done with the CO2 theory of climate change, just from that. That alone is sufficient. That’s how bad the CO2 theory of climate change is.
And there are several other examples that are *at least* that bad, just harder to communicate to people. And there multiple examples of things that are nearly that bad.
And the predictions have been HORRIBLE. “glacial retreat is measurable” – like that one, yep, totally measurable, and the only way it supports the climate change religion is if you very carefully control which glaciers you measure.
Polar bears are dying off! There are only about 6 times as many of them now as there were in the 1950s! (Yeah, read that again, and go check on all the stories about polar bears dying out.)
If you are super careful, you can cherry pick a few predictions that aren’t actively garbage, but the vast majority of them have been completely, utterly wrong. The track record of the climate change doomers is really, really, really, really, REALLY bad.
” there’s only a finite amount of oil available”
We can literally make more. The military has fielded the technology to make jet fuel from air (you know, where the actual components of the fuel go after it is burned).
It takes energy to do this. The benefit of oil from the ground is that the energy is already there, so we will have to switch to a different *energy* source at some point, yes, but we can keep using gasoline forever, if we so choose, but gathering the CO2 and other bits we want out of the air and converting it back to fuel. Yes literally, not exaggerating.
“if it turns out it wasn’t we just have lots of clean energy” Except that the “clean” energy you are talking about mostly… isn’t. It just displaces the non-clean part to where air-heads who pay no attention don’t notice it.
I’ll see your Hubbert’s Peak and raise you the Simon–Ehrlich wager.
“Polar bears are dying off! There are only about 6 times as many of them now as there were in the 1950s! (Yeah, read that again, and go check on all the stories about polar bears dying out.)”
Yup,
Since we quit clubbing baby seals the polar bears have a lot more to eat.
” there’s only a finite amount of oil available”
“We can literally make more. The military has fielded the technology to make jet fuel from air (you know, where the actual components of the fuel go after it is burned).”
Yup again, It’s called “thermal depolymerization”.
Was patented over 20 years ago.
Been using it at the “Butterball” turkey plant in Missouri the whole time.
Turns any organic material, grass cuttings, tree branches, turkey guts, into lite sweet grude oil inside of 30 minutes with just temp and pressure.
And once again. If they will lie about something this stupid.
What else are we being lied too about?