many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".
• Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely
global warming between 1951-2010.
7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).
to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements
2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still
possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change
is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes,
however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate
chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses
problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a
wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of
their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than
demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging
the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected
officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research,
political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists
who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to
outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States
crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures
designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly
speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald
Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making
“The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting
more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and
counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less
credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to
flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in
the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions
in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing
where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying
islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP
didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media
didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed
without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and
climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its
bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead
to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening
“scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical
projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less
likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb.
Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands
reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced,
myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and
international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility
and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are
doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and
reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and
projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the
experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative
that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As
for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so
clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the
most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark
Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of
a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the
U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new
expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these
arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be
right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates,
not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for
the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an
important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible
messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I
don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another
Check back with me in 2020.