Climate Change Predictions; Wrong More Often Than Right

I flew for over 40 years. I always asked the forecaster what was the worst weather I might expect if the forecast was “iffy” for a safe arrival. Better safe than sorry I thought. Now, I am not a climate change denier, but in light of some of the interesting terminal forecasts I got, I know that the forecaster’s job is roughly the only one where a 50-50 shot is acceptable due to the vagaries of nature. With that being said, forecasting a 4 degree Celsius temperature change in the next 100 years is, shall we say, rather “iffy.” When it comes to climate change predictions, they are wrong more often than right.

But some people (Presidents, presidential candidates, a former Secretary of Defense, a UN Secretary-General, the WHO—no, not the band) are adamant about calling climate change an existential threat to our existence. But return with me now to Earth Day 1970.

“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution….by 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Kenneth Watt, Ecologist (address at Swathmore College)

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

The UN’s environmental officials followed suit. In 1972, catastrophe in 10 years; in 1982, they moved it to 2000; their 1989 prediction was, that unless “fixed” in 10 years there would be global disaster; in 2007, more disaster; and, in 2019, there will only be 11 years to prevent irreversible damage. (NY Post, 11/12/2021) Guess God sending ten plagues won’t matter.

I reached out to noted climatologists Al Gore and John Kerry for comment but have received no response. OK, it was telepathic but I did reach out.

Beginning in 1712, the first commercial steam engine paved the way for the Industrial Revolution, and climate crusaders ever since have been yelling about man destroying the planet. But climate hysteria sells to some. And it seems to revolve primarily around man’s reliance on fossil fuels. So with little scientific evidence to support the notion, we hurry-scurry to ban them. All the while no one puts forth a plan to mitigate, much less ameliorate, man’s reliance on them.

Rather, shouldn’t we embrace all forms of energy while the government focuses on energy security and helps maximize the speed at which cost-competitive forms are developed. Let the open market take the horse’s bit in its teeth. The government needs to quit beating a dead one.