-
-
-
- Photo by NASA on Unsplash Climate change hysteria has been a thing for decades, and I’ll admit that a younger and dumber me completely bought into not just the idea that the climate was changing, but that it was our fault.
Then I grew up.
Tilting At Windmills is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. One of the data points that completely snuffed out my acceptance of that narrative was how every doomsaying model trotted out failed to materialize as we were told it would. Think about Al Gore’s claims in An Inconvenient Truth. The polar ice caps were supposed to be gone by now. Florida and Manhattan were supposed to be underwater. Hurricanes were going to become more common and get worse.
All sorts of claims, none of which panned out.
And now, it seems they are admitting it was BS all along. It’s nice when something you knew was a fraud all along turns out to be a fraud, but it’s even nicer when the people perpetrating the fraud admit it was a fraud all along.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios,” science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr wrote late last week, and in what he called “big news,” the new framework “eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades.”
So the oceans aren’t about to boil off or freeze over or whatever the current scare story is? Exactly : “The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.”
This is important because the IPCC’s changes resulted in “an update to the Science Based Targets initiative’s rules eliminates the need for steep emission cuts by 2030,” Trellis reported on Friday. In other words, even the people committed to radically reduced carbon emissions now say we don’t need to radically reduce carbon emissions to save the world or whatever.
Without getting too technical — you can read Pielke’s full report for that, should you feel the need to go shoulder-deep in the weeds — the upshot is that the previous frameworks lacked “any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios.” Now, however, “the new HIGH scenario is exploratory — a thought experiment, not a projection.”
My guess is that the IPCC still includes the non-scientific, scary-sounding “HIGH scenario” because otherwise the money might dry up.
In other words, everything they told us was total BS, but they know it’s BS, and so they have to adjust because they’re getting called out for it more and more.
Look, I never had an issue with climate change as a concept. Climate change, after all. We’ve seen mountains of evidence, almost literally, to show that the climates change from time to time. Various ice ages are a prime example. It got cold, then warmed up, got cold again, warmed up again, and so on.
It wasn’t people driving SUVs and private jets. It just happens.
Years ago, my mother—a devout believer in anthropogenic climate change—read an article she called me about. It was this settlement that was settled and abandoned numerous times throughout history. Why? It turned out that the climate would shift, making it attractive as a place to live sometimes and unlivable at others.
She didn’t appreciate my asking if it was because of the ancient people’s love for gas-guzzling cars.
So yeah, I can buy into the idea of climate change as a concept, but the doom and gloom haven’t panned out like they claimed, which made me skeptical of anything else they had to offer.
Now, they’re admitting that everything they told us was inevitable is actually complete and total nonsense, that it literally can’t happen, and that they’re still going to talk about it as a thought experiment—which you can bet your ass won’t be described as such in the media when it’s reported—and we’re supposed to pretend it’s nothing.
Entire countries shifted their energy policies to fit the claims of these so-called experts. People were put out of work because their industries weren’t “green.” Millions in taxpayer money were funneled into companies offering something that would allegedly thwart the coming apocalypse, all for nothing to really happen. Thousands of acres are now desolate wastelands for wildlife because solar panels or wind turbines were placed there, destroying the scenery, driving off animals, and killing plant life. And now they’re telling us it’s really more of a thought experiment.
Lamp posts. Rope. These turdnuggets. Share Some assembly required.
Am I surprised by this? Well, yeah.
Not that they lied, mind you. We all knew that. I’m more shocked that they admit it. They’re not admitting they lied all along, granted, but even saying that those predictions are basically impossible, or at least implausible, is a concession I never expected.
And strangely, it just pisses me off more.
Especially since we all know that this wasn’t made a bigger deal so the left can continue to try and destroy our way of life by claiming we need to do it to curtail climate change. The ignorance of the voter has always been their best weapon, and since the media is just the propaganda arm of the left anyway, nothing about this will ever get the play it should.
Again, lamp posts and rope.
--- Tilting at Windmills is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here . You can also check out our store . Or, for more content, check out my YouTube channel . Your support is greatly appreciated.