The doom and gloom predicted by climate alarmists never ceases to astound me. The latest prediction is that the Black Plague and other bacteria covered by ice sheets will be revived as global temperatures continue to rise as a result of greenhouse gases produced by human beings. Yeah.

If Americans don’t repent of their evil ways and accept massive and unprecedented governmental policy changes, then we’re… doomed. Not only will sea levels rise, but disease and new pandemics will wipe us out.

I find this type of alarmism irresponsible, but it appears to be effective in shaping public opinion, so the fear mongering tactics continue.

The truth is there have been cases of the plague and other diseases being reported in the Southwestern United States, and I find it more likely they’re being spread as a result of immigration than melting permafrost.

Some publications claim we have about 12 years to reduce greenhouse gases to prevent temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius, but the most recent Special Report by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) states none of the pledges made in the last three years by governments are enough to keep warming below this threshold. So, then, are these goals even worth pursuing? Will drastic action prevent the coral reefs from dying or stop the spreading of wildfires?

One of the main problems with these doomsday predictions is that none of them ever need to come to fruition. Instead, when the predictions fail, we’re told that the computer models didn’t anticipate certain conditions, and the real doom is another 30 years down the road!

Interestingly, for example, an article from 30 years ago claims that sea levels will rise and completely cover the Maldives within 30 years, displacing 200,000 people. However, 30 years later, the Maldives are still thriving, and now has a population of more than 427,000 people. What gives?

Despite being so wrong, the alarmists refuse to admit it; instead, they resort to insults, false claims of ‘consensus science’, accuse their opponents of being anti-science, and, worse, demand jail time for those who don’t agree with them. See anything wrong with that?

If, however, there were any agreement on climate change, the real focus, I think, should be on fighting pollution, not reducing things like carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant. Developing countries need energy to reduce poverty, but the proposed regulations keep people in poverty and reduce jobs.

I’ll conclude with some observations from climate expert Judith Curry: “Climate science has made a massive framing error, in terms of framing future climate change as being solely driven by CO2 emissions.” She goes on to say, “At this point, human caused climate change and its dire possible impacts are so ubiquitous in the literature and public discussion that I now regard human-caused climate change as a ‘white swan.’ The white swan is frankly a bit of a ‘rubber ducky’.

In other words, climate change is nothing to fear and is what it is- a normal part of our daily lives and history. Curry explains that existing climate models don’t explore every possible scenario adequately enough to be consistent with our current understanding of how the climate behaves. The alarmists who demand government action don’t care that the likely changes to the climate may not be all that dire. She concludes, “On the time scale of the 21st century anything feasible that we do to reduce CO2 emissions is unlikely to have much of an impact on the climate even if you believe the climate model simulations. IMO, even with erroneous attribution of extreme weather/climate events and projections using climate models that are running too hot and not fit for purpose of projecting 21st century climate change, the IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5C warming.”