Prognosticators and Proselytizers, Part 3

We have previously examined two predictions made by environmentalists: mass starvation and a new ice age. Neither came true, but environmentalists have been undeterred from issuing further claims that catastrophe awaits mankind if immediate and drastic actions aren’t taken. In this post we will examine another prediction made by environmentalists.

Within a few years of predicting a new ice age, environmentalists reversed course and began claiming global warming was the real threat. We weren’t going to freeze to death; we were going to burn up. And, while the prognosticators were trying to decide what catastrophe awaited mankind, they were certain about its cause: fossil fuels.

In the mid-2000s, environmentalists (including Al Gore) began predicting that the Arctic would be ice free within a decade (they couldn’t agree on a year) because of global warming. Yet, in September 2016 (sea ice is at its minimum in September) scientists discovered that, not only did the sea ice remain, it was 21 percent larger than in 2012 (the year with the least sea ice). And in September 2017, it was about 12 percent larger than in 2016. Apparently, the sea ice didn’t get the environmentalist’s memo.

But the proselytizers have downplayed the fact that Arctic sea ice is growing. Instead, they have reported that this summer’s sea ice is the eighth lowest on record (the record goes back only 38 years) and remains below the average for 1981 through 2010. An increase in sea ice doesn’t fit the environmentalist predictions, and so they must spin the facts to fit their narrative.

This is a pattern we have seen time and again. For example, when Paul Ehrlich’s prediction about mass starvation failed to come true, he denied that it was a prediction. After being told that the northern hemisphere would soon be covered in ice, the prognosticators decided that the polar ice caps were going to melt instead. Finally, they changed their tune again, declaring that the real threat is climate change.

Though the predicted catastrophe keep changing, the solution has remained constant: a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Which means, a drastic reduction in our standard of living.

Modern, industrialized society requires abundant, inexpensive, and reliable energy. Fossil fuels provide that energy. Wind and solar do not. Reducing the use of fossil fuels means reducing the availability of energy, which means reducing our ability to produce the values that human flourishing requires.

Environmentalists are not concerned with human flourishing. Quite the opposite. They value nature over humans. And they are willing to do anything–including an endless stream of dire predictions–to protect nature.

An old adage states, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” The environmentalists have fooled us more than twice.

Comments are closed.