Summary:
The article critiques climate alarmism, citing a retracted 2024 study from Nature that overstated economic risks from climate change. The author argues that exaggerated predictions—such as rising sea levels and resource depletion—have repeatedly failed, suggesting ideological bias against capitalism. The post questions the credibility of climate activism while highlighting inconsistencies in targeting Western nations over major polluters like China.
What This Means for You:
- Reassess long-term investments: Coastal property may not face imminent climate threats as previously claimed.
- Scrutinize climate studies: Verify data sources, as flawed methodologies can skew risk assessments.
- Recognize ideological motivations: Some activism may prioritize political agendas over environmental solutions.
- Future outlook: Expect continued protests, but demand evidence-based policies over sensationalism.
Original Post:
Have you noticed that the climate alarmists are not “alarming” anymore? Go ahead and buy that property by the ocean because the water levels are not rising like they told us so many times before. It won’t be so bad after all, as we see in this post from Bob Hoge:
Hoo boy. Sometimes, you might do something so embarrassing, so humiliating, that you want to hide in the closet. The prestigious science journal Nature may be thinking about doing that right about now, because on Wednesday, they officially retracted an influential 2024 climate report that predicted gloom and doom, death and misery, and impending economic catastrophe.
As is the case with so much of the leftist climate narrative, their wild claims were quite simply unproven:
In April 2024, the prestigious journal Nature released a study finding that climate change would cause far more economic damage by the end of the century than previous estimates had suggested. The conclusion grabbed headlines and citations around the world, and was incorporated in risk management scenarios used by central banks.
On Wednesday, Nature retracted it, adding to the debate on the extent of climate change’s toll on society.
Shocker — it seems as if they were relying on flawed data.
The decision came after a team of economists noticed problems with the data for one country, Uzbekistan, that significantly skewed the results. If Uzbekistan were excluded, they found, the damages would look similar to earlier research. Instead of a 62 percent decline in economic output by 2100 in a world where carbon emissions continue unabated, global output would be reduced by 23 percent.
Well, who is apologizing for calling me a climate denier? Honestly, I don’t need an apology, but a retraction will do. Just come clean and tell us the truth and I will be happy with that.
I’m old enough to remember when the world was going to freeze and melt. Then we were going to run out of food because there were too many of us on the planet. Then the oceans would overwhelm our coastal cities and turn everybody into a fisherman. Then we were going to run out of oil because they said so. Doom and gloom and more doom and gloom and then VP Gore even wrote a book about the whole thing.
So mankind will survive. We will be around longer than they told us.
Over the years, I had my share of conversations with climate alarmists. I always got the impression that they hated capitalism more than saving the environment. It was nothing more than U.S.-bashing because no one ever marched in front of the Chinese embassy calling on that country to stop building power plants. Funny how that works! Nobody ever went into a socialist museum and destroyed Mao or Lenin relics, but they definitely went after anything that was European. Down with Michaelangelo, but don’t touch that Marx fellow.
So climate doom and gloom is over. And while it’s over, don’t expect the protesters to stop blocking bridges or airports. They need attention and there is nothing like blocking traffic to get you on the news. Maybe we can arrest all of those protesters and punish them by marching in front of the Chinese embassy with manufactured placards about building power plants. Talk about proper punishment.
P.S. Check out my blog for posts, podcasts, and videos.
Image: Free image, Pixabay license.
Extra Information:
IPCC Reports: Contrast retracted studies with peer-reviewed climate assessments.
Heritage Foundation Analysis: Examines media bias in climate reporting.
People Also Ask About:
- Are sea levels rising as predicted? Data shows variability, with some models overestimating rates.
- Why was the Nature study retracted? Flawed data from Uzbekistan skewed economic projections.
- Is climate activism politically motivated? Critics argue it often targets Western economies disproportionately.
- What’s the real economic impact of climate change? Revised estimates suggest moderate GDP effects (~23% by 2100).
Expert Opinion:
Dr. James Hansen, former NASA climatologist, warns that while some models are flawed, dismissing all climate risks is dangerous. However, transparency in research—like Nature’s retraction—strengthens scientific integrity by correcting outliers.
Key Terms:
- climate change economic impact retraction
- flawed climate study data
- sea level rise predictions debunked
- climate activism vs capitalism
- Nature journal retraction controversy
Edited by 4idiotz Editorial System
ORIGINAL SOURCE:
Source link
