The Washington Times published an article yesterday – on Earth Day – presenting the true facts about climate change. The story was refreshing because it cited data, not computer model speculations, to discuss what we currently know about the state of the climate.

In the Washington Times article, James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute presents unalarming facts, not fear, in the article titled “Economy-destroying climate plans target nonexistent ‘crisis.’”

“Make no mistake, measurable scientific evidence makes it clear that global warming is not going to cause the world to end in 10 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years,” writes Taylor. “In fact, a warmer world has always been a better world for human health and welfare, and this is not going to change in the foreseeable future.

“The notion of an imminent climate crisis is a carefully crafted delusion, plain and simple,” Taylor continues. “The more that objective science has debunked alarmist climate claims, the more that climate activists and their media allies have ratcheted up their rhetoric and sought to deflect attention away from real scientific evidence.”

Taylor then proceeds to refute many claims made by climate alarmists that a warmer world is bad for humanity, and that global warming will increase extreme weather events.

Concerning global warming’s impact on human health, Taylor writes, “Colder climate periods have typically been associated with more famines, plagues, and severe extreme weather events, as well as with reduced crop yields and declining human populations. Warmer climate periods have typically resulted in comparatively fewer famines, plagues, and extreme weather events. They also usually have higher crop yields and are more likely to produce golden ages of higher human population numbers and living standards.”

Data presented in numerous Climate Realism articles – for example, here, here, and here – demonstrate Taylor is correct when he states modest warming has been good for human health.

“Data show alarmists’ doomsday predictions have consistently failed to materialize,” Taylor observes. He backs up this claim citing the  U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports, which state the organization has “low confidence” that climate change is having any measurable negative global impacts regarding hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, and other natural disasters.

“Predictions of future climate catastrophes are no more credible than past predictions that failed to materialize,” writes Taylor, concluding, “Policymakers should resist the urge to fix a “problem” that doesn’t need fixing, especially when it involves government policies that will inevitably cause more harm than good.”

That’s an admonishment the Biden administration, Congress, governors, state legislators, and regulatory agencies should take to heart, especially on Earth Day.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is managing editor of Environment & Climate News and a research fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Burnett worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years, most recently as a senior fellow in charge of NCPA’s environmental policy program. He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations, including serving as a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller’s e-Texas commission.

3 COMMENTS

  1. Makes sense. That is why it won’t get any “traction.” As energy is interrelated with climate policy, I’ll expand on a couple points. I hate to be pessimistic, but I fear Robert Bryce was prophetic in his 2012 book “Power Hungry.” He surmised that politicians are freely able to espouse unfounded and ridiculous propositions in the energy arena (primarily) because most Americans are “scientifically & mathematically illiterate.” Couple that underinformed public with activist propaganda routinely enabled by a complicit mainstream media and you have a COLASSAL recipe for failure. Face it. This Biden climate policy will be a disaster. There is no creditable scientific evidence or engineering studies to support even a REMOTE possibility he can successfully transition our domestic energy system with his current Green agenda. Unfortunately, I guess we will just have to get the required education the HARD WAY. Drama & theater will prove to have little value when you face the PHYSICS of energy imperatives…

    • You are absolutely correct. Consider also that many schools of journalism do not require rigerous courses in math and science. Consider also that schools of meterology do not require courses in thermodynamics, although weather forcasting is quite different than forcasting climate change.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here