A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
— Associated Press, 6/29/89

While we’re STILL here three decades after that “prediction”, yet it hasn’t stopped the left from ramping up the absurd.

Politicians are supposedly held to account for their actions because they, for the most part, have two to four years to make good on their campaign promises. Imagine what we’d be told if they knew the couldn’t be called on their promises because most of us would literally be dead by the time they were supposed to make good.

That’s exactly what climate alarmists bank on when they make outrageous predictions, especially to captive children in classrooms, devoid of opposing views.

The visuals they present are nothing less than what could be considered child abuse.

There were blatant deceptions used by actual “science” publications until they were called on it and had to issue a retraction.

The calls to arms are sensational. Yes, the climate is changing and it has since the planet was created. What we experience today has been experienced before… LONG before industrialization but that little bit of informational context is almost always left out of the hysterical headlines and classroom presentations.

Headlines predicting imminent doom after many of us are conveniently no longer around to remind them how wrong they were again.

By the year 2100, models predict sea level will rise between about 20 and 50 cm (8 to 20 inches) above late 20th Century levels.
— National Center for Atmospheric Research

Map shows how climate change will affect Houston 60 years from now
— Houston Chronicle, 3/25/19

Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040
— New York Times, 10/7/18

A 2017 Hawaii Climate Commission report that argues Oahu’s famed beaches at Waikiki are in danger of being underwater in the next 15-20 years due to rising sea levels.
— CNN, 4/22/19

Scientists say 25 years left to fight climate change
— Public Radio International, 9/13/18

What will our climate look like in 2050?
— Science Nordic, 9/24/17

On global warming, we have 12 years left until the point of no return. Most of us will still be alive then. Maybe.
— Big Think, 10/9/18

Encroaching Tides: How Sea Level Rise and Tidal Flooding Threaten US East and Gulf Coast Communities over the Next 30 Years
— Union of Concerned Scientists

What the impressionable activists-in-the-making are never told are the many predictions that were made loud, proud, and with conviction that DIDN’T come to fruition. Many of these are, again, outrageous forecasts that very few of us will be around to call them on and that was only up until 2014.

They just don’t want anyone to go back and read some of the almost comical predictions that obviously didn’t come to fruition….

“Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
— Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
     Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 3/4/06

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
— David Viner, Climatic Research Unit,
     University of East Anglia, 3/20/00

“With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
— Guardian, 2/14/04

“New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”
— St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9/19/89

So how is it so many supposedly so smart (because they’re “scientists”) get it so wrong, so often, yet they keep pushing something they know they’ll never be held accountable for?

As usual, it all comes down to that pile of never-ending taxpayer money.

According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”

Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
— Heritage Foundation, 12/18/18

That taxpayer money funds federal, state and local environmental agencies, university professors and departments, hundreds of grants for environmental “nonprofits”, and tax breaks for corporations that only have to pledge and make the minimum of compliance expenditures in going “green”.

They’re even messing with our skies on an almost daily basis, without public input or consent, and with seemingly zero concern of the possible health ramifications how their climate meddling will affect all living below their taxpayer-funded experiments.

Because we have those who’ve found another niche cause, driven by raw emotion and the cowardly scaring of children and parents who eventually become active. We have mostly white liberal “scientists” who’ve found a great line of secure employment while never having to produce meaningful data to back up their dire warnings.

Your local meteorologist can’t tell you, with any degree of certainty, what the weather will be in three days yet we’re being told how to alter our behavior based on science that’s found to repeatedly be wrong and those prognosticators have the benefit they’ll never have to answer for why they’re so wrong, so often.

Because… it’s the weather.

On December 3-4, you can endure slow-talking Al Gore and his eighth annual 24 Hours of Reality: Protect Our Planet, Protect Ourselves, complete with certified has-beens, never-really-weres and on-the-way-outs like Sting & Shaggy, Moby, Jeff Goldblum & the Mildred Snitzer Orchestra, Bob Weir and Wolf Bros, the Goo Goo Dolls, David Crosby, Jaden Smith, Bill Nye, Téa Leoni, Claire Danes, Mandy Patinkin, and a bunch of sanctimonious bureaucrats lecturing on what YOU should do to “save the planet”… things they exempt themselves of.

or…

You can spend an hour and 15 minutes watching one of all-time best, unapologetic, widely-attacked, yet most informative video productions on the topic; complete with experts; not emotional, funding-dependent academics and activists.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is still one the most controversial documentaries on the topic. Check out as much as you wish of Al Gore’s talk-a-thon and see which position on “climate change” and the dangers of C02 makes more sense to you.

Oh, and while they claim this is all about a “discussion”, Al Gore’s live YouTube stream has “disabled” chats AND comments.

This is no surprise.

See how much concern (or lack thereof) Gore shows for the plight of poor African nations he happily denies the opportunity to develop while his privileged Western neophyte devotees stream his live production on their iPhones.

In listening to the hysterics of the climate change believers, it’s not an acceptance of even the remote possibility that there may be other explanations for the change in the climate. It’s more the arrogant denial that, heaven forbid, there is even the slightest possibility that they may have been suckered and are thus, very wrong.

Severe heat in the United States, torrential rains and flooding in the Far East, tornados in the midwest, and it’s all being blamed on man made “climate change” and for once, we agree. But it’s not solely because of the effect of industrialization but because arrogant climate scientists believe they alone can play God, tweak the weather, play havoc with our health and just look the other way after the literal fallout.

Some of the very climate catastrophes they predict now appear to be of THEIR making and they didn’t even have the common courtesy of asking the American people first before they interfered.

David Keith, who manages a multimillion dollar geoengineering research fund provided by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, previously commissioned a study by a US aerospace company that made the case for the feasibility of large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.
— The Guardian, 7/17/12

We’ve heard these scientists speak of their desire to lower the temperature but does anyone really know what the “normal” temperature for the planet should be or are we just talking about what’s comfortable for humans, which is suggestive as climates differ with location and people have adapted accordingly for centuries. That is, until agenda-driven, taxpayer-funded government-granted scientists decided they should put chemicals in the sky without even the courtesy of asking the American public first, because what’s deposited into the atmosphere doesn’t hover indefinitely; it eventually falls on all of us.

Of course, all involved ignore the health ramifications on the public because we were mandated to have health insurance that benefits who…? And how many times have we seen science fiction stories where arrogant, overambitious scientists created a bigger problem putting the public in the crosshairs, and then shake their heads in belated remorse after the cataclysmic damage was done.

To counteract global warming, humans may someday consider spraying sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to form clouds — and artificially cool the Earth. However, suddenly stopping that spraying would have a “devastating” global impact on animals and plants, potentially even leading to extinction, according to the first study on the potential biological impacts of climate intervention.
— USA Today, 1/22/18

Great, they conveniently won’t turn off what they took it upon themselves to start. This should keep those all-important, multimillion dollar taxpayer-funded grants coming in regardless of the ramifications to the unconsulted public!

A White House road map for federally funded climate research has for the first time recommended research into geoengineering, the concept of intervening in nature to slow or reverse global warming.

The document, an update of a report that lays out a plan for climate-related research at 13 federal agencies until 2021, calls for studies related to the two most-discussed approaches to geoengineering: distributing chemicals in the atmosphere to reflect more heat-producing sunlight away from the earth, and removing carbon dioxide from the air so the atmosphere traps less heat.

Opponents of the idea, including many scientists, argue the risks are too great: Geoengineering might have unintended damaging effects on weather patterns, or it might be used unilaterally as a weapon by governments or even extremely wealthy individuals.
— New York Times, 1/10/17

Note how they’re calling for the “recommended research in geoengineering” they’ve been doing for many years now. How deceitful is that!

So when you see that fine haze in what should have been a crisp, blue sky (deposited without our knowledge or consent), know that it will eventually come down on all of us; either in the form of erratic weather events and/or toxic chemical “side effects” no American citizen gave them authorization to dump on us in the first place.

Again, just because Obama says so, doesn’t make it so, and “There’s no debate” is his presidential way of saying, “Shut the fuck up”.

However, we all know how ballistic liberals get when you present them with facts and numbers.

The “97%” Lie

The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change.

Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.
— Richard Tol, professor of economics, University of Sussex

Even a second-grader could understand the difference between a “publication” and a “scientist”, but when you can rely on stoopids to repeat and defend something that’s easily provable as wrong, you get the Obama transformation of the word “consensus”.