3 Apocalyptic Climate Change Predictions That Failed To Come True
Yes, the climate is warming. But, despite what you may have heard, we can deal with it.

I guess United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres didn't think his hyping global warming risks brought him enough attention, so now he says, "The era of global boiling has arrived!"
Global boiling?
Give me a break.
Yes, the climate is warming.
We can deal with that.
What annoys me is politicians, activists, and media pushing hysterical myths.
Myth 1: The Arctic will soon be ice-free.
It "could already be ice-free by the summer of 2030," shrieks a DW News report.
"'Doomsday Glacier' is melting faster than scientists thought," adds the BBC. "Earth's biggest cities are at risk."
Nonsense.
"It's not happening at nearly the catastrophic pace that they claim," says Heartland Institute fellow Linnea Lueken in my new video.
But the media show dramatic images of melting and missing ice.
"No ice! There's all these walruses laying out on a stony beach.…It's because it's the summertime! In the winter, it all comes right back!"
As far as ice disappearing in winter, too, "Compared to the amount of ice that's in the Arctic," says Lueken, it "is like a grain of sand…so minuscule compared to the amount of ice that's there, it doesn't even show up on a trend chart when you plot it."
But zealots push hysteria.
In 2009, Al Gore, while collecting a Nobel prize, said there was "a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap…during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
In just five to seven years! Oh, no!
Wait. Seven years have passed. In fact, 16 years passed. The ice cap has plenty of ice, even in summer. Yet nobody calls him on it.
"They absolutely should be calling him on it," says Lueken.
Myth 2: Polar bears are going extinct.
Polar bears look cute, so environmental groups use them in ads to sucker you into donating money.
But Polar bear populations have increased!
In the 1960s, 17,000-19,000 was the highest of three scientific estimates of polar bear population. Today, there are about 26,000 polar bears.
Yet the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) collected almost a quarter-billion dollars from gullible donors running ads that say: "Your support can help Environmental Defense Fund save the polar bears!"
The EDF hasn't agreed to my interview requests. I understand why. I would call their advertising sleazy.
"Absolutely," agrees Lueken, "the data is right there. It's not hard to find out that polar bears are fine."
OK, maybe polar bears aren't going extinct, but we might starve!
That's Myth 3.
MSNBC shrieks, "Climate change could create a massive global food shortage."
President Barack Obama said, "Our changing climate is already making it more difficult to produce food!"
"There is no claim less true," sighs Lueken. "Food production has skyrocketed."
She's right, and the data is there for everyone to see. Agriculture output sets record highs year after year.
In fact, the extra carbon dioxide in greenhouse gases probably increases food production.
"We inject CO2 into greenhouses for a reason," Lueken points out. "It helps to fertilize plants for faster and better growth."
As the climate has warmed, the world experienced the biggest drop in hunger and malnutrition ever.
Still, when food prices rise, media idiots still blame climate change.
The New York Times claimed "devastation that climate change had wrought" caused a rise in coffee prices.
But global coffee production has increased by 82 percent since the 1990s.
The Times story focused on a brief decline in coffee production in Honduras. But since the '90s, coffee production there rose more than 200 percent.
"They never apologize," I note. "They never say, 'Oh, we got this wrong.'"
"No," replies Lueken. "Even if they did have a retraction, the damage is already done."
Alarmist media and environmental groups never apologize.
When doom doesn't happen, they just move on to the next scare.
I'll cover four more myths about climate change next week.
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A good site for failed predictions, both past and future.
https://extinctionclock.org/
Wait a moment on that claim. As sympathetic as I may be, does that number directly correlate? Or is it a bit more nuanced if you factor in multiple variables?
Are we getting higher yields due to warmer temps? Are there even warmer temps? Could we be getting better results from some other cause, whether the temps are warmer or cooler, or about the same? Such as increased efficiencies due to various technologies? Could it be a combination of factors? What about increased ability to distribute food worldwide?
Let us not commit the same data crimes that the climate zealots are guilty of consistently.
I believe NASA claimed the Earth has 13% more green area than a few years ago.
In addition, there are some famous experiments showing that plants raised in elevated CO2 environments grow faster and taller and weigh more.
And greenhouses pump in CO2 to raise production.
What more proof do you want?
A detailed analysis taking into account the genetically modified (lab or field) crops that have increased yields. The work of Dr Norman Botlaug for an example. Spread of market reforms and the end of soviet communism also coincide in the timeframe provided in the malnutrition graph provided.
That has ZERO to do with 13% more of the earth being covered by greenery. US crop area, for instance, has decreased in this same period yet grows more food, which is Borlaug's green revolution at work.
And neither was Minadin original questioning of using the malnutrition chart to show higher yields is a result of solely higher temps.
Why commit any crimes. STOP ALL climate legal action. Janet Yellen wants at leas $3 TRILLION a year. do we just let people starve, children be uneducated, tempt people to kill their babies...USE THE $3 TRILLION for the here and now. There is no charity but only heartless demonic stupidity in passing over existing suffering to throw money at a random future
Data crime?!?!?
We don't talk about the increase in the number of people killed by a completely novel virus of unknown origin.
-
I've not seen any boiling or forecasts for boiling yet. It must not be global boiling, just localized boiling.
It's because the sensors used to collect data on boiling are all in Yellowstone, but they use AI to correct the data for say, Wisconsin in winter.
It's called the Reverse-Reverse-Hockey-Stick. This also doubles as a euphemism.
It sounds either difficult or painful.
Does not even one failed prediction invalidate the entire premise?
Starting from the premise that Fermat's Last Theorem is false, Ken Ribet predicted that immodular, semistable elliptic curves exist. When Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor proved that such curves can not exist...
all effects are from numerous causes and all causes have numerous effects. Why predict at all? Were we at fault for millennia in not extrapolating every time we did something ?
A single failed prediction was enough for us to conclude that Fermat's Last Theorem was true (a prediction that assumed its falsity).
Not just 3, all of them.
...and the biggest myth of all
Gov-Guns controls the weather.
"We inject CO2 into greenhouses for a reason," Lueken points out. "It helps to fertilize plants for faster and better growth."
The ?Green? ad campaign that launches a war on plant-sustenance.
Why it's as bloody stupid as saying the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] were against socialism.
It's amazing how dumb humanity gets with leftard indoctrination.
"3 Apocalyptic Climate Change Predictions That Failed To Come True"
Just for the record, ALL have been a lie.
Still my favorite:
Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
I am sad it was a lie, because New York and DC being under 10 feet of water seems like such a good idea.
You'd have to think that someone like Obama would realize that if the predications were true, Martha's Vineyard would not be a place to invest in real estate or choose to live (irrespective of the occasional busload of illegal aliens that arrive).
It's simply faith-based predictions with gov't "scientists" playing the rolls of priests and priestesses. In the western world, it is a means of control, no different than every religion on earth. The climate sins even have shame and morality clauses imbedded.
That's it and nothing more.
And, like Jehovah's Witnesses, when the rapture doesn't happen by a certain date, they simply move it back a bit, never admitting it is bullshit.
And they claim the lack of the promised apocalypse as proof that the gods appreciated their zealotry--but still demand more.
If the US would just send more money to the UN to combat climate change everything will be just fine. The UN can fix anything, trust me.
About 10 to 15 thousand years ago, The Climate warmed/changed enough to melt the mile-thick continental ice sheets that covered northern North America and Eurasia for the previous 100,000 years, as well as local ice sheets and glaciers in every mountainous area.
Was that "bad"? Were our ancestors to blame? (Did they even have corporations?). And would the most zealous Church of Climatology leaders wish to take us back to those glorious and proper days of endless winter?
Republicans: "Let's return to the Good ol' Days of 50 years ago."
Democrats: "Let's return to the Good ol' Days of 50,000 years ago."
"It was caused by all those Dinosaur Cars!!!", says the Leftards.
Wrote this elsewhere last year:
Seen on Slashdot, the alarming headline:
The Arctic Ocean Could Be 'Ice-Free' Within the Decade, Researchers Warn
Now, I'm not here to argue about global warming, or climate alarmism, or any of that.
I just want to point out that when you get to redefine terms to not mean what the reasonable reader might think, you can always be right:
The study defines "ice-free" as when the Arctic Ocean has less than 1 million square kilometers, or 386,000 square miles, of ice.
I mean, I could sell ice cream and advertise it as "turd free", but define "turd free" as contains less than one dog turd per 5 gallons of ice cream. But defining it that way sure doesn't seem like I'd be truthful or accurate.
I'm sure that there is some agreement among the artic researchers that 1Msqkm is a critical level, but here's a good time for scientists to make up a term or to use a more accurate term. "Critically low" or "Below the 1Msqkm threshold" or "Lowest ever recorded." Even "below one gargleflop, where a gargleflop is the level of ice scientists believe is a critical threshold for [reasons]". Maybe even "Oh God Oh God we're all gonna die!"
But not "ice-free"! That means something already, something which is not 1Msqkm of ice!
If nothing else, using this term with an asterisk for the redefinition sets up the now almost certain-to-occur scenario where in 2030 (the year in which the scientists are predicting "ice-free(*)" Arctic) someone will visit the Arctic and say "Hey, remember when the scientists said the Artic would be ice-free? Well, I'm standing here on part of a huge ice pack, which I'm told is almost one million square kilometers of ice! Looks like they were wrong again!"
I think some people would have complained bitterly about the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet, if they could pin it on oil companies or capitalism. Heck, they would if asked on polls: "Do you believe AGW is the cause for retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet? Yes or no?" because 99% of people (a made up statistic) have no clue what the Laurentide ice sheets were.
Sometimes I imagine a modern society 10,000 years ago, complete with MSNBC announcers pronouncing their dismay about the loss of habitat for the Ohio Basin polar bears, because the ice "which was once 1km thick is now only 250m and completely gone at some points". This is despite the huge beneficial impact that the melting of the ice sheets had on humanity as a species. Not that I'm claiming AGW is a good thing, but simply stating a fact that not all climate change is bad for humanity, and that it is reasonable to wonder if AGW may include any positive effects--for example, growing seasons will be longer at higher latitudes).
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, and it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all...Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
Climate change is like any other field of study in which hyperbole is used too often. It is important to understand that changes to the climate will have broad effects many of which will be unpleasant. Polar bears are not yet going extinct but the bears doing the best are in higher colder climates. We are seeing this across the biological spectrum as plants and animals adapted to colder climate shifting north. This will also be true of food growing regions and we may see them shift. A warmer climate also means more energy in the atmosphere which can result in more energetic, violent storms. Climate change is also likely to cause shifts in human population and for countries that don't like immigrants this will be difficult. Climate change will change the world as we know it and we have to be ready to both slow the change and adapt to its effects.
Climate Change is a political issue, not a scientific issue. If it was a scientific issue, debate would be allowed. In addition, the scientific community would have tabled the issue when none of the predictions of temperature increase or sea level increase made over several decades have come true. An additional point: scientists, as a group of humans, play politics like any other group of people. And this has always been the case. As an example, check out the controversy concerning who invented calculus in the 1600s. It was a major controversy between Newton and Leibniz.
"Yes, the climate is warming. But, despite what you may have heard, we can deal with it."
No, the climate is not getting warmer, Mr. Stossel.
Climate change is a lie like global cooling and global warming.
Climate change is another leftist idea to redistributing other peoples' money into the power-hungry vermin in DC and the UN.
Actually, it is getting warmer - and has been semi-consistently since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The lie is in saying we know enough to conclusively attribute it to human causes or that the consequences will be catastrophic.
First you are right the climate is getting warmer. You are wrong to say that we don't know the cause. Anthropogenic activity is changing the atmosphere and adding larger amounts of carbon that absorb solar energy.
It's getting sooooo WARM Texas Energy froze-up literally 4-years ago.
But I guess Warming is actually the cause of Freezing ya know like the ?science? in "The Day After Tomorrow".. /s
A lot of stupid could be avoided by recognizing ones own indoctrinated biases.