4 Apocalypses That Never Were
Climate change is real and may cause real problems. But media outlets keep pushing hysterical myths that don't materialize.

"Climate change will make earth a living hell!" claims popular astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
I don't believe him.
The media say, "All Arctic ice will soon melt away! Polar bears are dying off! Global warming causes food shortages!"
Bunk, bunk, bunk.
They are addicted to scaring us.
My new video covers four more myths about climate change:
Myth 1: It's worsening droughts.
The Environmental Defense Fund wins donations partly by claiming, "climate change is worsening drought." Media morons parrot the claim.
It's just not true.
The Environmental Protection Agency: "The last 50 years have generally been wetter than average."
Globally, there's been no increase in drought.
Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken notes, "The media…completely ignore previous years where there were record-low amounts of drought. Every individual drought that occurs in the United States, or anywhere in the world, is not evidence of catastrophic climate change. It's weather."
Myth 2: Climate change is worsening wildfires.
During California's wildfires, silly people at NBC News ranted, "Climate change [is] creating infernos larger than ever."
Bunk.
U.S. Forest Service data shows fires burned much more in the 1930s.
But the climate has gotten warmer! Doesn't that dry trees out and cause wildfires?
No, laughs Lueken. "One degree of change does not dry out all of the brush.…The real driver of these issues is land management."
Poor land management. California restricts clear cutting—removing almost all trees in an area. And they don't allow small fires to burn like they once did, naturally. So, overgrowth builds up and fuels bigger fires.
Also, today's wildfires affect more people not because of climate change, but because there's more suburban sprawl. More people build more houses in the path of grass fires.
Myth 3: Sea level rise will soon cause catastrophic damage.
In 2004, The Guardian wrote, "A secret report…warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas…by 2020."
By 2020.
Last I checked, European cities were OK.
"Sea level rise is absolutely occurring," says Lueken, "but it's been slow.…About a foot per century. There is no way that people wouldn't be able to adapt to it."
Exactly. More than 100 million people already live below high-tide sea level thanks to dikes like those Holland built years ago. And the Dutch built them without the modern equipment we have.
Adjusting to rising water makes more sense than recent environmental policy: moves to ban gas-powered vehicles, giving money to politically connected windfarm developers, etc.
That costs a fortune, but it will make no noticeable difference.
Climate change is real and may cause real problems.
But we can adapt to them, rather than getting hysterical about myths.
One last myth: Coral reefs are disappearing!
The BBC writes, "Coral islands in Australia at risk of disappearing."
According to New York Public Radio, "Scientists Say The Great Barrier Reef is Officially Dying."
It's just not true.
"2024 actually saw record coverage for the Great Barrier Reef," says Lueken. "Corals thrive in tropical conditions."
Between 2019 and 2024, coral coverage more than doubled.
I'm embarrassed for my profession. They pump out nonsense.
"It drives me absolutely batty every time one of these claims is made," says Lueken. "All it takes is a quick Google search to pull up publicly available data on any of these conditions."
"If the good news is so obvious, why would they keep reporting bad news?" I ask.
"Good news doesn't grab headlines…[and] research funding and grants."
That's key.
It took me years of reporting before I realized that scientists who gave me the best, most alarming, and interesting quotes were often just wrong. It isn't that they lie on purpose; it's just that the more you study a problem, the more you worry about it.
On top of that, a scientist who says it's not a problem, or it's a manageable problem, doesn't get attention. Or those big government grants.
If you want money and attention, you need to scare people.
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
The coral reefs myth is the dumbest, to my thinking. They've survived hundreds of millions of years. They survived the comet which killed off dinosaurs. They survived the 500 foot sea level rise 10-15,000 years ago. They've survived A and H bomb tests. They'll survive just fine, but finer if environmentalists stop trying to help them, considering how well environmentalists are helping eagles and whales with wind turbines.
I went to the US Virgin Islands a couple years back 3 years after 3 cat 5s hit the island. Their reefs are utterly destroyed. In 20 years they will be back. But they will be in different places because our earth isn't a static entity- water levels, temperatures, everything is changing all the time. And reefs are some of the biggest adapters- moving to stay in those sweet spots of temperature and depth that are always changing.
Too many people think everything is supposed to be static. As I understand it, coral bleaching events are also normal and common. But everyone freaks out as if they are a permanent change. Toxic pollution and mechanical damage are likely problems. But a small change in temps is not.
Among other self-centered and distorting traits, humans think only in their personal time scales. Most natural processes take much longer than the longest human lifetimes. 100 years is 0.000002% of earth history.
In fairness, the coral reefs are in grave danger - from the very people who research them. Those researchers (and other foreign visitors) all slather themselves up with sun screen to protect themselves from the sun. That sun screen comes off in the water and was only recently discovered to be astonishingly toxic to the coral they have been studying.
Coral-friendly sunscreens are now available (though expensive and often not used) but at least the effect is now known so the alarmist researchers went back and recalibrated their baseline data on coral growth and die-off trends, right? No, they didn't do that? That is ... utterly unsurprising.
This is even more retarded than the degree of warming.
It's the same idiotic, context-free overreaction as gluten-free, drinking 64 oz. of water a day, blue light from devices, and vaccines and autism... a potentially valid, very niche, and very addressable concern that gets blown out of context by "wet roads cause rain" idiots.
One of several compounds that are used in some sunscreens was found to be toxic to some coral... at levels that were effectively applying the sunscreen directly to the coral. Saying coral is in danger from divers and researchers who use sunscreen is very much akin to saying "Humans are in grave danger from all the people researching peanuts."
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-corals.html
I didn't know that, thanks!
remember when the government prevented a pandemic by investing in gain of function virus research
^WINNER +10000000000000.
Perhaps some respected publication could give out annual Erhlich Awards.
What about the big kahuna of all the Apocolypse myths?
Dead Guy on a Stick comes back to life and sorts all the good-uns from the bad-uns after a battle with the Debil.
That’s stunning and brave, pedo.
Finally! After a couple thousand years and billions of believers, we found the guy with the true answers!
Leuken makes her living just as John does, one cracker at a time by parroting whatever their sponsors want to hear.
The tell is that Stossel has been continuously recycling the same cliches from the same ad campaign playbooks for the last two decades.
Aww, did someone get his religion questioned?
I mean the sponsored climate people have been saying the same shit for over 30 years.
Don’t worry, you can get into climate heaven if you buy an indulgence.
Sorta like you projecting your "reality" on to someone who understands actual reality. Is that the only kind of response you know, attacking the messenger?
Try an actual rebuttal next time.
Why did you quit linking to your totally legit, non-spoof website?
You make your living by maintaining a fake web site and lying about the climate, public imbecile.
Fuck off and die.
In the video, talking about forest fires, they make exactly the same point that I made to Bailey 5 years ago:
https://reason.com/2020/09/18/can-fire-insurance-manage-wildfire-risks-in-california/?comments=true#comments
Anyone telling you its the driest in CA since the 80s or the worst fires since the 80s is cherrypicking data- as the 80s were unusually wet for CA.
Stossel gets it. Unfortunately, Reason's resident "science expert" does not.
More testing needed!
Don't let Ron Bailey see this article!
Let's remember stossel's words when he comes around to scare his readers/viewers about national debt or entitlement programs.
Many libertarian predictions in those realms have also failed to materialize. But I'd guess that stossel would say that these issues are objectively scary, so he's justified in scare style reporting about them. Whereas the North Carolina and Florida floodplains are just scary fake news designed to make money. And the reason that property insurance is almost impossible to obtain there is just because some liar wants to make more money by scaring everybody.
Is the national debt going up $0.03 a decade?
The only thing funnier than the BS is the microscopic 'pebble' the BS is packing with it.
The biggest 'pebble' (climate-difference) ever found was during WWII temperature drops when more CO2 than ever was being emitted. It's like they manufactured counterfeit-evidence to their own historical evidence.
"Let's remember stossel's words when he comes around to scare his readers/viewers about national debt or entitlement programs.
Let's remember Heffernan's attempt at false equivalence.
It's a sun-god mixed with gov-gun-god religion.
That's it.
A lot of religions use the same scare tactics but most religions don't get legislated and certainly none have been legislated even close to the depths of the climate religion nay-Sayers.
The BIG elephant in the weather-changes alarm room is.....
[Na]tional So[zi]alist Gov-Gun "central planning" of the energy sector.
It's one of the known Marxism requirements.
If the people have an abundance of energy resources; 'King' DICTATION struggles.
Myth 1: It's worsening droughts.
I have not figured out how climate change causes BOTH droughts AND floods. It causes hot and it causes cold. It causes wind and it causes calm. It's very convenient to have one thing to blame for any weather that comes along. It makes it a lot easier to justify all sorts of government intervention to save the planet.
Like most religions there is no figuring out. In fact, that suggests heresy. True Belief is based on faith. And most doctrines are filled with logical contradictions, which to the faithful are wondrous mysteries.
And yes, religion always ends up telling us what to do.