On global warming, journalists are consistent: They never ask questions

Another week, and we get another dire report on the climate from the U.N., and again there are no scientific data showing a direct link between oil use and temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity.  What they have are computer models.

Here is what they are putting out now:

UN panel's grim climate change report: 'Parts of the planet will become uninhabitable'

Life in some locations on the planet is rapidly reaching the point where it will be too hot for the species that live there to survive, international climate experts said in a report Monday.

"With climate change, some parts of the planet will become uninhabitable," said German scientist Hans-Otto Pörtner, co-chair of Working Group II for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produced the report released in Berlin.

The report assesses scientific literature documenting the devastating effects of human-caused climate change on society and ecosystems worldwide. 

As always, the media just report these dire reports without asking any questions or doing any research.  Five simple questions would be:

Why have your previous predictions been 100% wrong?

Why should we believe these predictions and base policies on these predictions when previous predictions have been completely wrong?

Shouldn't policies be based on actual scientific data instead of computer models that can easily be manipulated to get the results you want?

Should we ever destroy an industry based on computer models, especially one that has greatly improved the quality and length of life?

Has the U.N. ever accomplished anything that indicates that it has the ability to control the climate?

One prediction we continuously see to scare the public, especially the children, into compliance is how many species fossil fuels and humans are causing to go extinct.  What we never see are actual data from the previous 150 years of fossil fuel use of species that have gone extinct.

Don't journalists have an obligation to find the actual results instead of acting as if made up predictions were factual?

There's this kind of drivel now out there:

Half of the Species on Earth Could Go Extinct by 2050: Scientists

A sixth mass extinction is underway, and it's not a meteor this time.

Half of Earth's species could go extinct by 2050 unless humanity addresses man-made climate change, according to biologists.

In June 2015, the journal, Science Advances, examined the rate at which species were going extinct. It found that the rate of mammal and vertebrate species loss was up to 100 times higher than past rates, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already underway.

In 2019, the UN said one million animal and plant species may go extinct by 2050.

Others reports are similar:

10 Animals That Will Be Extinct By 2050 If We Don't Cop On

A recent UN report said that one million species of animals and plants will be extinct by 2050 and after the recent news that koalas are functionally extinct, I think we should take a look at ten other animals that will be extinct very soon if we don't get our s--- together.

In 1989, the U.N. told us we had only ten years left to solve the problem.  Here we are, 33 years later, and the U.N. is trying to scare the public with the same warnings, and the media see nothing unusual in just repeating what they are told even though nothing we were warned about was true.

A 1989 AP Report: Nations "Wiped Off Face of the Earth" by 2000

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.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt's arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. . . .

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Since journalists won't do their jobs, I will do it for them by researching how many species have gone extinct in recent history.

The first question we should ask is, how many species are there?  The best information I could come up with is that there are an estimated 8.7 million species but only 1.2 million that we actually know about and have identified.

Then we should ask how many species have gone extinct the last 150 years while we have been using fossil fuels.  I could not find that, but the best number I could find is that in the last 500 years, fewer than 900 identified species have gone extinct, or two per year.  How few of those could have been caused by CO2, coal, crude oil, cars, methane from cows, etc?

Why aren't journalists interested in facts?


Biodiversity is a term used to describe the enormous variety of life on Earth. It can be used more specifically to refer to all of the species in one region or ecosystem. Biodiversity refers to every living thing, including plants, bacteria, animals, and humans. Scientists have estimated that there are around 8.7 million species of plants and animals in existence. However, only around 1.2 million species have been identified and described so far, most of which are insects. This means that millions of other organisms remain a complete mystery. 

Here is a BBC story from 2012 where they actually ask a question.

But if it's really true that up to 150 species are being lost every day, shouldn't we expect to be able to name more than 801 extinct species in 512 years?

They can identify under two extinctions per year for the last 500 years, but we're told that one million would die in the next thirty.  Can we all yell BS?

My guess is they can't identify any that have died because of rising CO2, or because we use oil and coal, so why are we continually told that intentional lie?  The answer is that they want government to control us, and facts have never mattered to Big Government advocates.

Biodiversity loss: How accurate are the numbers?

Twenty years ago, the Earth Summit in Rio resulted in a Convention on Biological Diversity, now signed by 193 nations, to prevent species loss. But can we tell how many species are becoming extinct?

One statement on the Convention's website claims: "We are indeed experiencing the greatest wave of extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs."

While that may (or may not) be true, the next sentence is spuriously precise: "Every hour three species disappear. Every day up to 150 species are lost

But if it's really true that up to 150 species are being lost every day, shouldn't we expect to be able to name more than 801 extinct species in 512 years?

We have significant problems in the world today.  Russia is killing its neighbors, the Taliban is destroying and killing people in Afghanistan, and Iran is spreading terrorism around the world and developing nukes, and China has developed a virus that has killed millions, is committing genocide, is threatening Taiwan, and distributing dangerous pills throughout the world, but the U.N. is warning of a couple-degree temperature rise and pretending it can control the climate.  Where is there any indication that the greedy U.N. has been good at controlling anything?

In the U.S., we have a huge problem at the border, we are dependent on the evil Russia and other countries for some of our energy needs, we have rampant crime, we have rampant inflation, we have destroyed our children with dictatorial edicts, not the virus, we are greatly harming the poor, middle class, and what are Biden and other Democrats focusing on?  The absolute destruction of tens of millions of jobs related to fossil fuels based on computer models.

Is there any evidence that politicians and bureaucrats can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if we give up our quality of life and hand them trillions of dollars?  I don't see any.

What should we call journalists who just repeat talking points to push a leftist agenda that will destroy America instead of researching ad reporting facts?  Would puppets be an appropriate term or enemies of the American people?  It certainly would not be reliable news sources.

Image: Pixabay, Pixabay License.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com