Tag: fearmongering

Worry About Climate Fearmongering – Not Climate Change

No wonder children are experiencing more anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts

CDC’s 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 40% of American students experienced persistent feelings of hopelessness, 28% experienced poor mental health, 20% seriously considered attempting suicide, and 10% had attempted suicide.

From Watts Up With That?

No wonder children are experiencing more anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts

Paul Driessen

America’s teenagers and young adults are experiencing a “troubling rise” in anxiety, depression, emergency room visits, suicidal thoughts and suicide, the Centers for Disease Control, psychological and psychiatric organizations, schools and other observers are reporting … yet again.

CDC’s 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 40% of American students experienced persistent feelings of hopelessness, 28% experienced poor mental health, 20% seriously considered attempting suicide, and 10% had attempted suicide.

The researchers attribute this in part to isolation during the Covid pandemic and from using computer, cell phone, social media and AI as substitutes for personal interactions; to bullying, educational pressures, family discord and socio-economic disadvantages; and to declining faith, spirituality and moral values.

These are undoubtedly major factors – and serious challenges for family, medical, educational, religious and societal institutions – and for all who strive to be strong, social, resilient individuals and families.

However, we should add to these causes the near-constant negativity presented by liberal/leftist teachers, journalists and social media influencers about our nation’s and western civilization’s “horrible” history, culture and values. Especially when they ignore other nations’ dogmas and histories of rape, murder, slavery and forced conversion of “subhuman” and “infidel” or otherwise “deficient” or “uncooperative” people across Asia and the Maghreb, deep into Africa, and by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

We should also attribute this “troubling rise” to similarly constant academic, online and media fearmongering about endless “environmental perils” – and even more so to doom-and-gloom brainwashing alleging that “our planet’s health and all forms of life on it are imperiled” by climate change caused by fossil fuels, agriculture and other human activities.

Our planet is dying. We’ve got 30, 20, 10 years until it’s so poisoned that it won’t support plant, animal or human life. Life on Earth has never been worse – not even in the Dark Ages or World War II. Young people have every right to be despondent, to have little hope for the future, to see little reason to get married or have children. We hear it over and over.

Children, teens, parents and society at large need to stop living, thinking and talking in information bubbles. They must begin asking how plausible the alleged perils are, demanding solid, reproducible evidence to support the assertions, and insisting that alternate viewpoints also be discussed.

Few page-one ecological calamities reflect real-world dangers. They’re based on scary scenarios and simulations conjured up by computer models, fevered imaginations and agenda-driven propaganda … and repeated endlessly by journalists, teachers, scientists and politicians who have ideological, financial or partisan stakes in advancing the evidence-free assertions. Literally trillions of dollars are at stake.

Few examples receive more attention than rising sea levels inundating coastal communities. In reality, Earth’s oceans have risen some 400 feet since the last of five Ice Ages ended and Pleistocene glaciers began melting 12,000 years ago. As the world continues warming since the Little Ice Age (1350-1850), seas are now rising at a mere 8-9 inches per century, though it can seem higher because of concurrent land subsidence due to oil, gas and water extraction, urban construction and isostatic rebound.

That’s a far cry from Al Gore’s ludicrous prediction of 20 feet or more “in the near future.” But at least there are a few shreds of history and evidence behind the spookery.

Other frenzied fables from climate crisis banshees are too far-fetched even for annual liars contests. But they nonetheless cause fear and trembling in many minds and souls. Ponder this compendium gleaned primarily from just one website over just the past four weeks.

Arctic ice stability is nearing a tipping point, and melting sea ice could cause dangerous loss of phytoplankton vital to marine life – as well as disastrously rising sea levels.

Rapidly melting Antarctic ice shelves may cause global sea levels to rise even faster than expected – “leaving millions at risk of being plunged underwater” and drowned. Ice shelves and the water they contain are already in the ocean; they can’t make it rise any further.

Earth’s oceans are becoming “more acidic” and could dissolve corals, shellfish and other organisms. Seawater has never been acidic; it’s slightly alkaline and cannot become more acidic. Atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide levels were far higher in prehistoric times and never caused such devastation.

Climate change is causing an “unprecedented” slowing of Earth’s rotation [by 1.33 milliseconds per century] – or it might actually be accelerating Earth’s rotation [by 1.59 milliseconds per century]. Either way, it’s potentially affecting human and animal circadian rhythms. 

Emissions from flying illegal immigrants out of the United States are making the climate crisis even worse. Equally disturbing, the climate crisis is bringing more migrants to Europe, forcing it to burn more coal and grow or import more food.

Climate change could bring deadly and unprecedented summer heat waves that add to urban heat island effects – especially if anti-fossil-fuel edicts make air conditioning unavailable or too expensive.

Climate change could worsen and intensify hailstorms that could destroy millions of solar panels — with damage calculations dependent on which random assumptions and computer scenarios are used.

Earth’s changing climate is causing more tornadoes in Michigan, making it one of America’s “worst hit” states. The number of violent US tornadoes has decreased by 50% since the 1950s and weaker tornado counts are due to better reporting.

The climate crisis is now an “international public health emergency,” like Covid-19 and Hantavirus. It will also cause more heat-related deaths and other infectious diseases – especially if dependence on unreliable wind and solar power reduces available air conditioning, clean water, modern hospitals, bacteria-killing medicines or other vital technologies.

The risk of snakebites is increasing, as reptiles adapt to a changing world driven by climate change. [More lions and tigers and bears, too. Oh my.]

The rapidly approaching “super” El Niño could kill 50 million people, because of climate change – making it as deadly as the 1887 El Niño [despite modern agricultural technologies and record harvests].

Even more frightening, the climate crisis is only going to get worse, because of methane from livestock. [Who knew a gas representing just 0.0002% of the atmosphere could be so deadly?] And more carbon dioxide in the air won’t help plants grow faster and with less water, but will actually make our food less healthy. Thankfully, though, banning hamburger ads could prevent the worst climate crisis problems.

You knew this one was coming. Rich white men are really “bad for the planet,” because of their jobs, diets and hobbies, and because they are less concerned than even rich white women about climate change.

Returning to our original topic, we now learn that loneliness caused by climate change is killing people.

On and on it goes, without letup or interruption. But lest you think this steady stream of absurd climate fearmongering is something new, let me remind you of the Warmlist of things allegedly caused by global warming, compiled by Professor John Brignell many years ago – and even turned into a fun-packed video of dangers … from more allergies and bad beer to more women cheating on vacation.

Can’t we all just Get a Grip? And help our children Get a Grip?

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

COP30: Another Failed Climate Junket

The 30th UN Climate Summit has come and gone, and the many private jets have returned from Brazil having accomplished nothing new. What we saw for two weeks of COP30 was the same, old, doomsday prophecies. “World still on track for catastrophic 2.6C temperature rise, report finds,” blared one headline from The Guardian, while another declared “Missing 1.5C climate target is a moral failure, UN chief tells Cop30 summit.”  

A split-image depicting contrasting natural disasters: on the left, ice and ocean waves crashing with lightning, and on the right, a swirling tornado amidst a backdrop of wildfire smoke and dark storm clouds.

From RealClearEnergy

By Daniel Turner

The 30th UN Climate Summit has come and gone, and the many private jets have returned from Brazil having accomplished nothing new. What we saw for two weeks of COP30 was the same, old, doomsday prophecies. “World still on track for catastrophic 2.6C temperature rise, report finds,” blared one headline from The Guardian, while another declared “Missing 1.5C climate target is a moral failure, UN chief tells Cop30 summit.”  

With three decades of fearmongering, there is value to look at some highlights.   

A 2004 article from The Guardian excoriated the Bush Administration for trying to bury a scientific climate study. The breathless article did not want for climate hyperbole:  “Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.” 

Sitting here above water in 2025, it doesn’t require an advanced degree in climatology to know that report is off. 

Yet a search for a follow up to that report was less fruitful. There is no revisiting the work 20 plus years later to determine wherein lied the error. Of course, scientists make mistakes, and that is precisely why declaring “the science is settled” is deeply unscientific. New information, new data, new findings arise altering the body of evidence and drawing new conclusions. 

In climate science, one can cry wolf incorrectly for decades and there simply are no repercussions.   

Keep calm, and climate on. For 30 years, even.   

Buckingham Palace’s social media team released another blast from the incorrect climate past: a 1994 video of King Charles, then the Prince of Wales, predicting catastrophe. Featuring appearances from A-list actors like Idris Elba and Olivia Colman, the video is completely wrong. His speech is so old that Charles was still married to Diana.   

“As our planet’s life support system begins to fail,” declares Hollywood icon Glenn Close, echoing the royal words ,“and our very survival as a species is brought into question…” One can only marvel at the complete lack of self-awareness.   

Our planet’s life support has never “failed” or even begun to fail. The only ones questioning our very survival as a species are the COP summit fools, and they have been doing so for decades now. 

Every climate crusader paints a doomsday scenario. Greta Thunberg, while she was still a climate activist and not part of the more en vogue “death to Israel” crowd, suggested climate change “will wipe out all humanity.”  In 2009, former Biden Climate Czar John Kerry predicted the, “Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013.” Former Vice President Al Gore was rebuked by a British high court judge for a litany of errors in his 20-year-old climate film “An Inconvenient Truth.”  

In 2023, His Majesty launched a “countdown clock” ticking down to 2030 as “a visual reminder of the urgency of the climate crisis.” 

Sadly, it looks like the fall of Britain will happen sooner from soaring energy prices. 

Throughout it all, the common threads of these messages were willful and deliberate hyperbole without any after action, explanation or showing of the work.  

Keep calm and climate on. 

More than 55,000 people attended this year’s climate summit, and apparently, none of them have Zoom or Teams. Could not the entire thing be virtual to reduce the carbon footprint? Who is paying for all of this?  Prince William attended, and we presume the British taxpayers footed his bill. In fact, the UK sent over 200 people to COP30 racking up over 2.3million total miles with delegates staying a hotel costing £1,250 a night. The UK’s Climate Change Minister’s Ed Miliband didn’t just make the 12,000 mile trip once, but twice.   

Remarkable luxury for a crisis, repeated year after year, resort after resort, demanding we “act now” and “achieve net zero.” The same boring predictions, the same silly prophesizing, the same doom and gloom meant to scare us into submission. We are all sick of it.

COP30 accomplished nothing. The agenda, the language, the hand-wringing has gone from alarmist to laughable. Some 30 years of it is now exhausting.   

There is one bright spot at COP30. This naysaying crowd which looks at the future with panic and fear has one thing on the horizon which can assuage their fears and give them hope: COP31!   

See you next year.  

Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs. Contact him at daniel@powerthefuture.com and follow him on Twitter @DanielTurnerPTF

The Guardian and Guterres Are Wrong: Science Shows No Climate ‘Tipping Points’

A recent article in The Guardian, “Change course now: humanity has missed 1.5C climate target, says UN head,” claims that the planet is in grave danger of passing climate “tipping points,” as it is now inevitable that 1.5°C warming will be breached. Although 1.5℃ of warming may be locked in if not already surpassed, the claim that it signifies a dangerous milestone is false. Not only is the tipping points narrative bunk, but there is no evidence that 1.5°C warming is any particular threat. The purported temperature threshold was chosen arbitrarily and for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

A world map highlighting various climate tipping points, with locations marked and categorized by the levels of global warming at which they may occur.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

Screenshot of a The Guardian article discussing climate crisis with the word 'NONSENSE' stamped across it.

A recent article in The Guardian, “Change course now: humanity has missed 1.5C climate target, says UN head,” claims that the planet is in grave danger of passing climate “tipping points,” as it is now inevitable that 1.5°C warming will be breached. Although 1.5℃ of warming may be locked in if not already surpassed, the claim that it signifies a dangerous milestone is false. Not only is the tipping points narrative bunk, but there is no evidence that 1.5°C warming is any particular threat. The purported temperature threshold was chosen arbitrarily and for political reasons rather than scientific ones.

The Guardian’s story focuses on comments made by United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, who in advance of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, warned that it is “inevitable” that 1.5°C of warming will be breached, and it will result in “devastating consequences” for the planet. The Guardian says Guterres “urged the leaders who will gather in the Brazilian rainforest city of Belém to realize that the longer they delay cutting emissions, the greater the danger of passing catastrophic “tipping points” in the Amazon, the Arctic, and the oceans.”

There is no scientific basis for any so-called tipping points, and claiming otherwise is just fearmongering for political gain.

Beginning with the Amazon rainforest, the location of the next climate summit in November, Guterres reportedly warned that it could become a “savannah,” or a dry grassland. There is no evidence for this absurd claim. Like Guterres’ previous “boiling oceans” comment, it is purely fanciful hyperbole lacking any basis in fact. Guterres is referencing a period of drought suffered by parts of the Amazon basin in recent years, but that drought has not been historically unusual, and the recent localized areas of drought have not been more severe than previous drought periods. As discussed in the Climate Realism post “Media Outlets Continue Spreading False Amazon “Record Drought” Claims,” the Amazon has experienced periods of heavy rain and extended drought in the past that were worse than those we see now. Historic records do not show any worsening of drought in the Amazon. The threat that impacts tree cover is deforestation and clear cutting, not climate change.

The Arctic is also not approaching any dangerous tipping point. Should warming continue, ice extent will likely shrink, but it has not been happening at nearly as fast a rate as alarmists claim. Arctic sea ice extent has been stable since about 2010, indicating a new ice extent regime, and there is no telling how long that will last. If the past is any guide, sea ice might begin expanding again, as it has waxed and waned historically.

Finally, the ocean tipping point Guterres is referring to is the claim that coral reefs will die out as a result of ocean pH changes and higher temperatures, but again, science and paleo-history shows that corals are resilient to changes that are much more extreme than the modest warming of recent decades. As discussed repeatedly at Climate Realism, the world’s oceans are not at risk of becoming acidic and coral reefs are expanding their range and setting records for growth.

It is true that the “1.5°C threshold” is likely to be passed. But that does not mean anything, certainly nothing catastrophic. The 1.5°C warming limit was already passed in 2024 because of the El Niño conditions—with no cataclysm. This should not be of concern to anyone, because that limit is not a scientifically established value. The Guardian fearmongered about it in the past, which Climate Realism addressed here, and seems to have learned nothing. The 1.5°C number was arbitrary; established by an 11 member German political advisory board containing only one meteorologist. It is not a hard scientific threshold the way the boiling point of water is, though alarmists inappropriately treat it that way.

Guterres’ comments are not based on science, data, or even history. He is simply attempting to worry the public, with The Guardian’s complicity, in order to gain political leverage for negotiations at COP 30 even as a growing number of countries are downplaying climate concerns in the realistic assessment that other issues are more pressing and fossil fuels, for now, remain vital to prosperity.

Turn the Fearmongering Up to Eleven. It’s Working.

I hope readers aren’t getting tired of me calling out all these banal studies whose goal is to get those to use manipulation rather than debate and discussion in order to achieve their policy goals.

From Watts Up With That?

I hope readers aren’t getting tired of me calling out all these banal studies whose goal is to get those to use manipulation rather than debate and discussion in order to achieve their policy goals.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03539-8

It appears that the team at Penn State with this paper from Christofer Skurka, Jessica Myrick and graduate student Yin Yang, are dabbling in a fresh bout of psychological alchemy. Their mission? To convert ‘climate change dread’ into ‘environmental activism gold’. In the most recent, dazzling display of academic verbosity, we are presented with the study “Fanning the flames or burning out? Testing competing hypotheses about repeated exposure to threatening climate change messages”.

The researchers, or our modern-day Fear Whisperers, as we’ll call them, have been hard at work attempting to discern the intricate relationship between doom-laden headlines and the emotional flux of the unwitting public. Quoting, Skurka the lead author,

“The public is surrounded by media coverage about climate change, and this messaging tends to be negative in tone, focusing on the threats that climate change poses to human prosperity and ecological health”.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/994919

Quite an apt description of the relentless barrage of climate panic, Skurka, albeit missing the point of who is actually behind the ominous drums of the climate change mantra.

Now, you would think that repeatedly hammering people with the message of a seemingly insurmountable existential threat would cause a decrease in their sense of efficacy. Skurka and co. found otherwise:

“People’s efficacy beliefs increased over time. In other words, the more exposure people had to these threatening news stories each day, they were increasingly likely to think that they can make a difference in addressing climate change.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/994919

Ah, the sweet elixir of self-delusion – the belief that our recycling efforts and meat-free Mondays will single-handedly halt the mighty forces of nature.

Perhaps the most amusing slice of this climate fear cake is Myrick’s contribution to the matter. He suggests that the “agenda-setting effect”, where a topic repeatedly bashed into the public consciousness becomes viewed as increasingly important, may be the true catalyst for climate action.

“Our findings suggest that people have gotten used to doom-and-gloom reporting around climate change and what may be more important for motivating them to take action is that they see coverage of it on a daily basis”.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/994919

All it takes, it seems, is a steady drip-feed of apocalyptic narratives to have us scampering for our canvas bags and bamboo toothbrushes.

Skurka believes that fear has its place.

“decades of research in communication and psychology show that under certain circumstances, fear can be motivating.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/994919

However, one could easily point out that the weaponization of fear in climate change discourse serves to further polarize the conversation rather than encouraging balanced and critical discourse. Although, this might be a wild notion, considering that the lucrative business of fear-peddling seems to be all the rage.

And so, readers, we find ourselves on the cusp of manipulated fear and a glimmer of hope, as our Fear Whisperering betters continue to dissect our responses to their relentless symphony of doom. A toast, then, to our Penn State friends for reminding us just how easy it is to manufacture public sentiment when you control the narrative. I await their next study, perhaps exploring how sustained exposure to cute kitten videos could catalyze a surge in pet adoption rates?

Next Pandemic Could be “Even Deadlier than Covid”, Government Adviser Warns

The next pandemic could be even more deadly than Covid, a Government scientific adviser has warned as he said the U.K. needs to be better prepared for a future health crisis. The Mail has more.

From The Daily Sceptic

By WILL JONES

The next pandemic could be even more deadly than Covid, a Government scientific adviser has warned as he said the U.K. needs to be better prepared for a future health crisis. The Mail has more.

Professor Mark Woolhouse said the coronavirus outbreak, which killed at least 227,000 in the U.K., was potentially nowhere near as bad as it could have been.

The epidemiologist told the Covid Inquiry the U.K. made a mistake in preparing only for an influenza pandemic rather than hedging bets across a multitude of different outbreaks, including coronavirus.

Professor Woolhouse, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Infections group on Modelling (SPI-M) which advised Government during the pandemic, said he did not want to cast himself as a “doom-monger”, but warned the next outbreak could be far worse.

He told the inquiry in London: “I hope this doesn’t sound too shocking, but on the scale of potential pandemics, Covid was not at the top and it was possibly quite far from the top.

“It may be that next time — and there will be a next time, I don’t know when, it may be quite some time in the future — we will be dealing with a virus that is much more deadly, and is also much more transmissible, in which case actually the things we did to control Covid wouldn’t work anyway.

“I am not sitting here as a doom-monger saying this is going to happen soon, but I am confident enough to tell Government that this is something you should be concerned about, you should be prepared for.

“The next pandemic could be far more difficult to handle than Covid was, and we all saw the damage that that pandemic caused.”

The inquiry, which is in its fourth week, has repeatedly heard from scientists and politicians that the U.K. failed to prepare for a pandemic other than the strict parameters of a flu-like outbreak.

Professor Woolhouse said this strategy was like betting on just one horse at the Grand National.

They just can’t help themselves with their fearmongering and endless ‘pandemic preparedness’, can they. And Mark Woolhouse had been one of the better ones, telling the Government last year that “most of the people who died in the first wave got infected during lockdown” and “lockdowns were not a proportionate or sustainable intervention and the forthcoming inquiry needs to take a critical view of their role”.

Well, this was your chance, Mark. So why are you instead telling the inquiry to make preparations to ‘control’ deadlier and more contagious diseases?

The truth is there has not been a global outbreak of disease that killed more than a fraction of a percent of the world’s population for over a century. Thanks to modern living conditions and medicine, ‘pandemics’ just aren’t something humanity has to worry about anymore. But that’s not the impression you get from listening to any of these scientists.

Another Climate Study Finds ‘Apocalyptic’ Messaging Causes Disengagement

Breitbart reports that “[a] simulation based on apocalyptic images designed to highlight “the disastrous effects of climate change” had the opposite impact on those who viewed it and failed to shift attitudes, a study from Singapore Management University details.”

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article from Breitbart describes a study that found people are less likely to display concern over climate change after being shown apocalyptic messaging about potential future impacts. While it’s only a single study, the results are consistent with alarmists’ own reports that say exaggeration of climate impacts actually discourages people from supporting the climate cause, whether due to narrative fatigue or hopelessness. That combined with the fact that the central claim itself–that climate change is producing apocalyptic effects– is also false, makes it easy for laypeople to ignore alarmist claims.

In the article, “Study: Catastrophic Climate Warnings Fail to Shift Attitudes,” Breitbart reports that “[a] simulation based on apocalyptic images designed to highlight “the disastrous effects of climate change” had the opposite impact on those who viewed it and failed to shift attitudes, a study from Singapore Management University details.”

In the study, researchers created a video simulation of Hong Kong being catastrophically flooded with storm surge, something the researchers claim could happen in the future due to climate change. Instead of frightening people into being more concerned about how climate change might hurt them, participants actually were less fearful after viewing the simulation. Some said it was because they didn’t think human-induced climate change was real, others said the impacts would happen too far in the future to be worried about, and another group said they lived too far above sea level to worry about storm surge anyway.

Breitbart reports that the researchers who conducted the study were disappointed in the results.

One of the report’s authors, Dr Terry van Gevelt, told Eco-Business.com the simulation should have provided “the wake-up call needed to modify individual behaviour and support costly climate adaptation and mitigation measures.”

Instead the result was exactly the opposite.

These results are not altogether surprising. Multiple media outlets, even those which usually hype an extreme cataclysmic vision of the future under climate change, recently reported that young people have become increasingly resistant to climate action as the media continues to promote more alarm. As reported by Climate Realism in “Multiple Outlets Admit “Catastrophe” Narrative is Counterproductive,” activist journalists are finding that a fatalist, or “doomer,” perspective has begun to emerge as a lack of massive societal upheaval fails to materialize the way activists have demanded. This leads to people who otherwise would be sympathetic to their movement checking out instead, thinking that there is nothing that can be done to stop climate change.

As Climate Realism has repeatedly shown, (here, here, and here, for recent examples) during the past century-or-more of warming, none of the so-called “disastrous effects” of climate change have materialized, so perhaps stopping the Earth’s climate from changing, as it has for millions of years, isn’t so urgent.

Additionally, despite constant media fearmongering, climate change consistently ranks last among issues of concern in public opinion polls. Over recent years, polls conducted by The Washington Post/ABC, Gallup, The New York Times,  and others, consistently show that while there is some concern, most voters rank climate change among their least pressing issues. Those results are the same globally—in a 2016 United Nations poll, climate change again ranked dead last among world issues.

Breitbart did a solid job reporting on the Singapore Management University study, this kind of information is vital to note when the majority of climate-related journalism is focused on convincing the public that there is a consensus—not just the alleged (and false) scientific consensus—but a consensus among laypeople that there is a looming catastrophe and that we need immediate and extreme action. No such public consensus exists, the opposite is true; most people consistently rank climate change as a low-priority issue, and are not overly impressed with computer simulated apocalypses.

https://climaterealism.com/author/llueken/

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.

While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

Linnea Lueken