Climate Predictions Hinder Environmental Efforts

Discredited predictions about climate cataclysm are promoting an ideological tug-of-war over the issue.  Global organizations, academics and scientists have been guilty of grossly inaccurate forecasts, reducing the debate over the environment to gratuitous scaremongering. 

Climate change, closely identified with liberalism, has become a political catechism, crippling chances of a bipartisan approach.  That is tragic because the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of clean air, clean water and conservation.  Virtually no one opposes that ideology.

However, spreading apocalyptic prophecies to urge action has invited criticism instead of cooperation.  Environmentalists need to practice more education and less proselytizing.  Everyone should be able to agree the current approach has failed miserably to gain bipartisan traction.

One of the worst offenders of wildly misleading forecasts has been the often-cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program.  It counts among its members more than 1,500 scientists.

For example, the IPCC issued a report this month maintaining global warming has devastated crop production. The document sounded the alarm of a impending disaster of epic proportions.  But the report parsed language and relied on heresy instead of evidence.

"Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in dry lands, particularly those in Africa and high mountain regions of Asia and South America," the report claimed.   Note the lack of hard data to justify the original premise about drastic consequences.

Another agency in the same building, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a report citing record-setting production of global corn, wheat and rice crops five years running through 2017, the most recent available data.  This is the latest contradiction to calamitous claims.

Here are a few other doozies.  A Department of Oceanography professor of the U.S. Navy predicted in 2007 an ice free Arctic Ocean  by 2013.  That same year the IPCC predicted that by 2020 there would be increasing droughts worldwide.  It later was forced to admit the forecast was overstated.

Even when predictions are found baseless, the proponents refuse to budge.  James Hansen, who headed NASA's Goddard Institute for three decades, has a long and shameful record of counterfeit predictions.  Despite the facts, Hansen's forecasts are still repeated by climate alarmists.

Lead IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund was pressed once on his debunked forecasts.  His reply: "On the whole I would stand by these predictions--not predictions, sorry, scenarios--as having at least in a general way actually come true."

Oppenheimer's most glaring error was predicting greenhouse gases would desolate the heartlands of America, "causing crop failures and food riots," adding the situation would send Americans fleeing to Mexico to work as "field hands."  He once served as an advisor to Al Gore on climate matters.

Liberals and conservatives need to start fresh, armed with facts not spurious forecast models and outlandish predictions. That means putting aside a polemic that suggests saving the environment is an either or proposition: do you want oil or a clean environment; economic growth or pure water, etc.

Here's a novel approach: stop arguing about climate change and pursue policies that are good for the environment.  There are literally  hundreds of ways to decrease waste and reduce air and water pollution. Many are far less expensive and require far less government intrusion than current ideas.

University of Central Oklahoma research found that if manufacturers used recycled paper, it would cut air pollution 73% and water pollution by 35% compared to current methods.  Recycling glass would reduce mining waste by 80% and air pollution by 20%.

A U.S. Forest Service study estimates the U.S. loses around 36 million trees every year.  Many of those trees are in urban areas, where temperatures tend to be higher because of a phenomenon known as the heat island effect.  Urban reforestation would reduce energy use and carbon dioxide.

Recycling steel would trim 97% of the mining waste produced through traditional manufacturing and cut 86% of air pollution and 76% of water pollution in the country.  Non-biodegradable plastic is clogging landfills and polluting oceans.  Reducing plastic waste is a no brainer.

The good news is America is making progress.  A study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 12.2% since 2007.  In the same period, China's emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons and India's surged 1 billion tons.

That last point deserves underscoring: India and China are creating environmental havoc.  The Health Effects Institute (HEI) of Boston reported in 2017 that the two countries had the deadliest air pollution in the world.  Cleaning up America is just one solution of the global climate we all share.

American ingenuity is a transformative force when it is unleashed to tackle thorny issues.  As a country, we need to agree to put aside differences and harness that creativity to make our environment cleaner tomorrow and for future generations.  There should be no debate about that.