How will you and I become extinct? The UN assures us that the weather will be unpleasant whenever it happens. The IPCC has predicted that global “warming”, “heating”, “baking” “broiling” and other Game of Thrones-worthy torture methods would be the end of humanity. The latest:  The earth will be boiling!

Except what if it’s not true, and if it is true and the cause is humans, what if the “cures” are worse than the ailment? Don’t take my word for it; read on.

Predictions – Below the Mendoza line

If climate predictions were baseball, the doomsayers would already be in the Arizona Instructional League. The current UN climate chief claims that we have TWO YEARS to save the world! Don’t trust him, given the dismal history of eco-pocalyptic predictions, say Watts Up With That? and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

Is the apocalypse at hand?

Wildfires are not increasing

Extreme heat is NOT the biggest cause of death despite the desperate warnings of President Biden. 

Main stream media, sloppy and misleading … again

The New York Times makes dire predictions with no evidence, says Mark Morano at Climate Depot … and is plain wrong on climate and California wildfires. USA Today is no better on a rare cactus.

Who wins and who loses?

According to Robert Bryce, China is the beneficiary of the North American authoritarian EV policies. China has a near monopoly on the metals and minerals needed to build EVs, wind turbines, military weapons, and other alternative energy technologies.

Bjorn Lomborg and three physicists speak below about how the poorest people in the poorest countries will lose.

Follow the “science” to where, exactly?

Real scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer and Steven Koonin told the World Court in the Hague that the science does not support the claim that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions. The IPCC is a political, government-controlled entity and its conclusions have no value as science. Who would lose in a quest for “net-zero”? The poor, because of mass starvation and lack of affordable energy.

Lomborg tells us that “following the science” so as to end foss il fuels is a bad bargain. That assertion is convenient for politicians because it allows them to avoid responsibility for the costs and downsides of climate policy. The message confounds climate science with climate policy. The notion that there is nothing but benefit to ending fossil fuels and a hellscape if nothing is done. The costs of “just stop” oil, gas and coal are massively downplayed.

There is hope. Thank God for the green crusaders!

Your musical interlude

[View source.]