March 26, 2025
Climate Hysteria Challenging the Climate Crisis
Narrative The climate crisis narrative ignores real
issues like poor infrastructure and overpopulation, pushing costly
policies that hurt economies while failing to improve resilience. Edward Ring
According to the
United
Nations, “Climate change is a global emergency that goes beyond
national borders.” From the
World Economic Forum, “Urgent global action must be taken to reduce
emissions and safeguard human health from the multi-pronged negative
impacts of climate change globally.”
From every multinational institution in the world, we hear the same
message. From the
World
Bank, “The world is battling a perfect storm of climate, conflict,
economic, and nature crises.” From the
World Health Organization, “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is
expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from
malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat.”
A major problem with all this unanimity over this “emergency” is the fact
that for at least half of all people living in Western nations in 2025,
the UN, WEF, WHO, and World Bank have no credibility. We don’t want to
“own nothing and be happy” as our middle class is crushed. We don’t want
the only politically acceptable way to maintain national economic growth
to rely on population replacement. And with only the slightest numeracy,
we see apocalyptic proclamations as lacking substance.
For example, while 250,000 “additional deaths per year” is tragic,
worldwide estimates of total deaths are not quite
70 million per year. These “additional deaths” constitute a 0.36
percent increase over that baseline, just over one-third of one percent.
Not even a rounding error.
Similarly, an alarmist prediction from NASA is that “Antarctica is losing
ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about
150
billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons
per year, adding to sea level rise.” Let’s unpack that a bit. A billion
tons is a gigaton, equivalent in volume to one cubic kilometer. So
Antarctica is losing 150 cubic kilometers of ice per year. But Antarctica
has an estimated total ice mass of
30 million cubic kilometers. Which means Antarctica is losing about
one twenty-thousandth of one percent of its total ice mass per
year. That is well below the accuracy of measurement. It is an estimate,
and the conclusion it suggests is of no significance.
One may wonder about Greenland, with “only”
2.9 million cubic kilometers of ice, melting at an estimated rate of
270
gigatons per year. But that still yields a rate of loss of less than
one one-hundredth of one percent per year, which is almost
certainly below the ability to actually gauge total ice mass and total
annual ice loss.
What about sea level rise? Here again, basic math yields underwhelming
conclusions. The total surface area of the world’s oceans is
361 million square kilometers. If you spread 420 gigatons over that
surface (Greenland and Antarctica’s melting combined), you get a sea
level rise of not quite 1.2 millimeters per year. This is, again,
so insignificant that it is below the threshold of our ability to
measure.
These fundamental facts will turn anyone willing to do even basic
fact-checking into a cynic. What’s really going on? We get at least a
glimpse of truth from the above quotation from the World Bank, where they
ascribe the challenges of humanity to several causes: “climate, conflict,
economic, and nature crises.” There’s value in the distinctions they
make. They list “nature crisis” as distinct from “climate,” and at least
explicitly, they don’t even cite “climate” as resulting from some
anthropogenically generated trend of increasing temperatures and
increasingly extreme weather. They just say “climate.”
Which brings us to the point: Conflict and economic crises are far bigger
sources of human misery, and we face serious environmental challenges
that have little to do with climate change and more to do with how we
manage our industry, our wilderness, and our natural resources. And we
are face “climate” challenges even when catastrophic climate events have
nothing to do with any alleged “climate crisis.”
A perfect example of how the climate “crisis” narrative is falsely
applied when, in fact, the climate-related catastrophe would have
happened anyway is found in the disastrous
floods that devastated Pakistan in 2022. Despite the doomsday spin
from PBS (etc.), these floods were not abnormal because of “climate
change.” They were an abnormal catastrophe because in just 60 years, the
population of that nation has grown from
45 million to 240 million people. They’ve
channelized their rivers, built dense new settlements
onto what were once floodplains and other marginal land, they’ve
denuded their forests, which took away the capacity to absorb runoff,
and they’ve
paved thousands of square miles, creating impervious surfaces where
water can’t percolate. Of course, a big storm made a mess. The weather
didn’t change. The nation changed.
The disaster story repeats everywhere. Contrary to the narrative, the
primary cause is not “climate change.” Bigger tsunamis? Maybe it’s
because coastal
aquifers were overdrafted, which caused land subsidence, or because
previously uninhabited tidelands were settled because the population
quintupled in less than two generations, and because
coastal mangrove forests were destroyed, which used to attenuate big
waves. What about deforestation? Perhaps because these nations have been
denied the ability to develop natural gas and hydroelectric power,
they’re stripping away the forests for fuel to cook their food. In some
cases, they’re burning their forests to
make room for biofuel plantations, in a towering display of irony and
corruption.
In California, our nation’s epicenter of climate crisis fearmongering and
the subsequent commercial opportunism, the emphasis on crisis instead of
resilience has led to absurd policies. Instead of bringing back the
timber industry to thin the
state’s overgrown forests, the governor mandates exclusive sales of
EVs by 2035. Instead of responsibly drilling oil in California’s ample
reserves of crude, California imports 75 percent of its oil, and its
economy still relies on oil for half the energy that the state
consumes.
Worldwide, these mistakes multiply. Biofuel plantations consume half a
million square miles in order to replace a mere two percent of
transportation fuel. A mad scramble across every continent to increase
mining by an order of magnitude to meet the demand for raw materials to
manufacture batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. Denial of funds
for natural gas development in Africa, condemning over a billion people
to ongoing energy poverty.
Simple truths are obscured by the climate crisis narrative. We need to
rebuild our infrastructure for climate resilience because much of it is
over a century old, at the same time as the US population has tripled.
Floods and hurricanes cause more damage because there are more people,
and more of them live in areas that have always been hit by floods
and hurricanes.
The truths are as endless as they are repressed. We can’t possibly lift
all of humanity into a middle-class lifestyle without at least doubling
energy production worldwide, and we can’t possibly accomplish that while
also reducing our use of coal, oil, and gas. Renewables aren’t renewable
(
here’s a must-read on that topic). Offshore wind is an environmental
disaster, as is biofuel, as is the explosion of totally unregulated
mining to feed the renewables industry. On the other hand, extreme
environmental laws and regulations are harming economic growth, freedom,
and, in no small irony, the innovation and investment that would give us
the wealth we need to better protect the environment. And the prevailing
economic, environmental, and cultural challenge in the world is not the
climate but crashing birthrates among developing nations at the same time
as the population of the world’s most undeveloped nations
continues to explode exponentially.
We need climate resilience in order to properly protect a global
population that has
quadrupled to 8 billion in just the last century, spreading to every
corner of the earth. That goal would be easier if once-trusted global
institutions would allow for honest debate and practical infrastructure
development. Instead, they continue to spew transparently misleading
climate crisis propaganda, adhering to a mission that can only be
described as repressive on all frontsculturally, economically, and
environmentally.