It doesn’t matter that the “examples” have no basis in fact.

It doesn’t make a difference that the past predictions continue to fall flat.

And it never is plainly said that their “solutions” aren’t solutions at all, but only ideological imperatives.

The “Climate Change Agenda,” backed by elites who stand to gain, at the expense of the vast majority of humanity, continues to be pushed by deeply undemocratic and deceptive means.

The latest push is happening at something called the COP27, a meeting of nations that will occur in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt from 6 to 18 November. 

In a World Economic Forum story previewing the event, a litany of scaremongering examples were presented to justify the case for climate alarmism:

“A third of Pakistan flooded. Europe’s hottest summer in 500 years. The Philippines hammered. The whole of Cuba in blackout. And … in the United States, Hurricane Ian has delivered a brutal reminder that no country and no economy is immune from the climate crisis.”

As is typical of “crisis” references thrown out to try to sway emotions, virtually none of the cited examples can be factually tied to man-caused “climate change.”

No matter what the weather—flooding or drought, more snow, less snow, fewer hurricanes, more hurricanes, Climate activists use virtually any example of weather caused calamity to “prove” their case.

Some background on COP and Climate Predictions Then

As the WEF article notes, The Conference of the Parties (COP) comprises a group of nearly 200 nations that have signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was first formulated in 1992.

The central object of the Framework has been to act together to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”. 

COP meetings have occurred on a near annual basis since the mid 90’s.
So.  What were some of the predictions and fears that were on the minds of climate activists at that time? The New York Times provides a doozy.  It ran a story in 1995 that claimed with near certainty that in 25 years (ie., by 2020), there would be no beaches left on the entire east coast of the United States:

The failed prediction might be seen as comically pathetic, and it is.

But unfortunately, the so-called paper of record, as well as the institutions that produce “scientific” doomsday climate predictions, wield vast power in molding and shaping opinions, and influencing governmental policies.

The Times “no beaches” story is just one of literally dozens and dozens of attention-grabbing failed predictions that nonetheless helped instigate radical energy policy changes that are now creating hardship and chaos around the world.

The American Enterprise Institute has compiled a list of 50 years of sensational climate doomsday predictions dating from 1967 to 2011—all of which failed to materialize. 

Some lowlights:

  • 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
  • 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
  • 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
  • 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not) 
  • 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
  • 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
  • 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
  • 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
  • 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
  • 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
  • 2008: Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013

Yes, prediction after prediction failed to deliver.  But they had their effect.  

They created a suitable climate of fear, for activists to push a radical agenda of restrictions and regulations affecting human productivity, energy use, land use, technology winners and losers, “recycling” mandates, and more.

COP27 Agenda

What’s on the slate for the latest climate summit? According to the WEF, COP27 has four broad carbon related goals:

  • Mitigation: All parties, especially those in a position to “lead by example”, are urged to take “bold and immediate actions” and to reduce emissions to limit global warming well below 2°C.
  • Adaptation: Ensure that COP27 makes the “crucially needed progress” towards enhancing climate change resilience and assisting the world’s most vulnerable communities.
  • Finance: Make significant progress on climate finance, including the delivery of the promised $100 billion per year to assist developing countries.
  • Collaboration: As the UN negotiations are consensus-based, reaching agreement will require “inclusive and active participation from all stakeholders”.

If the above sounds somewhat vague, rest assured that the carbon limits being proposed in the details are quite specific—and will deliver even more of a wallop to the economic prospects of average humanity than people are already experiencing.

Right now, in Europe and in the U.S. Northeast the suppression of oil and gas production and infrastructure has precipitated a crisis of skyrocketing fuel prices and rationing, as winter sets in.

Radical carbon emission reduction goals have been a large factor in rising costs of food and practically everything else, since economic productivity requires things like energy and carbon products like nitrogen for fertilizers, etc.

Yet even as food prices are soaring, farmers in the Netherlands, France, Italy and Canada are being forced to shut down because they can’t meet the fertilizer restriction mandates imposed by the UN’s radical agenda.

Perversities in the energy industry abound. Some examples:

  • The same Biden Administration that early on shut down the Canadian Keystone pipeline project, and restricted oil and gas leasing on public lands, is now draining U.S. strategic oil reserves for sale to China
  • Biden tried (and failed) to reach a secret deal with Saudi Arabia to temporarily pump more oil so Democrats could benefit in the 2022 midterm elections from lower gas prices
  • At the same time, Biden is boasting that there has been and will be “no more drilling” of oil during his administration; yes, he literally said so this past weekend
  • China is now becoming the major reseller of LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) to Europe
  • Unsustainable rises in energy costs are now threatening to shutter six in ten UK factories
  • New York and New England, which had the means to build natural gas infrastructure, chose to phase out tapping into that abundant supply to satisfy “net zero” carbon goals; as a result, those regions are now experiencing crushing increases in winter heating costs, and the prospect of energy rationing
  • In England, the price to fuel up an EV with electricity currently costs more than filling up a car with diesel, according to data gathered by Parkers (as reported by
  • As prices for staple food items like eggs, dairy, wheat and practically everything else spiral, Western nations are forcing implementation of “carbon zero” equipment use and nitrogen fertilizer limit objectives that are literally forcing farmers to capitulate and take food producing land off the table

Common Sense vs Climate Fanaticism

Many might ask, but isn’t climate change, and global temperature warming real, and an existential threat to life?  Isn’t it reasonable to try to mitigate factors which are leading to potential disaster?

There are several aspects involved in trying to answer those concerns.  To what extent is man-caused climate change scientifically certain?  Can proposed alternate “green” technologies do what their (often personally invested) backers claim?  

Are climate activists being transparent and sincere about their goals, or are they engaging in hyperbolic climate alarmism to push a deceptive agenda?

Fully unraveling these issues is beyond the scope of this article.  But at least a few points and guideposts can be touched on, to try to understand where common sense might lie on the issues involved.

Climate Change Certainty Anything But

As far as scientific certainty of climate change: there is more than just a pile of failed dire predictions to give pause to those willing to more closely examine some of the signature claims of climate science.

Tony Heller of has a short (12 minute) YouTube video which exposes some of the ways in which climate “science” activists have selectively used historical data to promote deceptive narratives regarding global warming, arctic ice melts, sea level rises, and more.

Heller has also done his share of pointing out the failed doomsday claims of environmentalists and the media, as documented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Here’s one poster child example featuring c. 1970 predictions of influential green movement ecologist Paul Ehrlich:

Heller is a longtime environmentalist who nonetheless eschews climate alarmism. He has worked as a professional geologist, electrical engineer, and as science educator for many years. He received a BS in Geology from Arizona State University, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering from Rice University.

Heller is also a member of CO2 Coalition, a group formed in 2015 to advocate for a more objective pursuit of climate science.

According to its website:

“The CO2 Coalition was established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3) for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. The Coalition seeks to engage in an informed and dispassionate discussion of climate change, humans’ role in the climate system, the limitations of climate models, and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions”

In a recent video previewing COP27, Heller noted that when they began in 1992, scientists were predicting catastrophic global warming by the year 2000.

Heller also pointed out that in the 30 years of the existence of COP, rates of CO2 increases in the atmosphere have continued virtually unaffected by impositions made thus far by governments battling C02 emissions:

“Green” Energy Alternatives Will Have Trouble Delivering, Instead Paving The Way To “DeGrowth”

There are certainly excellent applications for solar and other forms of alternative energy.

But in the zeal to reach carbon emissions reduction targets, radical impositions are creating an impossible task for alternative energy technologies.

They are being regulated into the market, even in cases where the technology can’t deliver in terms of efficiency, practicality, and even in terms of environmental friendliness and sustainability.

The drive to replace gas powered combustion engine cars with electric vehicles (EVs) is perhaps the most obvious example where the agenda is riding roughshod over common sense.

Mining the resources for lithium batteries required by EVs (and other renewable energy technologies) have intensive detrimental environmental impacts. What’s more, as a recent Finnish government report determined, there isn’t enough lithium to sustain the kind of mass battery production and replacement cycle that could get the world to a lithium powered “net zero” carbon targets proposed by the UN and COP.

Even if there was abundant lithium that was environmentally destructive to exploit, the technology still is a bad match for the requirements of motor vehicles, as an excellent analysis by Engineering Explained details.

Quite simply, gas is a highly compact and efficient form of energy, compared to any equivalent lithium battery technology available.

That’s why it can make sense to supplement home energy with solar, since physical space, and weight of materials is less of a limiting factor in that kind of application.

But alternative energy technologies are being oversold by climate activists in highly politicized and deceptive ways. 

A recent research paper published in the Canadian Journal of Sustainable Development detailed some of the overblown claims regarding alternative energies.

The paper, authored by academics and scientists from Washington University in St Louis, Switzerland and South Africa, concluded that (1) alternative energies cost much more than politicized calculations estimate; (2) they are in no position technologically to meet the demands that traditional energy resources and infrastructure currently supplies, and (3) there aren’t enough resources, including land area, to support wind and solar farms that would have to supply energy to replace traditional forms currently in use. 

The upshot is that no form of energy is perfect or without environmental impacts and other issues.  If governmental authorities and the energy industry embarked on a plan to set goals for efficiency and environmental improvements within each energy resource industry, without artificially pitting them against each other and picking (ie. subsidizing and regulating) winners and losers, that would represent a common sense approach.

Alas, that’s not what’s happening.

And because green energy alternatives can’t actually replace oil, natural gas, clean coal and other traditional energy sources, elites are already instituting policies that effectively are ushering in a new normal of DeGrowth.

DeGrowth basically posits that the only real way to reduce environmental damage and heal the earth is for humans to accept less economic growth, less prosperity, more restrictions on human travel, activity—and ultimately, human life itself.

Up until recently, most people had never heard the term DeGrowth. But as The Trends Journal pointed out, it’s very much a part of the plan of NGOs like the WEF, and the UN.

Just a few weeks ago, Bill Gates was forced to address the question of DeGrowth—and to conveniently claim he was not a proponent of it. 

Even Climate Activists Admit Their Doomsday Rhetoric Has Been Counter-Productive

Even some of the most ardent climate activists have a growing awareness that the “constant crisis” strategy, which has too often played with facts to galvanize action, is hurting the credibility of their cause.

A group of researchers at the University of Colorado-Boulder recently authored a letter as part of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that admitted scientists are focusing too much on worst-case scenarios of climate change and environmental shifts all around the globe. 

Their letter acknowledged the harm of over-overstating climate change effects, and admitted that more likely outcomes, while “not good,” would not be as catastrophic as often claimed.

“We shouldn’t overstate or understate our climate future,” CU Boulder assistant professor Matt Burgess, stated in a press release concerning the letter. “People need to think in terms of gradations, not absolutes. Yes, we need to be aware of the extremes, like climate solutions that get us to net

zero before mid century, or on the flipside, global catastrophes. But it’s what’s in the middle that is more likely. And that deserves more research.”

For related reading, see:

A final note: lest anyone think we at Trends In Technocracy are taking too much credit for forecasting the rolling out of more extremist policies designed to impoverish and enslave the bulk of average humanity, check out this movie clip from the 1981 movie Early Warning. Seriously, is that Bill Gates in an early role, in a promotional flick produced by George Soros?

Leave a Reply

Skip to content