Maglio: The irony of climate change predictions

Sponsored Links

The 2013 Antarctica expedition of scientists and tourists was to retrace the steps of explorer Douglas Mawson in 1912. It was supposed to show that global warming was decreasing the ocean ice cap. Instead several nations sent icebreakers to assist the stuck vessel. They, too, became stuck and eventually a helicopter was sent to evacuate the global warming alarmists from the impassible ice. This ice had reached record levels of 3.5 million square miles, according to the National Snow and ice Data Center.

News reports did not mention the irony of scientists being stuck in ice that was supposed to have been melted. Even after the expedition they made the following statement: “We are stuck in our own experiment.” The media coverage only highlighted the ship’s party atmosphere of being “brave individuals.” They carefully avoided the obvious implication that “global warming” or “climate change” predictions were wrong, once again.

Scientific prediction after prediction of global warming that does not materialize is conveniently ignored. In the early 1970s “scientists” were talking about global warming. By 1974 they were writing of the coming Ice Age. In the 1990s Al Gore and other politicos were predicting the ice would melt, raising ocean levels, killing polar bears and leaving the world’s most populated costal areas underwater.

In 2007 the BBC stated that the arctic would be iceless by 2013. But satellite data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center and European Space Agency have shown ice is thicker in the arctic than it was five years ago.

Jerry Brown, governor of California, stated on May 13 that LAX would be underwater within 200 years although the airport is 125 feet above sea level.

Even NOAA said, “it would take 45,903.6 years to reach 125 feet at the present rate of global warming, we’d be in a new ice age by then and sea levels would be falling.”

There is numerous fear mongering studies blaming every disaster and anti-social behavior on CO2 emissions. Hurricanes — increases in or lack of — tornados, mudslides, fires, drought, cold spells and heat waves are promoted as definitive signs of global warming, change, or disruption. Terrorism, domestic violence, general crime, wars and birthrates have been noted by proponents of global warming to have increased or will continue to escalate due to global warming. These so-called expert “studies” and the federal government through grants, which drives these absurd claims exponentially, incentivizes articles supporting global warming.

No matter how many gloom and doom predictions are proven false, the drumbeat continues for global governmental intervention. This translates into redistributing wealth by robbing developed nations, particularly the United States, by charging a carbon emissions fee. Even if the U.S. emissions were lowered to zero, China, India and other underdeveloped countries that are the greatest polluters are exempted. The United States paying the fee will not touch the problem.

Yet the EPA bureaucratically commanded on June 2 that the coal industry has to reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent in 15 years. There was no congressional law passed to legitimize this capricious and irrational act.

The climate models that these scientists have created are as good as the variables that they choose. Garbage in-garbage out is the common language used for weak models. These models have not accurately predicted 10-day weather patterns; no less long-term climate changes.

Even if we lowered CO2 emissions to near zero, climate change would occur. Climate has changed since the beginning of time. The attempt to use CO2 emissions as a prime mover of climate change might be a smart political strategy, except hard cold facts are getting in the way.

It is hard to make a cogent argument for taxing or regulating CO2 emissions as inaccurate predictions continue to surface. These incidents of truth appear at the most inconvenient and ironic times.

This ridiculous push to tax developed nations for pollution when they are not the major contributors is an attempt to finance a global government that would produce a supposed “Global Utopia.” This global warming, climate change or the Obama administration’s new term, “global disruption” would be humorous if not for its financial and political long-term implications on global stability.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program in Spring Hill. Read more at or email him at