Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.
Latest posts by Jim Lakely (see all)
- President Obama Poised to ‘Ratify’ Fake Paris Climate Agreement in China - September 1, 2016
- Heartland Daily Podcast – Chris Hughes: On the Front Lines of the FDA’s War on Vaping - August 25, 2016
- GOP VP Candidate Mike Pence Praises The Heartland Institute - July 20, 2016
The environmental correspondent for BBC News — a reliable source for climate alarmism — informs us that the “smart folks” on climate change have issued a “new warning” on the sea-ice melt at the North Pole. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the warning is that the sea-ice melt the “smart folks” predicted isn’t going as planned:
Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade.
Now they are working with a new computer model – compiled partly in response to those criticisms – that produces a “best guess” date of 2016.
Sure. Arctic sea ice will “probably be gone this decade.” Unless it isn’t. In which case, the alarmists will edit their ever-present “The End is Near!!!” placards to 2017 … then 2018, and 2019 then 2020 — at which point the “gone this decade” prediction will just move on to the next decade.
Thought experiment: Let’s say I predict that the world will end in 2012. And, if it doesn’t happen, I adjust my prediction to 2013. And if (again) it doesn’t end, adjust my prediction to 2014. Then 2015. Then 2016 … ad infinitum until the world actually ends, as it surely will some day. If I could live forever — and was determined to keep making predictions year after year — I’d eventually be right. But that wouldn’t make me a reliable seer. Or remotely sane. Or a credible scientist.
So why do climate alarmists keep getting off the hook?