In this blog post, I will discuss how the claims of climate change activists like John Kerry haven’t proven to be accurate. None of the dire warnings of the last decade have come to fruition. I will show how Kerry’s rhetoric is not backed by science or reality, and how his policies are harmful to the economy and national security.
John Kerry is the First United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden administration, and he has a seat on the National Security Council dedicated to climate change. So, in other words, Joe Biden created a position for him that never existed, in any form, before Joe Biden became president. He has been traveling around the world, on the U.S. taxpayers dime, urging other countries to join the U.S. in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and combating the climate crisis. He has called climate change an “existential threat” that requires “urgent action” .
But what is the evidence for his claims? How do we know that climate change is really happening, and that it is caused by human activity? How do we know that the consequences will be catastrophic if we don’t act now? And how do we know that his proposed solutions will work and not cause more harm than good?
Put simply: we don’t. Kerry’s claims are based on flawed models, dubious data, and political agendas. They are not supported by empirical observations, historical records, or common sense. They are contradicted by many scientists, economists, and experts who have challenged the mainstream narrative on climate change. How work is a prime example of the “garbage in, garbage out” concept that any 1st year computer science student should recognize.
Let’s look at some examples of how Kerry’s claims haven’t proven to be accurate, and how his critics have pointed out the flaws in his arguments.
- He claims that the world is facing a “climate emergency” and that we have only a few years left to avoid irreversible damage. But this is not true. The world has faced many natural variations in climate throughout history, and there is no evidence that the current warming trend is unprecedented or dangerous. In fact, the global average temperature has risen by only about 1 degree Celsius since the late 19th century, and it has been stable or declining since 2016. There is no sign of runaway warming or tipping points that would lead to catastrophe. His critics have argued that his alarmism is based on worst-case scenarios that are unlikely to happen, and that he ignores the uncertainties and limitations of climate models that often overestimate warming and sensitivity to CO2 .
- He claims that extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires are becoming more frequent and intense because of climate change. But this is not true either. There is no clear trend in the frequency or intensity of these events over the past century, and they are largely influenced by natural factors such as ocean cycles, solar activity, and volcanic eruptions. There is no causal link between CO2 emissions and weather disasters. His critics have shown that his claims are based on cherry-picked data, anecdotal evidence, and media hype, and that he ignores the role of adaptation and resilience in reducing the impacts of these events .
- He claims that sea level rise is accelerating and threatening coastal communities around the world. But this is also false. The rate of sea level rise has been relatively constant over the past century, and it is mostly due to natural processes such as thermal expansion and glacial melting. There is no evidence that human activity has significantly affected sea level rise or that it will cause catastrophic flooding in the future. His critics have pointed out that his claims are based on exaggerated projections that assume unrealistic rates of ice sheet collapse and ignore the geological factors that affect local sea level changes .
- He claims that climate change is a national security threat that will cause mass migration, conflict, and instability. But this is a gross exaggeration. There is no clear connection between climate change and human security issues such as poverty, violence, or terrorism. In fact, there is more evidence that economic development, trade, and democracy are more effective ways to reduce these problems than reducing emissions . His critics have argued that his claims are based on speculative scenarios that ignore the complex causes of social and political unrest, and that he uses climate change as a pretext to advance his geopolitical agenda .
- He claims that his plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 will create millions of jobs, boost innovation, and strengthen competitiveness. But this is nothing more than wishful thinking. His plan would require massive government intervention, regulation, and spending that would stifle economic growth, increase energy costs, and reduce consumer choice. His plan would also make the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of energy and technology, especially from China, which is the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and a strategic rival of the U.S . His critics have warned that his plan would harm the U.S. economy and national security without making a significant difference in global emissions or temperatures .
In conclusion, John Kerry’s claims about climate change are not accurate or realistic. They are based on faulty science, exaggerated risks, and unrealistic solutions. They are driven by ideological motives and political interests, and. are not in the best interest of the American people or the world.
No one should be listening to John Kerry or his fellow climate activists who would impose their radical, globalist agenda on us. We should instead listen to the voices of reason and common sense, voices that offer a more balanced and rational perspective on climate change. We should also focus on more pressing issues such as national security, defense, health care, education, and infrastructure. These are the things that affect our lives today and tomorrow.