Classic cherry picking of single erroneous assumptions to make a point. I note that in that screed the author makes his own failed prediction:
"Germany is about to be crushed by the
massive cost of its renewable energy boondoggle."
The difference from these single person predictions that he dug through and amped up way beyond their original importance is that the world's main body and vast majority of climate scientists are now expressing a common believe and theory of climate change. This is based on much more sophisticated science and magnitudes greater input and climate data than was capable of being processed even 20 years ago. To base his claims on four persons that got their predictions wrong is folly. For sure some earlier predictions have been off by the date, but that doesn't change the trends. Also, he makes a silly and very easy claim that I can make too. "Personally, I’m
on record predicting another ice age—sometime in the next 10,000 years or so" Fine, I'll go on record and say that he is right, I agree. I'll also say that in 10000 years the poles will have reversed and man will be gone. Come back in 10,000 yrs. and tell me if I'm wrong.
It would be one thing if the opposing side expressed concern about the planet and found it worth studying more in depth. But now it is all attack journalism (and I use that word very loosely) with the sole goal of discrediting that which they oppose. This does not help at all. Yes, there are alarmists and yes they may have a cloudier crystal ball than some, but for Tracnski to say that those alarms about the effects of DDT or acid rain were false and the outcomes were none existent is not only wrong, ignores that those alarms stopped significant environmental harm and that what he is observing from this lofty perch are the benefits of acid rain reduction and the return of many species that were on the brink of extinction. He also ignores the fact that DDT failed due to overuse, insects developing resistance, and the fact that DDT was getting stored and accumulating in the fats of animals including humans. FWIW, malaria is virtually non-existent now in America and DDT is still used carefully in some places of the world for malarial control as a last resort.
So yeah, a few people got some stuff wrong, that's always the case, regardless of one's politics. The point of science is not to be perfect, but to be self-correcting. As we get more data and input it appears that the body of serious climate scientist and environmentalists on the whole are doing a decent job. Naysayers and challenges are good, but when they come from industry pundits trying to obscure, deflect or distract for profit, the result often isn't good and certainly not helpful.
