By Vijay Jayaraj
For years, climate activists like Al Gore and John Kerry have made bold, headline-grabbing predictions that have failed to materialize. Gore’s 2007 assertion that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 stands in stark contrast to reality: Arctic ice has not disappeared despite seasonal fluctuations, and Antarctica sea ice has rebounded from record low levels.
Similarly, Kerry’s repeated warnings of impending catastrophe have lacked grounding in observable data. Then-teenage activist Greta Thunberg’s 2020 declaration that we had only “eight years left to save the planet” added to a long list of apocalyptic deadlines that have come and gone without the promised catastrophes.
The credibility gap has only widened with extreme actions by groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, whose theatrical protests — from destroying priceless artworks to blocking ambulances by gluing hands to roads — have alienated potential supporters and raised questions about the movement’s priorities.
These repeatedly failed predictions and increasing public skepticism of activists’ motivations have wrought a significant shift in the public’s openness to their apocalyptic narrative.
A growing number of citizens worldwide are embracing what can be called “climate realism” — a perspective that acknowledges climate variations while questioning their primary causes, the supposed severity of their impacts, and claims of their unprecedented nature.
According to Pew Research Center’s annual policy priorities survey, conducted January 2024, only 36% of poll participants thought climate change should be a top priority for the U.S. president and Congress. There were 17 more pressing issues, including health care, education, employment, and national security. Another survey last year found that of the 28 issues, global warming ranked only 19th among registered voters.
The shift in public sentiment is perhaps most evident in recent elections across diverse democracies. In the United States, Argentina, India, and Italy, voters have increasingly prioritized immediate economic concerns, national security, and tangible environmental issues like local pollution over abstract climate goals.
The election of leaders who prioritize economic growth and energy security over climate action isn’t a rejection of environmental concerns; it’s a realignment of priorities based on lived experience. Real-world data often contradict alarmist narratives.
Global life expectancy has continued its upward trend, reaching 74.6 years in 2023, despite predictions of climate-induced health crises. The United States and Europe have achieved remarkable improvements in air quality through practical environmental management, with the U.S. seeing a 78% reduction in aggregate emissions of six key pollutants since 1970, according to a 2021 EPA report.
Equally telling are data on extreme weather events. Although media coverage might suggest otherwise, the frequency of major hurricane landings in the United States and the global frequency of major hurricanes have shown no significant upward trend over the past five decades (a period of increasingly accurate satellite data).
Meanwhile, forest cover in the European Union has increased by over 9% since 1990. Similar positive trends have been documented in India and China. Global crop production has reached record levels, with the global wheat yield increasing by 30% since 2000.
For years, organizations like the United Nations have advanced pseudoscientific climate policies disconnected from the needs of ordinary people. But the veneer of consensus is wearing thin. Developing nations, which face immediate challenges like poverty, disease, and inadequate infrastructure, are increasingly resistant to climate agendas of Western origin.
Argentina’s decision to pull out of November’s COP 29 climate conference highlighted a growing divide between the global North and South. President Donald Trump’s pull-out of the U.S. from the Paris accord and net-zero movement will embolden more developing countries to do the same.
People increasingly recognize that access to abundant, reliable energy — predominantly from fossil fuels and nuclear power — is fundamental to human flourishing. The correlation between energy consumption and quality of life metrics (health care, education, economic opportunity) is well documented.
The era of climate alarmism may be waning, replaced by a more pragmatic approach to global challenges. The future of environmental policy likely is in practical, local solutions that balance mitigation of real pollutants — as opposed to the demonization of harmless carbon dioxide — with human prosperity.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/is_the_climate_doomsday_cult_finally_losing_power.html