Saying that the worst-case climate forecasts are “implausible” proves less than your May 21 editorial on the subject seems to think. I’m glad to see alarmist climate rhetoric challenged, but this piece swaps one distortion for another. It is absolutely fair to question exaggerated doomsday claims and to point out that worst-case scenarios are not the most likely path. What is not fair is pretending that this somehow disproves the larger body of climate science. It does not. The planet is warming. Human activity is a major cause. And the risks are real, whether or not activists and politicians sometimes oversell them.
The most misleading part is the editorial’s use of “plummeted” disaster deaths as proof that climate concerns are overblown. Fewer people die because forecasting, infrastructure and emergency response have improved, not because the underlying risks have disappeared.
If the Review-Journal wants to criticize climate alarmism, fine. But it should do so honestly, without cherry-picking facts and pretending that debunking the loudest activists settles the science. Readers deserve skepticism aimed at spin on both sides, not just the version this editorial happens to dislike. Skepticism without honesty is just propaganda.
