By Anthony Watts and H. Sterling Burnett
The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) recently published article by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press (AP), titled “Scientists say EPA just needs to look around the world to see the growing dangers of climate change,” which says that proof of catastrophic climate change is found in obvious “growing dangers” evident for all to see. This is false. Borenstein’s story, which PBS didn’t bother to verify or even question, paints a false picture of an impending climate catastrophe, citing everything from worsening wildfires to supposed ocean acidification, all while conveniently ignoring the very real benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
“As President Donald Trump’s administration looks to reverse a cornerstone finding that climate change endangers human health and welfare, scientists say they just need to look around because it’s obvious how bad global warming is and how it’s getting worse,” says the AP’s Borenstein.
Obvious in what way? It is certainly not obvious looking at the available data on weather trends or measurements of human welfare like lives lost to weather-related disasters and temperatures. PBS fails to acknowledge that the climate has always changed and there is little evidence to support the notion that human activities have altered climate in a way that is leading us toward disaster. Let’s break down some of the claims in the AP/PBS article and counter them with real-world data.
One of the most misleading claims in the PBS article is that climate change is “acidifying the ocean.” This is a classic case of alarmists misrepresenting basic chemistry to scare the public. First, the ocean is not turning acidic—it remains alkaline. The proper term would be a slight decrease in alkalinity, and even that is overblown.
Studies show that while atmospheric CO₂ has increased, ocean pH levels have not dropped anywhere near a level that would threaten marine life. In fact, the term “ocean acidification” is largely a misnomer used to create fear rather than inform. A study published in the journal Nature Geoscience reinforces the idea that marine ecosystems are not on the verge of collapse due to small changes in pH. The ability of marine life to evolve and adapt over time is a critical factor that climate alarmists often ignore.
Moreover, research compiled by Climate Realism demonstrates that phytoplankton, the foundation of the marine food web, are not in decline due to ocean pH changes. Instead, they have remained stable or even increased in some regions, contradicting claims that marine ecosystems are on the brink of collapse.
If the ocean were truly becoming inhospitable due to CO₂ levels, we would see significant disruptions in marine populations. Instead, fisheries worldwide continue to thrive, and coral reefs have shown remarkable resilience. The Great Barrier Reef, for instance, has experienced record-high coral cover in recent years.
Nor is climate change resulting in more deaths due to extreme weather or non-optimum temperatures. In fact, as Climate Realism has discussed when refuting dozens of other false articles, climate change, contrary to the AP/PBS report, is not causing an increase in human diseases or health complications. In addition, data clearly show that human mortality resulting from extreme weather events and other natural disasters has fallen by more than 99 percent over the past 100 years, as discussed in Climate Realism posts, here and here, for example. Extreme weather events killed nearly 500,000 people annually in the 1920s, but by 2021 only 7,790 deaths were attributable to extreme weather events. (See the figure)
Deaths related to extreme temperatures are also in decline as the Earth has modestly warmed, according to multiple large scale peer reviewed studies in top journals. For example, multi-country studies, covering multiple decades, published in The Lancet, show that cold temperatures kill far more people each year than hot temperatures. They also demonstrate that as temperatures have modestly warmed, the number of deaths tied to non-optimum temperatures have declined.
Concerning hunger and malnutrition, also mentioned in the PBS/AP article, research cited in more nearly 200 articles posted at Climate Realism show that as carbon dioxide levels have risen, crop production has boomed for almost every crop one cares to discuss, in nation after nation spanning all parts of the globe. As a result of this fact, hunger and malnutrition have declined more sharply in the latter part of the 20th and early 21st century than in any other time period in history.
In point of fact, while the AP and PBS fixate on the easily debunked perils of climate change, they conveniently ignore one of the most significant positive trends: the greening of the planet. Increased atmospheric CO₂ has led to a dramatic rise in plant growth worldwide, an effect known as global greening.
According to NASA satellite data, over the past several decades, the Earth has become measurably greener, with vegetation expanding across deserts and arid regions. This is due to the fertilization effect of CO₂, which enhances photosynthesis and allows plants to use water more efficiently.
Increased CO₂ has led to record-high crop yields, helping to feed a growing global population. Data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) confirms that crop production has consistently set new records. Wheat, maize, and rice—staple crops that feed billions—have all seen significant increases in production over the past 50 years, thanks in part to higher CO₂ levels.
If PBS were truly interested in honest reporting, they would acknowledge that the net effect of more CO₂ has been a more food-secure world—not a climate apocalypse.
PBS also links to an associated article tying climate change to recent wildfires. Yet, in doing so, PBS ignores the fact that data from NASA and the European Space Agency show that total global area burned by wildfires has declined markedly in the United States and globally over the past century. To the extent that some areas have seen a spike in wildfires in recent years research cited at Climate at a Glance show that is largely driven by land management practices, not climate change. In the United States, decades of fire suppression policies led to excessive fuel buildup, combined with a sharp decline in logging and active forest management in recent years, has made fires more intense when they do occur.
As for hurricanes and extreme weather, the data simply does not support claims that they are becoming more frequent or severe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself acknowledges that there is no significant trend in global tropical cyclone activity. In fact, the United States has experienced long periods without major landfalling hurricanes, and the overall trend does not indicate an increasing crisis.
PBS argues that, contrary to what the Trump administration is expected to do, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should uphold its 2009 finding that carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare. To support this they write, “[n]ew research and ever more frequent extreme weather further prove the harm climate change is doing to people and the planet, . . . [as a result] ‘There is no possible world in which greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health.” Yet, as evidence presented above shows, such claims are false.
To the contrary, with the assertions that weather and health trends are worsening being abjectly false, the EPA’s endangerment finding and the regulations that it has spawned are wholly unjustified now, as the finding itself was when the former President Barack Obama administration imposed it.
PBS follows a familiar script: cherry-pick extreme weather events, misrepresent ocean chemistry, and ignore the overwhelming benefits of CO₂, all to justify heavy-handed government intervention. PBS and AP may prefer their narrative of climate doom, but the data and facts tell a different story. The reality is that climate trends are far more nuanced than Borenstein, the AP, and PBS admit. Data suggest that CO₂ is not an existential threat but rather a net benefit for agriculture and ecosystems. Rather than stoking fear, we should be focusing on adapting to natural climate variations, improving energy efficiency, and embracing the undeniable positives of a CO₂-rich atmosphere.

The Heartland Institute is one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks. It is a national nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


“crop production has boomed for almost every crop”
Trees are growing faster too.
Food production has been growing in all domains despite the war on food by the very same climate pushers, by shutting down farms or forcing Sri Lankans to abandon fertilizers etc etc.
If only 10% of the so called climate crisis were real
a) food production would be in permanentdecline for years
b) theyd be investing billions to protect food production and to counter the negative impacts of the climate crisis on food production,
building dams,reservoirs,pipelines,dessalination plants.
The fact that they ain’t do shit leads us to only 3 possible results
a)the climate crisis is not real
b)the climate crisis is real and they want to depopulate the planet,
as this can be the only explanation why they do not counter the negative impacts of climate crisis on food production.
c) the climate crisis does not exist,but they use it to depopulate the planet as they have written down on the Georgia Guidestones to get the global population below 500 mio
(403 mio is the actual goal,but this would go too far now).
The 500 mio is a further reduction from Paul Ehrlich (Ice Age Scare & Global Warming pusher)
who proposed in his 1977 book EcoScience , coAuthored by Ice Age Scare & Global Warming pusher John Holdren(Obamas Climate Tzar)to cut global population down to 2 billion by forced sterilization etc..
Which is an extremely strange proposal as Paul Ehrlich also predicted the end of mankind
as result of a blue dust cloud,warming,cooling,famine etc.
Why does someone wants to sterelize humanity when he knows it will go extinct in 4 different ways soon?
It’s like a doctor hiring a hitman to kill a patient next year after telling this patient that he only has an hour to live.
This can only happen if the doctor knows his diagnosis is absolutely wrong.
Birthrates are dropping across the world anyway as families realize that most of their children are surviving and are not having as many babies.
That is going to reduce the human population starting in a few decades anyway.
No intervention is required.
Birth Rates are going up when poverty= green energy kicks in.
Your population reduction won’t happen that way if the climate Mafia succeeds.
Another possibility is that this is all to make Russia look better by having the West NOT succeeding. It is well know that they have put money into the Keystone pipeline protests, several well known environmental household names, European anti-fracking, so why not this too?
See http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
The minor little problem is that the Green Blob is a Millenarian cult, who insists Doom is Nigh Unless We Repent. Industrial society is our sin against Gaia.
Such people almost never change their mind.
Yep.
That’s what ideology / religion is all about, Joseph.
Such people also decide to follow the likes of Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite.
They changed their minds to become what they are.
Ironically one person who did change his mind was the creator of the Gaia theory.
Chris
Lovelock- but how did he change his mind? It is an interest concept. Something to ponder.
I’m not well versed in history, but I think that the Renaissance started during the Medieval Warm Period. The Roman climate optimum was also a period of growth and progress. Why do they always assume that warming is bad? It means longer growing seasons, fewer deaths from the cold, and less severe weather outbreaks because of the lessening of temperature extremes between warm and cold regions. Most of the warming occurs during winter. How is that a grave threat?
The problem is, they want something, anything, to push their political fellow travelers into power. That’s all. It’s not about weather, or climate or even catastrophic storms, it’s about finding a way to push those who want the power into power. They will split hairs, exaggerate and doomsay at every opportunity for just that purpose.
UN officials and others have publicly proclaims those points.
The UN/IPCC has been the main one in the world pushing the climate crisis story tale.
The Minoan and Egyptian warm periods were also high points in social development.
Is PBS directly funded by US government? I am sure it has been funded indirectly by non-profits funded by the government through USAID and similar channels.
But if any direct funding still exists, I hope it will be cut asap.
From the PBS article:
“Scientists said the Trump administration will be hard-pressed to find scientific justification — or legitimate scientists — to show how greenhouse gases are not a threat to people.”
No. It’s not hard. There is no “threat.” You just need to go back to square one and show that the expectation of harmful “warming” from the static radiative effect of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O etc. was unsound all along. There is no detectable influence on any trend of any metric of climate interest. It’s negligible. The modelers of the general circulation know this from the fundamental physics of compressible fluids, on which the winds, temperature, pressure, mass flow, etc. are computed. More here about energy conversion: [internal energy + potential energy] <–> [kinetic energy]
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
“It’s these indirect effects on human health that are “far-reaching, comprehensive and devastating,” said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech and chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy. She said rising carbon dioxide levels in the air even “ affect our ability to think and process information.””
She is right, that the CO2 mind-lock is a debilitating condition, but it has nothing to do with the physics. It is all based on the circular “forcing” + “feedback” framing of the issue based on the computed static radiative “warming” effect. But when you watch from space, you see it doesn’t work that way. Instead, the result is that longwave emission to space is determined dynamically. More here.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Thank you for listening.
The trick here is there are scientists who speak out about greenhouse gases not being a threat. But when they do, the media claim they’re not legitimate. So, you see, there are no ‘legitimate’ scientists who make that claim. Semantics.
“Semantics.”
True, especially in the effective (mis)use of the idea of “consensus” and the false authority of the IPCC.
That’s called the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy.
EVERY claim these Climate Alarmists make about CO2 is refuted by weather history and current reality, as this article shows.
Seth Borenstein must be aware of this.
What does that make Seth Borenstein? Answer: If he is aware, that means he is a Deliberate Liar.
Borenstein has been at this too long to not be aware of what we are aware of: That all these claims are hogwash.. I suppose he could be exceptionally stupid, and actually believe his own claims, but I don’t think so. That’s too stupid.
Unproveable claims of human destruction simply fill the gaps on “slow news” days, especially for people whose news articles have been rendered questionable by internet media.
I vote “deliberate liar”, but he seems to also be quite stupid. The activists will always revert to the “argument from authority” fallacy of “97% scientific consensus” and ignore all the contradictory evidence that challenges their beliefs. They are not scientists, they are just religious zealots and/or scam artists.
I always remember Einstein’s response when asked about a petition signed by 100 scientists, declaring his general theory was wrong.
Something along the lines of
Why 100? If I was wrong, 1 would be enough.
Given that the Greenhouse effect defies both the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics it will not be difficult to refute this nonsense. 2024 paper by Nikolov and Zeller is a good start.
There is no “Greenhouse Effect” except in a greenhouse.
The difference between the environmental control system called a greenhouse and the dynamic and chaotic land/water/air energy system of this planet are many and distinct.
No, not even there. We used to think greenhouses trapped heat. Then we learned they are just windblocks. But if someone had said, “the Science (TM) is settled!” then we would remain in our error about greenhouses today.
He is a graduate cum laude from the Michael Mann charm school of climate astrology.
I’ve been seeing his byline for years. He has been making unsubstantiated assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s climate for a long, long time.
‘PBS fails to acknowledge that the climate has always changed and there is little evidence to support the notion that human activities have altered climate in a way that is leading us toward disaster.’
How about no evidence what-so-ever?
Humans did create the UHI effect and we have built highways and parking lots and dammed rivers and deforest vast stretches of land. That has altered the micro climates, just as a beaver dam alters the climate of the river.
BUT IT AIN’T CO2.
They also planted millions of trees here in the desert where they don’t belong! CO2 just adds to the devastation they cause.
With more CO2 trees can manage their water resources better and can live in deserts where they lived millions of years ago.
When all they have are lies they just scream them louder.
Sounds like the Democrats in the US House of Representatives recently.
PBSTV just had a two hour show on women in WWII which was very interesting, valuable, and well done. Don’t watch it much and TV ads are abundant but they seemed to have long periods of advertising suggesting that they were concerned. Of course, they are not the only ones. This linked to CNN from NASA, didn’t find an article. “moon shift, wobble” 18.6 year cycle; does change water levels which requires care with prognostications.
https://kpel965.com/nasa-reports-moon-shift-in-2030-predicts-major-surge-in-coastal-flooding/
That graph would look even more impressive if it used deaths per million of the human population that died due to climate events.
Debunking the alarmists’ catechism of bullshit is getting to be such a rinse & repeat exercise.
Maybe a standard response to every article of hand-wringing could be –
“BOOOORRRIIING! TURN THE PAGE FFS!”
If you want to see funny climate change false and/or stupid claims you only need to go to NOAA site and I offer
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
They give you a measurement which is arguable but lets roll with it
>>>>>>>>>>
In 2023, global mean sea level was 101.4 millimeters (3.99 inches) above 1993 levels, making it the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).
>>>>>>>>>>
So in 30 years the claim is it’s gone up 100mm (4 inch)
Now look at the graph of contributors for sea level rise it’s broken into a slow gradient thermal expansion and ice melt components both with a relatively modest slope
So a normal reasonable person would look at that and go 75 years until 2100 the rise would be around 75/30 * 100mm = 250mm (around 1 foot) by turn of century.
Now go to the graph possible pathways and look at it 🙂
Suddenly we have stupid crazy and impossible accelerations added to the sea rise and we have 2m (6.6 foot) rises quoted by 2100. They assure us the good news is the figure was revised down from 8.2 foot. Just ponder the thermodynamics to increase a melt rate by two and these retards are assuming a 6 fold increase.
The biggest iceburg calved from Antarctica A23a finally stopped moving off South Georgia island and it has been in 1.7 deg water for 39 years. We even have measurements of the melt rate
https://www.youtube.com/embed/6PLBEz7o6wc
According the alarmistas, weather was always nice and pleasant before the evil God CO2 was released from its underground lairs.
Violent weather is a feature of modern weather only.
You can tell that this cry baby (GEO GIRL) over and over again but she is so academically brainwashed she’ll just won’t listen.
It is interesting to see how the Climate Change dogma is evolving. Originally, the dogma was that the Earth was going to suffer runaway heating and become like Venus. As it became clear that previous eras had been far hotter without any problems, the story changed to be the rate of change of CC which was going to cause mass extinctions.
Seth Boringstein is like a broken record.
Yes, he repeats the same old climate change lies over and over and over again. He’s been doing it for years.
Very nice.
Outside of the Tropics it is much to cold to live outdoors year round with no protection from the cold almost everywhere.
Climate deaths per decade per captia would be even more pronounced. The world population has increased quite a bit in the last century.
As a former chemist, I despair every time I see the term ‘ocean acidification’ used, even though every scientifically literate person knows that it is incorrect. Lowering the pH within the range above pH=7 should be called neutralisation (or neutralization to rebel colonials), it is in no sense acidification since it is not becoming acidic. It is an example of…what is the opposite of a euphemism? A malphemism?