Environmental Hysteria Apologies? When Will Fractivists Say “Sorry”?

Stephen Heins
Energy Consultant
“The Word Merchant”


The Sierra Club has basically apologized for its environmental hysteria about a starving polar bear. When can we expect fractivists to say they’re sorry?

There is an original December 2017 National Geographic magazine story about a gut-wrenching video and narrative of a dying polar bear video, which was the most visited piece in the publication’s history.

After 8 months, the National Geographic and the writer of this piece of climate alarmism and scare tactics have publicly APOLOGIZED (caps mine). Just amazing and it raises all sorts of questions about other instances of environmental hysteria

environmental hysteria

Photo: Andrew Weith

In all honesty, there have been many examples of the kind of reporting National Geographic did, replete with exaggerations and falsehood, lately. While I don’t have space to include them all, I have been researching the publication of a recent Stanford University study about climate warming and suicide in 2050 in US and Mexico.

First, I noticed that dozens and dozens and dozens of stories in the national enquirers of national media and the “near-tabloid science media” showed up on my Google search. All of this coverage on a highly speculative study looking 32 years into the future.

Here are a few examples of the headlines and media sources. Also, I have included a more complete list of all sources of environmentally prejudicial (a recent Time Magazine cover comes to mind) news sources (emphasis added to illustrate the tenuous junk science nature of the environmental hysteria conclusions involved):

  • The Atlantic Magazine headline: “Climate  Change May Cause 26,000 More Suicides By 2050”
  • USA Today headline: “Global Warming Risk: Rising Temperatures from Climate Change Linked to Rise in Suicides”
  • CNN headline: “Climate Change Study Ties Warming Temperatures to Rising Suicide Risk”
  • MIT Technology Review: “Climate Change Could Drive Tens of Thousands of Additional Suicides in North America”

Ultimately, the following additional news outlets also wrote a piece about the release of Stanford Study:

The Atlantic, USA Today, CNN, MIT Technology Review, Time Magazine, Atlantic Journal Constitution, Nature Journal, ScienceAlert, National Geographic, The Independent (UK), ZME Science, The Guardian, Philly Voice, The News Leader (VA), Scientific American, Fututity, Fortune Magazine, Discover Magazine, MSN, EcoWatch, You Tube, Newser, Nature Climate Change, Science Daily, Reuters, The Mercury News, Weather.com, The World News, Palm Beach Post, Chicago Sun Times, The Huffington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Climate Depot, HealthCentral,  Public Health Newswire, Philanthropy, News Busters, Inverse, Common Dreams, UC Berkeley, E&E News, Press Reader, The Globe and Mail, First Coast News, New Scientist, The Daily Beast, American Public Health Association, Forbes, NOLA.com, Tech Times, Yahoo, Google, Climate Change Dispatch, RealClearEnergy, 2050Kids.com, Global Construction Review, Psychology Today, Grist, The Quint, Chicago Tribune, Carbon Brief, BW Business World, Stanford University, University of Washington, over 35 local TV stations, and many, many small presses and web sites.

It’s nice National Geographic apologized but when will we see the apologies for all the other environmental hysteria out there?

Editor’s Note: Steve’s is complemented by one out today by our occasional guest blogger Paul Driessen who offers the following regarding the recent bee scare:

The Sierra Club… campaigned campaigned incessantly for years on the claim that neonicotinoids would drive honeybees into extinction. For instance, in March 2015 the Sierra Club of Canada launched a nationwide “Protect the Pollinators Tour,” as part of its #SaveTheBees project.

“Ironically, the justification for this chemical madness is the same desire to produce enough food to feed everyone,” it said. “The chemical industry wants us to believe we have no choice; it’s their way or the highway. But the science tells us otherwise – that farmers don’t need these chemicals at all! The science also tells us we’re not just killing bees and pollinators, but other insects too. And we’re also killing birds and aquatic life. The scientists tell us we could be creating a Second Silent Spring. It’s madness.

A year later, the Maryland Sierra Club did its own fulminating, urging the state’s legislature to pass a “Pollinator Protection Act. “Help STOP Pollinator Deaths from Neonic Pesticides!” it exhorted…

In December 2016, the Sierra Club was out raising more money by sounding phony alarms about Trump appointees “denying the science” that supposedly links neonic pesticides to alleged bee declines…

Why would they make such false claims? Well, as Sierra Club officer Bruce Hamilton once admitted: “It’s what works. It builds the Sierra Club. The fate of the Earth depends on whether people open that envelope and send in that check” (or click on the ever-present online Donate Now button).

However, a few weeks ago, a Sierra Club blog post started singing a different tune:

“‘Save the bees’ is a rallying cry we’ve been hearing for years now…. But honeybees are at no risk of dying off.  While diseases, parasites and other threats are certainly real problems for beekeepers, the total number of managed honeybees worldwide has risen 45% over the last half century. ‘Honeybees are not going to go extinct,’ says Scott Black, executive director of the Xerces Society. ‘We have more honeybee hives than we’ve ever had, and that’s simply because we manage honeybees. Conserving honeybees to save pollinators is like conserving chickens to save birds … [since] honeybees are not all that different from livestock.”

So, Never mind. Finally, after all these years, the Sierra Club (and Xerces Society) admit that honeybees are not going extinct. It would appear as well that neonic pesticides can’t be causing a honeybee apocalypse – because there isn’t one!

This example, combined with Steve’s, demonstrates what frequently is the case with environmental hysteria; when it’s run its course and the headlines have already been embedded in the common mind, the truth comes out. So, when can we expect fractivists to start issuing some well-deserved apologies to those of us promoting natural gas development? Don’t hold your breath but it will happen…eventually.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One thought on “Environmental Hysteria Apologies? When Will Fractivists Say “Sorry”?

  1. It would be really helpful if this article gave a quick summary of what Nat Geo apologized for (just so we could tell how complete it was) and a quick summary of what the Stanford study did show and how uncertain its extrapolation was for those of us who do not follow these topics so consistently.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *