One vexing aspect of climate alarmism is that we’re never sure if its mostly untestable predictions concern things that have already happened, are happening now or will hit in the future. For instance, despite what journalists say scientists say with regard to the IPCC, its reports frankly detect very little current impact while insisting that the lack of same is strong proof that the roof is about to catch fire and blow off or something. So MSN helpfully peddles a Stars Insider feature “How climate change already impacts our daily lives.” And they warn “The impact of climate change and global warming is hitting humanity hard,” which they illustrate with a picture (likely AI-generated) of a hapless old woman standing shoulder-deep in the ocean with her head buried in hands, presumably at a loss how to walk back to shore or trying to figure out how she spent years at sea and never realized till now. A portent of things to come? No, a picture of past and present devastation around the world, which nobody noticed until Stars Insider wrote about it.

Now this question of what alarmists believe is happening now, and when they think now is, attracts our attention because it’s fundamental to the debate to know whether any given hypothesis is indeed generating sound predictions. And predictions are hard to test unless you can decipher them. It’s one thing to say something will happen in such and such a timeframe and then it does or doesn’t. But quite another to say something is going to happen but already did and if it didn’t, it soon will or maybe later, and call it science.

Of course Stars Insider is not, you may object, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But if the “you’re not a climate scientist” crowd can go gaga over Al Gore or Greta Thunberg, and they did, they can also go gaga over news outlets that make similar noises. Which nowadays includes things like Scientific American. And let’s listen to that Stars Insider feature:

“We often dismiss climate change as an almost abstract problem, a remote issue that won’t directly affect us or impact our daily lives. In our minds, a degree or so increase in global temperature, or the melting of the ice caps, is a concern for overcautious environmentalists. And rising sea levels or prolonged drought? Well that’s a problem for somebody else, right? Except that it isn’t. The impact of climate change and global warming is hitting humanity hard. It’s also having grave implications for the natural world, not least Earth’s already fragile ecosystems. But if asked, how would you describe the consequences of climate change on everyday life?”

If readers have difficulty answering that, it only shows they are right to dismiss climate change as abstract, remote and lacking impact, and that it’s fair to assume they’re not actually already immersed, ablaze or both with or without realizing it. Even if MSN, which likes this sort of stuff, also recycled an item a couple of months back from Earth Animals about “Terrifying Climate Predictions From 10 Years Ago That Already Came True” which makes one wonder why people might think the whole thing is abstract or unreal since those ones included “Cities Becoming Dangerous Heat Traps” and “Persistent Drought Becoming the New Normal”, worse storms, surging seas, “Accelerating Biodiversity Collapse”, wildfires and the whole dang crowd.

Likewise, the new article starts off telling you that this abstract thing has already clobbered your dense self though, as we go along, it will turn out that already doesn’t mean what you foolishly thought. For instance secretly:

“Climate change has a direct impact on food systems, and food security. It depresses global agricultural production, which, in turn, drives up food prices.”

We could of course again produce statistics on how agricultural production keeps reaching all-time highs. But the point here isn’t what the data say, it’s what a lot of people persist in believing, and saying, despite what the data say. For instance about “Lower crop yields” that:

“Lower and unstable yields of major crops can adversely affect the welfare of livestock. Ultimately, climate change can affect the way food is produced and the quality of our diets.”

Unless it doesn’t. But hang on. You just said there was no current impact from that current impact while predicting the future impact will be obvious when and if it happens. Which matters because, you’ll recall, the clickbait headline was “How climate change already impacts our daily lives”. So what’s with:

“Higher supermarket prices/ Inevitably, rising food costs have a major impact on vulnerable households. But we are all affected. According to a joint report published by the European Central Bank and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, continued global warming is projected to increase food prices between 0.6 and 3.2 percentage points by 2060.”

See? There’s that bait-and-switch again. We’re already suffering from something that won’t happen for a third of a century. And nobody including the editor went “We can’t print that.” Or “It’s a fact that higher temperatures are more frequent.” Even though they’re not.

The piece goes on in this vein, including reports of the Aedes albopictus mosquito being found in Lisbon for the first time, with dengue and the dreaded Zika to follow. But not actually happening now. (Plus killing golf greens.) Also:

“The cost of climate change is alarming. From hurricanes to wildfires and flooding, more homes than ever are at risk from extreme weather events.”

Which really puts it all into one package because the data, adjusted for inflation and growth in wealth, do not show rising costs from disasters. But in any case this present impact is about being “at risk” not being hit so it’s the present in the future except not. Even if:

“homes in parts of the US are ‘essentially uninsurable’ due to rising climate change risks, reported CBS News in a September 2023 television broadcast.”

So journalists say journalists say, and it’s suddenly science? But it gets worse:

“Climate change has an adverse effect on mental health. There’s even a word for it: ‘eco-anxiety.’”

So people panicking over something that isn’t happening because we say it is happening is happening. QED.

P.S. Their sins include climate refugees who might emerge as a current impact and also, yes, “Atoll islands such as Kiribati (pictured) are in danger of disappearing over the coming decades.” So that woman just needs to hold that pose for another quarter-century.