We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh correctly predicted that socialism — mortally wounded with the fall of the Berlin Wall — would repackage itself under the guise of environmentalism. And Limbaugh was right. All you have to do is take a look at any environmental policy and it’s no different than something from Marx or Stalin.

Advertisement

Earlier, we reminded you about how Limbaugh debated Al Gore over his climate alarmism and absolutely handed Gore is own butt. That was in 1992, and Gore said we only had ten years to save the planet. For the mathematically challenged, that was 32 years ago and we’re still here.

Which is why alarmist stories like this fall on deaf ears:

More from The Daily Mail:

A terrifying new study has predicted exactly how many people will die from climate change by 2100. 

Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry used advanced numerical simulations to estimate the mortality attributable to air pollution and extreme temperatures. 

Their analysis indicates that a staggering 30 million people could perish by the end of the century thanks to climate change and air pollution.

So, about those numbers.

A quick Google search shows that approximately 61 million people died in 2023 (worldwide). Twice the 30 million noted in this ‘study.’

This writer also remembers that New York City was supposed to be underwater by 2000. It’s not.

See why people don’t buy this?

Recommended

Advertisement

This writer would be 117 in 2100. She hopes she’s dead by then.

Right. Maybe when they get one right we’ll start listening.

Maybe.

(Not really).

Not a chance.

Excellent question — if humans are the problem wouldn’t 30 million fewer help solve things?

Our tongue is planted firmly in our cheek here, but the environmental Left are anti-human hypocrites, so.

A LOT MORE than 30 million.

Advertisement

And in 75 years this writer’s children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will continue to live on.

Not a single one.

Boring, too. We’ve heard this one before.

Never.

A better, more accurate headline.