In recent days reports surfaced that action star, former California governor and former champion bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger was plotting with attorneys to file lawsuits against “Big Oil,” charging the companies with “first-degree murder.”

Schwarzenegger, who has in recent years taken up the cause of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ despite a lack of evidence that human activity is causing either or that fossil fuels are responsible said at the annual SXSW festival in Austin, Texas, that he sees it as “no different from the smoking issue.”

“The tobacco industry knew for years and years and years and decades, that smoking would kill people, would harm people and create cancer, and were hiding that fact from the people and denied it,” he said.

“The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for people’s lives, that it would kill.”

Well.

Mind you, Schwarzenegger is no climate expert or climate scientist, though no doubt he could certainly play one on TV.

However, many real climate scientists not only don’t believe the actor’s hypothesis, they don’t accept his premise and they’ve seen no data substantiating his claims. Other experts concur.

As reported by The Daily Caller, several major studies that have served as predictors of future global warming have relied on “overheated” economic models coupled with poor underlying assumptions.

“Studies that produce very high estimates of the economic and social costs of projected climate change” while “ignoring or downplaying the possibility of adaptation and obscuring the inaccuracy of underlying estimates — are distinctly unhelpful,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Oren Cass wrote in a March report. (Related: Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” … temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling.)

The researcher said he examined models and assumptions used in major economic studies about global warming, two of which have been used by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to estimate damages by the end of the 21st century (and recommend policies based upon those estimates, no doubt).

What he found was that the studies’ results were extremely “flawed.”

“Properly understood, temperature studies do not offer useful predictions of the future costs of projected human-caused climate change,” Cass wrote in a study published Monday.

He noted further that while flawed “these studies have gained rapidly in prominence” and “now account for the overwhelming share of costs in climate assessments.”

If your studies are flawed, then your decisions regarding government economic and environmental policies, each of which come with a cost, will similarly be flawed.

There’s more. A pair of recent essays on climate change/global warming warn that the threat, such as it is, does not warrant the level of panic and anxiety associated with the issue, mostly by those on the Left.

Writing in the Scientific American, a publication that traditionally promotes the man-caused global warming myth, John Horgan cites “mega-pundit Steven Pinker,” who wrote in The Breakthrough Journal that there’s no need to panic over environmental issues. Pinker also notes something that the far-Left environmental movement refuses to acknowledge: That modernization has led to substantial, life-changing progress for humanity.

“While it is true that not all the trends are positive, nor that the problems facing us are minor, it is crucial to understand that environmental problems, like other problems, are solvable, given the right knowledge,” Pinker wrote.

He added that industrialization “has been good for humanity. It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts.”

Horgan also cited Will Boisvert, who wrote in The Conquest of Climate, “How bad will climate change be? Not very.”

Weather happens. Climates change. Global temperatures go up and they go down. And all this happens on its own, not because humans ‘cause’ these changes.

I predict a court will someday instruct Mr. Schwarzenegger on this reality.

J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

ScientificAmerican.com

DailyCaller.com

TheNationalSentinel.com