It’s the biggest question in the world right now: is Covid-19 a deadly disease that only a small fraction of our populations have so far been exposed to? Or is it a much milder pandemic that a large percentage of people have already encountered and is already on its way out?
If Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College is the figurehead for the first opinion, then Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, is the representative of the second. Her group at Oxford produced a rival model to Ferguson’s back in March which speculated that as much as 50% of the population may already have been infected and the true Infection Fatality Rate may be as low as 0.1%.
Since then, we have seen various antibody studies around the world indicating a disappointingly small percentage of seroprevalence — the percentage of the population has the anti-Covid-19 antibody. It was starting to seem like Ferguson’s view was the one closer to the truth.
But, in her first major interview since the Oxford study was published in March, Professor Gupta is only more convinced that her original opinion was correct.
As she sees it, the antibody studies, although useful, do not indicate the true level of exposure or level of immunity. First, many of the antibody tests are “extremely unreliable” and rely on hard-to-achieve representative groups. But more important, many people who have been exposed to the virus will have other kinds of immunity that don’t show up on antibody tests — either for genetic reasons or the result of pre-existing immunities to related coronaviruses such as the common cold.
The implications of this are profound – it means that when we hear results from antibody tests (such as a forthcoming official UK Government study) the percentage who test positive for antibodies is not necessarily equal to the percentage who have immunity or resistance to the virus. The true number could be much higher.
Observing the very similar patterns of the epidemic across countries around the world has convinced Professor Gupta that it is this hidden immunity, more than lockdowns or government interventions, that offers the best explanation of the Covid-19 progression:
“In almost every context we’ve seen the epidemic grow, turn around and die away — almost like clockwork. Different countries have had different lockdown policies, and yet what we’ve observed is almost a uniform pattern of behaviour which is highly consistent with the SIR model. To me that suggests that much of the driving force here was due to the build-up of immunity. I think that’s a more parsimonious explanation than one which requires in every country for lockdown (or various degrees of lockdown, including no lockdown) to have had the same effect.”
Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%.
Professor Gupta also remains openly critical of the Government lockdown policy:
“The Government’s defence is that this [the Imperial College model] was a plausible worst case scenario. I agree it was a plausible — or at least a possible — worst case scenario. The question is, should we act on a possible worst case scenario, given the costs of lockdown? It seems to me that given that the costs of lockdown are mounting, that case is becoming more and more fragile.”
She recommends “a more rapid exit from lockdown based more on certain heuristics, like who is dying and what is happening to the death rates”. She does not believe that the R rate is a useful tool in making decisions about government policies, as an R rate is “principally dependent on how many people are immune” and we don’t have that information.
She believes that deaths are the only reliable measure, and that the number of cases should not even be presented as it is so reliant on the amount of testing being done.
She explains the flare-ups in places like New York, where the IFR seems to have been higher than 0.1%, through a combination of circumstances leading to unusually bad outbreaks, including the infection load and the layout of the population:
“When you have pockets of vulnerable people it might rip through those pockets in a way that it wouldn’t if the vulnerable people were more scattered within the general population.”
She believes that longer-term lockdown-style social distancing makes us more vulnerable, not less vulnerable, to infectious diseases, because it keeps people unprotected from pathogens:
“Remaining in a state of lockdown is extremely dangerous from the point of view of the vulnerability of the entire population to new pathogens. Effectively we used to live in a state approximating lockdown 100 years ago, and that was what created the conditions for the Spanish Flu to come in and kill 50m people.”
Commenting on the Government response to the virus, she suggests it erred on the side of over-reaction not under-reaction:
“I think there’s a chance we might have done better by doing nothing at all, or at least by doing something different, which would have been to pay attention to protecting the vulnerable, to have thought about protecting the vulnerable 30 or 40 years ago when we started cutting hospital beds. The roots of this go a long, long way back.”
And she believes it is a “strong possibility” that if we return to full normal tomorrow — pubs, nightclubs, festivals — we would be fine, but accepts that is hard to prove with the current evidence:
“So what do we do? I think we weigh that strong possibility against the costs of lockdown. I think it is very dangerous to talk about lockdown without recognising the enormous costs that it has on other vulnerable sectors in the population.”
On the politics of the question, Professor Gupta is clear that she believes that lockdowns are an affront to progressive values:
“So I know there is a sort of libertarian argument for the release of lockdown, and I think it is unfortunate that those of us who feel we should think differently about lockdown have had our voices added to that libertarian harangue. But the truth is that lockdown is a luxury, and it’s a luxury that the middle classes are enjoying and higher income countries are enjoying at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and less developed countries. It’s a very serious crisis.”
Freddie Sayers is the Editor-in-Chief & CEO of UnHerd. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of YouGov, and founder of PoliticsHome.
freddiesayers 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNow this is more important from Crawford than his woolly “gratitude” essay at the weekend.
He is essentially right about the catastrophising element of events, led by the media with a vested interest in maintaining attention for their platforms but the origins of which lie deeper in state and corporate interests.
His call for a return to normalisation should be heeded. Most people just want to get on with their personal and public lives, but in doing so tend to leave the big decisions to the political sphere which is entirely incapable of dealing with the complexity now extant from technological progress and communication networks.
Davos is, of course, the high water mark of this sphere; high only in its lofty Alpine perch and overweening ambitions.
Until recently i was unfamiliar with Crawford’s work, but alongside Unherd’s Stock & Harrington, he’s positioning himself – whilst acknowledging there are no facile solutions – to be a significant part of the pushback against the forces he identifies here.
I quite liked Crawford’s weekend essay, it was thought provoking.
I highly recommend his book – The World Beyond Your Head – if you get a chance.
Some of the weekend essay was referencing ideas already put down in the book
I quite liked Crawford’s weekend essay, it was thought provoking.
I highly recommend his book – The World Beyond Your Head – if you get a chance.
Some of the weekend essay was referencing ideas already put down in the book
Now this is more important from Crawford than his woolly “gratitude” essay at the weekend.
He is essentially right about the catastrophising element of events, led by the media with a vested interest in maintaining attention for their platforms but the origins of which lie deeper in state and corporate interests.
His call for a return to normalisation should be heeded. Most people just want to get on with their personal and public lives, but in doing so tend to leave the big decisions to the political sphere which is entirely incapable of dealing with the complexity now extant from technological progress and communication networks.
Davos is, of course, the high water mark of this sphere; high only in its lofty Alpine perch and overweening ambitions.
Until recently i was unfamiliar with Crawford’s work, but alongside Unherd’s Stock & Harrington, he’s positioning himself – whilst acknowledging there are no facile solutions – to be a significant part of the pushback against the forces he identifies here.
It’s simple really. Creating fear makes it easy to govern. People are more malleable if they are scared. It doesn’t take good government to respond to the latest emergency and govt gets good marks for doing something.
The real goal of government should be fostering human flourishing. This, however, requires creativity and exceptional problem solving skills.
You can see it with the marginalization of some ethnic communities. It’s easy to blather on about structural racism and invent policies that make fat, rich white people feel better about themselves.
But actually lifting people out of poverty, creating conditions that promote better education and economic opportunity, this is a wicked problem that is clearly beyond the ability of our current leadership to grapple with.
It’s simple really. Creating fear makes it easy to govern. People are more malleable if they are scared. It doesn’t take good government to respond to the latest emergency and govt gets good marks for doing something.
The real goal of government should be fostering human flourishing. This, however, requires creativity and exceptional problem solving skills.
You can see it with the marginalization of some ethnic communities. It’s easy to blather on about structural racism and invent policies that make fat, rich white people feel better about themselves.
But actually lifting people out of poverty, creating conditions that promote better education and economic opportunity, this is a wicked problem that is clearly beyond the ability of our current leadership to grapple with.
Powered by this article I asked myself what crises there were during the Late medieval Period (an interest of mine).
There was the Late Medieval triple crisis of the end of the Medieval Warm Period, The Great Famine, and the Black Death. Now you can argue about the numbers of dead and the social consequences, but the European population took 200 years to recover.
I expect you could also identify other ‘triple crises’… perhaps WWI, the influenza pandemic, and the Great Depression. Other crises are available.
Our current crises are not yet reaching these levels. I hope they never do, but we need some perspective to bolster the hope that most of us can develop Crawford’s “critical distance” from the emergencies of the day and make sensible choices.
Powered by this article I asked myself what crises there were during the Late medieval Period (an interest of mine).
There was the Late Medieval triple crisis of the end of the Medieval Warm Period, The Great Famine, and the Black Death. Now you can argue about the numbers of dead and the social consequences, but the European population took 200 years to recover.
I expect you could also identify other ‘triple crises’… perhaps WWI, the influenza pandemic, and the Great Depression. Other crises are available.
Our current crises are not yet reaching these levels. I hope they never do, but we need some perspective to bolster the hope that most of us can develop Crawford’s “critical distance” from the emergencies of the day and make sensible choices.
The concerted energy put into scaring, demoralising or “gaslighting” the public (to suicide etc), seems so utterly contrary to the idea of security and the therapeutic state it’s absurd. Driving people slowly mad and suppressing even non-ideological dissent should be a step too far. Yet it leaves the masses baying for the blood of dissenters. That our very own National security agencies are involved in these social engineering programmes too in the “marketplace of ideas” and the recent Twitter scandal. This fact should provide true inspiration for panic in us all. Not so, ’tis heresy apparently!
The concerted energy put into scaring, demoralising or “gaslighting” the public (to suicide etc), seems so utterly contrary to the idea of security and the therapeutic state it’s absurd. Driving people slowly mad and suppressing even non-ideological dissent should be a step too far. Yet it leaves the masses baying for the blood of dissenters. That our very own National security agencies are involved in these social engineering programmes too in the “marketplace of ideas” and the recent Twitter scandal. This fact should provide true inspiration for panic in us all. Not so, ’tis heresy apparently!
”Crawford states there are important differences, but there is a perceptible connection with the victimological politics of today: “The moral elevation of the victim [is] the great innovation of Christianity”. ”
What an idiot – the Christ story is one of Sacrifice, NOT victimhood. The Opposite. It is you have to do what you have to do and not wimp out – not plead victumhood. The Martyrs are the heroes – the ones who willfully stood up to oppression, even unto death – not played the victim card and rolled over.
Basically everything he points out as his thesis is known – 1984 and almost all dystopias use endless conflict as the background for control. Communism always was based on that, the endless fight against the ‘enemy’ so the state of war is always requiring your submission – or all will be lost. Jihad even.
But from then he speaks sheer drivel – at least the written part, I have not listened yet – but seemingly not worth it. Sorry if I judge it wrongly by just the words above…
”the writer advises that we maintain a “critical distance” from the emergencies of the day. “I think people want to be left alone,””
I mean this is crazy – head in the sand is not what I recommend, is not what real people did or we would still be in the Feudal system the Elites wish to put us back into – so oppression needs fighting back, not backing off, not ‘go along to get along’, but resist tyranny. .
Totally agree with you, to compare Christ’s suffering with today’s “professional victims” is disingenuous. Christ endured and took his destiny on himself without complaint, like the ancient hero of the Classics. Compare his attitude to the near professionalism of contemporary “victims ” with their hypocrisies and judgements of others.I would compare those people more to the Pharisees at Christ’s time as they demonstrate their “goodness”, show off their charities for all to see, but also harshly judge others, who aren’t as “moral” as they are.
The people who still wear their masks outside, sometimes even alone in their cars, or the ones glueing themselves to streets or artworks for a so-called “higher purpose”, are moralising show offs and more comparable to the Pharisees at Christ’s time.
Thank you Phillip for pointing that out about the Christ story. I thought – what on earth is he talking about!
Totally agree with you, to compare Christ’s suffering with today’s “professional victims” is disingenuous. Christ endured and took his destiny on himself without complaint, like the ancient hero of the Classics. Compare his attitude to the near professionalism of contemporary “victims ” with their hypocrisies and judgements of others.I would compare those people more to the Pharisees at Christ’s time as they demonstrate their “goodness”, show off their charities for all to see, but also harshly judge others, who aren’t as “moral” as they are.
The people who still wear their masks outside, sometimes even alone in their cars, or the ones glueing themselves to streets or artworks for a so-called “higher purpose”, are moralising show offs and more comparable to the Pharisees at Christ’s time.
Thank you Phillip for pointing that out about the Christ story. I thought – what on earth is he talking about!
”Crawford states there are important differences, but there is a perceptible connection with the victimological politics of today: “The moral elevation of the victim [is] the great innovation of Christianity”. ”
What an idiot – the Christ story is one of Sacrifice, NOT victimhood. The Opposite. It is you have to do what you have to do and not wimp out – not plead victumhood. The Martyrs are the heroes – the ones who willfully stood up to oppression, even unto death – not played the victim card and rolled over.
Basically everything he points out as his thesis is known – 1984 and almost all dystopias use endless conflict as the background for control. Communism always was based on that, the endless fight against the ‘enemy’ so the state of war is always requiring your submission – or all will be lost. Jihad even.
But from then he speaks sheer drivel – at least the written part, I have not listened yet – but seemingly not worth it. Sorry if I judge it wrongly by just the words above…
”the writer advises that we maintain a “critical distance” from the emergencies of the day. “I think people want to be left alone,””
I mean this is crazy – head in the sand is not what I recommend, is not what real people did or we would still be in the Feudal system the Elites wish to put us back into – so oppression needs fighting back, not backing off, not ‘go along to get along’, but resist tyranny. .
Such an article immediately draws me back to Pinker’s magisterial ‘History of Violence’ where he showed regardless of the onslaught of ‘if it bleeds it leads’ modern media bias the empirical data showed a huge and consistent reduction in violence over time, whether that’s inter-state violence like the Ukraine conflict or within a society violence such as physical abuse of women/children etc. The arc of progress, whilst lumpy does appear empirically to have much to commend it, although that does not mean we can be complacent as much still to do. Nonetheless were Newspapers, media outlets only to publish every 50 years the headlines would be ‘Massive increase in life expectancy’ and/or ‘Huge reduction in worldwide violence’.
Thus I’m left with sense the Author underplays the role of the media in creating the ‘emergency’ climate. It just needs all of us to gain broader perspective via other channels too.
Such an article immediately draws me back to Pinker’s magisterial ‘History of Violence’ where he showed regardless of the onslaught of ‘if it bleeds it leads’ modern media bias the empirical data showed a huge and consistent reduction in violence over time, whether that’s inter-state violence like the Ukraine conflict or within a society violence such as physical abuse of women/children etc. The arc of progress, whilst lumpy does appear empirically to have much to commend it, although that does not mean we can be complacent as much still to do. Nonetheless were Newspapers, media outlets only to publish every 50 years the headlines would be ‘Massive increase in life expectancy’ and/or ‘Huge reduction in worldwide violence’.
Thus I’m left with sense the Author underplays the role of the media in creating the ‘emergency’ climate. It just needs all of us to gain broader perspective via other channels too.
Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear” written in 2004 is a riveting thriller built upon the very thing you are discussing; namely, keeping the populace in a state of constant anxiety and fear makes it malleable. Its a must read.
Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear” written in 2004 is a riveting thriller built upon the very thing you are discussing; namely, keeping the populace in a state of constant anxiety and fear makes it malleable. Its a must read.
Awaiting for approval – Unherd – what is this – every third post gets deleted? Is it random or what – or is it regulating wrong think…
I said what an **************** the writer is – I do not know if that was it – but censored…..
You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Same goes for me: “Awaiting for approval”. Guess answering your post needs approval nowadays.
You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Same goes for me: “Awaiting for approval”. Guess answering your post needs approval nowadays.
Awaiting for approval – Unherd – what is this – every third post gets deleted? Is it random or what – or is it regulating wrong think…
I said what an **************** the writer is – I do not know if that was it – but censored…..
My personal pushback is long under way. Talk of a “climate emergency” is now countered with “climate religion” or “climate catastrophism”.
Reference to “the science” elicits “which science” or a proposal of an alternative science.
We are small, but we are many. That will win this particular struggle for us. That, and the internet, which for a change, acts as a helpful conduit for words of sense.
“Emergency…?” Never, ever, again. Unless I can personally see the walls falling.
This of course an Orwellian state of affairs being described and superpowered by technology. One can be paranoid on such matters but it’s perfectly easy to tune out of by avoiding MSM, but more importantly the echo chambers where cynicism prevails. Which brings me to climate change catastrophism – understandably Crawford sees the alarmist response sceptically and perhaps in conspiratorial terms, but fails to acknowledge the genuine problems future populations will ultimately face. Sadly he therefore appears to be playing to a ready made biased audience.
Alternatively, like most of us, he’s seen through the ongoing hysteria (Covid, climate emergency etc), understanding them for they are ( HL Mencken’s hobgoblins).
Carry on panicking if you wish, but really the anthropogenic climate change ”Science ‘ is pretty much as shonky as the Covid variety of Science.
Really? I can understand why some folks are sceptical, after all, Exxon has funded a multi-million dollar industry to ensure people remain confused, and that persists today. But outright denial? Consult any university, any encyclopedia, The Royal Society, not some bloke’s blog. No panic here, I’m entirely indifferent, I realised 25 years ago this was a lost cause because of protectionism.
Exxon spends infinitely more money on greenwashing than any campaign to confuse people. The big money is on the alarmist side – the foundations, the NGOs, the research. I would be surprised if Exxon has donated even $10 million to an individual organization specifically to debunk climate change.
It’s like arguing Putin spends millions and millions to promote alarmism so the west stops investing in fossil fuels. Show me the money.
Exxon knew about climate change in the 1970’s and decided then to fund a huge sceptic industry, for profit. The fallout from this campaign will last for hundreds of years.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2354492-exxon-scientists-in-the-1970s-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
We’ve heard all this stuff before. What the article fails to cite is any meaningful donations to think tanks or NGOs or massive ad campaigns. Are we seriously supposed to believe Exxon scientists new about global warming in 1977, when everyone else at that time was predicting global cooling?
I followed a link from your story to a 2009 Guardian article, which accused Exxon of spending hundreds of thousands donating to climate sceptics. Hundreds of thousands!! That’s pocket change when it comes to climate science.
The Guardian article was written in 2009. Meanwhile, in February, 2022, the Associated Press assigned more than 24 journalists across the globe to cover climate issues after receiving more than $8 million over three years from various organizations.
The organizations contributing to the “philanthropy-funded news” via a “climate grant” are the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.
Don’t worry, I can cite dozens and dozens of cases of lavish spending on the alarmist side. There is no money on the skeptic side. There just isn’t.
We’ve heard all this stuff before. What the article fails to cite is any meaningful donations to think tanks or NGOs or massive ad campaigns. Are we seriously supposed to believe Exxon scientists new about global warming in 1977, when everyone else at that time was predicting global cooling?
I followed a link from your story to a 2009 Guardian article, which accused Exxon of spending hundreds of thousands donating to climate sceptics. Hundreds of thousands!! That’s pocket change when it comes to climate science.
The Guardian article was written in 2009. Meanwhile, in February, 2022, the Associated Press assigned more than 24 journalists across the globe to cover climate issues after receiving more than $8 million over three years from various organizations.
The organizations contributing to the “philanthropy-funded news” via a “climate grant” are the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.
Don’t worry, I can cite dozens and dozens of cases of lavish spending on the alarmist side. There is no money on the skeptic side. There just isn’t.
Exxon knew about climate change in the 1970’s and decided then to fund a huge sceptic industry, for profit. The fallout from this campaign will last for hundreds of years.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2354492-exxon-scientists-in-the-1970s-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
Exxon spends infinitely more money on greenwashing than any campaign to confuse people. The big money is on the alarmist side – the foundations, the NGOs, the research. I would be surprised if Exxon has donated even $10 million to an individual organization specifically to debunk climate change.
It’s like arguing Putin spends millions and millions to promote alarmism so the west stops investing in fossil fuels. Show me the money.
Really? I can understand why some folks are sceptical, after all, Exxon has funded a multi-million dollar industry to ensure people remain confused, and that persists today. But outright denial? Consult any university, any encyclopedia, The Royal Society, not some bloke’s blog. No panic here, I’m entirely indifferent, I realised 25 years ago this was a lost cause because of protectionism.
No offence, but after 35 years of failed predictions, why should we take the alarmist community seriously? Climate change is a problem, but what exactly are the problems that humans cannot adapt to?
I think many readers of Unherd are more concerned about the ‘solutions’ to climate change than climate change itself which has been going on ever since the world was formed. Personally, I remain more optimistic about humans reacting with skill and ingenuity to any given climate emergency and pessimistic about putting my trust in a small group of people who see their job as managing humanity in order save the planet. There are already NGOs promoting climate change is a result of racial injustice with the usual scapegoats within easy reach:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/11/global-climate-crisis-racial-justice-crisis-un-expert
If you think this is hyperbole, don’t forget that it’s only 80 years ago that humans were killing each other for more ‘lebensraum’. How much more gleefully will we kill each other if it’s all done in the name of ‘saving the planet’?
This is the type of thing the world is up against. I appreciate the layman may not grasp the seriousness of the issue, which is why people on the alarmist side get so frustrated.
Ultimately it’s future generations that will curse this one for burying the problem.
I’m a mere laywoman and from your post, I’m assuming, you aren’t a layman but even I know that the Romans grew vineyards in the north of England during their occupation. In the 1500’s there was a mini ice age. The climate DOES change naturally and regularly, if you care to look back further than ‘when records began’ in the late 1800’s.
Indeed, these concepts and ‘the weather’ are entirely seperate from climate change, which concerns energy being trapped in the global ecosystem by carbon dioxide. The CO2 we are making now will persist for 200 years, that is why future populations face massive problems. I respectively suggest choosing a publication with integrity and finding out more, should you wish to do so.
Top Obama physicist Physicist Steven Koonin kicks the hornet’s nest right out of the gate in “Unsettled.” In the book’s first sentences he asserts that “the Science” about our planet’s climate is anything but “settled.” Mr. Koonin knows well that it is nonetheless a settled subject in the minds of most pundits and politicians and most of the population.
A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/
Perhaps approaching the subject without confirmation bias would be better?
Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut? He’s no physicist though is he.
Professor of Environmental Studies seems kinda robust tbf. But hey, this is why I’m indifferent on the matter, too many folks have been convinced by the sceptic industry. Protectionism will be our undoing.
So we can conclude it’s Unsettled then can’t we, for the moment anyway. Wait til ur bank account is linked to a data gathering company highlighting how much ur spending on fuel and airline tickets etc with the inevitable resultant penalties. It’s already happening in Australia but it’s voluntary for the moment but we all know that will change.
Offenders pay? Seems reasonable, especially with businesses and pollution.
Offenders pay? Seems reasonable, especially with businesses and pollution.
So we can conclude it’s Unsettled then can’t we, for the moment anyway. Wait til ur bank account is linked to a data gathering company highlighting how much ur spending on fuel and airline tickets etc with the inevitable resultant penalties. It’s already happening in Australia but it’s voluntary for the moment but we all know that will change.
Professor of Environmental Studies seems kinda robust tbf. But hey, this is why I’m indifferent on the matter, too many folks have been convinced by the sceptic industry. Protectionism will be our undoing.
Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut? He’s no physicist though is he.
A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/
Perhaps approaching the subject without confirmation bias would be better?
Top Obama physicist Physicist Steven Koonin kicks the hornet’s nest right out of the gate in “Unsettled.” In the book’s first sentences he asserts that “the Science” about our planet’s climate is anything but “settled.” Mr. Koonin knows well that it is nonetheless a settled subject in the minds of most pundits and politicians and most of the population.
Indeed, these concepts and ‘the weather’ are entirely seperate from climate change, which concerns energy being trapped in the global ecosystem by carbon dioxide. The CO2 we are making now will persist for 200 years, that is why future populations face massive problems. I respectively suggest choosing a publication with integrity and finding out more, should you wish to do so.
Why should I care about some hypothetical future generation? Why is their future considered worthier than my own?
Depends if you have children and other younger kin I suppose. In the time being you can carry on regardless, it’s not going to make any difference unfortunately – I realised that 25 years ago. Still, I have the moral high ground ;o)
No, not really. Judging by this current crop of students and its rabid hatred for past generations, future generations will hate us anyway.
No, not really. Judging by this current crop of students and its rabid hatred for past generations, future generations will hate us anyway.
I hope you are being sarcastic there! Their future is not worthier than your own, but it is not less worthy. FYI I am a climate change non-alarmist.
Depends if you have children and other younger kin I suppose. In the time being you can carry on regardless, it’s not going to make any difference unfortunately – I realised that 25 years ago. Still, I have the moral high ground ;o)
I hope you are being sarcastic there! Their future is not worthier than your own, but it is not less worthy. FYI I am a climate change non-alarmist.
I’m a mere laywoman and from your post, I’m assuming, you aren’t a layman but even I know that the Romans grew vineyards in the north of England during their occupation. In the 1500’s there was a mini ice age. The climate DOES change naturally and regularly, if you care to look back further than ‘when records began’ in the late 1800’s.
Why should I care about some hypothetical future generation? Why is their future considered worthier than my own?
This is the type of thing the world is up against. I appreciate the layman may not grasp the seriousness of the issue, which is why people on the alarmist side get so frustrated.
Ultimately it’s future generations that will curse this one for burying the problem.
Where did you get the “Climate Change Catastrophism” from? The Guardian? Recommend to read statistics by R.Pielke Jr., who was part of the IPCC. Also recommend reading Professor Lindzen , Professor Curry and more statistics by B.Lomborg
I think of it more as ‘realism’, degree in ecology and associated reading. I note your list of sceptics – Lomborg is just like Koonin, cherry picking certain data to create misleading arguments (to sell books). These are exactly the kind of people that were recruited by Exxon to cast doubt on climate science. See funding of climate change denial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial
Don’t quote anything from Wiki. It is like reading the Guardian. The scientists have nothing to do with Exxon.
Don’t quote anything from Wiki. It is like reading the Guardian. The scientists have nothing to do with Exxon.
I think of it more as ‘realism’, degree in ecology and associated reading. I note your list of sceptics – Lomborg is just like Koonin, cherry picking certain data to create misleading arguments (to sell books). These are exactly the kind of people that were recruited by Exxon to cast doubt on climate science. See funding of climate change denial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial
Alternatively, like most of us, he’s seen through the ongoing hysteria (Covid, climate emergency etc), understanding them for they are ( HL Mencken’s hobgoblins).
Carry on panicking if you wish, but really the anthropogenic climate change ”Science ‘ is pretty much as shonky as the Covid variety of Science.
No offence, but after 35 years of failed predictions, why should we take the alarmist community seriously? Climate change is a problem, but what exactly are the problems that humans cannot adapt to?
I think many readers of Unherd are more concerned about the ‘solutions’ to climate change than climate change itself which has been going on ever since the world was formed. Personally, I remain more optimistic about humans reacting with skill and ingenuity to any given climate emergency and pessimistic about putting my trust in a small group of people who see their job as managing humanity in order save the planet. There are already NGOs promoting climate change is a result of racial injustice with the usual scapegoats within easy reach:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/11/global-climate-crisis-racial-justice-crisis-un-expert
If you think this is hyperbole, don’t forget that it’s only 80 years ago that humans were killing each other for more ‘lebensraum’. How much more gleefully will we kill each other if it’s all done in the name of ‘saving the planet’?
Where did you get the “Climate Change Catastrophism” from? The Guardian? Recommend to read statistics by R.Pielke Jr., who was part of the IPCC. Also recommend reading Professor Lindzen , Professor Curry and more statistics by B.Lomborg
This of course an Orwellian state of affairs being described and superpowered by technology. One can be paranoid on such matters but it’s perfectly easy to tune out of by avoiding MSM, but more importantly the echo chambers where cynicism prevails. Which brings me to climate change catastrophism – understandably Crawford sees the alarmist response sceptically and perhaps in conspiratorial terms, but fails to acknowledge the genuine problems future populations will ultimately face. Sadly he therefore appears to be playing to a ready made biased audience.