X Close

A heatwave isn’t the end of the world Reducing emissions will hurt the poor

No need to panic. Credit: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty

No need to panic. Credit: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty


July 18, 2023   6 mins

As I write this, in my favourite local café in Rome, the temperature outside is close to 40°C. So yes, it’s hot. Yet, thanks to a relatively old invention — air conditioning — I’m able to work in comfort. The 10-minute bike ride back home will be tougher than usual, but it won’t kill me. Like most people here, I consider these temperatures to be a nuisance — but that’s about it.

According to the news, however, I should be terribly concerned — terrified, in fact. Everyone’s running headline stories about the “extreme”, “record-breaking” and “deadly” hot weather sweeping across Asia, the US and, most notably, Europe. Here, the heatwave was unofficially named Cerberus, the multi-headed dog that guards the gates of Hades, before being replaced by Charon, the man who ferries the dead there. Rome is being called the “infernal city”. To be honest, I can think of several much more hellish places around the world at the moment — cities plagued by poverty, terrorism and war. And yet we are told that the current heat waves are a taste of the “hell” that awaits us as a result of climate change.

Such sensationalism is revealing of the climate hysteria that has gripped the West — and the way in which it is seriously hindering our ability to devise rational solutions. Many seem convinced that if we don’t drastically reduce CO2 emissions (or eliminate them altogether) by our unmoveable deadline of 2030, climate change will extinguish humanity, if not all life on Earth. We’re told this is because “the science tells us”. This is bonkers.

Yes, climate change and global warming are real — and yes, they are largely a result of human activity — but the planet is not about to be “uninhabitable”. The science is, in fact, much more nuanced: according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is far from clear whether the world is actually experiencing more drought, flooding or hurricanes, nor the extent to which any changes are influenced by human behaviour.

Scientists aren’t even sure what the impact on agriculture will be: one 2011 study done for the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that by mid-century climate change might reduce global crop output by less than 1% of today’s output. As the UN climate panel put it: “For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers [such as] changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development.”

While the overall impact of climate change on humanity will be negative, nowhere does the science tell us that life on Earth will perish if we don’t go Net Zero by 2030. These deadlines are conjured by politicians, not scientists. As a result, the apocalyptic narrative currently dominating the climate debate is completely unfounded — and unethical. In The Rhetoric of Reaction, Albert Hirschman warned about the “futility thesis” — how people will reject preventive action due to a fatalistic belief that it is simply too late to make a difference. Today, this phenomenon can be seen in the thousands of young Westerners who are suffering from “climate anxiety” and choosing not to have children. According to the UN’s latest Human Development Report, the world is more pessimistic than at any point between now and before the First World War — even though in almost every measurable way, life on Earth is better than ever.

Not only is this rhetoric of impending doom hindering the possibility of fixing the problem, it is also engendering all manner of authoritarian fantasies. It has become an article of faith that the best response is to drastically cut back CO2 emissions — and that this should be done whatever the cost. For if the world is about to end, anything is justified. The increasingly violent forms of “eco-activism” are also part of this trend. Fear, depression, desperation and authoritarianism are mutually reinforcing.

Yet any realistic climate policy will take decades to pay off; even if we significantly reduce our emissions in the following years, the total amount of carbon dioxide in the air will still increase, though at a slightly diminished rate. This is especially true for Western countries, which will account for a smaller and smaller share of global emissions in the coming years and decades. Even if rich countries completely curtail all emissions (an impossible scenario), the temperature increase, after 80 years, will only be 0.4°C smaller than it would have been otherwise, according to estimates by Bjorn Lomborg based on a model used by the UN’s panel of climate scientists. So even if Western countries were able to meet their unrealistic climate objectives, we will continue to experience the negative consequences of climate change — floods, storms and heat waves — for a very long time.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything to try to stop temperatures from rising above a certain limit. But if our aim is to actually save lives — and surely we have a greater moral obligation to those who are alive today than to future generations — then our priority should be adaptation: that is, measures that will help people cope with the effects of climate change, and which would save lives here and now.

Adaptation has already greatly reduced climate-related deaths, even in the face of rising temperatures: it’s why deaths from storm surges have been declining even as sea levels have risen; and why the most likely future scenario is that fewer people will die from climate-related flooding — just as heat-related deaths have been declining in certain countries. Adaptation is also why deaths and devastation due to wildfires have dropped dramatically; and why, overall, climate-related fatalities have declined by about 96% over the past century, despite a massive increase in the global population. This is testament to the strong relationship between economic development and climate resilience.

In the context of the current heatwaves, this means that, instead of “climate action”, people should be demanding subsidies for air conditioners and lower energy prices from their governments — straightforward measures that would drastically lower the number of heat-related deaths, not empty promises that won’t make a difference in the short term (and will have a negligible impact in the long term). But this is what happens when nightmares and elitist fantasies replace the actual material conditions of people as the basis for politics — “saving the planet” becomes more important than saving actual human beings.

In this way, climate hysteria is completely distorting our perception of the world. Last week, a report by the World Meteorological Organization that the beginning of July was the world’s hottest week on record received widespread attention. At around the same time, another report was published — this time by the UN Development Programme — that was greeted with less interest. But it was arguably more important. It estimated that the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent surge in inflation and borrowing costs had pushed an extra 165 million people into poverty, bringing the total global figure to 1.65 billion, over 20% of the world’s population.

Climate activists often argue that those living in poor countries are the ones who will suffer the most from climate change. This is true. But, once again, it is illogical to claim that our priority, and theirs, should therefore be to reduce global emissions as fast as possible. Poor people’s priority is not be poor. A UN global poll of nearly 10 million people found climate to be the lowest policy priority among the poor, far behind education, health, and nutrition.

Of course, these objectives can’t always be treated in isolation. There are often trade-offs: reducing or eliminating world poverty requires more growth, which inevitably entails more energy and therefore more emissions. Indeed, coping with the effects of climate change is itself energy-intensive, as the climate paradox of air conditioning makes clear. Faced with this realisation, environmentalists continue to entertain the notion that the future energy needs of developing countries can be met entirely by renewables — yet this is also a fantasy.

As a report published last year by the Breakthrough Institute makes clear, even though renewables (ideally in combination with nuclear energy, which is fully carbon-free) have a role to play in the development of Africa and other poor regions, many of the world’s poorer countries have no choice but to rely on fossil fuels in the coming years: coal, oil and natural gas. “Continued and increasing fossil-fuel consumption is regrettable, but it will mean more people will be fed with less land, reducing deforestation, and enabling the transition to modern agriculture,” write the report’s two co-authors, Vijaya Ramachandran of the Breakthrough Institute and Arthur Baker of the Development Innovation Lab at the University of Chicago. Remember, poverty is the leading cause of death in developing countries; more growth in these countries will mean more emissions but significantly fewer deaths. Moreover, helping the world’s poorest grow out of poverty will also make them more resilient in the face of climate change.

One might think that, even for those with environmentalist sympathies, the choice here isn’t too difficult to make: fewer deaths is surely a goal worth pursuing. Instead, development banks and international funding groups such as the World Bank and the European Investment Bank are increasingly linking finance to climate adaptation and mitigation, curtailing or halting their funding of fossil-fuel or nuclear projects. Here we can observe the best example of the way in which climate hysteria is pushing us to make increasingly irrational — and ultimately very dangerous, if not deadly — choices for poor and marginalised people everywhere, in the developing world as well as in rich countries.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change; it means that we need to strike the right balance between improving human welfare — which implies more emissions in the short term — and mitigating temperature rises. As long as poverty continues to kill more people than climate change, environmentalists who profess to care about saving the world should think about who they are saving it for.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

341 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
10 months ago

I suppose the good thing about the ruling-class climate cult is that it will accelerate the global populist nationalist movement of the ordinary middle class: Dutch farmers, Canadian truckers, and American MAGAs.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago

No doubt. The incoherent pursuit of net zero will be the undoing of the incompetent ruling elite. Of course Canada has to take a leading role in the madness. We just gave out $24 billion in subsidies for two battery plants. One of the projects for $13 billion will supposedly create 2,500 jobs – I’ll believe it when I see it – for a cool $6 million per job. Don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The scale of this handout literally dwarfs any other corporate welfare in Canadian history. The handouts amount to more than the cost of the factories.

David Jory
David Jory
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Older people chuckle.The 6 Million Dollar Man has been replaced The 6 Million Dollar Persons of a Non-Binary Nature who are Infinitely Woke.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The scale of this handout literally dwarfs any other corporate welfare in Canadian history. The handouts amount to more than the cost of the factories.

David Jory
David Jory
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Older people chuckle.The 6 Million Dollar Man has been replaced The 6 Million Dollar Persons of a Non-Binary Nature who are Infinitely Woke.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
10 months ago

Don’t forget the Irish ranchers and the 200,000 cattle that will be culled to ‘fight global warming.’

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

I love the incoherent logic. Climate change will cause mass starvation so we must reduce food supplies today to prevent starvation tomorrow. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense square a circle like this?

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Maybe it’s because you took it out of context? I suspect the policy is to reduce over production and promote sustainable consumption.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I suspect you have no idea what the ideological nonsense you regurtitate will mean for future generations living under communist tyranny.

Rob J
Rob J
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Pot accuses kettle of spewing ideological verbiage.
Within three words, pot types the phrase “future generations living under communist tyranny”.
Maybe hysteria isn’t confined to the climate-preoccupied classes.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Rob J

Yes amusing is it not? Infinite growth … or commie tyranny! Which will it be? My Humvee is a bulwark against Marxism!

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
10 months ago
Reply to  Rob J

.

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Stoll
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Rob J

Yes amusing is it not? Infinite growth … or commie tyranny! Which will it be? My Humvee is a bulwark against Marxism!

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
10 months ago
Reply to  Rob J

.

Last edited 10 months ago by Andrew Stoll
Rob J
Rob J
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Pot accuses kettle of spewing ideological verbiage.
Within three words, pot types the phrase “future generations living under communist tyranny”.
Maybe hysteria isn’t confined to the climate-preoccupied classes.

Jacqueline Walker
Jacqueline Walker
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

It is I suppose as Ireland easily produces enough in that sector for its own needs, but it will also impact exports from that sector – weakening a domestic industry (Ireland is otherwise very reliant on multinationals) and ordinary people’s livelihoods – not just farmers but the rest of the rural sector that exists because they exist.

Last edited 10 months ago by Jacqueline Walker
laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

You mean “eat bugs”, don’t you?

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I suspect you have no idea what the ideological nonsense you regurtitate will mean for future generations living under communist tyranny.

Jacqueline Walker
Jacqueline Walker
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

It is I suppose as Ireland easily produces enough in that sector for its own needs, but it will also impact exports from that sector – weakening a domestic industry (Ireland is otherwise very reliant on multinationals) and ordinary people’s livelihoods – not just farmers but the rest of the rural sector that exists because they exist.

Last edited 10 months ago by Jacqueline Walker
laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

You mean “eat bugs”, don’t you?

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Maybe it’s because you took it out of context? I suspect the policy is to reduce over production and promote sustainable consumption.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

Cattle-culling? Reminds me of something Null Ferguson at Imperial College(who has literally zero qualifications for the job in the 1st place) did during his spectacular debut!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

I love the incoherent logic. Climate change will cause mass starvation so we must reduce food supplies today to prevent starvation tomorrow. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense square a circle like this?

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

Cattle-culling? Reminds me of something Null Ferguson at Imperial College(who has literally zero qualifications for the job in the 1st place) did during his spectacular debut!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago

I stopped reading at “Yes, climate change and global warming are real — and yes, they are largely a result of human activity.”

CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Beyond that, it’s all poorly understood pseudo-science, neo-Marxist globalist lies, and yes, hysteria.

Adam Bacon
Adam Bacon
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

I agree with you about CO2, but even if we were both wrong, and human induced global warming was real, still the IPCC reports acknowledge that the impacts would be fairly modest. Hence the current Net Zero delusion is doubly insane.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

“Hence the current Net Zero delusion is doubly insane.”

Yes. And it will destroy western civilisation – exactly what the neo-Marxists want, and why they have spent decades infiltrating key institutions.

https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero

Victoria Cooper
Victoria Cooper
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Spot on. And you cannot repeat it enough – everything goes back to there: a utopian fallacy.

Victoria Cooper
Victoria Cooper
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Spot on. And you cannot repeat it enough – everything goes back to there: a utopian fallacy.

Jacqueline Walker
Jacqueline Walker
10 months ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

Not only that, but this cargo cult idea that if we just reach net zero all the weather extremes will go away. I don’t think these people pushing this necessarily think that but that is definitely the subtext of every news report I hear these days.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

“Hence the current Net Zero delusion is doubly insane.”

Yes. And it will destroy western civilisation – exactly what the neo-Marxists want, and why they have spent decades infiltrating key institutions.

https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero

Jacqueline Walker
Jacqueline Walker
10 months ago
Reply to  Adam Bacon

Not only that, but this cargo cult idea that if we just reach net zero all the weather extremes will go away. I don’t think these people pushing this necessarily think that but that is definitely the subtext of every news report I hear these days.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Me too. I’ve been hearing this BS in all its forms since grade school in the 70s. We were all going to freeze to death, or the oceans were going to drown New York City, or the ozone was being destroyed by hairspray – it’s all just so obviously a scam – like Al Gore’s carbon offset racket. The private jet elites believe this as much as they believed that Covid would kill everyone not wearing a mask.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago

“or the ozone was being destroyed by hairspray”
Which it was. However global action was taken and they say the ozone layer is now almost perfectly restored. It does your credibility little service to point to this example of sober response to a real problem to buttress your claim that AGW is more hysteria. Oh, and at the current rate of sea level rise NYC will require dikes within a decade or two, this is mathematically unavoidable.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

What global action was taken to stop the the Great Hairspray Crisis? The product is in every supermarket and salon and women never stopped using it. What proof do we have that the ozone layer is “perfectly restored”, or that it was damaged in the first place? Dikes in NYC, you say? Hmmm, the real estate market is already in trouble there; better not tell would-be investors! I wonder what all those swells in the Hamptons will do with their flooded mansions. I live on Florida’s Gulf Coast. Guess I’d better sell up before Florida disappears like Atlantis . . .

Peter Coffey
Peter Coffey
10 months ago

Allison, hair sprays originally used chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant. When it was discovered that CFCs were opening a hole in the ozone layer which protects us from radiation, the US phased them out and replaced them with more benign propellants. An international protocol was adopted by most countries following the US lead. Satellite photos show that the ozone hole is largely gone and, as you note, hairsprays are still widely available.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Coffey

The elimination of CFCs has been rather detrimental for sufferers from Asthma.

The ‘new’ inhalers are nothing like as good as the old ones, but who really cares?

Presumably if the Ozone hole hadn’t been repaired we would ALL have ceased to exist by now?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Coffey

The elimination of CFCs has been rather detrimental for sufferers from Asthma.

The ‘new’ inhalers are nothing like as good as the old ones, but who really cares?

Presumably if the Ozone hole hadn’t been repaired we would ALL have ceased to exist by now?

Peter Coffey
Peter Coffey
10 months ago

Allison, hair sprays originally used chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant. When it was discovered that CFCs were opening a hole in the ozone layer which protects us from radiation, the US phased them out and replaced them with more benign propellants. An international protocol was adopted by most countries following the US lead. Satellite photos show that the ozone hole is largely gone and, as you note, hairsprays are still widely available.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Yes, regardless of anything else, sea level rise is upon us. Low lying populations will be on the move. THAT will be the problem.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago

Exactly. Whether one is a head-in-the-sand denialist or head-on-fire alarmist (or anything in between) the oceans will continue to rise at a pace that will displace a great portion of the global population.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

And that is happening very fast.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

The faster the better.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago

Why? Why do you say that, Charles?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

He calls it “Darwinian realism”.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

He calls it “Darwinian realism”.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago

Why? Why do you say that, Charles?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

The faster the better.

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Could ‘the problem’ perhaps just be that there are a few billion too many of us?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

And that is happening very fast.

Andrew Stoll
Andrew Stoll
10 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Could ‘the problem’ perhaps just be that there are a few billion too many of us?

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
10 months ago

It’s been happening since the end of the Ice Age with far more dreadful impacts than a centimetre rise every ten years. The flooding of the Black Sea and the creation of the Nile 13000 years ago: more recently the flooding of the Dogger bank and the flooding of Frisia that sent whole populations fleeing south. Most of post Ice Age human history lies under the sea, as people settled on or near coasts.

Saul D
Saul D
10 months ago

Sea level is rising at a reasonably steady rate of 3cm a decade. A house brick every 30 years. Human populations generally regenerate their cities every 40-50 years. It’s manageable.
However sea level is also the key tell for climate change. The dramatic models and forecasts used by activists predict large sea-level rise. For that to happen there has to be a step-change acceleration in sea-level rise – at least 4 times the steady rate of the last few decades, if we are to be at 1m or more rise by 2100 as some of the dramatic forecasts predict.
Observationally it isn’t happening, and there have been 35 years saying sea level rise will accelerate rapidly with rising temperatures. Good scientists would be critiquing the theory because observations aren’t matching predictions.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
10 months ago

Exactly. Whether one is a head-in-the-sand denialist or head-on-fire alarmist (or anything in between) the oceans will continue to rise at a pace that will displace a great portion of the global population.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
10 months ago

It’s been happening since the end of the Ice Age with far more dreadful impacts than a centimetre rise every ten years. The flooding of the Black Sea and the creation of the Nile 13000 years ago: more recently the flooding of the Dogger bank and the flooding of Frisia that sent whole populations fleeing south. Most of post Ice Age human history lies under the sea, as people settled on or near coasts.

Saul D
Saul D
10 months ago

Sea level is rising at a reasonably steady rate of 3cm a decade. A house brick every 30 years. Human populations generally regenerate their cities every 40-50 years. It’s manageable.
However sea level is also the key tell for climate change. The dramatic models and forecasts used by activists predict large sea-level rise. For that to happen there has to be a step-change acceleration in sea-level rise – at least 4 times the steady rate of the last few decades, if we are to be at 1m or more rise by 2100 as some of the dramatic forecasts predict.
Observationally it isn’t happening, and there have been 35 years saying sea level rise will accelerate rapidly with rising temperatures. Good scientists would be critiquing the theory because observations aren’t matching predictions.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Isnt the point more that an immediate and convincing danger produces global action, whereas the 35 years of AGW alarmism has been met by developing countries saying that it isnt fair to deny them the chance to catch up with Western industrial development: I heard this a lot when I taught students, Huge amounts of money have been spent by the World Bank sunce 1990 and more recently by the EU aid programme on projects meant to reduce global warming, and the recipients take the cash but with, as it were, their fingers crossed behind their back. Only the West believes in AGW.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

What global action was taken to stop the the Great Hairspray Crisis? The product is in every supermarket and salon and women never stopped using it. What proof do we have that the ozone layer is “perfectly restored”, or that it was damaged in the first place? Dikes in NYC, you say? Hmmm, the real estate market is already in trouble there; better not tell would-be investors! I wonder what all those swells in the Hamptons will do with their flooded mansions. I live on Florida’s Gulf Coast. Guess I’d better sell up before Florida disappears like Atlantis . . .

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Yes, regardless of anything else, sea level rise is upon us. Low lying populations will be on the move. THAT will be the problem.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Isnt the point more that an immediate and convincing danger produces global action, whereas the 35 years of AGW alarmism has been met by developing countries saying that it isnt fair to deny them the chance to catch up with Western industrial development: I heard this a lot when I taught students, Huge amounts of money have been spent by the World Bank sunce 1990 and more recently by the EU aid programme on projects meant to reduce global warming, and the recipients take the cash but with, as it were, their fingers crossed behind their back. Only the West believes in AGW.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago

“or the ozone was being destroyed by hairspray”
Which it was. However global action was taken and they say the ozone layer is now almost perfectly restored. It does your credibility little service to point to this example of sober response to a real problem to buttress your claim that AGW is more hysteria. Oh, and at the current rate of sea level rise NYC will require dikes within a decade or two, this is mathematically unavoidable.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

“pseudo-science, neo-Marxist globalist lies, and yes, hysteria.”
Are you able to write in anything other than right-wing group think clichés? Are you a scientist?  You sound very convinced, and very knowledgeable, certainly a lot more than me. I’d like to learn from smart people like you. Can you point us to your peer-reviewed sources please? 

Duncan White
Duncan White
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

firstly why do observations of marxist gait-prop have to be singularly from ‘right wing group think cliches’ ? if anything that is a cliche, however thats a discourse for another day
peer reviewed sources…
first off go to Clintel where over 1500 real scientists have signed the Declaration, not faux science ‘modellers’ et al
second try a few of these ….
“Climate Change the facts” Marohasy
”Green Murder” Ian Plimer
”Heaven & Earth” Ian Plimer
”Hiding The Decline” Andrew Montford
”The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” Tim Ball
”Unsettled” Steve Koonin
”Global Warming and Other Eco Myths” Ronald Bailey editor
”The Real Global Warming Disaster” Christopher Booker
”Inconvenient Facts” Gregory Wrighstone
”Human Caused Global Warming” Dr Tim Ball
when you’ve got thru them come back and I’ll add some links
that’s if you’ve got further than dismissing all these professorial level authors as ‘right wing group thinkers’

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Duncan White

“where over 1500 real scientists”
Who counts as a ‘real scientist’ then? I suspect that if a scientist supports your view he is ‘real’ and if he does not, he is not, yes?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  Duncan White

For balance, and a bit of light relief from reading, you might kick back and watch some of David Attenborough’smost recent documentaries.

Last edited 10 months ago by Clare Knight
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Duncan White

“where over 1500 real scientists”
Who counts as a ‘real scientist’ then? I suspect that if a scientist supports your view he is ‘real’ and if he does not, he is not, yes?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  Duncan White

For balance, and a bit of light relief from reading, you might kick back and watch some of David Attenborough’smost recent documentaries.

Last edited 10 months ago by Clare Knight
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I challenge you to read any article or listen to any podcast with Bjorn Lomborg. If you are being open minded, it can’t help but change your perspective.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

He’s not being open minded, so he won’t.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Now, now don’t project.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Now, now don’t project.

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Lomborg is a politician funded by the sceptic industry.

Jim C
Jim C
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

No, he’s an economist who takes the IPCC’s predictions and modelling at face value, and then calculates what is the best course for humanity given the benefits as well as costs of both climate change, phasing out fossil fuels in favour of renewables, and mitigation measures.
And determined that striving for “Net Zero” by 2050 (let alone 2030) is not the best use of humanity’s limited resources; not even close.
His calculations are open and based on open sources and anyone can challenge them and prove they’re wrong. No one has (to my knowledge).

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim C

Really. Most people look at his work and note how he cherry picks certain datasets in order to make narrow compelling observations. Let’s face it, anyone buying a book with the title ‘False Alarm’ is merely a victim of their own confirmation bias.

Jim C
Jim C
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Oh yeah? Name some of these “most people”, please.

Jim C
Jim C
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Oh yeah? Name some of these “most people”, please.

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim C

Really. Most people look at his work and note how he cherry picks certain datasets in order to make narrow compelling observations. Let’s face it, anyone buying a book with the title ‘False Alarm’ is merely a victim of their own confirmation bias.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Blimey.i thought he was an academic who wrote interesting books and was banned from writing for Nature after complaints from a bunch of non climate scientists . Sort of like the Lancet and Covid.

Last edited 10 months ago by Anna Bramwell
Jim C
Jim C
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

No, he’s an economist who takes the IPCC’s predictions and modelling at face value, and then calculates what is the best course for humanity given the benefits as well as costs of both climate change, phasing out fossil fuels in favour of renewables, and mitigation measures.
And determined that striving for “Net Zero” by 2050 (let alone 2030) is not the best use of humanity’s limited resources; not even close.
His calculations are open and based on open sources and anyone can challenge them and prove they’re wrong. No one has (to my knowledge).

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Blimey.i thought he was an academic who wrote interesting books and was banned from writing for Nature after complaints from a bunch of non climate scientists . Sort of like the Lancet and Covid.

Last edited 10 months ago by Anna Bramwell
John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

He’s not being open minded, so he won’t.

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Lomborg is a politician funded by the sceptic industry.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Covid, Covid, Covid and Covid

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
10 months ago

We need to start calling it Wuhan Flu, because it offends the woke scum.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
10 months ago

We need to start calling it Wuhan Flu, because it offends the woke scum.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

“Right-wing group think clichés”

And there’s no better cliché than that. Clown.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

“And there’s no better cliché than that. Clown.”
Which does not negate his point. If one points out a cliche using another cliche, does that make the first cliche go away? IMHO he is correct that Deniers are so quick to dismiss anything they don’t want to hear as Marxism that it’s comical.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

I’m going to junk all my perjoratives and just use “Marxist” for everything I don’t like.

Jim C
Jim C
10 months ago

At least he capitalised “Deniers”

Jim C
Jim C
10 months ago

At least he capitalised “Deniers”

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

I’m going to junk all my perjoratives and just use “Marxist” for everything I don’t like.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Can you not disagree without name calling? It reflects badly on you.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

“And there’s no better cliché than that. Clown.”
Which does not negate his point. If one points out a cliche using another cliche, does that make the first cliche go away? IMHO he is correct that Deniers are so quick to dismiss anything they don’t want to hear as Marxism that it’s comical.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Can you not disagree without name calling? It reflects badly on you.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I recommend you go on YouTube and listen to Prof.Curry and Prof.Lindzen. There are also plenty of other interviews by “sceptical” Climate Scientists, physicists and biologists, like the former founder of Green Peace, Patrick Moore. He also published a great new book, which I recently read. In the latest video by Curry, she was explaining, that there is no Climate Crisis, even if you dig deep into the latest IPCC reports. Some years ago she gave a lecture, comparing CO2 to a hair on an elephant‘s tail, the elephant being a metaphor of the atmosphere (man made CO2 only 3% of 0.04%). The whole of recent Climate Science is solely based on computer models…
The current hysteria about Global Warming Crisis reminds me very much of our recent Covid “crisis”, when eminent scientists were cut out from all discussions on Social Media and much of MSM. According to the Twitter files they were silenced by government agencies like the CIA and FBI.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stephanie Surface
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago

The current hysteria about Global Warming Crisis reminds me very much of our recent Covid “crisis”
Apt comparison. Indeed, vast amounts of misbehavior happened regarding Covid, yes? The list of mistakes and lies and incompetence and Marxist malfeasance was long. Yet I put it to you that Covid was real and that many died from it and that some action was required notwithstanding that you could have handled it much better, yes? Similarly, AGW is real and action should be taken. True, as will all real science, there will be dissent of one kind or another, but with 99% of scientist more or less ‘on side’ should we say that the 1% prove that the whole thing is made up?

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Can‘t link the paper here, but thousands of scientists recently signed a document, which says, the hysteria we are witnessing right now, has nothing to do with science. Where did you get the 99%? Some say 97%… Anyway, even Curry and Lindzen say, it “might” be a possibility, that CO2 contributes a tiny percent to Global Warming. They of course were put into the category of 97% agreeing on man made Global Warming. But the subject is so complex, that listening to Linzen and an Indian Physicist discuss the science makes my head spin. Doubt any of the journalists, let alone the politician understand anything. Also most of the IPCC papers are very vague with lots of “might”, “would” and “could” in it. Definitely not settled science.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stephanie Surface
Kent Ausburn
Kent Ausburn
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

No, 99% of scientists are not “more or less onside” with the climate hysteria. I’m a PhD geologist, you know, scientists who actually study the history of the earth, which necessarily includes the history of climate changes through time, and I assure you that most geologists I know are not onside with the concept that CO2 is driving contemprary increased temperatures. No more than it drove historic significant increases in temperature.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Can‘t link the paper here, but thousands of scientists recently signed a document, which says, the hysteria we are witnessing right now, has nothing to do with science. Where did you get the 99%? Some say 97%… Anyway, even Curry and Lindzen say, it “might” be a possibility, that CO2 contributes a tiny percent to Global Warming. They of course were put into the category of 97% agreeing on man made Global Warming. But the subject is so complex, that listening to Linzen and an Indian Physicist discuss the science makes my head spin. Doubt any of the journalists, let alone the politician understand anything. Also most of the IPCC papers are very vague with lots of “might”, “would” and “could” in it. Definitely not settled science.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stephanie Surface
Kent Ausburn
Kent Ausburn
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

No, 99% of scientists are not “more or less onside” with the climate hysteria. I’m a PhD geologist, you know, scientists who actually study the history of the earth, which necessarily includes the history of climate changes through time, and I assure you that most geologists I know are not onside with the concept that CO2 is driving contemprary increased temperatures. No more than it drove historic significant increases in temperature.

Gordon Chamberlain
Gordon Chamberlain
10 months ago

Absolutely bang on. Me and my wife heard all about this when we were at college in the mid 1970s. We have read and watched scientists explain about what the actual data shows and their conclusions are that there is no man made warming. The fact that a gas that is only .04% of the atmosphere and human beings are only responsible for 3% of that .04 is completely laughable. My understanding is that CO2 is the gas of life and if it fell below 200 parts per million then plants would die and then of course all animal and human life would die.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago

The current hysteria about Global Warming Crisis reminds me very much of our recent Covid “crisis”
Apt comparison. Indeed, vast amounts of misbehavior happened regarding Covid, yes? The list of mistakes and lies and incompetence and Marxist malfeasance was long. Yet I put it to you that Covid was real and that many died from it and that some action was required notwithstanding that you could have handled it much better, yes? Similarly, AGW is real and action should be taken. True, as will all real science, there will be dissent of one kind or another, but with 99% of scientist more or less ‘on side’ should we say that the 1% prove that the whole thing is made up?

Gordon Chamberlain
Gordon Chamberlain
10 months ago

Absolutely bang on. Me and my wife heard all about this when we were at college in the mid 1970s. We have read and watched scientists explain about what the actual data shows and their conclusions are that there is no man made warming. The fact that a gas that is only .04% of the atmosphere and human beings are only responsible for 3% of that .04 is completely laughable. My understanding is that CO2 is the gas of life and if it fell below 200 parts per million then plants would die and then of course all animal and human life would die.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

One does not need peer-reviewed sources to smell a commie! JS knows that his opinions are Good and that anyone telling him anything he doesn’t want to hear is Bad. It is that simple, why confuse things?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I love that leftist cliché that says no one should comment unless they are a scientist. I’m no scientist, yet I believe in gravity. I also believe that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and water boils at 212 degrees. If someone claimed that water boils at 95 degrees and I challenge them, am I right-wing group thinker too?

stephen archer
stephen archer
10 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

At 65 hPa they’d be corrrect.

stephen archer
stephen archer
10 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

At 65 hPa they’d be corrrect.

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

“Peer reviewed sources” is a bit of a joke these days. A lot of people have lists of the peer review publications that wil support their particular dodgy views. Even publications such as The Lancet have been found guilty of (extreme) bias on certain subjects/authors. Add to your reading list two very good primers: “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom” by Patrick Moore an important founder member of Greenpeace who left them at about the same time that I stopped supporting them. “False Alarm” by Bjorn Lomborg an independent scientist (not reliant on government or NGO handouts)

Last edited 10 months ago by Doug Pingel
Jim C
Jim C
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Well I’m a scientist.
Presumably you believe the claims that there’s a “scientific consensus” with regards to CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
I’ve been taking an interest in this subject since the early ’80’s, when a few of the more alarmist climate scientists would actually debate with the more moderate (“lukewarmist”) climate scientists. The latters’ arguments were usually more persuasive, and pretty soon the alarmists stopped taking part in debates.
But after years of lukewarmists being denounced by activists (and alarmist scientists) as “deniers”, it was suddenly announced that there was a “scientific consensus” on CAGW, but there wasn’t; there was a manufactured consensus amongst activists, activist-scientists, politicians and bureaucrats which steered funding and publicity towards alarmists, and away from anyone who remained sceptical.
With regards to “peer review”, the leaked “Climategate” emails reveal that this has been replaced with “pal review”, and, as Richard Lindzen recently attested, any editor daring to publish lukewarmist research in a scientific journal now faces dismissal (this has happened to him twice).
Scientists are no less venal than anyone else, and can no more afford to lose grants or jobs than anyone else; as the politically (and financially) manufactured consensus over mRNA vaccines’ safety and efficacy exemplifies.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim C

The best comment today, although Mr Mathew Powell seems to disagree with you.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim C

The best comment today, although Mr Mathew Powell seems to disagree with you.

Duncan White
Duncan White
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

firstly why do observations of marxist gait-prop have to be singularly from ‘right wing group think cliches’ ? if anything that is a cliche, however thats a discourse for another day
peer reviewed sources…
first off go to Clintel where over 1500 real scientists have signed the Declaration, not faux science ‘modellers’ et al
second try a few of these ….
“Climate Change the facts” Marohasy
”Green Murder” Ian Plimer
”Heaven & Earth” Ian Plimer
”Hiding The Decline” Andrew Montford
”The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” Tim Ball
”Unsettled” Steve Koonin
”Global Warming and Other Eco Myths” Ronald Bailey editor
”The Real Global Warming Disaster” Christopher Booker
”Inconvenient Facts” Gregory Wrighstone
”Human Caused Global Warming” Dr Tim Ball
when you’ve got thru them come back and I’ll add some links
that’s if you’ve got further than dismissing all these professorial level authors as ‘right wing group thinkers’

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I challenge you to read any article or listen to any podcast with Bjorn Lomborg. If you are being open minded, it can’t help but change your perspective.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Covid, Covid, Covid and Covid

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

“Right-wing group think clichés”

And there’s no better cliché than that. Clown.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I recommend you go on YouTube and listen to Prof.Curry and Prof.Lindzen. There are also plenty of other interviews by “sceptical” Climate Scientists, physicists and biologists, like the former founder of Green Peace, Patrick Moore. He also published a great new book, which I recently read. In the latest video by Curry, she was explaining, that there is no Climate Crisis, even if you dig deep into the latest IPCC reports. Some years ago she gave a lecture, comparing CO2 to a hair on an elephant‘s tail, the elephant being a metaphor of the atmosphere (man made CO2 only 3% of 0.04%). The whole of recent Climate Science is solely based on computer models…
The current hysteria about Global Warming Crisis reminds me very much of our recent Covid “crisis”, when eminent scientists were cut out from all discussions on Social Media and much of MSM. According to the Twitter files they were silenced by government agencies like the CIA and FBI.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stephanie Surface
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

One does not need peer-reviewed sources to smell a commie! JS knows that his opinions are Good and that anyone telling him anything he doesn’t want to hear is Bad. It is that simple, why confuse things?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

I love that leftist cliché that says no one should comment unless they are a scientist. I’m no scientist, yet I believe in gravity. I also believe that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and water boils at 212 degrees. If someone claimed that water boils at 95 degrees and I challenge them, am I right-wing group thinker too?

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

“Peer reviewed sources” is a bit of a joke these days. A lot of people have lists of the peer review publications that wil support their particular dodgy views. Even publications such as The Lancet have been found guilty of (extreme) bias on certain subjects/authors. Add to your reading list two very good primers: “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom” by Patrick Moore an important founder member of Greenpeace who left them at about the same time that I stopped supporting them. “False Alarm” by Bjorn Lomborg an independent scientist (not reliant on government or NGO handouts)

Last edited 10 months ago by Doug Pingel
Jim C
Jim C
10 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Well I’m a scientist.
Presumably you believe the claims that there’s a “scientific consensus” with regards to CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
I’ve been taking an interest in this subject since the early ’80’s, when a few of the more alarmist climate scientists would actually debate with the more moderate (“lukewarmist”) climate scientists. The latters’ arguments were usually more persuasive, and pretty soon the alarmists stopped taking part in debates.
But after years of lukewarmists being denounced by activists (and alarmist scientists) as “deniers”, it was suddenly announced that there was a “scientific consensus” on CAGW, but there wasn’t; there was a manufactured consensus amongst activists, activist-scientists, politicians and bureaucrats which steered funding and publicity towards alarmists, and away from anyone who remained sceptical.
With regards to “peer review”, the leaked “Climategate” emails reveal that this has been replaced with “pal review”, and, as Richard Lindzen recently attested, any editor daring to publish lukewarmist research in a scientific journal now faces dismissal (this has happened to him twice).
Scientists are no less venal than anyone else, and can no more afford to lose grants or jobs than anyone else; as the politically (and financially) manufactured consensus over mRNA vaccines’ safety and efficacy exemplifies.

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

While many, including myself, agree with you regarding CO2 not being the root of all evil, sadly the vast majority of people have been sucked in and therefore this is now an article of faith for them. Thus any article which disputes the faith would be rejected by the masses, therefore it makes sense to at least pretend to believe the main tenet whilst trying to apply rational thought to counter the nonsense that is erroneously generated by that main tenet.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Possibly. My own view is that appeasement doesn’t work.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
10 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Rational thought?? In the year 2023? In the post-Covid world? You must be a romantic.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Possibly. My own view is that appeasement doesn’t work.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
10 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Rational thought?? In the year 2023? In the post-Covid world? You must be a romantic.

Peter Beer
Peter Beer
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

You missed a good article then…

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Beer

Indeed. It’s the first one by Fazi i’ve been able to read all the way through for some time. I thought his case was pretty well-argued.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
10 months ago
Reply to  Peter Beer

Indeed. It’s the first one by Fazi i’ve been able to read all the way through for some time. I thought his case was pretty well-argued.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Alternatively it is a cynical bit of opportunism by those with a vested financial interest

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

A scientist speaks.
I’d love to hear your ‘well-understood’ scientific opinion- a trawl through your favourite scientifically illiterate political blog rants doesnt really substitute for having the slightest grasp of the subject, sadly.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Content-free ad hominem drivel doesn’t really substitute for having the slightest grasp of the subject, sadly.

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Stating the fact that you are scientifically illiterate is not an “ad hominem”. It’s a statement of fact. If that upsets you, there we go.

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Stating the fact that you are scientifically illiterate is not an “ad hominem”. It’s a statement of fact. If that upsets you, there we go.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Strange, I upvoted your comment but the counter then moved to ‘-2’. Glitch in the matrix?

Mônica
Mônica
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

No, just the app or website updating other votes alongside yours.

Mônica
Mônica
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

No, just the app or website updating other votes alongside yours.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Welcome back ‘Thorax’!
So you have metamorphosed from an ART bluffer to Scientist. This should be fun.

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago

No, Charlie dearest, I’m not pretending to be a scientist (or, “Scientist” as you say), unlike the Dunner-Kruger fetishists on this the manifestation of internet ‘personal thruthiness’.
Scientists are all Marxists, Charlie- I had that Newton in the back of the cab once….

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago

No, Charlie dearest, I’m not pretending to be a scientist (or, “Scientist” as you say), unlike the Dunner-Kruger fetishists on this the manifestation of internet ‘personal thruthiness’.
Scientists are all Marxists, Charlie- I had that Newton in the back of the cab once….

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Content-free ad hominem drivel doesn’t really substitute for having the slightest grasp of the subject, sadly.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Strange, I upvoted your comment but the counter then moved to ‘-2’. Glitch in the matrix?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Welcome back ‘Thorax’!
So you have metamorphosed from an ART bluffer to Scientist. This should be fun.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

The elephant- no, mammoth in the room- Climate change also has natural geological causes- most notably gas emissions from rocks as well as volcanoes which can greatly alter the global climate after an exceptionally large eruption of VEI-6 or above. And one such eruption did occur in the Pacific in January 2022 ie the Hunga-Tonga eruption which was reported to have ejected unprecedented amounts of water vapour- a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 into the atmosphere, and thus predicted that this will heat up global temperatures somewhat for a considerable period, maybe 5-10 years if I recall. So if there actually is a heatwave, we ought to be educating ourselves about geology & volcanology, not the hogwash spewed by the establishment media or Greta Thunberg, the latter whom apparently has zero knowledge of these factors.
And paradoxially this eruption was also likely the reason why last winter was unusually cold- a common effect of the 1st year or two after an eruption of such size due to the ejected sulphur partially blocking out the sun’s rays. The infamous Year Without Summer of 1816 was caused by the colossal Mt. Tambora eruption(VEI-7) the previous year- perhaps the biggest in the last 300 years, and both Krakatoa & Pinatubo(both VEI-6) produced the same effect to somewhat lesser extents in their respective infamous eruptions in 1883 & 1991. Why this hasn’t been discussed last winter is beyond me.
Apparently those screaming:”Save the planet!” don’t seem to know the planet that well, and a senior geologist I’m acquainted to actually agreed with my observations.

Last edited 9 months ago by Josh Woods
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

And we know virtually nothing about underwater volcanoes. We are just starting to develop the technology to map the deeper ones. The hubris of climate change alarmists is breathtaking.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Greta: Our house is on fire!
The Earth’s mantle: Oh you don’t say?

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

the Earths’s mantle- what is Josh Woods saying?? Really? Josh Woods? Oh my God, he’s briefly read something on the internet! This is game-changing!!

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

the Earths’s mantle- what is Josh Woods saying?? Really? Josh Woods? Oh my God, he’s briefly read something on the internet! This is game-changing!!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It must have been a bit like this when the Roman Empire (fatally) adopted Christianity in the fourth century, as ‘they’ call it.

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Who is this “we”? Why should we listen to Jim Veenbass, ideological blowhard and scientific know-nothing, rather than people who actually devote their lives to studying the Earth?
The “hubris” is yours, mate. Don’t assume your ignorance is a measure of anything else.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Greta: Our house is on fire!
The Earth’s mantle: Oh you don’t say?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It must have been a bit like this when the Roman Empire (fatally) adopted Christianity in the fourth century, as ‘they’ call it.

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Who is this “we”? Why should we listen to Jim Veenbass, ideological blowhard and scientific know-nothing, rather than people who actually devote their lives to studying the Earth?
The “hubris” is yours, mate. Don’t assume your ignorance is a measure of anything else.

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

Hilarious!!

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Perhaps that’s the adjective geologists would use to describe the likes of you. Plus you’re rather picky with the ‘science’ you want to believe, aren’t you? How discerning!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

So you’re not “picky” about the science you want to believe?
Your whole point is that huge areas of contemporary science are worthless junk, despite your remarkable lack of serious knowledge of them And yet you claim someone else is “picky with the science (they) want to believe.”
You seem remarkably incapable of coherent thinking here- is lots of science junk, or is that “picky”?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

You need help Thorax, counselling I think you chaps call it, beforehand it is too late.

Incidentally you won’t get it here on UnHerd, so best return to Twitter for all our sakes.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago

Perhaps he’d be better to emigrate to Threads instead, the Zuck will make him feel even cozier there than on Twitter!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago

Perhaps he’d be better to emigrate to Threads instead, the Zuck will make him feel even cozier there than on Twitter!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Bzzz- wrong. Your assumptions of my point are completely off. Try again if you can.
I smell some hay burning- might wanna check if it’s yours? Don’t want you to lose your beloved straw man!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

You need help Thorax, counselling I think you chaps call it, beforehand it is too late.

Incidentally you won’t get it here on UnHerd, so best return to Twitter for all our sakes.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Bzzz- wrong. Your assumptions of my point are completely off. Try again if you can.
I smell some hay burning- might wanna check if it’s yours? Don’t want you to lose your beloved straw man!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

So you’re not “picky” about the science you want to believe?
Your whole point is that huge areas of contemporary science are worthless junk, despite your remarkable lack of serious knowledge of them And yet you claim someone else is “picky with the science (they) want to believe.”
You seem remarkably incapable of coherent thinking here- is lots of science junk, or is that “picky”?

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Perhaps that’s the adjective geologists would use to describe the likes of you. Plus you’re rather picky with the ‘science’ you want to believe, aren’t you? How discerning!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

Why are actual scientists so stupid, and random conspiritorial ranty blokes on the internet so incredibly brilliant?
It’s a question we all need to ponder….

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

So you’re implying that geologists & volcanologists ain’t no actual scientists? Enlightening indeed, I really need to ponder that now!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

So you’re implying that geologists & volcanologists ain’t no actual scientists? Enlightening indeed, I really need to ponder that now!

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Woods
John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

Please, please, PLEASE write this thesis up properly and send it to a serious science journal.This needs to be known NOW, as no actual scientists have a clue about what you understand so well.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Thanks for reminding me Johnny Quest, but I’m afraid that my efforts would’ve been obsolete- A number of esteemed historians & geologists have beaten me to it by decades, and I ain’t one bit jealous of them- I learnt my knowledge from them!

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Thanks for reminding me Johnny Quest, but I’m afraid that my efforts would’ve been obsolete- A number of esteemed historians & geologists have beaten me to it by decades, and I ain’t one bit jealous of them- I learnt my knowledge from them!

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

And we know virtually nothing about underwater volcanoes. We are just starting to develop the technology to map the deeper ones. The hubris of climate change alarmists is breathtaking.

Robbie K
Robbie K
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

Hilarious!!

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

Why are actual scientists so stupid, and random conspiritorial ranty blokes on the internet so incredibly brilliant?
It’s a question we all need to ponder….

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

Please, please, PLEASE write this thesis up properly and send it to a serious science journal.This needs to be known NOW, as no actual scientists have a clue about what you understand so well.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Me too. None of these writers mention that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, with a history of violent climate change, and mankind has been around for a miniscule fraction of that time. Even more miniscule is the amount of time we have been measuring the climate, hence the headlines that blare, “Highest temperatures on record.” Our records only go back about 125 years out of 4.5 billion, for heaven’s sake.
The last chuckle comes from the fact that we can’t even accurately predict the weather for tomorrow.

Kevin Godwin
Kevin Godwin
10 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Indeed, climate measuring has only been around very recently and doesn’t seem to acknowledge or explain historical climatic events. For example the ‘little ice-age’ a few hundred years ago where the river Thames froze, or the warming period during the ‘Holocene’. Well before human intervention.
I watched BBC news yesterday reporting on the ‘extreme’ heatwave affecting southern Europe. Quite alarmist. The report also mentioned that temperatures in Death-Valley USA reached 53°, not quite reaching the highest recorded temperature of 56° experienced in 1913. Perhaps a climate ‘alarmist’ could explain that one!

Kevin Godwin
Kevin Godwin
10 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Indeed, climate measuring has only been around very recently and doesn’t seem to acknowledge or explain historical climatic events. For example the ‘little ice-age’ a few hundred years ago where the river Thames froze, or the warming period during the ‘Holocene’. Well before human intervention.
I watched BBC news yesterday reporting on the ‘extreme’ heatwave affecting southern Europe. Quite alarmist. The report also mentioned that temperatures in Death-Valley USA reached 53°, not quite reaching the highest recorded temperature of 56° experienced in 1913. Perhaps a climate ‘alarmist’ could explain that one!

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Me too. If this is true then there was no climate change before we evolved. Perhaps we will soon be reading that dinosaur farts caused it in the past.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

An Argentinosaurus would probably produce a fart equivalent to that of perhaps eighty Irish cows. The effects would be something like this, from Geoffrey Chaucer:-

“This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;”*

(* The Miller’s Tale, Absalom’s revenge,, lines 698-707.)

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago

Has a single scientist ever claimed that the planet’s climate did not change before humans evolved?
No.
Therefore- your post is merely silly internet drivel. Did you actually have a serious point to make? If so, please make it….

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Speak for yourself Thorax.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Speak for yourself Thorax.

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago

Has a single scientist ever claimed that the planet’s climate did not change before humans evolved?
No.
Therefore- your post is merely silly internet drivel. Did you actually have a serious point to make? If so, please make it….

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

An Argentinosaurus would probably produce a fart equivalent to that of perhaps eighty Irish cows. The effects would be something like this, from Geoffrey Chaucer:-

“This Nicholas just then let fly a fart
As loud as it had been a thunder-clap,
And well-nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap;”*

(* The Miller’s Tale, Absalom’s revenge,, lines 698-707.)

Adam Bacon
Adam Bacon
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

I agree with you about CO2, but even if we were both wrong, and human induced global warming was real, still the IPCC reports acknowledge that the impacts would be fairly modest. Hence the current Net Zero delusion is doubly insane.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Me too. I’ve been hearing this BS in all its forms since grade school in the 70s. We were all going to freeze to death, or the oceans were going to drown New York City, or the ozone was being destroyed by hairspray – it’s all just so obviously a scam – like Al Gore’s carbon offset racket. The private jet elites believe this as much as they believed that Covid would kill everyone not wearing a mask.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

“pseudo-science, neo-Marxist globalist lies, and yes, hysteria.”
Are you able to write in anything other than right-wing group think clichés? Are you a scientist?  You sound very convinced, and very knowledgeable, certainly a lot more than me. I’d like to learn from smart people like you. Can you point us to your peer-reviewed sources please? 

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

While many, including myself, agree with you regarding CO2 not being the root of all evil, sadly the vast majority of people have been sucked in and therefore this is now an article of faith for them. Thus any article which disputes the faith would be rejected by the masses, therefore it makes sense to at least pretend to believe the main tenet whilst trying to apply rational thought to counter the nonsense that is erroneously generated by that main tenet.

Peter Beer
Peter Beer
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

You missed a good article then…

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Alternatively it is a cynical bit of opportunism by those with a vested financial interest

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

A scientist speaks.
I’d love to hear your ‘well-understood’ scientific opinion- a trawl through your favourite scientifically illiterate political blog rants doesnt really substitute for having the slightest grasp of the subject, sadly.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

The elephant- no, mammoth in the room- Climate change also has natural geological causes- most notably gas emissions from rocks as well as volcanoes which can greatly alter the global climate after an exceptionally large eruption of VEI-6 or above. And one such eruption did occur in the Pacific in January 2022 ie the Hunga-Tonga eruption which was reported to have ejected unprecedented amounts of water vapour- a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 into the atmosphere, and thus predicted that this will heat up global temperatures somewhat for a considerable period, maybe 5-10 years if I recall. So if there actually is a heatwave, we ought to be educating ourselves about geology & volcanology, not the hogwash spewed by the establishment media or Greta Thunberg, the latter whom apparently has zero knowledge of these factors.
And paradoxially this eruption was also likely the reason why last winter was unusually cold- a common effect of the 1st year or two after an eruption of such size due to the ejected sulphur partially blocking out the sun’s rays. The infamous Year Without Summer of 1816 was caused by the colossal Mt. Tambora eruption(VEI-7) the previous year- perhaps the biggest in the last 300 years, and both Krakatoa & Pinatubo(both VEI-6) produced the same effect to somewhat lesser extents in their respective infamous eruptions in 1883 & 1991. Why this hasn’t been discussed last winter is beyond me.
Apparently those screaming:”Save the planet!” don’t seem to know the planet that well, and a senior geologist I’m acquainted to actually agreed with my observations.

Last edited 9 months ago by Josh Woods
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Me too. None of these writers mention that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, with a history of violent climate change, and mankind has been around for a miniscule fraction of that time. Even more miniscule is the amount of time we have been measuring the climate, hence the headlines that blare, “Highest temperatures on record.” Our records only go back about 125 years out of 4.5 billion, for heaven’s sake.
The last chuckle comes from the fact that we can’t even accurately predict the weather for tomorrow.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
10 months ago
Reply to  John Sullivan

Me too. If this is true then there was no climate change before we evolved. Perhaps we will soon be reading that dinosaur farts caused it in the past.

R H van der Gaag
R H van der Gaag
10 months ago

“Dutch farmers, Canadian truckers, and American MAGAs” — the new fascists.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
10 months ago

The ruling elite will, as they always do, simply charge the spots an latch onto the next big thing.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago

Absolutely. Please see the link in my previous response.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago

Absolutely. Please see the link in my previous response.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago

No doubt. The incoherent pursuit of net zero will be the undoing of the incompetent ruling elite. Of course Canada has to take a leading role in the madness. We just gave out $24 billion in subsidies for two battery plants. One of the projects for $13 billion will supposedly create 2,500 jobs – I’ll believe it when I see it – for a cool $6 million per job. Don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
10 months ago

Don’t forget the Irish ranchers and the 200,000 cattle that will be culled to ‘fight global warming.’

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
10 months ago

I stopped reading at “Yes, climate change and global warming are real — and yes, they are largely a result of human activity.”

CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Beyond that, it’s all poorly understood pseudo-science, neo-Marxist globalist lies, and yes, hysteria.

R H van der Gaag
R H van der Gaag
10 months ago

“Dutch farmers, Canadian truckers, and American MAGAs” — the new fascists.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
10 months ago

The ruling elite will, as they always do, simply charge the spots an latch onto the next big thing.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
10 months ago

I suppose the good thing about the ruling-class climate cult is that it will accelerate the global populist nationalist movement of the ordinary middle class: Dutch farmers, Canadian truckers, and American MAGAs.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago

Great article, thanks! You wrote “poverty is the leading cause of death in developing countries” and “eliminating world poverty requires more growth”. I would not disagree, but I would also mention that the rate of population increase in “developing” countries is a major cause of poverty. African irregular migrants are escaping from countries where population has doubled since the 1990’s. The excess population is heading for Europe.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
10 months ago

Out of date. Population growth in the vast majority of countries is rapidly declining and this trend is expected to continue. Better healthcare, more children surviving, more girls in schools all correlate strongly with this. Africa was also traditionally an under populated continent compared with Europe and Asia.

Migration is undoubtedly a real issue – but that’s just because people know that Europe and North America are much richer places, and if course that it is rather likely that your voyage will prove successful!

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Africans deciding to become irregular migrants today base their decisions on the demographic changes in the recent past, not on your predicted future. Even the problems in Syria, where the population had quadrupled since the 1970’s, were a result of demographic pressures (correlated with a religious dimension), hence Assad being very happy to see a diaspora.
You refer to countries being “under populated”, but there is no such thing. A country has some natural resources that can be exploited by its population, but generally speaking, the more people there are, the more difficult it is to extract the marginal value from a resource.
Liberal demographers extrapolate trends when it suits them, but migration has interesting effects. For example, when a couple moves from Bangladesh to the UK, they have a number of children that is twice the average number in Bangladesh.

Last edited 10 months ago by Peter Kwasi-Modo
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
10 months ago

Quite so. And one can see the reasons for this. To start with, their habits and attitudes are still the result of relative poverty – hence large families. Second, their religion enjoins fruitfulness. Third, as de facto colonists in new territory, the government of which denigrates its own people as hostile and actively encourages separatism, their first instinct is to build up numbers.
And congratulations on spiking that absurd point about “declining populations” in Africa. Someone might have turned off the tap but the tub is still overflowing. Your antagonist seems to have trouble in realising this – just as the fleshy face fellow arguing with Farage and Hartley Brewer about “climate change” has trouble understanding that just because the Chinese have stopped building mega-coal-fired power stations, it doesn’t mean they won’t keep filling the skies with smoke.
How wishful and wide of the facts these poor bleating libs are!

Last edited 10 months ago by Simon Denis
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

“How wishful and wide of the facts these poor bleating libs are!”
And yet the point you just made would seem to indicate that you understand that there is a problem with Chinese emissions. What I see here is poor bleating righties mostly — poor bleating libs are a tiny minority.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

A problem which makes the proposals of you poor bleating libs utterly irrelevant, for anything done in the west will be more than eclipsed by Chinese smoke. What are you going to do? Declare war?

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

But climate change is a hoax, so it doesn’t matter what China does.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Quite so. But the libs can’t even argue successfully from their own premises.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
10 months ago
Reply to  John Holland

Quite so. But the libs can’t even argue successfully from their own premises.

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

But climate change is a hoax, so it doesn’t matter what China does.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

A problem which makes the proposals of you poor bleating libs utterly irrelevant, for anything done in the west will be more than eclipsed by Chinese smoke. What are you going to do? Declare war?

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

“How wishful and wide of the facts these poor bleating libs are!”
And yet the point you just made would seem to indicate that you understand that there is a problem with Chinese emissions. What I see here is poor bleating righties mostly — poor bleating libs are a tiny minority.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
10 months ago

Quite so. And one can see the reasons for this. To start with, their habits and attitudes are still the result of relative poverty – hence large families. Second, their religion enjoins fruitfulness. Third, as de facto colonists in new territory, the government of which denigrates its own people as hostile and actively encourages separatism, their first instinct is to build up numbers.
And congratulations on spiking that absurd point about “declining populations” in Africa. Someone might have turned off the tap but the tub is still overflowing. Your antagonist seems to have trouble in realising this – just as the fleshy face fellow arguing with Farage and Hartley Brewer about “climate change” has trouble understanding that just because the Chinese have stopped building mega-coal-fired power stations, it doesn’t mean they won’t keep filling the skies with smoke.
How wishful and wide of the facts these poor bleating libs are!

Last edited 10 months ago by Simon Denis
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

“Out of date. Population growth in the vast majority of countries is rapidly declining”
Not in Africa. It seems we’re expecting another billion in the next few decades. All headed for whitey’s countries. The Diversity promises to be wonderful.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

“Prepare to repel boarders”!

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

It’s all good, surely Ray.
“Whitey” spread across the globe before- Africa, America, Australia- so what comes around, goes around.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

“Prepare to repel boarders”!

John Holland
John Holland
10 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

It’s all good, surely Ray.
“Whitey” spread across the globe before- Africa, America, Australia- so what comes around, goes around.

Peter Kwasi-Modo
Peter Kwasi-Modo
10 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Africans deciding to become irregular migrants today base their decisions on the demographic changes in the recent past, not on your predicted future. Even the problems in Syria, where the population had quadrupled since the 1970’s, were a result of demographic pressures (correlated with a religious dimension), hence Assad being very happy to see a diaspora.
You refer to countries being “under populated”, but there is no such thing. A country has some natural resources that can be exploited by its population, but generally speaking, the more people there are, the more difficult it is to extract the marginal value from a resource.
Liberal demographers extrapolate trends when it suits them, but migration has interesting effects. For example, when a couple moves from Bangladesh to the UK, they have a number of children that is twice the average number in Bangladesh.

Last edited 10 months ago by Peter Kwasi-Modo
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
10 months ago