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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
“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.
“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?
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’
“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?
“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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
“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)
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.
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’
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.
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.
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?
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?
“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)
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.
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.
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.
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….
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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”?
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!
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!
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”?
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!
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….
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.
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!
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!
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.
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….
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.)
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….
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….
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.)
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ruling elite will, as they always do, simply charge the spots an latch onto the next big thing.
Christopher Chantrill
9 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
9 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.
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!
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.
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!
“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.
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?
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?
“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.
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!
“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.
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.
“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.
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
9 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
9 months ago
I don’t always agree with Thomas Fazi, but here is is absolutely spot on, without becoming someone completely in denial about the obvious fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind is pushing more of it into the atmosphere. Climate change is a problem, but far from the worst we have to face up to. (And, there will always BE such problems – we are never going to live in a technical or any other type of utopia).
“Renewable” energy has major environmental problems of its own, notably the need to mine vastly greater volumes of metal than we now do (but mainly of course, rock!). Meanwhile American and European environmentalists try to get mining banned or heavily circumscribed! You couldn’t make it up. These people are like children “we don’t like it” and mostly have no serious solutions to offer
What is truly idiotic is that the measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the West will have scarcely any bearing on temperatures or any other climate metric, while being extremely costly.
Nonsense – what renewable energy involves mining? Perhaps you’re confusing batteries with renewable energy?
Andrew Fisher
9 months ago
I don’t always agree with Thomas Fazi, but here is is absolutely spot on, without becoming someone completely in denial about the obvious fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind is pushing more of it into the atmosphere. Climate change is a problem, but far from the worst we have to face up to. (And, there will always BE such problems – we are never going to live in a technical or any other type of utopia).
“Renewable” energy has major environmental problems of its own, notably the need to mine vastly greater volumes of metal than we now do (but mainly of course, rock!). Meanwhile American and European environmentalists try to get mining banned or heavily circumscribed! You couldn’t make it up. These people are like children “we don’t like it” and mostly have no serious solutions to offer
What is truly idiotic is that the measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the West will have scarcely any bearing on temperatures or any other climate metric, while being extremely costly.
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Well, it’s just common sense, really.
Climate hysteria, though, is not just about the climate. When an intelligent citizen with time and the Internet can be more knowledgeable than ‘the people who know best’ then the form of oligarchy that we know as ‘representative democracy’ ceases to be workable, and the only way that a supposedly ‘cognitive’ elite can maintain its power and privilege is through increasingly authoritarian modes of rule. ‘Climate change’ provides the perfect pretext.
It seems there is a consensus among commentators here that this is all just a hoax to distract people. I hope you are right but don’t really see it like that. I hope to provide a little different perspective as should be the Unherd way.
Governments you accuse are actually doing very little on the topic, mostly talk. Long terms goals generally don’t fit with short election cycles. World is actually producing more and more emissions, not less, so you are on the winning side.
The idea that anyone with internet access can be more knowledgeable on the topic then people working on it their whole life is a naïve delusion.
This whole thing with climate warming has been predicted in early 20th century, it became clear by 70s. And was sidelined famously by Reagan, where we probably missed our real chance for change. There are clear mechanisms, measurements, physics and chemistry behind it. There is no serious academic dispute there.
Idea of protecting the poor is cynical, as this has mostly been done by developed nations, cumulatively since the industrial revolution, and poor will likely be most affected.
Weather the impact is more annoying or cataclysmic remains to be seen. I think we are playing with feedback loops which can get things out of control – less ice means less reflection and more heat absorption by water and land, which leads to less ice etc. Similar with permafrost and methane trapped there. Warmer air can hold more moisture again increasing temperatures etc.
On top of all that we have all the pollution and biodiversity loss, this happening in parallel can lead to a lot of very unpleasant scenarios.
Again, I hope all the smart and independent thinkers here are correct, I really do, no big deal, and we keep going. Looks like we’ll find out.
It seems there is a consensus among commentators here that this is all just a hoax to distract people. I hope you are right but don’t really see it like that. I hope to provide a little different perspective as should be the Unherd way.
Governments you accuse are actually doing very little on the topic, mostly talk. Long terms goals generally don’t fit with short election cycles. World is actually producing more and more emissions, not less, so you are on the winning side.
The idea that anyone with internet access can be more knowledgeable on the topic then people working on it their whole life is a naïve delusion.
This whole thing with climate warming has been predicted in early 20th century, it became clear by 70s. And was sidelined famously by Reagan, where we probably missed our real chance for change. There are clear mechanisms, measurements, physics and chemistry behind it. There is no serious academic dispute there.
Idea of protecting the poor is cynical, as this has mostly been done by developed nations, cumulatively since the industrial revolution, and poor will likely be most affected.
Weather the impact is more annoying or cataclysmic remains to be seen. I think we are playing with feedback loops which can get things out of control – less ice means less reflection and more heat absorption by water and land, which leads to less ice etc. Similar with permafrost and methane trapped there. Warmer air can hold more moisture again increasing temperatures etc.
On top of all that we have all the pollution and biodiversity loss, this happening in parallel can lead to a lot of very unpleasant scenarios.
Again, I hope all the smart and independent thinkers here are correct, I really do, no big deal, and we keep going. Looks like we’ll find out.
Did you have anything to say about the facts of CO2 and the atmosphere, or is physics a conspiracy?
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Well, it’s just common sense, really.
Climate hysteria, though, is not just about the climate. When an intelligent citizen with time and the Internet can be more knowledgeable than ‘the people who know best’ then the form of oligarchy that we know as ‘representative democracy’ ceases to be workable, and the only way that a supposedly ‘cognitive’ elite can maintain its power and privilege is through increasingly authoritarian modes of rule. ‘Climate change’ provides the perfect pretext.
John Dellingby
9 months ago
I think Konstantin Kisin’s Oxford Union speech summed it up best. The people of Asia, Africa and Latin America are going to be shaping global decision making in the future and because most of them poor, they don’t give a damn about climate change. We need better and smarter technology for cleaner energy and to adapt as the author says, not to impoverish ourselves.
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed that these maps of Europe have anywhere between 25 and 40 Celsius as a dark shade of red? Can’t imagine why that is…
John Dellingby
9 months ago
I think Konstantin Kisin’s Oxford Union speech summed it up best. The people of Asia, Africa and Latin America are going to be shaping global decision making in the future and because most of them poor, they don’t give a damn about climate change. We need better and smarter technology for cleaner energy and to adapt as the author says, not to impoverish ourselves.
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed that these maps of Europe have anywhere between 25 and 40 Celsius as a dark shade of red? Can’t imagine why that is…
AC Harper
9 months ago
In this way, climate hysteria is completely distorting our perception of the world.
Quite so. 50 years ago we were all harangued about the coming ice age. That hysteria was soon debunked – but the hysteria about a heat age is proving more difficult to discuss reasonably.
Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’. This is a one way ratchet which ought to be depreciated because it masks the objective truth with a fashionable social truth. And there are people and organisations who benefit from proclaiming a fashionable social truth.
“Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’.”
Yes, the U.S. mainstream media has been quick to highlight droughts in CA as evidence of disastrous climate change. The near record level of Sierra Nevada snowfall this year has barely been mentioned, nor the diminished drought conditions. This weather advantageous reporting has been occuring for years.
Yes yes yes.
Let’s have some news stories about low temperatures. Facts are Marxist. Let’s have some anti-Marxist stories about freak average temperatures, excessively average rainfall.
I’m sick of so-called “statistics” telling me what is happening regardless of my political views- I want to be told only want I agree with. THAT is facts.
“Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’.”
Yes, the U.S. mainstream media has been quick to highlight droughts in CA as evidence of disastrous climate change. The near record level of Sierra Nevada snowfall this year has barely been mentioned, nor the diminished drought conditions. This weather advantageous reporting has been occuring for years.
Yes yes yes.
Let’s have some news stories about low temperatures. Facts are Marxist. Let’s have some anti-Marxist stories about freak average temperatures, excessively average rainfall.
I’m sick of so-called “statistics” telling me what is happening regardless of my political views- I want to be told only want I agree with. THAT is facts.
AC Harper
9 months ago
In this way, climate hysteria is completely distorting our perception of the world.
Quite so. 50 years ago we were all harangued about the coming ice age. That hysteria was soon debunked – but the hysteria about a heat age is proving more difficult to discuss reasonably.
Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’. This is a one way ratchet which ought to be depreciated because it masks the objective truth with a fashionable social truth. And there are people and organisations who benefit from proclaiming a fashionable social truth.
Orlando Skeete
9 months ago
I am sorry, I had to stop reading at “Yes, climate change and global warming are real — and yes, they are largely a result of human activity”
I felt the same as the last bit “largely as a result of human activity” is significantly contested.
.
That undermined what was otherwise a sensible article.
Yeah, you’re sorry lol.
Because you’re a scientist, I assume? I don’t really know what’s going on about climate, truth be told. How do you get to be so convinced?
You see, I’m always wary of “people with answers”, convinced people, people who preach at me about how they and they alone have the answers.
So you’re 100% right about climate and there is no debate and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Is that what you’re saying?
What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol
God save us from secular preacher men, tiny brains and big mouths, atop their little secular soapboxes.
Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?
Why would you expect people to read further into your comment after the expression “lol” ?
.
I did persevere, but you added nothing that contributed to this discussion.
“What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol”
Well, at least the gentleman is the first to proclaim that his mind is now closed. He is no longer going to permit himself to be confused by facts or contrary views. And he’s honest about that.
Frank, if you really don’t understand that our planet has been in existence for approximately 4.5 billion years and that all during that enormous amount of time the climate has changed dramatically, with several cycles from ice ages to super heated and back again, then you should perhaps chose another topic to blather on about. For the love of God, please do some research, man.
We all know that, dear. Seriously, everyone actually bares that in mind- it’s really quite well-know amongst “so-called scientists”. Human industrial civilisation didn’t, and arguably couldn’t have, existed in the Carboniferous Period. Do keep up.
Well done for looking up the age of the planet, though- even if that means blindly accepting the word of a bunch of Marxist “so-called scientists” who know nothing. I heard the Earth is only 6000 years old.
We all know that, dear. Seriously, everyone actually bares that in mind- it’s really quite well-know amongst “so-called scientists”. Human industrial civilisation didn’t, and arguably couldn’t have, existed in the Carboniferous Period. Do keep up.
Well done for looking up the age of the planet, though- even if that means blindly accepting the word of a bunch of Marxist “so-called scientists” who know nothing. I heard the Earth is only 6000 years old.
“Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?”
In a word, no. The Unherd commentariat is an echo-chamber of group-think kneejerk self-applause, so comically opposed to the supposed ‘ethos’ of the blogsite’s ‘freethinking’ agenda that it seems almost deliberately parodic.
Just to illustrate this, this comment, like yours, will be ‘downvoted’ multiple times, and various blowhards will line up to ‘savage’ me for not conforming to the standard, brainlessly accepted Unherd politically-correct position. Funny, in a way.
Why would you expect people to read further into your comment after the expression “lol” ?
.
I did persevere, but you added nothing that contributed to this discussion.
“What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol”
Well, at least the gentleman is the first to proclaim that his mind is now closed. He is no longer going to permit himself to be confused by facts or contrary views. And he’s honest about that.
Frank, if you really don’t understand that our planet has been in existence for approximately 4.5 billion years and that all during that enormous amount of time the climate has changed dramatically, with several cycles from ice ages to super heated and back again, then you should perhaps chose another topic to blather on about. For the love of God, please do some research, man.
“Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?”
In a word, no. The Unherd commentariat is an echo-chamber of group-think kneejerk self-applause, so comically opposed to the supposed ‘ethos’ of the blogsite’s ‘freethinking’ agenda that it seems almost deliberately parodic.
Just to illustrate this, this comment, like yours, will be ‘downvoted’ multiple times, and various blowhards will line up to ‘savage’ me for not conforming to the standard, brainlessly accepted Unherd politically-correct position. Funny, in a way.
“This comment also contributes nothing …”
I disagree. Almost nobody here is a scientist — we all are expressing — to be honest — our political loyalties. The one bit of work we might accomplish is to understand ourselves — that almost nobody here gives a damn about objective science and as Orlando so bravely proclaims, contrary views will not be read.
Even now the right proclaims itself to be on the side of sanity but IMHO what we see above demonstrates that the right is now as insane as the left. Both camps are full of walking-dead zombies.
Thankyou.
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The level of blind scientific cluelessness exhibited here, in the cause of ideological ‘correctness’, is grotesque.
It’s amusing to read as a study of the myopic tunnel-vision of the internet, but it really is depressing if you take it remotely seriously.
Thankyou.
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The level of blind scientific cluelessness exhibited here, in the cause of ideological ‘correctness’, is grotesque.
It’s amusing to read as a study of the myopic tunnel-vision of the internet, but it really is depressing if you take it remotely seriously.
“This comment also contributes nothing …”
I disagree. Almost nobody here is a scientist — we all are expressing — to be honest — our political loyalties. The one bit of work we might accomplish is to understand ourselves — that almost nobody here gives a damn about objective science and as Orlando so bravely proclaims, contrary views will not be read.
Even now the right proclaims itself to be on the side of sanity but IMHO what we see above demonstrates that the right is now as insane as the left. Both camps are full of walking-dead zombies.
Here here.
I had to stop reading at anything that in any way confused me or contradicted my clueless, scientifically illiterate assumptions. Enough of this so-called ‘information’. I want any tripe that confirms my ignorance.
Thankyou.
I felt the same as the last bit “largely as a result of human activity” is significantly contested.
.
That undermined what was otherwise a sensible article.
Yeah, you’re sorry lol.
Because you’re a scientist, I assume? I don’t really know what’s going on about climate, truth be told. How do you get to be so convinced?
You see, I’m always wary of “people with answers”, convinced people, people who preach at me about how they and they alone have the answers.
So you’re 100% right about climate and there is no debate and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Is that what you’re saying?
What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol
God save us from secular preacher men, tiny brains and big mouths, atop their little secular soapboxes.
Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?
Here here.
I had to stop reading at anything that in any way confused me or contradicted my clueless, scientifically illiterate assumptions. Enough of this so-called ‘information’. I want any tripe that confirms my ignorance.
Thankyou.
Orlando Skeete
9 months ago
I am sorry, I had to stop reading at “Yes, climate change and global warming are real — and yes, they are largely a result of human activity”
Darren Turner
9 months ago
I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity. 1) CO2 is much lower than for more than 99% of the time life has existed on earth including some extremely cold glacial periods. 2) My understanding is that 400ppm CO2 and even 800ppm CO2 will cause very little extra greenhouse effect due to it still being only a trace gas in the atmosphere (currently 4% of the gas Argon in the atmosphere) and also that experiments show the greenhouse effect due to CO2 is already largely saturated at current levels.3) CO2 historically has lagged temperature change not the other way around due to the oceans emitting CO2 as they heat up and absorbing CO2 as they cool down. 4) We are still coming out of The Maunder Minimum “little Ice Age” of circa 1500-1750. It is still cooler now than it was around 1200 AD and again during Roman times, not to mention the Holocene Maximum around 10,000 years ago. This is a totalitarian government attempt for rule by technocrats being pushed to scare the population into welcoming dictatorship. “Please clever people save us.”
They aren’t “great points”, they are they usual scientifically-illiterate drivel, cut and pasted unquestioningly from the standard ideological internet blogs from the last twenty years. Every “point`’ has been relentlessly regurgitated and debunked for half of my life.
This is a bubble-site, where anyone stating these half-baked cliches is rewarded with an inevitable string of scientifically clueless applauding echoes, as if some random twerp on the internet stating their “sciency” views with the unearned confidence of the ranting political internet blagger is somehow superior to a lifetime’s research on the actual subject concerned. It isn’t- its scientifically-arbitrary ideological tripe.
They aren’t “great points”, they are they usual scientifically-illiterate drivel, cut and pasted unquestioningly from the standard ideological internet blogs from the last twenty years. Every “point`’ has been relentlessly regurgitated and debunked for half of my life.
This is a bubble-site, where anyone stating these half-baked cliches is rewarded with an inevitable string of scientifically clueless applauding echoes, as if some random twerp on the internet stating their “sciency” views with the unearned confidence of the ranting political internet blagger is somehow superior to a lifetime’s research on the actual subject concerned. It isn’t- its scientifically-arbitrary ideological tripe.
Completely wrong on each point. 1. Irrelevant to the present issue. 2. Not true and doesn’t understand atmospheric physics and the role of lapse rates. 3. Actually, this shows that CO2 is crucial for driving the carbon cycle! 4. Not true, and shows misunderstanding of the LIA.
You said: “I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity”. Science doesn’t depend on your agreement!
Good to have clarity when the IR started. Economuc historians put i5 at 1775 or so. Michael Mann at 1910. . Interestingly, the 1930s a time of depression and deindistrialisati8n, was a warm decade, whereas full industrial deployment during the Second World War, in Europe and the US, accompanied a bitterly cold decade.
Good to have clarity when the IR started. Economuc historians put i5 at 1775 or so. Michael Mann at 1910. . Interestingly, the 1930s a time of depression and deindistrialisati8n, was a warm decade, whereas full industrial deployment during the Second World War, in Europe and the US, accompanied a bitterly cold decade.
1) co2 is only one of the forcing agents which affect earths climate and it is rarely the primary one. Comparing previous co2 concentrations to the historic temperature record is pointless unless you also map the other forcing agents at the same time. Currently, none of them have changed drastically, whilst co2 has, making it the prime candidate to be causing the warming.
2) the fact that co2 is a trace gas is irrelevant. A trace amount of cyanide in the human body is fatal. The amount of energy that co2 absorbs conforms with the standard model of particle physics, if it’s wrong, all of physics must be wrong too.
As for saturation, that only happens at concentrations found at ground level. As altitude increases co2 content falls. Since at these lower concentrations co2 is not at saturation point, far from in fact (and this is amplified by the absence of water vapor at higher altitudes) then until all altitudes reach saturation point, and this won’t happen anytime soon, the atmosphere will continue to warm.
3) co2 does often lag temperatures. That’s because it’s frequently not the primary forcing agent. Ice Ages are largely governed by the Milankovitch cycles, the small changes in the earths orbit, but during a warming cycle, co2 further warms the atmosphere in a feed back effect. As the temperature rises, more co2 is release from the ocean and this creates more warming. However, on its own this will not counter act the orbital changes when the enter a cooling cycle, at which point co2 levels start to fall and have a cooling feed back.
We are due another Ice Age based on the current cycles in the earths orbit, though it can’t be precisely dated like the joke in Fr Ted, where the end of the last ice age is dated in the calendar. Typical, one of the lesser forcing agents, such as a large scale volcanic eruption, proves to the tipping point causing the temperature to enter a rapid decline. (Though it should be noted that the rapid rises and falls associated with the start and end of an ice age are 1 to 1.5 degrees every thousand years. We have warmed by 1 degree in around 150 years. Lighting fast in geological terms.)
4) The Maunder Minimum is long past and was probably driven by volcanic eruptions rather than solar activity. The Roman and Medieval Warm periods are well documented but until the 90’s the vast majority of climate research and data were taken from Europe and America and whilst historically it was indeed hotter in both locations, the key is that as global proxies have been taken, there has no evidence found that this warm period was anything other than localised and was most likely caused by global changes heat distribution, driven by ocean currents, heating some areas but cooling others.
Climate proxies are calibrated against accurate modern temperature records and do not just include the infamous Mann hockey stick graph based on tree ring data. Global temperatures, reconstructed from multiple independently verified proxies find that over the last few thousand years normal variation is between 0.2-0.4 degrees, though this can mean several degrees variation in certain localised areas. Much in the same way that the Antarctic is around 4 degrees warmer today, even though global temperatures have only risen 1 degree.
Global warming is real and is driven by the unprecedented rise in co2 , which has not happened in recent our geological history, independent of other forcing agents been the cause.
Either that or thousands of scientists, politicians and business leaders have all decided to collaborate in a giant, self harming conspiracy, (energy transition will not be easy, and will reduce growth in the short to medium term) despite the fact they could have sat back and become far richer from continuing to just use fossil fuels. Which makes the least sense of all.
Hooray ! Someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Great summary, incidentally. Bravissimo.
Cut and pasted into my file labelled “countering climate change sceptics”
Thank God I can read the entirety of “science” in a confused internet comment- this saves me the difficulty of having to engage in actual scientific papers, which have lots of long words, and enables me to think that I understand something that silly “so-called” scientists are utterly incapable of grasping.
Before the invention of the internet comments page, this was unavailable to absurdly opinionated but largely uneducated people like myself- luckily, I can now read this sort of tripe and feel I know far more than anyone who’s ever actually bothered to study the subject in any depth. Great! Aren’t so-called scientists idiots!
Very lucid comment. I find the relative lack of discussion of the last four episodes of global warming (caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit not CO2 emissions) surprising. Perhaps neither the true believers nor the ultra sceptics find examining the actual record helps their arguments.
One observation is that each of the four rises in temperature hit the buffers not far above current levels. If each rise in temperature was initially accelerated by positive feedback loops then some sort of negative feedback abruptly cut in. No one seems to be clear what the mechanisms were. Something to do with melting Arctic and Greenland icecaps? The suspension of the normal North Atlantic Ocean currents which are central in redistributing heat around the planet? An increase in cirrus cloud cover? A lagged increase in global biomass???
I doubt this alters the 100 year picture much given the strength of the CO2 forcing but it is possible on a 10-20 year view we will see a pause in temperature rises accompanied by some weird and powerful weather/Oceanic effects.
I am not sure this will be any better. We may need to prioritise storm shutters as much as air conditioners.
(I am also known as Alex Carnegie. I have no idea why UnHerd sometimes calls me m3pc7q3ixe).
Hooray ! Someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Great summary, incidentally. Bravissimo.
Cut and pasted into my file labelled “countering climate change sceptics”
Thank God I can read the entirety of “science” in a confused internet comment- this saves me the difficulty of having to engage in actual scientific papers, which have lots of long words, and enables me to think that I understand something that silly “so-called” scientists are utterly incapable of grasping.
Before the invention of the internet comments page, this was unavailable to absurdly opinionated but largely uneducated people like myself- luckily, I can now read this sort of tripe and feel I know far more than anyone who’s ever actually bothered to study the subject in any depth. Great! Aren’t so-called scientists idiots!
Very lucid comment. I find the relative lack of discussion of the last four episodes of global warming (caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit not CO2 emissions) surprising. Perhaps neither the true believers nor the ultra sceptics find examining the actual record helps their arguments.
One observation is that each of the four rises in temperature hit the buffers not far above current levels. If each rise in temperature was initially accelerated by positive feedback loops then some sort of negative feedback abruptly cut in. No one seems to be clear what the mechanisms were. Something to do with melting Arctic and Greenland icecaps? The suspension of the normal North Atlantic Ocean currents which are central in redistributing heat around the planet? An increase in cirrus cloud cover? A lagged increase in global biomass???
I doubt this alters the 100 year picture much given the strength of the CO2 forcing but it is possible on a 10-20 year view we will see a pause in temperature rises accompanied by some weird and powerful weather/Oceanic effects.
I am not sure this will be any better. We may need to prioritise storm shutters as much as air conditioners.
(I am also known as Alex Carnegie. I have no idea why UnHerd sometimes calls me m3pc7q3ixe).
Completely wrong on each point. 1. Irrelevant to the present issue. 2. Not true and doesn’t understand atmospheric physics and the role of lapse rates. 3. Actually, this shows that CO2 is crucial for driving the carbon cycle! 4. Not true, and shows misunderstanding of the LIA.
You said: “I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity”. Science doesn’t depend on your agreement!
1) co2 is only one of the forcing agents which affect earths climate and it is rarely the primary one. Comparing previous co2 concentrations to the historic temperature record is pointless unless you also map the other forcing agents at the same time. Currently, none of them have changed drastically, whilst co2 has, making it the prime candidate to be causing the warming.
2) the fact that co2 is a trace gas is irrelevant. A trace amount of cyanide in the human body is fatal. The amount of energy that co2 absorbs conforms with the standard model of particle physics, if it’s wrong, all of physics must be wrong too.
As for saturation, that only happens at concentrations found at ground level. As altitude increases co2 content falls. Since at these lower concentrations co2 is not at saturation point, far from in fact (and this is amplified by the absence of water vapor at higher altitudes) then until all altitudes reach saturation point, and this won’t happen anytime soon, the atmosphere will continue to warm.
3) co2 does often lag temperatures. That’s because it’s frequently not the primary forcing agent. Ice Ages are largely governed by the Milankovitch cycles, the small changes in the earths orbit, but during a warming cycle, co2 further warms the atmosphere in a feed back effect. As the temperature rises, more co2 is release from the ocean and this creates more warming. However, on its own this will not counter act the orbital changes when the enter a cooling cycle, at which point co2 levels start to fall and have a cooling feed back.
We are due another Ice Age based on the current cycles in the earths orbit, though it can’t be precisely dated like the joke in Fr Ted, where the end of the last ice age is dated in the calendar. Typical, one of the lesser forcing agents, such as a large scale volcanic eruption, proves to the tipping point causing the temperature to enter a rapid decline. (Though it should be noted that the rapid rises and falls associated with the start and end of an ice age are 1 to 1.5 degrees every thousand years. We have warmed by 1 degree in around 150 years. Lighting fast in geological terms.)
4) The Maunder Minimum is long past and was probably driven by volcanic eruptions rather than solar activity. The Roman and Medieval Warm periods are well documented but until the 90’s the vast majority of climate research and data were taken from Europe and America and whilst historically it was indeed hotter in both locations, the key is that as global proxies have been taken, there has no evidence found that this warm period was anything other than localised and was most likely caused by global changes heat distribution, driven by ocean currents, heating some areas but cooling others.
Climate proxies are calibrated against accurate modern temperature records and do not just include the infamous Mann hockey stick graph based on tree ring data. Global temperatures, reconstructed from multiple independently verified proxies find that over the last few thousand years normal variation is between 0.2-0.4 degrees, though this can mean several degrees variation in certain localised areas. Much in the same way that the Antarctic is around 4 degrees warmer today, even though global temperatures have only risen 1 degree.
Global warming is real and is driven by the unprecedented rise in co2 , which has not happened in recent our geological history, independent of other forcing agents been the cause.
Either that or thousands of scientists, politicians and business leaders have all decided to collaborate in a giant, self harming conspiracy, (energy transition will not be easy, and will reduce growth in the short to medium term) despite the fact they could have sat back and become far richer from continuing to just use fossil fuels. Which makes the least sense of all.
Darren Turner
9 months ago
I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity. 1) CO2 is much lower than for more than 99% of the time life has existed on earth including some extremely cold glacial periods. 2) My understanding is that 400ppm CO2 and even 800ppm CO2 will cause very little extra greenhouse effect due to it still being only a trace gas in the atmosphere (currently 4% of the gas Argon in the atmosphere) and also that experiments show the greenhouse effect due to CO2 is already largely saturated at current levels.3) CO2 historically has lagged temperature change not the other way around due to the oceans emitting CO2 as they heat up and absorbing CO2 as they cool down. 4) We are still coming out of The Maunder Minimum “little Ice Age” of circa 1500-1750. It is still cooler now than it was around 1200 AD and again during Roman times, not to mention the Holocene Maximum around 10,000 years ago. This is a totalitarian government attempt for rule by technocrats being pushed to scare the population into welcoming dictatorship. “Please clever people save us.”
sharaz.gill
9 months ago
This article appears to be little more than a precis of Bjorn Lomborg’s excellent book, “False Alarm.” The book is definitely worth reading as it is completely evidence-based (Lomborg is an eminent climate economist).
However, an important omission from this article is that the enormous subsidies governments are giving renewable companies distract from the fact that most renewables are not only unreliable (wind farms only work when the wind is blowing and the energy the generate cannot be stored effectively for later use) but they also increase the price of energy disproportionately for the poor. There isn’t much point giving poor Italians grants to buy air-conditioners if they can’t afford the electricity to run them. In this sense, embracing renewables too enthusiastically is at odds with necessary adaptation measures.
A climate economist? Intriguing, he actually studied to become a politician. His ‘excellent’ book was funded by well known climate sceptics. Perhaps you should broaden your reading material?
The thing is, in an effort to try to understand what is actually happening, I have read other authors including Tim Jackson and. Michael Mann. Their arguments are superficially compelling, but the books are clearly written with an agenda too. Lomborg’s take just makes more sense to me, even though he doubtless has an agenda.
As for him being an “economist” I’m not sure that it matters what you studied. Surely it’s what you do now that counts.
Broadening one’s reading: have you read Lomborg’s book or do you only read books that support what you already think? I’d be interested to hear what evidence you have to support your assertion that “False Alarm” was funded by climate sceptics. It is certainly true that Lomborg has been criticized in the past (doubtless with good reason at times) but I have never heard this.
Everyone has a streak of confirmation bias, if one is aware of it however you can at least ask yourself if certain material is going to feed it. As I pointed out earlier, a book title of ‘False Alarm’ merely appeals to people’s biases. As for Lomborg’s content, it’s purely tabloid, with appealing ‘facts’ supported by narrow datasets. Here’s a revealing profile of him. https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
Everyone has a streak of confirmation bias, if one is aware of it however you can at least ask yourself if certain material is going to feed it. As I pointed out earlier, a book title of ‘False Alarm’ merely appeals to people’s biases. As for Lomborg’s content, it’s purely tabloid, with appealing ‘facts’ supported by narrow datasets. Here’s a revealing profile of him. https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
The thing is, in an effort to try to understand what is actually happening, I have read other authors including Tim Jackson and. Michael Mann. Their arguments are superficially compelling, but the books are clearly written with an agenda too. Lomborg’s take just makes more sense to me, even though he doubtless has an agenda.
As for him being an “economist” I’m not sure that it matters what you studied. Surely it’s what you do now that counts.
Broadening one’s reading: have you read Lomborg’s book or do you only read books that support what you already think? I’d be interested to hear what evidence you have to support your assertion that “False Alarm” was funded by climate sceptics. It is certainly true that Lomborg has been criticized in the past (doubtless with good reason at times) but I have never heard this.
A climate economist? Intriguing, he actually studied to become a politician. His ‘excellent’ book was funded by well known climate sceptics. Perhaps you should broaden your reading material?
sharaz.gill
9 months ago
This article appears to be little more than a precis of Bjorn Lomborg’s excellent book, “False Alarm.” The book is definitely worth reading as it is completely evidence-based (Lomborg is an eminent climate economist).
However, an important omission from this article is that the enormous subsidies governments are giving renewable companies distract from the fact that most renewables are not only unreliable (wind farms only work when the wind is blowing and the energy the generate cannot be stored effectively for later use) but they also increase the price of energy disproportionately for the poor. There isn’t much point giving poor Italians grants to buy air-conditioners if they can’t afford the electricity to run them. In this sense, embracing renewables too enthusiastically is at odds with necessary adaptation measures.
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
You obviously missed the news that 80% of those Pacific islands are growing in size. This is absolutely not in dispute. I remember the UN holding a press conference under water in the Maldives about 15 years ago. 97% of the islands that make up the chain have grown larger.
Maybe because people buying expensive holiday homes are as scientifically clueless as you are, Warren.
I’ve always thought that the preserved bodies of the residents of Pompeii ignoring the coming volcanic avalanche was perfect proof that the volcano never erupted. Well done.
Maybe because people buying expensive holiday homes are as scientifically clueless as you are, Warren.
I’ve always thought that the preserved bodies of the residents of Pompeii ignoring the coming volcanic avalanche was perfect proof that the volcano never erupted. Well done.
“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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
Cheer up!
On your own figures about 80% of us are NOT wallowing in abject poverty, but rather the reverse, some us markedly so!
Also you may recall, it is said that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the cretinous great British public gleefully agreed with the idiotic Government response to the COVID nonsense.
Thus is it really any surprise that they should NOW believe in this climate hysteria?
I think most people probably don’t believe in it – or care much about it. Unfortunately, prompted by a completely corrupt media, they tend to blame energy companies rather than Ed Miliband et al for their rapidly falling standard of living.
I’d like to think it was because it was your usual grimly fatuous, smug drivel, Charlie- however, given the standards of this particular internet anti-thought Trumpy ‘MyTruth’ site, I doubt it.
Probably just a ‘glitch’.
I’d like to think it was because it was your usual grimly fatuous, smug drivel, Charlie- however, given the standards of this particular internet anti-thought Trumpy ‘MyTruth’ site, I doubt it.
Probably just a ‘glitch’.
I think most people probably don’t believe in it – or care much about it. Unfortunately, prompted by a completely corrupt media, they tend to blame energy companies rather than Ed Miliband et al for their rapidly falling standard of living.
Cheer up!
On your own figures about 80% of us are NOT wallowing in abject poverty, but rather the reverse, some us markedly so!
Also you may recall, it is said that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the cretinous great British public gleefully agreed with the idiotic Government response to the COVID nonsense.
Thus is it really any surprise that they should NOW believe in this climate hysteria?
“maldives sea level rise”
Just Googled the above, and I found zero articles saying anything *other* than that the country is in dire peril of being swallowed up completely. Seems they’re building artificial islands tho, perhaps that’s what you’re talking about?
Pacific islands were mapped extensively and accurately during WWII using aerial photography. Subsequent mapping has shown extensive and continuous growth since then. Multiple studies have confirmed this.
Try an internet search; Have The Maldives Grown In Size or any variation of that. I’m not on Google so I can’t say what you will get.
Pacific islands are growing. This is simply not being disputed by any reputable source. That you can’t find this information on Google immediately is frightening.
It is indeed “frightening” that you can’t find your preferred ‘truth’ on the internet.
We should be able to type in our preferred “facts” and have them immediately confirmed by the internet. My preferred “fact” today is that a unicorn has just on the Wimbledon mens final- it is FRIGHTENING that it isn’t on Google. What next?????
It is indeed “frightening” that you can’t find your preferred ‘truth’ on the internet.
We should be able to type in our preferred “facts” and have them immediately confirmed by the internet. My preferred “fact” today is that a unicorn has just on the Wimbledon mens final- it is FRIGHTENING that it isn’t on Google. What next?????
Another interesting fact we never hear about. The Great Barrier Reef today has the most coral growth since records started in the mid 1960s. This was measured by Australian Institute of Marine Science. In a recent public opinion poll, only 4% of Australians know this.
Pacific islands were mapped extensively and accurately during WWII using aerial photography. Subsequent mapping has shown extensive and continuous growth since then. Multiple studies have confirmed this.
Try an internet search; Have The Maldives Grown In Size or any variation of that. I’m not on Google so I can’t say what you will get.
Pacific islands are growing. This is simply not being disputed by any reputable source. That you can’t find this information on Google immediately is frightening.
Another interesting fact we never hear about. The Great Barrier Reef today has the most coral growth since records started in the mid 1960s. This was measured by Australian Institute of Marine Science. In a recent public opinion poll, only 4% of Australians know this.
“maldives sea level rise”
Just Googled the above, and I found zero articles saying anything *other* than that the country is in dire peril of being swallowed up completely. Seems they’re building artificial islands tho, perhaps that’s what you’re talking about?
Pedant alert, sorry. The Maldives is an island chain in the Indian Ocean but, apart from its Islamic culture, has a definite Pacific Island Nation (PIN)-feel to it, blue sea, blue sky, etc.
“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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
Pedant alert, sorry. The Maldives is an island chain in the Indian Ocean but, apart from its Islamic culture, has a definite Pacific Island Nation (PIN)-feel to it, blue sea, blue sky, etc.
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
You obviously missed the news that 80% of those Pacific islands are growing in size. This is absolutely not in dispute. I remember the UN holding a press conference under water in the Maldives about 15 years ago. 97% of the islands that make up the chain have grown larger.
James Sullivan
9 months ago
Who are you and what did you do with Fazi? This is actually sensible!
James Sullivan
9 months ago
Who are you and what did you do with Fazi? This is actually sensible!
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
“It is 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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
So which “hysteria” are you supporting at the moment? Climate or covid? It’s so hard to know which is ‘hysteria’, and which is ‘evil suppression of the terrifying Truth’. Ooh, it’d been deleted! Oh, no it hasn’t. It turns out it was dumb click-bait.
The internet makes the choice of conspiracy paranoia such fun…
So which “hysteria” are you supporting at the moment? Climate or covid? It’s so hard to know which is ‘hysteria’, and which is ‘evil suppression of the terrifying Truth’. Ooh, it’d been deleted! Oh, no it hasn’t. It turns out it was dumb click-bait.
The internet makes the choice of conspiracy paranoia such fun…
This comment was deleted. Guess it’s too inflammatory.
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
“It is 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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
Last edited 9 months ago by Jim Veenbaas
RM Parker
9 months ago
Yuval continues (for 94 pages): “I don’t want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries…”
RM Parker
9 months ago
Yuval continues (for 94 pages): “I don’t want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries…”
Walter Lantz
9 months ago
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H. L. Mencken
If you know what Stakeholder Capitalism, DeGrowth and Doughnut Economics are then you’ll have a good idea on where the West is heading and why. Climate Change is touted as the reason but it is merely an excuse for yet another attempt at a socialist utopia that will fail just like all the others.
Walter Lantz
9 months ago
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H. L. Mencken
If you know what Stakeholder Capitalism, DeGrowth and Doughnut Economics are then you’ll have a good idea on where the West is heading and why. Climate Change is touted as the reason but it is merely an excuse for yet another attempt at a socialist utopia that will fail just like all the others.
Susan Grabston
9 months ago
I suggest preparation against their messianic drive towards disaster. Governments are now playing with the lowest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. I don’t trust them to educate me or keep me well, so I’m definitely not sitting around waiting to see if they can feed me and keep me warm.
Maybe you should study some physics, then. ‘Maslow’s hierarchy’ is just ’50’s pseudo-science psychology.
Susan Grabston
9 months ago
I suggest preparation against their messianic drive towards disaster. Governments are now playing with the lowest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. I don’t trust them to educate me or keep me well, so I’m definitely not sitting around waiting to see if they can feed me and keep me warm.
Rachel Taylor
9 months ago
The question is: why do public organisations like the BBC drive the narrative of impending catastrophe? Is it simply that journalists like to create a sense of panic, to keep their audience? Or is it a sense of mission, doing their bit to change the behaviour of the public? Or are they just gullible enough to believe it?
They will fall foul of censors if they don’t kowtow enough to the climate agenda. Arguing against it is considered just as blasphemous as denying the Holocaust, hence the term ‘climate-denier’.
The neo-Marxist loonies telling you there are no neo-Marxist loonies (it’s all a “far-right conspiracy theory”, don’t you know) are the worst of humanity.
They will fall foul of censors if they don’t kowtow enough to the climate agenda. Arguing against it is considered just as blasphemous as denying the Holocaust, hence the term ‘climate-denier’.
The neo-Marxist loonies telling you there are no neo-Marxist loonies (it’s all a “far-right conspiracy theory”, don’t you know) are the worst of humanity.
Some ‘journalists’, unbelievably, have even been rewarded with Knighthoods!
Rachel Taylor
9 months ago
The question is: why do public organisations like the BBC drive the narrative of impending catastrophe? Is it simply that journalists like to create a sense of panic, to keep their audience? Or is it a sense of mission, doing their bit to change the behaviour of the public? Or are they just gullible enough to believe it?
Daniel Lee
9 months ago
“(I)f the world is about to end, anything is justified.” (Emphasis added.)
You just explained why they’re so desperate to convince us the world is about to end. Progressives have been trying to shut down western culture for decades, because its free market and personal freedom principles make it impossible for them to take power as socialist overlords running everyone’s lives for their own good.
Daniel Lee
9 months ago
“(I)f the world is about to end, anything is justified.” (Emphasis added.)
You just explained why they’re so desperate to convince us the world is about to end. Progressives have been trying to shut down western culture for decades, because its free market and personal freedom principles make it impossible for them to take power as socialist overlords running everyone’s lives for their own good.
David Pogge
9 months ago
A heat wave is weather, not climate. Climate is based on averages across long periods of time (i.e., decades) over the entire world surface. There have always been hot spells and cold spells. This has nothing to do with ‘climate change’. Journalists should know better and scientists should be correcting them if they do not.
Entire decades? On a planet that is 4,500,000,000 years old? Quite a small sample size there.
David Pogge
9 months ago
A heat wave is weather, not climate. Climate is based on averages across long periods of time (i.e., decades) over the entire world surface. There have always been hot spells and cold spells. This has nothing to do with ‘climate change’. Journalists should know better and scientists should be correcting them if they do not.
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Why is anyone replying to this dope? Yes, I know that’s what I’ve just done.
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Why is anyone replying to this dope? Yes, I know that’s what I’ve just done.
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
One of the most aggressive aspects of reducing fossil fuel reliance is the forced shift to electric vehicles, while there is very little understanding of the cyber-vulnerabilities of digitally controlled vehicles.
Since the vast majority of cyber-crimes are not recognised as crimes – some reasons listed below, cyber-risks of any kind are grossly underestimated. Risks we don’t know* we cannot plan to avoid/mitigate. A moving vehicle controlled by someone other than the driver in the vehicle is a deadly missile in motion: deadly to people in its path, not only to those who are in the vehicle.
Any remedy is after the fact, and no one can bring back the dead.
Car manufacturers’ power combined with political push to make electric cars the norm means victims of immature, deadly technology are powerless.
“manufacturers … are now building cars in such a way that makes their electrical systems and computer networks act like smartphones that are connected to the Internet, this opens up a whole host of possibilities for hackers, allowing them to gain access to critical systems remotely using wireless connections.”
Source: Purple Griffon Limited (UK) – see article for remote interference examples that are already widely known in 2023. Cyber-crime ranges/volumes are unknown/risk-free because*
– Attacks are mistaken for tech glitches/features, blocked calls/messages never known
– Corrupt law-enforcement e.g. Victoria Police block identified cyber-crime reporting (Melbourne, Australia 2009-current in my case*)
– Admitting to successful attacks likely damages victims’ reputation, attackers gain further business ops
– Cyber-criminals’ individual guilt beyond reasonable doubt unprovable even in the tiny % of incidents that are obviously crimes e.g. ransomware/theft/child sexual abuse
– Acts not classified = acts not counted = nothing learned For an act to be classified as a cyber-crime type, it must*
– Show consistent/easy to see patterns
– Have rational motives/start/end/processes: opportunistic crimes may seem irrational
– Have severe enough immediate impact to breach alert-fatigue
– Affect those, whose voice is heard in a country like Australia, where justice is only for the privileged*
– Be reproducible/likely to reoccur
– Be preventable/defence feasible
– Have a clear cause e.g. phishing fail
– Involve tech understood by civilian experts – agency/weapons grade tech is risk-free for Australian Organised Crime, since these capabilities don’t exist officially * Writing here as a technology practitioner of almost 30 years, a Science graduate and an involuntary expert in cyber-crime in Melbourne, Australia, 2009-current. Last cyber-crime I could not avoid noticing less than 24 hours ago.
Not to forget the effect that the politically enforced use of electric vehicles in the first world will drop the prices of fossil fuel in other parts of the world and thus lead to more fossil fuel consumption overall.
The recent report by the Manhattan Institute, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream” demonstrates that EV’s are more environmentally damaging than gas fuelled ones. I’ll keep my old hatchback for a few years yet, government permitting!
So the Manhattan Institute are the unquestionable oracle?
What makes you take this as the Truth, above others? Seriously- why accept this without question, when so many more sources disagree?
So the Manhattan Institute are the unquestionable oracle?
What makes you take this as the Truth, above others? Seriously- why accept this without question, when so many more sources disagree?
The recent report by the Manhattan Institute, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream” demonstrates that EV’s are more environmentally damaging than gas fuelled ones. I’ll keep my old hatchback for a few years yet, government permitting!
Not to forget the effect that the politically enforced use of electric vehicles in the first world will drop the prices of fossil fuel in other parts of the world and thus lead to more fossil fuel consumption overall.
Katalin Kish
9 months ago
One of the most aggressive aspects of reducing fossil fuel reliance is the forced shift to electric vehicles, while there is very little understanding of the cyber-vulnerabilities of digitally controlled vehicles.
Since the vast majority of cyber-crimes are not recognised as crimes – some reasons listed below, cyber-risks of any kind are grossly underestimated. Risks we don’t know* we cannot plan to avoid/mitigate. A moving vehicle controlled by someone other than the driver in the vehicle is a deadly missile in motion: deadly to people in its path, not only to those who are in the vehicle.
Any remedy is after the fact, and no one can bring back the dead.
Car manufacturers’ power combined with political push to make electric cars the norm means victims of immature, deadly technology are powerless.
“manufacturers … are now building cars in such a way that makes their electrical systems and computer networks act like smartphones that are connected to the Internet, this opens up a whole host of possibilities for hackers, allowing them to gain access to critical systems remotely using wireless connections.”
Source: Purple Griffon Limited (UK) – see article for remote interference examples that are already widely known in 2023. Cyber-crime ranges/volumes are unknown/risk-free because*
– Attacks are mistaken for tech glitches/features, blocked calls/messages never known
– Corrupt law-enforcement e.g. Victoria Police block identified cyber-crime reporting (Melbourne, Australia 2009-current in my case*)
– Admitting to successful attacks likely damages victims’ reputation, attackers gain further business ops
– Cyber-criminals’ individual guilt beyond reasonable doubt unprovable even in the tiny % of incidents that are obviously crimes e.g. ransomware/theft/child sexual abuse
– Acts not classified = acts not counted = nothing learned For an act to be classified as a cyber-crime type, it must*
– Show consistent/easy to see patterns
– Have rational motives/start/end/processes: opportunistic crimes may seem irrational
– Have severe enough immediate impact to breach alert-fatigue
– Affect those, whose voice is heard in a country like Australia, where justice is only for the privileged*
– Be reproducible/likely to reoccur
– Be preventable/defence feasible
– Have a clear cause e.g. phishing fail
– Involve tech understood by civilian experts – agency/weapons grade tech is risk-free for Australian Organised Crime, since these capabilities don’t exist officially * Writing here as a technology practitioner of almost 30 years, a Science graduate and an involuntary expert in cyber-crime in Melbourne, Australia, 2009-current. Last cyber-crime I could not avoid noticing less than 24 hours ago.
Last edited 9 months ago by Katalin Kish
Richard Craven
9 months ago
Ruddy Norah! Thomas Farzi can actually be quite sensible!
“Rubber” has returned, and is ‘flagging’ everything he can.
Richard Craven
9 months ago
Ruddy Norah! Thomas Farzi can actually be quite sensible!
Michael Walsh
9 months ago
The subtext of every environmentalist manifesto is always a message to the poor: Just enough of us; way too many of you. Getting rid of the poor is a WEF priority. Every time I hear, e.g. David Attenborough’s pontificating, I hear “Wogs begin at Calais.”
Delighted to see Attenborough being exposed on here for the elitist misanthropist he is. Great comment all round.
Michael Walsh
9 months ago
The subtext of every environmentalist manifesto is always a message to the poor: Just enough of us; way too many of you. Getting rid of the poor is a WEF priority. Every time I hear, e.g. David Attenborough’s pontificating, I hear “Wogs begin at Calais.”
Edward Forwood
9 months ago
The biggest effect that climate change will have on the ruling Notting Hill set will be to shorten their skiing seasons. It is a shame that so many people fall prey to groupthink led by politicians and over-enthusiastic scientists. Covid lockdowns and climate hysteria are prime examples of ignorant groupthink.
Edward Forwood
9 months ago
The biggest effect that climate change will have on the ruling Notting Hill set will be to shorten their skiing seasons. It is a shame that so many people fall prey to groupthink led by politicians and over-enthusiastic scientists. Covid lockdowns and climate hysteria are prime examples of ignorant groupthink.
The articles are often pretty interesting, and far more varied, ideologically, than the tedious and rantingly brainless group-think BTL.
Worth sticking around for, I think- just avoid the idiocy of the comments. And yes, occasionally I break my own rule if I’m particularly bored.
The articles are often pretty interesting, and far more varied, ideologically, than the tedious and rantingly brainless group-think BTL.
Worth sticking around for, I think- just avoid the idiocy of the comments. And yes, occasionally I break my own rule if I’m particularly bored.
Not bothering to reply. Just terminating my subscription to this platform.
Andrew Dalton
9 months ago
Last edited 8 hours ago by Yuval Legendtofski
That’s after editing.
Chuck Pezeshki
9 months ago
The current batch of ‘climate’ activists are actually collapse advocates, with climate change policy being the mechanism to bring about collapse. That’s the real problem. There is some simplistic, disordered-child fantasy that what will spring up during/after collapse will be utopian. No one will die during the collapse, except the bad people who need to die anyway.
That’s the real problem. Most of the Left’s social policy agendas have turned into this as well. The real goal IS collapse. Not fixing anything. Something to remember when reading.
Could you try to actually explain what you mean, in specific terms?
Chuck Pezeshki
9 months ago
The current batch of ‘climate’ activists are actually collapse advocates, with climate change policy being the mechanism to bring about collapse. That’s the real problem. There is some simplistic, disordered-child fantasy that what will spring up during/after collapse will be utopian. No one will die during the collapse, except the bad people who need to die anyway.
That’s the real problem. Most of the Left’s social policy agendas have turned into this as well. The real goal IS collapse. Not fixing anything. Something to remember when reading.
Louise Kowitch
9 months ago
The climate-apocalypse narrative muddles our thinking on many fronts. First, it narrows our framework for discourse to a zero sum, live -or- die absolutism. What about QUALITY of life? Second, it takes individuals off the hook for taking responsibility for living more sustainable lives, and blames corporations and governments. This further diminishes human agency. Finally, the fixation on climate obscures the welter of environmental issues that we can improve without big government fixes eg water pollution, loss of wetlands and mangroves, conservation. Live frugally, consume less water,plastic, and petrol, walk and bike more, grow native plants that don’t require fertilizer…these are just a few things the media rarely hones in on. In a nutshell, conservation. The more we do as individuals to stop pollution at its source, the less alienated citizens will be from engaging in solutions that improve our quality of life.
Dear Louise, yours is one of the more interesting replies i have read in this thread. We tend to polarise discussion on one topic, each of us thinking we know, while the great physicists of the last 50+ years have warned us that there are no absolute truths, there are merely opinions and conventions, some more accurate than others.
Indeed considering that we need to have a more respectful attitude to the earth and its resources is important and also making sure we make that connection with our environment and the food we eat needed to maintain a healthy life balance. But when you say these things in our modern world you are considered to be fluffy, because scientific facts are all that count: they convey the truth……..
If the climate change debate can change to a debate on how we can live better, how can we make sure more people have good lives, that would be more interesting. Well, we do not really need to ask this question: it is about good education and acceptable living/working conditions. But that would mean reducing the influence of money, power, technical prowess, the material things,…. it is not going to happen soon. it is not clinical enough..
Dear Louise, yours is one of the more interesting replies i have read in this thread. We tend to polarise discussion on one topic, each of us thinking we know, while the great physicists of the last 50+ years have warned us that there are no absolute truths, there are merely opinions and conventions, some more accurate than others.
Indeed considering that we need to have a more respectful attitude to the earth and its resources is important and also making sure we make that connection with our environment and the food we eat needed to maintain a healthy life balance. But when you say these things in our modern world you are considered to be fluffy, because scientific facts are all that count: they convey the truth……..
If the climate change debate can change to a debate on how we can live better, how can we make sure more people have good lives, that would be more interesting. Well, we do not really need to ask this question: it is about good education and acceptable living/working conditions. But that would mean reducing the influence of money, power, technical prowess, the material things,…. it is not going to happen soon. it is not clinical enough..
Louise Kowitch
9 months ago
The climate-apocalypse narrative muddles our thinking on many fronts. First, it narrows our framework for discourse to a zero sum, live -or- die absolutism. What about QUALITY of life? Second, it takes individuals off the hook for taking responsibility for living more sustainable lives, and blames corporations and governments. This further diminishes human agency. Finally, the fixation on climate obscures the welter of environmental issues that we can improve without big government fixes eg water pollution, loss of wetlands and mangroves, conservation. Live frugally, consume less water,plastic, and petrol, walk and bike more, grow native plants that don’t require fertilizer…these are just a few things the media rarely hones in on. In a nutshell, conservation. The more we do as individuals to stop pollution at its source, the less alienated citizens will be from engaging in solutions that improve our quality of life.
Malcolm Webb
9 months ago
Excellent article. Many thanks. I intend to forward it widely and I urge others to do likewise. It is important to get balanced and sensible insights into wider circulation in order to counter the current hysteria.
Malcolm Webb
9 months ago
Excellent article. Many thanks. I intend to forward it widely and I urge others to do likewise. It is important to get balanced and sensible insights into wider circulation in order to counter the current hysteria.
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
As at 08.29 BST. Seven comments have already ‘disappeared’!
What is going on?
Charlie, dearest- you know I am horrible, evil Marxist filth, and yet my comments disappear regularly here.
This must mean, given your usual lazy conspiratorial ideations, that evil Marxists are silenced by the ‘MSM’. And yet you ‘know’ that only you and your lovely chums are ‘cancelled’ by Them- thus, there exists the rational possibility that comments here are actually just randomly delayed to ensure they are not unusually offensive.
The fact is that dribbling, anti-science right-wing conspiratorial ranting is very profitable on the ‘net- just as ‘woke’ virtue-signalling is- and no ‘provider’ is going to judge it. It makes money, if not sense. So you and your fellow ranters have nothing to fear- even though you love to pretend you are constantly being ‘cancelled’.
Don’t worry- your irrational tripe will invariably appear, albeit with a slight delay.
Come on Thorax you’re loosing the plot. I have never described you as “evil Marxist filth”, and you know that.
However your return to UnHerd after a gap of several months seems to have coincided with a marked increase in ‘flagging’. Thus the obvious conclusion is that YOU are to blame! Do you deny it?
Come on Thorax you’re loosing the plot. I have never described you as “evil Marxist filth”, and you know that.
However your return to UnHerd after a gap of several months seems to have coincided with a marked increase in ‘flagging’. Thus the obvious conclusion is that YOU are to blame! Do you deny it?
Charlie, dearest- you know I am horrible, evil Marxist filth, and yet my comments disappear regularly here.
This must mean, given your usual lazy conspiratorial ideations, that evil Marxists are silenced by the ‘MSM’. And yet you ‘know’ that only you and your lovely chums are ‘cancelled’ by Them- thus, there exists the rational possibility that comments here are actually just randomly delayed to ensure they are not unusually offensive.
The fact is that dribbling, anti-science right-wing conspiratorial ranting is very profitable on the ‘net- just as ‘woke’ virtue-signalling is- and no ‘provider’ is going to judge it. It makes money, if not sense. So you and your fellow ranters have nothing to fear- even though you love to pretend you are constantly being ‘cancelled’.
Don’t worry- your irrational tripe will invariably appear, albeit with a slight delay.
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
As at 08.29 BST. Seven comments have already ‘disappeared’!
What is going on?
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago
Actually, old boy, it’s Lord’s not Lord…Do you have some vinegar to drink to make you more bitter AND put on your shoulder chips?
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago
Actually, old boy, it’s Lord’s not Lord…Do you have some vinegar to drink to make you more bitter AND put on your shoulder chips?
Dominic A
9 months ago
This may be so – about climate change etc. I think the greater concerns are the runaway degradation of the environment, mass extinction of species, over-population and the growing likelihood of violent conflict over resources.
Dominic A
9 months ago
This may be so – about climate change etc. I think the greater concerns are the runaway degradation of the environment, mass extinction of species, over-population and the growing likelihood of violent conflict over resources.
Andrew H
9 months ago
Glad to see this very good article on the near ubiquitous climate hysteria. I was starting to worry UnHerd was swerving this issue as I hadn’t come across much on environmentalism in the few months I’ve been subscribing. Good also to see the stat that climate-related fatalities are down by some 96% getting a mention, likewise the fact that it would make a negligible difference to world temperatures even if we stopped all carbon emissions now (I first read both of these in Bjorn Lomborg’s eminently sane book False Alarm).
Andrew H
9 months ago
Glad to see this very good article on the near ubiquitous climate hysteria. I was starting to worry UnHerd was swerving this issue as I hadn’t come across much on environmentalism in the few months I’ve been subscribing. Good also to see the stat that climate-related fatalities are down by some 96% getting a mention, likewise the fact that it would make a negligible difference to world temperatures even if we stopped all carbon emissions now (I first read both of these in Bjorn Lomborg’s eminently sane book False Alarm).
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Is English your native tongue may I ask?
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Is English your native tongue may I ask?
j watson
9 months ago
A more sensible Fazi offering, but still holes in it.
Whilst some scientists do worry about run-away Global warming and consequences, the imminent end of humankind as we know it is not the scenario most convey. Increased migration and strife over water and land resources more the indication. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other causes of conflict that can provoke even more population movement but how much do we want to provoke? (Plenty of evidence that climate change provoked population movement not a new phenomenon at all – this is just the latest)
Then more in the detail – Fazi refers to how perhaps we just need to adjust and fit more A/C etc. Inconsistently he then refers to the huge cost of driving climate change reduction policy but doesn’t refer to the cost of alternative adaptation and then who pays? Is he suggesting the polluters at least pay for us all to fit A/C given it’s an externality they currently do not have built into their pricing? I exaggerate a bit to illuminate the point, but he doesn’t cover both sides of coin does he.
More broadly we’ve learnt better energy independence can be important to a Nation’s autonomy. That doesn’t mean ‘Go Green’ the only way, but there may be other good geo-political reasons for greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels disproportionately located in some, shall we just say for now, tricky locations.
Water supply should never be an issue for any country. Having the power and prosperity to desalinate is though.
No doubt there is a cost to climate adaptation, but the world has spent many trillions on renewable energy in the last 20 years and fossil fuel use hadn’t went down at all.
Yep we agree adaptation will have some major costs, and should we be helping poorer countries with desalination investment as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, even if just to limit future population movement? My point was Fazi not being clear if he’s suggesting that.
On your 2nd para, yes although may have slowed the rate from what it may otherwise have been.
No question we have slowed the rate of fossil fuel growth. Putting aside the science, all the money invested in wind and solar seems like nothing more than virtue signalling waste and corruption. If CO2 is a problem, build out nuclear. We know it works. It’s such a tragic waste of money.
No question we have slowed the rate of fossil fuel growth. Putting aside the science, all the money invested in wind and solar seems like nothing more than virtue signalling waste and corruption. If CO2 is a problem, build out nuclear. We know it works. It’s such a tragic waste of money.
Yep we agree adaptation will have some major costs, and should we be helping poorer countries with desalination investment as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, even if just to limit future population movement? My point was Fazi not being clear if he’s suggesting that.
On your 2nd para, yes although may have slowed the rate from what it may otherwise have been.
Water supply should never be an issue for any country. Having the power and prosperity to desalinate is though.
No doubt there is a cost to climate adaptation, but the world has spent many trillions on renewable energy in the last 20 years and fossil fuel use hadn’t went down at all.
j watson
9 months ago
A more sensible Fazi offering, but still holes in it.
Whilst some scientists do worry about run-away Global warming and consequences, the imminent end of humankind as we know it is not the scenario most convey. Increased migration and strife over water and land resources more the indication. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other causes of conflict that can provoke even more population movement but how much do we want to provoke? (Plenty of evidence that climate change provoked population movement not a new phenomenon at all – this is just the latest)
Then more in the detail – Fazi refers to how perhaps we just need to adjust and fit more A/C etc. Inconsistently he then refers to the huge cost of driving climate change reduction policy but doesn’t refer to the cost of alternative adaptation and then who pays? Is he suggesting the polluters at least pay for us all to fit A/C given it’s an externality they currently do not have built into their pricing? I exaggerate a bit to illuminate the point, but he doesn’t cover both sides of coin does he.
More broadly we’ve learnt better energy independence can be important to a Nation’s autonomy. That doesn’t mean ‘Go Green’ the only way, but there may be other good geo-political reasons for greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels disproportionately located in some, shall we just say for now, tricky locations.
Peter Jenks
9 months ago
Such well argued and logical analysis of the reality of climate evolution is likely to get one Cancelled by those with a vested interest in fear.
The latest incoherent idiocy by a British minister is a statement that Hydrogen cannot be added to natural gas because the infrastructure is not compatible with it. This overlooks the 75 or so years when town gas, a mix of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide was distributed through that same infrastructure.
Excellent point. That really is a “killer fact” !
But you can’t possibly expect any modern politician to be troubled by scientific or historical facts (they’re busy rewriting history as we comment).
Excellent point. That really is a “killer fact” !
But you can’t possibly expect any modern politician to be troubled by scientific or historical facts (they’re busy rewriting history as we comment).
Peter Jenks
9 months ago
Such well argued and logical analysis of the reality of climate evolution is likely to get one Cancelled by those with a vested interest in fear.
The latest incoherent idiocy by a British minister is a statement that Hydrogen cannot be added to natural gas because the infrastructure is not compatible with it. This overlooks the 75 or so years when town gas, a mix of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide was distributed through that same infrastructure.
Steven Campbell
9 months ago
All this to cover real issues. Let’s see, perhaps more electricity from Nuclear Energy, not windmills and Solar Panels. Water seems to be a problem. Lots of water in some places, next to none in others, what about some of that money invested in the storage and transport of water? Electric Grid, could be some work done there. Our politicians seems so concerned with Climate Change that they are prevented from fixing pot holes, making public transport safe and taking care of basic infrastructure. This is not to mention care of forests on public lands, a forgotten issue, because, yes, climate change.
Just remember that esteemed environmentalist-governor Gavin Newsom has been taking Californian water away from Californian folks to hand over to Nestlé. What a green policy indeed!
Just remember that esteemed environmentalist-governor Gavin Newsom has been taking Californian water away from Californian folks to hand over to Nestlé. What a green policy indeed!
Steven Campbell
9 months ago
All this to cover real issues. Let’s see, perhaps more electricity from Nuclear Energy, not windmills and Solar Panels. Water seems to be a problem. Lots of water in some places, next to none in others, what about some of that money invested in the storage and transport of water? Electric Grid, could be some work done there. Our politicians seems so concerned with Climate Change that they are prevented from fixing pot holes, making public transport safe and taking care of basic infrastructure. This is not to mention care of forests on public lands, a forgotten issue, because, yes, climate change.
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Just imagine what it would be like to listen to intelligent, informed and educated people discuss AGW without a single implication that anyone who disagrees with oneself is a commie or a fascist. Imagine just the science, pro and con stripped of political baggage. Not here of course, still it would be a pleasure to see such a discussion. No doubt the subject is *enormously* complex and that’s just the objective science. Then we hafta decide what the hell to do about it and one can hardly imagine a more difficult topic. Might honest people disagree to some extent? Might mistakes have been made but in good faith?
I think the author is at least trying to be honest. But he’s a member, it would seem, of the church of Infinite Growth, and IMHO that’s a bad religion. My own religion is Sustainable Planet, just for the record. Does that mean I’m a commie?
I tend to use them alternately. Low brow righties tend to call me a commie, high brow righties prefer Marxist. But then again the wokies call me a fascist.
I doubt it. That’s just the standard catch-all US internet term for anyone, anywhere, who has any thoughts whatsoever that don’t conform to US-style Randian pseudo-libertarianism.
It’s bunk.
I tend to use them alternately. Low brow righties tend to call me a commie, high brow righties prefer Marxist. But then again the wokies call me a fascist.
I doubt it. That’s just the standard catch-all US internet term for anyone, anywhere, who has any thoughts whatsoever that don’t conform to US-style Randian pseudo-libertarianism.
It’s bunk.
I think the word you’re searching for is probably “Marxist”.
Ray Andrews
9 months ago
Just imagine what it would be like to listen to intelligent, informed and educated people discuss AGW without a single implication that anyone who disagrees with oneself is a commie or a fascist. Imagine just the science, pro and con stripped of political baggage. Not here of course, still it would be a pleasure to see such a discussion. No doubt the subject is *enormously* complex and that’s just the objective science. Then we hafta decide what the hell to do about it and one can hardly imagine a more difficult topic. Might honest people disagree to some extent? Might mistakes have been made but in good faith?
I think the author is at least trying to be honest. But he’s a member, it would seem, of the church of Infinite Growth, and IMHO that’s a bad religion. My own religion is Sustainable Planet, just for the record. Does that mean I’m a commie?
Peter Gray
9 months ago
A couple of points are worth adding:
First, we honestly do not know if CO2 is the main driver of the climate warming trend. In “Unsettled” Prof. Koonin, a prominent climate scientist and a member of the IPCC puts a question mark on this matter. There is a number of other scientists that either reject the theses of AGW or question their impact.
Second, CO2 is the single most important component of the atmosphere which allows for life on Earth. We are currently at about 420 ppm (and rising about 1.5 ppm per year) but the Earth used to see two orders of magnitude higher concentrations and the life was thriving. Note that at 150 ppm the plants will start to die and with it all the life on our planet.
Third, the scientific community involved in climate change studies is corrupt by massive donations and grants which support research that will exclusively focus on negative effects of global warming and the human causes of it. Note that the IPCC charter requires it to study exclusively human impacts on the climate, which means it will not sponsor any studies which would target natural causes.
Fourth, we are already seeing positive developments from increased CO2 levels while less so from rising temperatures (still no palm trees in Oslo). Some crop yields have tripled since the 1960’s and the IPCC credits it, at least partially, to the rising CO2 levels. Moreover, we see significant greening of the planet, including more forests and less deserts, which includes south Sahara.
Finally, the best indicator of the warming trend should be rising sea levels caused by the melting of land-based ice. Since we started to measure the MSL using satellite we now have solid data in that matter and it is showing steady, slow rise (about 1 ft per century) but no acceleration over the past several decades. There is no cause for alarm, just a lot of group thinking.
Peak warmth post Ice Age was about 8000 years ago, when deciduous trees grew over Sweden.
Peter Gray
9 months ago
A couple of points are worth adding:
First, we honestly do not know if CO2 is the main driver of the climate warming trend. In “Unsettled” Prof. Koonin, a prominent climate scientist and a member of the IPCC puts a question mark on this matter. There is a number of other scientists that either reject the theses of AGW or question their impact.
Second, CO2 is the single most important component of the atmosphere which allows for life on Earth. We are currently at about 420 ppm (and rising about 1.5 ppm per year) but the Earth used to see two orders of magnitude higher concentrations and the life was thriving. Note that at 150 ppm the plants will start to die and with it all the life on our planet.
Third, the scientific community involved in climate change studies is corrupt by massive donations and grants which support research that will exclusively focus on negative effects of global warming and the human causes of it. Note that the IPCC charter requires it to study exclusively human impacts on the climate, which means it will not sponsor any studies which would target natural causes.
Fourth, we are already seeing positive developments from increased CO2 levels while less so from rising temperatures (still no palm trees in Oslo). Some crop yields have tripled since the 1960’s and the IPCC credits it, at least partially, to the rising CO2 levels. Moreover, we see significant greening of the planet, including more forests and less deserts, which includes south Sahara.
Finally, the best indicator of the warming trend should be rising sea levels caused by the melting of land-based ice. Since we started to measure the MSL using satellite we now have solid data in that matter and it is showing steady, slow rise (about 1 ft per century) but no acceleration over the past several decades. There is no cause for alarm, just a lot of group thinking.
Last edited 9 months ago by Peter Gray
Bruno Lucy
9 months ago
Sorry….I just couldn’t read this to the end. Talk of negationism !!!
2003….15 000 people died in France, all of heat related problems. Lots of elderlies living alone died…..well…..alone. 7 times as many as in the UK.
To figure out what life in a city like Paris would be like, you can read the short version here. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/25/paris-could-hit-50-degrees-by-2050-new-report-warns-how-can-the-city-adapt
The original is to be found there ….sadly, in French only. https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2023/04/21/paris_a_50_c-le_rapport-Jc4H.pdf.
The French mainstream media have kept very very quiet about this and it takes the foreign press to report on it. Last summer an emergency exercise took place to see how public and emergency services would cope. All this detailed in the original report.
Air conditioning for the poor…..that’s another version of charity…..but a toxic one. There is nothing worse than AC. To generate cold, not only does it put pressure on a very tired grid, but it also created heat bubbles all around the place.
As to….a heat wave isn’t the end of the world, it was last year the definitive end for 5000 people in France.
I am not going to debate wether there is a climate change or not….it’s just like debating wether God exists or not for a lot of people on this site……..but the measures advocated by the author only make the matter worse.
Paris is the worst text book example. Zinc roofs that turn “ chambre de bonnes “ into ovens and even as I write, architecture protection is paramount. Not green spaces like London and the most densely built cities in Europe at least.
One fact is indisputable……..summers have become hell and people know better moving up to France Normandy beaches or Picardie beaches.
Well, I lied, I did read to the end and yes, nuclear energy is the least polluting when it comes to CO2…..80 % of the total energy produced in France is carbon free……..that doesn’t keep the heat waves from striking.
This paper is interesting. I haven’t seen anything more recent. But generally, many more people die every year from cold-related causes than heat-related ones. Cold is just more likely to cause a heart attack. If you make energy so expensive (or restrict growth in GDP) such people can’t heat their homes in winter, this will result in many more deaths in the near future.
In short, climate change is real and needs to be addressed, but we need policies that actually save lives, not hysterical reactions such as Net Zero.
I worked in Paris in the 2990s. Very cold winters led to tens of thousands of deaths ( as always in Britain, btw), and eviction was forbidden during the winter months.
This paper is interesting. I haven’t seen anything more recent. But generally, many more people die every year from cold-related causes than heat-related ones. Cold is just more likely to cause a heart attack. If you make energy so expensive (or restrict growth in GDP) such people can’t heat their homes in winter, this will result in many more deaths in the near future.
In short, climate change is real and needs to be addressed, but we need policies that actually save lives, not hysterical reactions such as Net Zero.
I worked in Paris in the 2990s. Very cold winters led to tens of thousands of deaths ( as always in Britain, btw), and eviction was forbidden during the winter months.
Bruno Lucy
9 months ago
Sorry….I just couldn’t read this to the end. Talk of negationism !!!
2003….15 000 people died in France, all of heat related problems. Lots of elderlies living alone died…..well…..alone. 7 times as many as in the UK.
To figure out what life in a city like Paris would be like, you can read the short version here. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/25/paris-could-hit-50-degrees-by-2050-new-report-warns-how-can-the-city-adapt
The original is to be found there ….sadly, in French only. https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2023/04/21/paris_a_50_c-le_rapport-Jc4H.pdf.
The French mainstream media have kept very very quiet about this and it takes the foreign press to report on it. Last summer an emergency exercise took place to see how public and emergency services would cope. All this detailed in the original report.
Air conditioning for the poor…..that’s another version of charity…..but a toxic one. There is nothing worse than AC. To generate cold, not only does it put pressure on a very tired grid, but it also created heat bubbles all around the place.
As to….a heat wave isn’t the end of the world, it was last year the definitive end for 5000 people in France.
I am not going to debate wether there is a climate change or not….it’s just like debating wether God exists or not for a lot of people on this site……..but the measures advocated by the author only make the matter worse.
Paris is the worst text book example. Zinc roofs that turn “ chambre de bonnes “ into ovens and even as I write, architecture protection is paramount. Not green spaces like London and the most densely built cities in Europe at least.
One fact is indisputable……..summers have become hell and people know better moving up to France Normandy beaches or Picardie beaches.
Well, I lied, I did read to the end and yes, nuclear energy is the least polluting when it comes to CO2…..80 % of the total energy produced in France is carbon free……..that doesn’t keep the heat waves from striking.
Last edited 9 months ago by Bruno Lucy
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago
I can just hear the waiter in White’s….”would you like your woke, lemming eco sandaloid boiled, fried or baked M’Lord?”….
I’m sure that seemed worth posting at the time, for some reason.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
9 months ago
I can just hear the waiter in White’s….”would you like your woke, lemming eco sandaloid boiled, fried or baked M’Lord?”….
AJ Mac
9 months ago
“Not only is this rhetoric of impending doom hindering the possibility of fixing the problem, it is also engendering all manner of authoritarian fantasies”.
Indeed, and the truth of that statement runs deeper than anything related to climate.
This is well-said too: “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”.
Quite a moderate, sensible view, of the type sure to annoy extremists on both sides of the issue. The hard-liner or zealot rejects moderation and consensus as a betrayal of principle, and ends up contributing to more stagnation and polarization. Not that moderates have a great track record of accomplishment, but a cooperative, aisle-crossing approach reduces the threat of rising, overheated seas and of bloodshed both far away and in the front yard. Dynamic centrism…who’s with me?
Last edited 9 months ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
9 months ago
“Not only is this rhetoric of impending doom hindering the possibility of fixing the problem, it is also engendering all manner of authoritarian fantasies”.
Indeed, and the truth of that statement runs deeper than anything related to climate.
This is well-said too: “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”.
Quite a moderate, sensible view, of the type sure to annoy extremists on both sides of the issue. The hard-liner or zealot rejects moderation and consensus as a betrayal of principle, and ends up contributing to more stagnation and polarization. Not that moderates have a great track record of accomplishment, but a cooperative, aisle-crossing approach reduces the threat of rising, overheated seas and of bloodshed both far away and in the front yard. Dynamic centrism…who’s with me?
Last edited 9 months ago by AJ Mac
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Thomas is right of course, but so what? Most reasonable people, alone and uninfluenced, when presented with the complete and unbiased facts about climate change and the various proposed remedies along with the associated costs and economic impacts is going to reach a similar conclusion. Humans are good at adapting to a changing environment. That’s why there are so many of us and we’ve spread pretty much everywhere. Doesn’t take a climate scientist or even a particularly bright ten year old to realize that people are going to be better at doing things they have a lot of practice at, and humans as a species have had a lot of practice adapting to different conditions. On the other hand, what the climate change alarmists seem to want is exactly the opposite, for humanity as a whole to control its reproduction and consumption in order to produce certain environmental outcomes and prevent others. This has been attempted many times before without success, and indeed seems so absurd at face value that one wonders how anybody could take it seriously, and why it has become such an issue in the first place. Thomas thus fails when he refuses to name the sources of climate hysteria. Simply claiming its politicians and not scientists are pushing artificial NetZero deadlines is true, but also a cop out. There shouldn’t be a need to argue the simple against the absurd. If there is, the proper question is to ask where the absurdity is coming from and how it exists at all. In short, we should not hesitate to name the enemies who are pushing climate hysteria on a gullible public, that is the super rich, who have good reason to want to preserve the status quo and who will not have to suffer the consequences of their policies (I’ll believe they care about climate change when they scrap their private jets), zealots who substitute environmental crusades for the traditional religious sort with equal fervor and similar results (looking at you Greta), and of course the mega corporations who benefit from massive subsidies for certain technologies and also from the way government regulation consistently restricts competition and favors large firms over small ones.
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Thomas is right of course, but so what? Most reasonable people, alone and uninfluenced, when presented with the complete and unbiased facts about climate change and the various proposed remedies along with the associated costs and economic impacts is going to reach a similar conclusion. Humans are good at adapting to a changing environment. That’s why there are so many of us and we’ve spread pretty much everywhere. Doesn’t take a climate scientist or even a particularly bright ten year old to realize that people are going to be better at doing things they have a lot of practice at, and humans as a species have had a lot of practice adapting to different conditions. On the other hand, what the climate change alarmists seem to want is exactly the opposite, for humanity as a whole to control its reproduction and consumption in order to produce certain environmental outcomes and prevent others. This has been attempted many times before without success, and indeed seems so absurd at face value that one wonders how anybody could take it seriously, and why it has become such an issue in the first place. Thomas thus fails when he refuses to name the sources of climate hysteria. Simply claiming its politicians and not scientists are pushing artificial NetZero deadlines is true, but also a cop out. There shouldn’t be a need to argue the simple against the absurd. If there is, the proper question is to ask where the absurdity is coming from and how it exists at all. In short, we should not hesitate to name the enemies who are pushing climate hysteria on a gullible public, that is the super rich, who have good reason to want to preserve the status quo and who will not have to suffer the consequences of their policies (I’ll believe they care about climate change when they scrap their private jets), zealots who substitute environmental crusades for the traditional religious sort with equal fervor and similar results (looking at you Greta), and of course the mega corporations who benefit from massive subsidies for certain technologies and also from the way government regulation consistently restricts competition and favors large firms over small ones.
Peter B
9 months ago
Speechless. A Thomas Fazi article I agree with ! Trigger warning: contains much sound common sense.
Peter B
9 months ago
Speechless. A Thomas Fazi article I agree with ! Trigger warning: contains much sound common sense.
Mark epperson
9 months ago
It’s all about the money! The folks who have bet huge sums of bucks /pounds on profiting from “climate change” are running scared and all the money they spent on bent politicians and bureaucrats plus goosing the media is in jeopardy. They don’t give a damn about the people in their own country, much less the poverty stricken of the world. Their goal is not to increase anyone’s quality of life, just theirs. As the old saying goes “there is a sucker born every minute”.
Mark epperson
9 months ago
It’s all about the money! The folks who have bet huge sums of bucks /pounds on profiting from “climate change” are running scared and all the money they spent on bent politicians and bureaucrats plus goosing the media is in jeopardy. They don’t give a damn about the people in their own country, much less the poverty stricken of the world. Their goal is not to increase anyone’s quality of life, just theirs. As the old saying goes “there is a sucker born every minute”.
John Holland
9 months ago
The poor global fossil fuel corporations are being destroyed by a financial elite.
As we all know, theres no money at all in coal, oil and gas- all the BIG money is in being a “so-called” climate scientist. I have given what I can to Saudi Arabia and Exxon, and I suggest that the scientific geniuses here do the same; we cannot let the elites destroy the helpless global industrial corporations.
Please- give whatever you can.
The evil global super-rich elite (Just Stop Oil, so-called ‘scientists’ , that actor who was married to whatshername, etc) are bullying the little folk (global oil corps, OPEC, etc.) and it just isn’t FAIR. Follow the money- there’s no way the money will take you to the most profitable national and multinational corporations- it will take you straight to Greenpeace and the vastly powerful science institutes who’s only desire is, for some reason, to crush the population to death. Or, er, something.
Glad to see you back ’round these parts. I can relax my own part-time campaign of sarcasm and satire–which somehow rarely seems to be a hit with the (Un)Herd–when I know you’re here.
Glad to see you back ’round these parts. I can relax my own part-time campaign of sarcasm and satire–which somehow rarely seems to be a hit with the (Un)Herd–when I know you’re here.
The evil global super-rich elite (Just Stop Oil, so-called ‘scientists’ , that actor who was married to whatshername, etc) are bullying the little folk (global oil corps, OPEC, etc.) and it just isn’t FAIR. Follow the money- there’s no way the money will take you to the most profitable national and multinational corporations- it will take you straight to Greenpeace and the vastly powerful science institutes who’s only desire is, for some reason, to crush the population to death. Or, er, something.
The poor global fossil fuel corporations are being destroyed by a financial elite.
As we all know, theres no money at all in coal, oil and gas- all the BIG money is in being a “so-called” climate scientist. I have given what I can to Saudi Arabia and Exxon, and I suggest that the scientific geniuses here do the same; we cannot let the elites destroy the helpless global industrial corporations.
Please- give whatever you can.
Rod McLaughlin
9 months ago
Thank you
And, everybody, get the book Fossil Future
Alan Thorpe
9 months ago
Some years ago Prof Andrea Sella performed an experiment on TV to prove that carbon dioxide caused global warming. He used an intense light and gun cotton. When the gun cotton was held in the light beam it burst into flames. He then put a tube of carbon dioxide in the beam and repeated the experiment and the gun cotton did not light. He proved exactly the opposite of what he claimed. Carbon dioxide prevents sunlight reaching the surface and therefore keeps us cooler. This is what the atmosphere does in the day when the sun is shining. For more proof look at the moon with no atmosphere. Its daytime temperature reaches around 106C. We would burn to a crisp without the atmosphere. But at night, the atmosphere does exactly the opposite and keeps us warm.
No. You need to learn about wavelengths – easy to research on line.
An AGW “climate emergency” is the mother of all scams, but you should learn something of the actual science before you jump to erroneous conclusions.
Alan Thorpe
9 months ago
Some years ago Prof Andrea Sella performed an experiment on TV to prove that carbon dioxide caused global warming. He used an intense light and gun cotton. When the gun cotton was held in the light beam it burst into flames. He then put a tube of carbon dioxide in the beam and repeated the experiment and the gun cotton did not light. He proved exactly the opposite of what he claimed. Carbon dioxide prevents sunlight reaching the surface and therefore keeps us cooler. This is what the atmosphere does in the day when the sun is shining. For more proof look at the moon with no atmosphere. Its daytime temperature reaches around 106C. We would burn to a crisp without the atmosphere. But at night, the atmosphere does exactly the opposite and keeps us warm.
Steve Hay
9 months ago
An excellent Article, But I suspect you are going straight to Hell for it. At least if the shocked climate change children and their handlers have any thing to do with it. I have yet to see any of these self appointed “experts” having recognized qualifications in Science or Engineering.
Australia’s noisiest climate change expert is Professor Tim Flannery. A Paleontologist (Bone guy) After his “sky is falling predictions” have failed to materialize. Rumor has it he is busy looking for remains of the dinosaurs Thermal Power stations , that caused their demise.
If your country is short on climate change hysteria, we will be happy to lend him to you to get the ball rolling.
George Scialabba
9 months ago
This must be one of the annoying articles on the subject I’ve ever read. “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.” Does *anyone* believe this, must less “many”? Or again: “nowhere does the science tell us that life on Earth will perish if we don’t go Net Zero by 2030.” Does anyone in the world believe otherwise? Who?
Fazi’s knockdown argument is that reducing emissions in poor countries will hurt the poor. Yes, it will, and a moment’s thought would have produced the answer to this objection: tie increased emissions in poor countries to reductions in rich countries.
Come on, Tom
George Scialabba
9 months ago
This must be one of the annoying articles on the subject I’ve ever read. “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.” Does *anyone* believe this, must less “many”? Or again: “nowhere does the science tell us that life on Earth will perish if we don’t go Net Zero by 2030.” Does anyone in the world believe otherwise? Who?
Fazi’s knockdown argument is that reducing emissions in poor countries will hurt the poor. Yes, it will, and a moment’s thought would have produced the answer to this objection: tie increased emissions in poor countries to reductions in rich countries.
Come on, Tom
Judy Johnson
9 months ago
It doesn’t help that a politician of ministerial status is speaking of ULEZ as a policy related to climate change whereas it is, in fact, a health policy related to air quality.
Judy Johnson
9 months ago
It doesn’t help that a politician of ministerial status is speaking of ULEZ as a policy related to climate change whereas it is, in fact, a health policy related to air quality.
Robbie K
9 months ago
Fazi discusses climate hysteria, yet continually creates a strawman referring to ‘the end of the world’. Climate scientists don’t predict this, what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict. These scenarios are very real, especially if the author has accepted that climate change is happening.
“what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict” …but enough about the effects of seven decades of American foreign policy.
Meanwhile populations are increasing in many of the supposedly most vulnerable countries. For instance Bangladesh, where better land management and reducing poverty have increased food security a long way from the devastating floods and famines of the 1970s. The climate may be changing, but so is human innovation and adaption.
You’re right, Nigeria also comes to mind. They have had a population explosion – the big risk of course is if these are countries vulnerable to climate change then the impacts could be utterly catastrophic in terms of a perfect storm.
You’re right, Nigeria also comes to mind. They have had a population explosion – the big risk of course is if these are countries vulnerable to climate change then the impacts could be utterly catastrophic in terms of a perfect storm.
But climate scientists remain silent as their data is manipulated and mangled by activists. Has the IPCC said anything about JSO and other fringe groups? Has it approached the foundations and encouraged them to stop finding these groups.
I really don’t know. JSO are sadly misguided with their strategies however, they’d be better off trying to copy how big oil funded the sceptic industry.
Quite right.
There’s no money in fossil fuels. None whatsoever. Zilch. It’s an altruistic activity done by small and powerless idealists in opposition to a cruel and all-powerful “elite”. Saudi Arabia is so poor and powerless it honestly makes me want to cry.
Well done Jim, you really have thought this through. Thank you. Please contribute whatever you can to the poor global fossil fuel industry through my charitable foundation- Help The Oil Industry. Every little helps, as they say.
.
Of course I didn’t say anything of that sort. Big oil is big oil. They will pursue their interests and profits like they always have.
Here are the incomes of some of the major well known groups in 2012 alone.
The Sierra Club took in $97,757,678
The Sierra Club Foundation took in $47,163,599
The Environmental Defense Fund took in $111,915,138
Natural Resources Defense Council $98,701,707
National Audubon Society $96,206,883
National Wildlife Federation $84,726,518
Greenpeace USA $32,791,149
National Parks Conservation Association $25,782,975
The Wilderness Society $24,862,909
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection $19,150,215
But those are the medium sized incomes, here are the biggies:
The Nature Conservancy $949,132,306
Greenpeace International $406,000,000
Wildlife Conservation Society $230,042,654
World Wildlife Fund $208,495,555
Of course I didn’t say anything of that sort. Big oil is big oil. They will pursue their interests and profits like they always have.
Here are the incomes of some of the major well known groups in 2012 alone.
The Sierra Club took in $97,757,678
The Sierra Club Foundation took in $47,163,599
The Environmental Defense Fund took in $111,915,138
Natural Resources Defense Council $98,701,707
National Audubon Society $96,206,883
National Wildlife Federation $84,726,518
Greenpeace USA $32,791,149
National Parks Conservation Association $25,782,975
The Wilderness Society $24,862,909
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection $19,150,215
But those are the medium sized incomes, here are the biggies:
The Nature Conservancy $949,132,306
Greenpeace International $406,000,000
Wildlife Conservation Society $230,042,654
World Wildlife Fund $208,495,555
Thomas G Farmer; John Cook (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 – The Physical Climate. Springer Science and Business Media. p. 461. ISBN978-9400757578: “In the decade after the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1997, Exxon-Mobil invested more than $20 million in think tanks that promoted climate change denial. This inspired the Royal Society of London to challenge Exxon-Mobil to stop funding organizations that disseminated climate denial”.
Some money in it. Shrieking alarmists have profited too, I admit.
Quite right.
There’s no money in fossil fuels. None whatsoever. Zilch. It’s an altruistic activity done by small and powerless idealists in opposition to a cruel and all-powerful “elite”. Saudi Arabia is so poor and powerless it honestly makes me want to cry.
Well done Jim, you really have thought this through. Thank you. Please contribute whatever you can to the poor global fossil fuel industry through my charitable foundation- Help The Oil Industry. Every little helps, as they say.
.
Thomas G Farmer; John Cook (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 – The Physical Climate. Springer Science and Business Media. p. 461. ISBN978-9400757578: “In the decade after the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1997, Exxon-Mobil invested more than $20 million in think tanks that promoted climate change denial. This inspired the Royal Society of London to challenge Exxon-Mobil to stop funding organizations that disseminated climate denial”.
Some money in it. Shrieking alarmists have profited too, I admit.
I really don’t know. JSO are sadly misguided with their strategies however, they’d be better off trying to copy how big oil funded the sceptic industry.
Your post is delusional. There is no such thing as a “Climate Scientist”, but there are many neo-Marxist lunatics masquerading as such, preaching – yes – the end of the world.
Please link me to other dribbling internet paranoia blogs- I honestly cannot get enough of them. I really am dumb enough to believe every half-baked conspiracy-theory on the ‘net. Can’t get enough of ’em- more please..
Please link me to other dribbling internet paranoia blogs- I honestly cannot get enough of them. I really am dumb enough to believe every half-baked conspiracy-theory on the ‘net. Can’t get enough of ’em- more please..
“what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict” …but enough about the effects of seven decades of American foreign policy.
Meanwhile populations are increasing in many of the supposedly most vulnerable countries. For instance Bangladesh, where better land management and reducing poverty have increased food security a long way from the devastating floods and famines of the 1970s. The climate may be changing, but so is human innovation and adaption.
But climate scientists remain silent as their data is manipulated and mangled by activists. Has the IPCC said anything about JSO and other fringe groups? Has it approached the foundations and encouraged them to stop finding these groups.
Your post is delusional. There is no such thing as a “Climate Scientist”, but there are many neo-Marxist lunatics masquerading as such, preaching – yes – the end of the world.
Fazi discusses climate hysteria, yet continually creates a strawman referring to ‘the end of the world’. Climate scientists don’t predict this, what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict. These scenarios are very real, especially if the author has accepted that climate change is happening.
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Fazi sits in an air conditioned cafe in Rome. Fazi fiddles while Italy burns. Fazi is able to enjoy cafe life because of air conditioning, but most of residential Europe doesn’t have air conditioning, and should there be a blackout hundreds of people will die, as others died in the last heat wave in Paris. Heatwaves are now the new norm for a large swath of the globe. Air conditioning and refrigeration are what make an otherwise uninhabitable planet habitable. However, they emit hydrofluorocarbons which contribute to global warming………. and so on and so on.
Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Fazi sits in an air conditioned cafe in Rome. Fazi fiddles while Italy burns. Fazi is able to enjoy cafe life because of air conditioning, but most of residential Europe doesn’t have air conditioning, and should there be a blackout hundreds of people will die, as others died in the last heat wave in Paris. Heatwaves are now the new norm for a large swath of the globe. Air conditioning and refrigeration are what make an otherwise uninhabitable planet habitable. However, they emit hydrofluorocarbons which contribute to global warming………. and so on and so on.
Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
The sad thing is that some intelligent, thoughtful couples are choosing not to bring children into this world, but the religious fanatics will continue to produce litters of babies.
Clare Knight
9 months ago
The sad thing is that some intelligent, thoughtful couples are choosing not to bring children into this world, but the religious fanatics will continue to produce litters of babies.
Laura Pritchard
9 months ago
I very much agree with the belief that mass climate hysteria isn’t helping anyone but I don’t think you can criticise apocalyptic climate models by just quoting other models which suit your alternative narrative. Also, I think the people who want to ‘save the planet’ often aren’t thinking primarily about saving humans first and foremost. No judgement either way but I think the argument that climate resilience has a better outcome just doesn’t address the fears of mass extinction of other life on this planet. It might but you have to see the picture in the round. Meanwhile, yes, Italy and other Mediterranean countries are just doing their thing in their usual hottest period. The climate change editorial policy of many media outlets is utterly transparent.
Laura Pritchard
9 months ago
I very much agree with the belief that mass climate hysteria isn’t helping anyone but I don’t think you can criticise apocalyptic climate models by just quoting other models which suit your alternative narrative. Also, I think the people who want to ‘save the planet’ often aren’t thinking primarily about saving humans first and foremost. No judgement either way but I think the argument that climate resilience has a better outcome just doesn’t address the fears of mass extinction of other life on this planet. It might but you have to see the picture in the round. Meanwhile, yes, Italy and other Mediterranean countries are just doing their thing in their usual hottest period. The climate change editorial policy of many media outlets is utterly transparent.
Frank McCusker
9 months ago
Ah, such touching concern about the poor of the world.
This article in 3 sentences.
We mustn’t be unfair to the poor, who should be allowed to pollute too.Even if we do something, it won’t have much effect.Very important not to get excited – better to do nothing. ————————
The author ignores one of the central truths of change management: never waste a crisis.
If you went into a company board room, with a plan to change the company IT system, and prefaced your plan by saying that the current IT system was generally OK and there was no urgent need for change, then your chance of getting your change plan agreed to or funded are nil.
Saying we need to do something even though everything is largely fine is not how things work.
Frank McCusker
9 months ago
Ah, such touching concern about the poor of the world.
This article in 3 sentences.
We mustn’t be unfair to the poor, who should be allowed to pollute too.Even if we do something, it won’t have much effect.Very important not to get excited – better to do nothing. ————————
The author ignores one of the central truths of change management: never waste a crisis.
If you went into a company board room, with a plan to change the company IT system, and prefaced your plan by saying that the current IT system was generally OK and there was no urgent need for change, then your chance of getting your change plan agreed to or funded are nil.
Saying we need to do something even though everything is largely fine is not how things work.
Aidan Anabetting
9 months ago
Some good points here but Mr. Fazi underestimates climate change as a contributing factor in increased poverty in parts of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa. It’s not a simple choice of poverty reduction or CO2 reduction. They are increasingly interconnected..
Changes in poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa is more complex and climate change is not an obvious contributing factor (absolute poverty globally continues to diminish even as global temperatures increase).
For Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank reports a modest decline in absolute poverty comparing 2000-2009 to 2010-2019 with a long-term downwards trend, but then saw a reversal during the time of Covid, with current inflationary pressures worldwide having a negative impact on those in the poorest communities in Africa. Rising fuel and fertilizer costs will be more important negative factors than climate issues. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/News/Seminars/2022/high-level-policy-dialogue-on-inequality/Presentations/English/gabriela-inchauste-inequality-in-ssa-eng.ashx
That’s what I said, but perhaps I phrased it badly – though prosperous is a difficult word to use when absolute poverty is still at rates above 35% in Sub Saharan Africa, and suffering more because of the fuel and food inflation that is affecting everyone worldwide.
That’s what I said, but perhaps I phrased it badly – though prosperous is a difficult word to use when absolute poverty is still at rates above 35% in Sub Saharan Africa, and suffering more because of the fuel and food inflation that is affecting everyone worldwide.
Changes in poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa is more complex and climate change is not an obvious contributing factor (absolute poverty globally continues to diminish even as global temperatures increase).
For Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank reports a modest decline in absolute poverty comparing 2000-2009 to 2010-2019 with a long-term downwards trend, but then saw a reversal during the time of Covid, with current inflationary pressures worldwide having a negative impact on those in the poorest communities in Africa. Rising fuel and fertilizer costs will be more important negative factors than climate issues. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/News/Seminars/2022/high-level-policy-dialogue-on-inequality/Presentations/English/gabriela-inchauste-inequality-in-ssa-eng.ashx
How exactly? Show me an impoverished country that has been caused by climate change.
Aidan Anabetting
9 months ago
Some good points here but Mr. Fazi underestimates climate change as a contributing factor in increased poverty in parts of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa. It’s not a simple choice of poverty reduction or CO2 reduction. They are increasingly interconnected..
Doug Mccaully
9 months ago
He’s just manufactured a quarrel that isn’t taking place, at least not in the mainstream. Curb fossil fuel use and help people out of poverty and mitigate the effects of heating, drought and flooding. We know life on earth isn’t going to end, but mass migration and global instability will hugely increase unless we do something about it. Another Fazi special.
Mass migration will increase because of flooding?
Should people in low-lying countries like the Netherlands and East Anglia migrate to higher countries like Afghanistan and Rwanda?
Probably not, no- for several obvious reasons.
But if the Netherlands are inundated, the population will have to go somewhere- why you think it should be Rwanda, I have no idea. I’m sure you’ve carefully thought this through.
More to the point, the population of Pakistan will have to find somewhere before that. Where do you suggest- East Anglia?
So what, exactly, was your point?
Probably not, no- for several obvious reasons.
But if the Netherlands are inundated, the population will have to go somewhere- why you think it should be Rwanda, I have no idea. I’m sure you’ve carefully thought this through.
More to the point, the population of Pakistan will have to find somewhere before that. Where do you suggest- East Anglia?
So what, exactly, was your point?
What mass migration in the last 30 years has been caused by climate change? Is it even possible to identify a single crop that has experienced negative yield growth?
Water will be the first big issue. Our populations are based on the previous few centuries of water availability. This is changing rapidly (note; the last “thirty years” isn’t a useful guide to rapid change, funnily enough).
Water should not be an issue for any country in the world. Desalination is a well understood technology. I would argue that draining the water table in the US is a bigger, more looming issue than climate change.
Of course not. I actually have no issue with reducing CO2. What we are doing today is an incoherent waste of tax dollars that will make everyone poorer. If the west was building a fleet of nuclear power plants, I would be perfectly happy with that. But we’re not doing that. We’re wasting money on unreliable and intermittent wind and solar.
Of course not. I actually have no issue with reducing CO2. What we are doing today is an incoherent waste of tax dollars that will make everyone poorer. If the west was building a fleet of nuclear power plants, I would be perfectly happy with that. But we’re not doing that. We’re wasting money on unreliable and intermittent wind and solar.
Water should not be an issue for any country in the world. Desalination is a well understood technology. I would argue that draining the water table in the US is a bigger, more looming issue than climate change.
Water will be the first big issue. Our populations are based on the previous few centuries of water availability. This is changing rapidly (note; the last “thirty years” isn’t a useful guide to rapid change, funnily enough).
Mass migration will increase because of flooding?
Should people in low-lying countries like the Netherlands and East Anglia migrate to higher countries like Afghanistan and Rwanda?
What mass migration in the last 30 years has been caused by climate change? Is it even possible to identify a single crop that has experienced negative yield growth?
Doug Mccaully
9 months ago
He’s just manufactured a quarrel that isn’t taking place, at least not in the mainstream. Curb fossil fuel use and help people out of poverty and mitigate the effects of heating, drought and flooding. We know life on earth isn’t going to end, but mass migration and global instability will hugely increase unless we do something about it. Another Fazi special.
Stephan Harrison
9 months ago
To all the sceptics here….you are wrong. Climate change isn’t a hoax. Consider the people who have most to lose from climate change commercially. These include the big oil companies who are exposed to fossil fuels as stranded assets and Middle Eastern countries whose enormouth wealth depends on fossil fuels. If it was a hoax then you would think that these groups and contries would be eager to demonstrate this wouldn’t you? They could employ thousands of scientists to do this, and create their own universities to show that climate change was a scam.
I wonder why they haven’t done this? Indeed, the Saudi crown prince recently said “As a leading global oil producer, we are fully aware of our responsibility in advancing the fight against the climate crisis…”
Funny sort of hoax!
Why do fossil fuel
Producers need to do any of this? Consumption hasn’t dropped at all in the last 20 years. It still accounts for 82% of all energy production?
Whilst some people think climate change is a hoax, most people don’t – even on this site. And there are plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria. You just never hear from them in the regime media.
So far on this comment site, the “plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria” have been a standard regurgitation of same small handful of fringe, political ranters that have been thrown up since the ’90’s. Mostly Free-market political campaigners and religious fundamentalists; the idiotic trope, of course, is to promote a few scientific outliers as “real scientists”, as opposed to “so-called (Marxist) scientists” without the slightest attempt to define or scientifically justify why these few heroes of the ‘net are right, and the vast majority of scientists are wrong.
To do this, of course, would require some genuine scientific understanding. This isn’t something the Unherd herd are either interested in, or capable of.
I hope you are right that the hoaxers are not a majority here. Outright denial posts instantly garner a lot of upvotes though. You don’t engage with the documentation that shows oil companies spending millions on pseudo-scientific propaganda and spin campaigns. Look at ExxonMobil in particular. Without their lawyering-up and clouding of the data, there would be stronger eco-protective rules and fossil-fuel consumption would be much lower, at least in proportional terms.
So far on this comment site, the “plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria” have been a standard regurgitation of same small handful of fringe, political ranters that have been thrown up since the ’90’s. Mostly Free-market political campaigners and religious fundamentalists; the idiotic trope, of course, is to promote a few scientific outliers as “real scientists”, as opposed to “so-called (Marxist) scientists” without the slightest attempt to define or scientifically justify why these few heroes of the ‘net are right, and the vast majority of scientists are wrong.
To do this, of course, would require some genuine scientific understanding. This isn’t something the Unherd herd are either interested in, or capable of.
I hope you are right that the hoaxers are not a majority here. Outright denial posts instantly garner a lot of upvotes though. You don’t engage with the documentation that shows oil companies spending millions on pseudo-scientific propaganda and spin campaigns. Look at ExxonMobil in particular. Without their lawyering-up and clouding of the data, there would be stronger eco-protective rules and fossil-fuel consumption would be much lower, at least in proportional terms.
Why do fossil fuel
Producers need to do any of this? Consumption hasn’t dropped at all in the last 20 years. It still accounts for 82% of all energy production?
Whilst some people think climate change is a hoax, most people don’t – even on this site. And there are plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria. You just never hear from them in the regime media.
To all the sceptics here….you are wrong. Climate change isn’t a hoax. Consider the people who have most to lose from climate change commercially. These include the big oil companies who are exposed to fossil fuels as stranded assets and Middle Eastern countries whose enormouth wealth depends on fossil fuels. If it was a hoax then you would think that these groups and contries would be eager to demonstrate this wouldn’t you? They could employ thousands of scientists to do this, and create their own universities to show that climate change was a scam.
I wonder why they haven’t done this? Indeed, the Saudi crown prince recently said “As a leading global oil producer, we are fully aware of our responsibility in advancing the fight against the climate crisis…”
Funny sort of hoax!
Fred Oakley
9 months ago
Placid drivel.
Fred Oakley
9 months ago
Placid drivel.
R H van der Gaag
9 months ago
The first thing that should be done now is solar radiation modification (SRM; mitigation would be a better term). The thermostat is right there; we can turn down the heat for a few billion euros a year, making far costlier adaptations unnecessary. The effect will be felt short term. Yes, there are risks, but they are worth taking. Read up on it. Eventually, this will be done, anyway, because all other measures, both of the adaptive and the reducing emissions type, will yield results too slowly. It is better to do this now and save millions of lives and trillions of euros. Needless to say, we should still reduce emissions even when routinely spraying the stratosphere with salt crystals or chalk particles. SRM will buy us time to do so.
The first thing that should be done now is solar radiation modification (SRM; mitigation would be a better term). The thermostat is right there; we can turn down the heat for a few billion euros a year, making far costlier adaptations unnecessary. The effect will be felt short term. Yes, there are risks, but they are worth taking. Read up on it. Eventually, this will be done, anyway, because all other measures, both of the adaptive and the reducing emissions type, will yield results too slowly. It is better to do this now and save millions of lives and trillions of euros. Needless to say, we should still reduce emissions even when routinely spraying the stratosphere with salt crystals or chalk particles. SRM will buy us time to do so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t forget the Irish ranchers and the 200,000 cattle that will be culled to ‘fight global warming.’
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?
Maybe it’s because you took it out of context? I suspect the policy is to reduce over production and promote sustainable consumption.
I suspect you have no idea what the ideological nonsense you regurtitate will mean for future generations living under communist tyranny.
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.
Yes amusing is it not? Infinite growth … or commie tyranny! Which will it be? My Humvee is a bulwark against Marxism!
.
Yes amusing is it not? Infinite growth … or commie tyranny! Which will it be? My Humvee is a bulwark against Marxism!
.
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.
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.
You mean “eat bugs”, don’t you?
I suspect you have no idea what the ideological nonsense you regurtitate will mean for future generations living under communist tyranny.
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.
You mean “eat bugs”, don’t you?
Maybe it’s because you took it out of context? I suspect the policy is to reduce over production and promote sustainable consumption.
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!
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?
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!
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.
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.
“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
Spot on. And you cannot repeat it enough – everything goes back to there: a utopian fallacy.
Spot on. And you cannot repeat it enough – everything goes back to there: a utopian fallacy.
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.
“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
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.
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.
“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.
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 . . .
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.
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?
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?
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.
Yes, regardless of anything else, sea level rise is upon us. Low lying populations will be on the move. THAT will be the problem.
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.
And that is happening very fast.
The faster the better.
Why? Why do you say that, Charles?
He calls it “Darwinian realism”.
He calls it “Darwinian realism”.
Why? Why do you say that, Charles?
The faster the better.
Could ‘the problem’ perhaps just be that there are a few billion too many of us?
And that is happening very fast.
Could ‘the problem’ perhaps just be that there are a few billion too many of us?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
Yes, regardless of anything else, sea level rise is upon us. Low lying populations will be on the move. THAT will be the problem.
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.
“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.
“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?
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’
“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?
For balance, and a bit of light relief from reading, you might kick back and watch some of David Attenborough’smost recent documentaries.
“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?
For balance, and a bit of light relief from reading, you might kick back and watch some of David Attenborough’smost recent documentaries.
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.
He’s not being open minded, so he won’t.
Now, now don’t project.
Now, now don’t project.
Lomborg is a politician funded by the sceptic industry.
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).
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.
Oh yeah? Name some of these “most people”, please.
Oh yeah? Name some of these “most people”, please.
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.
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.
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).
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.
He’s not being open minded, so he won’t.
Lomborg is a politician funded by the sceptic industry.
Covid, Covid, Covid and Covid
We need to start calling it Wuhan Flu, because it offends the woke scum.
We need to start calling it Wuhan Flu, because it offends the woke scum.
“Right-wing group think clichés”
And there’s no better cliché than that. Clown.
“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.
I’m going to junk all my perjoratives and just use “Marxist” for everything I don’t like.
At least he capitalised “Deniers”
At least he capitalised “Deniers”
I’m going to junk all my perjoratives and just use “Marxist” for everything I don’t like.
Can you not disagree without name calling? It reflects badly on you.
“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.
Can you not disagree without name calling? It reflects badly on you.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
At 65 hPa they’d be corrrect.
At 65 hPa they’d be corrrect.
“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)
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.
The best comment today, although Mr Mathew Powell seems to disagree with you.
The best comment today, although Mr Mathew Powell seems to disagree with you.
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’
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.
Covid, Covid, Covid and Covid
“Right-wing group think clichés”
And there’s no better cliché than that. Clown.
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.
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?
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?
“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)
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.
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.
Possibly. My own view is that appeasement doesn’t work.
Rational thought?? In the year 2023? In the post-Covid world? You must be a romantic.
Possibly. My own view is that appeasement doesn’t work.
Rational thought?? In the year 2023? In the post-Covid world? You must be a romantic.
You missed a good article then…
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.
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.
Alternatively it is a cynical bit of opportunism by those with a vested financial interest
That too, of course.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/a-journey-of-a-thousand-miles
That too, of course.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/a-journey-of-a-thousand-miles
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.
Content-free ad hominem drivel doesn’t really substitute for having the slightest grasp of the subject, sadly.
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.
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.
Strange, I upvoted your comment but the counter then moved to ‘-2’. Glitch in the matrix?
No, just the app or website updating other votes alongside yours.
No, just the app or website updating other votes alongside yours.
Welcome back ‘Thorax’!
So you have metamorphosed from an ART bluffer to Scientist. This should be fun.
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….
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….
Content-free ad hominem drivel doesn’t really substitute for having the slightest grasp of the subject, sadly.
Strange, I upvoted your comment but the counter then moved to ‘-2’. Glitch in the matrix?
Welcome back ‘Thorax’!
So you have metamorphosed from an ART bluffer to Scientist. This should be fun.
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.
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.
Greta: Our house is on fire!
The Earth’s mantle: Oh you don’t say?
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!!
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!!
It must have been a bit like this when the Roman Empire (fatally) adopted Christianity in the fourth century, as ‘they’ call it.
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.
Greta: Our house is on fire!
The Earth’s mantle: Oh you don’t say?
It must have been a bit like this when the Roman Empire (fatally) adopted Christianity in the fourth century, as ‘they’ call it.
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.
Hilarious!!
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!
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”?
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.
Perhaps he’d be better to emigrate to Threads instead, the Zuck will make him feel even cozier there than on Twitter!
Perhaps he’d be better to emigrate to Threads instead, the Zuck will make him feel even cozier there than on Twitter!
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!
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.
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!
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”?
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!
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….
So you’re implying that geologists & volcanologists ain’t no actual scientists? Enlightening indeed, I really need to ponder that now!
So you’re implying that geologists & volcanologists ain’t no actual scientists? Enlightening indeed, I really need to ponder that now!
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.
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!
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!
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.
Hilarious!!
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….
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.)
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….
Speak for yourself Thorax.
Speak for yourself Thorax.
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….
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.)
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.
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.
“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?
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.
You missed a good article then…
Alternatively it is a cynical bit of opportunism by those with a vested financial interest
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Dutch farmers, Canadian truckers, and American MAGAs” — the new fascists.
The ruling elite will, as they always do, simply charge the spots an latch onto the next big thing.
Absolutely. Please see the link in my previous response.
Absolutely. Please see the link in my previous response.
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.
Don’t forget the Irish ranchers and the 200,000 cattle that will be culled to ‘fight global warming.’
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.
“Dutch farmers, Canadian truckers, and American MAGAs” — the new fascists.
The ruling elite will, as they always do, simply charge the spots an latch onto the next big thing.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
“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.
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?
But climate change is a hoax, so it doesn’t matter what China does.
Quite so. But the libs can’t even argue successfully from their own premises.
Quite so. But the libs can’t even argue successfully from their own premises.
But climate change is a hoax, so it doesn’t matter what China does.
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?
“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.
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!
“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.
“Prepare to repel boarders”!
It’s all good, surely Ray.
“Whitey” spread across the globe before- Africa, America, Australia- so what comes around, goes around.
“Prepare to repel boarders”!
It’s all good, surely Ray.
“Whitey” spread across the globe before- Africa, America, Australia- so what comes around, goes around.
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.
“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.
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!
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.
I don’t always agree with Thomas Fazi, but here is is absolutely spot on, without becoming someone completely in denial about the obvious fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind is pushing more of it into the atmosphere. Climate change is a problem, but far from the worst we have to face up to. (And, there will always BE such problems – we are never going to live in a technical or any other type of utopia).
“Renewable” energy has major environmental problems of its own, notably the need to mine vastly greater volumes of metal than we now do (but mainly of course, rock!). Meanwhile American and European environmentalists try to get mining banned or heavily circumscribed! You couldn’t make it up. These people are like children “we don’t like it” and mostly have no serious solutions to offer
What is truly idiotic is that the measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the West will have scarcely any bearing on temperatures or any other climate metric, while being extremely costly.
Nonsense – what renewable energy involves mining? Perhaps you’re confusing batteries with renewable energy?
I think he means the rare earths used to create the magnets for wind turbines.
Solar panels require rare earth materials.
…and children to mine them.
…and children to mine them.
“Nonsense”….he says!
Apparently without a clue about how solar panels are made. Perhaps you are confusing fact with opinion?
Good lord! Please tell me you blurted that out before actually thinking? I spit out my coffee due to this comment!
I think he means the rare earths used to create the magnets for wind turbines.
Solar panels require rare earth materials.
“Nonsense”….he says!
Apparently without a clue about how solar panels are made. Perhaps you are confusing fact with opinion?
Good lord! Please tell me you blurted that out before actually thinking? I spit out my coffee due to this comment!
Nonsense – what renewable energy involves mining? Perhaps you’re confusing batteries with renewable energy?
I don’t always agree with Thomas Fazi, but here is is absolutely spot on, without becoming someone completely in denial about the obvious fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and mankind is pushing more of it into the atmosphere. Climate change is a problem, but far from the worst we have to face up to. (And, there will always BE such problems – we are never going to live in a technical or any other type of utopia).
“Renewable” energy has major environmental problems of its own, notably the need to mine vastly greater volumes of metal than we now do (but mainly of course, rock!). Meanwhile American and European environmentalists try to get mining banned or heavily circumscribed! You couldn’t make it up. These people are like children “we don’t like it” and mostly have no serious solutions to offer
What is truly idiotic is that the measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the West will have scarcely any bearing on temperatures or any other climate metric, while being extremely costly.
Well, it’s just common sense, really.
Climate hysteria, though, is not just about the climate. When an intelligent citizen with time and the Internet can be more knowledgeable than ‘the people who know best’ then the form of oligarchy that we know as ‘representative democracy’ ceases to be workable, and the only way that a supposedly ‘cognitive’ elite can maintain its power and privilege is through increasingly authoritarian modes of rule. ‘Climate change’ provides the perfect pretext.
It seems there is a consensus among commentators here that this is all just a hoax to distract people. I hope you are right but don’t really see it like that. I hope to provide a little different perspective as should be the Unherd way.
Governments you accuse are actually doing very little on the topic, mostly talk. Long terms goals generally don’t fit with short election cycles. World is actually producing more and more emissions, not less, so you are on the winning side.
The idea that anyone with internet access can be more knowledgeable on the topic then people working on it their whole life is a naïve delusion.
This whole thing with climate warming has been predicted in early 20th century, it became clear by 70s. And was sidelined famously by Reagan, where we probably missed our real chance for change. There are clear mechanisms, measurements, physics and chemistry behind it. There is no serious academic dispute there.
Idea of protecting the poor is cynical, as this has mostly been done by developed nations, cumulatively since the industrial revolution, and poor will likely be most affected.
Weather the impact is more annoying or cataclysmic remains to be seen. I think we are playing with feedback loops which can get things out of control – less ice means less reflection and more heat absorption by water and land, which leads to less ice etc. Similar with permafrost and methane trapped there. Warmer air can hold more moisture again increasing temperatures etc.
On top of all that we have all the pollution and biodiversity loss, this happening in parallel can lead to a lot of very unpleasant scenarios.
Again, I hope all the smart and independent thinkers here are correct, I really do, no big deal, and we keep going. Looks like we’ll find out.
Did you have anything to say about the facts of CO2 and the atmosphere, or is physics a conspiracy?
It seems there is a consensus among commentators here that this is all just a hoax to distract people. I hope you are right but don’t really see it like that. I hope to provide a little different perspective as should be the Unherd way.
Governments you accuse are actually doing very little on the topic, mostly talk. Long terms goals generally don’t fit with short election cycles. World is actually producing more and more emissions, not less, so you are on the winning side.
The idea that anyone with internet access can be more knowledgeable on the topic then people working on it their whole life is a naïve delusion.
This whole thing with climate warming has been predicted in early 20th century, it became clear by 70s. And was sidelined famously by Reagan, where we probably missed our real chance for change. There are clear mechanisms, measurements, physics and chemistry behind it. There is no serious academic dispute there.
Idea of protecting the poor is cynical, as this has mostly been done by developed nations, cumulatively since the industrial revolution, and poor will likely be most affected.
Weather the impact is more annoying or cataclysmic remains to be seen. I think we are playing with feedback loops which can get things out of control – less ice means less reflection and more heat absorption by water and land, which leads to less ice etc. Similar with permafrost and methane trapped there. Warmer air can hold more moisture again increasing temperatures etc.
On top of all that we have all the pollution and biodiversity loss, this happening in parallel can lead to a lot of very unpleasant scenarios.
Again, I hope all the smart and independent thinkers here are correct, I really do, no big deal, and we keep going. Looks like we’ll find out.
Did you have anything to say about the facts of CO2 and the atmosphere, or is physics a conspiracy?
Well, it’s just common sense, really.
Climate hysteria, though, is not just about the climate. When an intelligent citizen with time and the Internet can be more knowledgeable than ‘the people who know best’ then the form of oligarchy that we know as ‘representative democracy’ ceases to be workable, and the only way that a supposedly ‘cognitive’ elite can maintain its power and privilege is through increasingly authoritarian modes of rule. ‘Climate change’ provides the perfect pretext.
I think Konstantin Kisin’s Oxford Union speech summed it up best. The people of Asia, Africa and Latin America are going to be shaping global decision making in the future and because most of them poor, they don’t give a damn about climate change. We need better and smarter technology for cleaner energy and to adapt as the author says, not to impoverish ourselves.
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed that these maps of Europe have anywhere between 25 and 40 Celsius as a dark shade of red? Can’t imagine why that is…
I think Konstantin Kisin’s Oxford Union speech summed it up best. The people of Asia, Africa and Latin America are going to be shaping global decision making in the future and because most of them poor, they don’t give a damn about climate change. We need better and smarter technology for cleaner energy and to adapt as the author says, not to impoverish ourselves.
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed that these maps of Europe have anywhere between 25 and 40 Celsius as a dark shade of red? Can’t imagine why that is…
Quite so. 50 years ago we were all harangued about the coming ice age. That hysteria was soon debunked – but the hysteria about a heat age is proving more difficult to discuss reasonably.
Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’. This is a one way ratchet which ought to be depreciated because it masks the objective truth with a fashionable social truth. And there are people and organisations who benefit from proclaiming a fashionable social truth.
“Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’.”
Yes, the U.S. mainstream media has been quick to highlight droughts in CA as evidence of disastrous climate change. The near record level of Sierra Nevada snowfall this year has barely been mentioned, nor the diminished drought conditions. This weather advantageous reporting has been occuring for years.
Yes yes yes.
Let’s have some news stories about low temperatures. Facts are Marxist. Let’s have some anti-Marxist stories about freak average temperatures, excessively average rainfall.
I’m sick of so-called “statistics” telling me what is happening regardless of my political views- I want to be told only want I agree with. THAT is facts.
“I want to be told only want I agree with”.
Come on Thorax!
“I want to be told only want I agree with”.
Come on Thorax!
“Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’.”
Yes, the U.S. mainstream media has been quick to highlight droughts in CA as evidence of disastrous climate change. The near record level of Sierra Nevada snowfall this year has barely been mentioned, nor the diminished drought conditions. This weather advantageous reporting has been occuring for years.
Yes yes yes.
Let’s have some news stories about low temperatures. Facts are Marxist. Let’s have some anti-Marxist stories about freak average temperatures, excessively average rainfall.
I’m sick of so-called “statistics” telling me what is happening regardless of my political views- I want to be told only want I agree with. THAT is facts.
Quite so. 50 years ago we were all harangued about the coming ice age. That hysteria was soon debunked – but the hysteria about a heat age is proving more difficult to discuss reasonably.
Every bit of news about ‘the weather’ is only reported if it (somehow) supports ‘the climate change’. This is a one way ratchet which ought to be depreciated because it masks the objective truth with a fashionable social truth. And there are people and organisations who benefit from proclaiming a fashionable social truth.
I am sorry, I had to stop reading at “Yes, climate change and global warming are real — and yes, they are largely a result of human activity”
I felt the same as the last bit “largely as a result of human activity” is significantly contested.
.
That undermined what was otherwise a sensible article.
Yeah, you’re sorry lol.
Because you’re a scientist, I assume? I don’t really know what’s going on about climate, truth be told. How do you get to be so convinced?
You see, I’m always wary of “people with answers”, convinced people, people who preach at me about how they and they alone have the answers.
So you’re 100% right about climate and there is no debate and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Is that what you’re saying?
What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol
God save us from secular preacher men, tiny brains and big mouths, atop their little secular soapboxes.
Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?
Why would you expect people to read further into your comment after the expression “lol” ?
.
I did persevere, but you added nothing that contributed to this discussion.
“What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol”
Well, at least the gentleman is the first to proclaim that his mind is now closed. He is no longer going to permit himself to be confused by facts or contrary views. And he’s honest about that.
Frank, if you really don’t understand that our planet has been in existence for approximately 4.5 billion years and that all during that enormous amount of time the climate has changed dramatically, with several cycles from ice ages to super heated and back again, then you should perhaps chose another topic to blather on about. For the love of God, please do some research, man.
We all know that, dear. Seriously, everyone actually bares that in mind- it’s really quite well-know amongst “so-called scientists”. Human industrial civilisation didn’t, and arguably couldn’t have, existed in the Carboniferous Period. Do keep up.
Well done for looking up the age of the planet, though- even if that means blindly accepting the word of a bunch of Marxist “so-called scientists” who know nothing. I heard the Earth is only 6000 years old.
We all know that, dear. Seriously, everyone actually bares that in mind- it’s really quite well-know amongst “so-called scientists”. Human industrial civilisation didn’t, and arguably couldn’t have, existed in the Carboniferous Period. Do keep up.
Well done for looking up the age of the planet, though- even if that means blindly accepting the word of a bunch of Marxist “so-called scientists” who know nothing. I heard the Earth is only 6000 years old.
“Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?”
In a word, no. The Unherd commentariat is an echo-chamber of group-think kneejerk self-applause, so comically opposed to the supposed ‘ethos’ of the blogsite’s ‘freethinking’ agenda that it seems almost deliberately parodic.
Just to illustrate this, this comment, like yours, will be ‘downvoted’ multiple times, and various blowhards will line up to ‘savage’ me for not conforming to the standard, brainlessly accepted Unherd politically-correct position. Funny, in a way.
Then why do you bother to contribute Thorax?
Allowing for the fact you are a rather obvious male hysteric, why not return to your comfort zone, Twitter? You will be much happier there.
Then why do you bother to contribute Thorax?
Allowing for the fact you are a rather obvious male hysteric, why not return to your comfort zone, Twitter? You will be much happier there.
Why would you expect people to read further into your comment after the expression “lol” ?
.
I did persevere, but you added nothing that contributed to this discussion.
“What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol”
Well, at least the gentleman is the first to proclaim that his mind is now closed. He is no longer going to permit himself to be confused by facts or contrary views. And he’s honest about that.
Frank, if you really don’t understand that our planet has been in existence for approximately 4.5 billion years and that all during that enormous amount of time the climate has changed dramatically, with several cycles from ice ages to super heated and back again, then you should perhaps chose another topic to blather on about. For the love of God, please do some research, man.
“Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?”
In a word, no. The Unherd commentariat is an echo-chamber of group-think kneejerk self-applause, so comically opposed to the supposed ‘ethos’ of the blogsite’s ‘freethinking’ agenda that it seems almost deliberately parodic.
Just to illustrate this, this comment, like yours, will be ‘downvoted’ multiple times, and various blowhards will line up to ‘savage’ me for not conforming to the standard, brainlessly accepted Unherd politically-correct position. Funny, in a way.
You had to stop reading. Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
This comment also contributes nothing …
“This comment also contributes nothing …”
I disagree. Almost nobody here is a scientist — we all are expressing — to be honest — our political loyalties. The one bit of work we might accomplish is to understand ourselves — that almost nobody here gives a damn about objective science and as Orlando so bravely proclaims, contrary views will not be read.
Even now the right proclaims itself to be on the side of sanity but IMHO what we see above demonstrates that the right is now as insane as the left. Both camps are full of walking-dead zombies.
Thankyou.
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The level of blind scientific cluelessness exhibited here, in the cause of ideological ‘correctness’, is grotesque.
It’s amusing to read as a study of the myopic tunnel-vision of the internet, but it really is depressing if you take it remotely seriously.
Stop being so pompous Thorax, your ‘scientific’ input to this discussion has been net zero.
All you seem to contribute is bile and sarcasm, surely you can do better than that?
ps. Stop flagging everything you disapprove of! And have your ‘hissy’ fit elsewhere.
Don’t get your knickers in a twist, Charlie.
Don’t get your knickers in a twist, Charlie.
Stop being so pompous Thorax, your ‘scientific’ input to this discussion has been net zero.
All you seem to contribute is bile and sarcasm, surely you can do better than that?
ps. Stop flagging everything you disapprove of! And have your ‘hissy’ fit elsewhere.
Thankyou.
You are, of course, absolutely correct. The level of blind scientific cluelessness exhibited here, in the cause of ideological ‘correctness’, is grotesque.
It’s amusing to read as a study of the myopic tunnel-vision of the internet, but it really is depressing if you take it remotely seriously.
“This comment also contributes nothing …”
I disagree. Almost nobody here is a scientist — we all are expressing — to be honest — our political loyalties. The one bit of work we might accomplish is to understand ourselves — that almost nobody here gives a damn about objective science and as Orlando so bravely proclaims, contrary views will not be read.
Even now the right proclaims itself to be on the side of sanity but IMHO what we see above demonstrates that the right is now as insane as the left. Both camps are full of walking-dead zombies.
This comment also contributes nothing …
Here here.
I had to stop reading at anything that in any way confused me or contradicted my clueless, scientifically illiterate assumptions. Enough of this so-called ‘information’. I want any tripe that confirms my ignorance.
Thankyou.
I felt the same as the last bit “largely as a result of human activity” is significantly contested.
.
That undermined what was otherwise a sensible article.
Yeah, you’re sorry lol.
Because you’re a scientist, I assume? I don’t really know what’s going on about climate, truth be told. How do you get to be so convinced?
You see, I’m always wary of “people with answers”, convinced people, people who preach at me about how they and they alone have the answers.
So you’re 100% right about climate and there is no debate and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Is that what you’re saying?
What other conclusion can be drawn from someone who admits they “stop reading” anything of which they disapprove lol
God save us from secular preacher men, tiny brains and big mouths, atop their little secular soapboxes.
Is there one damned Unherd commenter who doesn’t follow the Unherd herd?
You had to stop reading. Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Here here.
I had to stop reading at anything that in any way confused me or contradicted my clueless, scientifically illiterate assumptions. Enough of this so-called ‘information’. I want any tripe that confirms my ignorance.
Thankyou.
I am sorry, I had to stop reading at “Yes, climate change and global warming are real — and yes, they are largely a result of human activity”
I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity. 1) CO2 is much lower than for more than 99% of the time life has existed on earth including some extremely cold glacial periods. 2) My understanding is that 400ppm CO2 and even 800ppm CO2 will cause very little extra greenhouse effect due to it still being only a trace gas in the atmosphere (currently 4% of the gas Argon in the atmosphere) and also that experiments show the greenhouse effect due to CO2 is already largely saturated at current levels.3) CO2 historically has lagged temperature change not the other way around due to the oceans emitting CO2 as they heat up and absorbing CO2 as they cool down. 4) We are still coming out of The Maunder Minimum “little Ice Age” of circa 1500-1750. It is still cooler now than it was around 1200 AD and again during Roman times, not to mention the Holocene Maximum around 10,000 years ago. This is a totalitarian government attempt for rule by technocrats being pushed to scare the population into welcoming dictatorship. “Please clever people save us.”
Great points, to be totally ignored by those in their bubble.
They aren’t “great points”, they are they usual scientifically-illiterate drivel, cut and pasted unquestioningly from the standard ideological internet blogs from the last twenty years. Every “point`’ has been relentlessly regurgitated and debunked for half of my life.
This is a bubble-site, where anyone stating these half-baked cliches is rewarded with an inevitable string of scientifically clueless applauding echoes, as if some random twerp on the internet stating their “sciency” views with the unearned confidence of the ranting political internet blagger is somehow superior to a lifetime’s research on the actual subject concerned. It isn’t- its scientifically-arbitrary ideological tripe.
They aren’t “great points”, they are they usual scientifically-illiterate drivel, cut and pasted unquestioningly from the standard ideological internet blogs from the last twenty years. Every “point`’ has been relentlessly regurgitated and debunked for half of my life.
This is a bubble-site, where anyone stating these half-baked cliches is rewarded with an inevitable string of scientifically clueless applauding echoes, as if some random twerp on the internet stating their “sciency” views with the unearned confidence of the ranting political internet blagger is somehow superior to a lifetime’s research on the actual subject concerned. It isn’t- its scientifically-arbitrary ideological tripe.
Completely wrong on each point. 1. Irrelevant to the present issue. 2. Not true and doesn’t understand atmospheric physics and the role of lapse rates. 3. Actually, this shows that CO2 is crucial for driving the carbon cycle! 4. Not true, and shows misunderstanding of the LIA.
You said: “I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity”. Science doesn’t depend on your agreement!
Nor yours …
Ian. The difference is that I have nearly 200 years of atmospheric physics on my side. You?
A whole 200 ?
That’s when the industrial revolution started and the excessive creation of CO2, so it’s a valid point.
Good to have clarity when the IR started. Economuc historians put i5 at 1775 or so. Michael Mann at 1910. . Interestingly, the 1930s a time of depression and deindistrialisati8n, was a warm decade, whereas full industrial deployment during the Second World War, in Europe and the US, accompanied a bitterly cold decade.
Good to have clarity when the IR started. Economuc historians put i5 at 1775 or so. Michael Mann at 1910. . Interestingly, the 1930s a time of depression and deindistrialisati8n, was a warm decade, whereas full industrial deployment during the Second World War, in Europe and the US, accompanied a bitterly cold decade.
I’m talking about when the physics of the atmosphere first began to be understood. By scientists such as Fourier, Tyndall, Foote.
Never heard of them- but bloody Marxists, I’m sure.
Never heard of them- but bloody Marxists, I’m sure.
That’s when the industrial revolution started and the excessive creation of CO2, so it’s a valid point.
I’m talking about when the physics of the atmosphere first began to be understood. By scientists such as Fourier, Tyndall, Foote.
A whole 200 ?
Ian. The difference is that I have nearly 200 years of atmospheric physics on my side. You?
Nor yours …
1) co2 is only one of the forcing agents which affect earths climate and it is rarely the primary one. Comparing previous co2 concentrations to the historic temperature record is pointless unless you also map the other forcing agents at the same time. Currently, none of them have changed drastically, whilst co2 has, making it the prime candidate to be causing the warming.
2) the fact that co2 is a trace gas is irrelevant. A trace amount of cyanide in the human body is fatal. The amount of energy that co2 absorbs conforms with the standard model of particle physics, if it’s wrong, all of physics must be wrong too.
As for saturation, that only happens at concentrations found at ground level. As altitude increases co2 content falls. Since at these lower concentrations co2 is not at saturation point, far from in fact (and this is amplified by the absence of water vapor at higher altitudes) then until all altitudes reach saturation point, and this won’t happen anytime soon, the atmosphere will continue to warm.
3) co2 does often lag temperatures. That’s because it’s frequently not the primary forcing agent. Ice Ages are largely governed by the Milankovitch cycles, the small changes in the earths orbit, but during a warming cycle, co2 further warms the atmosphere in a feed back effect. As the temperature rises, more co2 is release from the ocean and this creates more warming. However, on its own this will not counter act the orbital changes when the enter a cooling cycle, at which point co2 levels start to fall and have a cooling feed back.
We are due another Ice Age based on the current cycles in the earths orbit, though it can’t be precisely dated like the joke in Fr Ted, where the end of the last ice age is dated in the calendar. Typical, one of the lesser forcing agents, such as a large scale volcanic eruption, proves to the tipping point causing the temperature to enter a rapid decline. (Though it should be noted that the rapid rises and falls associated with the start and end of an ice age are 1 to 1.5 degrees every thousand years. We have warmed by 1 degree in around 150 years. Lighting fast in geological terms.)
4) The Maunder Minimum is long past and was probably driven by volcanic eruptions rather than solar activity. The Roman and Medieval Warm periods are well documented but until the 90’s the vast majority of climate research and data were taken from Europe and America and whilst historically it was indeed hotter in both locations, the key is that as global proxies have been taken, there has no evidence found that this warm period was anything other than localised and was most likely caused by global changes heat distribution, driven by ocean currents, heating some areas but cooling others.
Climate proxies are calibrated against accurate modern temperature records and do not just include the infamous Mann hockey stick graph based on tree ring data. Global temperatures, reconstructed from multiple independently verified proxies find that over the last few thousand years normal variation is between 0.2-0.4 degrees, though this can mean several degrees variation in certain localised areas. Much in the same way that the Antarctic is around 4 degrees warmer today, even though global temperatures have only risen 1 degree.
Global warming is real and is driven by the unprecedented rise in co2 , which has not happened in recent our geological history, independent of other forcing agents been the cause.
Either that or thousands of scientists, politicians and business leaders have all decided to collaborate in a giant, self harming conspiracy, (energy transition will not be easy, and will reduce growth in the short to medium term) despite the fact they could have sat back and become far richer from continuing to just use fossil fuels. Which makes the least sense of all.
COVID?
Sadly posting this at approximately 18.30 hours means there will be little if any discussion.
Incidentally what are your qualifications Mr Powell, if that is not too personal a question?
Hooray ! Someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Great summary, incidentally. Bravissimo.
Cut and pasted into my file labelled “countering climate change sceptics”
Elaine were you also a ‘Remainer’ may I ask?
It does seem there is some correlation between COVID advocates and Climate Change enthusiasts. Perhaps this also extends to Remainers?
Was 50:50 early on but voted for decoupling in the end for reasons of sovereignty.
I am allergic to unaccountable bureaucracies.
Likewise, thank you.
Likewise, thank you.
Was 50:50 early on but voted for decoupling in the end for reasons of sovereignty.
I am allergic to unaccountable bureaucracies.
Elaine were you also a ‘Remainer’ may I ask?
It does seem there is some correlation between COVID advocates and Climate Change enthusiasts. Perhaps this also extends to Remainers?
Thank God I can read the entirety of “science” in a confused internet comment- this saves me the difficulty of having to engage in actual scientific papers, which have lots of long words, and enables me to think that I understand something that silly “so-called” scientists are utterly incapable of grasping.
Before the invention of the internet comments page, this was unavailable to absurdly opinionated but largely uneducated people like myself- luckily, I can now read this sort of tripe and feel I know far more than anyone who’s ever actually bothered to study the subject in any depth. Great! Aren’t so-called scientists idiots!
Very lucid comment. I find the relative lack of discussion of the last four episodes of global warming (caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit not CO2 emissions) surprising. Perhaps neither the true believers nor the ultra sceptics find examining the actual record helps their arguments.
One observation is that each of the four rises in temperature hit the buffers not far above current levels. If each rise in temperature was initially accelerated by positive feedback loops then some sort of negative feedback abruptly cut in. No one seems to be clear what the mechanisms were. Something to do with melting Arctic and Greenland icecaps? The suspension of the normal North Atlantic Ocean currents which are central in redistributing heat around the planet? An increase in cirrus cloud cover? A lagged increase in global biomass???
I doubt this alters the 100 year picture much given the strength of the CO2 forcing but it is possible on a 10-20 year view we will see a pause in temperature rises accompanied by some weird and powerful weather/Oceanic effects.
I am not sure this will be any better. We may need to prioritise storm shutters as much as air conditioners.
(I am also known as Alex Carnegie. I have no idea why UnHerd sometimes calls me m3pc7q3ixe).
Thank you for that, Mathew.
COVID?
Sadly posting this at approximately 18.30 hours means there will be little if any discussion.
Incidentally what are your qualifications Mr Powell, if that is not too personal a question?
Hooray ! Someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Great summary, incidentally. Bravissimo.
Cut and pasted into my file labelled “countering climate change sceptics”
Thank God I can read the entirety of “science” in a confused internet comment- this saves me the difficulty of having to engage in actual scientific papers, which have lots of long words, and enables me to think that I understand something that silly “so-called” scientists are utterly incapable of grasping.
Before the invention of the internet comments page, this was unavailable to absurdly opinionated but largely uneducated people like myself- luckily, I can now read this sort of tripe and feel I know far more than anyone who’s ever actually bothered to study the subject in any depth. Great! Aren’t so-called scientists idiots!
Very lucid comment. I find the relative lack of discussion of the last four episodes of global warming (caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit not CO2 emissions) surprising. Perhaps neither the true believers nor the ultra sceptics find examining the actual record helps their arguments.
One observation is that each of the four rises in temperature hit the buffers not far above current levels. If each rise in temperature was initially accelerated by positive feedback loops then some sort of negative feedback abruptly cut in. No one seems to be clear what the mechanisms were. Something to do with melting Arctic and Greenland icecaps? The suspension of the normal North Atlantic Ocean currents which are central in redistributing heat around the planet? An increase in cirrus cloud cover? A lagged increase in global biomass???
I doubt this alters the 100 year picture much given the strength of the CO2 forcing but it is possible on a 10-20 year view we will see a pause in temperature rises accompanied by some weird and powerful weather/Oceanic effects.
I am not sure this will be any better. We may need to prioritise storm shutters as much as air conditioners.
(I am also known as Alex Carnegie. I have no idea why UnHerd sometimes calls me m3pc7q3ixe).
Thank you for that, Mathew.
Great points, to be totally ignored by those in their bubble.
Completely wrong on each point. 1. Irrelevant to the present issue. 2. Not true and doesn’t understand atmospheric physics and the role of lapse rates. 3. Actually, this shows that CO2 is crucial for driving the carbon cycle! 4. Not true, and shows misunderstanding of the LIA.
You said: “I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity”. Science doesn’t depend on your agreement!
1) co2 is only one of the forcing agents which affect earths climate and it is rarely the primary one. Comparing previous co2 concentrations to the historic temperature record is pointless unless you also map the other forcing agents at the same time. Currently, none of them have changed drastically, whilst co2 has, making it the prime candidate to be causing the warming.
2) the fact that co2 is a trace gas is irrelevant. A trace amount of cyanide in the human body is fatal. The amount of energy that co2 absorbs conforms with the standard model of particle physics, if it’s wrong, all of physics must be wrong too.
As for saturation, that only happens at concentrations found at ground level. As altitude increases co2 content falls. Since at these lower concentrations co2 is not at saturation point, far from in fact (and this is amplified by the absence of water vapor at higher altitudes) then until all altitudes reach saturation point, and this won’t happen anytime soon, the atmosphere will continue to warm.
3) co2 does often lag temperatures. That’s because it’s frequently not the primary forcing agent. Ice Ages are largely governed by the Milankovitch cycles, the small changes in the earths orbit, but during a warming cycle, co2 further warms the atmosphere in a feed back effect. As the temperature rises, more co2 is release from the ocean and this creates more warming. However, on its own this will not counter act the orbital changes when the enter a cooling cycle, at which point co2 levels start to fall and have a cooling feed back.
We are due another Ice Age based on the current cycles in the earths orbit, though it can’t be precisely dated like the joke in Fr Ted, where the end of the last ice age is dated in the calendar. Typical, one of the lesser forcing agents, such as a large scale volcanic eruption, proves to the tipping point causing the temperature to enter a rapid decline. (Though it should be noted that the rapid rises and falls associated with the start and end of an ice age are 1 to 1.5 degrees every thousand years. We have warmed by 1 degree in around 150 years. Lighting fast in geological terms.)
4) The Maunder Minimum is long past and was probably driven by volcanic eruptions rather than solar activity. The Roman and Medieval Warm periods are well documented but until the 90’s the vast majority of climate research and data were taken from Europe and America and whilst historically it was indeed hotter in both locations, the key is that as global proxies have been taken, there has no evidence found that this warm period was anything other than localised and was most likely caused by global changes heat distribution, driven by ocean currents, heating some areas but cooling others.
Climate proxies are calibrated against accurate modern temperature records and do not just include the infamous Mann hockey stick graph based on tree ring data. Global temperatures, reconstructed from multiple independently verified proxies find that over the last few thousand years normal variation is between 0.2-0.4 degrees, though this can mean several degrees variation in certain localised areas. Much in the same way that the Antarctic is around 4 degrees warmer today, even though global temperatures have only risen 1 degree.
Global warming is real and is driven by the unprecedented rise in co2 , which has not happened in recent our geological history, independent of other forcing agents been the cause.
Either that or thousands of scientists, politicians and business leaders have all decided to collaborate in a giant, self harming conspiracy, (energy transition will not be easy, and will reduce growth in the short to medium term) despite the fact they could have sat back and become far richer from continuing to just use fossil fuels. Which makes the least sense of all.
I don’t agree that climate change is largely caused by human activity. 1) CO2 is much lower than for more than 99% of the time life has existed on earth including some extremely cold glacial periods. 2) My understanding is that 400ppm CO2 and even 800ppm CO2 will cause very little extra greenhouse effect due to it still being only a trace gas in the atmosphere (currently 4% of the gas Argon in the atmosphere) and also that experiments show the greenhouse effect due to CO2 is already largely saturated at current levels.3) CO2 historically has lagged temperature change not the other way around due to the oceans emitting CO2 as they heat up and absorbing CO2 as they cool down. 4) We are still coming out of The Maunder Minimum “little Ice Age” of circa 1500-1750. It is still cooler now than it was around 1200 AD and again during Roman times, not to mention the Holocene Maximum around 10,000 years ago. This is a totalitarian government attempt for rule by technocrats being pushed to scare the population into welcoming dictatorship. “Please clever people save us.”
This article appears to be little more than a precis of Bjorn Lomborg’s excellent book, “False Alarm.” The book is definitely worth reading as it is completely evidence-based (Lomborg is an eminent climate economist).
However, an important omission from this article is that the enormous subsidies governments are giving renewable companies distract from the fact that most renewables are not only unreliable (wind farms only work when the wind is blowing and the energy the generate cannot be stored effectively for later use) but they also increase the price of energy disproportionately for the poor. There isn’t much point giving poor Italians grants to buy air-conditioners if they can’t afford the electricity to run them. In this sense, embracing renewables too enthusiastically is at odds with necessary adaptation measures.
A climate economist? Intriguing, he actually studied to become a politician. His ‘excellent’ book was funded by well known climate sceptics. Perhaps you should broaden your reading material?
The thing is, in an effort to try to understand what is actually happening, I have read other authors including Tim Jackson and. Michael Mann. Their arguments are superficially compelling, but the books are clearly written with an agenda too. Lomborg’s take just makes more sense to me, even though he doubtless has an agenda.
As for him being an “economist” I’m not sure that it matters what you studied. Surely it’s what you do now that counts.
Broadening one’s reading: have you read Lomborg’s book or do you only read books that support what you already think? I’d be interested to hear what evidence you have to support your assertion that “False Alarm” was funded by climate sceptics. It is certainly true that Lomborg has been criticized in the past (doubtless with good reason at times) but I have never heard this.
Everyone has a streak of confirmation bias, if one is aware of it however you can at least ask yourself if certain material is going to feed it. As I pointed out earlier, a book title of ‘False Alarm’ merely appeals to people’s biases. As for Lomborg’s content, it’s purely tabloid, with appealing ‘facts’ supported by narrow datasets. Here’s a revealing profile of him.
https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
Everyone has a streak of confirmation bias, if one is aware of it however you can at least ask yourself if certain material is going to feed it. As I pointed out earlier, a book title of ‘False Alarm’ merely appeals to people’s biases. As for Lomborg’s content, it’s purely tabloid, with appealing ‘facts’ supported by narrow datasets. Here’s a revealing profile of him.
https://www.desmog.com/bjorn-lomborg/
The thing is, in an effort to try to understand what is actually happening, I have read other authors including Tim Jackson and. Michael Mann. Their arguments are superficially compelling, but the books are clearly written with an agenda too. Lomborg’s take just makes more sense to me, even though he doubtless has an agenda.
As for him being an “economist” I’m not sure that it matters what you studied. Surely it’s what you do now that counts.
Broadening one’s reading: have you read Lomborg’s book or do you only read books that support what you already think? I’d be interested to hear what evidence you have to support your assertion that “False Alarm” was funded by climate sceptics. It is certainly true that Lomborg has been criticized in the past (doubtless with good reason at times) but I have never heard this.
A climate economist? Intriguing, he actually studied to become a politician. His ‘excellent’ book was funded by well known climate sceptics. Perhaps you should broaden your reading material?
This article appears to be little more than a precis of Bjorn Lomborg’s excellent book, “False Alarm.” The book is definitely worth reading as it is completely evidence-based (Lomborg is an eminent climate economist).
However, an important omission from this article is that the enormous subsidies governments are giving renewable companies distract from the fact that most renewables are not only unreliable (wind farms only work when the wind is blowing and the energy the generate cannot be stored effectively for later use) but they also increase the price of energy disproportionately for the poor. There isn’t much point giving poor Italians grants to buy air-conditioners if they can’t afford the electricity to run them. In this sense, embracing renewables too enthusiastically is at odds with necessary adaptation measures.
You obviously missed the news that 80% of those Pacific islands are growing in size. This is absolutely not in dispute. I remember the UN holding a press conference under water in the Maldives about 15 years ago. 97% of the islands that make up the chain have grown larger.
We didn’t get our 50 million climate refugees by 2015 either. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1
And the Himalayan glaciers are still there. And the Arctic sea ice. Darn!
Don’t forget the ice free arctic by 2012. Or the collapse of agriculture. Or the collapse of coral reefs. Or New York City being under water.
A 35-year history of failed predictions and no one has noticed but us deniers.
And the fact that major developers are building a huge number of high end resorts in the Maldives. Why so if they will disappear soon?
https://www.dreamingofmaldives.com/maldives-blog/maldives-new-and-upcoming-resorts-in-2021/
Maybe because people buying expensive holiday homes are as scientifically clueless as you are, Warren.
I’ve always thought that the preserved bodies of the residents of Pompeii ignoring the coming volcanic avalanche was perfect proof that the volcano never erupted. Well done.
Maybe because people buying expensive holiday homes are as scientifically clueless as you are, Warren.
I’ve always thought that the preserved bodies of the residents of Pompeii ignoring the coming volcanic avalanche was perfect proof that the volcano never erupted. Well done.
And the fact that major developers are building a huge number of high end resorts in the Maldives. Why so if they will disappear soon?
https://www.dreamingofmaldives.com/maldives-blog/maldives-new-and-upcoming-resorts-in-2021/
And the sign in Montana saying that their glaciers would be gone by 2020 had to be taken down.
Don’t forget the ice free arctic by 2012. Or the collapse of agriculture. Or the collapse of coral reefs. Or New York City being under water.
A 35-year history of failed predictions and no one has noticed but us deniers.
And the sign in Montana saying that their glaciers would be gone by 2020 had to be taken down.
“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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
Cheer up!
On your own figures about 80% of us are NOT wallowing in abject poverty, but rather the reverse, some us markedly so!
Also you may recall, it is said that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the cretinous great British public gleefully agreed with the idiotic Government response to the COVID nonsense.
Thus is it really any surprise that they should NOW believe in this climate hysteria?
I think most people probably don’t believe in it – or care much about it. Unfortunately, prompted by a completely corrupt media, they tend to blame energy companies rather than Ed Miliband et al for their rapidly falling standard of living.
Sad but true.
Why was this innocuous comment chucked in the ‘Sin Bin’ for three hours and more?
I’d like to think it was because it was your usual grimly fatuous, smug drivel, Charlie- however, given the standards of this particular internet anti-thought Trumpy ‘MyTruth’ site, I doubt it.
Probably just a ‘glitch’.
I’d like to think it was because it was your usual grimly fatuous, smug drivel, Charlie- however, given the standards of this particular internet anti-thought Trumpy ‘MyTruth’ site, I doubt it.
Probably just a ‘glitch’.
I think most people probably don’t believe in it – or care much about it. Unfortunately, prompted by a completely corrupt media, they tend to blame energy companies rather than Ed Miliband et al for their rapidly falling standard of living.
Sad but true.
Why was this innocuous comment chucked in the ‘Sin Bin’ for three hours and more?
Cheer up!
On your own figures about 80% of us are NOT wallowing in abject poverty, but rather the reverse, some us markedly so!
Also you may recall, it is said that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the cretinous great British public gleefully agreed with the idiotic Government response to the COVID nonsense.
Thus is it really any surprise that they should NOW believe in this climate hysteria?
No – the Maldives sank beneath the waves in the 1990s. Someone from NASA said so in 1989.
Who needs the maldives when we have Clacton and Skeggy?
Who needs the maldives when we have Clacton and Skeggy?
Maldives growing larger you say? Can you substantiate that? Should be a hard fact.
“maldives sea level rise”
Just Googled the above, and I found zero articles saying anything *other* than that the country is in dire peril of being swallowed up completely. Seems they’re building artificial islands tho, perhaps that’s what you’re talking about?
Pacific islands were mapped extensively and accurately during WWII using aerial photography. Subsequent mapping has shown extensive and continuous growth since then. Multiple studies have confirmed this.
Try an internet search; Have The Maldives Grown In Size or any variation of that. I’m not on Google so I can’t say what you will get.
Pacific islands are growing. This is simply not being disputed by any reputable source. That you can’t find this information on Google immediately is frightening.
It is indeed “frightening” that you can’t find your preferred ‘truth’ on the internet.
We should be able to type in our preferred “facts” and have them immediately confirmed by the internet. My preferred “fact” today is that a unicorn has just on the Wimbledon mens final- it is FRIGHTENING that it isn’t on Google. What next?????
It is indeed “frightening” that you can’t find your preferred ‘truth’ on the internet.
We should be able to type in our preferred “facts” and have them immediately confirmed by the internet. My preferred “fact” today is that a unicorn has just on the Wimbledon mens final- it is FRIGHTENING that it isn’t on Google. What next?????
Another interesting fact we never hear about. The Great Barrier Reef today has the most coral growth since records started in the mid 1960s. This was measured by Australian Institute of Marine Science. In a recent public opinion poll, only 4% of Australians know this.
This is interesting. Can you give a link to this?
This is interesting. Can you give a link to this?
Pacific islands were mapped extensively and accurately during WWII using aerial photography. Subsequent mapping has shown extensive and continuous growth since then. Multiple studies have confirmed this.
Try an internet search; Have The Maldives Grown In Size or any variation of that. I’m not on Google so I can’t say what you will get.
Pacific islands are growing. This is simply not being disputed by any reputable source. That you can’t find this information on Google immediately is frightening.
Another interesting fact we never hear about. The Great Barrier Reef today has the most coral growth since records started in the mid 1960s. This was measured by Australian Institute of Marine Science. In a recent public opinion poll, only 4% of Australians know this.
“maldives sea level rise”
Just Googled the above, and I found zero articles saying anything *other* than that the country is in dire peril of being swallowed up completely. Seems they’re building artificial islands tho, perhaps that’s what you’re talking about?
Pedant alert, sorry. The Maldives is an island chain in the Indian Ocean but, apart from its Islamic culture, has a definite Pacific Island Nation (PIN)-feel to it, blue sea, blue sky, etc.
We didn’t get our 50 million climate refugees by 2015 either. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1
And the Himalayan glaciers are still there. And the Arctic sea ice. Darn!
“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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
No – the Maldives sank beneath the waves in the 1990s. Someone from NASA said so in 1989.
Maldives growing larger you say? Can you substantiate that? Should be a hard fact.
Pedant alert, sorry. The Maldives is an island chain in the Indian Ocean but, apart from its Islamic culture, has a definite Pacific Island Nation (PIN)-feel to it, blue sea, blue sky, etc.
You obviously missed the news that 80% of those Pacific islands are growing in size. This is absolutely not in dispute. I remember the UN holding a press conference under water in the Maldives about 15 years ago. 97% of the islands that make up the chain have grown larger.
Who are you and what did you do with Fazi? This is actually sensible!
Who are you and what did you do with Fazi? This is actually sensible!
“It is 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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
This comment was deleted. Guess it’s too inflammatory.
As was/is my optimistic reply!
So which “hysteria” are you supporting at the moment? Climate or covid? It’s so hard to know which is ‘hysteria’, and which is ‘evil suppression of the terrifying Truth’. Ooh, it’d been deleted! Oh, no it hasn’t. It turns out it was dumb click-bait.
The internet makes the choice of conspiracy paranoia such fun…
As was/is my optimistic reply!
So which “hysteria” are you supporting at the moment? Climate or covid? It’s so hard to know which is ‘hysteria’, and which is ‘evil suppression of the terrifying Truth’. Ooh, it’d been deleted! Oh, no it hasn’t. It turns out it was dumb click-bait.
The internet makes the choice of conspiracy paranoia such fun…
This comment was deleted. Guess it’s too inflammatory.
“It is 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.”
This says it all IMO. This number is absolutely staggering – only eight countries in the world have more than 165 million people. It’s the equivalent of two Britain’s. Our priorities and policy making are such an incomprehensible mess right now, it’s hard not to get angry. Even worse, I never heard about this at all. Yet I was beat across the head by countless news reports of the data some yahoos tortured to proclaim whatever day the hottest ever.
Yuval continues (for 94 pages): “I don’t want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries…”
Yuval continues (for 94 pages): “I don’t want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries…”
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken
If you know what Stakeholder Capitalism, DeGrowth and Doughnut Economics are then you’ll have a good idea on where the West is heading and why. Climate Change is touted as the reason but it is merely an excuse for yet another attempt at a socialist utopia that will fail just like all the others.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken
If you know what Stakeholder Capitalism, DeGrowth and Doughnut Economics are then you’ll have a good idea on where the West is heading and why. Climate Change is touted as the reason but it is merely an excuse for yet another attempt at a socialist utopia that will fail just like all the others.
I suggest preparation against their messianic drive towards disaster. Governments are now playing with the lowest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. I don’t trust them to educate me or keep me well, so I’m definitely not sitting around waiting to see if they can feed me and keep me warm.
Maybe you should study some physics, then. ‘Maslow’s hierarchy’ is just ’50’s pseudo-science psychology.
Maybe you should study some physics, then. ‘Maslow’s hierarchy’ is just ’50’s pseudo-science psychology.
I suggest preparation against their messianic drive towards disaster. Governments are now playing with the lowest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. I don’t trust them to educate me or keep me well, so I’m definitely not sitting around waiting to see if they can feed me and keep me warm.
The question is: why do public organisations like the BBC drive the narrative of impending catastrophe? Is it simply that journalists like to create a sense of panic, to keep their audience? Or is it a sense of mission, doing their bit to change the behaviour of the public? Or are they just gullible enough to believe it?
They will fall foul of censors if they don’t kowtow enough to the climate agenda. Arguing against it is considered just as blasphemous as denying the Holocaust, hence the term ‘climate-denier’.
A bit if all of this. If doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead.
If you are genuinely interested, read this.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/activist-propaganda-from-the-bbc
The neo-Marxist loonies telling you there are no neo-Marxist loonies (it’s all a “far-right conspiracy theory”, don’t you know) are the worst of humanity.
Ooh- is that a link to your internet consumer blather? Wow, thanks for that, John.
Ooh- is that a link to your internet consumer blather? Wow, thanks for that, John.
Some ‘journalists’, unbelievably, have even been rewarded with Knighthoods!
They will fall foul of censors if they don’t kowtow enough to the climate agenda. Arguing against it is considered just as blasphemous as denying the Holocaust, hence the term ‘climate-denier’.
A bit if all of this. If doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead.
If you are genuinely interested, read this.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/activist-propaganda-from-the-bbc
The neo-Marxist loonies telling you there are no neo-Marxist loonies (it’s all a “far-right conspiracy theory”, don’t you know) are the worst of humanity.
Some ‘journalists’, unbelievably, have even been rewarded with Knighthoods!
The question is: why do public organisations like the BBC drive the narrative of impending catastrophe? Is it simply that journalists like to create a sense of panic, to keep their audience? Or is it a sense of mission, doing their bit to change the behaviour of the public? Or are they just gullible enough to believe it?
“(I)f the world is about to end, anything is justified.” (Emphasis added.)
You just explained why they’re so desperate to convince us the world is about to end. Progressives have been trying to shut down western culture for decades, because its free market and personal freedom principles make it impossible for them to take power as socialist overlords running everyone’s lives for their own good.
“(I)f the world is about to end, anything is justified.” (Emphasis added.)
You just explained why they’re so desperate to convince us the world is about to end. Progressives have been trying to shut down western culture for decades, because its free market and personal freedom principles make it impossible for them to take power as socialist overlords running everyone’s lives for their own good.
A heat wave is weather, not climate. Climate is based on averages across long periods of time (i.e., decades) over the entire world surface. There have always been hot spells and cold spells. This has nothing to do with ‘climate change’. Journalists should know better and scientists should be correcting them if they do not.
Entire decades? On a planet that is 4,500,000,000 years old? Quite a small sample size there.
Entire decades? On a planet that is 4,500,000,000 years old? Quite a small sample size there.
A heat wave is weather, not climate. Climate is based on averages across long periods of time (i.e., decades) over the entire world surface. There have always been hot spells and cold spells. This has nothing to do with ‘climate change’. Journalists should know better and scientists should be correcting them if they do not.
Why is anyone replying to this dope? Yes, I know that’s what I’ve just done.
Why is anyone replying to this dope? Yes, I know that’s what I’ve just done.
One of the most aggressive aspects of reducing fossil fuel reliance is the forced shift to electric vehicles, while there is very little understanding of the cyber-vulnerabilities of digitally controlled vehicles.
Since the vast majority of cyber-crimes are not recognised as crimes – some reasons listed below, cyber-risks of any kind are grossly underestimated. Risks we don’t know* we cannot plan to avoid/mitigate.
A moving vehicle controlled by someone other than the driver in the vehicle is a deadly missile in motion: deadly to people in its path, not only to those who are in the vehicle.
Any remedy is after the fact, and no one can bring back the dead.
Car manufacturers’ power combined with political push to make electric cars the norm means victims of immature, deadly technology are powerless.
Source: Purple Griffon Limited (UK) – see article for remote interference examples that are already widely known in 2023.
Cyber-crime ranges/volumes are unknown/risk-free because*
– Attacks are mistaken for tech glitches/features, blocked calls/messages never known
– Corrupt law-enforcement e.g. Victoria Police block identified cyber-crime reporting (Melbourne, Australia 2009-current in my case*)
– Admitting to successful attacks likely damages victims’ reputation, attackers gain further business ops
– Cyber-criminals’ individual guilt beyond reasonable doubt unprovable even in the tiny % of incidents that are obviously crimes e.g. ransomware/theft/child sexual abuse
– Acts not classified = acts not counted = nothing learned
For an act to be classified as a cyber-crime type, it must*
– Show consistent/easy to see patterns
– Have rational motives/start/end/processes: opportunistic crimes may seem irrational
– Have severe enough immediate impact to breach alert-fatigue
– Affect those, whose voice is heard in a country like Australia, where justice is only for the privileged*
– Be reproducible/likely to reoccur
– Be preventable/defence feasible
– Have a clear cause e.g. phishing fail
– Involve tech understood by civilian experts – agency/weapons grade tech is risk-free for Australian Organised Crime, since these capabilities don’t exist officially
* Writing here as a technology practitioner of almost 30 years, a Science graduate and an involuntary expert in cyber-crime in Melbourne, Australia, 2009-current. Last cyber-crime I could not avoid noticing less than 24 hours ago.
Not to forget the effect that the politically enforced use of electric vehicles in the first world will drop the prices of fossil fuel in other parts of the world and thus lead to more fossil fuel consumption overall.
The recent report by the Manhattan Institute, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream” demonstrates that EV’s are more environmentally damaging than gas fuelled ones. I’ll keep my old hatchback for a few years yet, government permitting!
So the Manhattan Institute are the unquestionable oracle?
What makes you take this as the Truth, above others? Seriously- why accept this without question, when so many more sources disagree?
Great straw man fallacy example John.
There are plenty of intelligent arguments against the push for electric vehicles. From my own experience with the risk-free devastation cyber-crimes already pose in Australia, electric vehicles’ hackability poses an unacceptable risk to public safety. These vehicles should be banned.
Since the Internet is everywhere, Australia’s organised crime can deliver involuntary euthanasia as a service against targets anywhere on Earth – without any risk of harm to themselves.
Thorax (Holland) seems to be suffering from a persecution complex, accusing others of describing him as “evil Marxist filth”, for example.
He is scientifically illiterate, and incapable of backing’s up his assertions. However he can be rather amusing occasionally, it must be said.
Thorax (Holland) seems to be suffering from a persecution complex, accusing others of describing him as “evil Marxist filth”, for example.
He is scientifically illiterate, and incapable of backing’s up his assertions. However he can be rather amusing occasionally, it must be said.
Great straw man fallacy example John.
There are plenty of intelligent arguments against the push for electric vehicles. From my own experience with the risk-free devastation cyber-crimes already pose in Australia, electric vehicles’ hackability poses an unacceptable risk to public safety. These vehicles should be banned.
Since the Internet is everywhere, Australia’s organised crime can deliver involuntary euthanasia as a service against targets anywhere on Earth – without any risk of harm to themselves.
So the Manhattan Institute are the unquestionable oracle?
What makes you take this as the Truth, above others? Seriously- why accept this without question, when so many more sources disagree?
The recent report by the Manhattan Institute, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream” demonstrates that EV’s are more environmentally damaging than gas fuelled ones. I’ll keep my old hatchback for a few years yet, government permitting!
Not to forget the effect that the politically enforced use of electric vehicles in the first world will drop the prices of fossil fuel in other parts of the world and thus lead to more fossil fuel consumption overall.
One of the most aggressive aspects of reducing fossil fuel reliance is the forced shift to electric vehicles, while there is very little understanding of the cyber-vulnerabilities of digitally controlled vehicles.
Since the vast majority of cyber-crimes are not recognised as crimes – some reasons listed below, cyber-risks of any kind are grossly underestimated. Risks we don’t know* we cannot plan to avoid/mitigate.
A moving vehicle controlled by someone other than the driver in the vehicle is a deadly missile in motion: deadly to people in its path, not only to those who are in the vehicle.
Any remedy is after the fact, and no one can bring back the dead.
Car manufacturers’ power combined with political push to make electric cars the norm means victims of immature, deadly technology are powerless.
Source: Purple Griffon Limited (UK) – see article for remote interference examples that are already widely known in 2023.
Cyber-crime ranges/volumes are unknown/risk-free because*
– Attacks are mistaken for tech glitches/features, blocked calls/messages never known
– Corrupt law-enforcement e.g. Victoria Police block identified cyber-crime reporting (Melbourne, Australia 2009-current in my case*)
– Admitting to successful attacks likely damages victims’ reputation, attackers gain further business ops
– Cyber-criminals’ individual guilt beyond reasonable doubt unprovable even in the tiny % of incidents that are obviously crimes e.g. ransomware/theft/child sexual abuse
– Acts not classified = acts not counted = nothing learned
For an act to be classified as a cyber-crime type, it must*
– Show consistent/easy to see patterns
– Have rational motives/start/end/processes: opportunistic crimes may seem irrational
– Have severe enough immediate impact to breach alert-fatigue
– Affect those, whose voice is heard in a country like Australia, where justice is only for the privileged*
– Be reproducible/likely to reoccur
– Be preventable/defence feasible
– Have a clear cause e.g. phishing fail
– Involve tech understood by civilian experts – agency/weapons grade tech is risk-free for Australian Organised Crime, since these capabilities don’t exist officially
* Writing here as a technology practitioner of almost 30 years, a Science graduate and an involuntary expert in cyber-crime in Melbourne, Australia, 2009-current. Last cyber-crime I could not avoid noticing less than 24 hours ago.
Ruddy Norah! Thomas Farzi can actually be quite sensible!
“Rubber” has returned, and is ‘flagging’ everything he can.
Ugh, I know! He brings his stink of latex and elderly boar.
Ugh, I know! He brings his stink of latex and elderly boar.
“Rubber” has returned, and is ‘flagging’ everything he can.
Ruddy Norah! Thomas Farzi can actually be quite sensible!
The subtext of every environmentalist manifesto is always a message to the poor: Just enough of us; way too many of you. Getting rid of the poor is a WEF priority. Every time I hear, e.g. David Attenborough’s pontificating, I hear “Wogs begin at Calais.”
Delighted to see Attenborough being exposed on here for the elitist misanthropist he is. Great comment all round.
Delighted to see Attenborough being exposed on here for the elitist misanthropist he is. Great comment all round.
The subtext of every environmentalist manifesto is always a message to the poor: Just enough of us; way too many of you. Getting rid of the poor is a WEF priority. Every time I hear, e.g. David Attenborough’s pontificating, I hear “Wogs begin at Calais.”
The biggest effect that climate change will have on the ruling Notting Hill set will be to shorten their skiing seasons. It is a shame that so many people fall prey to groupthink led by politicians and over-enthusiastic scientists. Covid lockdowns and climate hysteria are prime examples of ignorant groupthink.
The biggest effect that climate change will have on the ruling Notting Hill set will be to shorten their skiing seasons. It is a shame that so many people fall prey to groupthink led by politicians and over-enthusiastic scientists. Covid lockdowns and climate hysteria are prime examples of ignorant groupthink.
weird
AI generated perhaps …
AI has a sense of humour then!
AI has a sense of humour then!
“Rubber” has returned!
How excited you must be Charlie!!!
How excited you must be Charlie!!!
AI generated perhaps …
“Rubber” has returned!
weird
That’s after editing.
Not bothering to reply. Just terminating my subscription to this platform.
Is that aimed at me?
coward…
You’ still very angry, Nicky.
Why is that- is it because you sound foreign?
You’ still very angry, Nicky.
Why is that- is it because you sound foreign?
So soon?
The articles are often pretty interesting, and far more varied, ideologically, than the tedious and rantingly brainless group-think BTL.
Worth sticking around for, I think- just avoid the idiocy of the comments. And yes, occasionally I break my own rule if I’m particularly bored.
Is that aimed at me?
coward…
So soon?
The articles are often pretty interesting, and far more varied, ideologically, than the tedious and rantingly brainless group-think BTL.
Worth sticking around for, I think- just avoid the idiocy of the comments. And yes, occasionally I break my own rule if I’m particularly bored.
Not bothering to reply. Just terminating my subscription to this platform.
That’s after editing.
The current batch of ‘climate’ activists are actually collapse advocates, with climate change policy being the mechanism to bring about collapse. That’s the real problem. There is some simplistic, disordered-child fantasy that what will spring up during/after collapse will be utopian. No one will die during the collapse, except the bad people who need to die anyway.
That’s the real problem. Most of the Left’s social policy agendas have turned into this as well. The real goal IS collapse. Not fixing anything. Something to remember when reading.
Could you try to actually explain what you mean, in specific terms?
Could you try to actually explain what you mean, in specific terms?
The current batch of ‘climate’ activists are actually collapse advocates, with climate change policy being the mechanism to bring about collapse. That’s the real problem. There is some simplistic, disordered-child fantasy that what will spring up during/after collapse will be utopian. No one will die during the collapse, except the bad people who need to die anyway.
That’s the real problem. Most of the Left’s social policy agendas have turned into this as well. The real goal IS collapse. Not fixing anything. Something to remember when reading.
The climate-apocalypse narrative muddles our thinking on many fronts. First, it narrows our framework for discourse to a zero sum, live -or- die absolutism. What about QUALITY of life? Second, it takes individuals off the hook for taking responsibility for living more sustainable lives, and blames corporations and governments. This further diminishes human agency. Finally, the fixation on climate obscures the welter of environmental issues that we can improve without big government fixes eg water pollution, loss of wetlands and mangroves, conservation. Live frugally, consume less water,plastic, and petrol, walk and bike more, grow native plants that don’t require fertilizer…these are just a few things the media rarely hones in on. In a nutshell, conservation. The more we do as individuals to stop pollution at its source, the less alienated citizens will be from engaging in solutions that improve our quality of life.
Dear Louise, yours is one of the more interesting replies i have read in this thread. We tend to polarise discussion on one topic, each of us thinking we know, while the great physicists of the last 50+ years have warned us that there are no absolute truths, there are merely opinions and conventions, some more accurate than others.
Indeed considering that we need to have a more respectful attitude to the earth and its resources is important and also making sure we make that connection with our environment and the food we eat needed to maintain a healthy life balance. But when you say these things in our modern world you are considered to be fluffy, because scientific facts are all that count: they convey the truth……..
If the climate change debate can change to a debate on how we can live better, how can we make sure more people have good lives, that would be more interesting. Well, we do not really need to ask this question: it is about good education and acceptable living/working conditions. But that would mean reducing the influence of money, power, technical prowess, the material things,…. it is not going to happen soon. it is not clinical enough..
Dear Louise, yours is one of the more interesting replies i have read in this thread. We tend to polarise discussion on one topic, each of us thinking we know, while the great physicists of the last 50+ years have warned us that there are no absolute truths, there are merely opinions and conventions, some more accurate than others.
Indeed considering that we need to have a more respectful attitude to the earth and its resources is important and also making sure we make that connection with our environment and the food we eat needed to maintain a healthy life balance. But when you say these things in our modern world you are considered to be fluffy, because scientific facts are all that count: they convey the truth……..
If the climate change debate can change to a debate on how we can live better, how can we make sure more people have good lives, that would be more interesting. Well, we do not really need to ask this question: it is about good education and acceptable living/working conditions. But that would mean reducing the influence of money, power, technical prowess, the material things,…. it is not going to happen soon. it is not clinical enough..
The climate-apocalypse narrative muddles our thinking on many fronts. First, it narrows our framework for discourse to a zero sum, live -or- die absolutism. What about QUALITY of life? Second, it takes individuals off the hook for taking responsibility for living more sustainable lives, and blames corporations and governments. This further diminishes human agency. Finally, the fixation on climate obscures the welter of environmental issues that we can improve without big government fixes eg water pollution, loss of wetlands and mangroves, conservation. Live frugally, consume less water,plastic, and petrol, walk and bike more, grow native plants that don’t require fertilizer…these are just a few things the media rarely hones in on. In a nutshell, conservation. The more we do as individuals to stop pollution at its source, the less alienated citizens will be from engaging in solutions that improve our quality of life.
Excellent article. Many thanks. I intend to forward it widely and I urge others to do likewise. It is important to get balanced and sensible insights into wider circulation in order to counter the current hysteria.
Excellent article. Many thanks. I intend to forward it widely and I urge others to do likewise. It is important to get balanced and sensible insights into wider circulation in order to counter the current hysteria.
As at 08.29 BST. Seven comments have already ‘disappeared’!
What is going on?
So very typical
Charlie, dearest- you know I am horrible, evil Marxist filth, and yet my comments disappear regularly here.
This must mean, given your usual lazy conspiratorial ideations, that evil Marxists are silenced by the ‘MSM’. And yet you ‘know’ that only you and your lovely chums are ‘cancelled’ by Them- thus, there exists the rational possibility that comments here are actually just randomly delayed to ensure they are not unusually offensive.
The fact is that dribbling, anti-science right-wing conspiratorial ranting is very profitable on the ‘net- just as ‘woke’ virtue-signalling is- and no ‘provider’ is going to judge it. It makes money, if not sense. So you and your fellow ranters have nothing to fear- even though you love to pretend you are constantly being ‘cancelled’.
Don’t worry- your irrational tripe will invariably appear, albeit with a slight delay.
Come on Thorax you’re loosing the plot. I have never described you as “evil Marxist filth”, and you know that.
However your return to UnHerd after a gap of several months seems to have coincided with a marked increase in ‘flagging’. Thus the obvious conclusion is that YOU are to blame! Do you deny it?
Come on Thorax you’re loosing the plot. I have never described you as “evil Marxist filth”, and you know that.
However your return to UnHerd after a gap of several months seems to have coincided with a marked increase in ‘flagging’. Thus the obvious conclusion is that YOU are to blame! Do you deny it?
So very typical
Charlie, dearest- you know I am horrible, evil Marxist filth, and yet my comments disappear regularly here.
This must mean, given your usual lazy conspiratorial ideations, that evil Marxists are silenced by the ‘MSM’. And yet you ‘know’ that only you and your lovely chums are ‘cancelled’ by Them- thus, there exists the rational possibility that comments here are actually just randomly delayed to ensure they are not unusually offensive.
The fact is that dribbling, anti-science right-wing conspiratorial ranting is very profitable on the ‘net- just as ‘woke’ virtue-signalling is- and no ‘provider’ is going to judge it. It makes money, if not sense. So you and your fellow ranters have nothing to fear- even though you love to pretend you are constantly being ‘cancelled’.
Don’t worry- your irrational tripe will invariably appear, albeit with a slight delay.
As at 08.29 BST. Seven comments have already ‘disappeared’!
What is going on?
Actually, old boy, it’s Lord’s not Lord…Do you have some vinegar to drink to make you more bitter AND put on your shoulder chips?
Actually, old boy, it’s Lord’s not Lord…Do you have some vinegar to drink to make you more bitter AND put on your shoulder chips?
This may be so – about climate change etc. I think the greater concerns are the runaway degradation of the environment, mass extinction of species, over-population and the growing likelihood of violent conflict over resources.
This may be so – about climate change etc. I think the greater concerns are the runaway degradation of the environment, mass extinction of species, over-population and the growing likelihood of violent conflict over resources.
Glad to see this very good article on the near ubiquitous climate hysteria. I was starting to worry UnHerd was swerving this issue as I hadn’t come across much on environmentalism in the few months I’ve been subscribing. Good also to see the stat that climate-related fatalities are down by some 96% getting a mention, likewise the fact that it would make a negligible difference to world temperatures even if we stopped all carbon emissions now (I first read both of these in Bjorn Lomborg’s eminently sane book False Alarm).
Glad to see this very good article on the near ubiquitous climate hysteria. I was starting to worry UnHerd was swerving this issue as I hadn’t come across much on environmentalism in the few months I’ve been subscribing. Good also to see the stat that climate-related fatalities are down by some 96% getting a mention, likewise the fact that it would make a negligible difference to world temperatures even if we stopped all carbon emissions now (I first read both of these in Bjorn Lomborg’s eminently sane book False Alarm).
Is English your native tongue may I ask?
Is English your native tongue may I ask?
A more sensible Fazi offering, but still holes in it.
Whilst some scientists do worry about run-away Global warming and consequences, the imminent end of humankind as we know it is not the scenario most convey. Increased migration and strife over water and land resources more the indication. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other causes of conflict that can provoke even more population movement but how much do we want to provoke? (Plenty of evidence that climate change provoked population movement not a new phenomenon at all – this is just the latest)
Then more in the detail – Fazi refers to how perhaps we just need to adjust and fit more A/C etc. Inconsistently he then refers to the huge cost of driving climate change reduction policy but doesn’t refer to the cost of alternative adaptation and then who pays? Is he suggesting the polluters at least pay for us all to fit A/C given it’s an externality they currently do not have built into their pricing? I exaggerate a bit to illuminate the point, but he doesn’t cover both sides of coin does he.
More broadly we’ve learnt better energy independence can be important to a Nation’s autonomy. That doesn’t mean ‘Go Green’ the only way, but there may be other good geo-political reasons for greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels disproportionately located in some, shall we just say for now, tricky locations.
Natural gas is pretty well everywhere and very cheap to extract.
It’s not the cheap, or pretty much everywhere would already be harvesting their own and the Straits of Hormuz would be empty.
Stop using facts. Facts are offensive.
Stop using facts. Facts are offensive.
It’s not the cheap, or pretty much everywhere would already be harvesting their own and the Straits of Hormuz would be empty.
Water supply should never be an issue for any country. Having the power and prosperity to desalinate is though.
No doubt there is a cost to climate adaptation, but the world has spent many trillions on renewable energy in the last 20 years and fossil fuel use hadn’t went down at all.
Yep we agree adaptation will have some major costs, and should we be helping poorer countries with desalination investment as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, even if just to limit future population movement? My point was Fazi not being clear if he’s suggesting that.
On your 2nd para, yes although may have slowed the rate from what it may otherwise have been.
No question we have slowed the rate of fossil fuel growth. Putting aside the science, all the money invested in wind and solar seems like nothing more than virtue signalling waste and corruption. If CO2 is a problem, build out nuclear. We know it works. It’s such a tragic waste of money.
Agreed on nuclear – we should always have more than one source of energy however, so renewables are a viable part of the picture.
Concur on Nuclear too
Concur on Nuclear too
Agreed on nuclear – we should always have more than one source of energy however, so renewables are a viable part of the picture.
No question we have slowed the rate of fossil fuel growth. Putting aside the science, all the money invested in wind and solar seems like nothing more than virtue signalling waste and corruption. If CO2 is a problem, build out nuclear. We know it works. It’s such a tragic waste of money.
Yep we agree adaptation will have some major costs, and should we be helping poorer countries with desalination investment as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, even if just to limit future population movement? My point was Fazi not being clear if he’s suggesting that.
On your 2nd para, yes although may have slowed the rate from what it may otherwise have been.
Natural gas is pretty well everywhere and very cheap to extract.
Water supply should never be an issue for any country. Having the power and prosperity to desalinate is though.
No doubt there is a cost to climate adaptation, but the world has spent many trillions on renewable energy in the last 20 years and fossil fuel use hadn’t went down at all.
A more sensible Fazi offering, but still holes in it.
Whilst some scientists do worry about run-away Global warming and consequences, the imminent end of humankind as we know it is not the scenario most convey. Increased migration and strife over water and land resources more the indication. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other causes of conflict that can provoke even more population movement but how much do we want to provoke? (Plenty of evidence that climate change provoked population movement not a new phenomenon at all – this is just the latest)
Then more in the detail – Fazi refers to how perhaps we just need to adjust and fit more A/C etc. Inconsistently he then refers to the huge cost of driving climate change reduction policy but doesn’t refer to the cost of alternative adaptation and then who pays? Is he suggesting the polluters at least pay for us all to fit A/C given it’s an externality they currently do not have built into their pricing? I exaggerate a bit to illuminate the point, but he doesn’t cover both sides of coin does he.
More broadly we’ve learnt better energy independence can be important to a Nation’s autonomy. That doesn’t mean ‘Go Green’ the only way, but there may be other good geo-political reasons for greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels disproportionately located in some, shall we just say for now, tricky locations.
Such well argued and logical analysis of the reality of climate evolution is likely to get one Cancelled by those with a vested interest in fear.
The latest incoherent idiocy by a British minister is a statement that Hydrogen cannot be added to natural gas because the infrastructure is not compatible with it. This overlooks the 75 or so years when town gas, a mix of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide was distributed through that same infrastructure.
Excellent point. That really is a “killer fact” !
But you can’t possibly expect any modern politician to be troubled by scientific or historical facts (they’re busy rewriting history as we comment).
Excellent point. That really is a “killer fact” !
But you can’t possibly expect any modern politician to be troubled by scientific or historical facts (they’re busy rewriting history as we comment).
Such well argued and logical analysis of the reality of climate evolution is likely to get one Cancelled by those with a vested interest in fear.
The latest incoherent idiocy by a British minister is a statement that Hydrogen cannot be added to natural gas because the infrastructure is not compatible with it. This overlooks the 75 or so years when town gas, a mix of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide was distributed through that same infrastructure.
All this to cover real issues. Let’s see, perhaps more electricity from Nuclear Energy, not windmills and Solar Panels. Water seems to be a problem. Lots of water in some places, next to none in others, what about some of that money invested in the storage and transport of water? Electric Grid, could be some work done there. Our politicians seems so concerned with Climate Change that they are prevented from fixing pot holes, making public transport safe and taking care of basic infrastructure. This is not to mention care of forests on public lands, a forgotten issue, because, yes, climate change.
Just remember that esteemed environmentalist-governor Gavin Newsom has been taking Californian water away from Californian folks to hand over to Nestlé. What a green policy indeed!
Just remember that esteemed environmentalist-governor Gavin Newsom has been taking Californian water away from Californian folks to hand over to Nestlé. What a green policy indeed!
All this to cover real issues. Let’s see, perhaps more electricity from Nuclear Energy, not windmills and Solar Panels. Water seems to be a problem. Lots of water in some places, next to none in others, what about some of that money invested in the storage and transport of water? Electric Grid, could be some work done there. Our politicians seems so concerned with Climate Change that they are prevented from fixing pot holes, making public transport safe and taking care of basic infrastructure. This is not to mention care of forests on public lands, a forgotten issue, because, yes, climate change.
Just imagine what it would be like to listen to intelligent, informed and educated people discuss AGW without a single implication that anyone who disagrees with oneself is a commie or a fascist. Imagine just the science, pro and con stripped of political baggage. Not here of course, still it would be a pleasure to see such a discussion. No doubt the subject is *enormously* complex and that’s just the objective science. Then we hafta decide what the hell to do about it and one can hardly imagine a more difficult topic. Might honest people disagree to some extent? Might mistakes have been made but in good faith?
I think the author is at least trying to be honest. But he’s a member, it would seem, of the church of Infinite Growth, and IMHO that’s a bad religion. My own religion is Sustainable Planet, just for the record. Does that mean I’m a commie?
I think the word you’re searching for is probably “Marxist”.
I tend to use them alternately. Low brow righties tend to call me a commie, high brow righties prefer Marxist. But then again the wokies call me a fascist.
I doubt it. That’s just the standard catch-all US internet term for anyone, anywhere, who has any thoughts whatsoever that don’t conform to US-style Randian pseudo-libertarianism.
It’s bunk.
I tend to use them alternately. Low brow righties tend to call me a commie, high brow righties prefer Marxist. But then again the wokies call me a fascist.
I doubt it. That’s just the standard catch-all US internet term for anyone, anywhere, who has any thoughts whatsoever that don’t conform to US-style Randian pseudo-libertarianism.
It’s bunk.
I think the word you’re searching for is probably “Marxist”.
Just imagine what it would be like to listen to intelligent, informed and educated people discuss AGW without a single implication that anyone who disagrees with oneself is a commie or a fascist. Imagine just the science, pro and con stripped of political baggage. Not here of course, still it would be a pleasure to see such a discussion. No doubt the subject is *enormously* complex and that’s just the objective science. Then we hafta decide what the hell to do about it and one can hardly imagine a more difficult topic. Might honest people disagree to some extent? Might mistakes have been made but in good faith?
I think the author is at least trying to be honest. But he’s a member, it would seem, of the church of Infinite Growth, and IMHO that’s a bad religion. My own religion is Sustainable Planet, just for the record. Does that mean I’m a commie?
A couple of points are worth adding:
First, we honestly do not know if CO2 is the main driver of the climate warming trend. In “Unsettled” Prof. Koonin, a prominent climate scientist and a member of the IPCC puts a question mark on this matter. There is a number of other scientists that either reject the theses of AGW or question their impact.
Second, CO2 is the single most important component of the atmosphere which allows for life on Earth. We are currently at about 420 ppm (and rising about 1.5 ppm per year) but the Earth used to see two orders of magnitude higher concentrations and the life was thriving. Note that at 150 ppm the plants will start to die and with it all the life on our planet.
Third, the scientific community involved in climate change studies is corrupt by massive donations and grants which support research that will exclusively focus on negative effects of global warming and the human causes of it. Note that the IPCC charter requires it to study exclusively human impacts on the climate, which means it will not sponsor any studies which would target natural causes.
Fourth, we are already seeing positive developments from increased CO2 levels while less so from rising temperatures (still no palm trees in Oslo). Some crop yields have tripled since the 1960’s and the IPCC credits it, at least partially, to the rising CO2 levels. Moreover, we see significant greening of the planet, including more forests and less deserts, which includes south Sahara.
Finally, the best indicator of the warming trend should be rising sea levels caused by the melting of land-based ice. Since we started to measure the MSL using satellite we now have solid data in that matter and it is showing steady, slow rise (about 1 ft per century) but no acceleration over the past several decades. There is no cause for alarm, just a lot of group thinking.
We do know. It’s scientific fact. Never rely on one indicator, it can mislead you, as is clearly shown in your post.
Peak warmth post Ice Age was about 8000 years ago, when deciduous trees grew over Sweden.
We do know. It’s scientific fact. Never rely on one indicator, it can mislead you, as is clearly shown in your post.
Peak warmth post Ice Age was about 8000 years ago, when deciduous trees grew over Sweden.
A couple of points are worth adding:
First, we honestly do not know if CO2 is the main driver of the climate warming trend. In “Unsettled” Prof. Koonin, a prominent climate scientist and a member of the IPCC puts a question mark on this matter. There is a number of other scientists that either reject the theses of AGW or question their impact.
Second, CO2 is the single most important component of the atmosphere which allows for life on Earth. We are currently at about 420 ppm (and rising about 1.5 ppm per year) but the Earth used to see two orders of magnitude higher concentrations and the life was thriving. Note that at 150 ppm the plants will start to die and with it all the life on our planet.
Third, the scientific community involved in climate change studies is corrupt by massive donations and grants which support research that will exclusively focus on negative effects of global warming and the human causes of it. Note that the IPCC charter requires it to study exclusively human impacts on the climate, which means it will not sponsor any studies which would target natural causes.
Fourth, we are already seeing positive developments from increased CO2 levels while less so from rising temperatures (still no palm trees in Oslo). Some crop yields have tripled since the 1960’s and the IPCC credits it, at least partially, to the rising CO2 levels. Moreover, we see significant greening of the planet, including more forests and less deserts, which includes south Sahara.
Finally, the best indicator of the warming trend should be rising sea levels caused by the melting of land-based ice. Since we started to measure the MSL using satellite we now have solid data in that matter and it is showing steady, slow rise (about 1 ft per century) but no acceleration over the past several decades. There is no cause for alarm, just a lot of group thinking.
Sorry….I just couldn’t read this to the end. Talk of negationism !!!
2003….15 000 people died in France, all of heat related problems. Lots of elderlies living alone died…..well…..alone. 7 times as many as in the UK.
To figure out what life in a city like Paris would be like, you can read the short version here.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/25/paris-could-hit-50-degrees-by-2050-new-report-warns-how-can-the-city-adapt
The original is to be found there ….sadly, in French only.
https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2023/04/21/paris_a_50_c-le_rapport-Jc4H.pdf.
The French mainstream media have kept very very quiet about this and it takes the foreign press to report on it. Last summer an emergency exercise took place to see how public and emergency services would cope. All this detailed in the original report.
Air conditioning for the poor…..that’s another version of charity…..but a toxic one. There is nothing worse than AC. To generate cold, not only does it put pressure on a very tired grid, but it also created heat bubbles all around the place.
As to….a heat wave isn’t the end of the world, it was last year the definitive end for 5000 people in France.
I am not going to debate wether there is a climate change or not….it’s just like debating wether God exists or not for a lot of people on this site……..but the measures advocated by the author only make the matter worse.
Paris is the worst text book example. Zinc roofs that turn “ chambre de bonnes “ into ovens and even as I write, architecture protection is paramount. Not green spaces like London and the most densely built cities in Europe at least.
One fact is indisputable……..summers have become hell and people know better moving up to France Normandy beaches or Picardie beaches.
Well, I lied, I did read to the end and yes, nuclear energy is the least polluting when it comes to CO2…..80 % of the total energy produced in France is carbon free……..that doesn’t keep the heat waves from striking.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018313114
This paper is interesting. I haven’t seen anything more recent. But generally, many more people die every year from cold-related causes than heat-related ones. Cold is just more likely to cause a heart attack. If you make energy so expensive (or restrict growth in GDP) such people can’t heat their homes in winter, this will result in many more deaths in the near future.
In short, climate change is real and needs to be addressed, but we need policies that actually save lives, not hysterical reactions such as Net Zero.
It depends if you want to address the symptoms rather than the root cause.
It depends if you want to address the symptoms rather than the root cause.
I worked in Paris in the 2990s. Very cold winters led to tens of thousands of deaths ( as always in Britain, btw), and eviction was forbidden during the winter months.
?
?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018313114
This paper is interesting. I haven’t seen anything more recent. But generally, many more people die every year from cold-related causes than heat-related ones. Cold is just more likely to cause a heart attack. If you make energy so expensive (or restrict growth in GDP) such people can’t heat their homes in winter, this will result in many more deaths in the near future.
In short, climate change is real and needs to be addressed, but we need policies that actually save lives, not hysterical reactions such as Net Zero.
I worked in Paris in the 2990s. Very cold winters led to tens of thousands of deaths ( as always in Britain, btw), and eviction was forbidden during the winter months.
Sorry….I just couldn’t read this to the end. Talk of negationism !!!
2003….15 000 people died in France, all of heat related problems. Lots of elderlies living alone died…..well…..alone. 7 times as many as in the UK.
To figure out what life in a city like Paris would be like, you can read the short version here.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/25/paris-could-hit-50-degrees-by-2050-new-report-warns-how-can-the-city-adapt
The original is to be found there ….sadly, in French only.
https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2023/04/21/paris_a_50_c-le_rapport-Jc4H.pdf.
The French mainstream media have kept very very quiet about this and it takes the foreign press to report on it. Last summer an emergency exercise took place to see how public and emergency services would cope. All this detailed in the original report.
Air conditioning for the poor…..that’s another version of charity…..but a toxic one. There is nothing worse than AC. To generate cold, not only does it put pressure on a very tired grid, but it also created heat bubbles all around the place.
As to….a heat wave isn’t the end of the world, it was last year the definitive end for 5000 people in France.
I am not going to debate wether there is a climate change or not….it’s just like debating wether God exists or not for a lot of people on this site……..but the measures advocated by the author only make the matter worse.
Paris is the worst text book example. Zinc roofs that turn “ chambre de bonnes “ into ovens and even as I write, architecture protection is paramount. Not green spaces like London and the most densely built cities in Europe at least.
One fact is indisputable……..summers have become hell and people know better moving up to France Normandy beaches or Picardie beaches.
Well, I lied, I did read to the end and yes, nuclear energy is the least polluting when it comes to CO2…..80 % of the total energy produced in France is carbon free……..that doesn’t keep the heat waves from striking.
I can just hear the waiter in White’s….”would you like your woke, lemming eco sandaloid boiled, fried or baked M’Lord?”….
I’m sure that seemed worth posting at the time, for some reason.
I’m sure that seemed worth posting at the time, for some reason.
I can just hear the waiter in White’s….”would you like your woke, lemming eco sandaloid boiled, fried or baked M’Lord?”….
“Not only is this rhetoric of impending doom hindering the possibility of fixing the problem, it is also engendering all manner of authoritarian fantasies”.
Indeed, and the truth of that statement runs deeper than anything related to climate.
This is well-said too: “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”.
Quite a moderate, sensible view, of the type sure to annoy extremists on both sides of the issue. The hard-liner or zealot rejects moderation and consensus as a betrayal of principle, and ends up contributing to more stagnation and polarization. Not that moderates have a great track record of accomplishment, but a cooperative, aisle-crossing approach reduces the threat of rising, overheated seas and of bloodshed both far away and in the front yard. Dynamic centrism…who’s with me?
“Not only is this rhetoric of impending doom hindering the possibility of fixing the problem, it is also engendering all manner of authoritarian fantasies”.
Indeed, and the truth of that statement runs deeper than anything related to climate.
This is well-said too: “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”.
Quite a moderate, sensible view, of the type sure to annoy extremists on both sides of the issue. The hard-liner or zealot rejects moderation and consensus as a betrayal of principle, and ends up contributing to more stagnation and polarization. Not that moderates have a great track record of accomplishment, but a cooperative, aisle-crossing approach reduces the threat of rising, overheated seas and of bloodshed both far away and in the front yard. Dynamic centrism…who’s with me?
Thomas is right of course, but so what? Most reasonable people, alone and uninfluenced, when presented with the complete and unbiased facts about climate change and the various proposed remedies along with the associated costs and economic impacts is going to reach a similar conclusion. Humans are good at adapting to a changing environment. That’s why there are so many of us and we’ve spread pretty much everywhere. Doesn’t take a climate scientist or even a particularly bright ten year old to realize that people are going to be better at doing things they have a lot of practice at, and humans as a species have had a lot of practice adapting to different conditions. On the other hand, what the climate change alarmists seem to want is exactly the opposite, for humanity as a whole to control its reproduction and consumption in order to produce certain environmental outcomes and prevent others. This has been attempted many times before without success, and indeed seems so absurd at face value that one wonders how anybody could take it seriously, and why it has become such an issue in the first place. Thomas thus fails when he refuses to name the sources of climate hysteria. Simply claiming its politicians and not scientists are pushing artificial NetZero deadlines is true, but also a cop out. There shouldn’t be a need to argue the simple against the absurd. If there is, the proper question is to ask where the absurdity is coming from and how it exists at all. In short, we should not hesitate to name the enemies who are pushing climate hysteria on a gullible public, that is the super rich, who have good reason to want to preserve the status quo and who will not have to suffer the consequences of their policies (I’ll believe they care about climate change when they scrap their private jets), zealots who substitute environmental crusades for the traditional religious sort with equal fervor and similar results (looking at you Greta), and of course the mega corporations who benefit from massive subsidies for certain technologies and also from the way government regulation consistently restricts competition and favors large firms over small ones.
Thomas is right of course, but so what? Most reasonable people, alone and uninfluenced, when presented with the complete and unbiased facts about climate change and the various proposed remedies along with the associated costs and economic impacts is going to reach a similar conclusion. Humans are good at adapting to a changing environment. That’s why there are so many of us and we’ve spread pretty much everywhere. Doesn’t take a climate scientist or even a particularly bright ten year old to realize that people are going to be better at doing things they have a lot of practice at, and humans as a species have had a lot of practice adapting to different conditions. On the other hand, what the climate change alarmists seem to want is exactly the opposite, for humanity as a whole to control its reproduction and consumption in order to produce certain environmental outcomes and prevent others. This has been attempted many times before without success, and indeed seems so absurd at face value that one wonders how anybody could take it seriously, and why it has become such an issue in the first place. Thomas thus fails when he refuses to name the sources of climate hysteria. Simply claiming its politicians and not scientists are pushing artificial NetZero deadlines is true, but also a cop out. There shouldn’t be a need to argue the simple against the absurd. If there is, the proper question is to ask where the absurdity is coming from and how it exists at all. In short, we should not hesitate to name the enemies who are pushing climate hysteria on a gullible public, that is the super rich, who have good reason to want to preserve the status quo and who will not have to suffer the consequences of their policies (I’ll believe they care about climate change when they scrap their private jets), zealots who substitute environmental crusades for the traditional religious sort with equal fervor and similar results (looking at you Greta), and of course the mega corporations who benefit from massive subsidies for certain technologies and also from the way government regulation consistently restricts competition and favors large firms over small ones.
Speechless. A Thomas Fazi article I agree with ! Trigger warning: contains much sound common sense.
Speechless. A Thomas Fazi article I agree with ! Trigger warning: contains much sound common sense.
It’s all about the money! The folks who have bet huge sums of bucks /pounds on profiting from “climate change” are running scared and all the money they spent on bent politicians and bureaucrats plus goosing the media is in jeopardy. They don’t give a damn about the people in their own country, much less the poverty stricken of the world. Their goal is not to increase anyone’s quality of life, just theirs. As the old saying goes “there is a sucker born every minute”.
It’s all about the money! The folks who have bet huge sums of bucks /pounds on profiting from “climate change” are running scared and all the money they spent on bent politicians and bureaucrats plus goosing the media is in jeopardy. They don’t give a damn about the people in their own country, much less the poverty stricken of the world. Their goal is not to increase anyone’s quality of life, just theirs. As the old saying goes “there is a sucker born every minute”.
The poor global fossil fuel corporations are being destroyed by a financial elite.
As we all know, theres no money at all in coal, oil and gas- all the BIG money is in being a “so-called” climate scientist. I have given what I can to Saudi Arabia and Exxon, and I suggest that the scientific geniuses here do the same; we cannot let the elites destroy the helpless global industrial corporations.
Please- give whatever you can.
Your tears are precious John. Yes, to see Exxon abused that way is heart-rending, those globalist plutocrats have no compassion.
‘Thorax’ is a consummate bluffer and should be encouraged to return to Twitter, where he naturally belongs.
The evil global super-rich elite (Just Stop Oil, so-called ‘scientists’ , that actor who was married to whatshername, etc) are bullying the little folk (global oil corps, OPEC, etc.) and it just isn’t FAIR. Follow the money- there’s no way the money will take you to the most profitable national and multinational corporations- it will take you straight to Greenpeace and the vastly powerful science institutes who’s only desire is, for some reason, to crush the population to death. Or, er, something.
Glad to see you back ’round these parts. I can relax my own part-time campaign of sarcasm and satire–which somehow rarely seems to be a hit with the (Un)Herd–when I know you’re here.
Glad to see you back ’round these parts. I can relax my own part-time campaign of sarcasm and satire–which somehow rarely seems to be a hit with the (Un)Herd–when I know you’re here.
‘Thorax’ is a consummate bluffer and should be encouraged to return to Twitter, where he naturally belongs.
The evil global super-rich elite (Just Stop Oil, so-called ‘scientists’ , that actor who was married to whatshername, etc) are bullying the little folk (global oil corps, OPEC, etc.) and it just isn’t FAIR. Follow the money- there’s no way the money will take you to the most profitable national and multinational corporations- it will take you straight to Greenpeace and the vastly powerful science institutes who’s only desire is, for some reason, to crush the population to death. Or, er, something.
Rather feeble Thorax, back to Twitter with you!
Your tears are precious John. Yes, to see Exxon abused that way is heart-rending, those globalist plutocrats have no compassion.
Rather feeble Thorax, back to Twitter with you!
The poor global fossil fuel corporations are being destroyed by a financial elite.
As we all know, theres no money at all in coal, oil and gas- all the BIG money is in being a “so-called” climate scientist. I have given what I can to Saudi Arabia and Exxon, and I suggest that the scientific geniuses here do the same; we cannot let the elites destroy the helpless global industrial corporations.
Please- give whatever you can.
Thank you
And, everybody, get the book Fossil Future
Some years ago Prof Andrea Sella performed an experiment on TV to prove that carbon dioxide caused global warming. He used an intense light and gun cotton. When the gun cotton was held in the light beam it burst into flames. He then put a tube of carbon dioxide in the beam and repeated the experiment and the gun cotton did not light. He proved exactly the opposite of what he claimed. Carbon dioxide prevents sunlight reaching the surface and therefore keeps us cooler. This is what the atmosphere does in the day when the sun is shining. For more proof look at the moon with no atmosphere. Its daytime temperature reaches around 106C. We would burn to a crisp without the atmosphere. But at night, the atmosphere does exactly the opposite and keeps us warm.
No. You need to learn about wavelengths – easy to research on line.
An AGW “climate emergency” is the mother of all scams, but you should learn something of the actual science before you jump to erroneous conclusions.
No. You need to learn about wavelengths – easy to research on line.
An AGW “climate emergency” is the mother of all scams, but you should learn something of the actual science before you jump to erroneous conclusions.
Some years ago Prof Andrea Sella performed an experiment on TV to prove that carbon dioxide caused global warming. He used an intense light and gun cotton. When the gun cotton was held in the light beam it burst into flames. He then put a tube of carbon dioxide in the beam and repeated the experiment and the gun cotton did not light. He proved exactly the opposite of what he claimed. Carbon dioxide prevents sunlight reaching the surface and therefore keeps us cooler. This is what the atmosphere does in the day when the sun is shining. For more proof look at the moon with no atmosphere. Its daytime temperature reaches around 106C. We would burn to a crisp without the atmosphere. But at night, the atmosphere does exactly the opposite and keeps us warm.
An excellent Article, But I suspect you are going straight to Hell for it. At least if the shocked climate change children and their handlers have any thing to do with it. I have yet to see any of these self appointed “experts” having recognized qualifications in Science or Engineering.
Australia’s noisiest climate change expert is Professor Tim Flannery. A Paleontologist (Bone guy) After his “sky is falling predictions” have failed to materialize. Rumor has it he is busy looking for remains of the dinosaurs Thermal Power stations , that caused their demise.
If your country is short on climate change hysteria, we will be happy to lend him to you to get the ball rolling.
This must be one of the annoying articles on the subject I’ve ever read. “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.” Does *anyone* believe this, must less “many”? Or again: “nowhere does the science tell us that life on Earth will perish if we don’t go Net Zero by 2030.” Does anyone in the world believe otherwise? Who?
Fazi’s knockdown argument is that reducing emissions in poor countries will hurt the poor. Yes, it will, and a moment’s thought would have produced the answer to this objection: tie increased emissions in poor countries to reductions in rich countries.
Come on, Tom
This must be one of the annoying articles on the subject I’ve ever read. “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.” Does *anyone* believe this, must less “many”? Or again: “nowhere does the science tell us that life on Earth will perish if we don’t go Net Zero by 2030.” Does anyone in the world believe otherwise? Who?
Fazi’s knockdown argument is that reducing emissions in poor countries will hurt the poor. Yes, it will, and a moment’s thought would have produced the answer to this objection: tie increased emissions in poor countries to reductions in rich countries.
Come on, Tom
It doesn’t help that a politician of ministerial status is speaking of ULEZ as a policy related to climate change whereas it is, in fact, a health policy related to air quality.
It doesn’t help that a politician of ministerial status is speaking of ULEZ as a policy related to climate change whereas it is, in fact, a health policy related to air quality.
Fazi discusses climate hysteria, yet continually creates a strawman referring to ‘the end of the world’. Climate scientists don’t predict this, what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict. These scenarios are very real, especially if the author has accepted that climate change is happening.
“what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict” …but enough about the effects of seven decades of American foreign policy.
Meanwhile populations are increasing in many of the supposedly most vulnerable countries. For instance Bangladesh, where better land management and reducing poverty have increased food security a long way from the devastating floods and famines of the 1970s. The climate may be changing, but so is human innovation and adaption.
You’re right, Nigeria also comes to mind. They have had a population explosion – the big risk of course is if these are countries vulnerable to climate change then the impacts could be utterly catastrophic in terms of a perfect storm.
You’re right, Nigeria also comes to mind. They have had a population explosion – the big risk of course is if these are countries vulnerable to climate change then the impacts could be utterly catastrophic in terms of a perfect storm.
But climate scientists remain silent as their data is manipulated and mangled by activists. Has the IPCC said anything about JSO and other fringe groups? Has it approached the foundations and encouraged them to stop finding these groups.
I really don’t know. JSO are sadly misguided with their strategies however, they’d be better off trying to copy how big oil funded the sceptic industry.
This old trope again. There is no money in climate change skepticism. The big money is in hysteria. What groups is big oil funding and how much?
Quite right.
There’s no money in fossil fuels. None whatsoever. Zilch. It’s an altruistic activity done by small and powerless idealists in opposition to a cruel and all-powerful “elite”. Saudi Arabia is so poor and powerless it honestly makes me want to cry.
Well done Jim, you really have thought this through. Thank you. Please contribute whatever you can to the poor global fossil fuel industry through my charitable foundation- Help The Oil Industry. Every little helps, as they say.
.
Of course I didn’t say anything of that sort. Big oil is big oil. They will pursue their interests and profits like they always have.
Here are the incomes of some of the major well known groups in 2012 alone.
The Sierra Club took in $97,757,678
The Sierra Club Foundation took in $47,163,599
The Environmental Defense Fund took in $111,915,138
Natural Resources Defense Council $98,701,707
National Audubon Society $96,206,883
National Wildlife Federation $84,726,518
Greenpeace USA $32,791,149
National Parks Conservation Association $25,782,975
The Wilderness Society $24,862,909
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection $19,150,215
But those are the medium sized incomes, here are the biggies:
The Nature Conservancy $949,132,306
Greenpeace International $406,000,000
Wildlife Conservation Society $230,042,654
World Wildlife Fund $208,495,555
Of course I didn’t say anything of that sort. Big oil is big oil. They will pursue their interests and profits like they always have.
Here are the incomes of some of the major well known groups in 2012 alone.
The Sierra Club took in $97,757,678
The Sierra Club Foundation took in $47,163,599
The Environmental Defense Fund took in $111,915,138
Natural Resources Defense Council $98,701,707
National Audubon Society $96,206,883
National Wildlife Federation $84,726,518
Greenpeace USA $32,791,149
National Parks Conservation Association $25,782,975
The Wilderness Society $24,862,909
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection $19,150,215
But those are the medium sized incomes, here are the biggies:
The Nature Conservancy $949,132,306
Greenpeace International $406,000,000
Wildlife Conservation Society $230,042,654
World Wildlife Fund $208,495,555
Thomas G Farmer; John Cook (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 – The Physical Climate. Springer Science and Business Media. p. 461. ISBN 978-9400757578: “In the decade after the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1997, Exxon-Mobil invested more than $20 million in think tanks that promoted climate change denial. This inspired the Royal Society of London to challenge Exxon-Mobil to stop funding organizations that disseminated climate denial”.
Some money in it. Shrieking alarmists have profited too, I admit.
Quite right.
There’s no money in fossil fuels. None whatsoever. Zilch. It’s an altruistic activity done by small and powerless idealists in opposition to a cruel and all-powerful “elite”. Saudi Arabia is so poor and powerless it honestly makes me want to cry.
Well done Jim, you really have thought this through. Thank you. Please contribute whatever you can to the poor global fossil fuel industry through my charitable foundation- Help The Oil Industry. Every little helps, as they say.
.
Thomas G Farmer; John Cook (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 – The Physical Climate. Springer Science and Business Media. p. 461. ISBN 978-9400757578: “In the decade after the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1997, Exxon-Mobil invested more than $20 million in think tanks that promoted climate change denial. This inspired the Royal Society of London to challenge Exxon-Mobil to stop funding organizations that disseminated climate denial”.
Some money in it. Shrieking alarmists have profited too, I admit.
This old trope again. There is no money in climate change skepticism. The big money is in hysteria. What groups is big oil funding and how much?
I really don’t know. JSO are sadly misguided with their strategies however, they’d be better off trying to copy how big oil funded the sceptic industry.
Your post is delusional. There is no such thing as a “Climate Scientist”, but there are many neo-Marxist lunatics masquerading as such, preaching – yes – the end of the world.
https://twitter.com/ProfMarkMaslin/status/1679880717524692992
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Chortz. The irony.
Please link me to other dribbling internet paranoia blogs- I honestly cannot get enough of them. I really am dumb enough to believe every half-baked conspiracy-theory on the ‘net. Can’t get enough of ’em- more please..
Come on Thorax, you can do better than that?
Come on Thorax, you can do better than that?
Chortz. The irony.
Please link me to other dribbling internet paranoia blogs- I honestly cannot get enough of them. I really am dumb enough to believe every half-baked conspiracy-theory on the ‘net. Can’t get enough of ’em- more please..
“what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict” …but enough about the effects of seven decades of American foreign policy.
Meanwhile populations are increasing in many of the supposedly most vulnerable countries. For instance Bangladesh, where better land management and reducing poverty have increased food security a long way from the devastating floods and famines of the 1970s. The climate may be changing, but so is human innovation and adaption.
But climate scientists remain silent as their data is manipulated and mangled by activists. Has the IPCC said anything about JSO and other fringe groups? Has it approached the foundations and encouraged them to stop finding these groups.
Your post is delusional. There is no such thing as a “Climate Scientist”, but there are many neo-Marxist lunatics masquerading as such, preaching – yes – the end of the world.
https://twitter.com/ProfMarkMaslin/status/1679880717524692992
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Fazi discusses climate hysteria, yet continually creates a strawman referring to ‘the end of the world’. Climate scientists don’t predict this, what they predict is mass migration, political upheaval and international conflict. These scenarios are very real, especially if the author has accepted that climate change is happening.
Fazi sits in an air conditioned cafe in Rome. Fazi fiddles while Italy burns. Fazi is able to enjoy cafe life because of air conditioning, but most of residential Europe doesn’t have air conditioning, and should there be a blackout hundreds of people will die, as others died in the last heat wave in Paris. Heatwaves are now the new norm for a large swath of the globe. Air conditioning and refrigeration are what make an otherwise uninhabitable planet habitable. However, they emit hydrofluorocarbons which contribute to global warming………. and so on and so on.
Fazi sits in an air conditioned cafe in Rome. Fazi fiddles while Italy burns. Fazi is able to enjoy cafe life because of air conditioning, but most of residential Europe doesn’t have air conditioning, and should there be a blackout hundreds of people will die, as others died in the last heat wave in Paris. Heatwaves are now the new norm for a large swath of the globe. Air conditioning and refrigeration are what make an otherwise uninhabitable planet habitable. However, they emit hydrofluorocarbons which contribute to global warming………. and so on and so on.
The sad thing is that some intelligent, thoughtful couples are choosing not to bring children into this world, but the religious fanatics will continue to produce litters of babies.
The sad thing is that some intelligent, thoughtful couples are choosing not to bring children into this world, but the religious fanatics will continue to produce litters of babies.
I very much agree with the belief that mass climate hysteria isn’t helping anyone but I don’t think you can criticise apocalyptic climate models by just quoting other models which suit your alternative narrative. Also, I think the people who want to ‘save the planet’ often aren’t thinking primarily about saving humans first and foremost. No judgement either way but I think the argument that climate resilience has a better outcome just doesn’t address the fears of mass extinction of other life on this planet. It might but you have to see the picture in the round. Meanwhile, yes, Italy and other Mediterranean countries are just doing their thing in their usual hottest period. The climate change editorial policy of many media outlets is utterly transparent.
I very much agree with the belief that mass climate hysteria isn’t helping anyone but I don’t think you can criticise apocalyptic climate models by just quoting other models which suit your alternative narrative. Also, I think the people who want to ‘save the planet’ often aren’t thinking primarily about saving humans first and foremost. No judgement either way but I think the argument that climate resilience has a better outcome just doesn’t address the fears of mass extinction of other life on this planet. It might but you have to see the picture in the round. Meanwhile, yes, Italy and other Mediterranean countries are just doing their thing in their usual hottest period. The climate change editorial policy of many media outlets is utterly transparent.
Ah, such touching concern about the poor of the world.
This article in 3 sentences.
We mustn’t be unfair to the poor, who should be allowed to pollute too.Even if we do something, it won’t have much effect.Very important not to get excited – better to do nothing. ————————
The author ignores one of the central truths of change management: never waste a crisis.
If you went into a company board room, with a plan to change the company IT system, and prefaced your plan by saying that the current IT system was generally OK and there was no urgent need for change, then your chance of getting your change plan agreed to or funded are nil.
Saying we need to do something even though everything is largely fine is not how things work.
Ah, such touching concern about the poor of the world.
This article in 3 sentences.
We mustn’t be unfair to the poor, who should be allowed to pollute too.Even if we do something, it won’t have much effect.Very important not to get excited – better to do nothing. ————————
The author ignores one of the central truths of change management: never waste a crisis.
If you went into a company board room, with a plan to change the company IT system, and prefaced your plan by saying that the current IT system was generally OK and there was no urgent need for change, then your chance of getting your change plan agreed to or funded are nil.
Saying we need to do something even though everything is largely fine is not how things work.
Some good points here but Mr. Fazi underestimates climate change as a contributing factor in increased poverty in parts of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa. It’s not a simple choice of poverty reduction or CO2 reduction. They are increasingly interconnected..
Changes in poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa is more complex and climate change is not an obvious contributing factor (absolute poverty globally continues to diminish even as global temperatures increase).
For Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank reports a modest decline in absolute poverty comparing 2000-2009 to 2010-2019 with a long-term downwards trend, but then saw a reversal during the time of Covid, with current inflationary pressures worldwide having a negative impact on those in the poorest communities in Africa. Rising fuel and fertilizer costs will be more important negative factors than climate issues.
https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/News/Seminars/2022/high-level-policy-dialogue-on-inequality/Presentations/English/gabriela-inchauste-inequality-in-ssa-eng.ashx
I thought Africa was becoming morev prosperous, in average. As long ago as 2000 , some 40% of the population lived in towns.
That’s what I said, but perhaps I phrased it badly – though prosperous is a difficult word to use when absolute poverty is still at rates above 35% in Sub Saharan Africa, and suffering more because of the fuel and food inflation that is affecting everyone worldwide.
Really? Yet Durban of all places recently rejected the Commonwealth Games as “too expensive “.
No Africa has had it or “ Consummatum est” as ‘you know would say’.
We shall be left to pick up the pieces in English Channel.
That’s what I said, but perhaps I phrased it badly – though prosperous is a difficult word to use when absolute poverty is still at rates above 35% in Sub Saharan Africa, and suffering more because of the fuel and food inflation that is affecting everyone worldwide.
Really? Yet Durban of all places recently rejected the Commonwealth Games as “too expensive “.
No Africa has had it or “ Consummatum est” as ‘you know would say’.
We shall be left to pick up the pieces in English Channel.
I thought Africa was becoming morev prosperous, in average. As long ago as 2000 , some 40% of the population lived in towns.
How exactly? Show me an impoverished country that has been caused by climate change.
https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/10-countries-risk-climate-disaster
Risk, could happen, in danger of…any answer to Jim Veenbaas?
Risk, could happen, in danger of…any answer to Jim Veenbaas?
Ireland.
https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/10-countries-risk-climate-disaster
Ireland.
Changes in poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa is more complex and climate change is not an obvious contributing factor (absolute poverty globally continues to diminish even as global temperatures increase).
For Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank reports a modest decline in absolute poverty comparing 2000-2009 to 2010-2019 with a long-term downwards trend, but then saw a reversal during the time of Covid, with current inflationary pressures worldwide having a negative impact on those in the poorest communities in Africa. Rising fuel and fertilizer costs will be more important negative factors than climate issues.
https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/News/Seminars/2022/high-level-policy-dialogue-on-inequality/Presentations/English/gabriela-inchauste-inequality-in-ssa-eng.ashx
How exactly? Show me an impoverished country that has been caused by climate change.
Some good points here but Mr. Fazi underestimates climate change as a contributing factor in increased poverty in parts of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa. It’s not a simple choice of poverty reduction or CO2 reduction. They are increasingly interconnected..
He’s just manufactured a quarrel that isn’t taking place, at least not in the mainstream. Curb fossil fuel use and help people out of poverty and mitigate the effects of heating, drought and flooding. We know life on earth isn’t going to end, but mass migration and global instability will hugely increase unless we do something about it. Another Fazi special.
Mass migration will increase because of flooding?
Should people in low-lying countries like the Netherlands and East Anglia migrate to higher countries like Afghanistan and Rwanda?
Dumb question
Probably not, no- for several obvious reasons.
But if the Netherlands are inundated, the population will have to go somewhere- why you think it should be Rwanda, I have no idea. I’m sure you’ve carefully thought this through.
More to the point, the population of Pakistan will have to find somewhere before that. Where do you suggest- East Anglia?
So what, exactly, was your point?
Are you flagging everything on your inauspicious return, Thorax old chap?
Who the hell is Thorax?
Who the hell is Thorax?
Are you flagging everything on your inauspicious return, Thorax old chap?
Dumb question
Probably not, no- for several obvious reasons.
But if the Netherlands are inundated, the population will have to go somewhere- why you think it should be Rwanda, I have no idea. I’m sure you’ve carefully thought this through.
More to the point, the population of Pakistan will have to find somewhere before that. Where do you suggest- East Anglia?
So what, exactly, was your point?
What mass migration in the last 30 years has been caused by climate change? Is it even possible to identify a single crop that has experienced negative yield growth?
Read my post. I said it was coming
They’ve literally been saying this for 35 years.
And here it is.
And here is what? Global food yields have not decreased in the last five years.
And here is what? Global food yields have not decreased in the last five years.
And here it is.
They’ve literally been saying this for 35 years.
Water will be the first big issue. Our populations are based on the previous few centuries of water availability. This is changing rapidly (note; the last “thirty years” isn’t a useful guide to rapid change, funnily enough).
Are you flagging everything on your inauspicious return Thorax old chap?
Water should not be an issue for any country in the world. Desalination is a well understood technology. I would argue that draining the water table in the US is a bigger, more looming issue than climate change.
It’s not either or.
Of course not. I actually have no issue with reducing CO2. What we are doing today is an incoherent waste of tax dollars that will make everyone poorer. If the west was building a fleet of nuclear power plants, I would be perfectly happy with that. But we’re not doing that. We’re wasting money on unreliable and intermittent wind and solar.
Of course not. I actually have no issue with reducing CO2. What we are doing today is an incoherent waste of tax dollars that will make everyone poorer. If the west was building a fleet of nuclear power plants, I would be perfectly happy with that. But we’re not doing that. We’re wasting money on unreliable and intermittent wind and solar.
It’s not either or.
Are you flagging everything on your inauspicious return Thorax old chap?
Water should not be an issue for any country in the world. Desalination is a well understood technology. I would argue that draining the water table in the US is a bigger, more looming issue than climate change.
Read my post. I said it was coming
Water will be the first big issue. Our populations are based on the previous few centuries of water availability. This is changing rapidly (note; the last “thirty years” isn’t a useful guide to rapid change, funnily enough).
Mass migration will increase because of flooding?
Should people in low-lying countries like the Netherlands and East Anglia migrate to higher countries like Afghanistan and Rwanda?
What mass migration in the last 30 years has been caused by climate change? Is it even possible to identify a single crop that has experienced negative yield growth?
He’s just manufactured a quarrel that isn’t taking place, at least not in the mainstream. Curb fossil fuel use and help people out of poverty and mitigate the effects of heating, drought and flooding. We know life on earth isn’t going to end, but mass migration and global instability will hugely increase unless we do something about it. Another Fazi special.
To all the sceptics here….you are wrong. Climate change isn’t a hoax. Consider the people who have most to lose from climate change commercially. These include the big oil companies who are exposed to fossil fuels as stranded assets and Middle Eastern countries whose enormouth wealth depends on fossil fuels. If it was a hoax then you would think that these groups and contries would be eager to demonstrate this wouldn’t you? They could employ thousands of scientists to do this, and create their own universities to show that climate change was a scam.
I wonder why they haven’t done this? Indeed, the Saudi crown prince recently said “As a leading global oil producer, we are fully aware of our responsibility in advancing the fight against the climate crisis…”
Funny sort of hoax!
Why do fossil fuel
Producers need to do any of this? Consumption hasn’t dropped at all in the last 20 years. It still accounts for 82% of all energy production?
Whilst some people think climate change is a hoax, most people don’t – even on this site. And there are plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria. You just never hear from them in the regime media.
So far on this comment site, the “plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria” have been a standard regurgitation of same small handful of fringe, political ranters that have been thrown up since the ’90’s. Mostly Free-market political campaigners and religious fundamentalists; the idiotic trope, of course, is to promote a few scientific outliers as “real scientists”, as opposed to “so-called (Marxist) scientists” without the slightest attempt to define or scientifically justify why these few heroes of the ‘net are right, and the vast majority of scientists are wrong.
To do this, of course, would require some genuine scientific understanding. This isn’t something the Unherd herd are either interested in, or capable of.
Return to Twitter Thorax where they may appreciate your patronising nonsense.
He said in a patronizing tone.
He said in a patronizing tone.
Return to Twitter Thorax where they may appreciate your patronising nonsense.
I hope you are right that the hoaxers are not a majority here. Outright denial posts instantly garner a lot of upvotes though. You don’t engage with the documentation that shows oil companies spending millions on pseudo-scientific propaganda and spin campaigns. Look at ExxonMobil in particular. Without their lawyering-up and clouding of the data, there would be stronger eco-protective rules and fossil-fuel consumption would be much lower, at least in proportional terms.
So far on this comment site, the “plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria” have been a standard regurgitation of same small handful of fringe, political ranters that have been thrown up since the ’90’s. Mostly Free-market political campaigners and religious fundamentalists; the idiotic trope, of course, is to promote a few scientific outliers as “real scientists”, as opposed to “so-called (Marxist) scientists” without the slightest attempt to define or scientifically justify why these few heroes of the ‘net are right, and the vast majority of scientists are wrong.
To do this, of course, would require some genuine scientific understanding. This isn’t something the Unherd herd are either interested in, or capable of.
I hope you are right that the hoaxers are not a majority here. Outright denial posts instantly garner a lot of upvotes though. You don’t engage with the documentation that shows oil companies spending millions on pseudo-scientific propaganda and spin campaigns. Look at ExxonMobil in particular. Without their lawyering-up and clouding of the data, there would be stronger eco-protective rules and fossil-fuel consumption would be much lower, at least in proportional terms.
Well said.
Why do fossil fuel
Producers need to do any of this? Consumption hasn’t dropped at all in the last 20 years. It still accounts for 82% of all energy production?
Whilst some people think climate change is a hoax, most people don’t – even on this site. And there are plenty of legit scientists who dispute climate change hysteria. You just never hear from them in the regime media.
Well said.
To all the sceptics here….you are wrong. Climate change isn’t a hoax. Consider the people who have most to lose from climate change commercially. These include the big oil companies who are exposed to fossil fuels as stranded assets and Middle Eastern countries whose enormouth wealth depends on fossil fuels. If it was a hoax then you would think that these groups and contries would be eager to demonstrate this wouldn’t you? They could employ thousands of scientists to do this, and create their own universities to show that climate change was a scam.
I wonder why they haven’t done this? Indeed, the Saudi crown prince recently said “As a leading global oil producer, we are fully aware of our responsibility in advancing the fight against the climate crisis…”
Funny sort of hoax!
Placid drivel.
Placid drivel.
The first thing that should be done now is solar radiation modification (SRM; mitigation would be a better term). The thermostat is right there; we can turn down the heat for a few billion euros a year, making far costlier adaptations unnecessary. The effect will be felt short term. Yes, there are risks, but they are worth taking. Read up on it. Eventually, this will be done, anyway, because all other measures, both of the adaptive and the reducing emissions type, will yield results too slowly. It is better to do this now and save millions of lives and trillions of euros. Needless to say, we should still reduce emissions even when routinely spraying the stratosphere with salt crystals or chalk particles. SRM will buy us time to do so.
Yeah, great idea, block the sun.
Yeah, great idea, block the sun.
The first thing that should be done now is solar radiation modification (SRM; mitigation would be a better term). The thermostat is right there; we can turn down the heat for a few billion euros a year, making far costlier adaptations unnecessary. The effect will be felt short term. Yes, there are risks, but they are worth taking. Read up on it. Eventually, this will be done, anyway, because all other measures, both of the adaptive and the reducing emissions type, will yield results too slowly. It is better to do this now and save millions of lives and trillions of euros. Needless to say, we should still reduce emissions even when routinely spraying the stratosphere with salt crystals or chalk particles. SRM will buy us time to do so.