Gad Saad - Posts - "Economists can't predict many phenomena with any reliable accuracy.
Consumer modellers can't predict many phenomena with any reliable accuracy.
Epidemiologists can't predict many phenomena with any reliable accuracy.
Climate modellers: Here is what's going to happen in 130 years.
If you question the veracity of our models, you are a quack science denier. You should allow us to reorganize the global economy (trillions of $) because bruh science."
US demand for clean energy destroying Canada's environment, indigenous peoples say - "The Nunatsiavut government, which governs 2,700 Inuit in the area, says those dams will disrupt the hydrologic cycle underpinning the ecosystem, and increase exposure to a toxin associated with dam reservoirs."
"Green" energy
I am old enough to remember when dams were considered green
Sorry, solar panels won't stop California's fires - "California wildfires used to be much bigger. This past decade, California has seen an average burnt area of 775,000 acres. Before 1800, however, California typically saw between 4.4 and 11.9 million acres burn every year.In other words, up to 12 percent of the entire area of the state — had its modern boundaries existed in the 18th century — burned every year. Old newspapers across the country were filled with descriptions of terrible fires. Back then, “skies were likely smoky much of the summer and fall in California,” as one academic paper noted. Elsewhere in the country in 1781, “the smoke was so dense that many persons thought the day of judgment had come,” The New York Times reported a century later.This all changed after 1900, when fire suppression became the norm, and fire declined precipitously. In the last half of the 20th century, only about 250,000 acres burned annually.But because most fires were stopped early, this left ever more unburnt fuel in the forests. According to one estimate, there is now five times more wood-fuel debris in Californian forests than before Europeans arrived. Clearly, then, we used to have much more fire before global warming. Even this year’s record-breaking 2.3 million burnt acres is about half the lower end of a typical year in earlier times... Newsom is right that climate plays a part. It does create a more favorable fire environment by increasing hot and dry conditions. But experts estimate this plays a minor role. The much more important factor is the way we manage forest lands and develop our landscape.When we keep suppressing fire, we ask for bigger and more terrible future fires. And we know how to fix this. We simply have to make many more prescribed burns that eliminate the built-up fuel. This is doable and smart. It would help reduce fire risks in just a few years. Unfortunately, it is also unpopular, because of increased smoke and risks from uncontrolled fires. One prominent study published in Nature Sustainability this year estimated that California will have to burn about 20 percent of its area to get rid of all the excess fuel. But owing to popular opposition, legal challenges and regulatory limits, California manages prescribed burns for less than one-thousandth of that... any realistic climate solution will achieve next to nothing. A Californian change of policy will have virtually no impact on global climates. But even if the entire United States were to cut all its emissions tomorrow and for the rest of the century — an incredibly fanciful and enormously expensive assumption — temperatures would still climb, just 0.3°F less."
Facebook - "Next time the forests burn in Indonesia, don't let me catch you complain about the palm oil industry, slash and burn, incompetent or poor forestry management. Because it's global warming causing apocalyptic forest fires amirite"
Could Air-Conditioning Fix Climate Change? - "Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (or HVAC) systems move a lot of air. They can replace the entire air volume in an office building five or 10 times an hour. Machines that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—a developing fix for climate change—also depend on moving large volumes of air. So why not save energy by tacking the carbon capture machine onto the air conditioner?... “This is a wonderful concept—it made my day,” says David Keith, a Harvard professor of applied physics and public policy, who was not involved in the new paper. He suggests that the best use for the resulting fuels would be to “help solve two of our biggest energy challenges”: providing a carbon-neutral fuel to fill the gaps left by intermittent renewables such as wind and solar power, and providing fuel for “the hard-to-electrify parts of transportation and industry,” such as airplanes, large trucks and steel- or cement-making."
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts - "The teenage environmentalist, Greta Thunberg, is now getting an education on how politics works in the real world. Politicians around the globe are making noises about global warming that appease their base, but despite all the pomp and circumstance are doing little. Thunberg is starting to notice.The Marxist environmentalists, such as Extinction Rebellion, call for a sharp contraction of the economy to reduce carbon emissions. Politicians know that contacting economies will put their political heads on a pike.It bears repeating, the Paris Agreement was a diplomatic sham. Each country set its own limits, they do their own measuring, they face no consequences for missing targets, and they can change their goals at any time. China’s goal was to rapidly expand coal plants until 2025, so they are in compliance. The U.S. is scorned for dropping out of the agreement, but it leads the world in reducing carbon emissions.The goal to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 can’t be met. The IPCC punted on its goal of completing details in 2019, cancelled their 2020 meeting, and will start again in 2021... Covid willing.The scolding will ramp up however. The IPCC is putting the finishing touches on AR6, the sixth climate assessment report and it appears the favored climate models will over predict warming. The assessment reports are schizophrenic — the meat of the report is put together by over a thousand scientists, some with axes to grind, but it contains a lot of good science. However, the politicians and diplomats write a synopsis which is the only thing anybody ever reads, if they read it at all. The synopsis is a result of political bartering and often strays from the science. It’s a political document.If the world was serious about global warming they would have embarked on an aggressive plan to roll out standardized nuclear reactors for carbon free energy. Instead, wind and solar has been pushed despite scaling problems and an inability to generate electricity 24/7 — requiring fossil fuel backups.Thunberg will continue to be disappointed as the politicians game will not change"
The polar bears are fine: Certain populations coping with a warming Arctic better than expected
The number of studies cited here showing polar bears are doing okay or even thriving are amazing. But of course climate change hystericists will dismiss them
BBC Radio 4 - From Our Own Correspondent Podcast, Distorting the Past - "She took other affected families with the ashes of their homes to protest in front of Parliament House in Canberra. This is the result of our government's inaction on climate change, she tells me."
Even generously assuming that the wildfires were 100% the fault of climate change, Australia was responsible for 1.07% of global greenhouse gases. Amazing how Australia's inaction caused the wildfires!
Climate Change? Eat, Drink, & Be Merry! - "If the global warming advocates’ computer forecasts are correct, things are inexorably moving in exactly the wrong direction and the increasing CO² emissions simply won’t be reversed — let alone eliminated — in time if at all.So “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.”On the other hand, it’s quite likely that things aren’t nearly as dire as current computer simulated climate orthodoxy suggests.See, there’s climate science and then there’s climate speculation... Despite the speculation crew’s forecasts of the opposite, there was a hurricane lull between late 2005 and 2017 — about 12 years — with no major hurricane over Cat 3 hitting the continental USA.Then there was the famous if embarrassing 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ when all the warming predictions stayed wrong for 15 years. That was when the human-caused warming (AGW) folks were finally forced, kicking and screaming, to forego speculative “global warming” and adopt scientifically sound “climate change” to describe things instead.For an example of the accuracy of the simulations, in 2013... One of the likely reasons the computer speculations fail is, as science guru Freeman Dyson points out, while climate models take into account many physical factors, they pay little or no attention to the biology and chemistry of sky, soil and plants. “The biologists have essentially been pushed aside.”... However, the panic of those folks who have created these hundred-year-plus climate simulations — and particularly those who have blindly bought into them — is understandable. That’s especially true in the case of extremists such as Michael “hockey-stick” Mann etc. who posit that earth will sortta go molten.With that image, they’ve created a modernized version of Pascal’s Wager. Either we give up modern civilization or we will certainly go straight to Hell. Almost literally.But in this modern version of The Wager, we already know we simply aren’t going to give up modern civilization. And even if we could, it would hurt, even kill, mostly poorer folks... “The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models, They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”... “The models are getting more accurate in the sense that they simulate many processes more realistically,” explains Reto Knutti, a professor at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich who was one of the lead contributors to the Fifth Assessment Report. “But having said that, all of that has not really helped in decreasing the uncertainty in future projections.“... the AGW folks attack and try to drive out scientists who point out their mistakes, fibs and/or fraud rather than determining which interpretation fits the data — or bully or worse those who change their minds and disagree with them...
Moore questioned why so many scientists who promote a climate change crisis receive “perpetual government grants”
“But they [my fellow scientists] also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants” –Dr. Gray...
Normally folks ass-u-me the global warming funding bias comes from Big Oil, and some does. But Greenpeace’s Patrick Moore, Hurricane forecaster Dr. Gray, Physicist Hal Lewis, etc. straighten things out: industry funding pales, almost to insignificance, in comparison to “perpetual government grants,” which, in the case of climate, nearly always supports pro-AGW research."
J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method - "Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change. “We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation, which can be watched in full below. “People just don’t do it.” Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data. According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria... According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria."
Greta Thunberg and friends file legal complaint to the UN - "A group of 16 children from five continents, including Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, have filed a legal complaint against five countries in a bid to force legal changes to amplify the fight against climate change... The five countries named in the complaint are Argentina, Brazil, France, Turkey and Germany."They were named since they are the highest emitters that have ratified the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, on which the complaint is built," Thunberg said in a tweet on Tuesday, adding that the United States, China and Saudi Arabia have not ratified the treaty."
Talk about a stretch
If climate change hysteria destroys the economy, can climate change hystericists be sued because of this treaty?
Meme - ""You Have Stolen My Dreams And My Childhood" <Stares Blankly In Child Soldier>"
Sierra Club and other greens want hotel guests to waste water and energy - "The Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the climate activists at 350.org will tell you they believe climate change is a “crisis.” They will also tell you that when you’re at a hotel, you should waste energy and water.The three groups are publicly opposing Marriott hotels’ “Make A Green Choice” program, which rewards guests who forego having their room cleaned by giving them reward points or cash toward coffee or other food in the hotel... Unlike programs that try to guilt you into reusing your towels, offering an incentive increased the success of the program. Marriott reports it has reduced energy use by 13.2 percent, water use by 8 percent and greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent... why would groups that purportedly worry about climate change and its effects oppose the program? Because when push comes to shove, leftist ideology and hatred of business trumps the planet... The Sierra Club’s article opposing the program makes some rather silly claims.First, they argue the program is unnecessary because the ability to reuse towels and linens was “already an option for many Marriott guests prior to the adoption of the program.” Put another way, the Sierra Club isn’t opposed to reusing linens and towels as long as the program is ineffective. They are only upset when the program actually works. In fact, the Sierra Club begrudgingly admits the program works, saying “the program has succeeded in convincing some guests to reuse their towels and linens. However, the significance of these small gains must be analyzed in the context of Marriott’s enormous carbon footprint.” Sure, the program works, but it isn’t big enough, which is why it needs to be ended.They then contradict themselves and attack Marriott saying their current efforts aren’t enough and that “the urgency of the climate crisis demands faster action.” Before Marriott takes that faster action, however, they should begin by wasting more energy by needlessly washing sheets... Their final grasp at an argument is that although they want to reduce CO2, they don’t want to do it this way. In other words, they want to address the problem they call an existential crisis, but only if they and their friends benefit.This is just the latest example of the remarkable hypocrisy of left-wing climate activists. Last year Spokane’s chapter of 350.org attacked the Policy Center regarding climate policy. When I asked if they were carbon neutral – as I am – they shot back, “You’re not my mother.” They only want to fight climate change as long as others are making the sacrifices.Occasionally, green groups will fret about why conservatives don’t believe the climate histrionics coming from left-wing activists. One big reason is that the left’s rhetoric is regularly contradicted by their own behavior. Opposition to Make A Green Choice is just the latest example of this hypocrisy."
This suggests that environmentalism isn't concerned about the environment, but rather by virtue signalling and moral superiority
The sun has entered a ‘lockdown’ period, which could cause freezing weather, famine - "NASA scientists fear it could be a repeat of the Dalton Minimum, which happened between 1790 and 1830 — leading to periods of brutal cold, crop loss, famine and powerful volcanic eruptions.Temperatures plummeted by up to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over 20 years, devastating the world’s food production."
Climate change hystericists aren't going to be happy
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years | Nature Climate Change - "Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability."
Nature climate change is promoting pseudoscience and should be shut down!
Weather impacts expressed sentiment - "We find that cold temperatures, hot temperatures, precipitation, narrower daily temperature ranges, humidity, and cloud cover are all associated with worsened expressions of sentiment, even when excluding weather-related posts"
Hotter Days Will Drive Global Inequality - MIT Technology Review - "The average global income is predicted to be 23 percent less by the end of the century than it would be without climate change. But the effects of a hotter world will be shared very unevenly... temperature has a surprisingly consistent effect on different economic inputs: labor supply, labor productivity, and crop yields all drop off dramatically between 20 °C and 30 °C. “Whether you’re looking at crops or people, hot days are bad,” he says. “Even in the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world, you will see [the negative effects],” he says, citing data showing that a day over 30 °C in an average U.S. county costs each resident $20 in unearned income. “It’s real money.”... Hsiang has also looked at how hot temperatures affect social behaviors and health, concluding that they increase violence and mortality"
Why the tropics are bad for health
Of course the article doesn't mention that proposals to fight climate change will cost a lot more than 23% of future income
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, Martha in Antarctica: an exploration of climate change - "‘Throughout the history of the natural world we have seen species becoming extinct. Why does it matter? Why would a world without emperor penguins matter?’
‘Well, that's a good philosophical question. Why does it matter if a species goes extinct? Why does it matter if any species or many species go extinct? Would you like to live in a world where we have no penguins and no rhinos. No elephants? No orang utans? I've got young children, I certainly wouldn't like to see my children growing up, or my grandchildren growing up in a world that is much less rich, much less diverse than it is at the moment because once they're gone, we can't bring them back.’"
So basically the argument for preserving species is a mixture of the argument from cuteness and the argument from irreversibility. Neither is very good - most species aren't cute, and many things are irreversible (e.g. imprisoning the wrong alleged criminal) but that doesn't mean we don't do them
BBC World Service - The Food Chain, What's climate change doing to cows? - "‘There's a lot of misinformation about that, actually, in the public eye. Agriculture is the biggest problem, second to fossil fuels in emissions, that's true. But it's the way we do things and not necessarily per se. So with cattle, it is, I always say it's not the cow. It's the how. The cattle in grasslands which we call, you know, holistic grazing management or rotational grazing systems, are actually active carbon sequesters into the ground, so their footprint is actually negative’...
"‘You're talking about desertification aren't you? And and how soils become desert and therefore release lots of carbon in the process.’...
‘When you have got grazing animals they actually stimulate growth of grass. So you get this carbon pump… A lot of farmers here in Australia use NPK fertilizer and nitrogen fertilizer kills microbes in the soil and nitrous oxide will be released. 40% of the nitrous that is put on as a fertilizer actually puffs into the air and nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that is 300 times stronger than carbon dioxide’"
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, Tuesday's business with Dominic O'Connell - "Actually, investors talk a good game on climate change. But when you say, I might have to cut your payouts, your dividend payments, then suddenly they become a lot less brave."
Alarming UN report on climate change too rosy, many say - The New York Times - "The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," Pachauri said. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.""
From 2007. One defence some of those who go on about climate change give is that past predictions of doom were wrong because and we should listen to scientists instead of politicians, activists and journalists.
Yet the IPPC is the internationally recognised body studying climate change, which won a Nobel Prize that same year. Since we must listen to the scientists, why are people still getting hysterical about climate change? Do people with Huntington's disease get worked up about trying to cure it?
President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' - "Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth... Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming"
From 2009. Since it's already been too late for 9 years, we should "follow the science" and give up
Climate Change Tipping Point: Research Shows That Emission Reductions Must Occur by 2020 - "According to a new paper published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, there’s a startlingly small number we need to keep in mind when dealing with climate change: 8. That’s as in 8 more years until 2020, a crucial deadline for reducing global carbon emissions if we intend to limit warming to 2°C, according to a team of researchers from a trio of research institutions—the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and ETH Zurich in Switzerland, along with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado—who authored the paper."
Once again, scientists shift the deadline (and naturally it's since been shifted again). Maybe the moral of the story is that scientists need to be more responsible in curbing other scientists (and their own) predictions of doom
Experts say we have three years to save the planet — here’s their ambitious plan - "In 2017, temperatures have already reached their highest levels in history in some areas, from California to Vietnam. And the past three years were the hottest on record.In a new open letter, six prominent scientists and diplomats, including former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, wrote that the world has approximately three years before the worst effects of climate change take hold. Published June 28, the letter urges governments, businesses, scientists, and citizens to address the world's greenhouse-gas emissions now.If emissions can be permanently lowered by 2020, global temperatures will likely avoid reaching an irreversible threshold, they wrote"
From 2017. Since it's already 2 years too late...
Sweden: The land of the rising coastline - "A Stone Age camp that used to be by the shore is now 125 miles from the Baltic Sea. Sheep graze on what was the seabed in the 15th century. And Sweden's port of Lulea risks getting too shallow for ships. In contrast to worries from the Maldives to Manhattan of storm surges and higher ocean levels caused by climate change, the entire northern part of the Nordic region is rising and, as a result, the Baltic Sea is receding.The uplift of almost a centimetre a year, one of the highest rates in the world, is part of a geological rebound that has been taking place since the end of the Ice Age removed a vast ice sheet from regions around the Arctic Circle. "It's a bit like a foam rubber mattress. It takes a while to return to normal after you get up," said Martin Vermeer, a professor of geodesy at Aalto University in Finland. Finland gains 2.7 square miles a year as the land rises."... Professor David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey, said sea levels will change at widely differing rates due to land uplift or subsidence, shifts in gravity and variations in ocean currents and winds. Sea levels near Greenland, for instance, could fall because its ice sheet has a strong gravitational pull that currently raises the local sea level. But if temperatures rise and the ice thaws, the water level will sink."
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, Friday's business with Dominic O'Connell - "How do you guard against green washing, this company claiming that it's doing something about climate change and not doing anything at all, because one of the top German fund managers has basically come out and said, we don't believe any, pretty much any of the stuff that companies say about climate change?… we now know that you can't even trust in a lot of cases a company’s audited accounts… How can you really trust what companies say on very long term aspirational goals like climate change, they could be saying anything, and doing something completely different?"
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, James Lovelock turns 100 - "‘We should just stop burning fossil fuel. I think it's a crazy daft and very dangerous thing to do. But we continue to do it. Because there's so much money invested in it. They could have used nuclear energy quite safely without worrying the planet at all. They talk of using renewable energy for this sort of thing. I'm not yet convinced that it would work’
‘For this country, an island nation, we are speaking, you know, at your home, which is right, right on the coast. Couldn't wind energy, if we had enough turbines be at least part of a fully renewable-’
‘The measurements do not confirm that.’
‘But after Fukushima? I mean, really in many parts of the world. Well, particularly in Germany, for example, shut down its, moved completely away from its nuclear energy after, after that. I mean, they would regard it as that Fukushima, having been a wake up call on nuclear energy’
‘Well, to start with Germany, I think is a faker. On this subject, they use a great deal of nuclear energy, they get it from France.’"
It's strange how those who demand that we must listen to scientists on climate change ignore them on nuclear energy and GMOs. Almost as if they are just looking to confirm their pre-existing biases
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, UK's climate target - "The first G7 nation to set into law the target of having net zero carbon emissions by 2050. It means that within the next 30 years, almost all emissions from transport and industry, from farming and from our homes will need to be eliminated. Whatever remains must be compensated for by planting trees or technology that removes carbon from the air. Theresa May wants this to be a legacy of her time in power. Her Chancellor has warned that it could cost the country more than a trillion pounds. That is about 10 years’ worth of the entire budget of NHS England"
Norfolk youngsters discuss climate change with Norwich councillors - "Around 20 home-educated youngsters from across the county, aged between three and eight years old, presented handwritten letters to City Hall councillors to express their concerns on climate change"
Many people who say religion is child abuse, or that children can't be meaningfully said to have a religion will be cheering this
Bjørn Lomborg - Posts | Facebook - "If adults are worried silly, children are terrified. A 2019 Washington Post survey showed that of American children ages thirteen to seventeen, 57 percent feel afraid about climate change, 52 percent feel angry, and 42 percent feel guilty. A 2012 academic study of children ages ten to twelve from three schools in Denver found that 82 percent expressed fear, sadness, and anger when discussing their feelings about the environment, and a majority of the children shared apocalyptic views about the future of the planet. It is telling that for 70 percent of the children, television, news, and movies were central to forming their terrified views."
Ifo study casts doubt on electric vehicles′ climate-saving credentials - "When the ifo institute released its findings shortly before Easter, its verdict amounted to no less than the slaughtering of a sacred cow of German climate policy: electromobility.The claims made by former ifo president Hans-Werner Sinn, physics professor Christoph Buchal and ifo energy expert Hans-Dieter Long could deal a big blow to this country's efforts to reduce traffic-related CO2 by 40% over the next decade.Germany is heading down a blind alley, the authors boldly state, because electric vehicles will "barely help to cut emissions" as battery-powered cars emit between 10% and "up to a quarter" more CO2 than a conventional diesel car... German carmaker Volkswagen, which wants to sell 10 million EVs in the coming years, also stepped into the fray. It admitted that under current German energy conditions its fully-electric Golf would emit 142 g/km over a life cycle of 200,000 kilometers, while a diesel-driven car of the same type would create only 140 g/km"
Living Light SG - "Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans
a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America.
This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.
Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?
No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine"). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.
Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla."
Great example of the misanthropy of environmentalism. Too bad they released it during the coronavirus pandemic - people's need for meaning is already assauged for the moment
The faulty science, doomism, and flawed conclusions of Deep Adaptation - "In the past few years we have seen a troubling trend: a few figures in the climate movement using science — or what looks like science — to justify increasingly dire and prophetic, but ultimately unsupported, claims about the future. The most influential example of such climate doomism is undoubtedly Professor Jem Bendell’s ‘Deep Adaptation’, a self-published 2018 paper which holds that accelerating climate change has guaranteed social collapse within the next few decades... Deep Adaptation consistently cherry-picks data, cites false experts, puts forward logical fallacies, and disregards robust scientific consensus. Bendell defends himself by offering unsupported reasons for activists and the public to distrust mainstream climate science. In all of these regards, Deep Adaptation mimics the practices that deniers of global warming have wielded for decades... Deep Adaptation is just one prominent case of a stubborn class of doomist narratives. Doomism has always occupied an influential place within the western environmental movement. It was present during the first Earth Day, fifty years ago, in concern over the coming ‘population bomb’. When one instance of doomism becomes discredited or disproven, another appears, generally following a re-examination of the state of environmental degradation. The resulting dire findings are then used to justify a fatalist ideology or response... a movement based on science that is opaque to anyone without relevant expertise will always depend on writers, journalists and academics in interpretive roles. Because of this dependence, the climate movement is also structurally vulnerable to doomist intellectuals who claim that science supports their ideas."
And this criticism is coming from people who promote climate change as a threat...
