The familiar narrative of a climate “emergency” is not supported by a vast body of observational data, according to a new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Contrary to popular belief, there is little evidence of harmful trends from the impact of global warming.
According to the paper’s author, Dr. Indur Goklany:
“Almost everywhere you look, climate change is having only small, and often benign, impacts. The impact of extreme weather events ― hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts ― are, if anything, declining. Economic damages have declined as a fraction of global GDP. Death rates from such events have declined by 99% since the 1920s. Climate-related disease has collapsed. And more people die from cold than warm temperatures”
And even sea-level rise – predicted to be the most damaging impact of global warming – seems to be much less of a problem than thought.
According to Dr. Goklany, reviews of historic maps and satellite imagery have shown that the places predicted to disappear are in fact still with us.
“A recent study showed that the Earth has actually gained more land in coastal areas in the last 30 years than it has lost through sea-level rise. We now know for sure that coral atolls aren’t disappearing and even Bangladesh is gaining more land through siltation than it is losing through rising seas.”
Empirical data also shows that food production per capita has increased by 30% since 1961 despite a more-than-doubling of the global population.
Hunger and malnutrition have declined, areas burnt by wildfires have declined, and since 1950 poverty has declined, people are wealthier, and global life expectancy has increased from 46 years to 73 years.
Dr. Goklany’s paper Impacts of Climate Change: Perception and Reality is published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation and can be downloaded here (pdf).
About the author
Indur M. Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a US delegate to the IPCC, and as an IPCC reviewer.
Unfortunately, despite such stellar efforts by Indur Goklany, the solution to the problem we are fighting is not based in factual data and real world observations, it is based in psychiatry or psychology. It is well outside my wheelhouse to understand why so many people seem to WANT to believe that “humans are inherently evil”, who will instantly accept lies in the New York Times despite direct contradictory evidence in their own back yard and dogmatically reject any information that even remotely resembles good news.
So while I thoroughly appreciate and enjoy Indur’s perspective (mainly because he states exactly the same things that I already know but states them better than I can !), I’m convinced the real problem lies with the mental health of those indoctrinated to not only believe CAGW, but essentially worship it.
Civilization has seen many small “end of the world” cults come and go over the centuries. Like a boil, they fester for a while but eventually burst letting in sunshine for everyone to see the flaws for what they were. Sometimes such cults are lethal such as with the Jonestown mass suicides but never a substantial number of people are involved.
This is different, we are seeing 100’s of millions of people mentally “invested” in a doom prophecy and a swarm of politicians and so-called “journalists” salivating to capitalize on it. It is tribal, it is antithetical to Western Civilzation and .. it is very dangerous.
Yes we need all the facts we can gather to assert the good news of warming and more CO2 but I fear that such not be enough, that even if global temperatures fall back to the level of the 1970’s to finally and indisputably disprove AGW it will do little to convince them of their illness and they will find some other way to rationalize a basis to remain in fear, of climate or perhaps something else. They will continue to clamor for sacrifices and denigrate anyone who disagrees with them. How do we cure them?
We all rely on carbon dioxide as a crucial input into plant growth. The benefits of extra atmospheric carbon dioxide for agricultural production should not be under-estimated.
This is also true for nature conservation, for that matter. Take an Australian river red gum tree. It is easily the most ubiquitous species in its super-genus and supports or helps to support a wealth of insects, reptiles, birds and mammals.
More CO2 means more growth. Additionally, more CO2 most likely means more rainfall, which again increases growth and, crucially, decreases leaf drop in a species that is evergreen and fast-growing. More growth means more flowering and more seeding.
All-in-all, a river red gum tree will do far better as will the animals, fungi and bacteria that rely on it.
The perception of the effect of extra CO2 on nature conservation is not borne out by reality.
The reality is that many nature charities benefit directly from catastrophism as nothing drives donations like the exaggerated threats of eco-panic do.
Personally, I regard conservation and environmentalism as two entirely separate activities. One seeks to procure good outcomes, the other seeks to procure political power.
We’ve had multiple warming and cooling cycles in the Holocene interglacial and we find ourselves in the latest of these warming cycles. The issue here is not whether it is warming and not whether warming cycles have harmful consequences as for example the late bronze age collapse by way of drought. The only issue here is human cause.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/09/a-data-selection-bias/
Global arming/Climate Change the biggist con-job in the entire history of all mankind