The academic and activist faction that sets the threatening tone in the climate conversation wants dissent eliminated, leaving themselves the only ones authorized to tell you how scared you should be. To avoid wasting trillions, we should not let them.
Across the world, politicians are now promising climate policies costing tens of trillions of dollars – money we don’t have and resources that are desperately needed elsewhere.
Yet, climate campaigners tell us, if we don’t spend everything on climate now, nothing else matters, because climate change threatens our very civilization. As US President Joe Biden says: climate change is “an existential threat”.
Yes, climate change is a real problem. However, it is typically vastly exaggerated, and the resulting alarmism is exploited to justify the wasteful spending of trillions.
Pointing this out will get you canceled. I should know because I have personally been on the receiving end of this climate alarmism enforcement for years.
Last week, I was scheduled to give a public lecture at Duke University in the US when a group of climate-politicized professors – some who write for the UN Climate Panel – publicly asked Duke to cancel my appearance.
One of my presentation points was highlighting the latest full UN Climate Panel report which estimates the total cost of climate change.
They found that unmitigated climate change in half a century will reduce general welfare equivalent to lowering each person’s income by between 0.2 and 2 percent.
Given that the UN expects each person on the planet to be much better off – 363 percent as wealthy as today – climate might cause us to only be 356 percent as rich by then. That is a problem, but certainly not the end of the world.
Why don’t most people know this? Because stories of catastrophe and human guilt garner more clicks and are better for weaponizing political arguments. Unfortunately, we’re unlikely to make good decisions if we’re panicked.
The political forces looking to spend the climate trillions and the academia segment supplying the fear want to scrub the climate debate of anything but the scariest scenarios. They want an unwavering allegiance to vigorous spending on climate policy, no matter its effectiveness.
They insist on treating this issue as a moral binary choice instead of a realistic balancing of costs and effectiveness which would allow for our many other challenges to be heard as well.
Certainly, the professors at Duke didn’t want anyone to hear dissenting facts.
They tried to stop the lecture through outright lies, such as claiming that my funding comes from Exxon and the Koch brothers. These claims are categorically untrue.
They also declared that I had been deemed scientifically dishonest, although the mock trial which originated that claim has been completely overturned and annulled because it contained no arguments.
More worryingly, they raged about how climate catastrophes are so terrible that we should not allow any more climate debate. Yet, their claims were almost uniformly untrue.
They said that “much of the Australian continent” had been devoured in climate-induced fire. But we know from satellite measurements, published in Nature, that while the fires near population centers had severe impacts, the total land area burned was 4 percent – one of the lowest-ever percentages, from an average this century of 6.2 percent and last century of 10.1 percent.
Four percent is not “much of the Australian continent.” Such claims are more like the rantings from people who have been watching too much alarmist TV.
h/t GWPF
Read rest at The Australian ($)
Banning or regulating CO2 would be like trying to stop drunk drivers by banning the sober ones like stopping crime by banning guns Liberals dont think they just spew a load of poppycock from their Mouths/Pieholes and strut around in front of the TV News cameras
I have been closely following the global warming/climate change fraud for 19 years. Way back when I first starting following this issue there was significant effort to silence those who spoke against global warming. If the facts are on your side, then you want open and free discussion because your point of view is strengthened. If on the other hand the facts are against you, then suppressing the opposing view is very important. Consider what impact knowledge of INMCM5 (the Russian Climate Model) would have. It matches real world data more closely than any other model but only predicts 1.4 degrees of warming. With that knowledge, how many people would be willing to spend trillions and accept a lower standard of living to take action against climate change?
The Russians have the luxury to focus on sensible program logic versus crisis program logic, because the Russians don’t need to scare their people into accepting complete government control to save the world, because they already live a life of communism. The best part is, they don’t fear CO2 and use fossil fuels like crazy — because its relatively cheap and very reliable.
Lomborg is a voice for honesty and adaptability in the CC campaign; they will try to silence him. The purveyors of this hoax will stop at nothing to profit from this scam; that’s why they use lie after lie to push it on us. Buying prosecutors to sue energy companies, killing coal, blaming Covid pandemic on CC, killing pipelines are but a few of their actions. Biden is proposing a $3 trillion infrastructure bill that includes GND–more debt, more taxes, more regulations and higher and higher energy bills! By their own projections there’s no benefit to this insanity.
If “much of Australia” was annually burnt to a crisp by bushfire the place would be nigh on uninhabitable.
This is a furphy (a false story) which is easily disproven, yet that doesn’t stop it being repeated.