Reposted from Dr Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on December 14, 2019 by curryja
by Judith Curry
“I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I’m not even kidding it’s all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It’s making my sick to my stomach, I’m not eating or sleeping and I’m getting panic attacks daily. It’s currently 1 am and I can’t sleep as I’m petrified.” – Young adult in the UK
Letter from a worried young adult in the UK
I received this letter last nite, via email:
“I have no idea if this is an accurate email of your but I just found it and thought I’d take a chance. My name is XXX I’m 20 years old from the UK. I have been well the only word to describe it is suffering as I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I’m not even kidding it’s all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It’s making my sick to my stomach, I’m not eating or sleeping and I’m getting panic attacks daily. It’s currently 1am and I can’t sleep as I’m petrified. I’ve tried to do my own research, I’ve tried everything. I’m not stupid, I’m a pretty rational thinker but at this point sometimes I literally wish I wasn’t born, I’m just so miserable and Petrified. I’ve recently made myself familiar with your work and would be so appreciative of any findings you can give me or hope or advice over email. I’m already vegetarian and I recycle everything so I’m really trying. Please help me. In anyway you can. I’m at my wits end here.”
JC’s response
We have been hearing increasingly shrill rhetoric from Extinction Rebellion and other activists about the ‘existential threat’ of the ‘climate crisis’, ‘runaway climate chaos’, etc. In a recent op-ed, Greta Thunberg stated: “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” From the Extinction Rebellion: “It is understood that we are facing an unprecedented global emergency. We are in a life or death situation of our own making.”
It is more difficult tune out similar statements from responsible individuals representing the United Nations. In his opening remarks for the UN Climate Change Conference this week in Madrid (COP25), UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that “the point of no-return is no longer over the horizon.” Hoesung Lee, the Chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said “if we stay on our current path, [we] threaten our existence on this planet.”
So . . . exactly what should we be worried about? Consider the following statistics:
- Over the past century, there has been a 99% decline in the death toll from natural disasters, during the same period that the global population quadrupled.
- While global economic losses from weather and climate disasters have been increasing, this is caused by increasing population and property in vulnerable locations. Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have declined about 30% since 1990.
- While the IPCC has estimated that sea level could rise by 0.6 meters by 2100, recall that the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago.
- Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.
- The proportion of world population living in extreme poverty declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015.
While many people may be unaware of this good news, they do react to each weather or climate disaster in the news. Activist scientists and the media quickly seize upon each extreme weather event as having the fingerprints of manmade climate change — ignoring the analyses of more sober scientists showing periods of even more extreme weather in the first half of the 20th century, when fossil fuel emissions were much smaller.
So . . . why are we so worried about climate change? The concern over climate change is not so much about the warming that has occurred over the past century. Rather, the concern is about what might happen in the 21st century as a result of increasing fossil fuel emissions. Emphasis on ‘might.’
Alarming press releases are issued about each new climate model projection that predicts future catastrophes from famine, mass migrations, catastrophic fires, etc. However these alarming scenarios of the 21st century climate change require that, like the White Queen in Alice and Wonderland, we believe ‘six impossible things before breakfast’.
The most alarming scenarios of 21st century climate change are associated with the RCP8.5 greenhouse gas concentration scenario. Often erroneously described as a ‘business as usual’ scenario, RCP8.5 assumes unrealistic trends long-term trends for population and a slowing of technological innovation. Even more unlikely is the assumption that the world will largely be powered by coal.
In spite of the implausibility of this scenario, RCP8.5 is the favored scenario for publications based on climate model simulations. In short, RCP8.5 is a very useful recipe for cooking up scenarios alarming impacts from manmade climate change. Which are of course highlighted and then exaggerated by press releases and media reports.
Apart from the issue of how much greenhouse gases might increase, there is a great deal of uncertainty about much the planet will warm in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – referred to as ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS). The IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) provided a range between 1 and 6oC, with a ‘likely’ range between 1.5 and 4.5oC.
In the years since the 5th Assessment Report, the uncertainty has grown. The latest climate model results – prepared for the forthcoming IPCC 6th Assessment Report – shows that a majority of the climate models are producing values of ECS exceeding 5oC. The addition of poorly understood additional processes into the models has increased confusion and uncertainty. At the same time, refined efforts to determine values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity from the historical data record obtain values of ECS about 1.6oC, with a range from 1.05 to 2.7oC.
With this massive range of uncertainty in the values of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the lowest value among the climate models is 2.3oC, with few models having values below 3oC. Hence the lower end of the range of ECS is not covered by the climate models, resulting in temperature projections for the 21st century that are biased high, with a smaller range relative to the range of uncertainty in ECS.
With regards to sea level rise, recent U.S. national assessment reports have included a worst-case sea level rise scenario for the 21st century of 2.5 m. Extreme estimates of sea level rise rely on RCP8.5 and climate model simulations that are on average running too hot relative to the uncertainty range of ECS. The most extreme scenarios of 21st century sea level rise are based on speculative and poorly understood physical processes that are hypothesized to accelerate the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, recent research indicates that these processes are very unlikely to influence sea level rise in the 21st century. To date, in most of the locations that are most vulnerable to sea level rise, local sinking from geological processes and land use has dominated over sea level rise from global warming.
To further complicate climate model projections for the 21st century, the climate models focus only on manmade climate change – they make no attempt to predict natural climate variations from the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term variations in ocean circulation patterns. We have no idea how natural climate variability will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming.
We still don’t have a realistic assessment of how a warmer climate will impact us and whether it is ‘dangerous.’ We don’t have a good understanding of how warming will influence future extreme weather events. Land use and exploitation by humans is a far bigger issue than climate change for species extinction and ecosystem health.
We have been told that the science of climate change is ‘settled’. However, in climate science there has been a tension between the drive towards a scientific ‘consensus’ to support policy making, versus exploratory research that pushes forward the knowledge frontier. Climate science is characterized by a rapidly evolving knowledge base and disagreement among experts. Predictions of 21st century climate change are characterized by deep uncertainty.
As noted in a recent paper co-authored by Dr. Tim Palmer of Oxford University, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/11/26/1906691116.full.pdf, there is “deep dissatisfaction with the ability of our models to inform society about the pace of warming, how this warming plays out regionally, and what it implies for the likelihood of surprises.” “Unfortunately, [climate scientists] circling the wagons leads to false impressions about the source of our confidence and about our ability to meet the scientific challenges posed by a world that we know is warming globally.”
We have not only oversimplified the problem of climate change, but we have also oversimplified its ‘solution’. Even if you accept the climate model projections and that warming is dangerous, there is disagreement among experts regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response. In any event, rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels to ameliorate the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.
Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require continued management over the coming centuries.
We have been told that climate change is an ‘existential crisis.’ However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations. However, the perception of manmade climate change as a near-term apocalypse and has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider. The perceived ‘urgency’ of drastically reducing fossil fuel emissions is forcing us to make near term decisions that may be suboptimal for the longer term. Further, the monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems that we might have more success in addressing in the near term.
Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies and increase access to grid electricity, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult. Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. On the other hand, the extremely alarmist rhetoric has frightened the bejesus out of children and young adults.
JC message to children and young adults: Don’t believe the hype that you are hearing from Extinction Rebellion and the like. Rather than going on strike or just worrying, take the time to learn something about the science of climate change. The IPCC reports are a good place to start; for a critical perspective on the IPCC, Climate Etc. is a good resource.
Climate change — manmade and/or natural — along with extreme weather events, provide reasons for concern. However, the rhetoric and politics of climate change have become absolutely toxic and nonsensical.
In the mean time, live your best life. Trying where you can to lessen your impact on the planet is a worthwhile thing to do. Societal prosperity is the best insurance policy that we have for reducing our vulnerability to the vagaries of weather and climate.
JC message to Extinction Rebellion and other doomsters: Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history. You are your own worst enemy — you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather. You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I highlighted this issue on this site some years ago. You need to better understand young people. I am an experienced teacher working in a British secondary school. Our young people are being totally bombarded with such rhetoric every single day of their lives. It’s not a case of simply not tuning into media or not believing people. Progressive educational systems have robbed a generation of knowledge. They’re told they don’t need to learn knowledge because they have google. We are now in a situation where majority don’t know how to read effectively, let alone critically. Research? Levels of literacy amongst this generation are appalling. They mostly don’t read; they watch Netflix or play video games that diminish their sense of empathy. The AGW message is so strong that you’re publicly verbally admonished and considered a fool to deny it; whether you’re a child or an adult. Young people typically don’t want to stand out; Greta can do that. It’s in their school curriculum across several subject areas, there are posters all around schools, eco councils organizing school climate strikes and well meaning liberal teachers who think they are doing the right thing by filling morning assemblies with videos of Greta and melting ice. If as much publicity and shaming were put into highlighting litter and pollution to young people then that would really help the environment but unfortunately it’s not as apocalyptic. Pollution doesn’t scare people enough. AGW is fed by fear, it’s a real life horror movie akin to the anxiety I suffered myself under the shadow of the mushroom cloud as a teen during the 1980s.
Newty, it is so sad to read what you just wrote!
What can we do to about this situation?
It’s much worse than that. They now have listening devices (similar to Big Brother, but that’s another story) in their homes or on their phones. Asking these oh so helpful agents questions will return the TOP result only from a Google search or similar.
This means that whoever controls the top slot in a search can control the minds of such people. The fact that this top slot can be bought, and indeed influenced by the generous providers of these search results (however biased), means that these people are doomed to be controlled.
The only solution is to scrap social media and these silly manipulated search results and to start thinking for yourself. You’ll lose contact with indoctrinated friends and possibly even family members, but it’s well worth it IMO.
It would be nice if one of these anguished, panicked, petrified young people would explain exactly HOW they are in danger. What specific climate-related thing do they think will kill them?
Notice that the alarmist rhetoric is always in apocalyptic generalities. I always ask alarmists to give me a specific timeline, predict a specific event, explain the specific physical cause-effect principles involved. They either get quiet, or scream the generalities louder.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/05/quote-of-the-week-agw-fear-is-damaging-our-young/
My original post in 2013.
There are probably a *lot* of people out in the world who are just like this poor person: scared to death about the future. The Climategate Charlatans must be real proud of themselves for pulling the wool over people’s eyes with regard to the Earth’s climate. This is their legacy.
If you come to the climate debate for the first time, what do you see? You see just about every societal institution promoting human-caused climate change. What offsets these “authoritative” institution’s claims?
About the only place you can get the “other side of the story” is a website like WUWT. Fortunately, if a person reads WUWT long enough, with an open mind, then they will eventually realize that the world is not ending, and there is plenty of time to adapt to whatever future we may have, CO2 warming or no CO2 warming.
That’s my advice: Read WUWT until you get educated on the subject, and you will definitely be educated on the subject if you spend enough time on it because the experts are here.
Ask a question. You will get an answer.
The problem is that they are trained to listen to one side and never seek a second opinion, that of the skeptic.
“You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context.”
Or, they are making young people prepared to become the next division of Brownshirts, most completely unaware of the disastrous role of propagandized young people in the last century.
I see all kinds of postings by people frightened by climate disaster claims on a Facebook group called “Doomsday Debunked – MAIN GROUP”. The message form the young person JC quotes is typical for that group. Such fear is becoming very common now.
I fear more the reactions to so called climate change, that will be more windmills, more solar panels, less coal, gas, oil and nuclear powerplants in Germany called “energy transition” to “renewables”.
There is more danger than in climate change, where is no danger at all.
You’re right there. Renewables will collapse the economies of western nations while simultaneously destroying the environment. California has a homeless crisis partly brought on by their mad rush to renewables. I’m sure they once had the third biggest economy in the world but with the highest electricity prices in the U.S. industry is leaving. The main thing western nations export are jobs to China.
My country, Australia, is well on the road to Venezuela. A resource rich nation that seems determined to impoverish its people.
Around 2030 😐 I wonder who told her that “fact”…
Greta Thunberg stated: “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”
So far as toxins are concerned, the issue seems to be toxic activism being amplified by toxic and irresponsible journalism.
The 20 year old is a pretty rational response to a lifetime,immersed in dooms day propaganda.
The Cult of Calamitous Climate has been abusing children for the last 30 years.
And they are proud of their behaviour.
St Greta is their finest work.
This callous attempt to take power,at any expense and by any means, by our own bureaucracies failed to convince voting adults.
So our “experts” deliberately targeted our children.
Children who have no learnt defences from lying government.
Children who trust adults in authority,to do the right thing.
Children who have yet to complete the sentence;”We are from the government,we are here to help you…” into slavery,servitude and poverty.
Todays children are going to be the most cynical adults of several generations.
Government and institutional “science’ have betrayed them and now they are being handed the bill, taxed to pay for their own abuse.
Not only children are suffering this misery,convinced by “authority” that we are doomed,that their children shall have no future, but Doom by Cataclysmic Climate .
Lots of miserable adults as well.
Gullibility runs strong in the herd beast part of our nature.
Another piece of advice I would give: find 50sqm of growing area where you can learn to grow vegetables. What you will learn over 5-10 years is that although every growing season is different, vegetable plants are pretty resilient if you learn the right times to sow, plant out and harvest. It also makes you tune in to what your local weather is like, since you will want to be alert to frosty nights, heavy rain, droughts, heatwaves etc.
What I have learned is that attending to soil health has far greater impacts than interannual weather variability. Over five years I have created healthy, well-structured soil and crop yields have increased each year. Because soil temperatures vary much less than air temperature, you learn to be less worried about variations between 5C and 25C: variations from day to day and from dawn to late afternoon are much greater than deviations from monthly means….
Another piece of advice is to just back away from the stressful research and trust that the world will still be here in six months without you reading up on climate science. I did that at the end of a PhD and my stress disappeared within two months and my health was perfect when I returned home from working overseas. The mind is a funny thing: sometimes just letting things incubate quietly for a few months can bring clarity…..
The people behind the climate extremism are Marxists. They want power, and they state openly they want to “dismantle Capitalism”. They want revolution to gain power and they also state openly the way to bring on revolution is to generate chaos. When people are disillusioned with what they have, they look for alternatives. That’s part of the strategy on the Left.
There is no compromise or solution. There is no reasoning with them. You might reach some of the fellow travelers before they are too far gone, but the committed are dangerous. They will do anything to achieve their goals.
While they have been working mostly underground for decades, they smell they are close to getting what they want and have become more brazen. Also, they have had success in converting multiple generation to socialist thinking over the past century, and the parents of the latest batch of know-nothings can’t tell K12 is an utter disaster and should be tossed whole into the dustbin. There is no saving it.
There is chaos in so many areas of society, induced deliberately, people can’t deal with it. So it’s not the individual pieces of society that are the thing to rectify, it’s the people who are behind chaos we must remove. Democrat officials, their deep state accomplices in government, Soros funding subversive organizations, those in charge of education at all levels, monopolistic social media corporations functioning in a growing fascist economy (where govt controls business – yes, govt does control them).
This is a different kind of civil war we are in right now. We can no longer play nice. Criminals need to be arrested, charged, convicted, and jailed. We know they are guilty of serious felonies, but the DOJ will do nothing. Certain people skate. That should not happen if the Rule of Law means anything.
We have Soviet tactics being used to attack people who have political differences, undermining the right of the people to vote for their representatives. We have a corrupt Judiciary complicit in erasing the meaning of the Constitution even when the original intent is well known. It depends on a population being uneducated and unable to tell when their rights are being taken. They are being given a lump of coal (welfare, dependence, false security, dull existence) in place of a diamond (freedom, opportunity, risk, achievement).
They are a coordinated group. We are a collection of individuals without much of any direction. They know where they are going. We want to be left alone. But we are not going to be left alone, and our children are being stolen from us, their futures robbed.
So we can pretend we are much more intellectually developed than the socialist mob. And even if we were, so what? The barbarians are already through the gates. Rome is burning. And I’m hearing fiddling from our side.
Wake up. Organize. See the bigger picture. Do more than talk. I am. I am politically involved (elected and serving), talking to voters and trying to change some minds and have some influence at higher levels. Yes, it’s hard to get started, but do it.
Nobody has mentioned the headline news from COP-25
In her opening remarks for the UN Climate Change’s Conference this week in Madrid (COP25), Patricia Espinosa, its Executive Secretary, said …
https://unfccc.int/news/cop25-to-be-the-launchpad-for-significantly-more-climate-ambition-0
A double in the global temperature! That would be an apocalypse. Did the audience run screaming from the auditorium? Or, perhaps, the bartender said “No more drinks for you, lady.”
Lol…now that was funny.
That is terrifying, because it means that noone is critically listening or reading any of the pronouncements. Terrifying, but unsurprising. I made a copy of it and I bookmarked it because I am pretty sure someone will edit it out in the future. I hope wayback.org saves it for posterity.
We talking Celsius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin here?
Cause Kelvin would be really bad.
Tell the whiners like Greta we grew up with the real threat of nuclear annihilation. We are still here, fortunately. The climate threat is a political and economic threat, not an environmental or existential threat.
Judith, as a tonic for someone chronically frightened about climate change, is not the worst person to consult, but she is not the best either. Imagine the state this young woman is in and reread JC’s complex, equivocal response.
Judith rebelled against against the shrill alarmist team and fake hockey stick science but she is all-in as a warmest who, despite all the uncertainty she owns, can’t bring herself to countenance that we could just as easily head into a colder future. The logic of her beliefs, assessments of uncertainty, and understanding that it is a science in which natural variation is yet to be properly evaluated do not rule out catastrophic cooling.
We had the unpredictable LIA (we are still perplexed by it today) which killed off perhaps 30% of Europeans and God knows how many from the rest of a world of much lesser technical and economic skills and we have perhaps only just emerged from it. It is this recovery from the LIA that we are hyping as dangerous global warming. Most of the warming we have had took place before 1940! We want to suck the CO2 back out of the atmosphere to restore the LIA! And then there is the big one, the hundred thousand year one of another glacial maximum that logic tells us is likely to repeat.
The only palpable climate change that has occurred so far is “The Great Global Greening^тм and its spinoff – bumper crops that make CO2 orders of magnitude net positive in any sane cost-benefit analysis. Deserts are blooming, crops are becoming drought proof, natural habitat is expanding even in the developed world where crops are
burgeoning on lesser acreage. Chances are good we are heading for my “Garden of Eden Earth ^тм” to coincide with peak population (85% there already) and global prosperity.
Gee, Judith. Append my remarks to your beleaguered correspondent.
Going back a bit…
So, The Netherlands is somewhat below sea level. Never hear a peep about problems thete.
Until now:
https://www.bis.org/review/r191211h.htm
But the dikes seem to be holding and there was one brave kid who stopped the flooding.
I now nominate the above banker to give the kid a break. It’s been awhile a this smarta$$ needs to prove his worth.
I blame mobile phones (cell phones to you merry cans).
Most kids have mobile phones and are glued to them. Facebook, Twitter, Google etc. all feed them adverts and news based on what they are already reading. If I read an article on CAGW my iPhone insists on presenting me with even more lurid articles on CAGW.
Whilst I’m old enough to be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff, young minds are still capable of being moulded.
The same principle applies to the type of newspaper you normally buy or which news channel you watch.
+100
“We have been told that climate change is an ‘existential crisis.’ However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations. – Dr Judith Curry”
Dear Dr Curry,
I’m sorry but I couldn’t let this go. Our language is becoming meaningless as the common parlance is increasingly overrun by ideological jargon! The misuse of the ‘newspeak’ buzzword “existential” simply amounts to the mind-numbing Orwellian ‘doublethink’ we’ve long been warned about.
Do you actually mean any of the following:
1. That the climate threat is not a real threat?
2. That the climate threat does not exist; only in the mind?
3. Or that the climate threat is not a threat to existence?
If you did intend the third option, despite what google says about the meaning of existential – this week – it has never meant “threat to existence” in the technical or denotative sense, nor in the connotative vernacular of the – less recent – past!
Please just say what you mean!
i.e. …the climate threat is not a threat to existence, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations.
Even if we are both wrong about the meaning of a particular word, if we speak and write plainly, the meaning will be clear.
“Any fool can write learned language. The vernacular is the real test. – C.S. Lewis”
cheers,
Scott
Correction: “If you did intend the third option, despite what google says about the meaning of an existential threat – this week – it has never meant…”
To clarify further, existential means ‘real’ or ‘exists’ or the technical term meaning ‘immanent’ (i.e. In the mind only).
The first thing I did after reading your post, of course, was to Google “definition of extistentialist”, and by golly if it didn’t agree with you. Various links defined it as “concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.” (Weren’t these writers taught you can’t use the word, or a form of the word, it its definition?)
An “existential crisis” was defined, as a moment when one questions the meaning of their existence, and whether their life has meaning.
But yeah, nothing about being “a threat to existence.”
I learned something today. Thank you.
Quick! Unlearn it. It’s the terrible lesson of childhood language education.
Teachers have to pretend there are static, inviolable rules in order for basic understanding of language to be taught. It’s just that a lot of the time, educators forget to pull back the curtain at the right point, and reveal that language is actually dynamic and alive.
Would it be expecting too much to think that this should be taught in school at an early age?
Hey Scott:
Any reputable linguist will tell you that language is constantly changing. Vocabulary more so than any other aspect. Resistance, my friend, is futile.
Like it or not, option #3 has probably crossed the threshold of “acceptable usage, even by language scolds.”
If you take a step back, it is actually a logical expansion of the use. It checks a few boxes: shorter to write, fewer syllables to speak, easily understood, no superior synonym already in use… it’s really not bad.
Kids these days are bombarded, almost continuously, 24×7 with stories, which is all they are, about impending climate doom. This 20 year old should turn off the smartphone/PC and TV, disconnect from the internet, go out and have fun.
See my comment at 3.17 pm
Absolutely bonkers!
Extinction Rebellion, Green New Deal, IPCC, UNFCCC, 350.org, etc. etc are all hyping a nonexistent threat!
XR, GND, UN, IPCC and UNFCCC freely admit that their hyping the fears is to force the world into a global
socialist tyranny.
People, i.e. gullible people, who accept the death of Earth and all life from climate change are not rational!.
They make zero effort to verify how dooms are prophesied.
They make even less effort to learn about and fully understand doom avoidance XR, GND and UNFCCC are actually demanding.
They mouth words like “zero carbon” in the same sentences as “vegan” without ever realizing the two are not related.
“Zero carbon” without a viable or even close to viable replacement means no heat, no A/C, no machine spun and woven fabrics, no stretch fabrics, no refrigeration, no modern medicines, no hospitals, no paved roads, no easy cooking over electric or LPG burners, no transportation, no easily constructed houses, etc. etc. etc.
It takes real blinkers or light blocking face masks to avoid reaching simple logical conclusions about what “zero carbon” means.
Instead they feel that their half-derriered self satisfaction feel good social signal actions that only complicate real life.
******************
As long as gullible delusional fools send lots of money to their personal favorite alarmist organization, the fear will be hyped to higher and higher levels.
Just like horror and fright films, future releases must meet a higher ‘frighten me’ standard as people quickly get jaded to the old hyped fears.
Go outside and spend some time exposed to nature. Notice the cycles, adaptations, and her ability to exploit and thrive in virtually any situation that comes up. Let her teach you, not simply confirm what you think you already know. Breathe, relax, chill. Stop listening to politicians with agendas. Not that difficult.
The hope to secure trillions of dollars in redistributive change and control is a first-order forcing of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] [sociopolitical] global cooling… warming… climate change
It’s well written, but if Curry truly is trying to reach out to children then she should simplify the prose.
“However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations.”
might be rewritten as…
“Current science says that climate change will not kill off humanity, even if the worst predictions come true.”
You “end of the world”people are out of your friggen minds. Just stop with the fake forecasts already. This young girl who has been fixated on climatastrophic delusions needs to give her head a shake and find something a tad more positive (and real) to focus on. The science by consensus approach is no longer fooling anyone, except those that want to believe. Sorry, folks. The struggle is over. Time to move on to a new, fresh end of world issue.