Originally tweeted by Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) on October 3, 2021.
New study: climate makes children born today experience 2-36x more climate catastrophes
Lot of media coverage
But study assumes everyone stays poor and do nothing to adapt
Not remotely true of real world
So, what’s the point, except to scare?
🧵
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi7339
To predict 2100, scary climate study assumes nobody does anything after 2005
– how does that inform real-life decisions?
They don’t even tell you this in main study – you have to read the supplementary material, almost as if they don’t want you to know
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi7339
Predicting the world in 2021 with 1926 data is awful
Since 1926, sea levels risen 15-20cm so prediction: drowned significant parts of the world
But human ingenuity actually means that *more* land has been reclaimed than lost!
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111
Scary climate study cherry-picks events that they know will get worse
Not useful way to guide policy
but great way to scare
(they also introduce ref37, which describes all their data better
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001616)
Scary climate study shows that fires burn more and more
In reality, global burned area has *declined*
But, of course, if you ignore societies controlling fire…
Not useful to guide policy
but great way to scare
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi7339
Scary climate study uses fire model that doesn’t really work
And acknowledges that human action could reverse ”any of the trends found here”
But while this is useless to guide policy
it is great for scaring
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001616
Global fire history shows ever less area burns because of human fire suppression
Climate policy will make fire decline even more
This sort of information can help policy-makers
But, of course, pretty useless for scaring young people senseless
Refs here
Scary climate study claims much more fire (red line)
But 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 true if ignore CO₂ and fire suppression from society
If included, Nature study shows *completely* different outcome
Red line useless for policy, but great for scaring
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2999
Scary study shows more flooding, but ignores social factors:
Not surprisingly, humans can avoid most flooding, if they are not poor
Ignoring obvious adaptation — like levees and dams — doesn’t inform but simply scares
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001882
Compare the impact on coastal flooding from rising sea levels:
As humanity gets richer (SSP1 or SSP5), it will protect itself ever better, and ever fewer will get flooded
Informative, but not scary
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3292
Scary climate study finds more and more hurricanes
— although they *know* that ”most … models project fewer hurricanes in a warmer world”
While not informative, claiming more hurricanes obviously great for scare stories
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001616
Scary climate study finds more and more hurricanes
— but the UN Climate Panel from 2021 finds that the frequency “will decrease or remain unchanged with increased global warming”
How is this not deeply problematic?
Scary climate study expects more hurricanes and model that humanity will do nothing
— although we’ve always tackled hurricanes, and adaptation can ”reverse any such trend”
But great for scaring young people
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001616
Scary climate study expects more crop failure and expects humanity will do nothing
— although changing cultivars, fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation can reverse this
But narrative great for scaring young people
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001616
Scary study predicts more and more crop failures because they ignore adaptation
WHO estimate for malnutrition: declines dramatically because of less poverty. Climate simply slows down the decline slightly
But scaring people is apparently much more fun
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/134014
Scary article blatantly tells you (in supplementary material) that they only look at potentially bad stuff, but in reality, things might get better
Well, here are actual damages for global weather-related losses — declining
Scary climate article tells you: children of the future will experience many more climate disasters
But they ignore adaptation and many of their models are just plain bad
Demand policy-relevant information, not just scares
https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1419352336128950280,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
Originally tweeted by Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) on October 3, 2021.
Can’t wait until Biden gets a whiff of this.
This isn’t a little girls hair. Resident Xiden will have no interest in sniffing this.
Doesn’t compare to Kamila toe.
I heard that she is a man with ten toes.
Most of the Netherlands is underwater, and I died of famine in 1973. No people ever solve any ecological problem, ever!/sarc
Yes, the children of tomorrow will invent stuff we would never have dreamt of. That’s how civilisation advances. Nothing stays the same, except perhaps an alarmist’s mind set.
Only if they stay in school and learn how to.
If only the Progressives would be the ones to follow their own predictions and leave the rest of us alone. We’d be free of them in a generation.
I keep saying that they need their own planet.
It’s interesting how the slight change in current climate from the coldest period of civilization, known as the little ice age, to the current warming and greening, resulting in record food production for our ever-increasing population is considered, and widely broadcast, by so many people to be a catastrophe.
To the point where it terrifies the kiddies so they can rebel and force us to fix this non-problem.
And this weapon has still to be polished and perfected.
It’s called “divide and conquer”.
It seems there is less kiddies, dumber kiddies, and less united kiddies-
The Left defeats itself, as it always does.
The Dems a bunch old fossils which are fading away, but not before they pull ceiling onto
themselves- and Biden is their leader.
A handmade tale to distort the issue and justify the solution.
Huxley predicted that kind of thing in this interview with Mike Wallace in 1957.
“You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them. If you want to preserve power indefinitely you have to get consent. They will do this partly by drugs, partly by new techniques of propaganda, they will do this by bypassing the rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and deeper emotions and even his physiology.”
Holy crap. That’s the truth, right there. 70 years ago. Thanks for the link. I loved reading Aldous Huxley when younger, what an intelligent person.
If the eco-terrorists (college professors and scientists) in California would refrain from starting forest fires, then there would be even fewer fires to blame on climate change.
I’m of the ilk that you cease to be a scientist when you become an activist.
Certainly when the activism and policy avocation extends to one’s own field of work. It is easy to imagine exceptions though. I think a marine biologist or a particle physicist could be an policy activist for stopping whaling for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
But what advocacy then-GISS Director Hansen did in the late 1980’s was becasue he wanted WV coal strip mining/mountain top removal mining to stop. He pushed a climate scam as a Democrat Party policy war against coal that used CO2 emissions. Hansen shrewdly knew he about 30-35 year window to run his anti-coal environmental agenda before the CO2 x Global temperature rise correlation would begin to break.
Don’t know about physics but biologists were culpable earlier than Hansen. Silent Spring (1960s) was written by a marine biologist and a series of “Environmental Science” texts were popular in the 1980s.. Others, otherwise reasonable, mostly, have predicted a completely tropical Gulf of Mexico by 2100 among various other effects based mainly on IPCC references. I have run across relatively few signs of climate homework but there are several worth mentioning, including Atlantic fish cycles and ENSO effects on populations. Many have bought into acidification, but to their credit the literature doesn’t support it as it stimulated lots of reasonable research. Papers still use the word acidification even studying pH well above 7, but a few do delve into real acid.
The problem is the use of their “authority” for advocacy, even activism, as those high in various “scientific” organizations, of course helped by the also negative press.
Bjorn Lomborg always helps put things into perspective. Even though he believes the global-warming “science”, that is not enough for the true believers. They then seek to ruin him because he questions just some of the green dogmas. Quite a brave man.
Says a lot about the “scientific community” in general, it seems to me, that it requires “quite a brave man” to speak up against such brazen scaremongering. And what it says ain’t good at all . .
I’m not convinced that Lomborg truly believes that the IPCC report is fully accurate.
In the courtroom, it is not uncommon for one side to say “we will stipulate to X”. That doesn’t mean they truly believe X. It means they don’t want to invest time and effort into arguing about X, when they are convinced that conceding X still means they can make their case.
The same with Lomborg. I do appreciate those brave souls who are digging into the IPCC, finding problematic conclusions, and uncovering errors. That process may help prevent overreach, but Lomborg’s position is, “even if everything the IPCC says is true, the actions proposed by climate activists aren’t warranted.” The climate activists can’t throw back at him that he is refusing to accept science – after all, he just accepted all the science. That means the climate activists have to argue on different grounds and those arguments aren’t persuasive.
I predict that the future children of the 99% will be subjected to extreme psychological impairment due to the indoctrination imposed by the 1%.
Greta barely survived the storms…the fires…the drought…the sea level rise…the glacier loss….but she is determined to save all the little children behind her…blah blah blah.
But will our grandkids finally the flying cars we were promised 50 years ago? And won’t they have free unlimited fusion power by then?
Their dreams will be plagued by monsters in the closet which rob them of their creativity unless the toxic lies of the elite are exposed soon. If there is a global “code red” it involves politics (as always) and the future of those who wish to be individualists and free thinkers in the developing global “beehive” society.
The (Glasgow) Herald has had an intermittant debate about GAGW on the Letters To The Editor page over several months now. On Thursday it printed a a piece by Bjorn Lomborg condensing this the facts in this paper.
Not one of the warministas has responded.
I wonder why not?
Flipping typos!
… condensing the facts …,
This is just another deliberately garbled and scary article designed to add to the hysteria in the run up to COP26.
Curiously, right now a huge Facebook/Instagram scandal with whistleblower Frances Haugen is all over the media. Internal FB documents documented the dangerous impact on kids. I just wonder if any mentioned climate doom and depression.
FB planned to go after the tweeny market and had to can that idea.
Whistleblower: Facebook research showed Instagram is worse for teenagers than other social media (“60 minutes”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT2sMDCW_2k
Note the title comment on feedback. I suspect climate doom works exactly the same way.
Facebook and Instagram appear to be unavailible presently, according to news reports.
“appear to be unavailible presently”
Maybe we’ll get lucky and “presently” will become “permantly”
Children are most affected by a lot of Corona restrictions, not by climate events.
Looking at the pattern of “brownouts” it is rather clear Winnie The Xi is punishing certain groups/areas for their non-compliance with his overhaul of China’s culture, out with Mao and in the Xi. Going to be interesting to see which set of scumbags prevails, the Maoists or the Xi-ists.
???
Didn’t talk about China.
Sorry! Had three windows open this morning and put that in wrong chat. See what happens before that first cup of coffee kicks in. 😉
Improvements aren’t examples of “adaptation to climate change”. When the levees in New Orleans were finally upgraded, was that an “adaptation to climate change”? No, of course not. It was a long-delayed recognition that those levees were not fit for purpose. Simple as that. Ironically, it is the much-maligned (by Alarmists) fossil fuels which have made, and will continue to make these advancements possible. End of story.
When all you can do is attempt to induce mass hysteria then all you will do is attempt to induce mass hysteria. The inducers don’t care what damage they do, they are raking in the money and that is all they care about.
As I was going up a stair
I met a man who wasn’t there.
I used to have this really old book of nursery rhymes. I’ll have to look for it. Some of them were like the man who wasn’t there: kind of spooky, but also kind of fun. IF what these rather obnoxious creatures are doing is aimed at scaring small children, they should be taken to task over it. Yes, I know: it’s always about cash flow, always follow the money, but do they have to be so obvious about it?
It’s worth it to ask what they are really afraid of y’know, and I don’t think it’s nice warm weather. They seem to think this planet has a steady-state atmosphere, which is completely not true. And no, we mere mortals can’t control anything the planet does. Poor things.
Porn sells. Fear Porn.
The alarmists think it does. They put out enough of it. They still haven’t gotten one scarey prediction right.
In the good old days, there were consequences for being wrong.
Now, none.
When are we going to unite, stand up as a global force and kick this climate change crap in the knackers?
Who is teaching History, real History, anymore? (In any field.)
They are teaching that the only “real history” is what they’ve told you has happened in your lifetime.
If there is no cellphone video of the event, it didn’t happen or it wasn’t as bad as those old black and white photos or videos of past events show. Written records before pictures? Worthless!
Missing from the conclusion is that the only solution to these scary stories is increased government taxation on energy.
Whenever anyone tries to scare me into sending money immediately, I already know that’s a scam, because it is the hallmark of all scammers.