Professor Jem Bendell, Cumbria Professor of Sustainability Leadership

The Wire Criticises the “Deep Adaptation” Climate Doomsday Narrative

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

“Deep Adaptation” appears to be a group of climate doomsday depressives whose message is too much even for other believers.

Deep Adaptation: Could Climate Change Lead To Societal Collapse?


The ‘Deep Adaptation’ movement situates the conversation about society’s future in a new realm, one in which catastrophic climate change is a given.

The movement creates a framework to think about climate adaptation by inviting people to contemplate four guiding questions.

But despite its contributions to thinking about climate change, ‘Deep Adaptation’ has a weak premise at its core: that climate change will lead to society’s collapse.

The news reports from the UN climate change conference in Glasgow this month followed a predictable pattern. World leaders took to the stage one after the other, each of them issuing dire warnings about imminent climate disaster and concluding with urgent calls to actionIt’s not too late… but we must act now!

This message feels tired, its urgency attenuated from decades of repetition. “Now” was once the 1970s, with the birth of the modern environmental movement; “now” was the Kyoto Protocol and its carbon-reduction commitments of the 1990s; “now” was Paris 2015. Now, some believe, is now too late: The tipping point has come. We’re at the apex of the curve, on the verge of an unstoppable cascade that will irreversibly alter the systems governing the natural world. It’s too late. And if we, as a society, copped to that fact, we’d all benefit immensely.

This is the argument of ‘Deep Adaptation’, a movement launched in 2018 by Jem Bendell, a professor of sustainability leadership at the University of Cumbria in the United Kingdom. The movement situates the conversation about society’s future in a new realm, one in which catastrophic climate change is taken as a given. Bendell says the world will become an unfamiliar place: Everything we’ve known about the dynamics driving our lives will be overturned by climate-induced disruption, leading to societal collapse. Only when we accept this inevitability can we prepare for the coming catastrophe “in ways that may reduce harm, especially by reducing conflict and trauma,” writes Bendell.

‘Deep Adaptation’ has attracted a worldwide following: The founding document was downloaded more than a half million times, according to Bendell, and forums have solidified a base of participants, from students to psychologists to scholars. Recently, more than 500 scholars signed an open letter espousing the main tenets of ‘Deep Adaptation’, and urging policymakers to “engage openly with the risk of disruption and even collapse of our societies.”

Blinded by utopian visions, Bendell seems to overlook the advancements, in science and technology and other realms, that are capable of upholding society. In sectors such as energy, water, materials science and agriculture, basic science and innovative technology are spawning new realities that could stabilise societies, even amid horrific shifts in the natural world.

Read more:

I think Marianne Apostolides, the author of the critique, could spend more time examining the evidence for her own beliefs. In my opinion she seems way to ready to embrace climate doomsday narratives herself, even if she tempers those beliefs with a well placed faith in technology and innovation.

But its nice to see someone standing up against unrelenting pessimism of climate leaders like Professor Jem Bendell. It is all very well wallowing in your own climate grief. But when you lead thousands, possibly millions of others down the same path, in my opinion that way lies Jonestown.

4.6 17 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2021 10:08 pm

Edited to correct the misspelling of Adaptation as “Adaption”, and Jem Bendell as “Jen Bendell”. I hate typos.


Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 27, 2021 10:23 pm

Penultimate para:
“she seems way to ready to embrace”

First ‘to’ should be ‘too’

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2021 5:46 am

Another typo, “…In my opinion she seems way to ready to embrace…”. The first “to” should be “too.”

Al Kour
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2021 10:58 pm

Adaption has less those carbon-black letters, so eco friendly!

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2021 12:42 pm

“Recently, more than 500 pseudo-scholars signed an open letter espousing the main tenets of ‘Deep Adaptation’, …” Corrected this statement as well.

November 27, 2021 10:13 pm

The ‘Deep Adaptation’ enthusiasts have developed their beliefs to the degree that is too much even for the top-grade Eco-Loons. After you reach the ‘collapse of society” level, there is really nothing much more to play for.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
November 27, 2021 10:23 pm

Never go full retard!

Jeff Labute
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
November 28, 2021 7:12 am

We could develop a competing “critical deep adaptation theory” and charge some serious $$ for classes. There is a need to adapt everywhere, and people who believe they are adapting, really aren’t.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeffy
Richard Page
Reply to  Jeff Labute
November 28, 2021 8:41 am

Sorry but you didn’t actually mention what we are adapting for? What is the need to adapt that is “everywhere”, please?

Jeff Labute
Reply to  Richard Page
November 28, 2021 11:53 am

Well if I had to answer that I wouldn’t make any serious $$. (sarc)

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
November 29, 2021 12:36 pm

Why should we give you that information? We’ve spent years on this (ok minutes) but all you want to do is find something wrong with it. The Science ™ is about selecting data that makes our hypotheses seem correct. It’s not about finding evidence to falsify the whole effort!

Last edited 1 year ago by Rich Davis
Hutches Hunches
Reply to  Jeff Labute
November 28, 2021 1:04 pm

My guess is the climate alarmists would rather have us non-believers drink their cool aid rather than adapt.

November 27, 2021 10:15 pm

And with that out of the way, the “founding document” is hilarious. I particularly enjoyed this part:

That synthesis leads to my conclusion there will be a near-term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers.

The paper does not prove the inevitability of such collapse, which would involve further discussion of social, economic, political and cultural factors, but it proves that such a topic is of urgent importance.

The paper reviews some of the reasons why collapse-denial may exist, in particular, in the professions of sustainability research and practice, therefore leading to these arguments having been absent from these fields until now.


• I’ve concluded without evidence that society is about to collapse.

• I’m not going to try to prove that claim, because I can’t, but my claim “proves” that the topic is of “utmost importance”.

• People who think my claim is bull-goose looney are “collapse deniers”, which is why nobody talks about this topic of “utmost importance”.


Alan the Brit
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2021 12:59 am

Am I permitted to add that title alongside my existing “Climate Denier” title I treasure so much, I can now be Alan the Brit, Climate Denier, Collapse Denier, C.Eng!!! I think it will look pretty good on my letter heads!!! Lack of proof is all part of the “Precautionary Principle” philosophy!!! This “Precautionary Principle” is not to be confused with engineering “precautionary principle”, whereby we think “If it can go wrong it will go wrong”, which is invoked to preserve life & body & property/equipment, no this other Precautionary Principle” is a political one designed to control people & how they think & act!!!

Richard Page
Reply to  Alan the Brit
November 28, 2021 3:15 am

I like that, perhaps you could add “Apocalypse Denier” or “Thermageddon Denier”!

Reply to  Richard Page
November 28, 2021 4:17 am

And Hosiery Denier at the weekends 😉

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Alan the Brit
November 28, 2021 8:25 am

Personally, I am a denial denier.

Climate Scientology is all about denying the evidence of your lying eyes

Reply to  Alan the Brit
November 28, 2021 6:24 pm

The warmunists abandoned the so-called “precautionary principle” a couple decades ago when mankind shrugged it off.

“So, as a ‘precaution’, we must destroy society as we know it in order to avoid something that actually sounds pretty damned good (ie warmer winters up north)???

The hell you say!

Richard Page
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2021 11:39 am

Yeah, it’s similar to the ‘climateball’ article – the climate change zealots have no arguments they can support with facts so their entire narrative revolves around changing the discussion so they can make unsupported wild claims and shout down dissent.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2021 6:19 pm

You mean society will collapse because of a couple degrees of warming … when society was created and nurtured by a significantly larger warming since the end of the last glaciation?

Hmmm … sounds like nonsense!

Doug Danhoff
November 27, 2021 10:18 pm

Sometime you begin to believe yourself by repeating an assumption. No doubt these people are committed to their message, no doubt they are wrong

Stephen Watkins
November 27, 2021 10:47 pm

Jonestown is exactly it. This is now a Cult (with a capital C) – forget science, you just have to believe what the High Priests/ Priestesses (you know who you are!) say, and even then you will not be saved ‘because of the actions of the unbelievers’. I would despair but this will (eventually) go the way of the rest of mankind’s superstitious past (Witch hunts etc..) and then we will have a new crisis thrust upon us to scare the masses into obedience, – whatever that might be. Answers please to the COP27 steering committee.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Stephen Watkins
November 27, 2021 11:40 pm

We already have a pre-packaged terror to exploit in covid. Every new strain, or made up strain, will allow ever-increasing terror levels and associated restrictions. If it hadn’t been invented, it would have to be invented.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Rod Evans
November 27, 2021 11:37 pm

Humanity’s desire (perhaps it’s a hard wired desire), to create fear and dark unknown risks to its very existence, is well documented.
Religion is perhaps the most pervasive, with its vision of hell and damnation being the prime driver of belief.
The modern advent of immediate communication across the world, has done nothing to remove this urge for demons. In fact it has made the invention of new demons all the more popular and better distributed.
Oh well, it is reassuring to know our forebears provided maps to guide us. When James Cook set off his best cartographer’s prime concern was to avoid falling off the edge, because “there be dragons”
NB in todays China dominated world, that early map making cop out, describing the unknown/uncharted, may prove prescient…….

Reply to  Rod Evans
November 28, 2021 12:56 am

Religion is perhaps the most pervasive, with its vision of hell and damnation being the prime driver of belief.

What religion is that? If it’s the one I think you’re insinuating, you’d prove to be absolutely ignorant.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Ruleo
November 28, 2021 1:38 am

Let us hope it isn’t that one then, Ruleo.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Ruleo
November 28, 2021 6:37 am

So if hell isn’t there to frighten Christians, what’s the point in trying to be good and innocent?

The sky fairy stuff is based on superstition, and nothing more. It’s right alongside this nutty professor and his belief in total thermageddon.

We don’t need mediaeval religion to try and explain away the things we don’t understand. We have science to try and help us understand, and the beauty of it all is that we will never understand everything – there will always be more to discover, and that is what makes science exciting.

*stands back and waits for the god botherers to pile on*

Last edited 1 year ago by BigCarbonPrint
M Courtney
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 28, 2021 8:49 am

Good 19th century thinking. But the debate has moved on.
You can’t prove “should be” from “observed is”.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 28, 2021 9:41 am

In the Bible, God and Jesus do not frighten people with talk about hell. They talk about being a good person and helping others. There is no praying to God to keep away natural disasters, that is nature based religions and gods. Would the world not be a safer and better place if most people followed the Ten Commandments?
Now you might ask, why should I believe in a God? Well, if you believe in Him, and recognize that natural rights come from him, and not from a government and not from man, then you can understand the US Bill of Rights and the freedoms they are there to protect. If our rights come from our creator, then they can not be taken away.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Matt Kiro
November 28, 2021 10:11 am

Still, where’s your proof a God exists?
There isn’t any. Some people hold up the Bible as “proof” but it is nothing but a bunch of contradictory stories written a long time after events were supposed to have happened.

If God is supposed to be a loving and merciful God, why does he allow humans to suffer natural disasters? He’s either incompetent, uncaring, or both. That’s not the kind of God I’d want to hitch my wagon to. Mind you, as an atheist I won’t be latching on to any fairy story.

As for the ten commandments, I don’t need some rules chiselled into a rock to tell me how to behave.

Anyway, I’ll leave it there as I don’t want to derail a thread. Now, let’s get back to laughing at Prof Bellend and his portents of doom. Sign me up as a collapse denier.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 28, 2021 10:57 pm

Fatima, Portugal, 1917 October 13th. Duly witnessed by committed atheists, who converted.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  PCman999
November 28, 2021 11:06 pm

A bunch of people looking at the sun are convinced of a God? Very funny.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 8:23 am

Why denigrate others who have different beliefs from you? That is an indicator of doubt in your own beliefs. If you truly believed in your message without any doubts then there would be no reason for you to ridicule others.

Present your arguments in a cogent fashion and who knows, you may convert some people to your beliefs.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 29, 2021 9:25 am

Here’s my cogent argument:
I’m not going to believe in something that has no proof whatsoever. I’m into science, not blind belief.

John Larson
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 7:56 am

Proof? One would think it’s been made clear that He doesn’t want it to be so easy to believe in Him. He tells us in no uncertain terms that we can have evidence though, (if we can manage to ask with a bit of appropriate humility.)

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

He’s already given some empirical evidence, that few seem to recognize. Science itself, in the modern sense of the word, was initiated and developed by Christian intellectuals. And that’s who went on to pretty much dominate the practice right on into recent times (about two thirds of all Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, were awarded to scientists who self-identified as Christian, for instance).

And surely this endeavor has resulted in the alleviation of more human misery and toil than anything else that humans have ever engaged in. Coincidence? Correlation is not causation?

A certain someone, in a certain Book, just so happened to have said this;

“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.”

And it came to pass, many centuries later, for all to see. That’s empirical evidence. Not exactly scientific evidence, but He had not yet done that work ; )

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Larson
November 29, 2021 8:57 am

You’re logic is all over the shop:

– The Arabic world invented 0 as a placeholder. That must mean Islam is correct, right?

– So people who identify as Christians have won Nobel Prizes. What about the Nobel winners who aren’t Christians?

– The scientific process of enquiry was around long before Christians appeared on the scene. I presume you’ve heard of the ancient Greeks?

– I’ve just written on the back of an envelope that any scientist who believes I’m a god is making their scientific discoveries because of me. Does that make me a god?

– Your “certain Book” is the King James Bible. It’s one of many versions of the Bible written down, changed, and reinterpreted over 100s of years. Which interpretation is the correct one?

John Larson
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 3:37 pm

– The Arabic world invented 0 as a placeholder.”

And? This impresses you as comparable to what Science has resulted in, in terms of alleviating human misery and toil?

(I can’t speak for God, of course, but I personally wouldn’t be all that interested in spending Eternity with someone that passionate about numbers ; )

– So people who identify as Christians have won Nobel Prizes. What about the Nobel winners who aren’t Christians?”

Two to one, compared to all other “worldviews” combined, in addition to all the contributions that came before 1900, seemed sufficient to make my point . . The notion that God or Christians would for some mysterious reason exclude all non-Christians from participating in scientific inquiry never occurred to me. I can’t figure out what your point is in that regard, frankly. What about them?

“– The scientific process of enquiry was around long before Christians appeared on the scene.” Nope, not in the modern sense of the word.
One reason I suspect, is that the way God told the people who had made a covenant with Him, to serve as conduits for Him formally introducing Himself, so to speak, to humanity, that they would know someone claiming to be a prophet speaking for Him was Legit, if they made a very unusual prediction, which came to pass in a clearly observable way.
It’s built into the Story Christian intellectuals would be very familiar with, to put claims to the test of coming to pass in reality-land. Not just to the test of the “consensus science” sort, involving mere agreement that a theory seems right among other “prophets” of the same stripe.

“– I’ve just written on the back of an envelope that any scientist who believes I’m a god is making their scientific discoveries because of me. Does that make me a god?”

Not to my mind, but what you wrote right there makes you something of lightweight though, if that’s any consolation ; )

– Your “certain Book” is the King James Bible.”

And you are some sort of authority on such things? Or just taking pot shots? I’ve never seen any authority, even atheist ones, deny that the Bible, (meaning ‘the books’, from the Greek word “Byblos” and the Latin “biblia”, there was no way to make one big book like we have now), is not a well documented Book.

I happen to like the King James, both for the language style (I read several classics as a young teen, they came with my step mom’s romance novels ; ) and because it’s a “transliteration”, meaning it preserves the basic order of the original Hebrew/Greek texts.

One thing I’d like to ask you about, is your comment regarding knowing “how to behave” without any Help, so to speak. As far as I can determine, there is no logical reason on atheism (as the logicians say) to do other than try to insure one will experience mostly pleasant times (and a minimum of mostly unpleasant times) while one can experience anything at all.

Is that what you meant by knowing how to behave?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Larson
November 30, 2021 6:33 am

That’s a hell of a lot of word salad John. Some of my points appear to have gone right over your head.
As for behaving, everyone’s life (including mine) is much better when people are nice to each other. It makes for an easier time whilst we are alive. Simples.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 8:15 am

Whether they were “handed down by God” or were the thoughts of an enlightened person(s), they are words to live by.

Your argument about why bad things are allowed to happen is circular and proves nothing. Many people have written about the need for belief in the unknown and unknowable in order to justify a Creator rather than physical proof. So be it, it changes nothing.

We believers, do believe, regardless of your doubts. The fact that you have no provable, physical proof one way or the other is not a reason to sow doubt about others.

We will all know one way or the other soon enough. Lay off criticizing others who BELIEVE different than you.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 29, 2021 9:05 am

You’re welcome to believe whatever you want, but don’t be surprised if those of us who require empirical proof hold you to account.

Nearly everyone here has (quite rightly) demanded that the thermageddonist scientists give us empirical proof that anthro CO2 drives the global climate and we (quite rightly) laugh at them because they’ve singularly failed to provide that proof. Yet, at the same time you’re ready to believe an evidence-free story about a mystical being in the sky who controls everything we do? That’s hypocrisy.

John Larson
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 5:07 pm

No, it’s not necessarily hypocrisy, because one can hypothetically personally experience any degree of evidence, including what to you might seem like “proof” that God exists. It is not rational to dismiss such evidence merely because others did not experience the evidence too . . for if one does accept oneself as a valid witness of what has been observed by oneself, then one cannot rightly accept the notions in one’s mind involving what one believes others have experienced/witnessed, by default.

I’m pretty sure this basic “reality-check” test is a part of why God has not made Himself undeniable to all (yet ; )

What good is a mind that cannot trust its own thoughts? Would you want to spend eternity with such useless minds?

Last edited 1 year ago by John Larson
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Larson
November 30, 2021 6:35 am

As there is no eternity after this life (we just die, nothing more), that’s a moot point.
Trying to follow the rest of your comment started to give me a headache.

John Larson
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 1, 2021 6:19 am

As there is no eternity after this life (we just die, nothing more), that’s a moot point.”

(Have you got “proof” of that? ; )

So, I take it you feel that behaving well, means doing whatever you think will make life more pleasant for you?

If not, why not?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Larson
December 1, 2021 10:18 am

It’s just biology. Humans die and the electrical impulses in the brain stop. That’s it. The proof is there is no reading when a dead body is measured for any electrical impulses in the brain.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 1, 2021 11:05 am

Why do you consider electrical impulses in the brain to be the indication of an afterlife? Is there physical proof for the force(s) linking entangled electrons? Does dark matter exist and of what? Lots of unexplainable things in this old world, dude. For you to say I will only accept tone thing as proof, is again you being a tryant.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 3, 2021 12:56 pm

There isn’t proof for a lot of things and that is why they are described as hypotheses or theories.

However, the existence of a God and CAGW are both ideas lacking in any tangible proof that many people have got an irrational belief in. Ironically, the CAGW cult are often at loggerheads with the God Squad, despite their belief systems having so much in common.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 1, 2021 2:26 am

I recall my cousins retort during one of these discussions, she put on the full lady of the manor dripping with disdain tone “Oh, your one of those that wants proof” As if that covered everything in her mind. I didnt care what she believed but her proselytizing BS just got to much, so in the absence of anything but you and yours should beleive what i believe we parted ways.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 1, 2021 10:51 am

“mystical being in the sky who controls everything we do? ”

Have you ever heard of free will? Why do you think people believe anyone or even “God” controls everything what they do?

If you believe in free will, then why do you denigrate those of us who do believe in God?

It is our own free will that allows this belief. For you to say that people should not believe this also means you are willing to CONTROL people’s thoughts and beliefs. In other words take away our free will. That’s what tyrants do and the justification for doing so!

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 3, 2021 12:46 pm

Um, when did I say I wanted to take people’s free will away? That’s just you projecting.
It always amuses me that God is supposed to be infallible, yet he created a bunch of beings who are prepared to cause each other such misery. To me, that suggests he created us purely for his own rather vicious amusement.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 4, 2021 8:02 am

He gave everyone the FREEDOM OF FREE WILL.

Do you think God gave us totally free will? If so, then it is not his fault or problem when people make decisions, good or bad.

You are still projecting a desire of CONTROL over people by suggesting that God should have modified our free will to only do what he wished or perhaps what you think people should do. That is not freedom.

It is why people are responsible for what they do, even in a court of law. One can not say I am innocent because I was programmed by God and had no free will.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 4, 2021 9:38 am

“gave us free will” it’s just a cop out to try and explain away why a supposedly perfect being such as god created such flawed animals that we are. What kind of god creates animals that have the capacity and inclination to cause each other such misery? Why would this god want to witness the evil abuse of children by evil adults. That god is a very twisted individual who’s happy to witness such misery and not intervene.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 4, 2021 12:57 pm

Why do people play games of chance?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 4, 2021 1:41 pm

For fun. But what has that to do with a uncaring God who watches us screw up for his own amusement? (If he existed, which he doesn’t)

Reply to  Matt Kiro
December 1, 2021 2:19 am

Which Bible? selectivity and short memories can lead to all kinds of assertions

John Larson
Reply to  Yarpos
December 1, 2021 6:32 am

Are you some sort of expert on Bibles? Is there some significant differences in the various translations that you are aware of, which would make your question meaningful?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  John Larson
December 4, 2021 1:42 pm

There are stacks of differences too numerous to mention, but I’m not going to do your research for you.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 28, 2021 10:04 am

Since you are so convinced that there is no god, you should have no trouble actually proving it.
If you can’t you are as guilty of letting faith rule intellect as those you despise.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 10:33 am

Not that I’m on either side of this argument, but by what means could someone prove that something that doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Robert Hanson
December 1, 2021 11:14 am

Find a counter example! Really, there is no answer to the posed question. It is undeterminable at this point in time, and maybe forever. Don’t mix up true/false with exist/not exist.

An example, can time travel exist? There is no proof it can, but likewise there is no proof it can’t happen. That doesn’t make either proposition true or false, it only makes them unproven!

Same with life after death, proof one way or the other doesn’t exist, so true/false can’t be determined!

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 2:45 pm

Can’t prove a negative Mark. You should know that.
However: you prove there is a god. I’ll wait…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 8:37 am

Likewise, you can’t prove a positive in this situation either. If something can’t be physically proven or disproven then it takes faith to believe that your position is the true one.

Why do you wish to denigrate the faith of others that is different from yours? Your belief that there is no god is based upon nothing but faith also. Likewise, you can’t prove a negative either, i.e., that there is no God.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 1, 2021 11:25 am

It isn’t a negative except by what you think. For others, the acceptance of a God is a positive and the negative is that there is no God. Can you prove that negative?

I believe there is a saying by Carl Sagan that”Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence”. In other words there is no evidence either way.

Without proof, you are making a supposition based on faith alone!

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 3, 2021 1:04 pm

Okey dokey, prove to me how the god Apollo doesn’t exist. After all, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, is it?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 4, 2021 8:20 am

Did you not understand what the saying meant?

Why would you ask for evidence when there is none? That is the whole purpose of the saying.


Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 4, 2021 9:40 am

So, again, explain to me why Apollo doesn’t exist, yet your god does.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 4, 2021 1:02 pm

Don’t expect me to assuage your doubts. That is why you have a free will. You are perfectly capable of making your own choices. If you haven’t reached a point where you are comfortable with your decisions then you need to keep searching.

No one is going to convince you. You must convince yourself!

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 4, 2021 1:44 pm

I’m perfectly happy with my decision. God(s) don’t exist. That’s all.

Al Kour
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2021 11:31 pm

Total BS. You can’t prove nonexistence of enything. Only existence. You can’t prove nonexistence of unicorns or gods but you can prove their existence quite easily, just find one!
It how science (false or only hipothetical till proven true) and jurisprudence (innocent till proven guilty) work. Only in religion evrything is upside down.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Al Kour
November 29, 2021 10:52 am

Yep. You’ve explained my point mor succinctly and adroitly than I could.

John Larson
Reply to  Al Kour
December 2, 2021 12:39 pm

“It how science (false or only hipothetical till proven true)…work”

Gibberish. Could just as easily say “true or hypothetical till proven false”. There’s no prejudice for or against anything in (honest) scientific inquiry. And no great Godlike judge to render a final verdict one away or the other.

This site (which proselytizes day and night against impending doom if we don’t all submit to the verdict of some “climate scientists”) would have “lost its case” years ago, if we (hopefully) relatively sane humans took up treating some dorks with degrees in this or that field of science as members of a dispositive jury that has the legitimate power to render a final verdict on what exists and does not exist.

(And I am the one and only member of the “jury”, when it comes to deciding whether or not I have experienced interaction with a Being that is, by definition, capable of Creating the entire universe and all that exists within it. And some dorks with degrees in science are, by definition, utterly irrelevant.)

Last edited 1 year ago by John Larson
Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2021 12:53 pm

As some wise man wrote here recently, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”

As a person of some faith, I think it’s not the appropriate forum for Bible study and also never the appropriate forum for denigrating other people’s faith.

Reply to  MarkW
December 1, 2021 2:31 am

An aetheist doesnt deny your God , we just think the whole idea is silly and makes no sense. In the absence of making any sensible case beyond child like belief then thats the end of it really. There are many things like that in life and you dont waste time on useless things that others are happy to burn up their days doing.

John Larson
Reply to  Yarpos
December 2, 2021 4:59 pm

So, you’re too spaced out/irrational to recognize that this is you “denying” his God (and effectively crowning yourself the grand determiner of what a “sensible case” is?

In the absence of making any sensible case beyond child like belief then thats the end of it really”

It might help if more atheists refrained from acting like SJW fanatics, insulting those who don’t acknowledge them as virtual all-knowing gods, while refusing to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion with those whom they have a disagreement.

Seriously, to me (nobody special) it’s often as though I were speaking to a thoroughly indoctrinated CRT proponent, when attempting to discuss “Theological” matters of any kind, with a double-talking “new atheists”.

~No, I’m not calling a racist, I’m just informing you that everyone with your skin tone is. ; )

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 9:08 am

So if hell isn’t there to frighten Christians, what’s the point in trying to be good and innocent?”

So you don’t bother trying to be good. I get it. But if all you’re doing is trolling people of faith, you have little imagination about how to be bad.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  ex-KaliforniaKook
November 29, 2021 10:54 am

Disagreeing with someone and having a discussion about it is not trolling. Too many people on discussion threads try to shut down those they disagree with by shouting, “TROLL!”. It’s akin to the thermageddonists shouting, “BIG OIL SHILL!” at sceptics.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 29, 2021 1:00 pm

The point is that good manners would not entail ridiculing another person’s faith or imposing on those without faith with an unwanted catechism lesson. Neither the time nor the place for it.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 30, 2021 6:29 am

Religion deserves ridicule – it’s as unscientific as Mann’s hokey stick.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 30, 2021 1:38 pm

Lots of things deserve ridicule but not all of them deserve space in the discussion. When there is no connection to the topic of the head post, it is off-topic and inappropriate. Not only the people being unnecessarily attacked, but also the rest of the readers are having their time wasted, which is disrespectful.

So for example, if I start commenting that Biden is a senile old bat on a posting about GBR coral bleaching when the doddering fool hasn’t said anything relevant, then I’d be off-topic. If somebody comments that Climate Change ™ is a religious belief, when there is some relevance to the topic, then it might well be completely on-topic.

What I don’t get about you is why you think that it adds something useful to the discussion to gratuitously attack other skeptics over a personal belief that they may have. It indicates to me that you don’t actually care very much about resisting the Climate Change totalitarians because it’s more interesting to you to attack people on their religious faith that is not in any way causing them to believe in CAGW. If you cared about having as many people opposing the CAGW agenda as possible, you’d show some self control.

People who like to incite irrelevant arguments to pit one group of skeptics against another are in fact trolls. Is that what you are? I’d love to see responses from the 20 people who supposedly down-voted my comment and up-voted your comments. Why did you stop at 20? Got bored?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 30, 2021 3:05 pm

For someone who thinks this particular topic of religion is not relevant you appear to be deeply involved in the thread you’re now trying to police.

If you go up the thread you’ll see it wasn’t me who started the discussion about religion. Perhaps you should have a quick rant at them. I just got involved to defend the atheists’ corner. If you don’t like losing the debate stop commenting. Simples.

Your comment, “It indicates to me that you don’t actually care very much about resisting the Climate Change totalitarians” smacks of a religious totalitarian trying to guilt-trio me into not commenting.

Commenting on religion is fun. Life should be fun. The crime that is the CAGW cult isn’t fun. The thermageddonist mania is costing us all a lot of our hard-earned money and harming our standard of living. That’s not fun and it’s why the CAGW zealotry pisses me off.

Finally, I could be wrong, but your cryptic statement “. Why did you stop at 20? Got bored?” is implying I’m giving myself multiple upvotes and others down votes. Thankfully, the website doesn’t let you do that – you can only vote on a comment once and you’re not allowed to vote for yourself. Besides, even if I could give myself multiple votes I wouldn’t: I don’t need that much self affirmation. I think you’re just annoyed that not everyone agrees with your belief in a non-existent entity. Anyway, if your God really did exist, why don’t you just ask him to stop me from commenting? (And no, if the mods throw me off that isn’t an act of God).

Now, I really must leave it there. It’s been fun, but there is always a time to stop. Take care and look after yourself and your family. Let’s keep working together to fight the CAGW monster.

All the best.

Reply to  Rod Evans
November 28, 2021 2:02 am

Sounds like a Freudian slip there – slip off the edge?

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Rod Evans
November 28, 2021 4:39 am

I don’t think it is humanity’s desire, but even one or two people in a community can create an environment of fear. Most people would dismiss these people, as they are fully capable of observing the real world. However, now these ravings are coming from people all over the world with digital communications, and people do not interact with the outside world as much. They only go outside to drive their children to their next athletic competition.

Hell and damnation are not the prime driver of belief, they are tools of fear and intimidation used by people in power to control people. The prime driver of belief is usually something miraculous, and having faith when you personally did not observe it.

Al Kour
Reply to  Matt Kiro
November 29, 2021 12:09 am

Religion has neither logical not scientific nor ethical fundations.
Its causes are exclusively socio-psychological:
1. Fear of death. Since dreams of afterlife.
2. Fear of the cruel and unpredictable world. Since the feith in Big Good Daddy who will care of us if we obey him.
3. Ignorance and fear of unknown. Since the faith in miracles.

Generally, religion is infantilism.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Al Kour
November 29, 2021 9:29 am

Do you believe in the value of paper money that has no physical reserve? If you do, then you also have FAITH that a piece of paper has value.

Do you believe that a promise will be kept? That also is FAITH in a person’s pledge.

You say religion has no ethical foundations. I disagree. The Ten Commandments is a list of ethical behaviors. Perhaps the best short list of ethical behaviors ever devised.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 30, 2021 6:39 am

I can buy something with the money in my pocket. I’d have a lot less success trying to buy something in a shop by waving a Bible at the chap behind the till

Rich Davis
Reply to  Al Kour
November 29, 2021 1:05 pm

Al, Does it not matter to you that you are making statements predictably offensive to others on a topic that is not related to the current head post?

Why do that?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Rod Evans
November 28, 2021 8:22 am

Religion has many fails.
But I would suggest reading Dominion by Tom Holland to understand the modern world

November 27, 2021 11:38 pm

I’m surprised this hasn’t been picked up by the networks.

“Doomsday Preppers” would make a hilarious reality TV show.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Raven
November 27, 2021 11:44 pm

It’s already available. Have you ever watched Parliament live?

Reply to  Raven
November 28, 2021 3:22 am

already exists I believe. I dont own a tv so cant say where/what channel

Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 28, 2021 5:22 pm

It already exists! . . . well, there ya go.
Perhaps there’s room for a spin-off – “Climate Preppers”

November 27, 2021 11:47 pm

Drax to be investigated.
Minister said he planned to “look very closely” at how wood used in industrial biomass burners run by energy company Drax was sourced.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Vuk
November 28, 2021 4:41 am

No mystery as to how it’s sourced- it’s sourced by forestry firms, doing great forestry, who need to weed the forests in order to grow high value timber. The weed trees get chipped. If the weed trees aren’t chipped, they’ll be cut down, piled up, and burned in place, releasing serious air pollution and by that I don’t mean “carbon pollution”. And, as I’ve said many times, this industry is ferociously hated by the greentards who’d like to lock up all the forests to do nothing but sequester carbon. By the way, I couldn’t get to that link as the site now insists on paying to read the article.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 28, 2021 10:08 am

Please provide a reference for such “weeding” as opposed to clear cutting for providing Drax.

Richard Page
Reply to  Drake
November 28, 2021 11:49 am

If you look at the wood pelleting firm’s in Canada and the USA that Drax owns, a lot of what they process is the thinning out leftover wood that Joseph Zorzin describes. There have been a few instances where these firm’s have clear cut hardwood stands or other areas, but they’re uncommon. I don’t think the pellet processing plants are set up to deal with large logs.

Reply to  Vuk
November 28, 2021 7:31 am

Yes, but he wont

Richard Page
Reply to  sid
November 28, 2021 8:46 am

Or, more accurately, he will right up to the point where he gets paid not to, then it’ll all be fine.

November 28, 2021 12:06 am

Will the end come before this interglacial ends?

November 28, 2021 12:08 am

Proffessir Jem comes from Cumbria, this has a landscape forged by recent glaciers. This landscape has inspired poets and artists with its beauty, but the landscape beauty is largely man made.

If the glaciers returned overnight then the Prof would die. Not that many years ago this was the doomsday cults prediction due to our use of fossil fuels.

November 28, 2021 12:20 am

These loons are deeply boring

Why don’t they all toddle off to Dignitas?

Reply to  fretslider
November 28, 2021 1:18 am

Dignitas is too efficient, it takes only minutes.These people are masochists they like slow painful end, so they are buying seeshore properties, sitting there and watching for years or even decades the end slowly approaching. Appropriate kind of suffering for all those globe jetting in private jets and ocean going supper size yachts, a just punishment.

Reply to  Vuk
November 28, 2021 1:24 am

All that CO2 they exhale

Have they no conscience?

Not really

November 28, 2021 12:51 am

Jem Bendell, Professor of “Sustainability Leadership”, (whatever that is) at a former teacher training college, should practise what he preaches and forego all the benefits of fossil fuels like central heating, computers, electricity, motor transport etc. I’m sure he would love the lifestyle of a Medieval peasant. Of course, he would never do that, but he wants to impose it on everyone else.

Reply to  Graemethecat
November 28, 2021 1:18 am

Encouraging naked pessimism in the young, to wither in depression and despair, and give up on creating a better life to come. Wasn’t there a kerfuffle about how the special cAGW snowflakes were suffering from chronic depression?

I can’t imagine why.

Vincent Causey
November 28, 2021 1:04 am

Deep adaptation to me, sounds like a disguised version of totalitarian state control.

November 28, 2021 1:34 am

Look who’s talking. From Wiki

This paper [Deep Adaption] had been previously rejected by the peer review process of the Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. According to climate scientist Michael E. Mann, this was because “it lacks scientific rigor.”

Thanks for the chuckle, Mikey.

paul courtney
Reply to  Charlie
November 28, 2021 6:20 am

Oh my, that’s like John Kerry saying Al Gore lacks the personal touch!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Charlie
November 28, 2021 8:33 pm

The Mann has no shame.

Coeur de Lion
November 28, 2021 1:50 am

They are quite right. Lord Lawson, chair of the Global Warming Policy Forum think tank, said in a recent Spectator. (London based right of centre educated Mag) “in short, decarbonisation will bring an unparalleled economic calamity”

November 28, 2021 1:58 am

When one looks through archaeological collapses, with some precision, one asks will our civilization survive?
Here is a very thorough and very accessible video :

1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed (Eric Cline, PhD)

¨From about 1500 BC to 1200 BC, the Mediterranean region played host to a complex cosmopolitan and globalized world-system. It may have been this very internationalism that contributed to the apocalyptic disaster that ended the Bronze Age.¨

Systems collapse slide here :

Today right now the transatlantic economy is a tottering, financial disaster. As Prof. Cline shows, globalized interconnectedness means a domino effect.

China clearly recognizes the threat and is preparing – the BRI is the way out of this doomsday scenario. The open declaration by Marc Carney, UN Climate Finance czar, that $150 TRILLION is the price to save his doomed system should be obvious to anyone that the oligarchy today, as in the Bronze age, are dangerously hell-bent.

Being nice as in the lead article simply will not cut it.

Some here badly need to examine their beliefs, who have embraced rabbid anti-China, anti-Russia jingoism which leads precisely to collapse, as oligarch Agamemnon then declared Troy the ultimate enemy, collapsing Greek civilization for 800 years.

Homer warned us!

Of course the deep adaption crowd might know some of this, at least shadows of it in the cave.

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
Reply to  bonbon
November 28, 2021 10:11 am

If the US doesn’t like them, they must be the good guys.

Who cares what deviltry the Chinese and Russians do, it must be ignored, otherwise you are falling for American jingoism.

Ever since France lost out that sub deal to a superior American/British deal, bonbon has gone off the deep end in his hatred for both countries.

Last edited 1 year ago by MarkW
Al Kour
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2021 1:25 am

You constantly use words like America does, France wants, Australia thinks instead of American goverment, French government etc. Do you equate States and their subjects, masters and slaves?
It is a definite sign of collectivist/socialist/statist mentality.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  bonbon
November 28, 2021 1:22 pm

The Hotpocalypse warmunistas are the most jingle jangle jingoists in history. If ever a jaded jingoist jabbered a jingo, he was out-jabbered by jumping jingo junkie jackalope Jonestown Jem.

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 28, 2021 1:58 am

Of course climate change will completely uproot society. Only not the one thought off by the sillies, the one ’caused by us’.

What will really put the cat among us pigeons is the onset of the next glaciation.

Peta of Newark
November 28, 2021 2:34 am

Let’s put Cause & Effect through the shredder and see what comes out why don’t we

These people, their thoughts and way of thinking are ‘not normal’
‘Oh Great’ thinks The Realists, lets all jump in and take the piss out of them

C’mon people, raise your game….
The issue here really is what caused these people to exist

Pointing and laughing at car crash victims is not going to avert further car crashes.

They need help and do consider, you yourself might be in the next car accident
How would you know to avoid it if you never bothered to investigate the cause of the preceding wreck(s)

Last edited 1 year ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 28, 2021 3:24 am

look no further than ehrlich strong and the rest of the mob from the late 60s that got into unis schools and braiwashed the kids

November 28, 2021 3:24 am

climate change may very well cause societal collapse. We’re seeing it right now. Because climate change is, and has always been, a convenient, flexible, and unverifiable excuse to implement world socialism. We’re getting close to a tipping point for sure.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  WR2
November 28, 2021 6:35 am


OK. I will bite.

What is – or what do you think is – “world socialism”?
And why does mentioning it require you to hide your identity?


Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 28, 2021 10:14 am

Publicly opposing the socialists is a good way to lose your job.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 28, 2021 1:29 pm

“World socialism” is the result of continued attempts to breath life into the socioeconomic nightmare known as socialism resulting in globalization and dominance by the elites. In other words the little people get to enjoy the ‘wonders’ of the collective, while the elite enjoy the comforts of wealth.

Al Kour
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 29, 2021 1:31 am

Socialism is unevatable result of democracy.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Al Kour
November 29, 2021 9:43 am

What a silly idea.

unevatable – no such word.

Reply to  WR2
November 28, 2021 9:46 am

Your focus is too narrow….it’s domination by elitists….politics is only a tool, they don’t care if you’re socialist, aristocracy, monarchy, vote-ocracy, dictatorship, as long as control of your bureaucracy is possible….

Last edited 1 year ago by DMacKenzie
November 28, 2021 3:52 am

I’ll tell you why the mainstream AGW promoters, green new dealers, re-setters and other watermelons don’t like deep adaptation:

It’s because all successful cons require hope.
These true believers are undermining the case for green credits and carbon taxes, new markets

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  andic
November 28, 2021 4:47 am

comment image

Smart Rock
November 28, 2021 4:08 am

a professor of sustainability leadership

This is a subject to be studied in institutions of higher learning?

I give up. The world has gone crazy.

Richard Page
Reply to  Smart Rock
November 28, 2021 8:51 am

It’s what Gore, Biden, BoJo, Obama and others preach – “do as I say, not as I do!”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Smart Rock
November 28, 2021 8:37 pm

“The world has gone crazy.”

No, just certain people have gone crazy.

November 28, 2021 4:21 am

A brief reading of the signatories is enlightening – very few have PhD’s in the hard sciences

This one is very apt methinks:

Dr Frances Ward, Anglican Priest in Workington, Church of England UK

Reply to  Redge
November 28, 2021 9:54 am

Ph.D.’s in non STEM fields are less useful to society than a hair-dressing diploma.

November 28, 2021 5:00 am

No, leftist ideology “will lead to society’s collapse.”. It already has in Venezuela and multiple Central African countries.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  2hotel9
November 28, 2021 10:50 am

Let’s not forget Cambodia under Pol Pot. A full 1/3d of the population starved to death. And then there’s North Korea, where from time to time a couple Million people die of starvation in a single year. The true meaning of “extinction rebellion” me thinks.

Andrew Wilkins
November 28, 2021 6:41 am

“, a professor of sustainability leadership” WTF does that even mean?

If this idiot stopped working right now it would make not one jot of difference to any other person’s quality of life. He’s got the ultimate academic non-job, carrying out totally pointless “research” (and probably on the taxpayer’s dime)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
November 28, 2021 1:45 pm

WTF does that even mean?

Only in Clown World, can institutes of higher learning sustain “a professor of sustainability leadership”. It’s the same world where people in power saw fit to install a demented, malignant narcissist and pathological liar into the most powerful job on Earth.

Andrew Wilkins
November 28, 2021 6:47 am

His wonkypedia page has a picture of him giving a speech about “climate anxiety”
Comedy gold.

PS why on earth does Jim Bellend deserve his own wonkypedia page?

Andy Pattullo
November 28, 2021 9:08 am

If CO2 can’t bring about societies collapse (it can’t), then the proponents of CAGW will do their best to bring that outcome through their idiotic solutions. I don’t think they’ll get far as voters tend to come to their sense as soon as their own comfort is eroded.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
November 28, 2021 8:40 pm

“voters tend to come to their sense as soon as their own comfort is eroded.”

This is true. I think we are going to get a demonstration of this in the near future.

Tom Gelsthorpe
November 28, 2021 9:25 am

Some facts of life are so obvious and so commonplace that people miss them in the same way as the proverb, “Fish are the last to know about water.”

Humanoids have made “deep adaptation to climate” ever since they learned to walk on their hind legs. That was quite a while ago, a million years at least. Bepedalism enables a steady gait in hot sun with minimal exposure to direct sun. The earliest clothing helped even more. Bipedalism, and the binocular vision that goes with it, also makes hunting, gathering and self-defense easier by making it possible to carry stuff in your hands and walk at the same time.

Some time later, Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa to parts near & distant where climates varied widely. Colder climates have fewer bugs and parasites, but it’s tougher to survive in winter. Somehow we adapted.

Toolmaking and weapon-carrying led to finer arts like written language, which facilitates the transmission of knowledge. A reasonably literate person can build an igloo, sharpen a stick into a spear, and identify dangerous bugs — including human humbugs — even if he’s never seem them before. And so on.

Al Kour
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
November 29, 2021 1:55 am

But why did people migrate from comfortable savannas to hostile places like nothern forests and swamps? Not by their will of course, they were chased out by stronger tribes.( I’m afraid to continue, it may seem non-woke..)

Stephen Skinner
November 28, 2021 10:01 am

 Professor Jem Bendell’s name is an anagram of Bellend. How interesting, at a time when the new Coronavirus variant has been called Omnicron, which is an anagram of moronic. Who is taking the Mikki of who?

November 28, 2021 10:01 am

Technological society is more resilient, not less.
Technology creates new ways to solve old problems, but the old solutions are still available.
Technology creates wealth, and wealth creates reserves which make it easier to ride through any disruptions.

November 28, 2021 10:02 am

If the dire warnings about imminent climate disaster are true,

and if it’s not too late… but we must act now, 

then the “Deep Adaptation” Climate Doomsday Narrative makes sense, because it’s blatantly obvious that we aren’t going to act now.

(So I’m glad that the warnings are bogus.)

Reply to  Art
November 28, 2021 10:07 am

I think that imminent societal collapse is inevitable, and that it is the desired outcome that the global elites have been planning for a very long time . It’s no secret ; it’s called “Build Back Better”, in case you haven’t noticed.
These useful idiots blaming it on climate are just providing cover for the overlords.
Nothing to see here ; same old, same old.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  farmerbraun
November 28, 2021 1:50 pm

Except, no one has any intention of building anything back better once they have control over the bulk of the wealth. They’ll be completely self sufficient once society finally collapses. Why else do you you think that people like Bill Gates is buying up cheap farmland?

Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 29, 2021 5:22 pm

Needless to say that “Build Back better ” is simply the latest manifestation of The Big Lie.
You’re right , it won’t be better.

Robert of Texas
November 28, 2021 11:35 am

How about all those people who think the world is ending build great big underground bunkers and they go live in them until it is all over? They can just leave the rest of us in peaceful bliss.

November 28, 2021 1:10 pm

there’s no need to worry. All we need is for the countries of the world (and political parties within those countries) to agree on the urgent need for action, and to start cooperating for the good of all.
Could The EV & Clean Energy Revolution Start An Economic Crisis? (
Even more importantly, net producers and consumers of oil must work together to spread the pain and the profit fairly.

November 28, 2021 2:46 pm

So I’ll ask AGAIN, is Dr Rosling correct and if NOT why NOT?
This takes less than 5 minutes of your time and plots 120,000 data points of the HUMAN world HEALTH + WEALTH over 200 years, 1810 to 2010 and can anyone find a substantial error since the start of the Ind REV?
The co2 levels in 1810 perhaps 290 ppm and today about 415 ppm. Just asking, Willis, anyone?

November 28, 2021 2:55 pm

OH and ditto question for Mark Mills video claims as for Dr Rosing’s previous BBC video.
Is Mark Mills substantially wrong on any of the points he makes about the TOXIC, UNRELIABLE, FRAUDULENT, DILUTE S&W IDIOCY?

November 28, 2021 4:07 pm

Climate Change is nothing but a scam by the UN bureaucrats to give them excuse to tax corporations. The entire narrative is controlled by UN Bureaucrats that wouldn’t even consider papers and evidence that they misunderstood climate warming by a NASA scientist, Dr. Ray W Spencer that managed to put a spacecraft in orbit to measure energy in and out of the earth. He tried several times over years to get papers reviewed by UN bureaucrats that control the narrative but they always figured excuses for not reading his ideas and measurements. See “The Great Global Warming Blunder. How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists.” If those controlling the narrative won’t even consider ideas of a scientist who put a spacecraft into orbit to measure earth’s energy balance then they are interested in SCIENCE.

November 28, 2021 7:48 pm

“, ‘Deep Adaptation’ has a weak premise at its core: that climate change will lead to society’s collapse.”

I agree. Why this narrow focus on climate change? Society doesn’t need climate change to collapse. It’s perfectly capable of collapsing under its own weight. Of course a suitable plague, CME, asteroid, etc. could speed things up. But the collapse has already started, and appears to be irreversible.

Tom Abbott
November 28, 2021 8:18 pm

From the article: “But despite its contributions to thinking about climate change, ‘Deep Adaptation’ has a weak premise at its core: that climate change will lead to society’s collapse.”

The even weaker premise is that Human-caused Climate Change is significant enough to have any descernible effect on the Earth’s weather, or humans living on the planet.

Talking about Society Collapse is putting the cart before the horse. Society has to have a reason to collapse. it won’t be from CO2. It might be from CO2 propaganda, though.

Mike Edwards
November 29, 2021 1:34 am

This doomsday cult paper is a real hoot!

“Climate tragedy” – makes it all sound like a work by Shakespeare.

“Human extinction” “social justice, re-localisation, decolonisation, financial reform, psychology and spirituality” – it’s all in here, the full master plan.

“Social collapse” – sounds like the author already suffered a mental collapse…

November 29, 2021 5:44 am

Okay, I admit to wanting to get some t-shirts printed with the dodos from the “Ice Age” cartoon (which I loved!!!!) spouting ‘DOOM ON YOU! DOOM ON YOU!”

I do not understand (and probably never will) this desperate need to ignore the real world and live in a doomsday fantasy mindset. I just DON’T. I may some day give up trying to understand it.

But if the Doomsayers really want to traipse down that path, I will certainly get out of their way and watch while they go wandering off into The Nothing of Unreality. I have plenty of popcorn, turtle cheesecake and soda on hand, and can quickly concoct a big pot of chili. Please let me know if there is a schedule for that parade.

The geese flocks and cranes (mostly sandhills with the occasional whooper!) have mostly gone south, although the weather is not yet nasty enough around here to send them any further south than they feel like going. Plenty of fodder along the way, too, and hunting season is pretty much over with. This is the real world, the one that Mother Nature put together, and these Doomsayers ignore it at their peril. If they want to be locked up in cities and never know or understand the Real World, that is their choice, but it is pathetic.

Thank you. (Wanders off, muttering “…they must be blind to the real world….”)

chris norman
November 29, 2021 4:17 pm

Well if we have just entered a grand solar minimum life is going to get very tough for the mid latitudes.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights