Essay by Eric Worrall
According to Sydney academic Noel Castree, “denialism is in retreat”. But Climate lukewarmer Bjørn Lomborg’s arguments inexplicably resonate with lots of people.
The climate crisis is real – but overusing terms like ‘crisis’ and ‘emergency’ comes with risk
Published: September 12, 2022 6.10am AEST
Noel Castree
Professor of Society & Environment, University of Technology Sydney“Crisis” is an incredibly potent word, so it’s interesting to witness the way the phrase “climate crisis” has become part of the lingua franca.
…
Denialism is in retreat. The climate change debate now is about what is to be done and by whom?
…
4. We must appreciate other crises and challenges matter more to many people
Some are tempted to occupy the moral high ground and imply the climate crisis is so grand as to eclipse all others. This is understandable but imprudent.
It’s important to respect other perspectives and negotiate a way forward. Consider, for example, the way author Bjørn Lomborg has questioned the climate emergency by arguing it’s not the main threat.
Lomborg was widely pilloried. But his arguments resonated with many. We may disagree with him, but his views are not irrational.
We must seek to understand how and why this kind of argument makes sense to so many people.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/the-climate-crisis-is-real-but-overusing-terms-like-crisis-and-emergency-comes-with-risk-188750
I find Professor Noel Castree’s article fascinating because he seems so fixated on Bjørn Lomborg.
Lomborg’s genius is exposing just how flimsy the evidence is that global warming is a problem. For example, Lomborg’s 2021 article on heatwave deaths shows the net benefits of warming, the reduction in deaths caused by cold, far outweigh any slight increase in heatwave deaths – even in warm countries like India.
My guess is Professor Castree’s own academic colleagues keep dropping Lomborg’s name in his hearing. Obviously this might just be to get a rise out of Castree, but Lomborg is good at reaching people.
If Sydney academics really are regularly reading and openly discussing Lomborg’s work, climate alarmism is in a lot more trouble than I realised.
I recently received a multiple-choice questionaire from one of the alarmist organizations sent, it was claimed, to many people in Florida. Return postage paid. I took the trouble to fill it out with responses directly the opposite of what they wanted. I also included three double-sided sheets of paper with various articles, comments, and data on the subject all disputing their claims. I do not expect any response from them, but will be interested to see if I get one. If I do receive a response, don’t expect me to ignore it.
This guy is living in denial.
Its the same as the reaction of the wealthy NYC matron when she learned Nixon had won the Presidency: “How is that possible? Nobody I know voted for him!”
The challenge of defeating belief in climatastropy at this point is that it is has become a dominant paradigm. It has had 40 years to build momentum and gain believers. Too many have too much invested in that belief – whether career, reputation or just self or group identify – to stop believing regardless of the evidence.
Net-zero, on the other hand is new and has immediate negative tangible impacts on many lives and wallets. A better conversation to have, I think, would be to demonstrate the non-renewable nature of perceived renewables.
And the best analysis of this that I’ve come across is in this YT video.
After analyzing our major uses of fossil fuels and what technologies are being proposed (or are best suited) to replace them, he calculates the mineral content needed to build them.
He then compares that to known reserves and mining production rates of those minerals and finds, briefly summarizing that..,
The known reserves of copper are only 19% of what would be needed. Nickel, 10%. Lithium < 3%. Cobalt, Graphite and Vanadium < 4%.
And even if massive new reserves are found, we would never get them mined in time to meet the Net-Zero timelines for fossil fuels that numerous states and countries are proposing. Based on 2019 production levels, the number of years needed to mine enough copper: 189, Nickel: 400, Lithium; 9.9k, Cobalt: 1.7k.
If enough people see this it might make a difference. I don’t know if it’s on Rumble or not but hopefully it will be before YT disappears it. Please share far and wide.
That video should be compulsory viewing. As much as he tried to put a positive spin that we can find a solution, you came away with the feeling he and everyone in his audience knew that Electrification is never going to happen.
Here the total metals required for one generation of technology to phase out fossil fuels is listed by Required Production followed by Known Reserves for all metals based upon tonnes, as follows:
Copper 4,575,523,674 vs. 880,000,000 – a serious shortfall -reserves only cover 20% of requirements.
Zinc 35,704,918 vs. 250,000,000 – adequate reserves.
Manganese 227,889,504 vs 1,500,000,000 – adequate reserves
Nickel 940,578,114 vs. 95,000,000 – huge shortfall – reserves 10% of requirements.
Lithium 944,150,293 vs. 95,000,000 = huge shortfall – reserves 10% of requirements.
Cobalt 218,396,990 vs. 7,600,000 – huge shortfall – reserves 3.48% of requirements.
Graphite 8,973,640,257 vs. 320,000,000 = huge shortfall – 3.57% reserves of requirements.
Silicon (metallurgical) 49,571,460 – adequate reserves
Silver 145,579 vs. 530,000 – adequate reserves
Vanadium 681,865,986 vs. 24,000,000= huge shortfall -3.52% reserves of requirement
Zirconium 2,614,126 vs.70, 000,000 – adequate reserves.
Besides the obvious this list does make a very good basis for an investment strategy.
Hey, can’t graphite: C, be made from coal, another C?
Maybe, but nobody will be allowed to mine coal after the great reset.
I reckon that China and India and many other countries in Asia and Africa will largely ignore the West’s preoccupation with climate change and the great reset will mean nothing to them.
Thanks Thallstd for the video as it clearly outlines the challenges that the green zealots do not want to hear nor can they comprehend.
I will be passing on to many of my associates.
I find this hilarious – they can’t understand why someone who makes arguments using actual data (not computer models) is actually credible. Hahaha !
That data stuff is so old school – it must be canceled ! (sarcasm intend)
It is professors like Castree that give professors a bad name. He presents no research, no facts, no studies, no nothing. Just sits on his backside declaring victory and blaming the message for the lack of support for his pseudo cause. Typical green devil, figuring he can coast to the finish line on his credentials and education. If he wants people to believe him he has to do real research, show valid results that match observations you know do real work. He is a crackpot and I put no stock in him.
I have found that second tier professors such as this guy tend to be hangers-on, doing little or no research on their own to either confirm or refute the catastrophe narrative. They just unquestioningly regurgitate the same climate talking points and copy other people’s work rather than create their own, original content. Poor scholarship. I would not let my child sit under their pedagogy.
I am sure you are right.
One thing is very clear. We need “Professors” of “Society and the Environment” even less than a “Ministry of Silly Walks”.
I wonder if he’s bright enough to be trained to flip burgers?
Doubtful if he’s honest enough for that, however.
Personally I think denial is rampant.the climate Scientologists deny Europe is in deep trouble due to the embrace of green insanity.
They deny undeniable technical resources on the impossibility of net zero.
They deny any natural component to climate change even though the current warming period has been going on far longer than any added co2.
I see denialism everywhere.
They also deny geological natural history.
and there are no Americans in Baghdad.
“Those are not the Droids you are looking for.” seems to be working for the CliSciFi profiteers.
Truth resonates, verifiable facts, common sense, irrefutable logic, accurate history, calm presentation…..
Ever shriller desperate hyper alarmism, personal attacks and career destruction, refusal to debate whilst claiming the debate won, corrupting and coopting…. not so credible.
According to The Conversation’s website:
“The Conversation is an independent source of news analysis and informed comment written by academic experts, working with professional journalists who help share their knowledge with the world.”
Strange then that they never seem to publish sceptical articles – maybe instead of slagging off Lomborg, they should give him the opportunity to explain his side of the story.
I’m interested in what Prof Castries thinks “should be done”. Has he a suggestion? Invade China and blow up their coal fired power stations? Might work.
Lomborg uses empirical data to demonstrate the benefits of the industrial revolution to humanity. That’s what folk see as common sense. Claiming that the same system will have catastrophic failure in 100 years requires a very clear, logical explaination of the steps and failed mitigations that will lead to that failure that folk can see as commonsense. I’m afraid starting with a religious belief in climate catastrophy and asking folk to give up so much without hard evidence of new insurmountable problems will fail the commonsense test.
“We must seek to understand how and why this kind of argument makes sense to so many people.”
Because there are a few rational people left on the planet that aren’t ruled by the mob nor their thinking by their emotions? Noel Castree is incredulous, and in denial himself. He doesn’t seek understanding, but rather wants the mob to learn how to debilitate and silence Lomborg and inoculate the masses against ‘dangerous’ independent and rational thought.
Funny how he says skepticism is in retreat, yet he is signaling that alarmism is in retreat. He uses the word “crisis,” which is a step backwards for the climate worriers. Their current term of choice is “EMERGENCY!!!,” yet he has backed it down to crisis level. Then he openly admits that the alleged climate crisis is not the highest threat or priority. He goes on to grant that Lomborg’s views are rational.
It looks like he is trying to save face as he prepares for the collapse of the climate porn industry.
The Climate Caterwaulers need a new word. How about “conflagration”, as in “Climate Conflagration”? It keeps that all-important aliteration, with the implication that the planet, or maybe the climate is on fire, which we have the ability if not the will, to put it out.
1,550,000 hits on Google. The caterwauling climate conflagrationists cottoned on to that long ago.
Wait until more of his friends start reading Michael Schellenberger.
The Wall Street Journal had a most interesting editorial today (9/13/2020) pointing out that China is going overboard building coal-powered electric generating plants. Their CO2 emissions increased an estimated 11 % from 2015 to 2021 while those of the US reduced by about 6%. I would say it is pretty obvious we are fighting a losing battle. Fortunately, we see no decrease in our plant growth, thanks to the Chinese.
People who believe there is a climate emergency caused by human behavior should take personal action based on their belief. The first action is to sterilize yourself immediately upon turning 18. The second action is to refuse all transportation options and walk everywhere. The third action is to refuse to heat or cool your living space. The fourth action is to adopt the belief of bodhisattva and eliminate yourself to save others.
A sophomoric debating tactic is to misquote what your opponent said and then refute the false strawman.
To answer the Professor’s question: Bjorn’s argument makes sense because he uses data and not hyperbole.
I was going to write a much longer hyperbolic reply to the question (He’s the best at what he does)… but this is the gist of it. I’d add that he avoids ad hom attacks and disarms his oponents with recent and relevant studies. Some kind of genius.
Without knowing much about Professor Castree other than his unfortunate last name it appears he is himself loath to take up specifics, referring patronizingly to Lomborg as some kind of strangely dangerous oddity who should be studied.
I always ask the believers to define the climate catastrophe they are so worried about. They invariably say there are more storms or more rain or more droughts and when you tell them the data says otherwise they change the subject. So climate change is closely aligned with ignorance. Being a professor does not make you wise and if you are ignorant you cannot be knowledgeable and therefore should simply be ignored.
Maybe because he’s right???