Climate alarmists are becoming desperate. We’re not concerned enough about climate change, so they are going full out to try and create blind panic in the forlorn hope that we will be herded like sheep into taking action and/or consent meekly to the taking of drastic action, because we have become fearful, fed as we are on a daily diet of their constant doomsday drivel. It’s not going to work. Climate change alarmism is a busted flush which thinks it’s a full house. Climate alarmists are running on empty – heads mainly.
They’re not even trying to hide the fact that they are trying to panic us all into action now; in fact, right now, some are even proposing this as the best method of achieving the drastic change to society and the global economy which they so desperately crave. Meanwhile, climate activists are taking to the streets to try and spur governments into action – witness the latest alarmist incarnation, Extinction Rebellion and the scandalous employment of brain-washed ‘striking’ kids as a lever to spur governments into action on the putative “climate crisis”, as non-existent as it is supposedly existential.
This NYT article is very useful, because it quintessentially captures the mood currently prevailing in the climate alarmist camp and, in so doing, exposes their desperation and the lack of hard evidence which might justify their advocacy of a sustainable, green, new world order.
Time to Panic
The planet is getting warmer in catastrophic ways. And fear may be the only thing that saves us.
That’s the headline. It gets better (or worse).
The age of climate panic is here. Last summer, a heat wave baked the entire Northern Hemisphere, killing dozens from Quebec to Japan. Some of the most destructive wildfires in California history turned more than a million acres to ash, along the way melting the tires and the sneakers of those trying to escape the flames.
OMG, you mean, dozens died . . . . . out of a population of several billion . . . . . and what’s that you say? It melted peoples’ car tyres and even their designer footwear? Christ almighty, that is serious!
Yes, many people did die (along with huge numbers of animals too, no doubt) and we should mourn their loss to the very real threat of extreme weather, coupled with human carelessness and criminal behaviour – in the case of the California wildfires. But blaming man-made climate change for those fatalities is dumb, desperate and deplorable.
Just how dumb is illustrated from a most unlikely source – The Guardian, of all places.
But why is so much of our world currently being afflicted with blisteringly hot weather? What is driving the wildfires, the soaring temperatures and those melting rooftops? These are tricky questions to answer, such is the complex nature of the planet’s weather systems. Most scientists point to a number of factors with global warming being the most obvious candidate. Others warn that it would be wrong to overstate its role in the current heatwaves, however.
“Yes, it is hard not to believe that climate change has to be playing a part in what is going on round the globe at present,” said Dann Mitchell of Bristol University. “There have been some remarkable extremes recorded in the past few weeks, after all. However, we should take care about overstating climate change’s influence for it is equally clear there are also other influences.
One of those other factors is the jet stream – a core of strong winds around five to seven miles above the Earth’s surface that blow from west to east and which steer weather around the globe. Sometimes, when they are intense, they bring storms. On other occasions, when they are weak, they bring very calm and settled days. And that is what is occurring at present.
“The jet stream we are currently experiencing is extremely weak and, as a result, areas of atmospheric high pressure are lingering for long periods over the same place,” added Mitchell.
Other factors involved in creating the meteorological conditions that have brought such heat to the northern hemisphere include substantial changes to sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. “These are part of a phenomenon known as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation,” said Professor Adam Scaife, of the Met Office.
“In fact, the situation is very like the one we had in 1976, when we had similar ocean temperatures in the Atlantic and an unchanging jet stream that left great areas of high pressure over many areas for long periods,” said Scaife.
“And of course, that year we had one of the driest, sunniest and warmest summers in the UK in the 20th century.”
David-Wallace-Wells, in his piece for the NYT, blames the 2018 Northern Hemisphere heatwave on CO2 and identifies it as the ‘tipping point’ for generating panic. He’s also written a book on anthropogenic global warming called The Uninhabitable Earth, which kind of explains his lack of rational thought. It would seem that the most fanatical of climate change fanatics get to promote their latest hysterical works of fiction in the national press – by saying that scientists should be more fanatical:
In October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released what has become known as its “Doomsday” report — “a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen,” as one United Nations official described it — detailing climate effects at 1.5 and two degrees Celsius of warming (2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). At the opening of a major United Nations conference two months later, David Attenborough, the mellifluous voice of the BBC’s “Planet Earth” and now an environmental conscience for the English-speaking world, put it even more bleakly: “If we don’t take action,” he said, “the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”
Scientists have felt this way for a while. But they have not often talked like it. For decades, there were few things with a worse reputation than “alarmism” among those studying climate change.
This is a bit strange. You don’t typically hear from public health experts about the need for circumspection in describing the risks of carcinogens, for instance. The climatologist James Hansen, who testified before Congress about global warming in 1988, has called the phenomenon “scientific reticence” and chastised his colleagues for it — for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat actually was.
This reticence to spread panic and alarm and overstate the scientific case for that alarm was, according to Wallace-Williams, blown away by events in the real world, events which, in his crazy, irrational world of make-believe, conclusively prove the reality of the emerging “climate crisis”. Or don’t.
In 2018, their circumspection began to change, perhaps because all that extreme weather wouldn’t permit it not to. Some scientists even began embracing alarmism — particularly with that United Nations report. The research it summarized was not new, and temperatures beyond two degrees Celsius were not even discussed, though warming on that scale is where we are headed. Though the report — the product of nearly 100 scientists from around the world — did not address any of the scarier possibilities for warming, it did offer a new form of permission to the world’s scientists. The thing that was new was the message: It is O.K., finally, to freak out. Even reasonable.
Yeah, let’s all freak out and demand global socialism starts next Thursday because of the weather. They were limbering up for a mass freak out in 2016 when El Nino reached its peak, but the atmosphere wasn’t quite right. There was still just a little too much reticence – presumably masquerading as scientific rationalism – and then the world rapidly cooled, which was a bit inconvenient. But bad weather always happens, somewhere, sometime. The vibe is right now though:
This, to me, is progress. Panic might seem counterproductive, but we’re at a point where alarmism and catastrophic thinking are valuable, for several reasons.
The first is that climate change is a crisis precisely because it is a looming catastrophe that demands an aggressive global response, now. In other words, it is right to be alarmed.
This helps explain the second reason alarmism is useful: By defining the boundaries of conceivability more accurately, catastrophic thinking makes it easier to see the threat of climate change clearly. For years, we have read in newspapers as two degrees of warming was invoked as the highest tolerable level, beyond which disaster would ensue. Warming greater than that was rarely discussed outside scientific circles.
The third reason is while concern about climate change is growing — fortunately — complacency remains a much bigger political problem than fatalism.
A fourth argument for embracing catastrophic thinking comes from history. Fear can mobilize, even change the world.
Be afraid, be very afraid, because really, really bad things might happen, worse than the really bad things which are happening. History tells us that if enough people can be terrorised by imaginary hobgoblins, on behalf of those demanding change, then that change can happen.
But perhaps the strongest argument for the wisdom of catastrophic thinking is that all of our mental reflexes run in the opposite direction, toward disbelief about the possibility of very bad outcomes. I know this from personal experience. I have spent the past three years buried in climate science and following the research as it expanded into ever darker territory.
I know the science is true, I know the threat is all-encompassing, and I know its effects, should emissions continue unabated, will be terrifying.
He knows, he’s spent 3 years digesting the climate alarmist literature, finding no good news, only bad news apparently.
We are all living in delusion, unable to really process the news from science that climate change amounts to an all-encompassing threat. Indeed, a threat the size of life itself.
How can we be this deluded?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, and involves simply replacing ‘we’ with ‘I’.