An Apology for the Climate Scare

[Peter J Barban]

Interesting article from an environmentalist. "Climate Scare" is not new to me, but he's an authority and I'm not.
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare - Quillette

"Here are some facts few people know:

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  
  
• The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  
  
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  
  
• Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003
  
  
• The amount of land we use for meat—humankind’s biggest use of land—has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  
  
• The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  
  
• Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
  
  
• The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level
  
  
• We produce 25 percent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  
  
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  
  
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  
  
• Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture"
  

 

[Kentonio]

I think the relevant part of that article is probably..

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Found this on the guys wiki btw..

In a book review, Peter H. Gleick, who was the president of the Pacific Institute and won the 2018 Carl Sagan Prize for Science Popularization, argues that "bad science and bad arguments abound" in 'Apocalypse Never'; Gleick writes: "What is new in here isn’t right, and what is right isn’t new."[75] Similarly, a 2020 Forbes article by Shellenberger, in which he promotes his book, has been analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feeback fact-checking project; the reviewers conclude that Shellenberger "mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change."[76]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger#cite_note-76

 

[MIDutch]

• The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level

As if this has anything to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The Netherlands became rich because of maritime trade in the 1600s, not because of "adapting to life below sea level". Their present economic success is still based on business and trade.

The Netherland's creation of dikes and polders was out of necessity, not any desire to "get rich". And certainly not to as a response to global climate change.

 

[Peter J Barban]

As if this has anything to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The Netherlands became rich because of maritime trade in the 1600s, not because of "adapting to life below sea level". Their present economic success is still based on business and trade.

The Netherland's creation of dikes and polders was out of necessity, not any desire to "get rich". And certainly not to as a response to global climate change.

You need to correct yourself before you correct others!

The article said "while adapting" not because of adapting. Your post actually confirms the article.

Next time either read more carefully, think more carefully, or write more carefully. All three if possible.

 

[Allandavid]

You need to correct yourself before you correct others!

The article said "while adapting" not because of adapting. Your post actually confirms the article.

Next time either read more carefully, think more carefully, or write more carefully. All three if possible.

So, what was your purpose in including that dot point?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Wiki

In a book review, Peter H. Gleick, who was the president of the Pacific Institute and won the 2018 Carl Sagan Prize for Science Popularization, argues that "bad science and bad arguments abound" in 'Apocalypse Never'; Gleick writes: "What is new in here isn’t right, and what is right isn’t new."[75] Similarly, a 2020 Forbes article by Shellenberger, in which he promotes his book, has been analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feeback fact-checking project; the reviewers conclude that Shellenberger "mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change."[76]

 

[mindlight]

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”

We are not being responsible stewards of the planet. But yes it is unlikely to result in extinction

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”

The Amazon is a carbon sink as is the Congo and other forests. Deforestation and forest fires are jeopardising this as is the yearly land loss to the loggers.

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

There is a relationship between the rise of temperature in key areas and the number and ferocity of storms.

Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003

This is vague and unhelpful. A small building or house fire in Western Europe or Urban USA will have little impact and be over quickly while the Australia or California fires and Amazon fires clearly do have more impact. How big the fire is, where it burns, what it burns are all significant. To say the number of fires has declined means nothing.

Natural disaster payouts have a generally upwards trend line despite a growing reluctance by insurers to insure in many cases and massive improvements in regulatory environments

Insured losses caused by natural disasters 2019 | Statista

The amount of land we use for meat—humankind’s biggest use of land—has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

Livestock farming e.g. beef or lamb is immensely inefficient in terms of land area. Chicken or pig farming far less so. With population growth there needs to be a rebalancing of how we eat and manage our food supply. Prosperity and Population growth are the key drivers here.

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

Actually both areas really need to reconsider how they manage water supplies. There is a crying need for desalination projects to pump water during cyclical droughts, for more efficient bush clearance and forest management etc. Also arson seems to have been a factor in both fires.

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

Yes but European countries that have been reforesting and managing their carbon budgets better are not as significant as they once were. The focus is now China, India, Russia and Brazil

The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level

True we could even build domed cities under the ocean or extend todays mega cities under the water but that does not excuse what we are doing with the environment.

We produce 25 percent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

True waste has always been a problem. I find it really irritating when my kids do not finish their plate. Also obesity is a greater problem today than before. More could be done vis a vis waste or surplus food and also to grow food locally rather than abroad.

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change

The two are interlinked

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

Its a budget, if you burn it regrow it basically.

Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture"

Not eating bats and other exotic animals would help as would the management of health and safety standards in crowded food markets and production centres. But stacked greenhouses and chicken farms are probably the shape of our overcrowded future.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

But stacked greenhouses and chicken farms are probably the shape of our overcrowded future.

While I agree with most of what you said the world is already seeing the future where we will be entering population decline.

It is hard to get people that have basic necessities in life to crank out those 2,1 kids per woman and the trend in human basic necessities is going up globally.

 

[mindlight]

While I agree with most of what you said the world is already seeing the future where we will be entering population decline.

It is hard to get people that have basic necessities in life to crank out those 2,1 kids per woman and the trend in human basic necessities is going up globally.

Population growth can keep occurring pretty much indefinitely technologically speaking as their are mass feeding solutions available for the right price. Extend these into outer space and the possibility is of infinite growth. Malthus was wrong cause he could not envisage building planet sized Habitats in space out of asteroid debris.

Abortion and contraception are the drag factors here and have been widely used in atheistic Europe, North America and China. But these are not universally acceptable solutions to religious people who tend to have large families even today across the world. So growing Muslim populations for instance and in large parts of sub saharan Africa. So the more likely outcome is that countries without population growth will decline relatively speaking over time while the overall population keeps growing. Migration flows from growing populations to declining areas will also be a factor. Necessity has never been the primary factor when it comes to birth rate. Hope and values are the bigger factor on whether people have babies or not

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Necessity has never been the primary factor when it comes to birth rate. Hope and values are the bigger factor on whether people have babies or not

Hope and values....it is bit more complicated.

Fertility Rate

“The global average fertility rate is just below 2.5 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved. And over the course of the modernization of societies the number of children per woman decreases very substantially. In the pre-modern era fertility rates of 4.5 to 7 children per woman were common. At that time the very high [URL='https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality/']mortality at a young age kept population growth low. As health improves and the mortality in the population decreases we typically saw accelerated population growth. This rapid population growth then comes to an end as the fertility rate declines and approaches 2 children per woman.”[/URL]

You don’t really think people had around three or four times the “hope and values” in preindustrial societies compared what we have today ?

Seeing your children die like flies meant you had to have more of them to hope some of them survived.

I doubt there was lots of excess hope around seeing your fifth child die of tuberculosis while comforting yourself that at least you had two others alive so far.

 

[mindlight]

Hope and values....it is bit more complicated.

Fertility Rate

“The global average fertility rate is just below 2.5 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved. And over the course of the modernization of societies the number of children per woman decreases very substantially. In the pre-modern era fertility rates of 4.5 to 7 children per woman were common. At that time the very high mortality at a young age kept population growth low. As health improves and the mortality in the population decreases we typically saw accelerated population growth. This rapid population growth then comes to an end as the fertility rate declines and approaches 2 children per woman.”

You don’t really think people had around three or four times the “hope and values” in preindustrial societies compared what we have today ?

Seeing your children die like flies meant you had to have more of them to hope some of them survived.

I doubt there was lots of excess hope around seeing your fifth child die of tuberculosis while comforting yourself that at least you had two others alive so far.

Your logic is sound if the desire for an heir, a bigger pension plan and larger child workforce were the only factor. People did want more babies in the past cause more died but also they just happened when they had no contraception. But in the Roman empire for instance pagan couples might well sleep around and thereby got gonorreah dampening their fertility rates, they also aborted unwanted children. So Christians grew faster than pagans overall as they had less STDs and kept their babies regardless of circumstance. Today we have similar patterns with atheists , agnostics and liberal Christians failing to breed or killing their unborn while religious families are well over replacement ratio despite pension plans, health provision and free education for kids. In Europe which has the same level of health service for all. Muslims and indeed religious families generally will grow faster cause they have more babies and do less contraception and abortion. The relationship between relative growth and faith is clear.

The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

But in the Roman empire for instance pagan couples might well sleep around and thereby got gonorreah dampening their fertility rates, they also aborted unwanted children. So Christians grew faster than pagans overall as they had less STDs and kept their babies regardless of circumstance.

That sounds like something you dreamed up yourself unless you got an actual link to show for it ?

As for religion and fertility. Bit odd that Italy with around 85 % of people being Catholic still has fertility rate of around 1.3.

While there are specific religious groups like Hasedic Jews with fertility rates over 7 it is doubtful how long those groups can maintain it.

With the current technological progress accelerating it is hard to make a case for what next 50 years will bring.

 

[mindlight]

That sounds like something you dreamed up yourself unless you got an actual link to show for it ?

Firstly there is the proof that gonorrhoea (The Clap) if left untreated causes infertility

5 Interesting Facts About Gonorrhea - HRF

Then there is the fact that it was around in ancient times and mentioned by Galen for instance, though admittedly his diagnosis and understanding was not as good as with modern medicine

The Ancient History of “Gonorrhea”

Then there is the problems with army recruitment in the late Roman army (mainly from pagan sources since Christian could not swear the oath of allegiance) and the fact that Christians were the dominant religious group in the empire by the time of Constantine.

Since Christians died like everyone else from the big plagues of the time like the Antonine plague (small pox or measles) the most likely explanation is that it was STDs caught by the immoral lifestyle of the pagans that made them increasingly infertile relative to Christians

As for religion and fertility. Bit odd that Italy with around 85 % of people being Catholic still has fertility rate of around 1.3.

While there are specific religious groups like Hasedic Jews with fertility rates over 7 it is doubtful how long those groups can maintain it.

With the current technological progress accelerating it is hard to make a case for what next 50 years will bring.

Europe as a whole is more and more nominal in its declaration of faith. I would make comparisons within nations rather than of nations. Practicing Religious people in Europe are having more babies that the atheists and agnostics and family planning and selfish lifestyles have a lot to do with the modern infertility of the godless.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Since Christians died like everyone else from the big plagues of the time like the Antonine plague (small pox or measles) the most likely explanation is that it was STDs caught by the immoral lifestyle of the pagans that made them increasingly infertile relative to Christians

If it is most likely explanation you could probably link someone with actual degree and publications saying so ?

Not saying some STD doesn’t decrease fertility but if it had actually any meaningful effect on population level it is doubtful.

Like in what degree that negative impact of lessened fertility was offset by those heathen pagans sleeping around a lot more ?

There is a connection between practicing religious people and higher birth rates but it really doesn’t seem to make any major impact apart from few isolated cases.

Going to be interesting to see what happens when full blown VR experiences and sex robots get introduced.

Probably not going to help fertility rates any.

 

[FreedomForever]

Absolutely none of what that writer wrote is even remotely true. Every last shred of evidence proves that the planet and its animals, God's creations, are being slaughtered by human beings, who are supposed to be it's keepers - and fundementalist Christians, like those who run this website, are first in line to cheer on the continued destruction of the earth that God created. One day you will stand before Christ and you will have to explain how you waved your self-righteous Christian flag while you watched, encouraged, and participated in the destruction of His creations.

 

[MIDutch]

You need to correct yourself before you correct others!

The article said "while adapting" not because of adapting. Your post actually confirms the article.

Next time either read more carefully, think more carefully, or write more carefully. All three if possible.

Wait a second. The Dutch have been building dikes and polders since the 11th century. They became a global power in the 16th and 17th century. IOW there have been Dutch living below sea level for going on 700+ years. All before the advent of the industrial revolution and certainly before the need to "while adapting" to climate change.

How does the actually history of the Netherlands confirm the article.

 

[Pathfinder627]

Interesting article from an environmentalist. "Climate Scare" is not new to me, but he's an authority and I'm not.
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare - Quillette

"Here are some facts few people know:

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  
  
• The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  
  
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  
  
• Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003
  
  
• The amount of land we use for meat—humankind’s biggest use of land—has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  
  
• The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  
  
• Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
  
  
• The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level
  
  
• We produce 25 percent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  
  
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  
  
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  
  
• Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture"

We still should all unite on pollution. Even animals don't poop in their own homes. Most of them anyway. It'll be a net positive for climate change activists as well, but indirectly.