Most people don’t have time to research issues, let alone complex and confusing ones such as climate change. They therefore become vulnerable to doomsday proclamations
The term existential was popularized in the 20th century by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed that because there was no god, existence was absurd, life had no meaning and the individual therefore faced an existential crisis. In psychology, existential crises are inner conflicts characterised by the impression that life lacks meaning.
But in the climate wars a word that once had settled harmlessly in the realm of philosophy has become weaponised, wheeled out by climate catastrophists to herald imminent doom. Presumably it is a humanist alternative to a moral issue. In Australia the term increasingly is used “in terrorem”, as the lawyers say, to frighten the pants off the naive and the innocent. But what do the scaremongers mean by existential?
Are we talking now (clearly not), soon (whatever that means) or maybe someday, one day (when most of us will be long gone)? Does it mean the end of days, with the whole world wiped out, On the Beach style, or only in some more vulnerable areas?
From Net Zero Watch, another list of headlines showing how Europe’s flirtation with “green” energy has led that continent to economic and social disaster. Canada isn’t far behind, but not there yet if we smarten up…..
A letter to the Victoria Times Colonist (June 21, 2022) by Steven Murray has the facts on the dreaded “heat dome”
Re: “Last year’s heat deaths? Stop blaming the heat,” editorial, June 17. The editorial argues that we should stop blaming the heat for the hundreds of deaths in last June’s heat dome. While there were some failures in planning and policy, the editorial ignores the exceptional nature of this event.
Many people, including your editorial writer, still don’t seem to grasp just how extraordinary and rare an event this was. Weather historian Christopher Burt described it as “the most anomalous regional extreme heat event to occur anywhere on Earth since temperature records began” roughly 150 years ago with the beginnings of modern meteorology.
By Dr. Roy Spencer, from his blog Global Warming, April 22, 2021.
Dr. Spencer is a curator of one of the four major climate monitoring sites, the satellite-based University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). In this post, he discusses computer models that predict ocean warming at twice the warming that has actually occurred. He concludes that, based on the facts, claims of a climate crisis are exaggerated.
The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.
Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.
While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies.
Lennart Bengtsson is a Swedish climate scientist who has just published a book (in Swedish) against climate catastrophism and urging governments and others to look at the beneficial effects of global warming as well as the problems. This is part of an interview with Dr. Bengtsson by Die Welt (The World), a German newspaper, on June 15, 2022.
WELT: Mr. Bengtsson, are we living in a climate crisis?
Lennart Bengtsson: I don’t think the current warming should be called a crisis. Global food production, for example, is increasing. And despite a rapidly growing population and continuing warming, far fewer people die as a result of extreme weather than in the past. The current acute problems of conflicts and wars are caused by the difficulty of finding, quickly enough, reliable substitutes for fossil fuels. Nevertheless, we do need long-term and systematic action to reduce global greenhouse gases to curb warming.
WELT: Should the Paris Climate Agreement serve as the guideline for restricting the CO emissions?
Bengtsson: In my opinion, the Paris goals are too ambitious for the European Union in particular and should be adapted to what is technically feasible in order to avoid acute economic problems for the industry and the public. Every effort should be made to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere, also in emerging countries. If greenhouse gas emissions are not implemented worldwide, further warming won’t be contained.
Progressives first demanded that social-media platforms silence critics of climate alarmism. Now White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy wants them to censor content on the costs of a force-fed green-energy transition.
A few years ago, Facebook enlisted third-party “fact checkers” to review news stories about climate. That didn’t satisfy Democratic Senators who howled about a “loophole” for opinion pieces. Facebook then began appending fact-checks to op-eds, including by Wall Street Journal contributors Bjorn Lomborg and Steven Koonin, that criticized apocalyptic climate models and studies. The goal was to restrict readership.
Now progressives are moving to censorship phase two, which is shutting down debate over climate “solutions.” “Now it’s not so much denying the problem,” Ms. McCarthy said in an Axios interview. “What the [climate denial] industry is now doing is seeding doubt about the costs associated with [green energy] and whether they work or not.”
A June 13 Times Colonist article from Associated Press, “Phoenix hits record as scorching heat grips American southwest,” informs readers that “excessive heat causes more deaths in the U.S. than other weather-related disasters, including hurricanes, floods and tornadoes combined.”
As usual with so many “global warming” disaster stories, the article has its facts wrong, in this case the claim that heat kills more people than cold. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website has the following on deaths due to hot weather in the U.S.:
“Between 1979 and 2018, the death rate as a direct result of exposure to heat (underlying cause of death) generally hovered between 0.5 and 2 deaths per million people…. Overall, a total of more than 11,000 Americans have died from heat-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates.”
Below is a screenshot of the latest roundup of articles found in Britain’s Net Zero Watch daily email. As you will see, in Great Britain, Europe, and even Australia, the cost of “green” energy has been devastating, while offering little or no actual benefit in terms of “fighting” climate change. Energy bills for a pub of almost £30,000 ($47,224 CDN) every three months? And aren’t we in Canada experiencing the same pain with record gasoline prices that, to add insult to injury, include a carbon tax? And it’s only going to get worse….
The climate alarmist/Green idea that the conversion to “sustainable” energy will be mostly painless is complete nonsense. If Canadians were told the true cost of Justin Trudeau’s “bring back better” program (i.e., “green” socialism), they would reject it. That’s why the public is never told what this conversion will cost.