Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change. Scientists can't even agree on how much it already has changed, and how much of that change is due to human activity. The climate changes without human activity as we know ( the little ice age back in the 17th century for example).
Suppose the climate really does get hotter. Melting ice would make sea levels rise. Only problem is- they dont seem to be rising. Other than that, why couldnt people and agriculture adapt ?. Canada grows more food, while Florida is as hot as the Caribbean. Changing climate patterns will create winners as well as losers. How do we know it doesnt balance out?
I wish the environmental movement would focus on the KNOWN problems which are being ignored. For example he chemical tsunami from agriculture and developed world lifestyle. The plastics disaster. These are not high tech problems to solve. These could be solved. As for population, fertility is declining. While Bill Gates wants to vaccinate every person on the planet against every possible disease, he also talks about the population problem. Paradoxical, no? Not saying people should die of preventable diseases ( assuming the vaccines actually prevent). Questions....
"Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change."
Because that's not true, either. If we knew nothing, it would be relatively simple. We don't know nothing. We have very partial, maddeningly incomplete knowledge which points to difficult-to-quantify but irresponsible-to-ignore risks. I fully get it that this is a deeply unsatisfying state of affairs. I get it that there's deep thirst for certainty. That we're desperate for this to be simple, even if it's not easy.
Certainty is the one thing nobody can offer with regard to climate risks.
Good article. Here is another point of view. That this “Emperor of Climate Alarmism” had no clothes was exposed in plain sight by Climate alarmism claims as early as 2015 by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." That would mean the destruction of capitalism and the world economy, however long that takes. And in the time of the Great Awokening, any journalists or commentators who dare to question or oppose the climate change orthodoxy were immediately shunned as "climate deniers" and met in the legacy media with an instant end to their careers. It is no wonder that the climate change scam won the day. Few people have been willing to risk their livelihoods to fight against the manipulation. At the previous UN Climate Conference, COP29, which took place in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2024, the agenda to destroy the world's economy and the West by forcing wealth redistribution made new strides.... [Developing countries] apparently demanded $1.3 trillion annually. In the words of energy expert Alex Epstein: "The basic idea here is what they call 'climate reparations,' which is the idea that the US and others have ruined the world with fossil fuels, and so we have to pay a trillion dollars a year to make up for it. Bjorn Borg is the “go to guy” on this subject and has pointed out whether you believe that Climate Change is real, and may be harmful, he pointed out that countries are spending an enormous amount of money on climate policies but achieve almost nothing. “We should fix climate smartly, but right now we are just fixing it stupidly,” Lomborg told Sky News host Peta Credlin. “It is increasingly becoming obvious to voters and to politicians that this is not the right way to go about it.” Others say “Climate Control” is a fantasy. It's a rationalization for altruist ethics and the demand for all its ensuing sacrifices are by authoritarian control. It's taken on faith, meaning that logic and objectivity have no effect. Modelling reality is an alternative bible of the same method, cherry-picking correlations to produce desired results on paper. Correlations are beguiling to some but are not causation, not rational epistemology to guide science. Bill Gates, for what it’s worth has broken ranks and agrees with Lomborg that there should be and emphasis and a shift in climate strategy, advocating for a focus on improving human welfare and reducing suffering rather than solely on limiting emissions. Both argue that spending trillions of dollars to “fix something that humans cannot fix” is a huge waste of funds that could be addressing issues like poverty and disease that should take precedence, as these have a more immediate impact on people's lives, especially in poorer countries. There is a lot of truth in what Lomborg has been saying for years about climate alarmism.
You just pivoted from decrying alarmism to accusing your opponents of plotting the destruction of capitalism and the world economy within a couple of sentences. Chapeau!
Nobody is plotting to destroy anything. People are stumbling in the dark trying to think up solutions to a fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented type of problem and they're making a lot of mistakes at it because the problem is fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented.
"Beyond the partisan shouting matches, beyond the catastrophism and the denialism on the left and the right, we’re running a vast, uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric chemistry with results we can only guess at."
We're not running an experiment. We are actually giving people massive improvements in their lives in developing countries. Our energy production systems are the single most important factor that enables us to live better than our ancestors four hundred years ago. THAT is the thing against which we need to compare the costs of climate change.
I also feel like there is still trapped in this a sort of catastrophism. I think prudence is indicated, given the possible bad outcomes, but without knowing HOW things will take shape and where, and where the lines even are, it's impossible to know how much of our power should be devoted to which parts of the risk. The only thing we are fairly certain is likely to reduce the risks is reducing the carbon, which is presumably why that's where the focus is, but we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs.
"we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs."
That's the pickle, alright. Look up "decision-making under deep uncertainty." Serious people are thinking seriously about it.
Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change. Scientists can't even agree on how much it already has changed, and how much of that change is due to human activity. The climate changes without human activity as we know ( the little ice age back in the 17th century for example).
Suppose the climate really does get hotter. Melting ice would make sea levels rise. Only problem is- they dont seem to be rising. Other than that, why couldnt people and agriculture adapt ?. Canada grows more food, while Florida is as hot as the Caribbean. Changing climate patterns will create winners as well as losers. How do we know it doesnt balance out?
I wish the environmental movement would focus on the KNOWN problems which are being ignored. For example he chemical tsunami from agriculture and developed world lifestyle. The plastics disaster. These are not high tech problems to solve. These could be solved. As for population, fertility is declining. While Bill Gates wants to vaccinate every person on the planet against every possible disease, he also talks about the population problem. Paradoxical, no? Not saying people should die of preventable diseases ( assuming the vaccines actually prevent). Questions....
"Why not just admit that no one knows how the climate will change."
Because that's not true, either. If we knew nothing, it would be relatively simple. We don't know nothing. We have very partial, maddeningly incomplete knowledge which points to difficult-to-quantify but irresponsible-to-ignore risks. I fully get it that this is a deeply unsatisfying state of affairs. I get it that there's deep thirst for certainty. That we're desperate for this to be simple, even if it's not easy.
Certainty is the one thing nobody can offer with regard to climate risks.
In a few centuries we will likely have fewer than one billion people on the planet. I am sure they can adapt. The planet will live on happily.
Good article. Here is another point of view. That this “Emperor of Climate Alarmism” had no clothes was exposed in plain sight by Climate alarmism claims as early as 2015 by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." That would mean the destruction of capitalism and the world economy, however long that takes. And in the time of the Great Awokening, any journalists or commentators who dare to question or oppose the climate change orthodoxy were immediately shunned as "climate deniers" and met in the legacy media with an instant end to their careers. It is no wonder that the climate change scam won the day. Few people have been willing to risk their livelihoods to fight against the manipulation. At the previous UN Climate Conference, COP29, which took place in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2024, the agenda to destroy the world's economy and the West by forcing wealth redistribution made new strides.... [Developing countries] apparently demanded $1.3 trillion annually. In the words of energy expert Alex Epstein: "The basic idea here is what they call 'climate reparations,' which is the idea that the US and others have ruined the world with fossil fuels, and so we have to pay a trillion dollars a year to make up for it. Bjorn Borg is the “go to guy” on this subject and has pointed out whether you believe that Climate Change is real, and may be harmful, he pointed out that countries are spending an enormous amount of money on climate policies but achieve almost nothing. “We should fix climate smartly, but right now we are just fixing it stupidly,” Lomborg told Sky News host Peta Credlin. “It is increasingly becoming obvious to voters and to politicians that this is not the right way to go about it.” Others say “Climate Control” is a fantasy. It's a rationalization for altruist ethics and the demand for all its ensuing sacrifices are by authoritarian control. It's taken on faith, meaning that logic and objectivity have no effect. Modelling reality is an alternative bible of the same method, cherry-picking correlations to produce desired results on paper. Correlations are beguiling to some but are not causation, not rational epistemology to guide science. Bill Gates, for what it’s worth has broken ranks and agrees with Lomborg that there should be and emphasis and a shift in climate strategy, advocating for a focus on improving human welfare and reducing suffering rather than solely on limiting emissions. Both argue that spending trillions of dollars to “fix something that humans cannot fix” is a huge waste of funds that could be addressing issues like poverty and disease that should take precedence, as these have a more immediate impact on people's lives, especially in poorer countries. There is a lot of truth in what Lomborg has been saying for years about climate alarmism.
You just pivoted from decrying alarmism to accusing your opponents of plotting the destruction of capitalism and the world economy within a couple of sentences. Chapeau!
Nobody is plotting to destroy anything. People are stumbling in the dark trying to think up solutions to a fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented type of problem and they're making a lot of mistakes at it because the problem is fantastically difficult and wholly unprecedented.
"Beyond the partisan shouting matches, beyond the catastrophism and the denialism on the left and the right, we’re running a vast, uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric chemistry with results we can only guess at."
We're not running an experiment. We are actually giving people massive improvements in their lives in developing countries. Our energy production systems are the single most important factor that enables us to live better than our ancestors four hundred years ago. THAT is the thing against which we need to compare the costs of climate change.
I also feel like there is still trapped in this a sort of catastrophism. I think prudence is indicated, given the possible bad outcomes, but without knowing HOW things will take shape and where, and where the lines even are, it's impossible to know how much of our power should be devoted to which parts of the risk. The only thing we are fairly certain is likely to reduce the risks is reducing the carbon, which is presumably why that's where the focus is, but we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs.
"we can definitely put ourselves in a position where over-investing now will make us less agile in the future when we have a much clearer picture of the risks and costs."
That's the pickle, alright. Look up "decision-making under deep uncertainty." Serious people are thinking seriously about it.