Climate Media vs Climate Science
Science has not supported an existential treat at any point, and the consensus is moving toward moderation more every day, yet the press and politicians are running with Doomsday
If you don’t have WSJ, this article is good reason to consider it.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Would you please provide more content from the story? Buying subscriptions to every news source is like buying streaming services instead of Cox to save money. After a while, instead of paying $100 you end up paying $150.
The initial point was science has backed away from the doomsday narrative unlike the Whitehouse. A link in the story made me laugh questioning the use of “infrastructure” as a cure for racism? Considering the small portion of the infrastructure bill that actually goes to bridges, roads, internet access, etc, I would like to know if the story calls out such obvious lies and pandering by the white house as to what that $2T bill is really about. You know, doing what democrats do best, extreme racial division and vote buying in the name of “justice”.
LikeLike
It’s a long article, but the gist of it
“Joe Biden has put a presidential imprimatur on climate change being an existential threat, and he doesn’t mean in the Jean-Paul Sartre sense of man’s search for meaning in an uncomforting universe.
He means the end of humanity, a claim nowhere found in climate science.
This is odd because the real news today is elsewhere. Its movement may be ocean-liner-like, the news may be five years old before the New York Times notices it, but the climate community has been backing away from a worst-case scenario peddled to the public for years as “business as usual.”
A drumroll moment was Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peter’s 2020 article in the journal Nature partly headlined: “Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome.”
LikeLike
“ He means the end of humanity…l
Humanity will survive. But that doesn’t mean without catastrophic events. Particularly for the 100’s of millions under threat of inundation. Possibly many times that for weather pattern shifts.
We think we have a migration problem now. I suspect this ain’t nothin’ compared to later on in the century.
Yes, droughts have happened in the past. Famines were frequent. But we did not have 7 billion people either. Dangerous storms, wildfires or dry spells mean nothing if no folks live where it happens.
Add to that the rapidity with which the meteorological parameters are shifting, it allows less time to adapt. For additional concerns are the incredible proliferation of weapons available to desperate peoples. We just had an attempted insurrection over pretty trivial crap compared to starvation, disease and habitability. How would we respond should the breadbasket for the US dry up? Or the Southwest runs out of water? Or the Gulf Coast gets torn up by pounding cyclones on a frequent basis?
Put another way, if all the climate issues took place in a world with a few hundred million instead of 7000 million, no big deal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The hardships and political pressures resulting from trying(and failing) to control the climate will greatly exceed those of the climate changes themselves.
Further, the economic harm will leave us less able to pay those costs.
LikeLike
I don’t know where you get those numbers, but it seems might speculative to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I previously recommended Lomberg’s FALSE ALARM. The comparisons are there, in great detail and thoroughly documented.
LikeLike
It’s not about controlling the climate. It is about controlling the human effect on the climate.
Your doomsday sentiment on the economic effects of transitioning to more sustainable and less dangerous energy source is just as bad as the science you tend to deny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
““Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome.””
I’m more of a “Prepare for the worst and expect the best” dude. Preparation is NOT a bad thing. Preventative measures isn’t either. Overkill could be.
LikeLike
Apple News is an aggregator for $9.99/month. You’ll have access to conservative and liberal media as well as others in between. WSJ is included. A caveat is that some opinion pieces may be 12-24 hours behind the actual source. Lots of media choices from sports to tech to fashion to health to outdoors as well as the usual news outlets. There used to be a few weeks or months free trial.
LikeLike
“Science has not supported an existential treat at any point”
Without quibbling about how many people have to die before we describe it as an “existential threat” science DOES support various catastrophic outcomes if we continue on our current path. Such catastrophes are far from certain but also far from impossible. A rational response to risk involves assessing BOTH the probability of the feared outcome AND the magnitude of the disaster should it occur.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/05/climate-change-apocalypse-could-start-2050-if-we-do-noting/1356865001/
https://theprint.in/science/doomsday-scenario-for-climate-change-looks-like-a-rash-flight-of-imagination/339876/
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “A rational response to risk involves assessing BOTH the probability of the feared outcome AND the magnitude of the disaster should it occur.”
A more rational response would also include two other factors: (1) the cost to mitigate the risk, and (2) the probability of the mitigation’s success. You really need all four factors to assess risk properly.
With climate change, for example, the cost of reducing carbon emissions is high and the probability that reduced carbon emissions will mitigate warming is low.
LikeLike
Credit where credit is due. You made two good points.
My response to the first is that the cost of transitioning to green energy is greatly exaggerated by those with a vested interest in not doing so. In fact, with a full accounting of all costs incurred, there is no clear cost advantage to be given up by making the transition to renewable energy. Secondly, the transition is inevitable. Fossil fuels are finite. And they are an irreplaceable resource that ought not be squandered at the expense of future generations if there is an alternative.
To the second point I would say that mitigation of climate change by curtailing burning of fossil fuels is certain but the degree of mitigation depends on the seriousness of the measures taken. Half measures, such as seem to be the norm at the moment, may indeed be next to useless.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “In fact, with a full accounting of all costs incurred, there is no clear cost advantage to be given up by making the transition to renewable energy.”
So you say, but the issue isn’t “cost advantages.” In a risk assessment, the cost value is what matters. If you’d like to argue that the transition to renewable energy won’t cost much, be my guest, but just off the cuff there are hundreds of billions of dollars in Stumble Joe’s Jobs Act to fund that very process.
RE: “I would say that mitigation of climate change by curtailing burning of fossil fuels is certain…”
I disagree. As one of my recent posts describes, the Sun may play a larger role in climate change than carbon emissions. There are other reasons, as well, to question the certainty that reducing fossil fuel use will mitigate climate change risks.
As I wrote: “the cost of reducing carbon emissions is high and the probability that reduced carbon emissions will mitigate warming is low.”
LikeLike
You did make valid points (with no name calling).
However, the certainty of this statement, ” the cost of reducing carbon emissions is high and the probability that reduced carbon emissions will mitigate warming is low.” is unproven and to say it in that manner is overly dismissive of the “could” scenario.
Overlooking the continual decline is cost of mitigation efforts is also ludicrous. The beloved “market” is doing that. Much to your chagrin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point is that risk assessment addresses four factors:
Mr. Murphy made the mistake of addressing only two of the standard risk assessment factors while passing off his argument as “rational.”
LikeLike
“. . . while passing off his argument as rational”
You just cannot help yourself, can you? Sad.
For your information, there was nothing not rational about the statement I made. I did not offer a treatise on risk assessment, I merely pointed out that simply saying that a catastrophe has low probability is not a sufficient reason to ignore it.
LikeLike