If you are what author Alex Epstein calls a "Catastrophist" — that is, someone who believes, unwaveringly, that catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming, or CAGW, is upon us — then this blog isn't for you. But if you harbor any doubts about CAGW, now known as "Climate Change," as if this hasn't been happening for awhile now . . .
The Earth was formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Until 3.8 billion years ago, it was a completely inhospitable environment with the surface being mainly molten lava. — https://muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/4-5-billion-years-of-the-earths-temperature
. . . then you'll want to keep reading.
Let me say at the outset that while I became a CAGW skeptic over a decade ago, I have since become what Catastrophists call a "denier," their insinuation being that I and my ilk are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and that, as some Catastrophists believe, we should be punished for it, up to and including imprisonment and execution (see, for example, http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/new-inquisition-punish-climate-change-deniers and http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170948/progressive-professor-demands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield).
This alone should be enough to convince any rational person that CAGW has degenerated from legitimate scientific inquiry (assuming it ever was) into religious persecution, as if the "97% consensus" among climate scientists were enough to end the debate. For even if there were a 97% CAGW consensus (which Epstein, among others, exposes as utter nonsense), I would imagine that there was closer to a 100% consensus among scientists before Copernicus's elegant heliocentrism proved Ptolemy's screwball geocentrism wrong.
But even so, let us understand, first of all, that science is not a popularity contest. On the contrary, in order for science to be science, its hypotheses must be subjected to relentless examination and, in so doing, hold their would-be gatekeepers accountable:
That said, I was typical in believing that humanity needs to get beyond fossil fuels as soon as it becomes practical, which is to say, as soon as renewable energy (sun, wind, geothermal, etc.) becomes economically viable, such that, over time, it scales up to the point of rendering fossil fuels obsolete. I didn't detest fossil fuels, but neither did I embrace them. I just lived with them, generally taking them for granted.
Until I read Epstein's book.
For I now see fossil fuels in an altogether different light — that is, as an all but incalculable human blessing — my hopes for humanity's future having increased in due proportion.
Why? Because without fossil fuels, humanity could have advanced from its primordial hunter-gatherer stage to its agricultural stage but no farther. Instead, our species (assuming it hadn't already gone the way of the Neanderthals) would be stranded in the cul-de-sac of human/animal power, literally working itself to death, as it did for over 95% of our existence (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens)
Don't get me wrong; I'm not demonizing hunter-gatherer society. On the contrary, it was (and remains to this day) genuine society and, as such, has much to commend it. In fact, one of the finest books I've ever read expounds with keen insight on hunter-gatherer society relative to how much modern-day "education" has turned what used to be child's play into regimented, mind-numbing child abuse.
And yes, were we still limited to human/animal power (as more than a billion of us, unfortunately, are), our impact on Nature would be vastly less than it is today.
But insofar as some "environmentalists" believe that we humans — as a pest, a parasite, a cancer; take your pick — should increasingly outlaw fossil fuels (see, for example, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/gaius-publius-the-only-solution-to-climate-change-outlaw-fossil-fuel-production.html and http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/climate-activists-white-house-ban-fossil-fuel-extraction), the result would be to reduce our species to a mode of existence that even the heartiest "outdoorsman" wouldn't choose, assuming he was able to withstand it.
So let us at least concede that fossil fuels are the means by which our species has moved beyond human/animal power and that when fossil fuels are rendered obsolete by more advanced forms of energy production, it will indeed be a time for rejoicing. In the meantime, let us continue to do what we've been doing for over two centuries, which is to improve our fossil fuels by making them cheaper, more plentiful, and cleaner as time goes on. That is, let us look to technology to continually improve the overall supply, performance, and environmental impact of fossil fuels, while renewables work their way in due course into the fabric of society, ignoring the incessant, corporate-media-driven, CAGW scaremongering. Who do you think its mouthpieces work for, after all (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6), and what is the real objective of their CAGW propaganda?
Climate change is a convenient platform for world money and world taxation. That’s because Climate Change does not respect national borders. ... [The International Monetary Fund's] Christine Lagarde almost never gives a speech on finance without mentioning Climate Change. The same is true for other monetary elites. They know that Climate Change is their path to global taxation and global financial control. — http://agorafinancial.com/2016/05/18/new-blueprint-worldwide-inflation/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=issue&utm_campaign=issue
In recognition, then, of how we are being systematically lied to and otherwise set up for even more control over our lives, let those of us whose eyes aren't wide shut read Epstein's exhilarating book, then go about our daily affairs with humble thanksgiving that fossil fuels have brought the vast majority of humanity out of endemic poverty, disease, and premature death into increasing plenitude, health, and longevity. Let us revel, in fact, in what not only protects us from the elements and allows us access them at our pleasure but has put us on track of exponential improvement in our lives. For no longer are we embedded in Nature, we are increasingly imparting our growing knowledge on it, mastering our control over, yet with a lighter and lighter (increasingly enlightened) touch, thrilled beyond measure by the enormous benefit that fossil fuels have already bestowed upon the biosphere:
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 [2016].
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States. — https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/27/nasa-carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds
Is this not astoundingly good news? Yet it is nowhere to be found in the mainstream media, nor can Catastrophists bring themselves to acknowledge it beyond saying, at most, that CAGW renders global greening inconsequential. Talk about denial, especially when, as Epstein makes undeniably clear, not a single CAGW prediction over the course of the last forty years has come true. Not one. Nor do Catastrophists have a defense against the fact that while there is no historical correlation between the two, global temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are both at lows not seen in at least 300 million years.
Add to this the fact that virtually all plants die below CO2 concentrations of 150 parts per million, and it is clear that not only should we welcome a little warming; we should be on our knees in thanks of the recent upsurge in atmospheric CO2, regardless of the cause.
I could go on (and intend to), but for now, do what Catastrophists most assuredly will not do: buy the book, read it, and let me know what you think about it.
Best sites on the Internet for the truth about CAGW:
• Watts Up With That?: https://wattsupwiththat.com
• Real Science: http://realclimatescience.com
Alex Epstein's website: http://industrialprogress.com
That's utterly hyperbolic bullshit. We already have alternative fuel sources, electric cars exist now and were even built decades ago. We have renewable energy and could drastically lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. The reason we are not is because it is expensive to convert infrastructure over so corporations don't want to spend the money on it.
Banning fossil fuels does not take us back to the stone age, it forces us to switch over to newer technologies that we already have sooner.
Fossil fuels were definitely a great boon for humanity, but that does not mean it comes without cost. Nor does it mean we can't do better.
Yes, but where does the electricity for the cars come from? Almost all from fossil fuels and nuclear. And sure, "it is expensive to convert infrastructure over, so corporations don't want to spend the money on it," the point being that it's too expensive to be cost-competitive.
As for banning fossil fuels, let that start tomorrow, and see how long you live.
Which is to say that you're a Catastrophist who has missed Epstein's point entirely.
Again, an ever increasing amount of electricity could be coming from renewable sources.
Cost-competitive doesn't enter into it. If you built an entire infrastructure around fossil fuels, then renewables became cheaper it still might not make sense to tear down all that infrastructure and re-build.
Any ban would likely go into place over decades. It's not as if gasoline would disappear tomorrow, so again that's pure hyperbole.
Calling people concerned with anthropogenic climate change "catastrophists" is essentially an ad hominim, attempting to undermine their argument by labeling them as something negative. The reality is that the earth is warming, and greenhouse gasses are the cause. Your entire argument is based on Appeal to Anticonformity when you state that 97% of scientists could be wrong. In fact you provide absolutely no evidence attacking the actual science, as if you expect us to believe you simply because the majority isn't always correct.
Meanwhile we're seeing the earth warm, we're seeing more chaotic weather patterns because of it, and we could do something about it if people would think long-term instead of short term.
As I said, Catastrophists won't read Epstein's book, which is why, as I said in my opening sentence, my blog isn't addressed to you and your ilk, whose minds are closed books.
So you literally stated you don't want your ideas questioned or debated, but my mind is the closed one. Lol.
@telos, you are making arguments that are addressed by Epstein and the book. If you don't want to read it, listen to this podcast, which got me interested in what Epstein has to say.
(
Gotto love Bill McKibben. Who better than he to prove how catastrophically insane Catastrophism is:
https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii
@jakeawake As I say at the outset, if you're a Catastrophist, this blog isn't for you. Rather, it's for those who harbor any doubts at all about CAGW and are therefore willing to listen. Telos is a Catastrophist and therefore has no interest in reading my blog or anything else, including listening to the David Rubin interview (which is good, by the way, Rubin himself at least being open-minded enough to have Epstein on his show).
Meanwhile, Bill McKibben has revealed how catastrophically insane Catastrophism is by calling for nothing less that a wartime government takeover of the U.S. economy in order to fight "Climate Change," when no less than Google ended is renewable energy R&D program when it finally realized that atmospheric CO2 emissions cannot be stopped, much less reversed:
We decided to combine our energy innovation study’s best-case scenario results with Hansen’s climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among others. Our reckoning showed that reversing the trend would require...radical technological advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon.
Those calculations cast our work at Google’s RE<C program in a sobering new light. Suppose for a moment that it had achieved the most extraordinary success possible, and that we had found cheap renewable energy technologies that could gradually replace all the world’s coal plants -- a situation roughly equivalent to the energy innovation study’s best-case scenario. Even if that dream had come to pass, it still wouldn’t have solved climate change. This realization was frankly shocking: Not only had RE<C failed to reach its goal of creating energy cheaper than coal, but that goal had not been ambitious enough to reverse climate change. — http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy
So save your breath with Telos and his ilk, as they are far too in thrall to Emperor Climate Change to realize that he has no clothes on.