Progtards Favourite Weapon: Alarmism

[Anonymous]

https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/150976155_4318175084877480_400011796562172830_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=N80LbgY5QC4AX93xF-H&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=867e1c0d0b2f661c37ab97502df48306&oe=6057E970">

[cc]

S'OK. I'm a good swimmer



But I'm cold. Can you spare a coat?

[Anonymous]

S'OK. I'm a good swimmer



But I'm cold. Can you spare a coat?

According to the UN, the beaches have sunk in the ocean twenty one years ago.

[Herman]

Here are answers to 10 popular loaded climate questions.





1: Do you believe in "climate change"?



If by "climate change," you mean some human impact on climate, yes.



But I don't believe in "climate crisis."



As the world has warmed ~1°C in the last century, climate disaster deaths have fallen 98% thanks in large part to fossil fuels.



Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 100 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—~1°C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher than today's.¹





Fossil fuels have actually made us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.²





"Do you believe in 'climate change'?" is an extremely vague question.



It doesn't specify what the magnitude of the change is, to what extent it's negative or positive, and to what extent it's human-caused.



Everyone "believes in climate change" at this level of vagueness.



The intent of the vagueness of "Do you believe in climate change?" is to get you to say "yes" because you (correctly) believe in some human impact on climate, then take that "yes" to mean that you (falsely) concede a catastrophic human impact on climate—a "climate crisis."



"Do you believe in climate change?" is also a misleading question, because it asks you to take a position only on the climate side-effects of fossil fuels ("climate change") while ignoring their huge benefits (including their benefits in protecting us from climate danger).



For an in-depth explanation of why climate impact ("climate change") is real, but "climate crisis" isn't, read this.



2: Are you a "climate denier"?



I'm a climate thinker.



I think about the climate side-effects of fossil fuel use in a precise, not exaggerated way, and I also think about the many benefits of fossil fuel use—including the climate benefits that make us safer than ever from climate.



The irrefutable case for a Fossil Future

ALEX EPSTEIN

·

AUGUST 31, 2022

The irrefutable case for a Fossil Future

If we want a world in which all 8 billion of us have the opportunity to flourish—to live long, healthy, prosperous, fulfilling lives—we need to use more, not less, fossil fuel going forward. I explain this comprehensively in my book Fossil Future. Here's a



Read full story

3: What about the 97% of climate scientists who agree that we must rapidly eliminate fossil fuels?



The "97%" studies reflect widespread agreement that humans have some climate impact, not catastrophic impact.



They don't justify the disastrous policy of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels.

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-myth-that-97-of-scientists-agree?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the- ... dium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-myth-that-97-of-scientists-agree?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email



The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis

ALEX EPSTEIN

·

FEB 23

The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis

Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Truth: Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels



4: Will you listen to the scientists on climate change?



In considering energy policy I will listen to accurate summaries of climate science, along with accurate summaries of other relevant fields such as energy economics.



I will reject distortions and politicizations of science.



For an in-depth explanation of what's wrong with "listen to the scientists" or "listen to the climate scientists" on energy policy, read this.



5: What's your plan to keep warming under the 1.5°C that scientists say is necessary?



The goal of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to limit warming to 1.5°C since the 1800s—~0.5°C from today—in a world where far more people die of cold than of heat—is genocidal pseudoscience.

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/talking-points-on-cop-26-15c-pseudoscience?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/talk ... dium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/talking-points-on-cop-26-15c-pseudoscience?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email



6: What's your plan to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions?



Such a plan would be ruinous.



CO2 emissions reduction can only be achieved humanely and practically long-term, by developing globally cost-competitive alternatives.



I will liberate nuclear and other promising alternatives.

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/a-pro-human-pro-freedom-policy-for?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/a-pr ... dium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/a-pro-human-pro-freedom-policy-for?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email



7: Will you join the world in pursuing net-zero by 2050?



No one is actually pursuing net-zero, and many parts of the world are increasing fossil fuel use, because for billions of people fossil fuels are the most or only cost-effective way to get the energy they desperately need.

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/reject-net-zero-embrace-energy-freedom?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/reje ... dium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/reject-net-zero-embrace-energy-freedom?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email



8: How will you address the worsening extreme weather brought on by fossil fuels?



Actually, the world is experiencing unprecedented safety from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels—because fossil fuels' benefits in protecting us from extreme weather overwhelm any negative climate side-effects.

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/25-myths-about-extreme-weather-refuted?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/25-m ... dium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/25-myths-about-extreme-weather-refuted?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email



9: What are you going to do about the deadly wildfires that climate change has made worse?



We must address the root cause of dangerous, out-of-control wildfires: "excess fuel load" from bad forest management. Climate is a minor variable that we have no near-term control over.



10: How do you respond to the latest UN IPCC report in which scientists demand urgent climate action?



The IPCC "report" is a political document that distorts science by

1) exaggerating our negative climate impacts

2) ignoring our huge ability to master climate danger

https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-ipccs-perversion-of-science?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the- ... dium=email">https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-ipccs-perversion-of-science?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Lokmar]

I believe anything the west does is offset 10X over by the pollution India and China spew non stop.

[DKG]

I believe anything the west does is offset 10X over by the pollution India and China spew non stop.

That should be obvious to Trudeau, Biden, AOC, and Sanders, but it goes right over their heads.

[Oerdin]

Sadly, the alarmism does go bath ways though the left is far worse on the left.  They literally claim anyone who disagrees with them on any topic is a Nazi.

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

Sadly, the alarmism does go bath ways though the left is far worse on the left.  They literally claim anyone who disagrees with them on any topic is a Nazi.

/me shrugs.



So let them call me a nazi then and get it over with. Might as well diminish that epithet along with all the others they've flung, and it's not as though calling me a racist, a bigot, a white supremacist, a transphobe or any of their other overplayed insults has bothered me any.



I'd have to respect them a lot more than I do for it to be otherwise.

[DKG]

Sadly, the alarmism does go bath ways though the left is far worse on the left.  They literally claim anyone who disagrees with them on any topic is a Nazi.

Muzzling dissent.

[Oldoc]

Sadly, the alarmism does go bath ways though the left is far worse on the left.  They literally claim anyone who disagrees with them on any topic is a Nazi.

...bath ways? jeez - sounds kind of friendly.

 

   Anti-LibiConism isn't for partisans. It's for Freethinkers.



Now Liberalism vs Conservatism is really a much deeper subject than politics, and evolution, which is inevitable, matters.

[kiebers]

I'll just leave this here...

Should be required viewing.

[DKG]

I'll just leave this here...

Should be required viewing.

[Oerdin]

We are bombarded with exaggerated claims everyday.....this is a good thread idea Herman.

 

The goal is to blame everything on "climate change$ to justify their power grabs and desire to reduce human population and living standards while creating authoritarian control by an elite.

[Shen Li]

We are bombarded with exaggerated claims everyday.....this is a good thread idea Herman.

 

The goal is to blame everything on "climate change$ to justify their power grabs and desire to reduce human population and living standards while creating authoritarian control by an elite.

BULLSEYE!!

[DKG]

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) suggested Sunday that climate change played a role in the massive Maui wildfires that killed almost 100 people and left more than 1,000 others missing.

But meteorologists and other scientific experts say not so fast.

On CNN's "State of the Union," host Jake Tapper teed up Hirono to blame climate change for the tragic event — and she took the bait.

"Experts warn that extreme disasters such as this one are only becoming more common because climate change is fueling stronger storms, hotter temperatures, more widespread droughts," Tapper teed up.

"Yes," Hirono agreed. "I think that we very much need to acknowledge that climate change is upon us. There are whole states, by the way, where you can't even use the words climate change because they still have a head-in-the-sand attitude."

Last Sunday, the National Weather Service warned that a high-pressure system north of the Hawaiian islands, combined with a strong low-pressure cyclone in category 4 Hurricane Dora passing to the south of the islands, would create a "strong pressure gradient" over Hawaii.

Translation: it's going to be warm and dry, and there will be a strong chance of damaging winds. That means the potential for wildfires will be higher than normal.