As I have noted many times, it seems like its' not what happens that matters most, but how it is perceived. Hence the real battle that takes place is how the public perceives it. Whether it's Gaza, Ukraine, immigration, public safety or healthcare, there are people on both sides of these issues that are fighting to plant their interpretations of reality into our minds.
Let's do a breakdown on the climate change concerns people have. We've been told that climate scientists are in agreement about our grim outlook for the future and the "climate emergency" we're facing. This "fact" has been repeated every day for years in one way or another so that it's a basic assumption that precedes any discussion. But what is the reality?
There is a strong scientific consensus that humans have caused most of the roughly 1°C warming since 1850 and that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas driving that warming. But that consensus is about cause and existence, not about the magnitude of future harms or about the correct public policy. Treating “consensus” as a mandate for rapid fossil‑fuel elimination is a gross misuse of what the consensus actually says.
You talkin' to me?
Why that matters: first, the consensus is narrowly about attribution — humans and CO2 have driven the warming we’ve seen. It does not say “catastrophic” or “uninhabitable.” Many studies used to promote a 97% figure simply show agreement that humans have some noticeable impact, not that future warming will be devastating or that immediate net‑zero policies are justified.
Second, you must evaluate harms and benefits together. CO2 has contributed to ~1°C warming so far — mostly in colder places and seasons — while at the same time cheap, reliable fossil‑fuel energy has enabled climate mastery: irrigation, heating and cooling, warnings, infrastructure and medicine. The metric that matters for human flourishing — deaths from climate-related disasters — has fallen roughly 98% over the last century even as CO2 rose. That’s evidence our energy-driven mastery has made people far safer from weather and climate.
Third, climate models are useful but uncertain. Many models have wide ranges and some have overpredicted warming; models are good at “postdicting” past trends but are sensitive to assumptions about feedbacks. So the science points to risks that deserve attention, not to inevitable catastrophe that justifies wrecking the world’s cheapest, most scalable energy source.
My standard is human flourishing: weigh both side‑effects and benefits, factor in adaptation powered by energy, and oppose policies that would reduce the energy that makes billions safer and healthier. If you want, I’ll walk through the specific evidence on disaster deaths, CO2 benefits to plants, or model performance next.
EdNote: The blue text is from Alex AI, a tool created by philosopher/energy expert Alex Epstein.
Bottom Line: What's the reality? One "reality" is that the end of humanity imminent. Many young people are afraid to start families because of this steady diet of fear about "global warming." For reasons I can only guess, the media has been willingly complicit in painting this picture.
3 comments:
Again with the nonsense about climate-related deaths falling 98%. That has nothing to do with CO2 levels. It has do with medical advancements and the fact we don't make houses out of straw anymore. Climate-related deaths have been increasing because of heat-related causes like drought, famine, heat stress, and more persistent diseases.
Here's what research says i response to this:
Short answer: the critic is wrong to treat the 98% decline in climate‑related disaster deaths as irrelevant or merely the result of medical and housing improvements. “Climate‑related disaster deaths” (deaths from extreme temperatures, drought, storms, floods, wildfires) have fallen roughly 98% over the last century as CO2 rose—from the equivalent of ~1.77 million/year in the 1920s to ~18,000/year in the 2010s. That decline is driven overwhelmingly by human empowerment powered by cheap, reliable energy—fossil fuels—not mere chance.
Why that matters and why the critic’s claim fails:
Define “climate mastery”: the ability to prevent climate harm using technology and infrastructure (air conditioning, heating, irrigation, storm warnings, pumps, medical care, resilient buildings, evacuation). These are energy‑intensive systems. Fossil fuels made them cheap and scalable.
Medical care and better housing are part of empowerment, but they themselves depend on abundant energy (lights, vaccines cold chains, water pumping, construction machinery). Energy is the enabler, not a side detail.
Cold still kills far more people than heat globally; modest warming can reduce net temperature mortality, especially since warming is concentrated in colder places and seasons.
Specific disaster categories show dramatic declines: drought‑related deaths once a leading killer have fallen by ~99% over the century because irrigation, transport, and food distribution (energy‑driven) ended mass‑famine patterns.
Yes, heat‑related deaths in some places and years have increased. That deserves attention and adaptation. But single‑year or regional increases do not overturn the century‑scale global decline in climate disaster deaths or the larger point: energy‑driven empowerment has made people vastly safer from natural climate dangers even as CO2 rose.
Good lord. You're posting this to show the insanity of the reply, right? No one is anti-energy. I mean, it almost concedes the point, saying that energy brought about the very improvements I said decreased mortality rates. This source seems to be an advocate specifically for fossil fuels. If it's AI, that's a major fail.
Post a Comment