Timothy Birdnow

Stephen Heinz posted this bit about climate nihilism:

If you look at the growing government programs, they are a means to launder money and enrich the elites. Al Gore knew this as did other charlatans who cherry picked data, ignored others, and became wealthy by fear mongering to sheep who bow at the altar of big government.

All of these so called climate alarmists preach climate nihilism and severe solutions (no beef, curtail agriculture, EV mandates, end fossil fuels, eat bugs) while they fly in private jets or sail on yachts dining on the finest cuisine while taking in millions. They are the today’s snake oil salesmen who you are not allowed to question.

What kind of science censors or cancels anyone who dares to question the nihilistic rantings and fear mongering? Science is questioning and constant discovery.
Edited · 1 · Like · Reply · Delete · Yesterday at 2:38 PM
Timothy Birdnow replied · 1 reply
Timothy Birdnow
Anthony Watts
Like · React · Reply · Edit · Yesterday at 1:03 PM
Diane M. Kimura
An example of climate nihilism:

"Scientists Warn 1 Billion People on Track to Die From Climate Change.

The fossil fuels that humanity burns today will be a death sentence for many lives tomorrow.

A recent review of 180 articles on the human death rate of climate change has settled on a deeply distressing number. Over the next century or so, conservative estimates suggest a billion people could die from climate catastrophes, possibly more.

As with most predictions for the future, this one is based on several assumptions.

Technically, the 1000-ton rule does not take into account possible climate feedback loops, which could make future environmental fallout from carbon emissions even worse, even faster.

This rule is actually "an order of magnitude best estimate", which means it's more of a range, somewhere between 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1000 tons of carbon burned.

That leaves a lot of room for scenarios even more dire than the one outlined here.

"When climate scientists run their models and then report on them, everybody leans toward being conservative, because no one wants to sound like Doctor Doom," explains Pierce.

"We've done that here too and it still doesn't look good."

One is a rough rule of thumb called the '1000-ton rule'. Under this framework, every thousand tons of carbon that humanity burns is said to indirectly condemn a future person to death.

If the world reaches temperatures 2°C above the average global preindustrial temperature, which is what we are on track for in the coming decades, then that's a lot of lives lost. For every 0.1 °C degree of warming from now on, the world could suffer roughly 100 million deaths.

●●●●●》"If you take the scientific consensus of the 1,000-ton rule seriously, and run the numbers, anthropogenic global warming equates to a billion premature dead bodies over the next century," explains energy specialist Joshua Pierce from the University of Western Ontario in Canada.

... ●●●●●●●》"Global warming is a matter of life or death for a billion people," says Pierce. ...

Tim responds:

Yikes! How can anyone write such tripe with a straight face? We have had periods where it has been both MUCH warmer and higher carbon dioxide levels and not had this apocalypse they are predicting.

I would add that warming periods generally accompany increases in population, not huge loses. Cold kills; warm heals.

"Technically, the 1000-ton rule does not take into account possible climate feedback loops, which could make future environmental fallout from carbon emissions even worse, even faster."

Or make them better. The whole climate change debate is over climate sensitivity; are feedbacks positive or negative? There are many reasons to believe they are negative,that warming tamps down more warming (clouds, for instance, block the sun and form when it is warmer.) This fool assumes they are all positive - something for which we have little evidence.

Essentially what folks like this are doing is taking Christian belief in an Apocalypse and sucking religion out of it. This is End Time Theology sans God. Nothing more. They would do better to read the Book of Revelations.

And they just pull numbers out of thin air, like that "for every 0.1 degree warming a hundred million will die" nonsense. It was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period and population increased. During the Roman Warming Period probably too.

For example England's population grew during the MWP - from 1.4 million to 5 million by 1300 . Why? They had more food and fewer winter deaths. The population in Germany and Scandinavia rose from 4 million in 1000, to 11.5 million by the 1340 . By 1320 France's population surged to between 15 and 20 million.In fact all of Europe saw a population surge during the MWP.

By contrast the population drops during cold periods.

In the Americas during the Little Ice Age it has been estimated that 50 MILLION deaths occurred. I rather doubt that, or that the dying caused cooling, but certainly there was a big dropoff of population. The Mound builder culture in the Midwest, for instance, died out midway through the LIA. Their capital - Cahokia - was abandoned about the time Columbus discovered the New World. And we saw similar things happen to cultures in central and South America, notably the Mayans and Incans.

The population of Europe shrank with the sinking mercury.

Anyone who claims warming is going to kill all these people has not studied history.

They just made up the "thousand ton rule"; there is no scientific basis for this. As Mark Twain put it "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". This is the third kind of lie.

This is Millenialism without Christianity, the Apocalypse sans God. It's an attempt to manipulate imagery from the Book of Revelations to get people to panic and stampede into the New World Order. It's the most vile sort of lie.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 994 words, total size 7 kb.