Well, I never expected to see such a mainstream Environmentalist and activist actually come out and actually apologize for the misinformation campaign that has been the "Climate Crisis" hysteria for the past couple of decades now. And yet, one has. Michael Schellenberger, who runs an organization called environmental progress.org has done just that. https://environmentalprogress.org/b...nmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare Some highlights from the book: Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50% We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4% Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants He blasts the hysteria who have repeatedly told these lies, often and with vigor. Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction” The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world” Climate change is not making natural disasters worse Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003 The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture Why? This is his explanation. If any of you have read my comments over the years on this, it feels familiar, and just like exactly what I have written on this forum for years. "In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. " Perhaps the world can now see the light and wonder just how powerful folks used an entirely baseless theory of Malthusianism to try to coopt so much wealth and power from the rest of us.
Yeah he was one of the major famous looney tune activist too. I giggled when I read that. The tree hugging climate nuts are going to torch him.
The book is rather scathing. It paints folks like AOC as the idiot mouthpieces they are for the folks who would enslave the world for their benefit using this crisis to get them there. When you think about the billions and billions of dollars wasted on efforts that, in Schellenberger's own words, were designed to ensure that poverty was "sustainable". That sounds EXACTLY like what the democratic party in this country has been trying to accomplish.
For every scientist who denies global warming, there are 100 who say the opposite. Even the oil companies have sided with the obvious.
LoL, Forbes have already depersoned him. It is billionaires behind the eco movement, everybody knows that. They stand to make billions if not trillions by carbon regulation. They really really want this. The will get it eventually... just like they got ethanol and never reversed it (even though it has been since proven to be more damaging environmentally than normal fuel). https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/30/down-with-eco-censorship/ Yes they are, this is a golden opportunity for them to milk the poor and the middle class.
Why avoid the conversation? The conversation isn't about is the climate changing, because it is. The conversation is about the crisis mentality that environmentalists have been foisting on the public. Of course, those impacts are in scope of the conversation here. The impact here is that those crisis, hysterical outcomes aren't accurate, or real.
So when AOC said "the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change", she was wrong? ROFL. What's scary is how many people bought into her hysteria. Speaking of which, I don't think we've heard anything from the Greta bot kid lately, have they finally quit pimping her, or is the left just giving global warming a break because they're focused on riot season?
I dare to ask, but should we view this as "the tipping point"... where climate alarmism met reality and reality won? Dare to dream. For now though, the book cites the important work that organizations like the IPCC and ECRB have been funding. The most important part? These studies, peer reviewed in all their splendor but quite the damper on all that gleeful fear mongering that these tyrants would subject us to. I am, for one, most pleased that folks who have invested their time on our behalf to help us through how the climate does change that we can now see that there are serious non hysterical solutions that we can use that will make the world better even if it gets a little warmer (temporarily) while we enjoy it.
The author is not a climate scientist. He's an energy "expert." Not that those who work in that area have an agenda about climate change and the use of fossil fuels (wink).
Why spread a falsity here? Or did your googly experience make you cry when you found out he was a socialist? Why do you suppose that you must no cancel him? Doesn't the church love everyone equally in your world?
"Global warming" is almost meaningless. You have to refer to a period and how much. There is global warming, global cooling and man is responsible for some, but how much is questionable.
Some highlights from the book: Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50% We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4% Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants Thoughts?
I would ask you the same. People who possess your perspective have been proven wrong on every level. If anything the irreversible effects of man-made climate change are coming faster than expected. Even more damning for you, the economic collapse folks like you predict will occur if the world moves to renewable sources of energy has also been disproven. Leaving you with no rationale for not accepting the science. As I know all too well, endeavors to change the minds of those who are not moved by science or objective experience is a waste of time and thus I bid you au revoir.
LOL... In computer lingo, you seem to be suffering from stack overload..... LOL... Some highlights from the book: Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50% We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4% Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants If you'd like, we can source each of the peer reviewed studies that were compiled to produce mr Schellenberger's list. So spare us your emotional distress...
I have been making the case for over a decade now, that biofuels are destructive. For example, in Africa the nutters in Europe buy up the few farm in Africa that used to grow food for starving people, and they grow biofuels crops. The use up the scare fresh water to water these fields, adding nitrates and other chemicals into the ground and water. Some parts of the world are in a fresh water crisis, and the biofule idiots will use that water to grow food to put into their gas tanks.
I think the worst of the indictments of the movement are when Schellenberger describes the attempt to structurally induce permanent poverty and energy dependence on scarce energy. The tyranny of that.
True. It was never something we wanted. ADM formed a group with several other companies. They put money into the hands of politicians, as well as favors, for years. The next time Congress wanted to look like it was doing something, they were ready. They had the votes to put booze in gas. The country tried that a long time ago. It was a failure. And now we're doing it again. This is what you get when suits get what they want, and scientists get ignored.
