This will make Greta mad.....

Angry Greta!

Good news! Big cracks are beginning to form in the climate alarmist environmental  movement. Even the true believers are asking media to cool it. Why? It may be because 2019 was a truly outrageous year even for the climate catastrophists. At the start of the year politicians and others, amplified by media, made claims that we had only 12 years before the world as we know it ends if we don’t buckle-down and address climate change now. The mainstream media gleefully reported that global climate catastrophe was imminent. Great fires, floods, storms, record heat, all those things were happening (they imagined) and were attributed to human caused climate change. The end was near unless there was some kind of massive intervention.

 

By the close of the year Greta Thunberg, the autistic, troubled teenage wunderkind, was proclaimed TIME magazine's person of the year (see this). She was recognized despite not yet finishing high school, but still credited with enough scientific credibility to be a world renowned self-proclaimed spokesperson against catastrophic climate change. Just remarkable, wouldn’t you say? What a world we live in! Greta, of course, will not like this blog post.

In the midst of the daily climate warnings by the media and almost on queue, the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic swept away the ridiculous notion that catastrophic climate change was the worst thing that could happen to humanity. Of course that did not stop the bleating from the apocalyptic hordes just so we didn't forget them during the lockdown. In fact they pointed out that CO2 levels continued to rise despite reduced human activity during the worldwide Pandemic lockdown. 

Maybe as result of all the outragiously scary stuff that appeared in 2019 an article was posted in Nature magazine, which in my opinion began the catastrophists retreat. The article admonished catastrophists to tone down their rhetoric without retreating from their alarmist position: 

“We must all — from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers — stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is. This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as being out of control and unsolvable.”

They pointed out that the worst case scenario envisioned by the IPCC was unlikely to happen and should not be used to terrify the general public, rather we were on track to a far lessor disaster (but still a disaster) unless we switch to so-called cleaner energy sources like “renewables” - wind, solar etc., and proceed with other mitigation strategies. Apparently when media reports on the future of climate change, they have a tendency to use the worst case scenario to make the case. Journalists have become climate activists, long ago tossing out objectivity. The Nature article suggested that the worst case was also the MOST UNLIKELY. Rather, the article suggested using more realistic scenarios to make policy and report to the public. Mostly the article was ignored, especially by media.

Every year the National Post features a week in June called Junk Science Week. Understandably climate change stories have been at the forefront of that week every year. This year the column written by University of Guelph Prof. Ross McKitrick highlighted the article above from Nature. That was the only press I saw commenting on it.

The onset of the COVID19 Pandemic pulled the world's attention from the fake but widely believed existential crisis of climate change, to a very real existential crisis for humanity. 

It was during the height of the North American Pandemic lockdown in April that a more dramatic and widely publicized event occurred. Film maker Michael Moore released a film onto YouTube for free called Planet of the Humans. It was the story of “green energy,” wind, solar and biomass, written and narrated by a climate catastrophist and friend of Moore's. Yet it was a critical condemnation of low carbon emitting "renewables” or rather “unreliables” as I prefer to call them. The film  exposed the false hope that these alternative energy sources provide, and the lies and corruption that has characterized Green energy advocacy. The fact that Nuclear Plants have no carbon emissions was totally ignored by the film.  But, the film made waves. It was roundly criticized by the environmental left, and eventually removed from YouTube due to protests and for very flimsy reasons. Nevertheless, reposted, the film can be seen here, and it is well worth a view.

But the biggest story so far this year in my opinion was the book and apology by Michael Shellenberger. I first became aware of it by reading a column by John Robson in the National Post, himself a climate change skeptic. Shellenberger is a frequent contributor to Forbes Magazine. His most recent contribution, an apology for the climate change scare, was posted then removed, censored by Forbes, and that was the reason for Robson's column. The apology will warm the cockles of your heart if you are a climate change skeptic. I have no doubt catastrophists will lose their lunch over it. Shellenberger reposted his apology here, on his website. Its a great read! He did an interview with Alex Epstein about the apology here:

Shellenberger has a history of criticizing the environmental movement. For example this TED Talk where he denounces so-called renewables and promotes nuclear power, which is a no-no among lefty environmentalists:

The book Shellenberger wrote is called Apocalypse Never:Why Environmental Alarmism hurts us all, is only available in electronic form, Kindle or Kobo so far (early July 2020) in Canada. It just got published in the States (June 30, 2020). The book is reviewed here by Alex Epstein. It's been well received and is popular and I'm hoping it will begin a retreat from the current anti-human man-made climate change hysteria to a more moderate humanistic form of environmentalism. If the book is widely read and taken seriously, it could change government policies.  

Can governments get off the climate change bandwagon? Events during the Pandemic prove governments can be wrong and change their approach quickly. For example the official view on masks for the general public has gone from they are ineffective and possibly even harmful, to they are now mandatory. Quite a switch, and climate change policies can and should change equally as fast. I hope so.