Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
forbes.com
forbes.com
When the hundreds of millions of refugees flood across borders driving governments to fascism, and those fascist governments do what they do and trigger global thermonuclear war, these same individuals will insist none of it was their, or the fascists', fault. If money still means anything they will be well-paid for that, too.
But there is way, way more money immediately available from the people still getting the petroleum and coal subsidies.
There was a claim awhile back that fossil fuels were somehow subsidized in the sense of "externals" (e.g. government pays their militaries to protect foreign countries that produce petroleum). I find the notion ridiculous, but even if you don't, no petroleum or coal company can cash in on that kind of subsidy.
Climate change -> population migration -> fascism -> nuclear war is quite a severe set of steps, and if this is truly the scenario we're worried about, then climate change is probably the most difficult step to correct. We'd likely have a much easier time trying to control migration or fascism or nuclear war. And there's a decent chance something will naturally interfere with these set of steps such that it doesn't occur.
Additionally, it seems to me that nuclear war can derive from a number of different sequences, and climate change is probably not the most immediate one.
We can play the same game with other sequences as well, and its still not that convincing
Video games -> de-sympathizing -> murderers -> high crime rate
Poor -> Uneducated -> Republican -> Trump
religious -> muslim -> jihadi
religious -> anti-science -> ludite -> Unabomber(s)
DnD -> Anti-Christian -> Anti-good -> satanists
Just because you drew a path doesn't make it convincing.
I.e., Something could cause something, which could cause other things, so they definitely do cause it, so stopping something stops everything. The song is old.
They say millions in the US will be displaced due to climate change in the coming decades. And yet, here we are in CA already displacing millions just from this self inflicted housing crisis.
A few juxtapositions of this current column against his previous columns:
He doesn't want people to say that climate change will make Koalas extinct, but he himself thinks wind turbines will make several species extinct.
He thinks it makes sense to burn coal in India because it's cheap, but he attacks renewables, which are cheaper than running existing coal in some regions, because they will "lock in" fossil fuel usage which is apparently a bad thing when they do it.
He relies on the IPCC as the last word on whether climate change will have catastrophic impacts, but also rails against it for it's anti-nuclear bias. Are we allowed to question the IPCC or not?
He wants everyone to be reasonable and sensible but think most environmentalist are csecret communists who want to intionally made people poorer?
"Insane" or "strange cult"--oh, stuff and nonsense. You need to come back to reality.
It's mostly just debunking hyperbole around climate change.