Apocalypse Never Slide Deck

What he’s saying largely doesn’t contradict the IPCC report. He’s fighting climate alarmism, not the idea of climate change itself.

Thanks for the link. The article looks like global-warming denialism wrapped up in a blogspam format.

Very sad, rather than addressing the contents you have to resort to trying to reinforce defamation. This attitude is what destroyed all reasonable conversation in recent years.

And here is one of many criticisms of the work: Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in ‘Apocalypse Never’ by Michael Shellenberger https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-scienc....

That review goes into detail. The big picture for me is that he misses the systemic effects in favor of low-level, often misdirected, points.

For example, he suggests "As a result of cleaner-burning coal, the transition to natural gas, cleaner vehicles, and other technological changes, the U.S. and other developed nations have seen major improvements in air quality."

Those factors may have contributed, but we exported our manufacturing to places with lower standards. The world's air quality degraded, but he found places it improved and claimed causes he liked without presenting others that contradict his views.

A lot of it reads like what Richard Feynman criticized of the shuttle explosion:

> it was asserted, there was "a safety factor of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term ,"safety factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load, or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did not actually collapse because the crack went only one-third of the way through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.

If you want rigor, I recommend Tom Murphy's textbook for his course at UCSD on energy for non-scientists, freely downloadable: https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions

Here's my review of it: https://joshuaspodek.com/the-science-book-of-the-decade-ener...

He's intentionally mixing woodlands with commercial/working forests. The EU does want to increase forestry but it's almost entirely for timber production.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/105/the-e...

Yes, it's pretty blatant, particularly the cherry picked facts at the end about polar bears. It's sad people fall for this. We need to teach critical thinking and media analysis skills in schools.

Can't you see how disconnected these factoids are, can't you see the clear hidden variables, like the one about coal use going down (thanks gas!) The one about less whales being killed now than 1960 (no more whales killed in 2100 I think). Have you read properly written research papers, the way they track down bias, list what work was done to identify any hidden variables, the reference to statistical baselines? Thes slide are the exact opposite of good research, and in the absence of available time to debunk metric tons of bullshit, I propose you just think!

Not speaking for or against flagging this, but… this is the reality of the HN flag system. The only way anything remotely controversial stays on the front page is if one of the admins vouches for it. Most articles around sexism, racism, etc get flag killed pretty quickly.

Shortly put: it's flagged for using false data. If based on a false axiom, any narrative is false.