Scientific American Article Counsels People to ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Image for post
Image for post
Snow in Britain 2018 — snow would be a thing on the past by 2010 we were told

The usual hysteria which seems to inform any writings from the scientific community on climate change seems to have cooled significantly in recent months. Doomsday scenarios predicting the catastrophic effects of global warming are being dismissed as the work of research grant phishing frauds who cite output from mathematical models which use ‘adjusted data’ to perform their calculations. The ‘scientists’ involved in this scam are working for disaster capitalists who hope to profit from hugely costly schemes to mitigate the non — existent effects of marginal increases on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Their predictions are false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever “climate change” throws at us, claims an unusually level — headed essay in Scientific American.

The essay, penned by John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes two recent reports by “ecomodernists” who reject climate scaremongering look at the issue of climate change from the perspective of humanity’s ability to cope with it, in radically new terms.

One of the reports, titled “Enlightened Environmentalism” by Harvard iconoclast Steven Pinker, urges people to develop a logical perspective on climate, especially in the context scientific and technological benefits industrialization has brought.

Pooh-poohing “the mainstream environmental movement, and the radicalism and fatalism it encourages,” Pinker argues that humanity can solve problems related to climate change the same way it has solved myriad other problems, by harnessing “the benevolent forces of modernity.”

Separating himself from environmentalists who seem to think our salvation lies in medieval technologies such as windmills, Pinker asserts that industrialization “has been good for humanity.”

“It has fed billions, prolonged lifespans, reduced extreme poverty, and, through mechanisation and automation has feed the majority of people from a (short) lifetime of backbreaking, soul — destroying labour. All of this contributed to the emancipation women, and the availability of education to children form even the poorest backgrounds. It has allowed people to read at night, travel freely, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts,” he says.

And just as human ingenuity has allowed us to overcome countless obstacles in the past, he notes, it is more than reasonable to suppose it will do so in the future as well.

I do not take such a rosy view, while medical science, technology and civil engineering have greatly increased longevity they have also caused new problems to replace those they solve, problems such as the population explosion in the third world and its attendant humanitarian crises, which we seem unable to propose any effective solutions to.

The other report cited by Horgan is arecent article by Will Boisvert titled “The Conquest of Climate,” which contends that the “consequences for human well-being will be small” even if human greenhouse emissions significantly warm the planet.

Boisvert, no “climate change denier,according to his track record has been described as a “left-wing environmental expert, is ” yet he calls on warmageddonists to step back from doomsday forecasts that are unlikely to resemble with what will actually happen through the remainder of this century and beyond.

The report ridicules a 2016 Newsweek article predicting “Climate change could cause half a million deaths in 2050 due to reduced food availability,” which forecast the effects of climate change on agriculture, while failing to note that the study actually predicts much more abundant food availability in 2050 thanks to advances in agricultural productivity. These advances will “dwarf the effects of climate change,” he contends, and the “poorest countries will benefit most.”

In this case Boisvert is likely to be as far off target as those he criticises, there are serious doubts about the claims of biotech companies about the assumed benefits of genetically modified seed, but like Pinkers, Boisvert tries to factor in what climate alarmists ignore: the capability of human beings to react to changing scenarios in remarkably ingenious ways.

He is correct however, in reminding his readers that: “Throughout history humans not only weathered climate crises but deliberately flung ourselves into them as we migrated away from our African homeland into deserts, mountains, floodplains and taiga.” To underline his point he notes the remarkable ingenuity shown by the Inuit in adapting to a hostile environment.

Greens, liberals and socialists have been getting their knickers in a twist over the impending disaster of climate change for twenty years and yet to date none of their predictions have come true. Polar bear numbers are increasing, the northern ice cap and Himalayan glaciers are still with us and the fifty million refugees displaced from their homes by rising sea levels are presumably hiding under a gigantic version of Harry Potter’s cloak of invisibility. The current climate change “crisis” that has just isn’t that big a deal, Boisvert argues and empirical evidence backs him up. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

While sceptics and realists will welcome this departure from the usual climate change doom — mongering in Scientific American, establishment climate alarmists will undoubtedly be chagrined by the fact that both reports are published in the now discredited yardstick of scientific integrity, peer reviewed academic journals, will seek to discredit the reports, knowing they could affect not only the funding they depend on, but the ideologically driven left wing political programs they seek to impose on the world.

After all, if the world is not under imminent peril from climate change, who will listen to — and fund — the prophets of doom, or the Cultural Marxists’ demands for an authoritarian global government to save the planet.

RELATED POSTS:

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Climate Denial Finally Pays Off

Here’s A Snippet From A Brilliant Article On Climate Change

The Great Wind Turbine Catastrophe

Statistics, Graphs and Hockey Sticks (slam poem)

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store