www.netzerowatch.com Open in urlscan Pro
85.13.215.56  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.netzerowatch.com

<form method="get" class="search-form" action="https://www.netzerowatch.com"> <input type="search" name="s" placeholder="Search" value=""> <button type="submit"><img alt="search"
      data-src="https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/themes/gwpf-theme/assets/images/search.png" class=" lazyloaded" src="https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/themes/gwpf-theme/assets/images/search.png"></button></form>

Text Content

Manage Cookie Consent


To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store
and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us
to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not
consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and
functions.
Functional Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose
of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber
or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a
communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of
storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical
purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous
statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of
your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party,
information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to
identify you.
Marketing Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send
advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for
similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes

Accept Deny View preferences Save preferences View preferences
{title} Privacy Policy {title}
Skip to content
 * Home
 * About Us
   * Who We Are
   * Board Members, Net Zero Watch
 * News
   * Press Releases
   * UK News
   * International News
   * Science
   * Comment
 * Publications
   * Essays
   * Cost of Net Zero
   * Net Zero Policies
   * Factsheets
   * Books
   * Etc
 * Global Climate Data
 * Newsletter


 * Opinion: Pros & Cons


HAS CLIMATE HYSTERIA BEEN DEFEATED FOR GOOD?

Saturday 11th April 2020 | Geoff Chambers, Climate Scepticism
Share:
Share by email
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Copy link to clipboard Copied URL to clipboard



HAVE WE WON? BY THAT I MEAN, HAS CLIMATE HYSTERIA FINALLY BEEN DEFEATED, AND
WILL IT BE REPLACED BY SENSIBLE, RATIONAL, EVIDENCE-BASED POLICIES FOR DEALING
WITH CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE, OR ANY OTHER NATURAL PROCESS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT
BE CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY?



Richard’s article two weeks ago based on an article by Jason Bordoff, suggested
a reason for optimism. Bordoff’s article represents the opinion of a climate
believer who recognises that something bigger has come along. Like someone
standing on the beach worrying about sea level rise suddenly spotting a Tsunami.
In this article I’ll examine the question in more detail, and attempt to enlarge
the field of discussion.

Of course, “we” science-respecting climate sceptics haven’t “won” anything. All
that’s happened so far is that one mass hysteria has been displaced by another.
Whereas climate hysteria was slow moving, hypothetical, and largely invisible in
its effects, virus hysteria has a basis in reality that is obvious to all. But
there are many other differences, and they need sorting out. Here are some:


1. THE SPEED AND URGENCY OF THE CORONA CRISIS HAS REVEALED A NUMBER OF THINGS:

1.1 Mathematical modelling is not an exact science. Even the Guardian has
admitted as much. The era when climate modellers could announce projections for
average global temperatures for the end of the century to a tenth of a degree
(and be believed) are over.

1.2 It costs trillions to fix a global emergency, and trillions spent on fixing
a crisis are trillions not spent on something more fun or life-enhancing. The
days when climate worriers could announce that spending trillions plastering the
countryside with solar panels would make us happier, create jobs and therefore
be good for the economy are over (probably.)

1.3 Vast societal change (for good or ill) causes suffering.

1.31 The causal links between political action and political popularity (vital
in a democracy in the medium term for continuity of action) are anything but
clear. (See John’s article on causation and meditate deeply.)


2. THERE IS MASSIVE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPERTS ON THE NATURE OF THE CORONA
VIRUS CRISIS, ITS SERIOUSNESS, AND THE PROPER POLITICAL, MEDICAL AND SOCIAL
RESPONSE.

This can be oversimplified and described as a debate between, on the one hand, a
scientific establishment, represented by chief scientific medical officers and
scientific advisers advising massive lockdowns and a halt to normal economic
activity while solutions are found via the established methods; and on the other
hand a number (a very large number) of specialists (epidemiologists,
statisticians, etc.) who appear as mavericks, proposing unorthodox treatments
and/or the acceptance of the inevitability of large numbers of fatalities, in
the greater interest of society as whole (avoiding economic collapse and the
ensuing social disorder, poverty, suicides etc.) Orthodox economists and other
non-medical experts (criminologists, sociologists) may find themselves
supporting the unorthodox, maverick side, for obvious reasons.

2.1 The above very rough description of the “sides” in the debate reveals
enormous differences between the corona virus debate and the climate one. There
are large numbers of experts who reject utterly the current political and social
response to the pandemic. See this site for a daily update on the
counter-consensual views of numerous experts. I have no idea whether they are
right or wrong. I simply record the fact that they exist.

The days when supporters of climate action could talk about a “scientific
consensus” are over.

2.2 The “sceptics” in the case of this pandemic are disparate in their
expertise, but united in their belief that governments must look beyond simply
“saving the health service” and avoiding the terrible images of old people being
left to die for lack of health care, and consider the bigger economic and social
picture. Their criticisms converge around this single observation: concentrating
on the one single aim of reducing the number of immediate deaths from the virus
may provoke a worse problem arising from economic and eventually social
collapse. They argue for looking at the big picture beyond the immediate crisis.

2.3 Climate sceptics, on the other hand, accuse the consensus of being obsessed
by a “big picture” that exists only in the future, and possibly in their
imaginations and models. They have many, many different objections, from
criticism of the data collection, the quality of the science, the projections,
the politicisation of science, the insistence on mitigation rather than
adaptation, to the propaganda and censorship in the public presentation in
academia and the media.

2.4 The “virus sceptics,” it seems to me, hold a position that is irreconcilable
with the mainstream view. Anyone can have a differing opinion on this or that
detail of the lockdown, but their position is strategically opposed to the
current political consensus. The division is binary. We shall know within a
matter of months or a year or two who is right and who is wrong.

Climate sceptics, on the other hand, as different as Lindzen, Lomborg, Pielke,
Lawson, or you and me, hold positions that overlap largely with the consensus
view. Of course greenhouse gasses may cause temperatures to rise, and of course
that may be problematic here or there (and possibly beneficial elsewhere.) Of
course we can and should do things to improve air quality etc. “Climate denial”
is largely a propaganda myth invented by the consensus enforcers. And of course,
we shall never be able to establish objectively who is right, because of the
time scale involved, and because the dream of zero carbon and a peaceful
reversion to living in a concrete-and-steel-less Rupert Bearland is an absurd
fantasy.


3. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED IMMEASURABLY IN THE 3-4 DECADES SINCE CATASTROPHIC
CLIMATE CHANGE BECAME A THING.

The political effects of this pandemic are utterly unknowable. And I don’t
mean “this changes everything,” “things will never be the same”and similar
banalities. We don’t know whether things will be the same, or not. Politicians
from Trump to Macron have seen their popularity rise. That could be reversed
tomorrow by one false move, one tragedy that tickles the media’s fancy.

3.1 Behind these surface ripples are the profound changes in the politics of the
West that go by the name of “populism” and its largely unacknowledged prime
cause, which is the massive growth of inequality in wealth and income over a
half a century of relative peace and prosperity. (I hope to tackle this in a
separate article.)

3.2 And that’s just the rich, democratic tenth of the world. Add in China,
Russia, India, and Africa, where practically no-one in our dear academia has a
clue what’s going on, and you have a subject that would keep our intelligentsia
busy for decades, if they weren’t so occupied with climate, gender, and the
iniquities of Trump.

3.3 Catastrophic Climate Belief is a movement that for thirty years has been
feathering its niche in the world-up-to-now. It will do everything to preserve
that niche as the world changes in unpredictable ways, and we sceptics are
uniquely well-placed to stop them.


FULL POST & COMMENTS






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RELATED NEWS

16 May 2023 | Andrew Montford, Net Zero Watch


ON LEGAL AND GENERAL

10 May 2023 | David Whitehouse


PRIORITISE METHANE TO TACKLE GHG EMISSIONS

4 May 2023 | Press Release


NET ZERO WATCH CALLS FOR EMERGENCY RESTART OF FRACKING


CONTACT US

Net Zero Watch

55 Tufton Street,
London, SW1P 3QL

t:   44 2073 406066

m: 44 7553 361717

email: info@netzerowatch.com

Privacy Policy

© Net Zero Watch 2023

 * 
 * 
 * 

Manage consent