Does the current wave of climate change hysteria as represented by Greta Thunberg make you feel a bit uneasy? Or maybe you have to deal with friends, colleagues or relatives who are confused about all this? In these situations, it can be useful to take a step back and bring some rationality to this debate. By definition, hysteria is the opposite to level-headed analysis. This is the reason why there is so much irrationality and confusion around the climate change issue - and it's not just about the scientific debate, as we'll see. Because no matter where you stand on the validity of the man-made global warming theory, there's plenty of myths and problems with the Greta-inspired, Fridays For Future-style mania.
As a German, I live in a country that has made climate change a central theme of its policies for decades now. So let this be a cautionary tale for other countries. Keep in mind that even though radical activists and most of the media frame this debate in black and white terms and try to make it a left vs. right issue, this just isn't true. There are a great variety of opinions about climate change both on the left and the right, both within mainstream science and the so-called 'climate-skeptic' community. Once you drop the hysterical mindset, these nuances become very visible. And while they make things much more complicated, taking these nuances into account is the only alternative to the disastrous consequences of political hysteria. So here are my top ten arguments to counter the current climate craze:
1. Problem Or Apocalypse?Probably the biggest trap this whole climate movement fell into is the idea that "if we don't act now, we are all going to die soon": apocalyptic thinking. This shuts down calm, rational thought. But once you get out of that mindset, the issue simply becomes a problem among many. How many of those protestors and activists are even able to tell you what the consequences of CO2 emissions are - even according to the 'official science' of the IPCC?
Here is what
Jochem Marotzke, co-author of the 2013 IPCC report, said in an
interview with the German magazine
SPIEGEL in 2018:
SPIEGEL: "Are there any thresholds above which irreversible processes begin?"
Marotzke: "We cannot rule this out, but the evidence for such tipping points has so far been rather weak. A warming of 2 degrees could most likely lead to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet, causing sea levels to rise by seven metres in the long term - that would be a highly dramatic change. But even if this were to happen, defrosting would take 3000 years. All other alleged tipping points such as the Gulf Stream drying up or the West Antarctic melting are unlikely in the foreseeable future."
Another lead IPCC scientist,
Oxford Professor Myles Allen, has said something similar in a
short YouTube message: the world isn't going to end soon, and there are certainly no deadlines by which we 'must act' to avoid some kind of apocalypse.
Mind you, despite some shrill tones in the IPCC's press releases, this is the 'official position' in science and has nothing to do with 'climate skeptics'. It could be summed up like this: "Yes, we do have a problem and we need to figure out a way to deal with it,
but there's a lot we don't understand yet, and anyway, it will take many years until that problem manifests, which gives us enough time to solve it." At the very least, this shows that contrary to popular belief, there is much diversity even within mainstream science about the effects of climate change. This fact alone should make us immune to politicians and activists who want to rush through drastic measures and policies, and ignore the likely unintended consequences, with the argument that if we don't take these measures
right now, we are all going to die.
Comment: Considering the mysterious attacks on Saudi and Western oil tankers in May and June this year, and the geopolitical context in which the 'Western Order' is attempting to throttle Iran's economic development - and the threat it poses to the US petrodollar system - by isolating it on the world stage, it's clear that last month's attacks on Saudi oil facilities were the next 'progression' in upholding a united Western front against trading with Iran.
And now, today, missiles have been fired at an Iranian tanker in the Red Sea as it sails north near Jeddah, in what appears to be the next Saudi-Western effort to physically contain Iranian oil shipping within the Persian Gulf...
UPDATE 14 Oct 2019
The researchers at Wars Online have further suggested to us that the attack on an Iranian oil tanker in the Red Sea on Saturday was carried out, or facilitated by, secret Israeli naval facilities in the Dahlak Archipelago, located off the coast of Eritrea in the Red Sea...
'Israel using Eritrean bases to spy on Iran' - Ynet, 2012