2024-04-20
Personally I'm getting very bored with this dialogue of the deaf, where one camp shouts at the other and the other shouts back, heedless of the requirement to acknowledge the doubts and difficulties and yes, even the evidence and the logical arguments.
This site sets a good deal of store by evidence and logic (I can't help it, it's a working life-time of training), so shouting interminably across the fence isn't my cup of tea.
"Climate change" is a wonderful propaganda weapon in so far as the workings of the climate is probably the most complex topic known to man, so unfounded assertions based upon dubious modelling are notoriously difficult to prove or disprove in the absolute. So the onus falls upon the deniers to disprove the assertions of remote global authorities, whereas the onus of proof should be falling on those who would demonise the past decades of advancement of healthy civilisation and consign our future prospects of health and global sufficiency to the scrap-heap.
Still, this little gem from Chris Morrison in the Daily Sceptic does rather neatly highlight the hypocrisy that infests the Net Zero zealotry, still religiously propounded in the face of all the logic and evidence already in plentiful supply, did they but dare to consider it. Yes, absolute proof remains elusive, but proof that respects the balance of probabilities is surely within reach.
Whilst (surprise!) I wouldn't necessarily agree with all the arguments presented in the long-term, in the short term (like from here to 2030) it's hard to see how they could be wrong.
How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero?
For more in similar vein, see Ben Pile's article:
Farmers’ Biggest Problems are Green Ideologues, not Climate Change
