{"id":258525,"date":"2023-05-21T19:42:11","date_gmt":"2023-05-21T17:42:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=258525"},"modified":"2023-05-21T19:42:14","modified_gmt":"2023-05-21T17:42:14","slug":"zero-carbon-alarmists-upset-at-public-rejection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=258525","title":{"rendered":"Zero Carbon Alarmists Upset at Public\u00a0Rejection"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Climatists are increasingly complaining about critics dismissing their doomsday claims as false alarms.  Recently I posted on meteorologists upset about negative pushback from their audiences.  [See Enforcing Climate Correctness (Fact Checking)<\/strong><\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Maybe if they stuck to weather reporting? See\u00a0Climate Evangelists Are Taking Over Your Local Weather Forecast<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition Daily Sceptic observes Scientists Pushing Net Zero Complain of Hurty Feelings on Twitter.<\/strong><\/a> Excerpt in italics wtih my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is happening of course is that the horrors of the collectivist Net Zero project are becoming increasingly apparent,<\/strong> as a widespread attack on almost all human activity is launched under the suggestion that the climate is breaking down. Until recently the \u2018settled\u2019 science promoting this view had a safe, largely uncontested space to prosper. But scepticism about the unproven hypothesis that humans operate the climate thermostat by burning fossil fuels is growing<\/strong>, with two recent polls showing that over 40% of people surveyed worldwide believe climate change is mainly due to natural causes<\/a>. Far from coughing up the huge sums required to hit Net Zero, 4 in 10 Americans are not even prepared to pay more than two dimes a week to combat climate change.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 It is hardly surprising that the banning<\/strong> of meat eating, along with all the other notable Net Zero suggestions<\/a> such as no flying, shipping, barely enough energy to heat homes and cook food and restrictions on all common building materials, is starting to foster wide debate<\/strong> \u2013 even sometimes robust debate. Maslin, along with many of his fellow climate extremists, seem oblivious to this gathering trend. This is perhaps not surprising. In 2018, he was one of a number of eco-activists who signed a letter to the Guardian saying they would no longer \u201clend their credibility<\/a>\u201d by debating climate change scepticism.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The loss of Twitter as a \u2018safe\u2019 space for climate alarmists has been a bitter blow.<\/strong> It is not seemingly enough to exert considerable control over most other public platforms including social and mainstream media. Global Witness is of the view that if climate scientists are unable to do their work because of \u201cstress and fear caused by harassment\u201d, the critical evidence that undergirds climate action and solutions is put at risk.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is reasonable for social media users to tell delicate activists<\/strong> like Maslin that there is really nothing to worry about from our climate<\/strong>. It\u2019s just free speech, and it applies \u2013 in fact it is vital \u2013 in science and geography, as elsewhere. But it\u2019s not just about science anymore<\/strong>. It is becoming apparent that Net Zero is being used as an attack on almost all human activity. Everything humans do to survive, from keeping warm to growing food, is being cast as an attack on Mother Earth.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expert Findings Awaken Censorship <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The alarmists are calling for greater censorship of growing numbers of studies and perspectives that refute and contradict claims made by \u201cconsensus\u201d scientists.  For example Fraser Institute recently published Celebrate Earth Day by burning latest UN climate report. <\/strong> <\/a>Excerpts in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ahead of Earth Day, and not coincidentally, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  released a summary of its summaries of summaries<\/strong> of a massive unreadable multi-volume report that specifies how the climate is changing and what must be done. Again, not surprisingly, the new plans are more stringent than the already unachievable previous plans.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In presenting the report, which is still not available in its final form, Antonio Guterres, UN secretary-general, called on developed countries to move up their already impossible \u201cnet-zero\u201d greenhouse gas emission timelines from 2050 to 2040.<\/strong> He also wants coal use to end entirely by 2030<\/strong> in developed countries, and wants the developed world on carbon-free electricity generation by 2035, meaning no gas-fired power plants. Yes, only 12 years from now.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we don\u2019t follow that advice, we\u2019re told, we\u2019ll cruise past the politically-determined target of<\/strong> limiting increased global average temperature to 1.5 Celsius<\/strong> above pre-industrial temperatures. And, we\u2019re told, UN scientists believe we\u2019ll see all kinds of negative trends<\/strong>\u2014droughts, floods, storms, hot weather, cold weather, ocean acidification, glacier retreat (basically all the worst parts of the Bible). Some of this may be true, much is likely untrue, as almost all of it is based on speculative computer models infused with assumptions<\/strong> about how things might work in nature, rather than rigorously measured values that establish how they actually work in nature. Canadians who believe computerization can correct soothsaying will be concerned; those who believe the future is unpredictable will be less so.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But either way, the secretary-general\u2019s net-zero acceleration is a terrible idea<\/strong> that Canada\u2019s governments should ignore, mainly because the side effects of this prescription will be far worse than the ailment<\/strong>. In 2021, RBC estimated it would cost a cool $2 trillion to reach net-zero by 2050. Broken down by year, the estimated cost rivalled spending on our health-care system<\/strong>. And RBC\u2019s estimate assumed continued use of natural gas, which the UN is taking off the table. And even though, through RBC\u2019s rose-coloured glasses, a \u201cnation of electric vehicles, solar-powered houses and hydrogen-fueled airplanes\u201d<\/strong> will help enormously, RBC found even the best-case scenarios for these technologies might only get Canada three-quarters of the way to net-zero\u2014the old net-zero of 2050, not the potential new net-zero of 2040.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, as always, the climate benefits from all of this will be negligible.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nothing Canada can do<\/strong> to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (already a small and diminishing fraction of global emissions) would be enough to exert a measurable influence on the climate<\/strong>. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Trudeau\u2019s friends in China<\/strong>, the world\u2019s largest emissions emitter, are allowed to emit with abandon.<\/strong> Hopefully, Canadian policymakers will file the new UN report in the voluminous burn bin with other silly UN reports, and with the Trudeau government\u2019s current woes, there\u2019s room for hope.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ben Pile\u2019s Compilation of Climate False Alarms<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n