Climate Mitigation Is Not Working, But the Doomism Sure Generates Unintended Consequences

Robert Bradley explains climate doomism and the failure of climate mitigation strategies.

Guest Post by Robert Bradley, Jr. at Master Resource.

Climate Doom?

I reposted, on LinkedIn, Bjorn Lomborg’s “We could stop scaring people witless with climate exaggeration,” and added the comment:

Is there any good reason for climate exaggeration–particularly to the mentally weak prone to ‘climate anxiety’? Is this a good thing even to the climate activists?

One Benjamin Silverstone responded:

The mentally weak prone to “climate anxiety”? That is the most insulting, bigoted thing I have ever heard. Check yourself Mr Bradley, look long and hard and never use the term mentally weak try and support your argument.

I replied:

Exaggeration and failed doomist predictions mark the climate debate. Here is my example from 1988.

There are hundreds more examples since 1988. And it is the children who are most at risk from climate doom propaganda. They need to hear the optimistic side of CO2/climate–that is only fair! Mentally weak adults scared of the climate future should also receive both sides of the debate.

Isn’t this fair? This should be in the Code of Ethics for psychologists dealing with climate anxiety issues.

Henrick Nordborg, program director, Renewable Energy and Environment Technology at OST in Switzerland, stated:

I am also in favor of banning all fire alarms and fire exits. They only make people nervous.

I responded: “Totally false analogy. That’s coercion.”

Colby Tiffee (33,800 followers) added:

I was recently harassed in my DMs by a self-proclaimed “Climate Psychologist”. She said the damage that people like me and others in the fossil fuel industry have done to the environment and generations of people is incalculable.

Doomism Reconsidered

Emotions run high in the climate debate. But the purveyors of doom-and-gloom are stuck in emotional quicksand. They can continue in their woe-is-me or constructively work toward human betterment in the face of uncertainty and change. This is where fossil fuels turn into the solution, not the problem. As Alex Epstein has noted (The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, pp. 126–127):

“The popular climate discussion … looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability … because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability.”

And as alarmist Michael Mann himself stated in a weak moment:

… hot takes, hyperbole, and polarizing commentary best generate clicks, shares, and retweets. I often encounter, especially on social media, individuals who are convinced that the latest extreme weather event is confirmation that the climate crisis is far worse than we thought…. increasingly today we see it with climate doomists…. This is not true, or at best partly true.

Could both sides of the debate just agree that it is time for resiliency before the fact and adaptation after the fact in the face of weather extremes, whatever the cause? David Shukman seems to think so.

Alex Epstein, meet Michael Mann. Michael Mann, meet Alex Epstein. The mitigation strategy has not and is not working, while engendering unintended consequences.

#ClimateMitigation #MasterResource #Bradley #Climate #Mann #Epstein #UnitendedConsequences #Doomism