“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.”

– Alex Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014), pp. 126–127.

Physical climate change in terms of human welfare defines the debate between the alarmists and skeptics. And a good way to begin that debate is to put climate livability and nature in proper context. The quotation above does just that, tearing away the deep ecology notion that nature is benign, optimal, and fragile.

There is one graphic, one data series, that makes Epstein’s point — and puts the climate alarmists and forced energy transformationists on their heels.…

“Oil industry lobbyists are not worthwhile humans. It’s not a real job, it is corruption and beneath contempt. Taking bribe money to spread propaganda that results in genocide is sub human.” Tom Trounce (below)

I recently had an ‘interesting’ discussion on social media with a strong advocate for (dilute, intermittent) ‘renewable’ energies. My critic, an angry foe of fossil fuels, didn’t present solid arguments but only ad hominems, followed by trash talk. Such is the unfortunate part of debating climate/energy issues on LinkedIn, where certain (brainwashed?) alarmists work to discredit and marginalize their opponents.

Tom Trounce was the bad guy. His profile at LinkedIn advertises:

Improving lives through community, compassion and expeditions | Non-profits | Company culture | Leadership integrity | Technology | Customer Experience | Purpose

What? Improving lives, compassion, integrity.…

“Last chance travel …. From melting glaciers to unbearable summer heat, climate change will make some holiday destinations unrecognizable.”

The mentality of the doomsday crowd is something to behold. Why would one go zombie on the coming end of modern civilization rather than soberly examine the (failed) track record of alarmism and the (non-alarming) data of weather extremes, temperature, and climate-related deaths?

I am reminded of two authors of the 1972 Club of Rome study who were so confident of doomism (here):

Dennis and Donella Meadows retreated to a New Hampshire farm after completing the book “to learn about homesteading and wait for the coming collapse.” “We definitely felt like Cassandras,” Donella Meadows added, “especially as we watched the world react to our work.”

But maybe Kenneth Boulding got it right when he said:

Is there any more single-minded, simple pleasure than viewing with alarm?

“That all of these claims can be debunked with readily available data is a testament to the frailty of the current narrative on climate change. It’s a shame that so many journalists are willing to ignore the facts, fearmongering about climate change for political reasons, when in reality the data reveal there is more to fear from fear itself, not from climate change.”

A year ago, a Texas Tribune “Brief” listed seven alleged ways climate change is already impacting the state of Texas and its residents. When not outright false, the listed claims are extremely misleading. Yet María Méndez and Erin Douglas’s “Seven ways climate change is already hitting Texans” is not the first and will not be the last Tribune article piece which runs the gamut of common alarmist lines.…