This is an example of a climate "scientist" not telling the truth.
A climate scientist knows as much about the causes of deaths as a chemist knows about sheep shearing.
Even if his claim that extreme events have increased (which is tenuous) is true, the deaths aren't.
A climate scientist knows as much about the causes of deaths as a chemist knows about sheep shearing.
Even if his claim that extreme events have increased (which is tenuous) is true, the deaths aren't.
https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/1415969241648574465
Being 'better prepared' is one thing. But the idea that many lives depend on this as the first order of politics is ideology WRIT LARGE.
Ultimately, it will kill more people than climate change.
Ultimately, it will kill more people than climate change.
Heatwave alarmism is the current favourite.
But do you know what makes fewer people die of extreme heat?
A 'stable climate'? No - that's obviously false.
More trees? Nope.
Refrigeration. It keeps food from spoiling, and makes A/C possible.
But do you know what makes fewer people die of extreme heat?
A 'stable climate'? No - that's obviously false.
More trees? Nope.
Refrigeration. It keeps food from spoiling, and makes A/C possible.
And floods are another favourite.
Do you know what stops people being killed by floods?
Is it emissions reduction & wind turbines? Nope.
It's civil infrastructure. It makes no difference how much "climate change" alters rainfall. The engineering requirements are identical.
Do you know what stops people being killed by floods?
Is it emissions reduction & wind turbines? Nope.
It's civil infrastructure. It makes no difference how much "climate change" alters rainfall. The engineering requirements are identical.
Climate "scientists" such as Betts, out of ignorance or ideological ambition, ignore and distort the historical perspective.
They gloss over the fact that FAR more people were killed by extreme weather in the past, and they conceal the reasons for that change.
They gloss over the fact that FAR more people were killed by extreme weather in the past, and they conceal the reasons for that change.
They often say "how dare you challenge climate science, what are your qualifications?".
But deaths are not an object of climate science.
The claim that deaths are caused by climate change, and that lives are protected by climatological stasis is *pure* ideology.
But deaths are not an object of climate science.
The claim that deaths are caused by climate change, and that lives are protected by climatological stasis is *pure* ideology.
This is necessarily true. Here is the thought experiment...
A. Is it possible to conceive of a world with more 'stable' climate, in which more people die?
B. Is it possible to conceive of a world with a more 'unstable' climate, in which fewer people die?
A. Is it possible to conceive of a world with more 'stable' climate, in which more people die?
B. Is it possible to conceive of a world with a more 'unstable' climate, in which fewer people die?
We don't even need to imagine.
We know that A existed. More people died from weather of all kinds in the past.
We know that B exists now. Despite the putative increase in extreme weather and an increased population fewer people are killed by weather today.
We know that A existed. More people died from weather of all kinds in the past.
We know that B exists now. Despite the putative increase in extreme weather and an increased population fewer people are killed by weather today.
Both the thought experiment (the hypothesis, if you will) and the observational facts make the point that human society is less vulnerable to the weather than in the past.
Human society is not dependent on 'stable' weather. There is no plausible scenario which alters this fact.
Human society is not dependent on 'stable' weather. There is no plausible scenario which alters this fact.
The extent to which weather is a problem for individuals and communities (rather than society) compared to other *real* problems has been vastly overstated by climate "science". It does not even compare. "Scientists" need to have their thumbs on the scale to make the case.
This is a big problem for climate "science". Which is to say historical fact is a big problem for environmental ideology. 
The way they will approach this problem is going to be what they *always* do: torture the data to exclude the data, and to let modelling assumptions weigh more than fact. In this way, ideology will trump science.
Simulations are machines for turning ideology into 'science'.
Simulations are machines for turning ideology into 'science'.
"Saving lives" is the ultimate ideological nonsense.
Climate change mitigation *necessarily* makes us more vulnerable to weather and climate. For instance, wind turbines and solar PV cells only produce electricity when the weather permits.
Climate change mitigation *necessarily* makes us more vulnerable to weather and climate. For instance, wind turbines and solar PV cells only produce electricity when the weather permits.
That will force society to reorganise around the weather -- as it was before the industrial revolution -- with concomitant risks. Measurable, real, actual, not hypothetical risks. Risks to the economy, and risks to lives.
The refrigeration technology that reduced the number of deaths from heatwaves now gets switched off.
The civil infrastructure that diverts water away from people is now made vastly more expensive.
"Nature based solutions" require society to be changed.
The civil infrastructure that diverts water away from people is now made vastly more expensive.
"Nature based solutions" require society to be changed.
As one CE of the National Grid put it: "we're going to have to get used to using electricity when it's there".
That's deeply, deeply regressive.
It's more dangerous than any degree of climate change.
And it will save no lives. It will cost lives.
That's deeply, deeply regressive.
It's more dangerous than any degree of climate change.
And it will save no lives. It will cost lives.
But "saving lives" is the ideological claim that puts the policy agenda out of democratic control.
If you want to challenge "scientists", then you are "risking lives".
If you want to challenge "scientists", then you are "risking lives".
They want to reorganise society, on this promise of reducing risks, which they claim are increasing.
They don't want any challenge to their claims.
And so ultimately, they will have reorganised society, without democratic or scientific scrutiny of their claims.
They don't want any challenge to their claims.
And so ultimately, they will have reorganised society, without democratic or scientific scrutiny of their claims.
Will we be any safer without democracy?
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
