Thread by @ShellenbergerMD

The United Nations has apparently decided to market its new climate report with the slogan, "On a warming planet, no one is safe"

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb

The fact of the matter is we're safer than ever

Here's why

unep.org/news-and-stori…

Yes:

- the planet is warming

- humans are causing/contributing to that warming

- warming brings risks

- we should try to reduce those risks

- all else being equal, we shouldn't want to change average global temperatures

But all else isn't equal

The planet's warming bc of emissions from land use change, fossil fuels, & other sources

Emissions are side effects of econ development *that has been overwhelmingly positive*

Emissions are *declining* in rich nations & will soon decline globally

Here are the sources for all of those claims

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1333232992135774208?s=20

The idea that "no one is safe" isn't wrong. Of course it's true. Nobody is safe! We're all going to die! All of us!!!!

I mean, seriously. This is what the psychologist calls "safetyism"

The vast majority of humans are *safer than we have ever been*

And we are getting safer

Indeed, the reason for safetyism is precisely because we are so safe!

I have just read the last 125 years of New York Times news coverage of heat deaths

What is so striking about the coverage is how *optimistic* the coverage was — even in the 1930s, during the Depression!

Heat-related deaths declined in the US by 50% to 75% since 1960 thanks entirely to air conditioning, even as heat waves grew in frequency and length

michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/the-real-rea…

Reporters in the 1930s were shocked by heat deaths because they believed things had been getting so much better! In the middle of a Depression!

Today reporters report on heat deaths with the tone of things getting worse, even though they’re *still* getting better!

Vanishingly few of us die from disasters. We’re producing more food than ever. Emissions are going down. Those trends are going to continue, but you wouldn’t know it from the UN PR department, which aims to persuade people that we are in greater peril. It’s mass neuroticism.

The basis for such alarmism is sociological not scientific. It is driven by the need among secular people for purpose and meaning. The belief that you’re saving the world from Apocalypse appeals to Marvel moviegoers as well as mid-level career diplomats stuck in powerless UN jobs

Emissions are going down thanks to the transition to natural gas & nuclear, which UN types have hotly denounced for decades — perhaps bc tech change underscores the irrelevance of UN bureaucrats whose only power is in issuing hysterical press releases

The same is true of course for many scientists, journalists, policymakers, and activists. They try to block the use of natural gas and nuclear because those techs mean we don’t need UN reports, conferences, junkets, etc. Autonomous tech change means their careers are pointless.

The more emissions decline, the more pointless their existence, and the more they feel the need to terrify schoolchildren. Greta is what you get after decades of indoctrinating schoolteachers, journalists and others in the “educated” classes.

Ignorance about all of the most important trends when it comes to climate change — decarbonization, declining disaster deaths, rising crop yields — don’t result from the *absence of information* but rather the *repetition of misinformation*, eg “No one is safe”

I am flying home from a family reunion in Indiana where my mother and her sisters, born in the 1920s & 1930s described life on the farm

“We got the mumps!”

“And the measles!”

Barns caught on fire. Whole hands were cut off. Babies died.

They *never* went on vacation because grandpa had to milk cows every 8 hours or… catastrophe.

But when I asked, “How was your childhood?” they said, “Oh, really great.” “Very happy.”

They worry about their anxious grandkids who suffer FOMO from being on Instagram all day long

Is this what’s behind the widespread neuroticism that afflicts secular elites in rich nations?

The material challenges have all been solved. We are resilient to weather in ways our grandparents could only dream of. Infrastructure. Food.

And yet we’re more neurotic than ever.

We are told stories of past material hardship by our elders who also stress the stronger social and family ties in the olden days. How many of us have heard some version of, “We were poor, but we had each other.”? Today, we are rich but alone.

I wish neurotic UN diplomats would direct their ennui elsewhere. What ever happened to “Make poverty history”? How about a global crusade for community against loneliness? How about a proper effort to stem drug deaths, which rose in US from 17k in 2000 to 93k in 2020?

Consider this tweet thread CBT against the neurotics who seek purpose in life by spreading anxiety and depression among schoolchildren. Knock it off! Grow up! Stop hiding the facts of rising material well-being behind a cartoon picture of future climate apocalypse!

All data, facts, charts from best-available science is here

environmentalprogress.org/apocalypse-nev…

Here’s an overview of why climate change really isn’t the end of the world, including for the poorest people on the poorest nations:

quillette.com/2020/07/08/why…

Here’s an overview of why most environmental trends are going in the right direction and will continue to do so as long as we avoid hysteria and alarmism

forbes.com/sites/michaels…

All of my Substack articles contain links to the best-available science and are free to read

Please subscribe so I can keep it free, particularly for young people, who are vulnerable to media-driven misinformation, hysteria, and anxiety-depression

michaelshellenberger.substack.com

Consider reading the landmark article @TheAtlantic by @glukianoff & @JonHaidt on the rise of “safetyism” which helps explains much of environmental alarmism we see today

theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…

Here is a link to a Twitter thread on environmental trends

https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1333232992135774208

AAAS has sent around quotes for reporters to use

They are shockingly and embarrassingly one-sided

They are devoid of context

Let's go through them

sciline.org/climate/ipcc-r…

"We are out of time." It's alarmist by denying any context. Every IPCC report is constantly weighing costs and benefits. To say "we're out of time" suggests we should immediately halt all emissions, which is absurd. It would trap billions in poverty & impoverish the rest of us.

The second quote admits there's effectively nothing new whatsoever in the new report but adds that there's more "precision." But the precision offers nothing new. We've known for 40 years that humans were warming the planet and, all else being equal we'd like to limit it. Duh.

This quote betrays a goal of the report: to justify using every extreme weather event as a "news hook" to terrify audiences about climate change.

What it doesn't mention is that there's no connection between climate change and droughts in Western US

Consider past megadroughts

This next quote is seriously inane. It says nothing. It's not science. It's literally just rhetoric. More "time is now!" spin. SMH

This quote typifies the whole problem with presenting "climate science" separate from economic trade-offs

Again, all else being equal, we shouldn't want more emissions, but all else is not equal! Would it kill scientists to include the last clause in their statements?

Another quote that misleads people by depriving them of context

Would it kill IPCC authors to make note that heath deaths massively declined thanks to A/C and *will continue to decline* if we keep expanding A/C?

This quote is downright misleading as it implies that climate change is increasing droughts. It's not. See above.

It's inappropriately vague on fires. The biggest factor causing high-intensity forest fires is the build-up of wood fuels. Well-managed forests survive higher temps.

Finally, a quote that is halfway decent. It properly describes climate change as a gradual and long-term problem. As such, it properly contradicts the previous hysterical "now! now! now!" quotes

This quote is typical of how many scientists have switched from talking about "disasters" to "extreme events."

Disasters are measured as deaths & costs and are thus getting *better* not worse.

And so the focus has shifted to precipitation, temperatures, wind speeds, etc.

Can we handle sea level rise of 1-2 feet (~0.6M)? Ask the Dutch.

Physically speaking, we're gonna be okay, guys

Mentally speaking is a whole other story

As always, follow @RogerPielkeJr for the best explanation of the science of climate change impacts

New IPCC notes that "heavier rainfall does not always lead to greater flooding" — something Roger pointed out 22 years ago

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424734692335517700?s=20

The UN claimed climate change is “a code red for humanity," but "Not only is this wrong, it is irresponsible. Nowhere does the IPCC report say that billions of people are at immediate risk"

@RogerPielkeJr debunks the UN's irresponsible fear-mongering:

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1425126148233601025?s=20