You may have noticed that the media aren't covering the Great Barrier Reef much this year, after reporting its imminent death incessantly for years. The reason is not no news but good news. The GBR has been rapidly improving—which doesn't fit the catastrophist agenda.

The New York Times has for years been “reporting” on the Great Barrier Reef with these ominous headlines. Yet now that the reef has been dramatically improving, @nytimes is mute. My research team has been unable to find one story about the GBR’s improvement.
Readers of The New York Times, I encourage you to reach out to @nytopinion and @nytimes climate reporters @jwilliamsNYT @damiencave @JustinHGillis @livia_ar and ask "Why are you denying the improvement of the Great Barrier Reef by not covering it?"…
The Washington Post has, like the Times, been "reporting" on the Great Barrier Reef with ominous headlines for years. And they, too, aren't reporting at all on the reef's dramatic improvement. Why is the improvement of the Great Barrier Reef not news, @WashingtonPost?
Readers of The Washington Post, I encourage you to reach out to @PostOpinions and @washingtonpost climate reporters @chriscmooney, @themadstone, @bydarrylfears and ask “Why are you denying the improvement of the Great Barrier Reef by not covering it?”…
Background: From 2016-2020, the mainstream media expressed extreme concern about the fate of the Great Barrier Reef--a huge, beautiful underwater landscape, formed by corals and brimming with life--portraying it as in irreparable decline due overwhelmingly to our CO2 emissions.
The Great Barrier Reef *was* experiencing significant bleaching, but there were many causes, including unusually warm local waters, predatory starfish, storms ravaging the reef, plus bleaching from the reef's natural lifecycle.
Instead of looking at bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef in an evenhanded way, the climate media downplayed all factors except for global warming--which they claimed would do irreparable damage by leading to warmer waters that corals couldn’t recover from.
It didn't make much sense that global warming would lead to irreparable decline of the Reef given that corals have been around for 100s of millions of years, are adaptable to extreme events, are resilient thanks to a high reproduction rate, and can grow faster in warmer temps.
Given the media’s professed concern for the Great Barrier Reef, you would think that an improvement in the reef would be cause for widespread celebration. But the reef has experienced a dramatic improvement in the last years, and the never-quiet climate media have nothing to say.
The climate media’s evasion of the Great Barrier Reef improvement confirms that they have no interest in the truth about what’s happening with climate and why. They are interested in attacking fossil fuels, attacking capitalism, and justifying vast expansions of government power.
Any science editor that covered the decline of the Great Barrier Reef but not its improvement should commit to correcting their failures--or be pressured into resigning. This includes the editors of the @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @cnn, @guardian, @usatoday, and @natgeo.
Why does it matter so much that the climate media only cover negative stories and ignore positive ones? Because it contributes to deadly energy policy by catastrophizing the side-effects of the fossil fuels that modern life depends on, while ignoring their massive benefits.
If you want to know more about why I believe fossil fuels are so crucial, and why climate catastrophizing is so dangerous, read my recent Congressional testimony.…
Please share the story of the improving Great Barrier Reef with everyone who has publicly catastrophized about the GBR, such as @LeoDiCaprio, @MarkRuffalo, and @adriangrenier. Hopefully they will celebrate, share the good news, and walk back their climate catastrophism.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

24 Sep
Here we go, @KHayhoe evades my points about her bad methodology, won't debate, says I need to write in a journal.

1) Read me in Energy Law Journal:…

2) My book, based on primary sources, is much better than a journal article.

1/6 ImageImage
If @KHayhoe will only read a peer-reviewed journal article refuting climate catastrophism, she should read this one by @BjornLomborg, including:
"Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically."…

Anyone who is actually interested in thinking about the issue of energy and climate rationally, instead of hiding behind peer-/pal-reviewed journals--a practice that would have suppressed much of scientific progress--read what I wrote to @KHayhoe.

Read 6 tweets
23 Sep
Dear @KHayhoe, your rejection of my invitation to debate me on climate catastrophe when I present at your university next year betrays a fundamental ignorance: you think the issue of climate catastrophe just involves climate science, whereas it mainly involves adaptation/mastery.
Dear @KHayhoe here's the basic mistake you are making in your view that climate catastrophe follows from climate science. Will you now come to debate, as I am an expert on climate mastery? Who else predicted decreasing climate deaths, as I did in 2014?
Not only does thinking properly about climate involve a deep understanding of adaptation/mastery, it also involves a deep understanding of the anti-human philosophy that distorts climate thinking. As a philosopher I can bring this to our debate, @KHayhoe.
Read 4 tweets
23 Sep
The UN General Assembly is meeting this week to discuss how to go about rapidly eliminating the world's use of fossil fuels--which it claims is justified by science. Here's a mega-🧵 with everything you need to know about what's happening and why it is anti-science/anti-human.
The alleged scientific basis for rapidly eliminating fossil fuels alleged comes from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, this organization is a largely political and religious organization. This thread explains how it works.
IPCC "Assessment Reports" are themselves a distortion, because they ignore the fundamental benefits of fossil fuels to our unnaturally livable world (including climate) and catastrophize the side-effects. But UN leadership + media make things far worse.
Read 7 tweets
23 Sep
"Many speeches will inevitably include lofty pledges to accelerate the charge to carbon-neutral renewable energy sources. This rhetoric will be somewhat surreal, however, given the burgeoning energy crisis across the Atlantic." @VictoriaCoates on the UN 👇…
"Short-sighted climate policies have resulted in an unsustainable dependency on erratic renewables such as wind and hydro on one hand, and natural gas imports from Vladimir Putin’s Russia on the other." @VictoriaCoates
"Boris Johnson, for example, who will be front and center among the Turtle Bay climate crusaders, may soon be forced to spend billions of pounds propping up Britain’s cratering energy sector as he reopens carbon-belching coal plants to stave off a full-bore crisis..."
Read 6 tweets
23 Sep
I realize I'm a day late commenting on #ClimateNight, but still I feel compelled to say one thing: @FallonTonight, @TheDailyShow, @colbertlateshow, @latelateshow, @JimmyKimmelLive, @FullFrontalSamB, @sethmeyers, please think about the cost of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels. 👇 Image
Fact: Escaping poverty requires using lots of low-cost, reliable energy.

Fact: only 1.5B people use even 1/3 as much electricity as the avg American.

Fact: over 3B people use less electricity than an avg American refrigerator.

Fact: fossil fuels are necessary to change this.
The US causes less than 1/6 of global CO2 emissions—and falling. The main reason global CO2 emissions are rising is because billions of people in the developing world are bringing themselves out of poverty by using fossil fuels to power factories, farms, vehicles, and appliances.
Read 7 tweets
22 Sep
When are climate catastrophists going to learn that they need to schedule their events during the hottest times of the year? This year's UN climate catastrophe conference is in November in Europe, where unreliables + natural gas restrictions are already creating cold problems.
The decision to schedule this year's climate catastrophe conference in November reminds me of this anti-Keystone rally I crashed in 2013. After all the protestors gathered for a photo-op, almost all fled the cold--except die-hards like this anti-human.
One of my favorite comments from an anti-fossil fuel protestor at the cold anti-Keystone rally: "It's too damn cold to ride a bike."
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!