Before and during COP 26, I have claimed that it is not a scientific conference but a pseudoscientific, anti-human conference that is pursuing mass-genocide.
The COP 26 Agreement has proven me right. Here are the top 5 reasons the Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human.
👇
Reason 1 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It calls for the rapid elimination of fossil fuels—the source of 80% of the world’s energy—without addressing the *cost* of doing so. In fact, the word “cost” is not mentioned once in the Agreement!
Reason 2 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores the benefits of low-cost, reliable energy in general and fossil fuels in particular. The word “energy” is not mentioned once, even though COP 26 is trying to eliminate 80% of the world’s energy!
Reason 3 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It portrays the world as destroyed by human impact, even though by the standard of human flourishing today’s world is the best ever. Why? Because COP 26 is based on the anti-human dogma that human impact is evil.
Reason 4 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally ignores any positives of CO2 emissions, treating emissions as all-negative. But this is clearly untrue given that our emissions contribute to “global greening” and prevent cold-related deaths.
Reason 5 the COP 26 Agreement is pseudoscientific and anti-human: It totally denies the fact that adaptation and mastery have made us far safer from climate than we've ever been. No mention of the fact that climate-related disaster deaths are down 98% over the last century!
Here's what I said about COP 26 on the 2nd day of the conference. I was ridiculed, yet the COP 26 Agreement did exactly what I predicted: called for the mass-genocidal policy of fossil fuel elimination, invoking pseudoscience and driven by anti-humanism.
1) liberate domestic industry to mine and process them cost-effectively 2) encourage friendly trading partners to do the same 3) stop artificially driving up demand before supply chains are ready
🧵👇
America’s economy and its national security depend on the secure availability of numerous “critical minerals”—such as lithium, copper, cobalt, and various “rare earth” elements—that, due to their unique chemical properties, are essential for many of today’s leading technologies.
Take cobalt, an important ingredient in the high-tech alloys used in many batteries, jet engines, and permanent magnets. Without a secure supply of cobalt, production of significant portions of high-tech industry and high-performance military equipment are jeopardized.
Congress won't support Biden's anti-fossil-fuel agenda.
So he's circumventing the legislative process by having the SEC coerce companies into spouting anti-FF propaganda and committing to anti-FF plans in the name of “climate disclosure.”
🧵👇
The SEC's new "climate disclosure rules"—now paused by the Fifth Circuit—have been rightly criticized for forcing companies to do endless, costly paperwork, which discourages companies from going public and thus contradicts the SEC's goal of increasing opportunity for investment.
Sadly, most critics of the SEC's rules are missing the biggest, most dangerous problem: they're not actually “climate disclosure rules”—those already existed—they are *anti-fossil-fuel propagandizing and planning rules* that violate freedom of speech and endanger our economy.
Q: What should government do to address climate change?
A: “Climate change” is the wrong target; we want to *reduce climate danger*. And the proven way to do that is: *master* climate danger by letting us use all forms of cost-effective energy, including fossil fuels.
🧵👇
Asking how government should “address climate change” assumes that us impacting climate must be a bad thing.
But it’s only bad if it endangers us by creating challenges we can’t master.
And so far, our climate mastery has far outpaced any new climate challenges.
It’s an irrefutable but little-known fact that as the world has warmed 1° C, humans have become safer than ever from climate danger. The rate of climate-related disaster deaths—from storms, floods, temperature extremes, wildfires, and drought—has fallen 98% in the last century.
@JoeBiden has halted LNG expansion, which the world needs for low-cost, reliable, secure energy.
He pretends it's to lower prices or GHG emissions, but it will do neither.
Halting LNG is pure electioneering. And we'll all pay the price.
🧵👇
We live in a world that needs much more energy. Energy poverty is rampant, and even the wealthy world has chronic energy shortages.
Natural gas can dramatically help because it is low-cost, reliable, versatile, clean, and secure. And America can lead.
America has a virtually limitless supply of natural gas and an incredible ability to ramp up production quickly. E.g., between 2017 and 2018 we were able to increase gas production by 10B cubic feet per day—the equivalent of 1.7M barrels of oil (72M gallons) per day.
For decades climate catastrophists have portrayed climate disasters as getting deadlier and deadlier.
Now that I and others have documented that we're safer than ever from climate, catastrophists are saying that disaster deaths don't matter!
Reuters says “Drop in climate-related disaster deaths not evidence against climate emergency.”
But a drop in deaths from something—here, a 98% drop—is obvious evidence against it being an emergency.
Would Reuters say: “98% drop in flu deaths not evidence against flu emergency”?
Why does Reuters, along with @nytimes, @politifact, and @USATODAY, claim that a 98% drop in climate disaster deaths doesn't contradict their climate emergency narrative? Because it obviously does, and they can only save their narrative by intimidating us into denying the obvious.
If this year's holiday discussions veer toward energy and climate issues, I've got you covered. Here are 25 facts that will make any honest person think twice about today's anti-fossil-fuel narrative.
1) Annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) have declined 98% over the last 100 years, even as CO2 levels have risen.
2) Even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer in the last century, deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat by 5-15x. Cold is more dangerous than heat on every continent. Even in especially hot countries such as India, cold-related deaths significantly exceed heat-related deaths.