Alex Epstein Profile picture
Dec 14, 2021 18 tweets 7 min read Read on X
The media and government are portraying a tragic tornado as a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster that eliminating fossil fuels will save us from—even though there is no tornado trend, and we have achieved unprecedented safety from climate thanks to fossil fuels.

THREAD
Is the recent, deadly tornado in Kentucky a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster? The only scientific way to answer this question is to look for long-term trends in dangers from storms and other climate disasters. And if we do, we find that storm deaths are declining.
Has global warming been causing a disastrous increase in tornado frequency or intensity? Here's the data for the continental US, the most tornado-prone area on the planet, since the advent of comprehensive doppler-radar. There is no trend in tornado frequency or intensity.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms the lack of a disastrous increase in tornado frequency or intensity: "In the United States... The mean annual number of tornadoes has remained relatively constant"
The tragically high death toll from the Kentucky tornado was due, not to some disastrous trend in tornadoes, but to specific factors such as the high population density of the region hit and the fact that it was nighttime (when people are less inclined to grasp the full danger).
Fossil fuels have made us far safer from storms and other climate disasters by providing the low-cost, reliable energy we need to build and power sturdy buildings, warning systems, evacuation vehicles, etc.

Climate disaster deaths have decreased *98%* over the last century.
Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions *have* contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5X higher than today's.
As we get safer from climate thanks in large part to fossil fuels, we also become better at protecting property from disasters like tornadoes. That said, impactful tornadoes happen irregularly. 2021 seems to be one such outlier year. Not part of a trend.
Instead of acknowledging the non-trend in tornadoes and the decline in climate danger, the media and government are denying them. Our FEMA director says, "This is going to be our new normal and the effects that we’re seeing from climate change are the crisis of our generation.”
Why do the media and Administration portray a climate that fossil fuels have made safer than ever as a catastrophe? Because they hold the anti-scientific, anti-human dogma that human impact on Earth, including climate, is intrinsically immoral and inevitably self-destructive.
We can see a bias against human impact in Biden’s post-tornado claim that “everything is more intense when the climate is warming.” Actually, warming often makes life better—e.g., preventing cold-related deaths, which far exceed heat-related deaths.
Our society's bias against human impact is revealed by the fact that in the 1970s, when the media were warning of human-caused global cooling, they assumed that it would also make all kinds of climate dangers worse—including tornadoes.

(Image: @TonyClimate.)
The truth about safety from climate is that it is overwhelmingly determined by our ability to master climate, not the exact state of the global climate system. This is why Americans, using low-cost, reliable energy, can thrive in every climate—from polar Alaska to swampy Florida.
The media and administration are putting forward the false narrative of a fossil fueled climate catastrophe to justify fossil fuel elimination policies such as “Build Back Better.” But in reality the world needs far more fossil fuel.
Billions of people desperately need low-cost, reliable energy, which for the foreseeable future largely needs to come from fossil fuels. 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood and dung for heating and cooking.
Solar and wind can't come close to replacing fossil fuels. They only provide electricity (20% of energy use)--and they don't even do that well. Because solar and wind are unreliable, they don't replace reliable power plants--they add to the cost of reliable power plants.
Poverty is still rampant around the world. Poverty is due to lack of productivity. Productivity requires low-cost, reliable energy.

The world needs far more energy, which means more fossil fuel. This matters far more than whether the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is .03% or .05%.
The media and Administration are engaging in deadly pseudoscience by portraying the tragic Kentucky tornado as a symptom of unprecedented climate disaster that requires eliminating fossil fuels. More fossil fuel is needed so that everyone can live in an abundant, safe world.

• • •

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!

PDF

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

May 9
Despite massive subsidies and favoritism, EV sales dropped in Q1 of 2024 compared the previous quarter.

Economics be damned, EPA recently announced pollution standards that require car makers to sell >50% EVs by 2032.

My talking points on Biden's dictatorial EV mandate 🧵👇 Image
Biden's de facto mandate of >50% EVs by 2032 is a dictatorial attack on the American driver and the US grid that will

1. Force Americans to drive inferior cars.

2. Place massive new demand for reliable electricity on a grid that is declining in reliable electricity supply. Image
The EPA has finalized new pollution standards so restrictive that in order to comply, car manufacturers will have to sell 56% EVs by 2032, plus at least 13% plug-in hybrid or other partially electric cars, as well as more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars.
Read 28 tweets
Mar 26
How to solve America's critical minerals problem

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

🧵👇 Image
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.
Read 30 tweets
Mar 20
The “climate disclosure” fraud

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. Image
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.
Read 33 tweets
Mar 8
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. Image
Read 27 tweets
Jan 29
Biden’s LNG pause: a deadly fraud

@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.
Read 20 tweets
Jan 25
The climate safety denial movement

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! Image
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. Image
Read 30 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(