https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... -warming/
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, has penned an essay analyzing two reports by ecomodernists who reject climate panic and frame the question of climate change and humanity’s ability to cope with it in radically new terms.
One of the reports, written by Steven Pinker plays down "the mainstream environmental movement, and the radicalism and fatalism it encourages." Pinker argues that humanity can solve problems related to climate change the same way it has solved myriad other problems, by harnessing "the benevolent forces of modernity."
Pinker asserts that industrialization “has been good for humanity.”
And just as human ingenuity has allowed us to overcome countless obstacles in the past, he notes, it is more than reasonable to suppose it will do so in the future as well.It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts.
The second report was written by Will Boisvert and contends that the "onsequences for human well-being will be small" even if human greenhouse emissions significantly warm the planet.
Boisvert, who has been described as a “left-wing environmental expert, is no “climate denier,” yet he calls for climate alarmists to take a deep breath and step back from doomsday forecasts that likely have little to do with what will actually take place in the future.
As an example, Boisvert pokes fun at a 2016 Newsweek article announcing that “Climate change could cause half a million deaths in 2050 due to reduced food availability.”
The story, based on a Lancet study, made dire forecasts regarding the effects of climate change on agriculture, while failing to note that the study actually predicts much more abundant food availability in 2050 thanks to advances in agricultural productivity. These advances will “dwarf the effects of climate change,” he contends, and the “poorest countries will benefit most.”
Like Pinkers, Boisvert tries to factor in what climate alarmists ignore: the capability of human beings to react to changing scenarios in remarkably ingenious ways.
Boisvert claims that the current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”Throughout history humans not only weathered climate crises but deliberately flung ourselves into them as we migrated away from our African homeland into deserts, mountains, floodplains and taiga before embarking on an excursus into the striking cleverness of the Inuit in adapting to a hostile environment.
Climate Believers will undoubtedly seek to quash this news. After all, it could affect funding that they depend upon and the political programs that seek to impose their theft on the world.
If it turns out, after all of the wailing and hand-wringing, that the world is not under imminent peril from climate change, then why fund these prophets of doom with their exposed data manipulation?