Well this article is proof that you can have a doctorate and still be delusional. After reading the author's comments it's clear he has a "cultic" mindset and has brainwashed himself into complete belief in his position.
He continuously cites "holy texts" from his "prophets"; Seba, Gates, and Musk. He insists that if you read these texts, you too will "believe" in the FUTURE Utopia they promise.
He is massively "pro-business" and against "governmental intervention" or oversight. So, his solution is to basically, lay back and let ourselves get raped by this new set of hucksters.
NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE IS REAL.
It's a sales pitch, about on par with a timeshare sales job.
To refute just point #1
1. It's a communications problem.
Really? Seba, Gates, and Musk have enormous resources to "communicate" their points of view. Musk owns Twitter for f's sake. This is total bs.
The reality is that the EU and other nation state actors are aggressively pushing "Climate Optimism". Including on the Left. Doomers are being vilified and pushed to the fringe.
“Narratives are socially constructed ‘stories’ that make sense of events,” thereby lending “direction to human action.”
So observes a paper published recently in the journal Climatic Change by a team of European researchers.
Climate-change narratives, the team notes, typically foreground “doom and gloom.” Often they emphasize risk. If they’re not retelling the latest warming-related disasters (fires, floods, food shortages), they’re predicting a future filled with even grimmer warming-related disasters (bigger fires, more severe flooding, famines that threaten entire regions).
This approach, the researchers argue, can be counterproductive: “Narratives of fear can become self-fulfilling prophecies.” If people believe that things will only get worse, they feel overwhelmed. If they feel overwhelmed, they’re apt to throw up their hands, thus guaranteeing that things will only get worse.
They argue that a diet of bad news leads to paralysis, which yields yet more bad news.
What’s needed, the paper goes on, are narratives that “empower people to act.”
Such narratives tell a “positive and engaging story.” They “articulate a vision of ‘where we want to go’ ” and outline steps that could be taken to arrive at this hypothetical destination.
They argue that positive stories can become self-fulfilling.
People who believe in a brighter future are more likely to put in the effort required to achieve it. When they put in that effort, they make discoveries that hasten progress. Along the way, they build communities that make positive change possible.
“Optimism is a choice,” notes Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican diplomat who led the effort to get the Paris climate accord approved in 2010.
These days, lots of people think this.
Why climate ‘doomers’ are replacing climate ‘deniers’ WAPO 03/24
How U.N. reports and confusing headlines created a generation of people who believe climate change can’t be stopped.
The doomers are wrong about humanity’s future — and its past - The necessity of progress. VOX 03/20
The biggest danger we face today, if we care about actually making the future a more perfect place, isn’t that industrial civilization will choke on its own exhaust or that democracy will crumble or that AI will rise up and overthrow us all.
It’s that we will cease believing in the one force that raised humanity out of tens of thousands of years of general misery: the very idea of progress. Progress solves the problems we didn’t know were problems.
Against doomerism VOX 03/20
It’s boom times for doom times, but from artificial intelligence to climate change to food supplies, there’s plenty of reason to be optimistic that the future will be better — if we make it so.
We need the right kind of climate optimism - Climate pessimism dooms us to a terrible future. VOX 03/21
People might defend doomsday scenarios as the wake-up call that society needs. If they’re exaggerated, so what? They might be the crucial catalyst that gets us to act on climate change.
Setting aside the moral problem of stretching the truth, this claim is wrong.
Scaring people into action doesn’t work. That’s true not just for climate change, air pollution, and biodiversity loss, but for almost any issue we can think of. We need optimism to make progress.
“CLIMATE CHANGE WILL END THE WORLD BY 2100…” Climate doomism doesn’t help much. In fact, it’s counterproductive.
Climate denial and climate doom are both extremes on the climate action spectrum. And they are both as dangerous.
Climatologist Michael E Mann: 'Good people fall victim to doomism. I do too sometimes' The Guardian 02/21
Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic. Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up.
“What is so pernicious about this is that it seeks to weaponise environmental progressives who would otherwise be on the frontline demanding change. These are folk of good intentions and good will, but they become disillusioned or depressed and they fall into despair.”
“Too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science.
“If the science objectively demonstrated it was too late to limit warming below catastrophic levels, that would be one thing and we scientists would be faithful to that.”
“But science doesn’t say that.” - Dr. Michael Mann
We have a "communication problem", that's true. All of the non-optimist "don't worry be happy" voices are being marginalized, ridiculed, and made to seem ignorant.
Dr. Mann is actually outright lying to you. Because here's what "real" non-optimist Climate Scientists think about the science.
Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming - Nature Nov 2021.
A Nature survey reveals that many authors of the latest IPCC climate-science report are anxious about the future and expect to see catastrophic changes in their lifetimes.
4 out of 5 Climate Scientists think warming will be 2.5C or HIGHER. Michael is parsing his words very carefully. It hinges on what he means by “catastrophic”. If you don't know that, his statement that “scientists would say something” is a misleading “true lie”.
Of the scientists who responded to this poll, 88% think global warming constitutes a crisis and nearly as many said they expect to see “catastrophic impacts of climate change in their lifetimes”.
Just under half said that global warming has caused them to reconsider major life decisions, such as where to live and “whether to have children”.
More than 60% said that they experience anxiety, grief, or other distress because of concerns over climate change.
Have you heard anything about this?
The REAL communications problem here.
The “Climate Communicators”. The "Techno Optimists" have decided that telling you the TRUTH isn't a good idea.
Because, “Telling everyone the world as they know it is over and that they’re going to die isn’t an effective communications strategy, even if it’s true.”
Moving Beyond Doomism: Data-Driven Strategies for Effective Climate Content.
Which is why crap put out by Seba, Gates, and Musk gets tons of coverage and real science like this, gets next to nothing.
Global warming in the pipeline
Abstract.
Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2 (2xCO2), with likely range 3.5-5.5°C. Greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing is 4.1 W/m2 larger in 2021 than in 1750, equivalent to 2xCO2 forcing. Global warming in the pipeline is greater than prior estimates. Eventual global warming due to today's GHG forcing alone -- after slow feedbacks operate -- is about 10°C. Human-made aerosols are a major climate forcing, mainly via their effect on clouds. We infer from paleoclimate data that aerosol cooling offset GHG warming for several millennia as civilization developed. A hinge-point in global warming occurred in 1970 as increased GHG warming outpaced aerosol cooling, leading to global warming of 0.18°C per decade. Aerosol cooling is larger than estimated in the current IPCC report, but it has declined since 2010 because of aerosol reductions in China and shipping. Without unprecedented global actions to reduce GHG growth, 2010 could be another hinge point, with global warming in following decades 50-100% greater than in the prior 40 years. The enormity of consequences of warming in the pipeline demands a new approach addressing legacy and future emissions.
James E. Hansen (1), Makiko Sato (1), Leon Simons (2), Larissa S. Nazarenko (3 and 4), Karina von Schuckmann (5), Norman G. Loeb (6), Matthew B. Osman (7), Pushker Kharecha (1), Qinjian Jin (8), George Tselioudis (3), Andrew Lacis (3), Reto Ruedy (3 and 9), Gary Russell (3), Junji Cao (10), Jing Li (11) ((1) Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA, (2) The Club of Rome Netherlands, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, (3) NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA, (4) Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA, (5) Mercator Ocean International, Ramonville St.-Agne, France, (6) NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA, (7) Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, (8) Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, (9) Business Integra, Inc., New York, NY, USA, (10) Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, (11) Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, China)
