What surprises me is how even green veterans of the climate wars are so amateurish, and have a poor grasp on the facts they claim to champion -- this chap has to make them up.

No, billions of people are not going to die, and farmers were not 'dropping dead in fields'. https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1385490571469410304
How can debate be had with someone who claims to have championed 'the science', but who makes up facts like 'billions of people will die'?

Even despite the claimed 50-degree 'wet-bulb temperatures', the human impacts of extreme weather in India have fallen massively.
It is only people in emerging and developing economies that can read this chart by @BjornLomborg.

Policymakers, wonks, campaigners, politicians in the UK, EU & US cannot see it. They are blind to it.
That blue line would not look like that if what Leo Murray told @JuliaHB1 was true.

Billions of people are not going to die.

Moreover, billions of people have already not died, whereas they would have died in any part of the chart prior to 1990s.
If you think it through, then, the disaster that Let Murray and people such as him are so vexed about is not that 'billions of people will die', it is that billions of people have not died.

Greens are against humanity. Literally. They are anti-human.
By far the greatest risk that a human faces is being poor.

The weather has nothing to do with it. People thrive where there is a functioning economy in ALL weather conditions.

But greens are against wealth. Literally.
They say that we need to stop economic growth (or millions of people will die). They say that the economy must be managed, and wealth redistributed.

This was, of course, tried.

Guess what...

Millions of people died.
Why did they die?

Because ideologues are indifferent to the people who suffer the consequences of their zealous ambition.

Greens say they want to put 'people and planet' before profit. But capitalism, as it stands, has lifted far more people out of poverty than its opponents.
It might be true that capitalism is no more or less concerned with human lives. But it doesn't need to be... As long as people are connected through an economy, producers can meet consumers and needs can be satisfied.

That's not an argument for 'unfettered capitalism'. In the not-too-distant past, it was the same argument that even Marxists would have made. They recognised that capitalism was a condition of human development. The disagreement was about what happened next.
But greens want to turn the clock back. They want to re-live every lesson in history.

This is because they have no grasp of history. They don't understand themselves as 'ideological'. They don't even understand the 'science' they claim to champion. So they make it up.
They are ideological zealots. They are thus ideologically blinkered. History, facts, science are all inconvenient to ideologues. Ideology demands obedience -- orthodoxy -- not critical understanding. It can't be wrong, therefore there is nothing to debate.
And that is why idiots such as Leo Murray remain so amateurish. Ideology precludes a developed understanding.

If you preclude debate, criticism, discussion, your understanding and your argument cannot improve.

And that is why democracy is anathema to environmentalism.
You can put any of it to the green ideologue... The facts and stats of risks reducing, the historical lessons, the paucity of scientific evidence...


It makes no dent in their understanding.
It's like arguing with jihadis.
You can follow @clim8resistance.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: