Abstract
The Apocalyptic climate narrative is a seriously misleading propaganda tool and a socially destructive guide for public policy. The narrative radically overstates the risks to humanity of continued global warming, which are manageable, not existential. It prescribes large-scale near-term suppression of fossil-fuel use, while failing to recognize the huge costs that such suppression would inflict on humans because fossil fuels are currently irreplaceable inputs for producing food (via ammonia-based fertilizer), steel, cement, and plastics. This paper details the flaws in the Apocalyptic narrative and articulates nine principles for sensible U.S. policies on energy and global warming.
In an era where fear sells faster than facts, a refreshing gust of sanity has arrived in the form of a new paper by Dr. Judith Curry and economist Harry DeAngelo. Titled “A Critique of the Apocalyptic Climate Narrative,” the paper dismantles, brick by shaky brick, the popular belief that humanity teeters on the edge of climate-induced extinction and that salvation lies in the urgent abandonment of fossil fuels.
Curry and DeAngelo open with a sober reminder: “Alarming narratives that have an aura of plausibility can be highly effective tools for shaping public opinion and public policies.” That, in a nutshell, is the story of climate politics over the last 30 years. A narrative has been spun, polished, and weaponized—not to inform public understanding, but to shepherd it toward economically and politically ruinous policies.
The paper doesn’t just question the urgency of decarbonization—it eviscerates it.
The Real Climate Record: More Prosperity, Not Doom
In what amounts to a firm statistical rebuke to doomsayers, Curry and DeAngelo highlight:
“Since the late 19th century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by about 1.3°C… During the same period… there has been little or no detectable change in most types of extreme weather events.”
Meanwhile, global population has surged, agricultural output has quadrupled, and lifespans have more than doubled. Cold-weather mortality—ten times deadlier than heat—has plunged, while Earth’s green leaf area has grown by 5% thanks to CO₂ fertilization.
If this is a crisis, one is tempted to ask: can we have more of it?
The Net-Zero Boondoggle
Dr. Curry’s critique is especially lethal when aimed at the fantasy land of net-zero. As the authors note:
“Today, the world gets 81% of its energy from fossil fuels… In absolute terms, global use of oil, natural gas, and coal have all increased.”
Billions are being poured into solar and wind—not to displace fossil fuels, but merely to add capacity on top of them. Emissions haven’t gone down; they’ve gone up. The Green New Deal? A Green New Dud.
The Myths of Imminent Catastrophe
The paper also tackles the pet specter of climate alarmists: tipping points.
“There is also low confidence in any conclusions surrounding possible tipping points owing to deep (Knightian) uncertainties in our understanding of the complex climate system.”
In plain terms, we don’t understand the system well enough to confidently predict catastrophic flips. Yet that hasn’t stopped the technocratic priesthood from demanding trillions in tithes.
Rational Energy Policy: First, Do No Harm
Instead of chasing the green dragon of net-zero, the authors propose common sense:
“We should not eliminate fossil fuels before we have technologically viable and cost-effective replacements for the critical inputs they provide in the production of food, steel, cement, plastics, and electricity.”
Their nine principles for rational energy policy—ranging from investment in innovation to a revival of nuclear power—deserve to be posted on the office door of every policymaker who still clings to the fantasy of controlling the climate through legislation.
The Bottom Line
“Is an undetectable reduction in the warming trend worth a huge sacrifice in the quality of life caused by an urgent move to net-zero? … There is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming.”
Dr. Curry’s work delivers the much-needed antidote to climate hysteria. Her message is clear: The supposed cure—immediate fossil fuel suppression—is far more dangerous than the disease.
As the paper concludes, “Attempts to suppress fossil-fuel use aggressively are socially destructive… [and] would impose significant avoidable costs on humanity.”
In a world overrun by ideological climate theater, Dr. Curry has handed us a playbill with a rare commodity: the truth.
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
