‘Skeptical Environmentalist’ Bjorn Lomborg sets fire to the scourge of ‘unbridled climate alarmism’

Fear’s a great motivator, right? So what better way to motivate people to care about climate change than to scare the crap out of them? Even if you have to leave out some details to do it?

New York Magazine climate columnist David Wallace-Wells seems to be a student at the School of We’re Hurtling Toward Global Environmental Catastrophe and We’re All Gonna Die. Last night, he shared a short piece by James Dyke, a senior lecturer in global systems at the University of Exeter, explaining some of the horrible things humanity is in for:

’”Oh, I think we’re heading towards 3°C at least,” he said. “But what about the many millions of people directly threatened,” I went on. He gave a sigh. “They will die.”’ https://t.co/CRiHEza6wg

— David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) June 3, 2019

“I was born in the early 1970s. This means in my lifetime the number of people on Earth has doubled, while the size of wild animal populations has been reduced by 60%. Humanity has swung a wrecking ball through the biosphere.”

— David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) June 3, 2019

“The most effective guard against climate breakdown may not be technological, but a fundamental reimagining of what constitutes a good life on this planet. … So far our response to the challenge of climate change exposes a fundamental failure of collective imagination.”

— David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) June 3, 2019

Speaking of fundamental failures of the imagination, if climate change is such a serious threat, why do climate change alarmists insist on addressing it in such unserious ways? Author and “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg, for one, is fed up with the fearmongering, and

Unbridled climate alarmism:
“But what about the many millions of people directly threatened, living in low-lying nations?”
“They will die”

Sorry, no:
1) Over 81 years, they will move, not die
2) Adaptation means almost none will move

Unfounded terror scaring people needlessly https://t.co/fMdJqja2tN

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Take this new alarmist paper, which made the rounds in the last weeks. It talks about 187 million people displaced — not flooded, not killed.

Obviously, people will not stay and drown.https://t.co/aB2sYpoEfQ, I wrote about how badly wrong this is here: https://t.co/bIQhgowdGQ pic.twitter.com/2XDWa5fYRk

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

But notice their reference for the 187 million (#38)
Here is the paper.
It says the following in the abstract:
187 million, but can be avoided by paying 0.02% of GDP

Should reporters not be responsible for pointing this out, so people don’t get so scared?https://t.co/HYNe9dM0PI pic.twitter.com/DD4VGKONSx

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Will adaptation happen — absolutely:
Everyone will accept paying <0.02% to avoid >5% of GDP costs

And then, instead of 187,000,000 displaced, you have less than 305,000 (at least 600x less)

Shouldn’t reporters be obliged to tell people that?
Or okay to just scare them silly? pic.twitter.com/bFGqRBHRvN

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Claim: Millions will die from rising seas
Fact: They won’t die, and almost none have to move

The outcome of this climate alarmism porn is to frighten children and many adults needlessly

How is such outrageous scare campaigning okay?

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

It’s not. At least it shouldn’t be.

PS. I only analyzed first part of scare:

‘many millions directly threatened: low-lying nations farmers affected by abrupt changes in weather, kids exposed to new diseases?”

Others similar: 5.4 million kids die from entirely well-known, easily curable diseases, not new ones

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Dispelling the faulty “science” behind climate change alarmism is no easy task, but Lomborg is up to the challenge:

Eh, you may want to read all the way to the middle of the first tweet: “Adaptation means almost none will move”

No mass immigration

But thanks for making my point of how climate alarmism takes a bit of unscary truth and turns it into Armageddon

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Adaptation. Well good luck with that!! I don’t currently see Mozambique adapting very well…

— 🍾Felix Doran🌳 (@felixd0r) June 3, 2019

Maybe because of blinkered prejudice of Mozambique?
According to the UN’s middle-of-road climate scenario (SSP2), the average person in Mozambique will at $42,000 be as rich as a Dutchman today
(and adaptation will cost 0.02% of that)https://t.co/pEht1X27dG pic.twitter.com/UWB7NkyV8q

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

At what certainty can you predict “adaptation” when this is the first time humans will live in a planet warmer than 1.5 or 2 or 3C? Genuine question. Armageddon only happens once.

— 🍾Felix Doran🌳 (@felixd0r) June 3, 2019

Because humanity has many times before handled relative sea level rise, e.g. from massive land movement from water extraction (5 meters in Jakarta) or from earthquakes (1 meter for Tubigon in the Philippines)
— and tackled it finehttps://t.co/yInawvjE2s pic.twitter.com/2JFacoKk2h

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Bjorn, what formal training in the climate sciences do you have again? – #climatechange #sciencematters

— Gerald Kutney (@GeraldKutney) June 3, 2019

Ah, how constructive:
Climate alarmist: millions will die
I point out the research showing: 1) none will die 2) very few will move

And then PhD in chemistry joins —not with a substantial contribution (maybe challenging my points)
but instead trying to disallow conversation https://t.co/KCpG3czyIB

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

A claim of 187 million displaced when right number <305K — 600x less
Or someone claiming millions will die, when right number is ~zero

If you missed this, maybe try to read twitter-thread again?

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

Alarmist: someone who *incorrectly* say millions will die, when right number close to ~zero

Not a complicated definition, I would think

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 3, 2019

I do appreciate your response, and now I understand. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that have suggested such things. “Alarmist papers must be quite rare. Or are you saying that only some public press are alarmist?

— Gerald Kutney (@GeraldKutney) June 3, 2019