One sided argument
Is the cure worse than the disease? That is something that should always be considered yet is rarely considered. During COVID governments forced lockdowns on us. The reasoning was that it would reduce spread of the virus. Even had that turned out to be true the conversation should not have ended there. We should have discussed the downside of lockdowns. Why did we only consider the potential upside without considering the very substantial downside?
The downside of lockdowns is obvious. The stress from unemployment, financial hardship, and isolation would lead to increased deaths. Lockdowns, had they worked, would have also prolonged the pandemic. The quickest way out was not to wait for a vaccine. It was to let healthy people be exposed to the virus. So why was none of this discussed. Why was the discussion so one-sided?
The answer is obvious. Any honest discussion of the downside of the lockdowns would have prevented the government from using them. It would have stopped their disgusting plans in the tracks. Governments present one sided argument to justify decisions that have already been made. COVID was not the first time governments have used this tactic, and it will not be the last. The Climate Change narrative has survived for 4 decades on one sided argument.
To start, let’s get something out of the way. There is no climate emergency just as there was no COVID emergency. COVID and climate crises exist only in computer models that have no relation to science or reality. Most people will be surprised to know that the best available science shows that greenhouse gases have very little effect on the temperature of the earth. Adding more won’t change the temperature by any measurable amount.
We’ve known since the 19th century that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas. However, in the past 600 million years, there have been periods of high temperature and low CO2 concentration and vice versa. In other words, there is no direct link between temperature and CO2, and the physics that applied millions of years ago still apply today.
Dramatic evidence has been published in a number of recent science papers that carbon dioxide levels are already ‘saturated’, meaning little or no further warming is to be expected and rising CO2 levels are all beneficial.
In conclusion, Dr. Bhatta observes that his evidence raises serious questions about the established assumptions regarding the impact of CO2 emissions on global warming. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims “unequivocally” that humans have caused global warming, he continues, “the empirical evidence presented herein does not provide support to such straightforward relationship”.
The data has never supported the theory. CO2 is not a problem. But our governments insist that CO2 is a problem and they impose restrictions which make energy very expensive. So why don’t we consider the downside of expensive energy? Is the cure worse than the disease?
We are often told that a hotter world will come with more disasters. This also is a lie. The data does not support this anymore than it supports the idea CO2 controls the temperature. But we will play along with this government lie and pretend that CO2 that does not cause warming will cause warming and warming that does not cause severe weather will cause severe weather. The question we need to ask is what protects us from storms and other natural disasters?
The answer is wealth. Disasters in wealthy countries cause fewer deaths than disasters in poor countries. The Japanese earthquake that impacted the Fukushima nuclear plant was 50 times more powerful than the Haiti earthquake, yet it resulted in 50 times fewer deaths. Japan is wealthy and Haiti is poor. Wealth saves lives or poverty kills. Whichever way you look at it, it is safer to be wealthy.
So, what causes one society to be wealthy and another to be poor? There are many reasons but at the top of the list is cheap reliable energy.
Once income is accounted for, the apparent relationship between climate hazards and mortality largely disappears. In other words, economic development—not renewable energy—dominates human survival outcomes.
Climate policies that inevitably increase the cost of energy make us more rather than less vulnerable to severe weather. The cure is worse than the disease. It is way past time to discuss the potentially deadly downside of Climate hysteria.
