Here’s an excerpt from a 2016 study on the prevalence of bushfires:

“The data available to date, however, do not support a general increase in area burned or in fire severity for many regions of the world. Indeed, there is increasing evidence suggesting that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago.”

“Perhaps rather than a ‘wildfire problem’ that has worsened globally in recent decades, the negative, and sometimes tragic, consequences of fire themselves may be gaining wider public attention and, therefore, recognition.”

I can’t speak for Jim Molan.

When I say politicization of science I mean the fact that Climate Change sells. Look at Greta Thurnberg, or Al Gore, for example. There are now financial incentives built around catastrophizing environmental crises. (Not to mention that Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was ruled to be full of falsehoods in a court of law.)

When looking at the ClimateGate emails, we clearly see internal disagreement, which ran contrary to the narrative that “97% of climate scientists agree.” Again, these were scientists at the epicenter of the phenomenon, arguing over the hockey stick graph which served as the bedrock for climate reports for years to come. Many were distancing themselves from it. I’m not saying this is a crime, but we need to acknowledge the science isn’t as settled as many would like it to be. See this video for further information.

You then have environmental organizations like WWF, who have been seen on numerous occasions putting forth misleading information that was later used in an IPCC report, as well as asking the IPCC to “beef up” results to suit their financial needs. Additionally, there are media outlets, such as The Guardian, who increasingly gain attention through publishing climate change articles — fear & outrage are useful tools if you want to sell news.

Agreed on the last point, neither of us is likely to change our minds. What I would say, however, is that I don’t necessarily think anthropogenic global warming is false, but rather that many of the predictions being made are exaggerated to the point they have no basis in reality. Almost every apocalyptic climate prediction made to date hasn’t come to fruition.

Image for post
Image for post

I’d add that climate-related deaths have actually been decreasing since the 1960s. This is largely due to technological advancement and increased infrastructure which has been propelled by fossil fuels. Yes, we need to switch to renewables, but we also need to acknowledge the benefits fossil fuels have given us, and given the vast amounts of the world who still don’t have access to clean drinking water, using fossil fuels to develop these areas is more of a priority at this stage in my mind.

Written by

Hello! My name is Louis. I write about the growing cannabis industry, politics, religion, and philosophy. Co-founder of Australians.news

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store