Against Climate Doomerism
The radical climate movement is, at its core, anti-civilization and anti-human.
Every year, right around this time, we are treated to a deluge of news stories, commentary, and public proclamations about how the world is melting because it got hot outside. That Armageddon is nigh because it either rained too much or too little, depending on location. That we are doomed because weather patterns have altered course slightly from the recent past. That society is irreparably damaged because the average global temperature has risen a few degrees in a century’s time. And, naturally, all of this can only be stopped by fundamentally reorienting the global economy, dismantling capitalism and the world order, and forcing billions of people to cease using readily available, cheap energy to better their lives.
The climate change doomerism has been on full display this past week, as the weather has warmed up and stories about the danger of heat from America to (yes, actually) Gaza have taken over the news media. Two posts on Twitter, one from a PhD scientist and the other from a United States senator, are representative of this epidemic of exaggeration and ignorance of contrary evidence and pro-human solutions. In this, they perfectly encapsulate the root problem with the radical climate movement: the fact that it is profoundly anti-civilization.
The first tweet, from the biologist George Tsakraklides, declares confidently that “Phoenix has no future.” The man who claims on Twitter that he studies “Systemic Trauma,” states his rationale as follows: “It is a massive drain on the dying Colorado River. It is a massive drain on the power grid to feed those hungry AC units.” He sums his position up by self-assuredly averring that “Phoenix should never have existed. … Deserts are for cactuses.” Of course, he includes the hashtag #ClimateCrisis, a favorite of the insane climate left. Attached to his tweet is the weather map which I’ve conveniently put below, showing the daily temperature for the American Southwest, Phoenix included.
It’s tough to ascertain where to start with this absurd fearmongering nonsense, but to make it easy, let’s begin with the map above. It sure looks scary with all that dark red hue, but it actually shows a mere 88 degrees Fahrenheit for Phoenix, well below the historic monthly average for that city in June, which sits at over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Well, how about his other claims? First off, Phoenix isn’t remotely “dying.” In fact, it was the fastest-growing city between censuses in 2010 and 2020, something which continues to this day. People and businesses are flocking to the Sun Belt city for its cost of living, availability of housing, favorable regulatory and tax environment, and, yes, its weather. Phoenix has an incredibly bright future, one that will continue regardless of heat. Why?
Well, part of it is due to the availability of the leftist-hated air conditioning, powered by one of the nation’s best nuclear plants. Not only does nuclear already exist in the Phoenix area, solar power was practically invented for Arizona given its sunny weather year-round. These are clean options for power generation, and can also be used for desalination, which would transform ocean water into drinkable water – something that is already done at scale in freshwater-scarce areas like the Middle East. We have the technology to overcome these issues, but the deranged climate hawks would prefer to impoverish us and destroy the economy that has brought us immense, historic prosperity.
And that brings us to the second tweet, sent out by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. The not-so-august senator posted a chart (see above) that shows the monthly temperature difference from the average over the course of nearly two centuries, from 1850 to 2020. Senator Whitehouse uses this chart to claim that the world is being overheated and destroyed by “fossil fuel lies, disinformation, and political mischief.” Whitehouse himself is a climate crusader, spending much of his time promoting the issue and embracing its most radical activist fringes. His statement in this tweet is meant to decry the fossil fuel-driven modernity that has characterized the period depicted in the image, depicting it as auguring the incipient burning down of said modern civilization. Whitehouse’s dissemination of this particular chart, along with the accompanying message of doom, is a microcosm of the innate and fatal flaws of his position.
The chart itself is replete with faulty assumptions and incomparable data. The problems begin with the period covered, which ranges over an era during which temperature measurement changed drastically – mercury thermometers became more accurate, records improved, and electronic computing became a major force. At the same time, temperature is measured in far more geographic locations today than in 1850, when large swathes of the globe were left untouched by Western science. These changes make the data from different sections of this period practically incomparable. Next, the average temperature used by the chart covers the century from 1901 to 2000, making the 20th century into the permanent historical norm. But this ignores epochs that differed far more from the ‘norm’ than our own has and still were perfectly compatible with human flourishing. And we are more than able to make do with our modern technology than our forebears were with their own.
That leads to the next issue, which cuts to the heart of the radical climate movement: it discounts human ingenuity, technological progress, and the widespread historic and present benefits of the fossil fuel economy. In that, it is anti-human and anti-civilization at its core. The chart above covers nearly the exact same period as the one posted by Senator Whitehouse, but it is far more important. It tells the reverse side of the story told by the senator’s chart, but the same story nonetheless.
Over the course of two centuries, the temperature has risen less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the arbitrary norm while the percentage of the global population living in extreme poverty has declined from nearly 90% to less than 10%. The chart above shows that drastic and remarkable decrease in poverty and consequent increase in material prosperity and standard of living – even more impressive because the world’s population exploded by billions in that same time. This measurable waning in poverty is incredible to see and has made a direct impact on individuals across time and space, raising them from subsistence living and poor health to a far better life. And this advance in civilization is largely due to the same exact fossil fuels that Sheldon Whitehouse and his ilk condemn for mildly raising the global temperature over the recent past.
Just as with the past, our future looks bright – if, that is, we maintain our faith in mankind to achieve the ends of human civilization. The radical climate movement does not seek to build upon the great legacy of humanity, but tear it down and undermine it. Concrete human outcomes matter far more than scientific measurements of temperature changes and their potential to alter how humans may live if nothing else changes. One of these rewards faith in human ingenuity while the other demeans it. One of these things is real, the other mere speculation. One is about making the lives of the world’s poorest significantly better, while the other will permanently doom them to poverty and subsistence. To put it simply, one is pro-human, the other anti-human.
I know where our priorities should lie. Do you?