The Telegraph
Climate hysteria is a serious threat to mankind's survival
Story by Janet Daley • Yesterday 11:17 AM
Is the climate-crisis campaign trying to undermine its own credibility? Are its exponents deliberately fomenting scepticism about their own arguments with absurd hyperbole? Or have they, out of sheer ill temper, just given up on persuasion and decided to resort to wild claims that arouse suspicion and hostility?
Consider two possible instances of this, both of which occurred within the past week. The secretary general of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, stated without any qualification that, “The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.” Boiling? What is it exactly that is boiling? The oceans? Freshwater lakes? The mains water in your pipes? Given that we are talking about supposed scientific fact here, what is the empirical basis for the use of the word “boiling”? And – a genuinely factual question – what effect is the use of that word, which has no basis in observable reality, likely to have on the discussion of global-warming policy, which is now becoming seriously contentious?
The second notable example: an official statement issued by the Meteorological Office attacking a widely reported article in the scientific journal Nature, which claimed that the Atlantic Ocean current system, which maintains mild weather in Europe, could collapse in two years. This claim was, said the Met Office (which generally supports the climate-change thesis), “overdramatised” and simplistic, and it went on to warn, in what I believe to be quite unprecedented terms, that such overblown theatrical pronouncements could undermine the public perception of climate science. You bet they could.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/climate-hysteria-is-a-serious-threat-to-mankind-s-survival/ar-AA1ewuaf?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=749f69aaa3d94d7db9c2b0d57e3138b8&ei=18
