A curious thing happens by the end of Harry Cockburn’s Independent article about scientists’ admission that they overshot the mark with their warnings of global warming a decade ago. We start with this acknowledgment that those of us who were sneered at as “deniers” were actually right to be skeptical:
The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not play down the threat which climate change has to the environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be attained.
But the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.
But we end with the new spin, from University College London Professor Michael Grubb, who suggests that keeping the global increase in temperature to 1.5° Celsius “is simply incompatible with democracy.”
New calculations suggest that humanity can emit more than three times the amount of carbon than scientists had previously prescribed (as a pretense for imposing economy-changing regulations on the planet), which is great news, according to Grubb, because:
“That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said.
“It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”
Catch the trick? Under the previous assessments, it would already be too late to do anything about catastrophic climate change, so we might as well keep our democracy (and prosperity, I might add) through to the bitter end. If we acknowledge that the models have been alarmist, on the other hand, there’s a chance that we just might be able to save the world. So, there’s still a reason to hand over our freedoms to an international bureaucracy of elites.
Whether the models might still be too alarmist, we cannot yet tell, but why risk it for the petty sake of our inalienable rights as individual human beings?