CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
I have been observing the phenomenon of refuting climate alarmism with alarmism. A different kind of alarmism, but alarmism nonetheless. There is a new, unbreakable tribalism forming spurred on by the lack of true debate about public policy and a disinterest to consider other perspectives.
Debate is over! The time to act is now! We must not concede an inch!
It is difficult to know which side is making these statements because the black and white hysteria is coming vociferously and quickly from both sides, squeezing out those in the middle.
It amazes me how many people do not know the difference between fact and opinion, behaving no differently than their opponents. In unrelenting, belligerent social media posts, they state their opinions as facts because they believe so steadfastly in their position that it is not merely based on faith and superstition, but rather undeniable, unquestionable truth.
They assume only the worst. Tyranny or planetary collapse. Their opponent is not viewed as uninformed or misguided yet well-intended; their opponent is an evil, diabolical genius that must be destroyed.
The truth typically lies somewhere in the middle, and no one can predict the future with accuracy, especially within complex systems like government, climate, weather, and human behaviour.
The unbalanced – and at times unhinged – hysteria attracts attention and followers because, if we are each being honest, few are interested in melba toast nuance and facts about complex systems. We are supercharged by extremes that support our biases and beliefs, meaning we have an inability to see a spectrum of grey.
I cannot count how many social media comments I have received from complete strangers telling me that I am killing the planet by working in oil and gas. I guess they forgot about the benefits they receive from using the resources and the lack of viable alternatives.
One social media commenter confidently said something to the effect that global cooling and its resulting fears have long since been debunked, but this time the scientists are 100% correct about global warming; there is a consensus and, therefore, it is irrefutable. Oh, and we have to stop using hydrocarbons immediately, of course.
Climate alarm is a concern about the future, often based on computer models presented as infallible fact. However, we cannot foresee the future, as is proven by the fairly poor job we have done in the past.
Case in point, the exaggerated fears about a nuclear winter or Paul Ehrlich’s grossly inaccurate predictions about population and resource collapse in the international best seller, The Population Bomb. Yet, both were used to set public policy. See below if you are not familiar with either of these works of science(fiction).
That does not mean that humans have no impact on the environment. Those that aggressively take this position on social media look as foolish as their opponents who they are trying to one-up.
I am generally less concerned (read: fearful) about natural phenomena. Rather, I am more worried about the human reaction and the instincts toward a solution. The cure is often worse than the disease.
Therefore, I beg of everyone, let us get back to meaningful, honest, respectful debate and discussion before they go ahead with solar geoengineering to block out the sun.
_____________________________________________________________
Nuclear Winter
In 1983, during the Cold War, a group of scientists penned the TTAPS paper warning of the dire environmental consequences of nuclear war due to the smoke, soot, and dust from the burning of fossil fuels and plastics near the blast site. Their study built upon other studies that estimated severe damage to humans and the environment from nuclear war. It was the TTAPS study that gave us the term “nuclear winter.”
The authors hypothesised that the smoke, soot, and dust would encircle the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in a temperature drop of 10-25 degrees Celsius for weeks or months, causing prolonged winter. They further hypothesized that almost all plants would be destroyed and the human population would be greatly reduced due to decades-long famine. One of the paper’s authors even went so far as to say that humans would go extinct.
The findings remain controversial, with many scientists challenging the scientific validity of the findings. No one argued in support of nuclear war or claimed that the effects would be positive, rather scientists questioned the quality of the study due to the uncertainties that had to be built into the model. Eventually, the scientists who wrote the paper had to admit that they overstated their claims.
Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb
In 1968, Standford biologist Paul Ehrlich and his wife penned an influential book, The Population Bomb, predicting that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970’s and 1980’s due to overpopulation and lack of resources that would inevitably result in worldwide famine.
Ehrlich believes that optimal population is 1.5 to 2 billion people. (Reminder: there are eight billion people on the planet presently). Not only is he a proponent for decreasing the population through involuntary sterilization methods, he also advocates for the redistribution of wealth, telling The Guardian, “Too many rich people in the world is a major threat to the human future, and cultural and genetic diversity are great human resources.”
50 years after the Ehrlich’s now-famous book was written, giving more than enough time to debunk many of its claims, Paul is still catastrophizing about the imminent collapse of the human population. He admits his timing was off, but that it is a “near certainty” that death is upon us in the coming decades. Ehrlich remains popular with corporate media outlets all too happy to entertain his predictions by giving him a platform. Perhaps the Malthusians in the media assume this time he will get it right?
About Deisdra Garyk
Deidra Garyk has been working in the Canadian energy industry for 20 years. She has held roles in ESG & sustainability in oilfield services and in joint venture contracts at exploration and production companies.
Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and thought leader who researches, writes, and speaks about energy policy and advocacy to promote balanced, honest, fact-based conversations.
Connect with Deidra on Linkedin
Visit her website: DEIDRA GARYK: Canadian Energy Advocate
Share This:
COMMENTARY: Ontario and Alberta Governments Should Not Moonlight as Energy Companies on Taxpayer Dime