It was embedded in a globalist institutional architecture opposed to national-interest reasoning and was promoted through apocalyptic narratives that generated fatalism instead of action
Having worked professionally in climate advocacy, and witnessed the ineffectiveness of the global regime, I think your analysis about trying to achieve a global framework has some cogency. My major thrust, in fact, was action at local, state and regional scale, with emphasis on economic benefits of energy transition. However, I must disagree with you downplaying the potentially catastrophic consequences of non-action. When we are already likely seeing distortion of the jet stream due to Arctic heating, with consequences including an intensification of droughts and severe storms, the situation is already dire. The prospect for failure in multiple breadbaskets is becoming more likely, threatening global food scarcity. Meanwhile, the collapse of the North Atlantic circulation is growing more probable, throwing Europe into sub-Arctic conditions, and causing monsoon failure in India, among other horrendous consequences. The real story is massive disruption of Earth’s oceanic and atmospheric circulation systems with effects ramifying to basic food and water supplies. If anything, scientists have been reserved in their assessments.
This is not the place to explain why I will never join the monetization racket whether as writer or reader, but I mention that just because as an admirer of so much of your writing, I am so disappointed to not have access to your thoughts on this topic.
Sceptic is a term that applies to any genuine scientist, but it has been usurped by some climate activists as a synonym for 'denialist', perhaps to deliberately misrepresent the scientific approach by likening it to the people (both of them?) who don't believe that the earth is, on average, warming a little.
So I'm alarmed to read the words "But the sceptics were (are) wrong to dismiss the energy transition altogether." Despite the many layers of ambiguity in that sentence, it confirms my fear that in dividing opinions between activism and scepticism, you adopt the activist abusive meaning for scepticism and fail to acknowledge the input of science: approaching the matter on the basis of evidence, i.e. scepticism.
Unable to read your article, I would like to express the hope that firstly, despite the above, you pay due attention to the contributions of Roger Pielke Jr, and secondly that you show awareness of the major thread of venal interest among the activists, as exposed by Pielke, namely the attempt to create a body of accepted falsehood for lucrative litigation against petrochemical companies for damages consequent on extreme weather events.
I must apologise for my initial comments. I assumed, reading "If you’re a paid subscriber and you can’t access the article...." that it was only available to payers. I should have tested the assumption (sceptically?) instead of assuming.
Having worked professionally in climate advocacy, and witnessed the ineffectiveness of the global regime, I think your analysis about trying to achieve a global framework has some cogency. My major thrust, in fact, was action at local, state and regional scale, with emphasis on economic benefits of energy transition. However, I must disagree with you downplaying the potentially catastrophic consequences of non-action. When we are already likely seeing distortion of the jet stream due to Arctic heating, with consequences including an intensification of droughts and severe storms, the situation is already dire. The prospect for failure in multiple breadbaskets is becoming more likely, threatening global food scarcity. Meanwhile, the collapse of the North Atlantic circulation is growing more probable, throwing Europe into sub-Arctic conditions, and causing monsoon failure in India, among other horrendous consequences. The real story is massive disruption of Earth’s oceanic and atmospheric circulation systems with effects ramifying to basic food and water supplies. If anything, scientists have been reserved in their assessments.
Professional contrasts with amateur. The amateur isn't paid to tell lies.
This is not the place to explain why I will never join the monetization racket whether as writer or reader, but I mention that just because as an admirer of so much of your writing, I am so disappointed to not have access to your thoughts on this topic.
Sceptic is a term that applies to any genuine scientist, but it has been usurped by some climate activists as a synonym for 'denialist', perhaps to deliberately misrepresent the scientific approach by likening it to the people (both of them?) who don't believe that the earth is, on average, warming a little.
So I'm alarmed to read the words "But the sceptics were (are) wrong to dismiss the energy transition altogether." Despite the many layers of ambiguity in that sentence, it confirms my fear that in dividing opinions between activism and scepticism, you adopt the activist abusive meaning for scepticism and fail to acknowledge the input of science: approaching the matter on the basis of evidence, i.e. scepticism.
Unable to read your article, I would like to express the hope that firstly, despite the above, you pay due attention to the contributions of Roger Pielke Jr, and secondly that you show awareness of the major thread of venal interest among the activists, as exposed by Pielke, namely the attempt to create a body of accepted falsehood for lucrative litigation against petrochemical companies for damages consequent on extreme weather events.
I must apologise for my initial comments. I assumed, reading "If you’re a paid subscriber and you can’t access the article...." that it was only available to payers. I should have tested the assumption (sceptically?) instead of assuming.
So now I've read the article and it's good as I would expect, and it addresses the title of the article, unlike my comments which were tangential.