{"id":23126,"date":"2020-07-09T09:43:35","date_gmt":"2020-07-09T14:43:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/?p=23126"},"modified":"2020-07-09T19:42:45","modified_gmt":"2020-07-10T00:42:45","slug":"shellenbergers-op-ad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2020\/07\/shellenbergers-op-ad\/","title":{"rendered":"Shellenberger’s op-ad"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n

Guest commentary by Michael Tobis<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a deep dive into the form and substance of Michael Shellenberger’s promotion for his new book “Apocalypse Never”. Shorter version? It should be read as a sales pitch to a certain demographic rather than a genuine apology. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael Shellenberger appears to have a talent for self-promotion. His book, provocatively entitled \u201cApocalypse Never\u201d appears to be garnering considerable attention. What does he mean by that title? Does it mean we should do whatever we can to avoid an apocalypse? Does it mean that no apocalypse is possible in the foreseeable future? For those of us who haven\u2019t yet read the book (now available on Kindle), Shellenberger provides an unusual article (at first posted on Forbes, then at Quillette<\/a> and the front page of the Australian) which appears less a summary than a sales pitch, an \u201cop-ad\u201d as one Twitter wag put it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s called \u201cOn Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare\u201d. In short, Shellenberger lands clearly on the naysayer soil. Not much to see, everyone. Cheer up, carry on, these are not the droids you\u2019re looking for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FEW PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In support of this insouciance, Shellenberger offers twelve \u201cfacts few people know\u201d. Most of the points are defensible to some extent, and most of them raise interesting topics. A main purpose of this article is to provide references to the relevant discussions. But in going through it, it\u2019s worth keeping an eye on the rhetorical purposes of the items, which appear a bit scattershot, and to the rhetorical purpose of the list, which might appear rather obscure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly labeling the list \u201cfacts that few people know\u201d implies that all these points unambiguously refute common beliefs that are widely. And the \u201capology for the climate scare\u201d indicates further that these beliefs are widely held by a supposedly misguided community of \u201cclimate scared\u201d. A defender of the list, Blair King<\/a> suggests that \u201c[Shellenberger] identified false talking points used repeatedly by alarmists to misinform the public and move debate away from one that is evidence-based to one driven by fear and misinformation\u201d. That does seem to be a fair reading of the stated intent of the list, but it just doesn\u2019t ring true as a whole. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking as a verteran \u201cclimate scared\u201d person, the items don\u2019t seem especially familiar. It\u2019s hard to imagine a conversation like this:\u201cGosh, climate change is an even bigger threat to species than habitat loss.\u201d\u201cI know, and the land area used for producing meat is increasing!\u201dAs Gerardo Ceballos<\/a> said: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not a scientific paper. It is intended, I guess, to be an article for the general public. Unfortunately, it is neither. It does not have a logical structure that allows the reader to understand what he would like to address, aside from a very general and misleading idea that environmentalists and climate scientists have been alarmist in relation to climate change. He lists a series of eclectic environmental problems like the Sixth Mass Extinction, green energy, and climate disruption. And without any data nor any proof, he discredits the idea that those are human-caused, severe environmental problems. He just mentions loose ideas about why he is right and the rest of the scientists, environmentalists, and general public are wrong. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What causes the strange incoherence of these \u201cfacts few people know\u201d? At the end of this review I\u2019ll propose an answer. Meanwhile, I will consider several questions regarding each item:<\/p>\n\n\n\n