We really are living in a world of titanic lies designed to inflame the hysterics. This just in: 2020 May Be The Hottest Year On Record. Here’s The Damage It Did.
With just a few weeks left, 2020 is in a dead-heat tie for the hottest year on record. But whether it claims the top spot misses the point, climate scientists say. There is no shortage of disquieting statistics about what is happening to the Earth.
The hottest decade on record is coming to a close, with the last five years being the hottest since 1880. 2020 is just two-hundredths of a degree cooler than 2016, the hottest year ever recorded. The Earth is nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer now than it was in the 20th century, and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are still rising.
The future will be even hotter, although humans, through the choices governments, corporations and individuals make, will decide exactly how much.
That means more years like 2020, with increasingly powerful hurricanes, more intense wildfires, less ice and longer heat waves. The average yearly number of $1 billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. has quadrupled in the last three decades. As of October 2020, there had been 16 climate-driven disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damage each.
And to remind me of how all of these views are inflamed by academic scholarship I received this today as well, a notice seeking entries for the 2022 Essay Prize in Economics which is to be on the topic of: “What Contribution can Heterodox Economics Make to Addressing the Climate Emergency?” Here are the details:
Essays are invited which explore the potential contribution of any aspect(s) of heterodox economics, broadly construed, to addressing the climate emergency. Possible sub-topics include:
- Ends. What should be the objectives of climate policy, and action more generally by states, institutions and individuals, in addressing the climate emergency? How should the values at stake be conceptualised?
- Means. Assuming some clear goals or objectives, how should these be pursued? How should we act in the face of economic, scientific, and political uncertainties?
Discourses and strategies. In addressing the climate emergency, how are our means and ends best described and framed? Are there tensions between well-justified ends which might emerge from ethical, political economic and scientific analysis, and the means available to us?
I loved this bit most of all:
The essay will be judged on its originality and independence of thought, its scholarly quality, its potential to challenge received ideas, and the success with which it matches the criteria of the ISRF and the CJE. The successful essay will be intellectually radical, orthogonal to existing debates, and articulate a strong internal critique across the fields of economic research. Its challenge to received ideas will have the potential to provoke a re-thinking of the topic.
The possibility that anyone is looking to challenge the climate doomsday consensus is zero. As for the successful essay being “orthogonal to existing debates” I have no idea what that means but will anyway not be entering.The prize to the successful winner will be EUR 7,000 which is an indication of how cheap getting academics to fall into line actually is.