Once upon a time there was a British newspaper that believed in free markets and limited government. Not any more. The Economist now favours ‘re-wiring’ the world’s economy, through carbon taxes, regulation, subsidies, pricing, and other government interventions.

This all to ‘stop the planet from overheating’ and so avoid the ‘chaos’ and ‘turmoil’ of ‘science-related’ climate ‘catastrophe’ caused by global warming. The issue of the magazine for 19th to 25th September thus echoes Time of the last week of July, according to which 2020 is the ‘defining year for the planet’, with ‘one last chance’ to pull back from the ‘brink of global catastrophe’.

With half the said planet up in arms about ‘fake news’, it’s odd that fake news about ‘climate change’ is somehow permissible and so widespread. Like so many other news outlets, The Economist tells its readers that there is a ‘scientific consensus on global warming’. This claim ranks alongside the old advertisement that nine out of ten film stars used Lux toilet soap.

Almost a year ago, 500 climate scientists sent a declaration to the United Nations to the effect that there was no climate emergency. Earlier this year 700 said the same thing in a ‘World Climate Declaration’ and last month another 200 added their names to that list of sceptics. Plenty of others have for years been questioning the supposed ‘consensus’, a hard fact of which The Economist cannot be ignorant.

‘Save the planet’

The magazine blames ‘unchecked’ climate change for ‘devastating droughts, famine, floods, mass dislocation’, and for making the weather more ‘extreme’. The climate is shifting from ‘stable to less so’ and ‘the weather is certain to keep getting worse’. Firms that decarbonise and go green may help ‘save the planet’. And, of course, ‘scientists’ warnings about seemingly distant disasters should be heeded’.        

Which scientists would those be? Obviously not all those who have cited mountains of evidence to the effect that the climate has never been ‘stable’ and that there is nothing out of the ordinary happening right now. The Economist quotes Joe Biden as proclaiming the ‘undeniable, accelerating, and punishing reality of climate change’. Yet the Global Warming Policy Foundation recently published an analysis of official American data in which Paul Homewood demonstrates that the American climate ‘is in most ways less extreme than it used to be’.

Tornadoes, especially stronger ones, are less common than in the past, wildfires burn much less acreage than they did prior to the Second World War, heatwaves are less intense, summers were hotter in the 1930s than in recent years, floods are not getting worse, and sea-level rise is no higher than around the middle of the last century. Various other studies have demonstrated much the same. 

Significantly lower

Numerous scientists have pointed out that recent observed rises in temperatures – to the extent they have actually occurred – have been significantly lower than the supposedly dangerous rises predicted by climate ‘models’. As the recent World Climate Declaration put it, ‘To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in’, including their hypotheses and assumptions. ‘This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion, to which climate models are central.’

The Economist not only proclaims a consensus that does not exist, it also makes alarming predictions without any acknowledgement that they have been widely questioned on the basis of hard measured scientific data. Having thus airbrushed out all dissenting voices, the magazine is gung-ho for more regulation. Referring to a tally of 1 900 pieces of climate legislation around the world, it declares that ‘governments must play an even bigger part in how businesses respond to climate change in future’.

On the basis of the misleading assertion that the ‘scientific link between emissions and climate change is solid enough’, the magazine says that ‘courtrooms are the new battleground for climate action’. Of all the predictions the magazine makes, this one is the most likely to prove correct.

As for the firms and technologies that will flourish in efforts to stop the planet from overheating, these will ‘depend to a large degree on getting the right pattern of regulation, subsidy, and pricing’. The prices of renewables have been ‘tumbling’, nay ‘plummeting’, but they will need help from ‘regulators’. A ‘vast increase’ in such energy will be needed, so it is ‘good news’ that an engineering firm, GE Renewable Energy, is ‘testing wind turbines as big as the Eiffel Tower’.

New, formidable combination of power

Many years ago President Eisenhower warned against the power of the military-industrial complex. The world is well on the way to a new, formidable, combination of power – dedicated to the ‘rewiring’ of the world’s economy, regardless of the economic and human costs.

This complex includes the United Nations, numerous other international bodies, NATO, many governments, various scientific journals and organisations, the European Union, green parties, other political parties, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), lobbyists, many environmentalists and academics, the mushrooming renewables industry and its government subsidies, NGOs subsidised by that industry, asset managers, a growing number of climate change consultancies, carbon traders, cowardly bankers, and trial lawyers.  

The risks of intellectual and other corruption and abuse are obvious. But large parts of the world’s media have abandoned vigilance and instead become the cheerleaders of this new green-industrial complex.

If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend


  1. Thankyou Mr Kane-Berman for being one journalist with the guts to actually come up with the truth. i used to think the Economist was a well written level headed journal, but in recent years they have sadly gone haywire, along with most of the British and US Mainstream media (MSM). To the extent that the only UK media I read is the Spectator, which ahs a modicum of common sense.

    Climate change activists, read XR, are tarred with the same brush as blm and Auntie Fa, marxists funded by George Soros.

  2. I think you should stick to journalism on race relations. Climate change does not mean it’s hotter everywhere. If an article says that summers in the states are less hot on average, that means one of the bigger continents of the planet has experienced a change in climate. Moderation is not necessarily a good change.

    Putting up a fight against renewable energy sounds an awful lot like rooting for Eskom, which is strange considering the reading I’ve come to get used to in this forum. Maybe an article from “journalists” about “economics” related to “science” should be taken with a pinch of carbon dust?

    Please do yourself a favour and watch Sir (yes, Sir, thanks to his contribution to “science”) David Attenborough ‘s recent films and documentaries.

    The time for debating the impact of human energy use is pretty much up. There is little time left for action, and while I agree with you that there is a danger to any corporate structures that benefit from these lobbying efforts, the good thing that may come from all this is a greater social responsibility and awareness. Unless, of course, for some “journalists”.

    • another blind idiot, its time you start doing some real thinking instead of gullibly sucking in attenborough and his fake films and docies. Guess what the polar bears aren’t extinct and they’ve multiplied in number!

    • Do you really, really believe that Attenborough speaks from own belief and does not just say what he (now as an old man) is told to say (by BCC and its ‘green new world order handlers’)?
      If you see and believe in Attenborough as a ‘renowned modern-day expert’, then I’d imagine that you also believe that, in the past decade of Attenborough-narrated BBC wildlife documentaries, Attenborough truly truly went to those ‘wild frontiers’ to tell the the story – not just act in front of a green screen or some local zoo or botanical garden.

  3. A great summary of what is actually happening right now.
    Unfortunately many have been duped by the climate change claptrap.
    So glad you amongst other have seen what this is about.
    It is all about a one world government. What is absurd is that most of the different governments of different countries have essentially been allowed by the citizens to let some megalomaniacs take away their citizens rights property and in many cases their right to exist is also on the table. They have all been lured by the promises of untold financial gains for those leading the charge in the various political parties. It is time these Governments be shown the door.

  4. I cannot believe that JKB would fuel the ‘antiscience’ movement so foolishly. I suppose he will next say that whatever happens is “God’s wish” so don’t worry about it. There are some facts that cannot be denied.. Coral reefs dying out due to sea temperatures rising, sea levels rising etc so to dismiss climate change as fake news is idiotic. Whether there is some over reaction is subject to debate but the fact of climate change is not.

    • you better believe it – he’s at least standing up to the fake ‘consensus’ and the narcists that deny a platform for opposition to their narrative and fake alarmism. By the way if you just had a modicum of intelligence and researched you will understand the coral reefs are not dying but going through a natural cycle of bleach and recovery. Climate change is not fake news it is real BUT it is cyclical and nothing extraordinary – there’s just so much available real science that clearly indicates who the “idiots” are! Human action on climate (or have you not distinguished the difference with “weather”?) is miniscule, not even measurable above 100th of a percent! As custodians we need to look after the planet but this frenzy over climate sucks in the gullible!

  5. This ‘journalist’ should have his credentials withdrawn for posting fake news. There is broad consensus among many scientist from a broad range of disciplines proving that man-made climate changes a reality. The issue is we have seen nothing like this before and so cannot predict the outcome with any certainty.
    The carbon locked into the permafrost in Siberia is being released as the permafrost thaws thus now adding even more to the atmosphere and causing a further increase in the rate of global warming.
    Yes the Earth has been hotter in the past. But it is the rate at which we are seeing the increase that is driven by greed, by coal and fossil fuels. We need to look at alternatives and while green energy isn’t exactly green for many reasons it is still cleaner than coal. Or gas for that matter.
    What you should be doing is looking at ways to exploit the opportunities that global warming offers rather than trying to support a dinosaur like the coal industry.

  6. You’re obviously not concerned about the wholesale destruction of the world’s wilderness areas and mass extinctions, all in the interests of human excess and greed?

    • hooo boy what a load of BS ….. please just record for my pleasure just how much of the world’s wilderness has been totally destroyed list the mass extinctions ….. not the polar bears, they’re increasing in numbers despite attenborough’s senile conclusions

    • Do you know what the biggest destroyer of the natural environment is? It’s the attempts by ‘green’ organisations (including governments) to stop something that isn’t happening! (That ‘something’ being man-made climate change). In the name of ‘saving the planet’, we have rolling hills disfigured by “bird-chopping eco-crucifixes” (thanks, Delingpole) with the associated road building and power-line laying. The enormous amounts of concrete and steel of their bases will mar the land forever (think of the blockhouses of the Nazis ‘Atlantic Wall’). We have tropical jungle torn up to grow palm trees for ‘ecological’ palm oil. We have agricultural land covered in solar panels (fortunately not all are on arable land). And for what? The USA has had the Climate Reference Network for the last 15 years, a set of carefully sited weather stations, to eliminate false readings caused by the progressive urbanisation of the older sites. These sites have recorded a slow decline in average temperatures.

  7. I was quite shocked to see such an anti-scientific piece come from the Daily Friend, which, predictably, brought out the right-wing trolls. For a thorough piece of climate journalism, I can recommend David Wallace-Wells’s Uninhabitable Earth (2019), especially to the climate change denialists, who are comparable with flat earthers. The recent uncontrollable Australian and Californian bush and forest fires provide just more evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

    • you have no idea what “anti-science” really is! “Anthropogenic climate change” causing fires are arsonists coupled at the tote with ZERO bush and forest management increasing the fuel load …. you’re lazy to say the least! Get off your CNN soap box and do some real research and allow yourself to read what doesn’t fit your narrative

  8. “The Economist tells its readers that there is a ‘scientific consensus on global warming’. This claim ranks alongside the old advertisement that nine out of ten film stars used Lux toilet soap”.

    This statement probably sums up the intellectual credibility of this article. The scientific consensus on climate change is 97%. Not 50:50. It’s 97%.

    When we’re talking about scientific consensus, we’re obviously talking here about people with actual expertise in the field, not merely people who have access to YouTube and have been given a platform to disseminate anti-scientific drivel.

    Throughout history, the “deniers” have always been proven wrong in the end, be it on the earth is round vs. flat debate, the universe is 6 000 yrs old vs. 13.7 billion yrs, evolution vs. creationism, continental drift vs. stasis, sun revolving around the earth or the earth around the sun, disease caused by micro-organisms vs. by curses and bad stars, smoking causes cancer vs. not etc.

    No reason why the climate deniers won’t eventually also realise that overwhelming scientific fact supersedes their personal fears and hopes and wishes.

    Good luck on your personal journeys of discovery. Those of us living in the real world will be waiting to welcome you guys with a “Yes, we told you so”.

    • The 97% ‘agreement’ is a hoax; go do some in-depth study on it: The question posed was something to the effect of: “Do you believe that human activity might affect climate?” – to which even I and JKB will answer “yes”.
      If we were asked if birds and bees and baboons affect the climate , our answer would also be “yes”.

      • Nope.

        97% percent of actively publishing climatologists agree that:
        (1) the earth is warming drastically at a scale which is orders of magnitude faster than anything that happening previously, and this process is driving a number of related changes to the climate;
        (2) human activities meaningfully contribute to this;

        The key phrase here is “actively publishing climatologists”; i.e. people with training and expertise in the field, and who are engaged in research in the field. The opinions of surgeons, or dentists, or civil engineers, or lawyers or plumbers, or people who happen to have watched something on YouTube do not count. The opinions of journalists who often misrepresent scientific findings – whether willfully or not – should also be taken with a grain of salt.

        In this debate, as in any other, “I have a PhD and have spent 20 years in the field” counts for more than “I saw something on YouTube” or “I read something on a conservative blog somewhere” or “I’m going to ignore what the scientists say because it threatens my comfortable world-view”.

  9. John Kane-Berman is a highly qualified person concerning the consideration of the actions and opinions of people and groupings.
    He is definitely able to have a valued opinion about scientific matters.
    Commentators who rely on emotion and BLM type coercion regarding people who disagree with their opinions are not.

  10. Regardless of what anybody says the climate is changing, it has been changing and will be changing because our world is changing. The most severe changes may have happened in the first million years and gradually things have stabilized out but will never be ‘stable’.
    Our problem is that we want to change things and see them taking place but we forget that we only live for a minutely short time and global changes happens over thousands of years. Whatever we manage to do will only show when we are long gone.
    In the meantime the earth has evolved into a state of ‘control’ where it is able to handle whatever we can throw at it and will recover from any situation, given enough time. If earth could survive the collision of another planet and receive a moon or the impact of the meteorite that killed of the dinosaurs and recover from the snowball earth condition it will happily live for many millions to come.
    Our concern is not saving saving planet earth but saving mankind, which is to go extinct soon anyway and instead of fighting nature we should start controlling man.
    Human nature is to hate any rival and since the animals are contained in zoos and reservations the only enemy left is homo sapiens.
    Lately we made a big do about covid 19 and claiming that it threatening mankind but in reality the humans are killing each other with wars, starvation due to corruption and violence starting at home and spreading into the community and beyond.
    Let us control and change that which we can, starting at home and leave nature doing what it does best.

  11. I’m scouring the Clintel website and all I find is news, interviews etc stating how wrong the climate science is. However I do not see any science on the website at all, or any specific scientific discussion of any published science.

  12. Your article does the same thing, it’s really quite an emotional piece (all the inverted commas) opining about opinions of other people’s science, without pointing to any actual science. Please point me to the science of the 900 (your article says 500, try to get the basic facts right at least) people who signed the World Climate Declaration, or where they do something like a proper peer review.

  13. It’s all hogwash.

    My favourite is when they twist any opposition to the BS.

    Do I agree that the climate is changing? : Yes
    Do I agree that the climate becoming warmer? : Yes
    Do I agree that the main cause of this change towards the warmer is human actions? : No
    Do I agree that a change in human actions now can largely change the course of this climate change? : No

    So if I tell any tree-hugging green-head that I don’t agree with the approach to trying to stop climate change or that it is caused by humans I am labelled as a “Climate change denier”

    I don’t deny it. I just think that this human intervention is nonsense.

  14. Bravo.The IRR has not detached itself from rationality. I blame the hysteria on those in the West, the intellectuals so-called who have adopted the fiction of CO2-related climate change as a new stick with which to beat private enterprise and the profit motive for depriving them of the status they feel they so richly deserved on account of their genius. Their mothers knew it, so how come the world does not reward them. Now the former communists of eastern Europe have seen a wonderful new opportunity to scare the s-t out of the workers so they will agree to have their new found individial liberties removed once more, given up to the wise high priests of old, now masquerading as experts in averting damnation, armageddon once again.

  15. Global warming was the first attempt to produce a crisis but it didn’t work as no one was dying, Corona is the second attempt. People were dying but not that many more than the annual flu, if that. Note that CDC has admitted that only 6% of the stated Corona deaths in the US were actually solely due to Corona.

    Nick Hudson (PANDA) has done some magnificent work on this Corona debacle in South Africa but one of the most important things he said (I’m paraphrasing) was that the only good thing that has come out of the Corona mess is that after all of this time and evidence shown that Corona was not a serious disease some people are still swallowing the government propaganda and are terrified of it. It is so easy to see who thinks for themselves and who doesn’t. The same is true for Anthropogenic Global Warming, well done JKM.

    • So you saying the other 96% with comorbidities such as diabetes, lung and heart disease would anyway all just have dropped dead this year?

  16. Fake news about climate change is created by the big money of the magnates, oligarchs and industrialists, who wield the power in world politics and for whom there is too much at stake to acknowledge the obvious changes that are currently happening to our biosphere, as it threatens the world economy and their wealthy empires, so they are the proverbially “none as blind as them who will not see”, and the dupes they are able to influence to believe that climate change is BS, by hiring many scientists through attractive monetary offers to sell their souls for a pot of linseed soup, and send fake scientific news into the world.

    The point is, there are thousands upon thousands of natural and other scientists in the world that are honest and have professional integrity, not least in our own country, who can speak with authority on a topic about which “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”, and unfortunately some of the commentators of the article have also ventured on a terrain they are obviously not qualified to express opinions on. There is largely consensus on the majority of professional scientists with integrity that what is now happening to the biosphere is unprecedented in the earths history of at least the past couple of tens of thousands of years, and that it is not just natural climatic cycles that are experienced, but something which threatens the very existence of life on the crust of the earth.

    I am a applied natural scientist by education and with decades of extensive experience, and I have been observing the changes that took place to our natural environment in the recent few decades, even before climate change became properly publicised. Twenty years ago our scientists have started warning SA about what was to come and in most respects they were spot on. Twenty years ago the majority of people including many scientists have doubted this and accused scientists of crying wolf wolf, but as time went by, the doubters have decreased and the majority have been convinced about what is happening. We don’t have to go into intricate scientific arguments, the evidence is there before our eyes, it is happening around us.

    However, don’t believe me, but go and speak to a global authority on this in our very midst, in the person of Prof. Francois Engelbrecht of Wits University, and let him explain to you what is happening. I don’t believe this expert was won over with money to disseminate fake news about climate change.

    • If “thousands upon thousands of natural and other scientists in the world that are honest and have professional integrity” do exist;
      Where were their voices during Al Gore’s world tour? …Or did they also believe the “science” at the time?
      Why do they not explain to the journalist that CO2 is great for plants, thus the reason the earth is getting greener?
      Why do they keep quiet when in 2017/18 the cold wave was an extreme weather event in North America in which record low temperatures gripped much of the Central, Eastern United States, and parts of Central and Eastern Canada, but the most ludicrous explanations were given by your side why it is actually global warming?

      You cannot lie, or keep quiet when others are lying and now suddenly want us to believe you?

  17. Wow, some strong opinions!
    Big business and governments will always jump on the lucrative bandwagon under the guise of doing good which is valid.
    Whilst John’s article is a clever piece of intellectual journalism it avoids the real issues at stake that are plaguing the planet.
    Climate change is only a small part of the global problem. Lack of diversity, greed in the form of factory farming and over harvesting, overpopulation, pollution, deforestation etc are the real issues.

  18. There was a time when brilliant people supported Marxist Leninist authoritarian ‘communist’ ideology and roughly 50% of the global population ‘enjoyed’ the benefits of totalitarian tyranny. Fortunately the Marxist acolytes were proved wrong and that era of ‘scientific’ social engineering came to an end. The world is a better place

    In time the ‘global warming’, now ‘climate change’ and soon ‘global cooling’, brigade will come to an end.

    People once genuinely believed that the earth was flat; perhaps they too were correct and the earth will again become flat.

  19. Remember this is an “Opinion piece” I.E. not based upon facts but rather someone’s opinions. Maybe this is a rather crude attempt at clickbait rather than a credible article.

  20. Sorry John, I cannot agree with your article on climate change. Climate change is not “Fake News”. I suggest you watch some of the irrefutable proof demonstrated by David Attenborough in his recent series “A Life on our Planet”.

  21. Well, this is unexpected… Now Kane-Berman turns out to be a climate change denier of the first order, and quotes the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a “reliable source”! Once upon a time I had respect for Kane-Berman – A Rhodes scholar, past president of the IRR and all that.
    Seems the Daily Friend is becoming a meeting place for all the oddballs and deniers.

  22. The sad thing is that religion and superstition has conditioned us into believing stuff that is not based on any facts or evidence without question. The scientific method is the best tool or process that humans have come up with to find reliable and provable answers and explanations for things that require them and the method relies entirely on facts and evidence. Once an answer is found it is subject to peer reviews by credible independent experts that check that it is valid and tht the method has been rigorously applied. Opinions, faith, imagination and emotion are not relied on at all.
    Some of the comments here show frightening ignorance of how the method works. It does of course rely on the credibility of individual scientists and their associated institutions and, as is typical of humans, there are many pseudo scientists and fake news journalists that claim to have expertise but on investigation (or fact checking) are found to have no credibility.
    JKB and others would be well advised to stop saying “500 scientists say..” as evidence for something. Its is not a “number of scientists” game. A few CREDIBLE scientists from REPUTABLE institutions are the ones we should be listening to and if we do that we will find that climate change is real and very dangerous for humanity!

  23. What is the definition of climate? it is ” the average weather over a long period of time.” Young scientists say 30 years s long enough but 50-60 years gives a better statistical base.
    Try reading the work of Richard P Feynman, one of the most brilliant Nobel scientists of the 20th century or the articles of Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT. This will give you an idea of the levels of uncertainties that exist amongst others in the climate field. Feynman condemns models which are trying to create theories without the level of observation that is needed in the first place. Lindzen in a 2018 paper outlines the complexities that we are dealing with and the incomparable Alfred Einstein said that everyone thought he was brilliant but it would only take one man to prove him wrong. Science has never been about consensus and the 97% agreement is false and probably includes the bulk of scientists seeking funding for their activities because they do not have the brainpower to do things and then find funding..
    Climate change is real but occurs over a long time. The variations we see (fires are not climate issues ) and floods and droughts can be statistically analysed. Ask any dam engineer who has to build a safe structure.

  24. This is most rational and clear cut article that the IRR has ever published since I have joined the movement.
    This emphasizes the danger of the mainstream media if not contradicted by individual informed analysis.

  25. The late Freeman Dyson, a distinguished mathematician and physicist, once said that environmentalism was more of a religion than science. As an archaeologist, one of the first things you were taught was the cyclical nature of climate change (with special reference to the last million years and its effect on the evolution and distribution of early man, etc). There have been several warming trends over the last 4000 years alone , mostly a lot warmer than today (as well as cooler periods). Warming and cooling had been part of the natural cycle of the earth’s climate for millions of years. We don’t know what effect pollution will have on this. We also don’t know how long this warming trend will last, 10 years, 100 or 1000 years but something is coming whether we like it or not and whether we burn coal or not. It is quite likely that our present climate is actually below average temperature measured over a few thousand years.
    It would be better if more research should go into the coming change of rainfall and vegetation zones based on previous warm episodes so that one can plan for future agriculture: also prepare for sea level rise which will affect everything and everyone now at the coast.
    I recommend the following web site, easy to read and understand https://www.dr-robert-fagan.com/ or try this https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/holocene .

  26. Good grief, JKB turns out to be a conspiracy theorist! There is so much one could say to discredit this article but what would be the point? For the few who may be open to honest inquiry may I suggest that you read “The Limits to Growth” (1972) and “Come On!” (2018), both produced by the Club of Rome. Don’t worry, they are not novels, they are scientific reports. I would also recommend that you find out who The Club of Rome are and check out the credentials of the scientists contributing to the reports.

  27. Thank you John.
    Much needed pragmatism and bullshit filtering. I just love the comments section, including the Attenborough sycophants. Much in line with believing everything you see/hear on CNN coverage of the Americans invading Iraq.
    The incredibly complex issue of climate change should continue to be debated and the best theories studied and tested on an ongoing basis. But to allow governments and industrial military complex’s to dictate our way forward is Orwellian.
    Keep up the excellent journalism.

  28. Wow, a bunch of old white men spewing bile against an already established fact. I publish the truth about the reality of global warming because I am a scientist, not a recycled socio-political journalist. PS. Donald Trump also believes that he needs a bit of “global warming” when humankind’s abuse of the atmosphere creates some of the worst winters on record along the east coast of the USA. The ill-informed believe that “global warming” necessarily equates to warmer weather only. PPS I wonder of the hand of the coal/oil economy is somewhere at work here? What’s next? A story that the Pacific “garbage heap” is just someone’s fancy? Perhaps if the oil and coal economy had not taken over the economies of so many countries by force in the 1900’s we would have been using more bioplastic and avoided the huge mess that the planet faces now.

    • lol – “The ill-informed believe that “global warming” necessarily equates to warmer weather only.”

      In Science you are suppose to observe what is happening. You are talking about religion, where believe is more important than observation.

  29. Okay so you deny that “global warming does not necessarily equate to warmer climates? I suggest you study up n the Ice Ages. If you say this is not a problem, then I assume, like Jimmy Kruger, the thought of the Great Barrier Reef coral extinction ‘laat my koud’:

    Half of Australia Great Barrier Reef corals have died since the 1990s, study reveals
    (Excerpt from the Deutsche Welle https://www.dw.com/en/half-of-australia-great-barrier-reef-corals-have-died-since-the-1990s-study-reveals/a-55269668)

    “Our results show the ability of the Great Barrier Reef to recover — its resilience — is compromised compared to the past, because there are fewer babies, and fewer large breeding adults,” he added……

    Climate change killing the corals
    The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem and the habitat of threatened species such as the dugong and large green turtle.

    The death of the corals has been attributed to ocean warming, which is fueled by climate change. Changes in ocean temperatures stress healthy corals, causing them to expel algae, which drains them of their vibrant colors. This process is called bleaching……

    The authors of the study warned that greenhouse gas emissions had to be reduced immediately to save the corals.

    PS There is no cure for crass stupidity. Only natural selection and extinction.

  30. https://thecorrespondent.com/751/weve-emitted-more-co2-in-the-past-30-years-than-in-all-of-history-these-three-reasons-are-to-blame/99424290702-86c05dd5?pk_campaign=daily
    ” The world produced 784bn tonnes of carbon dioxide from human activities from the dawn of the industrial revolution until 1990. Since 1990, we’ve produced 831bn tonnes on top of that. At the same time, 68% of the entire world’s wild animal populations have disappeared since 1970, right around the time the landmark Endangered Species Act was passed in the US.”
    I would like to hear what Mr Kane-Berman feels about the above reference


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here