# Environmentalist apologizes for climate scare



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Forbes has decided to unpublish an article by award-winning climate activist Michael Shellenberger, in which he apologizes "for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years."
Schellenberger, a progressive, was named one of _TIME_'s "Heroes of the Environment," while his book _Break Through_ was heralded by _WIRED_ as potentially "the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson's _Silent Spring_."

His book _Apocalypse Never_ was widely praised as an 'eye-opening, fact-based approach' to climate science and 'engaging and well-researched.'


*Now that he's apologized for three-decades of climate alarmism, Forbes has now blocked Shellenberger's article without explanation*.

So, here it is:








On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare — Environmental Progress


Climate change is real, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s not even our most important environmental problem.




environmentalprogress.org


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

That's a good and apparently honest article. I wish Shellenberger all the best. His book is maybe the best thing that happened since the Skeptical Environmentalist was published.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

As usual the climate community is trying to muzzle dissent. One of their prophets left the church.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There is of course some alarmism. It doesn't mean that any environmental concern or concern with emissions reductions is wrong. Rhetoric like AOC saying the world is going to end in 10 years or something is obviously wrong. The world will be here for another billion years, regardless of what we do. Whether humanity or human civilization continues is a different question. I also don't think climate change is any kind of risk of extinction for humans. We are quite adaptable, and even if 90% of us die, there will be plenty of humans around. I'm not sure I buy the argument that we are not in another mass extinction event which started tens of thousands of years ago. It is not caused by climate change, but more by how pervasive humans are as apex predators (we wiped out a lot of megafauna in prehistory) and more recently our ability to destroy vast swathes of habitat or hunt many more species to extinction with industrial efficiency. There is a much higher rate of species extinction today that has been typical in the recent past. In a hundred million years it ought to be noticeable in the fossil record.

Not sure what Shellenberg's angle is. Given his lack of nuance, it seems like he is pandering for book sales. Congrats guys, you fell for it.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Not sure what Shellenberg's angle is.


His angle is probably the truth...something the alarmists refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> As usual the climate community is trying to muzzle dissent. One of their prophets left the church.


No surprise...the climate scam can't stand up to questions or scrutiny. They're the real science deniers.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> His angle is probably the truth...something the alarmists refuse to acknowledge.


Buy my book.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Buy my book.


I don't need to because I never fell for the Climate Scam. But maybe I will buy it to support him even though it's really you who needs to be exposed to some facts instead of propaganda.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The sad part is real problems - including environmental ones - are being ignored because of the distraction of frantic exaggeration and distraction. I have been following the Climate Change issue since it was called Global Warming, nearly 40 years now, and none of their apocalyptic predictions have come true.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I have been following the Climate Change issue since it was called Global Warming, nearly 40 years now, and none of their apocalyptic predictions have come true.



You are forgetting before Global Warming they called it Global Cooling. When that didn't work out they changed to Warming. Then that didn't work that well, so they changed it to Climate Change. I'm looking forward to the next edition - perhaps I'll see it on a sandwich sign board calling for the end of days.

ltr


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Next they'll say tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Thank you for smoking!


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Next they'll say tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Thank you for smoking!


When someone has no factual argument they often change to a different subject and pretend that the science is exactly the same. You're not fooling anyone...except maybe yourself.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm fine. The fossil fuel industry is imploding, ahead of schedule. I think it's the people who rely on it for bread and butter that are worried.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The fossil fuel industry will not be phased out in my lifetime and it will be fun to watch the climate changes advocates get educated on how much they rely on its products.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

kcowan said:


> The fossil fuel industry will not be phased out in my lifetime and it will be fun to watch the climate changes advocates get educated on how much they rely on its products.


How do you educate a cult member?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Alberta announced a big infrastructure spend and are still talking about pipelines.

Kenny is pumping money into a dying industry instead of using the money to transition their economy into something with a future.

Alberta is geographically located where they could serve California and western US markets.

They could be producing vehicles, farm equipment, logging equipment.........

Why aren't they developing a manufacturing base ? California alone is a huge market.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If Alberta planned out up a couple of future fully serviced "auto zones" in the Province, they could lobby every vehicle and equipment manufacturer.

They could offer low tax rates for a few years, an educated workforce, universal health care provided, and most importantly access to a huge consumer market.

One assembly plant employs hundreds or thousands of workers, and they only assemble the parts.

The Tier II manufacturers supply all the parts needed and that is a lot more jobs than the oil industry provides.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> One assembly plant employs hundreds or thousands of workers, and they only assemble the parts.



I wonder where they would get the plastic for all those parts that are made from fossil fuels?

ltr


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

kcowan said:


> The fossil fuel industry will not be phased out in my lifetime and it will be fun to watch the climate changes advocates get educated on how much they rely on its products.


We'll continue to extract oil and use oil products for the foreseeable future, but the glory days of the industry (and massive rents extracted from the economy) are behind us.


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

andrewf said:


> We'll continue to extract oil and use oil products for the foreseeable future, but the glory days of the industry (and massive rents extracted from the economy) are behind us.


Natural gas and oil are still growing, NG is the fastest growing source of energy (in absolute units). And China's already set a new monthly import record for oil in May. And the losses from usage for passenger airplanes and ships will likely be made up from higher car usage as transit remains crushed.

And the reality is that the "massive rents" mostly ends up in the hands of government, even in Canada the Federal Government is the #1 beneficiary thanks to its surpluses from Alberta.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Climate alarmism is real. Read any article on virtually any weather event. It doesn't matter that weather and climate are different. Every storm, every heat wave, every cold wave, every unusual event.

At first it was "this <extreme weather event> is indicative of climate change in the future. Do you want the earth to be destroyed in the future?" This was maybe 5 years ago.

In the last 18-24 months, it has gone full-on alarmism. "This IS climate change. The Hurricane/flood/tornado/blizzard WAS CAUSED by climate change". and so on.

It's really garbage, and why a lot of people are tuning out. Less pollution is a good thing. Lying about it is really quite dumb.

I wouldn't be surprised to see oil consumption back at record highs within 12-18 months. There aren't enough $50,000 electric cars for the 3rd world to drive, and they are buying gasoline cars for 1/10 that price.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

I remember when I first read about it, I thought it was a joke.

But no, rather than send our Canadian crude oil on a pipeline to the east coast refineries, Cenovus is loading it on a ship and sailing 11,900 kilometers down through the Panama Canal and back up to New Brunswick's Irving Oil refinery.

Sigh.............

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Michigan is blocking expansion of the current pipeline.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Why couldn't they ship the oil to Ontario by pipeline and then truck it to New Brunswick ?



Yeah, for sure, because trucks full of oil are so much safer than a regulated pipeline.

Sigh.......

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sorry, changed my post because I looked it up and discovered Michigan doesn't want an expansion of the current pipeline.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Sorry, changed my post because I looked it up and discovered Michigan doesn't want the pipeline as it lays on the bottom of Lake Superior.



Right, and that long trip through the Panama Canal with all its exposure to pristine waters is inconsequential, where it could have all been solved by a simple regulated pipeline. Environmentalists need to shake their heads.

ltr


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Maybe to properly incentivize high standards on pipeline construction we should require a bond be put up with a fine of $1 million per barrel of oil spilled. I understood Energy East wanted to utilize an ancient pipeline originally designed for another use. It's not clear what's in it for Ontario to run another pipeline through our drinking water...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Paying for their abandoned wells would be a good place to start.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

There are environmentalists that need to apologize for the Covid scare.


----------



## JohnTobbs (Jun 24, 2020)

I will try to be scared about more relevant things. I will think about things such as immediate dangers in front of me. That would make sense.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Feel free. As it stands, no pipeline is going to be built.


----------

