John Gray: Net Zero and the age of absurdity

UnHerd's Freddie Sayers sits down with philosopher John Gray at the UnHerd Club.

Follow UnHerd on social media:

#UnHerd #JohnGray #NetZero

[califoo]

4:20 "The world is burning but people have their electric heaters on" uhhh okay?

[TerranoPC]

When you switch off an electrical device, zero symbol means off and 1 means on. Teaching this to kids, you ask them, would you rather be zero or would you prefer to be 1. Zero is death, net-zero is death. The earth can never be net-zero as it will be the end of all life.

[circus]

In Germany, the climate debate has quasi-religious overtones. This is very difficult to bear, because any criticism of the existing climate models is interpreted as a “denial” of climate change. Young people stick to main roads and demand 100 km/h speed limits and free train tickets. Politics reacts as if under hypnosis and without pragmatism. Most people do not question the obviously contradictory political decisions, such as the shutdown of the nuclear power plants. The people who are skeptical only express their opinions in secret. The social climate is becoming more and more complicated and difficult because the freedom to express one's opinion officially exists but leads to social exclusion.

[alfree]

Interestingly, climate policies always enrich someone of some groups. It's simply a wealth transfer. Everyone has to contribute their own money to state budgets whether they like it or not and then few companies are benefiting from this money which is given away by politicians.

[edaindaimhin]

The idea that less than 200 years of industrial development, which occurred in a very small percentage of the land on earth, could affect the atmosphere and climate of the whole world is absurd. 71% WATER 29% LAND and most of the land is empty. perspective is badly needed here, not the myopic narcissism of those who think they know everything.

[andrewoh]

I think he's dead accurate about the social revolt that's coming regarding the regulations imposed in the name of climate change. He's also correct about the proposed solutions to climate change - they won't work and cannot work. But I think he's dead wrong about the consequences of climate change. Since the first Earth Day in 1970 every single prophesy of disaster produced by self-proclaimed experts has turned out to be wrong. Despite all their doom & gloom, humanity has never been better fed, housed, clothed and educated. Amusingly the extra CO2 has boosted plant growth by about 15% and that is helping feed us.

[georgewchilds]

Runaway climate change is nonsensical. And runaway global warming is not happening. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not pollution.

Our leaders are absurd, but they do match the absurdity of we the people.

To live.better, we need to be better.

[frankgrizzard]

I agree, we are in the Age of Absurdity and this discussion proves it

[michaelcorbett]

I wish that all these philosophers would look at the water they are drinking as at the start of this video. That water was deemed safe to drink by using various scientific techniques standardised, characterised and calibrated by using the engineering process (which is basically the Scientific Method but with tight limits on measurements and assumptions). Conventional science is bounded by assumptions by definition yet the science behind weights and measures and national standards is of much higher quality and repeatability as climate science, cosmology or string theory. If we applied climate science standards to the water, that person would most likely die of poisoning. If we applied it to planes, they would crash and kill people at enormous rates. Maybe not in get off the ground and just explode.

Climate science belongs to areas that are fine fields to study but are mostly if not all are purely hypothetical. If you wish to take this hypothetical to the real world is needs to be validated and verified under general engineering principles. And most of it cannot. Climate science is no different. It exists purely in a bubble of assumptions and vague inputs. Ceteris parebus times a hundred. Interesting as an academic endeavour but a WMD if applied to the real world. The UK government hasn't done any validation or verification on it for Net Zero. I know because I asked them through FOI and had them review it officially and still got a link to an IPCC report. God help you if that's what you think passes for fitness to the real world. It's a good thing there are people who don't.

[andrewnorris]

He's spot on about climate scientists putting too much faith in models and not measuring enough, even where it is cheap and low cost. But I see no reason why it could not go the other way and be better than they predicted. Also I think we will have time to react. There is also a Russian theory of climate science that says the changing forest locations are affecting the likes of the gulf stream etc and cause more severe weather in places. This is because each tree breathes and together they create wind. It needs looking into. As do other theories. As does if we have more time to react - to wait and see. Too much group think in scientists (which is normal through history, it's where the term paradigm shift came from). So far - when the models have got more detailed, it predicts more climate doom. But that does not mean they are underestimating it. Different dynamics result in different resolutions in models. At a certain point it all shifts the other way, so it is a mistake to extrapolate based on increasing model resolution and more climate sensitivity.

[jamieosh]

It’s not always easy to agree with Gray, but he is always worth listening to and reflecting on your own views and beliefs. In that alone there is usually something to learn. But he’s often right too.

[petervandenengel]

9:13 Also the flooding theories of coastal areas are flawed. Because the north pole consists of floating ice which when melting does not change one inch in the sea level. And the south pole is not melting.
Now I am not an official scientist with a PhD, fortunately otherwise I would be ashamed about my profession.

[NorfolkSceptic]

The electoral reform needed is an informed electorate, with public, informed discussions to determine the issues and the possible solutions.

The European countries have very varied methods of electing representatives, yet they have all produced dysfunctional, self destructive governments and local authorities, so rearranging the deckchairs won't solve anything.

[tcz]

I think you need to buy into the fact that a climate alarmism is a way overstated. And the issues are nowhere near as bad as they are made out to be.
As an earth scientist, it is clear to me that the mathematical models of climate are ridiculously simple and totally unreliable. Natural variation in climate is totally ignored and makes the outcomes totally irrelevant. Bastardization of the temperature record over the last 100 years has also made the predictions look far worse than they are.

[johndavies]

The world is not burning, it especially is not boiling. Political rhetoric is presented as science.

[gsneff]

Rush Limbaugh said that the right measures by results while the left measures by intent. Even if the results are catastrophic if the initial intentions were aligned with the emotional left then it isn’t ever going to be considered a failure in their eyes.

[kevinspraggett]

My take back on Gray's ideas is that the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess will not get us out of it. Hence new ideas are required. Creative solutions and the need to ADAPT. As an aside, adaptation is much cheaper than tearing things down and rebuilding, which is not what the business elites would like to see.

[mauricefinn]

You're halfway there John. Do some more digging and the whole climate change nonsense will unravel.

[anthonywilson]

We are expecting to reverse our energy sources that have developed over thousands of years to new very weak sources all in 30 years. We have 80% in fossil. We cannot replace that with renewables EVER. NUCLEAR IS ONE WAY, BUT RENEWABLES ARE INTERMITTENT SO BACKUP IS NEEDED FOR SECURITY.THAT CAN ONLY BE FOSSIL OR NUCLEAR FOR ENERGY SECURITY.

[JanRoman]

Wrong about models. They overestimate the change. 9:57