Chronicles of Climate Hysteria

“Man has always been prone to hysteria, but it has never been as brutal as it is today.” It is the title of a column by Rob Hoogland, one of the columnists of the Telegraaf. The text fits in seamlessly with the book by Hans Labohm et al. entitled “Chronicles of Climate Hysteria”. In my opinion, Hans Labohm and his co-authors have succeeded exceptionally well in making a controversial subject, which is also not that easy, readable to a large audience, while maintaining their journalistic and scientific integrity. The book is a collection of a large number of articles, some of which were already published before 2004. Almost everything was already known at that time. After 2004 the situation would change. The science itself hardly changed, but the tone became different, harder, more personal. Scandals were constantly coming to light. “Chronicles of Climate Hysteria” describes some of them in detail. The authors do not mince their words. In a guest contribution, Ed Zuiderwijk takes us to the year 2100. In retrospect, he is amazed at how “a cabal of ignorant fanatics, half-educated researchers, political hangers-on, and the necessary charlatans control the research in atmospheric science and obtained its applications”. Perhaps a bit harshly formulated, but it gives an impression of the frustrations that a skeptical scientist encounters in his working life. Against this background, it is astonishing how tolerant and moderate Hans Labohm has remained. He has a harsh assessment of institutions but never plays the man. “Chronicles” refers to a form of historiography in which events are described in chronological order. But when does the “climate hysteria” start? In my opinion, the IPCC reports up to and including AR 5 of 2013 are one-sidedly alarmist, but not hysterical. The founding fathers of alarmism, Bert Bolin, Stephan Schneider, James Hansen, Michael Mann, made extensive use of the “double ethical bind”. They exaggerated, made selective use of statistical methods, censored their opponents but never became hysterical. Until 2013, this also applied to the IPCC as a whole. But in 2015 there was a change of chairmanship at the IPCC – the incumbent chairman was dismissed – and the Paris Agreements were concluded at the UN level. Everything changed. The Accords called for zero CO2 emissions by 2050, a Herculean task that would require draconian measures. Thousands of billions would have to be diverted from health care, public housing, education, agriculture, elderly care, etc. To make this possible, citizens had to be made afraid, terrified, of climate change. After 2015, the IPCC only, almost exclusively, talks about greenhouse gases, especially CO2, as the cause of all warming since 1950. The evidence for this is weak. A hysterical girl lectures everyone. And far above that we find someone who unashamedly tells an extreme story. Guterres, the UN Secretary General, sees the earth burning, the oceans boiling. “The era of global boiling has arrived,” he said recently. It’s complete nonsense but no one protested. Incomprehensible. With a nod to Tolkien, I would like to change that statement to: “The age of reason has ended. The age of hysteria has just begun.” And I see that as the greatest value of the Chronicles.” It points to a future that should not happen and invites us to think for ourselves. To see the roots of something that we do not want to happen. But then we have to do something. Reading the “Chronicles of Climate Hysteria” is a good start.