Proving the Unprovable: The White House Ties Itself Into A Statistical Knot Over Covid-19 Harm

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedThe problem with never admitting a mistake as President is that it requires others to defend it no matter how indefensible.  That is the problem with declaring that “99 percent” of U.S. coronavirus cases are “totally harmless”  is that statistics are tricky things that often demand actual proof.  Mark Twain once said “facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable,” just not this pliable.  Rather than just admit that the President overstated this point, the White House proceeded to try to prove the unprovable with predictably ridiculous results. Even the President’s top health advisers refused to support the statement. It is another example of the expenditure of unnecessary energy and focus to avoid admitting a mistake.  One can still maintain that most people exposed to this virus show mild or no symptoms without dying on this statistical hill (with graphs that actually show that the statistical claim is wrong).

I have been critical of the unrelentingly negative coverage of many news outlets over the last three years.  There is a loss of objectivity in much of the reporting as we have discussed in prior postings. However, many of these negative pieces are legitimate stories like the President telling the public that 99 percent of virus cases are harmless.

During his July 4 “Salute to America” speech on the South Lawn of the White House, Trump noted that the administration conducted more than 40 million coronavirus tests. That is an impressive figure. However, he added that “by so doing, we show cases, 99 percent of which are totally harmless.”

On its face, the statistic is clearly wrong.  It is certainly true that a very high percentage of those who test positive for the virus do not show serious symptoms.  However, President Trump elected to put a statistical twist on that fact.  As a result, it was immediately ridiculed.  The President has been repeatedly criticized (often fairly) for downplaying the threat of the virus or making dangerously ill-informed comments.  This is another example of sending a message directly at odds with what his public health officials are trying to convey to the public.

Putting aside the public health dangers for such statements dismissing the threat to individuals, it makes even less sense politically. With the President struggling with dropping polls, it would seem obvious that fighting on this issue would play directly into the hands of his critics.  Yet, rather than walk it back, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany defended the statement as factual with two charts illustrating the country’s COVID-19 death rate.

There were two obvious problems. First, just showing a chart of deaths does not show the percentage of harm.  Many of those who recover from the virus are experiencing long lasting symptoms. Moreover, even those with “mild cases” report some serious symptoms, including neurological symptoms now being documents even in mild case recoveries.

Second, McEnany’s slides showed a case fatality rate of 4.6 percent, not 1 percent. So even if you are just talking death rather than harm that is almost 500 percent off.

What is intriguing about this latest pile up is that it was again entirely avoidable with a simple correction. This is why Benjamin Disraeli said “There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

545 thoughts on “Proving the Unprovable: The White House Ties Itself Into A Statistical Knot Over Covid-19 Harm”

  1. Donald trump is accurate, I am surprised Jon Turley can’t ascertain basic information. According to the CDC 3.5 million people in the USA have coronavirus and 137,864 have died which equals = 0.038 percent. Less than half of one percent. Therefore that means 99 percent or 99.6 percent of Americans have not been substantially effected by the virus and if we are going to use the current death rate as a prediction going forward, than around 99.6 percent are not going to be impacted.

    Basic math. The lockdown is perhaps the most unequal event which has occurred in human history, denying the basic liberties for the vast majority a very small percentage of people who face a risk. I think maybe because Jon is a senior citizen he is playing up the risk. Which for senior citizens the risk of death is 2 percent. But I sympathize for you Jon, your anxiety is mostly rational.

  2. John Say, I never met Grace Hopper. Will the inventor of Monte Carlo computation suffice?

    There is another way to project into a future with increased heat-trapping gases; paleodata.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – I had the privilege of attending a lecture and then meeting Grace Hopper. Outstanding woman.

    2. Honestly – what you claim to know or have done is highly implausible.

      I have met Grace several times before she died.

      I had dinner with her and some friends once, and had a couple of her “pico seconds”
      I never programed a Cray, but I worked on a Cyber 7600 for several years.

      I am sure I could write a GCM to run on one.
      But it would be useless.

  3. John Say — I take pity:
    Attempt to fit a quadratic to the doublings
    1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32
    and let me know how you fare.

    As I stated before paleoclimate data is a way to understand what happens as the globe warms. No GCM required.

    1. David Benson — I take pity:

      Attempt to find a base 2 number anywhere in SB. Plank, IPCC or Arenhius ?

  4. John Say — In retrospect, Pierrehumbert’s most excellent text is too demanding for someone who is under the misimpression that squares and square roots have anything to do with logarithms taken to the base 2.

    But the text makes a most interesting point about increased precipitation as the climate warms.

    For example. Clausius-Clapeyron is not the complete story. But then, you don’t even know that…

    1. “John Say — In retrospect, Pierrehumbert’s most excellent text is too demanding for someone who is under the misimpression that squares and square roots have anything to do with logarithms taken to the base 2.”
      Really ? Doubling down on stupid ?

      Arrenhius, SB, and Plank all worked in base 10. i do not think there is a base 2 number anywhere in the IPCC reports.

      ECS increases linearly as CO2 doubles – 1, 2, 4 …

      “But the text makes a most interesting point about increased precipitation as the climate warms.

      For example. Clausius-Clapeyron is not the complete story. But then, you don’t even know that…”

      You do realize there is an internet ?

      If you look sideways with only one eyeball while tapping your toes to “old susanah” – you might be able to see that.

      https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/precipitation-download1-2016.png

  5. John Say —Your comments about Wikipedia border on insanity. The climatology pages agree with the published, peer reviewed, literature.

    The nutz are excluded.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – With Wikipedia, you have a 50/50 chance the article will give you correct information, which is why I refuse to accept it as a source or use it as a source. Also, your comment on peer-review in the Climatology community brings up the Michael Mann, et al. scandal having to do with closing of access to peer reviewed journals, if the articles did not fit their criteria. I would not trust anything on climatology.

    2. “John Say —Your comments about Wikipedia border on insanity. The climatology pages agree with the published, peer reviewed, literature.

      The nutz are excluded.”

      That would be anyone who disagrees with the self appointed editors.
      Nutz, like Curry, Christy, the Pielke’s or Spensor.

      The problem with censorship is that it is always possible to call those who disagree with you nuts.

  6. John Say — There are ozone holes at both poles.

    You could learn some elementary observational climatology rather than just Making Stuff Up.

    1. “John Say — There are ozone holes at both poles.”

      And the hole at the north when present is SMALL – perfectly consistent with the tilt of the earth
      But the large hole at the south is completely at odds with all the “atmospheric physics that YOU claim”

      “You could learn some elementary observational climatology rather than just Making Stuff Up.”
      Ah- so you think stringing three multisylable words in a row makes you smart.

      I will suggest some references for you. George Orwell – and many others. told writers to avoid precisely that kind of language.
      It does not make you look smart.

      But directly addresing “elementary observational climatology”
      That would be your problem not mine.

      I an numerous others here have observed the actual climate in the past couple of decades – and it did NOT do as warmist predicted.
      I would strongly suggest putting your books away and going outside and conducting some “elementary observational climatology ”

      or as Orwell would have said “pay attention to the real world”

  7. John Say — squares and square roots have nothing to do with logarithms taken to the base 2!

    Your understanding of fairly basic mathematics is missing.

    Projections of potential warming can be found by using paleodata; read the Back to the Future link.

    1. “John Say — squares and square roots have nothing to do with logarithms taken to the base 2!”
      Correct, and irrelevant, the formula for ECS is neither log, nor base 2.

      “Your understanding of fairly basic mathematics is missing.”
      I know the difference between base 2 and base 10, and the difference between a square root and a logarithm
      My examples were simplified but they were not transformed.

      “Projections of potential warming can be found by using paleodata; read the Back to the Future link”
      Please reread your own posts – you are once again contradicting yourself.

      And do we really have to open up the giant can of worms over how bad the “paleodata” is ?

      The direct measured record only goes back to the mid 1600’s. And that record gets progressively crappier the further back you go – that is ignoring the fact that even thee modern record has pretty bad error rates depending on the country/continent.

      Further not only does the quality decline as you go back – but the coverage goes completely to $h!t real fast.

      And the direct measurement record is the best we have.

      The next step back is the first proxy record. Much of this work was done by Mann and Biffra, though most more recent papers use the same data series. Go look up “hide the decline” on Youtube. Mann should have his degree revoked for scientific fraud.

      Mann made the mistake of suing an editorialist for slander – for saying much of what I said about him. After realizing he is going to lose and going to have to pay legal fees, and probably going to have to provide discovery to Steyn – Mann has been stalling in the DC courts for 8 years. It should be infront of SCOTUS shortly.

      Regardless Mann is a fraud – again he has confessed in hacked CRU emails.

      That pretty much obliterates all proxy data for the past 2000 years.
      And frankly had Mann done the job right – it still would be nearly useless – too few data points with too little accuracy covering too little of the planet.

      The closest thing to anything accurate we have on climate is NOT proxy’s but written records from the past 2000 years.
      Those suck – they do not tell temperatures but they can tell is that the medivil warm period in europe was warm.

      Anyway as we go further back in time further problems arrise. The first thing you lose is granularity.
      Modern records tell us the temperature at multiple times each day.

      Records 1000 years ago MIGHT tell us some approximation of the average temperature for the year – if our proxy is not tracking something else – which is the real meaning of “hide the decline” – Mann’s proxys failed to track temparature in the modern era – therefore they can not be trusted in the distant past.

      But lets go back 10000 years – now we will be lucky to have the average temperature for a single location for a decade – not a day, not a year, but the average for a decade.

      Further it become 100 years.

      Warmist keep telling us that the modern temperature increase has never occurred before in the earths history. How can they possibly know ?

      They can’t. It is that simple. Theres is no proxy that is sufficiently fine grained to do so

      Please do not try to sell me paleo nonsense.

    2. David, you are hiding behind gross generalities and occasional specifics that do not directly apply to the argument at hand. Never do you attack Jon’s argument directly with data to prove him wrong, nor do the specifics you provide relate to one another so that you create an acceptable argument.

      1. He seems to think there is a meaningful distinction between one form of non-linearity and another,
        When all that matters is HIS hypothesis requires non-linear increases in energy, and at the very best we have linear increases.
        He also fails to grasp the obvious – that absent those non-linear energy increases – his own scientific arguments will result in ever diminishing warming,

        Regardless, the energy argument is a plausible explanation for WHY HIS thesis has failed.
        But reality shows it to have failed – finding an explanation is 2ndary.

  8. John Say — ECS is certainly not a GCM input. And actually, the usual model derived value is likely to be too small from paleoclimate data. No matter, I gave you a link to Back to the Future which you obviously failed to read, much less study.

    Your understanding of GCM climate models is deficient. All the problems you mention were well understood no later than the 1970s when I visited NCAR in Boulder. There is a book about how to design a GCM. It’s not what you think.

  9. John Say, my computing experience began in 1956. Your understanding of the GCM climate models is obviously seriously lacking. I have already pointed you to another way to project into the future.

    All the texts make no use of computers, but does require study on your part. You can make it harder for yourself by avoiding Wikipedia. I have suggested a text that you might work up to.

    A place to start is the Start Here section of Real Climate. Overcome your blind prejudice to give it a try.

    1. “John Say, my computing experience began in 1956.”
      Oh Really ? Any you are going to tell me you were personal friends with Grace Hopper ?

      “Your understanding of the GCM climate models is obviously seriously lacking.”
      False and irrelevant.

      They fail to forecast they error is greater than 2 std dev.

      “I have already pointed you to another way to project into the future.”
      There is none.

      “All the texts make no use of computers”
      Did not say they did – you can read the equations for decrypting DES – you can not do it yourself.

      ” but does require study on your part. You can make it harder for yourself by avoiding Wikipedia. I have suggested a text that you might work up to.”

      When you are able to make an actual argument then you will have the tiniest bit of credibility.
      So far you have none.

      “A place to start is the Start Here section of Real Climate.”
      God no!

      AKA Real Propoganda.

  10. And on the other matter, the Texas COVID-19 death rate has recently gone way up according to Worldometer.

    1. Yes, there has been a very slight increase in the death rate in TX,

      That is consistent with opening the economy. It is not consistent with the dramatic increase in new cases.

      Total deaths for the entire state of TX TODATE which has a population 50% larger than NY is less than tree days of deaths in NY in april.
      TX had 100 new deaths yesterday. NY where C19 is clearly just about burned out and has killed more than 10 times as many people as in TX had 32.

      When TX is having 1500 new deaths a day – the equivalent to NY in April then you can tell me how bad TX is .

  11. John Say, you continue to misspell the names.

    This doubling is an approximation to the behavior of the heat trapping gases. It certainly does not lead to quadratic behavior!

    This is explained in most elementary books on climatology. Probably on Wikipedia as well. Maybe you should study one of those choices.

    1. “This doubling is an approximation to the behavior of the heat trapping gases.”

      heat == energy.

      ” It certainly does not lead to quadratic behavior!”
      Not only DOES it, it is tautological.

      “This is explained in most elementary books on climatology. Probably on Wikipedia as well. Maybe you should study one of those choices.”

      Back to ambiguous appeals to authority.

      You do not seem to grasp – you have thus far failed to demonstrate that YOU have ever read anything about climatology.

      You are an adult – make your argument yourself.

      If you can not do so – there is no reason to trust your authorities.

      Like all left wingnuts you seem to think that your dogmatic but unprovable claims to rightness, entitle you to make demands of others.

      While I am reading your tomes on Climate – Must I read marx too ?

      I have made my arguments.

      I have done so MYSELF. I have provided facts – which so far you have not actually disputed – the models are wrong – obviously.
      Your response so far has been the GCM’s are only a part of climatology.
      That is correct – they are the part – the ONLY part, that concludes there is a problem requiring radical changes to human life.

      You refences myriads of published works. Knowing an infinite amount about climatology will not solve the fundimental problem that the mathematics of climate is many many orders of magnitude more complex than any human can handle.

      I have pointed out to you that decryption of modern cyphers – which is actually a simpler mathematical process than climate is beyond the ability of humans – and has been since WWII Either of us can thoroughly study DES, but neither of us stand a snowballs chance of decyphering anything DES encrpted on our own. In fact neither of us could manually decipher something encrypted with Enigma – which is orders of magnitude simpler still .

      You can know absolutely everything their is to know about atmospheric physics. and climate. And any prediction you make would still be just a guess – exactly like guessing the plain text of an encrypted message.

      You keep demanding that I learn something – that I doubt you actually know yourself, that should I master would still not answer the question will the earth be warmed in 2100.
      That can not be answered by humans. None of the reading in the world will change that. Just as you will never be able to decypher DES without a computer – no matter how many books on crptography you read.

      The fundimental errors of warmist are NOT with the science. They are with the failure to replicate to reality.

  12. John Say, I know a substantial body of science. After whatever preliminaries you require, study “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert. Through chapter 6 suffices.

    But at this juncture I doubt that you are capable of doing so. Surprise me.

    1. “John Say, I know a substantial body of science. ”
      Not that you have demonstrated so far.

      “After whatever preliminaries you require, study “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert. Through chapter 6 suffices.”

      Why ?you have not as of yet demonstrated the knowledge you claim to have, the ability to make an argument.
      The ability to defend you posistion on anything, Any fundimental knowlege of physics or climate science.

      Your response to any argument demonstrates no actual knowledge of your own. Aside from being able to find a reading list that based on your own lack of crediblity no one in their right mind would trust.

      “But at this juncture I doubt that you are capable of doing so. Surprise me.”

      I have no interest in doing so. I have read alot of “climate science”.

      based on evidence of your and my posts – far more than you have.

      You still do not grasp that appeals to ambiguous authorities are not arguments.

      You want me to take an interest in your purported authorities – then persuade me that YOU know what you are talking about.

      I have read an enormous amount on myriads of subjects. I have a very long reading list already – you want me to add something to it – YOU need to persuade me that it has some value – thus far you have failed miserably.

  13. John Say, I regularly use Wikipedia for climatology. I have yet to discover a serious error which isn’t promptly corrected by referring the editors to the relevant peer reviewed literature.

    Maybe happened twice.

    One can credit Wm Connelly for having established procedures so that the climatology pages of Wikipedia are in excellent condition.

    But I already pointed you to the Start Here page which you clearly badly need.

    Or remain completely befuddled, your choice.

    1. DBB – I’ve been thinking of two words that past few days, 72 hr, roughly.

      Tumultuous Tornadoes. Idk why, it is silliest thing. Said it to my roommate, and got a very strange look.

      I think it is the year of the rat, and Tumultuous Tornadoes.

    2. “John Say, I regularly use Wikipedia for climatology.”
      Your mistake.

      “I have yet to discover a serious error which isn’t promptly corrected by referring the editors to the relevant peer reviewed literature.”
      That is correct – the wikipedia editors will immediatre “correct” any challenge to warmist dogma.

      Once again – religion not science.

      “One can credit Wm Connelly for having established procedures so that the climatology pages of Wikipedia are in excellent condition.”

      As noted before – any controversial subject on Wikipedia gets owned by some form of ideologues.
      Even subjects many of us have no clue what the controversy is.

      The very fact that you have “established procedures” is already the problem.
      Though this does occur outside the left,
      It is far more common there.
      One every issue the left considers disagreement to be heresy and the result is censorship.
      This model permeates the entire left.
      Interestingly claims of heresy and censorship and banishment are more ferverently applied to slightly deviant alocytes than to those in complete opposition.

      Judith Curry saw the light on the climate cabal when the ClimateGate emails revealed that not only were the high priests sensoring the skeprics, they were even more rigorously censoring purported beleivers who even unwittingly produced results slightly outside the fold.

      Science can not work without dissent. Society can not work with censorship.

      Wikipedias Climate pages are not in “excellent condiction” – they are the dogma of a religion, nothing more.

      You have failed repeatedly to address problems that would be obvious even to Greta Thunberg were she not indoctrinated rather than eduicated.

      1. John, the Wikipedia page on Scientific consensus on climate change which I have repeatedly posted – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change – summarizes with footnotes and links the consensus of the entire world’s climate scientists (98%) and every National Academy of Science and relevant scientific organization in the world, the latter with no exceptions, on the subject. You can verify for yourself by following those links that Wikipedia is not falsifying the information to satisfy “warmists” – what a joke. You can then calculate from that your monumental arrogance and therefore ignorance to presume to know what they don’t.

        As to engineers and scientists, yes, everyone can tell when a building falls down. That is easy. They may not read early signs of failure in a building, some of which may render it unfit for occupancy while it stands. More importantly, the climate, unlike buildings is always changing, as well as vastly more complex and with innumerable facets which may reflect or not symptoms which may prove problematic for human habitation in our current state. I think we can agree that laymen would have trouble identifying building failure short of collapse and even more trouble with climate approaching change we may not welcome.

        As to the latter, in another post you claimed warm weather is good, so no problem if the cljmate is changing without considering that change may come faster than our population of 7 billion humans may be able to adapt to without possibly catastrophic strife – we do have impressive weapons systems now. From changing waterfronts to shifting of arable lands without regard to long standing human habitation patterns and political boundaries and possibly less arable land in total, it’s high risk gamble with no assurance of any gain. We may have to face it, but welcoming it is for fools.

        1. “John, the Wikipedia page on Scientific consensus on climate change which I have repeatedly posted”

          That is correct, you have repeatedly posted from a source were every single controversial topic is religiously censored by the left,

          And you remain under the delusion that concensus and science have anything to do with each other.

          We do not get a vote on how warm the planet will be next year.

          1. John your answer is non-responsive and therefore an admission of the failure of your previous assertion., Just repeating it does not somehow confirm it.

            Here, try again and this time please try to explain how adults of sound mind would pay any attention to your claims given that over 98% of expert scientists in the field, every National Academy of Sciences in the world, and every relevant association of scientists in the world without exception says you’re full of s…. and don;t know what you are talking about. That’s a paraphrase of course.

            You can review their positions here:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

            1. “John your answer is non-responsive and therefore an admission of the failure of your previous assertion.”

              Irrelevant and false.

              “Just repeating it does not somehow confirm it.”
              The response to repetitions appleas to bad authority is pretty much by definition going to be repetitious

              A fallacy is a fallacy – no matter how many times you offer it.

              Make your case – use your words.
              If you can not do so credibly – why should I chase down what you cite ?

              If you can not make an argument for your own position – Why should I beleive that some random link you have provided
              us worth reading ?

              Authority works both ways.
              If you can not defend your own arguments – why should I waste time with those who indoctrinated you ?

              At the Core – the CAGW thesis has FAILED. There is no rationalizing that away.
              We are well outside the envelope where there is any reason to expect that the Climate models will self correct,
              and there is no plausible explanation for the deviation between them and reality.

              It is entirely possible that the error is technical rather than theoretical – it could be as simple as an incorrect coefficient.

              Whatever the error – the results are still the same – there is no scientific reason to beleive the earth will warm catastrophically in the next 80 years.

              Warmists are unwilling to confront this – because their goal is not science.

              Finding out that the basic science may be solid – but the margnitude of CO2 driven warming is 1/10 what is projected, would have massive consequences.
              It would end the effort to attempt to use faux science to central plan the world.
              Possibly worse it would end the massive funding of Climate scientists – because there is no good reason to spend billions to find out that the earth will probably be less than 1C warmer in 2100.

              “Here, try again and this time please try to explain how adults of sound mind would pay any attention to your claims given that over 98% of expert scientists in the field, every National Academy of Sciences in the world, and every relevant association of scientists in the world without exception says you’re full of s…. and don;t know what you are talking about. That’s a paraphrase of course.

              You can review their positions here:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

              Still the same repetitious and fallacious appeal to authority.

              I am not making a “claim”. I have stated a fact – the behavior of the real world has NOT conformed to your thesis.
              Wishing that were not so does not change the fact.
              An army of alcolytes does not change that.

              You are behaving like a religious zealot not a scientist.

              Facts are what they are – they do not care about your beleif.

    3. Not even slightly befuddled.

      I suspect I have read far more warmest drivel than you. Have you ever read any of the IPCC reports – not the political summaries – but the actual reports. The discrepancies between those and what is publicly sold alone should be enough for you to grasp you are in a religion not science.

      The IPCC reports are wrong – but not horribly, fundamentally they do not support any claijm that there is a catastrophe that needs addressed – outside the summary for policy makers where the revert to theology.

      Regardless, beleif in CAGW is an IQ test. Especially today, and you failed.

  14. John Say, that doesn’t explain why the ozone holes occur at the poles. Now it is possible to go learn this, but so far you only demonstrate rigid ignorance.

    Try a book on atmospheric physics, as I previously suggested.

    1. Sorry Benson, but if you and John Say were in a debate competition, you just got smoked by John Say. He’s correct in his observations about your lack of skill in making an argument.

    2. “John Say, that doesn’t explain why the ozone holes occur at the poles. Now it is possible to go learn this, but so far you only demonstrate rigid ignorance.”

      Actually it does explain exactly why the ozone hole is approximately at the south pole, and why it corelates perfectly with solar cosmic ray levels.

      Conversely you have nothing but magic to get CFC’s from primarily the northern hemisphere way up into the upper atmostphere and then concentrated near the south pole.

      You claim that near perfect atmospheric mixing within 2 years explains that – but it does not, it completely contradicts it.

      I do not need a book to tell me your not only on the wrong side of occams razor – but your own the wrong side of your own claims of atmospheric physics.

      Why is it that you are demanding to do unpaid research to determine what is self evident – either you are litterally in error because your thesis is wrong – or you completely misunderstand the atmospheric physics you are demanding I consume.

      You argument resolves to a contradiction. Mine does not – the burden of proof is on you.

    3. Benson – Have you read ‘Apocalypse Never,’ by Michael Shellenberger?

      “Environmental issues are frequently confused by conflicting and often extreme views, with both sides fueled to some degree by ideological biases, ignorance and misconceptions. Shellenberger’s balanced and refreshing book delves deeply into a range of environmental issues and exposes misrepresentations by scientists, one-sided distortions by environmental organizations, and biases driven by financial interests. His conclusions are supported by examples, cogent and convincing arguments, facts and source documentation. This may be the most important book on the environment ever written.”

      “If there is one thing we have learned from the coronavirus pandemic, it is that strong passions and polarized politics lead to distortions of science, bad policy, and potentially vast, needless suffering. Are we making the same mistakes with environmental policies? I have long known Michael Shellenberger to be a bold, innovative, and non-partisan pragmatist. He is a lover of the natural world whose main moral commitment is to figure out what will actually work to safeguard it. If you share that mission, you must read Apocalypse Never.”

      https://environmentalprogress.org/praise-for-apocalypse-never#:~:text=%22Apocalypse%20Neveris%20an%20extremely%20important%20book.%20Within%20its,have%20feared%20for%20the%20planet%E2%80%99s%20future%2C%20take%20heart.%E2%80%9D

    1. Why ? No one is debating the Greenhouse effect.

      The issue you keep ducking is that linear increases in global temperatures require exponentially greater energy – hence the requirement that ECS is dt/doubling of CO2.

      We have at best linear increases in energy capture. Even a 5th grader can graph a half parabola on its side.

Leave a Reply