Journal of Applied Corporate Finance publishes an article that pushes back on the ESG of climate change and the “transition” to “net zero” by providing the counter arguments to the “climate change” BS
The chances of politicians and regulators taking this scientific analysis on board and reversing the disastrous course of ever-increasing costs and useless “renewables” is – remote.
They are part of a Cult. (The Cult of Moloch that despises children, the poor, the sick ad the elderly).
From here:
Harry DeAngelo, Judith A. Curry First published: 05 May 2025
https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12665
(h/t The Climate Realism Show here):
A Critique of the Climate Apocalypse with Dr. Judith Curry — The Climate Realism Show #156
Here’s a few snippets that provide the arguments AGAINST the climate change narrative.
“According to the Apocalyptic climate narrative, humanity faces an existential threat from global warming that can be averted only by aggressive suppression of fossil-fuel use. The narrative has been promoted by environmental activists, prominent politicians, and the United Nations for more than three decades and has been accepted as gospel truth by many citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and other wealthy countries.”
“The Apocalyptic climate narrative is a deeply flawed guide for public policies because it:
focuses on the risks/costs of global warming and ignores any benefits from warming and the myriad benefits to humanity from fossil-fuel use.
advocates aggressive near-term suppression of fossil-fuel use without considering the huge costs that such suppression would inflict on humans.
lacks a realistic sense of proportion about the risks/costs from continued global warming, which are manageable, not existential.
This paper details the flaws in the Apocalyptic climate narrative, including why the threat from human-caused climate change is not dire and why urgent suppression of fossil-fuel use would be unwise. We argue that sensible public policies would focus instead on developing a diversified portfolio of energy sources to support greater resilience and flexibility to respond to whatever weather and climate extremes might occur. We identify nine principles for sensible US public policies toward energy and discuss implications of the flaws in the narrative for investors and their agents.”
Section headings:
IS GLOBAL WARMING DANGEROUS?
· Warming over the past 120 years
· Prospective warming over the 21st century
· Tipping points and surprises
FOSSIL-FUEL SUPPRESSION: SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT
· Failure of net-zero policies
· Geopolitical concerns about fossil-fuel suppression
· Moral concerns about fossil-fuel suppression
· Other economic, technological, and social impediments to fossil-fuel suppression
· Bad energy choices
· Ever-growing demand for energy
RATIONAL ENERGY POLICY FOR THE 21st CENTURY
· Implications for public energy policies
· Implications for investors and their agents
BOTTOM LINE: SENSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO NET-ZERO POLICIES
· What would happen if the US enforced a net-zero emissions policy?
· Is it worth it?
· Is an aggressive move to net-zero emissions politically feasible?
· What then should the US do about global warming?
The section on “Implications for public energy policies” contains these policies:
We should not inflict costs on US citizens—reduced overall economic prosperity, constrained individual choice, and diminished national security—by adopting public policies intended to mitigate global warming that will not detectably affect Earth's temperature in the short or long run.
We should not eliminate fossil fuels before we have technologically viable and cost-effective replacements for the critical inputs they provide in the production of food, steel, cement, plastics, and electricity.
We should use “carrots” to foster investment in innovation in energy, materials science, and agricultural science, as well as in the ability of humans to adapt to a changing climate.
We should not use “sticks” to punish consumption that generates greenhouse gasses (e.g., banning gas stoves, jet travel, internal combustion engines, and non-vegan food), while having no material effect on temperatures now or in the long run.
We should cultivate clean energy (to reduce air pollution) and energy independence (for national defense and economic security reasons) with a diversified set of reliable energy sources to hedge the risks of adverse “unknown unknowns” in the evolution of our political, economic, and physical environments.
We should put major emphasis on the resuscitation (and refined development) of nuclear power, which is at least as safe as solar and wind and far safer than coal and oil (based on comparisons of death rates due to both accidents and air pollution per unit of electricity generated).
We should not focus narrowly on solar panels, wind turbines, and biofuels. Solar and wind are problematic because of their (i) unreliability and consequent need for a stand-by power system, (ii) low energy density and consequent massive land requirements to deliver energy at scale, and (iii) negative externalities (e.g., from rare-earth mining to produce batteries to address the unreliability problem). Biofuel emissions are at least as bad as gasoline, while biofuel production uses massive amounts of cropland and played a significant role in three major food crises in the last 20 years.
We should not engage in backdoor regulation of fossil-fuel use by the Federal Reserve (through bank oversight) and the SEC (through ESG empowerment) that will warp the allocation of investment capital.
We should not use our power to impose credit policies toward developing countries (e.g., by the World Bank) that discourage fossil-fuel-based projects and thereby make it more difficult for world's poorest people to elevate themselves out of poverty.
Check it out!
Please take a subscription to gain access to the thousands of hours of research that go into producing these SubStack articles - or make a donation of $3 bucks or more for a ko-fi here:
Onwards!!!
Excellent!
.
Hudson's Razor: "Anything presented as a global crisis, admitting only global solutions, amid silencing of dissenting voices, is definitively a scam. The agenda behind the scam is centralisation, itself a scam."
https://theylied.substack.com/p/theylied-if-any-problem-is-being
.
They Lied. Join the campaign to aise Public Awareness
https://theylied.ca/SpreadTheWord.shtml
.
and Take Action
https://theylied.ca/TakeAction.shtml
.
This piece promotes Judith Curry’s critique of mainstream climate science, but it’s important to put her views in context. Curry emphasizes uncertainty and downplays risk, but this contrasts sharply with the conclusions of the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and virtually every major climate science institution. These bodies find, with high confidence, that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant driver of recent global warming.
Uncertainty in science doesn’t mean we know nothing—it means we’ve quantified the range of outcomes. And in climate science, that range overwhelmingly supports taking action to limit emissions. Overstating uncertainty, as Curry tends to do, can be just as misleading as overstating certainty.
Critiques of “apocalyptic” rhetoric are fair, but denying or minimizing the real, documented risks of climate change—especially when backed by fossil fuel–friendly platforms—serves to delay action, not improve the science.