John Gray: Net Zero and the age of absurdity 

Here from Germany, the green policies are hysterical.

‘Net Zero’ means exactly that - Nothing

I now live in the US and have lived in Asia. In general, I am shocked about the amount of propaganda in the UK media and the level of groupthink that exists. Orwell would have been impressed. When I return to the UK most people seem to have been brainwashed, especially on net zero. I have developed and financed energy projects in Europe, North America, and Asia. Net zero makes no sense for the UK. It produces less than 1% of global CO2, whatever Britain does makes no difference, net zero will just make ordinary people poorer. Elites can be replaced, I was in Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall down and spoke to ex-communists who were once in powerful positions. John Gray is probably right, the people could rebel, if they conclude that the people making the decisions are clowns.

Imagine all that money going towards strengthening public services, schools, hospitals... cleaning our waters, getting our kids into science, building houses, upgrade houses to make them more energy efficient, invest in technologies and innovation etc... but nooooo ...

I think if we are serious about net zero then a top down approach is the way to go. No private jets, no superyachts, two cars only, no multiple residences etc. They talk of a trickle down effect so let us put it to use here.

"The green movement " wants to starve the planet of plant food. All in the name of saving it.

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.

Just wait. Netflix will change their name to ‘Netzero.’

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.

I'm far more concerned with harmful chemicals in our air and water, co2 is plant food.

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.

They've been saying since the 1970s that the oceans are rising, yet all this land at sea level is still there!

As Mark Mills has pointed out, the Green movement paid no attention to the extreme environmental damage that almost certainly will result from mining the raw materials that are mandatory to achieve “net zero” and the massive amount of GHG that will (not might) be emitted from processing and refining. Plus, no plan for necessary recycling, which also will have environmental consequences. In other words, “net zero” is an aspiration with neither plan nor consideration of risk. It depends almost totally on the human element known as Hopeium.

Not sure he's correct at the beginning there. Lovelock originally predicted billions of deaths and the small remnants of humanity surviving only by moving to the Arctic. In an interview in 2012, a telephone interview with MSNBC, he said, “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

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.

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

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.

John Gray tells us that James Lovelock said that "climate science underestimates the changes in the climate". In a strong sense, there's no such thing as Climate Science if we treat it as a Platonic form or if we personify it. Instead, climate science is made up of around a dozen separate scientific disciplines, many institutions, many university departments, many journals and numerous scientists. Thus, it hardly makes to say, "Climate sciences says..." or "Climate science underestimates...".... These things can justifiably be said about certain very precise and circumscribed scientific disciplines, but not "climate science" - which was hardly referred to at all until the 1970s or even later than that.

“I’m not a climate sceptic. …” Stop right there. He’s a *believer*! Well, that’s the cult of psyence for you.

Anything initiated by the government should be independently analysed. 1, All government policy on this subject is to tax you more and create the illusion of doom. 2, No government policy gives the people money. 3, The climate is always changing but the one argument you will not hear about is population. Less people, less demand on resourses, not rocket science. 4, Wind farms cost, electric vehicle infrastructure costs. 5, No CO2 no food. The only reason there is life on earth is because of CO2. 6, The most sensible route to net zero, if that is the plan, is to create something that stores immence amounts of CO2 and returns oxygen as a by product and that is to plant forests, mixed native species. This of course does not earn the corrupt government back handers from solar and wind organisations. 7, Dr Patrick moore and some of his independant scholars state that there is a derth of CO2 but they are never consulted. 8, The only purpose of government is to win power over the people because it is lucrative, period. They have not got your best interests at heart, that is an illusion.

There is no climate crisis...the end😮

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

The net zero approach is tragic. We should focus on preserving what is left of the Amazon rainforest. I am convinced that has infinite more influence on the climate. I have been kind of an environmentalist and did my share of not poluting the earth within what is possible. But now I think: I don't want to be a part of this lunacy.

Net Zero = less of us

5 years ago we were warned we wouldn't be here today. Ten years ago we were warned of runaway sea level rise 30 years ago we were told the Maldives would be under water In the past 30 years, the population of the Maldives has doubled, and Banks are lending for erecting seafront buildings The sea level in the Firth of Forth hasn't changed. The tide gauges around Scotland show some rise and some fall. When are we going to ignore the fearmongering

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.

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.

"4% of all carbon dioxide emissions (worldwide) come from human activity. The other 97% is natural. So if you can prove that the 4% of human carbon emissions, does cause climate change. You've also got to prove that the 97% of natural carbon emissions, does not cause climate change." - Professor Ian Plimer

One of the signs of the age of absurdity for me was the way Boris Johnson was ousted from the office. He wasn't ousted for any of his catastrophic policies (Net Zero, lockdowns, etc). Labour, Lib Dem and most of the Tory party wanted even more of those policies.

0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2.

One of the best, most reasonable, balanced, rational conversations I've viewed in a long time even on this channel. Excellent.

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.

Mao's great leap forward ( no tech and no infrastructure ) and his cultural revolution ( mobilization of the ignorant to dominate the debate and vandalism ) combined

Higher CO2 is a blessing, it greens the planet. CO2 level was too low for optimal plant growth. Its still low, but its getting better.

The models cannot even be made to match the past 30 year of actual results. They are all over stating the likely outcomes.

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

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.

The question is, who is benefiting the most from the “climate change”craze? Who is doing the opposite of those trying to eliminate fossil fuels and building approximately 4 coal power plants a month and several nuclear power plants? They also are supplying most of the solar panels and control most of the critical raw materials for batteries and wind power generators. CHINA!

I keep hearing politicians, select scientists, and NGO's state that we are approaching run away global warming. Aside from climate models, what indicator is providing these groups with the justification to make these alarmist claims?

We have been in an Age of Absurdity for around 30 years. I woke up to it about 20 years ago. But at least John Gray, someone with a platform, is stating the fact openly.

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.

Cringeworthy .... the models have been proven to be wrong time and time and .... time again. When the people peddling the sea level rising scares are buying sea front properties quite literally AT SEA LEVEL, then you know they are lying about something. Still yet to see the poles shrink and any actual statistically significant extreme weather events. A casual glance at the data is sufficient to see if anything, things have gotten better. What has intensified is the reporting of events that we would once have never have heard about.

What a breath of fresh air he is, pragmatic, realistic of limitations & the sad state of our political leaders & the revolts required to dethrone the madness! Love this man can we elect him … can’t get worst right & he’s funny ❤

A new study which has been published on MDPI at 13 September 2023 showed that it is very difficult to maintain the popular causality between temperature and CO2. According to the authors the causal link between temperature and CO2 makes a compelling narrative as everything is blamed on a single cause, the human CO2 emissions. Indeed, this has been the popular narrative for decades. However, popularity does not necessarily mean correctness, and here they have provided strong arguments against this assumption. Now these scientists have identified atmospheric temperature as the cause and atmospheric CO2 concentration as the effect, one may be tempted to ask the question: What is the cause of the modern increase in temperature? Apparently, this question is much more difficult to reply to as it can no longer attribute everything to any single agent.

I’m not so sure climate change is primarily human caused anymore. Most of my life I have but I’m realising how tiny how output is compared with the sun and how impossible climate science is to do. Not saying we don’t need to chill at and stop polluting but I’m sick of how similar environmentalists have become to the Catholic Church with original sin and the apocalypse and the endless tolls for you soul. We have the same model with new metaphysics

John Gray just delivered some inconvenient truth bombs. It’s pure copium, however, to suggest that an alternate multiparty system will make any positive difference. All anybody has is adaptation…so enjoy it while you still can.

Net zero means billions less people. They are salivating at this.

Oh my Goodness! Finally someone talking sense!! We need a working Transition, not Green fascism! Start with free working public transport, if you want to get people out of their cars! Its a public Good & will actually cut polution!🌏💛 🕊🕊🕊

When a battery stops being useful the components can never be a battery again , what percentage of the work a battery can do in its life needs to go into replacing it ?

Don't necessarily agree with all of his points of view, but it's very refreshing to listen to someone without ingrained ideological belief. ...

Excellent as always. The normalisation of civil disobedience starts to feel like a poll tax moment.

Climate Change could happen quite suddenly, but it will not be because of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. What is far more remarkable is quite how little the climate does change. If it has changed during my lifetime then I have certainly not noticed any change at all which is already over 60 years. Given the way we are supposed to understand this planet and how it came into existence our world's climate has remained incredibly stable for many thousands of years. This is in spite of many enormous volcanic eruptions and Earthquakes and while apparently, we are periodically becoming closer and farther away from the Sun, moving in many different directions around the galaxy at the same time at fantastic speeds. Logic would seem to dictate that we all should have either fried or frozen to death many millions of years ago and never returned. The self-important arrogance in believing that silly and insignificant mankind can either destroy or save this planet is breathtaking to observe. Yes, we can make a big mess of some otherwise very nice parts of it, but notably increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 we produce will have nothing to do with anything except perhaps make this world more productive and a better place to live for everyone. Net Zero on the other hand will undoubtedly produce masses of murderous poverty around the world and so is the greatest threat to common humanity since the invention of nuclear weapons.

Every time some alarmist present you "evidence", you should try to look for the signs of manipulation. Scaled up graphs, color schemes, tricks with comparisons, the cherry picking of periods, the wording, and so on. Then also question, what data is the base of the claims (details matter a lot), as your can proove just about anything by picking the right data; and on top of that be aware that almost all the data are not actual temperature measurements, they are many varieties of data manipulation such as approximation, averaging and picking, combined with models and other theoretical additions. There are many things to pick from to invent your "proof", ice cores, tree rings, upper/lower atmosphere, tropical, arctic, localized, sea temperature, many of these are modelled not actual observations. Also localized data is often used, for example "the hottest day since we began measuring" can mean, this weather station was set up in 2005 and this is the hottest it has ever recorded (which isn't factually false, but the message is); or it can be that there was the hottest over a cherry picked period (still local). Also all the places where there has been colder than usual, do you ever hear about those ? they are the ones that pull down the average (global) temperature and the reason we are factually not seing alarming global temperature rise. Also check your own bias, are you one of those who think because you remember your childhood having cold winters and this one there were hardly any snow, and use that as proof ? It is not scientific, it is not proof, and it might not even be correct because our memory is far from reliable. Climate alarmism is not science and certainly not fact. It is a data manipulation business, they are starting with the conclusion and creating and picking data to support it. Most of it is easily debunkable, with all kinds of holes in the logic and conclusions, some is somewhat plausable as a theory but lack enough knowledge to be considered proof. With the amount and size of lies and manipulations you will catch them in if you start paying attention to details and counter arguments; your fraud alarm bells should be ringing loudly .. the same alarm bells that rings when the Nigerian prince wants to give you all his money locked away in a bank account.

"I'm not a climate skeptic, I'm a disciple in that regard." - a religious philosopher

Fact: Humans can't predict the weather three months out.

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.

Freddie looks younger each time I tune in. It's very disheartening for the rest of us😂

Climate has always changed for better or worse. We just have to adapt, ourselves, as individuals. The technocrats and politicians aint gonna ‘solve’ shit. Humans have endured climatic extremes for millennia and thrived. Lets just move on.

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

What about my personal experience that the climate has not changed? Ignore that? Really? Well, no.

This is where me and friends who used to care so much about global warming are, the proposed solutions are garbage... I guess we are further, we don't care anymore and we get annoyed by those who insist on calling this an emergency.

Our rush to be the first country to achieve net zero has resulted in vertually nothing is made in England anymore. Trying to find clothes ,shoes furniture that's affordable will result in them beimade elsewhere.

All the clear, quantified, and solvable problems in this world, and here we are obsessing over the implausible scenario of "runaway climate change".

Finally someone being honest. Adapt or die🇨🇦

I’ve been searching daily for Gray’s name in RU-vid since The New Leviathans came out

This was an outstanding clip. Freddie, please can you do a show on The Longhouse? A number of guests come to mind.

The climate is always changing, with or without man’s influence. Co2 levels have been far higher in the past, as regards to warming, if you build a big concrete city where there was once a forest you will definitely change the temperature in that zone, whether man can change the temperature of the earth is debatable. Also, we can’t predict the weather 10 days ahead so we have no chance of predicting CLIMATE years into the future full stop.

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.

John Gray has absolutely hit the nail on the head: this is another form of irrational Abolitionism.

Perhaps the risk of World War III down the road might be a much more urgent and easer issue to address.

Couldn't agree more with this. I live in Norway and with more authoritarian control policies on the way it's more about appearing to do something rather than anything else. Green washing and as always it's the low income people thats affected the most.

We plebs are actually the carbon which red-green fascists want a final solution for...

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.

If the world was burning you wouldn't need to turn down your heating because you'd have no need for heating!

Firstly the world is not burning. Second we can Adapt and survive. Governments are prepared to sacrifice people alive now for someone who might exist in the future.

We didnt stop it, we cant effect it. The politics of narcissism is a good term though

Great comments. We need to prepare our country for the changes that could envelope us because our 1% contribution to the problem if we eliminated it would not stop our country being overwhelmed. We need to protect ourselves not try to solve the problem. It's just a waste of real effort.

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.

first question presumes we are able to 'look back'. i doubt we will either be able to look back, or be 'allowed' to laugh at certain subjects by a future date - given where we are all be herded towards. if you havent noticed there is no logic or science today - everything is driven top down with certain goals in mind, with nothing being properly considered.

Really interesting and refreshingly new take on a serious problem; wide ranging and concise! Thank you.

2:33 Wind turbine sure is job creative because of the upkeep. I remember dozens of employees picking up pieces of paper in the English subway stations or taking in used tickets one by one just to provide for employment. Surely the cost was not comparable with the output.

Bang on. Great insights.

we are at dangerously low levels of CO2 as it is. were at .043% and plants stop growing at .03%. That would wipe out humanity.

John Nicholas Gray is an English political philosopher and author with interests in analytic philosophy, the history of ideas, and philosophical pessimism. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has written several books on politics and philosophy, including False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998), which argues that free market globalization is unstable and is in the process of collapsing, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2003), which attacks philosophical humanism, a worldview which Gray sees as originating in religious ideologies, and Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007), a critique of Utopian thinking in the modern world. Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life. Gray writes that 'humans ... cannot destroy the Earth, but they can easily wreck the environment that sustains them.'

Carbon does not control climate...carbon is life...thinking humans can control climate is the ultimate in egotistical narcissism.

The issue with the models isn’t whether they are underestimating or overestimating climate change….it’s that without the empirical measurement you suggested they aren’t scientific at all. The scientific method is *not* rooted in models alone (whether hypotheses OR predictive tools) but rather on empirical confirmation of models. Without this, you simply don’t have science. Further, there must be a more rigorous attempt to stabilize our measurements temporally (to account for measurement device variation, urban heat island zones, changes in emissivity, etc.) or our attempts at empirical confirmation will be skewed.

Here's a ChatGPT summary: - The speaker is skeptical about the effectiveness of net zero plans and conventional green policies. - The infrastructure and technology necessary for these policies were not in place when they were launched. - Many of the raw materials needed for green initiatives are controlled by China and Africa. - The economic costs of green programs were not properly assessed. - The speaker believes that focusing on adaptation rather than mitigation is necessary. - The speaker suggests that runaway climate change may already be happening and cannot be stopped. - The speaker criticizes the reliance on models and the lack of empirical data in climate science. - Technocratic pragmatism is ineffective and disrupts the lives and incomes of many people. - The speaker predicts that the implementation of green policies may lead to social unrest and riots. - The speaker suggests that electoral reform and the creation of new political parties may be a solution.

Interesting, but he gets two huge things wrong in his attack on mainstream climate policy. 1. Renewables are good for jobs. According to the 2019 U.S. Energy & Employment Report, in 2018 there were 2.4 million jobs in clean energy generation and energy efficiency, compared to half that many in fossil energy production. This is great for the economy, the climate and the political legitimacy of climate action, and the dramatic efficiency gains of renewables in the last decade have been driven by massive investment encouraged by governments. 2. It makes a massive difference whether or not we reduce (or increase!) emissions. Clearly much warming is locked in, but how much and how fast? That's up to us. Adaptation is a secondary consideration; after all, how far should coastal communities retreat to escape rising seas, if we never stop making them rise? What other impacts should we adapt to? If we never mitigate then we will have to adapt forever until it's not possible any more and civilisation itself becomes impossible.

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.

Gray self-indulgently throws opinions around like confetti. It's really tiresome. He's like that know-it-all guy in the pub who's always boring people with his views on every conceivable topic.

Such a joy to hear some talk sense and drop the nonsensical group and camp think. Narcissistic self righteousness is an expression of helplessness. And we have seen in the past which dynamics can be triggered, if enough fuel is given to that fire. It needs more adults. And that requires the young asking the questions, the older to listen and get inspired to explore together and then lead decision making.

At 2019 levels it will take 100 to 1000's of years to mine enough minerals to go net zero by... 2050.

The Guardian....about the new book..... "The philosopher falls back on generalities and sketches of oddballs in his latest, sometimes frenzied assault on liberalism and humanity" Me......must check this out :) , "The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths" was great uplifting fun

What is the economic cost of planned obsolescence and economists ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods?

It is quite unlikely that we experience runaway climate change. Most of the trends in climate sensitivity assessments in peer reviewed literature are actually toward lower levels. This year's big climate events weren't mainly driven by climate change, but instead by an extremely unusual ENSO condition.

David Starkey, then Lord Sumption now John Gray all calling for Proportional Representation. It’s the only way we will get any change now.

I think there's a lot of poorly tied together ideas here. Channeling all the money toward 'adaptation' leaves us doing that forever. Germany dismantling nuclear was a terrible idea that has very little to do with net zero. The idea that decreasing carbon emissions makes no difference conflicts with the UN predictions that we _can_ choose between a 1.5C or 4C future - the difference between those will be great. And the idea that the technologies to address carbon don't exist is nonsense. Many countries are already moving towards that in sigificant ways, though not fast enough. Investments in renewable energy can pay dividends even when we disregard the goal of addressing climate change. We're no longer reliant on foriegn countries controlling fossil fuel supplies. And the technology isn't standing still. The more we invest, the cheaper it gets.

This guy thinks Gullible Warming is real. That tells you all you need to know.

Apparently, here in the UK, wind turbines are going to get so cheap, they only need electricity prices to rise by 70% to pay for them! Mmm, bargain. Friday morning when I got up, it was pitch dark, so no input from solar, and zero wind (so heavy mist). Contribution from these two was therefore zero. That must be the Net Zero I hear so much about. There cannot be runaway climate change - the climate system works on negative feedbacks.

Agree with some of what Gray says, but totally disagree with runaway climate change due to human induced factors. Overall, he didn't make a great deal of sense. Anyone who can't pronounce nuclear (says NuKuLar) clearly can't think clearly!!!😂 He keeps saying we underestimate the rate of climate change, when the data is crystal clear that our models have significantly overestimated reality. Spending money on adapting to climate change rather than wasting money on net zero is pretty much the only thing I really agreed with.