Probably the biggest trap this whole climate movement fell into is the idea that "if we don't act now, we are all going to die soon":

Without getting into the scientific debate about climate change, it should be obvious to anyone with some common sense how ridiculous it is to make long-term predictions when it comes to human affairs.

A big part of today's confusion about climate change is that many people don't distinguish between the 'CO2 is an evil toxin' narrative and real environmental issues such as pollution, the killing of endangered species and the general wastefulness and rampant consumerism that destroy mother nature. All environmental concerns somehow get mixed up with climate change.

Say what you will about the leftist movement of the 60ies, but these people at least were up against the authorities of the time and risked something by joining the movement. Not so today's 'climate activists', who pretty much tout the party line and are showered with praise by the powers-that-be, from politicians to celebrities to the pope.

Bjorn Lomborg has often made that point, and it's an excellent one: of all people, climate alarmists should understand that our resources are limited. This is true, of course, for government resources as well.

One of the things that irks me most about climate activists is that for them, it's always others who have to give up things to save the climate, never themselves.

Economic growth and CO2 emissions are tightly correlated. This means that if you want to reduce those emissions, you need to fight against economic growth.

Hysteria on a political level can only lead to catastrophe: if you are convinced that we are all going to die if we don't take extreme measures now, then the end justifies every means.

Germany is often presented as a shining example of a successful transition to renewable energy.

Science is great. However, whenever science gets entangled with powerful political causes or financial interests, or both, a healthy amount of skepticism is always a good idea.