>He admits climate change is real and we need to do something about it... but the main problem is the media, which is trying to claim climate change is real and

>He admits climate change is real and we need to do something about it... but the main problem is the media, which is trying to claim climate change is real and we need to do something about it, but they are too scary about it. My understanding of it is a bit different. He disagrees with the impact of climate change as described by mass media. He also disagrees with how the problem should be addressed. In my opinion there is definitely a lot of hyperbole in describing climate change consequences as well as talking about what can be done to deal with it. One example is the "green new deal" proposed by few US senators. It aims to amongst other things replace all internal combustion cars in US, replace _all_ power generation with renewables and to make _all_ buildings in US net zero emissions in next 12 years. This is clearly impossible, but it goes on, one of the many goals for those 12 years in addition to replacing all the vehicles and upgrading all buildings in US is "jobs with guaranteed living wage provided to everyone by the federal government". There are other things in there (single payer healthcare etc) that could be achieved, but by lumping them into one document with impossibilities authors ensure none of them will actually be achieved. Bear in mind this is not a wish list, or some sort of statement of direction. That would be fine. It is fairly normal to aim high when setting overall strategies, but this proposal is something that would be put into law and would be expected to be fulfilled in 100%. If this is not the best example of applied climate change hysteria I don't know what is.