With the abrupt departure of their woke editor to go birdwatching, we wondered if Scientific Alarmism might get back to the business of reporting on science. But no, the climate obsession rages unchecked. Including a piece that says “Fast fashion also has a growing impact on the global climate. It is responsible for an estimated 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and its emissions are projected to grow quickly as the industry expands.” And if you believe one small slice of fashion, or so we hope, emits 10% of GHGs, well, you’ll believe anything.

Fast fashion, in case you’re still wearing some dad pants you bought seven years ago (which um some of us arguably could be doing), is where they go cheaply from design to rack in two weeks, evidently necessary because nobody ever made anything nice until mid-November and they just forgot to tell us while hyping whatever potato sack they were peddling. But never mind. The big point is, to continue a point we made last week, if one fairly minor piece of the fashion industry alone spews 8-10% of global GHGs (the exact same figure appears in Wikipedia), we’re going to be at half before we’re even dressed and out the door, possibly even before breakfast, on our way to somehow accounting for 208% of human GHGs annually. Or saying “that’s not science and it’s not even math”.

No, really. According to a site called “Fashion United”, the total worldwide “Global Apparel” market is around $1.7 trillion. They use the same number for “fashion” so apparently all clothing is fashion, even ours, despite catcalls from the cheap seats. (And another site gives a figure of $1.79 trillion, and 1.6% of world GDP.) But fast fashion is only around $30 billion. Meaning it’s one-sixth of the total. And even if it turns out to be singularly emissions-intensive, clothing as a whole must surely be around 30% of total emissions for just 1.6% of GDP. Or everyone’s just making stuff up.

On and on it goes, including a Nov. 25 emailed “With extreme climate events forcing their hand, oceanographers are diving into research on chemical and biological techniques that can coax ocean waters to absorb more carbon pollution from the air.” And “Climate Change Amplified the Winds in Every Hurricane in 2024”. Every single one. See, “scientists have found”. (At Climate Central, the same folks cooking Albany in an earlier entry this week.)

Even when Scientific American isn’t raving about climate, it is. For instance re those Busan talks, “Global Plastic Pollution Treaty Talks Fail/ A summit many hoped would yield a landmark treaty to tackle a global plastic pollution crisis ended in disappointment after oil- and gas-producing countries pushed back on limiting production”. And yet “Global emissions from plastic production could triple and account for one-fifth of the earth’s remaining carbon budget by 2050, according to one study.” Boo oil and gas producing countries.