In Re Earf Day
Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, on the climate doomsday cult:
"Every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong. They still haven't, after 30 years, shown us that human emissions [of CO2] drive global warming."
"If you cannot show that human emissions of carbon… pic.twitter.com/94HF2o9BoJ
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) April 22, 2023
By James Mullin
At the rate things are going, we’d better start preparing for life under perpetual Democrat or Uniparty governance. Here are just a few points to ponder about what that life might be like. Feel free to share with Woke family and friends.
Do you like the dark, i.e. living in the dark and carrying flashlights and candles after the sun goes down? You’d better because there will be lots of opportunity once Uniparty-induced brownouts and blackouts take hold because of our power grid’s inability to supply dependable power as the war on fossil fuels takes hold. Exaggerated? Read about California in the last 20 years.
Do you like extreme heat in your house in the summer? See above. Beware of living in the Southeast. This is how the Uniparty will play nasty against its most geographically identifiable opposition. Get screens for your windows. NOW.
Do you like extreme cold in your house in the winter? See above. By the way, don’t depend on firewood. They’ll ban it. CO2, you know.
Do you like to save money for your future and your family’s? Do you realize how very selfish that is? Do you have a preferred bank or stock market in mind that may not be subject to the Winds of Wokism, and its ensuant incompetence? Will your rate of savings ever exceed the future rate of inflation/money printing?
Do you think you’d rather just buy a hard tangible asset like gold? Do you realize that your government once outlawed gold ownership 100 years ago, forcing even average citizens to hand it over?
Do you like to eat? Do you like your kids to eat, and not have malnutrition? Guess what our country has depended on for over a century to bring its crops to market? (Hint: CO2.)
Do you like to see your kids maimed or killed in endless wars? It’s no use saying that won’t happen when the whole world is united by the current blend of fascism/socialism. Read the novel 1984. It’s the best expose ever of endless, revolving war.
Do you like living in a house with a backyard for your kids to play in? Did you ever read about the Obama administration’s plans for future American housing? It’s already being put in place in California.
Do you like being involved in your kids’ lives and helping them navigate life’s key issues? Sorry, the state will take over now. Think that’s a stretch? Ever hear of LGBTQ? Read about school districts across America (in red states and counties too) hiding children’s “gender status” from parents.
Do you like your kids being well educated? We are already seeing an epic slide downward here. Ask your kid to spot Uganda, Belarus, or Malaysia on a map. Ask your kid to do a simple ratio and proportion problem. Best of all, ask your kid how much change you get from a twenty if your bill was $11.31. In your near future, your children will likely have a failed intellect unless they are at an elite coterie of schools. (And malnutrition is never kind on brain development anyway).
Do you feel voting is good, and that your vote is meaningful? Have you read about the election of 2020? Do you know who Katie Hobbs or John Fetterman are?
Do you like having a dog or cat as a pet? Given items 2, 3 and 4, that may not be in the cards. Given item 6, you might become your pet’s greatest enemy. Do you know how few pets there were in the old Soviet Union or Mao’s Sino workers’ paradise? Ever wonder why?
Did you and your wife enjoy choosing a name for your child? Did you know that serious restrictions were placed on this in previous Marxist (socialist) societies?
Do you like the option of defending yourself if someone is trying to kill you or your family? Read about what happened to a certain parking garage attendant in Manhattan.
Do you want a better life for your child, and do you work hard to make that happen? Return to item 1 and read this list again.
Depending on how you answered these questions, you’ll know whether you’re ready to live in the Democrats’ brave new world or if you’re willing to go to the polls in the first half of 2024 to vote for the best Republican candidate in the primaries, and then to show up at the polls again in November, even if your candidate didn’t win, to slow the seemingly inevitable Democrat tide.
Actually, It Is ‘Blah, Blah, Blah’
One pernicious development of these parlous times has been the rise of various cults that ape the trappings of Christianity while being fundamentally and unalterably opposed to its moral tenets. Case in point, the Marxist Suicide Cult masquerading as heroic do-gooderism that goes by the name of “climate change,” by which these solipsistic lunatics mean “man-made climate change.”
The argument that the climate is changing is prima facie false, because there is no argument. The climate is always changing. An hour in any major art gallery immediately illustrates that. Start with the Dutch paintings from the Little Ice Age, such as Brueghel’s Hunters in the Snow from 1565 if you doubt me. Note also that the old city of Alexandria, in Egypt, which was founded by the Macedonian Greek Alexander the Great c. 331 B.C., and once ruled over by Cleopatra, is now under water. Man had nothing to do with either.
All gone now.
In fact, to say that puny human beings can affect the climate is arrogance of the highest order when one considers the size of the Sun and the vastness of even our little solar system at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy. “An ant in the afterbirth,” as Mr. Dolarhyde famously put it.
In the roughly five thousand years of recorded human history, there has been one period in which we have had a real taste of our climate’s potential for moodiness, beginning around the start of the fourteenth century and lasting for hundreds of years. During this epoch, often known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by as much as two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit…. This was also the period between the end of the Middle Ages and the birth of the modern world.
The effects of the Little Ice Age were global in scale. In China, then as now the most populous country in the world, the Ming dynasty fell in 1644, undermined by, among other things, erratic harvests. In Europe, rivers and lakes and harbors froze, leading to phenomena such as the “frost fairs” on the River Thames—fairgrounds that spread across the river’s London tideway, which went from being a freakish rarity to a semi-regular event. (Virginia Woolf set a scene in “Orlando” at one.) Birds iced up and fell from the sky; men and women died of hypothermia; the King of France’s beard froze solid while he slept… in 1588, the Spanish Armada was destroyed by an unprecedented Arctic hurricane, and a factor in the Great Fire of London, in 1666, was the ultra-dry summer that succeeded the previous, bitter winter.
And then a warming trend began, continuing into our day: high culture flourished, science advanced along with the arts, and a longer growing season helped fuel a rise in population. This, of course, is not good enough for the ninnies, hysterics and bed-wetters who are convinced We’re All Going to Die if we don’t immediately reverse these civilizational advances (which, remarkably, seemed to have passed the entire southern hemisphere by), tear down our offending infrastructure, cease having babies (but import other people’s babies), reduce our mobility, and ban everything that “pollutes” our precious air and water, even at the cost of a grotesque and unnecessary reduction in living standards: 1565, here we come again!
Best Response to Global Warming is to Do ‘Nothing’, MIT Climate Scientist Says
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen said this week that humanity should do “nothing” about global warming and should focus instead on “resilience.”
In a March 21 interview with Andrew Bolt of Sky News Australia, Lindzen — an atmospheric physicist and emeritus professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) — declared that climate alarmism “is exploiting people’s ignorance to promote fear and use it as a lever.”
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said last week, for instance, that “warp speed climate action” is urgently needed to stave off the coming climate Armageddon. Every country “must massively fast-track climate efforts,” Guterres declared, because the “climate time-bomb is ticking.”
“We need climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once,” Guterres urged.
According to Lindzen, such alarmism is not shared by the bulk of the scientific community.
“A large number of scientists are saying, yes, indeed, it’s warming,” Lindzen acknowledged. “And they might even add that perhaps there is a matter of concern. Relatively few that I know of who even support the narrative would ever say that this is involving an existential threat.”
Asked point blank, “What do you think we should do about global warming?” Lindzen replied: “Nothing.”
Lindzen, known for his research on the dynamics of the atmosphere, including the study of atmospheric tides and the interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, said that there is “pretty universal agreement” that “if the whole Anglosphere and the European Union were to shut down completely, bury all industrial activity so we don’t generate CO2 … its impact on climate would be negligible.”
“The rest of the world is going to continue and they’re now dominating emissions,” he explained. “So no matter what you believe about climate, our actions will do nothing about climate.”
The professor went on to say that in terms of policy, “If you truly believed that it was an existential threat, then the only thing you could do is build up your resilience.”
Building up your resilience “means making more, having people wealthier, because we see throughout the whole world if you are a poor country, if you’re not resilient, natural disasters cause immense damage, pain, suffering, so on,” he said.
“In the developed world, similar disasters cause much less damage,” he added. “So your aim would be resilience. Instead, we’re choosing to make ourselves less resilient. And that makes no sense at all, no matter what you believe.”
“Point of fact, I don’t think there’s any threat on the horizon. And the best thing to do is to make society wealthier,” he concluded.
Lindzen has argued forcefully that the human-induced effects of greenhouse gases on the climate are overstated and that natural variability plays a larger role in climate change than is typically acknowledged.
He has also contended that the scientific community is too quick to attribute changes in the climate to human activity and that more research is needed to fully understand the complexities of the earth’s climate system.
Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before
It is a fitting coincidence that the announcement of Greta Thunberg’s honorary doctorate in theology came the same week as a new report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that the world has less than a decade to stop “catastrophic climate change” by halting the use of fossil fuels.
You can be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu all over again, since we have been getting “less than a decade to stop climate change” warnings for more than 30 years. Only someone who has assimilated climate catastrophism as a fanatical religion could fail to be embarrassed by this record of hysteria and goal-post shifting, which makes St. Greta of Thunberg’s theology degree ironically fitting.
Yet the new IPCC report is not a report at all. It is merely a 36-page “Summary for Policy Makers” (SPM in the climate trade) ahead of a new “synthesis report” that will merely repackage the last complete three-volume IPCC climate change assessment from 2021. The new synthesis report, which will likely run a thousand pages or more, is “coming soon,” according to the IPCC’s website.
In other words, the new “synthesis report” is not new at all, but is produced to keep climate agitation at a full boil. The SPM is released ahead of main report to generate headlines, which will then be repeated, Groundhog Day-style, when the full report is released later. The new SPM did the trick: the New York Times‘s chief stenographer for the climate cult, Brad Plumer, produced a breathless story that can be written now by ChatGPT, declaring that “Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade.” This whole well-worn exercise is the climate cult equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
One of the more delightful aspects of being a dissident from the absurd apocalyptic climate doom cult is the ability to laugh at the decades’ worth of failed, yet quite specific predictions of disaster from purported “experts” that the media have gleefully trumpeted. The track record of the failure of previous predictions matters not in the least, as if mass amnesia had infected not just the media, but government, academia, and the corporate world.
Yet all of these commanding heights of our political economy are united in pushing forward with ruinously expensive schemes that cannot work to substitute unreliable intermittent sources of electricity — wind and solar predominantly — that will demolish our economy and lifestyle. The conversion of our vehicle fleet to lithium-intensive electric cars and trucks ignores the world’s limited supply of several required minerals and the “carbon footprint” of producing such vehicles. Meanwhile, limiting the production of organic energy (carbon-based energy, in other words) impoverishes us and enriches Russia, Iran, and other rogues, while degrading our geopolitical power.
Why are all the organs of dominance of our polity so immune to facts? And why do the media persist in blocking legitimate skepticism and doubling down on failed doom predictions?
These are the questions that Tucker Carlson took up in the first quarter-hour of his top-rated cable news commentary last night. The large number of clips showing absurd, hysterical predictions that are nonsense was hilarious.
Most telling is the question of why the media are so very perfectly united in ignoring the reality of their past doomsaying failures. Tucker leaves it to his audience to make up their minds, but the clear implication is that some unsayable, ridicule-inducing “conspiracy theory” must be at least considered.
If you missed it, here is the entire segment, via Fox News:
Climate Change Whackos Are the Real Danger to the Planet.
The climate alarmists have gotten so many things wrong in the last 50 years that they’d have no credibility in a sane world. Alas, we do not live in a sane world and these crazies are better funded and have more power than ever before.
The Biden administration is slavishly devoted to the Climate Church message, forcing the green agenda into every area of policy. It’s an even higher priority than making first-graders take field trips to drag shows. It’s full speed ahead with the assault on carbon, whether the world is ready for it or not.
Or whether the technology is ready for it or not.
Athena wrote a post earlier in the week about one effort to go green that isn’t working out well at all:
E-bike lithium-ion batteries have already ignited 25 fires within New York City limits this year, killing at least two and injuring 36. According to officials, that was quadruple the number of fires sparked by these batteries over the same timeframe last year.
In the climate-cult vision, the future of transportation is electric. The battery technology—whether for bikes or cars—isn’t where they want it to be yet, but that’s not preventing leftists from mandating transitions to their all-electric fever dream.
The vehicles that burn fossil fuels aren’t the only enemies of the climate state. This is from something Lincoln wrote yesterday:
As part of an English assignment, teacher Kim Cutler purchased bugs approved for human consumption from a website and gave them to her students. It was part of an assignment on–what else? Climate change. The premise was that cows, which produce methane, are depleting the ozone layer and should be replaced with ze bugs.
Your tax dollars at work! They’re indoctrinating kids to eat bugs rather than burgers to save the planet. And it’s an English assignment. Yeah, the Department of Education has got to go.
It is something that the climate lefties are now admitting that the methane gas from cow flatulence plays a part in ozone depletion. Not too many years ago, they were saying that the cow flatulence theory was a right-wing conspiracy to deflect from all of the havoc that humans were wreaking.
The bugs-for-dinner thing is part of the climate cult’s overall devolution blueprint for humanity. I attended the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico. I’d been sent there by Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers money!) to document and mock the proceedings.
The big expo showcasing “solutions” for saving the planet was, put mildly, insane. It wasn’t a vision of the future, but of the past. Dirt floors. Toilets that were little more than camping latrines. Hand-washing clothes. You can see how easy it is to get from that to having bug stroganoff for dinner.
The real threat to humanity is the stupidity of these people. Again, they’ve been wrong about virtually everything. Their solutions to problems, real and imagined, never fix anything. The only thing they’ve succeeded in is bleeding the American taxpayer dry and frightening a generation of young people so much with their lies that some are being treated in therapy for climate anxiety.
The only upside to this is that many of the younger climate cultists don’t want to breed because they’re convinced that we’re doomed, so a voluntary culling of the herd is underway.
We’ve got to take the wins where we can find them.
It was a post at Bookroom Room that led me to jump aboard this particular train of thought – that most of us have certain concepts embedded in us so firmly that absolutely nothing will ever get us to violate them. As Bookworm put it, “Because as I’ve contended for years, every person has one absolute truth. It’s the one thing they know to their bones is true and the world must align with that truth … For my mother, who would have been a fashionista if she’d had the money, style and beauty were her truths. She sucked up all the lies about Barack and Michelle Obama until the media talking heads said that Michelle was the most beautiful, stylish first lady ever, above and beyond even Jackie Kennedy. That ran headlong into Mom’s truth and, after that, she never again believed what the media had to say about the Obamas.”
It’s a concept worth considering – our own truths, which we will stubbornly hold on to, refusing any threats or blandishments. It varies from person to person, of course. Some have only small and irrelevant truths, which are never seriously threatened, and there are those who have no real truths at all, save perhaps self-aggrandizement – but even so, for some keeping to their truth is a hard struggle, deciding to hold to that truth against everything – especially if they have status or a living to make, in denying that truth.
Sam Houston, as governor of Texas on the eve of the Civil War, refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy, required by a newly-passed law upon secession from the United States. Twice elected president of an independent Texas, and the general who had secured freedom from the Centralist dictator, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna nearly fifteen years before, Houston had labored mightily to secure annexation of Texas to the US. Secession from the Union must have nearly broken the old man’s heart. Most accounts have it that he paced the floor of his office for an entire night, considering whether he would take the oath … or not. He did not; he resigned all office and retired to his home in Huntsville, where he died several years later. When all was said and done, Houston was a believer in the Union, and devoted to Texas. When it came to secession and swearing an oath of fealty to the Confederates – a hard “nope” for the hero of San Jacinto.
My own personal biggest hard “nope” has to do with so-called anthropogenic global warming/global cooling/climate change concept alleged to be caused by human activity and industry. I don’t care how much the autistic Swedish teenager scowls at us all, or Al Gore flies from his many lavish mansions, to one important conference after another, to lecture us all about our carbon footprint.
Earth’s temperatures and conditions have swung wildly over millennia, without any help from human beings at all. Canada and the north-central US were once covered by a mile of ice. The Sahara desert was once a grassland interspersed with marshes, rivers and lakes. In Roman times, it was temperate enough in England to grow wine grapes, while around 1000 AD it was warm enough for subsistence farming in Greenland … and then the climate turned colder all across Europe, until the River Thames froze solid enough between the 14th and 18th centuries to host so-called Frost Fairs on the solid ice. Avenues of shops opened on the ice, racing events, puppet shows and all manner of entertainments took place. The massive explosion of an Indonesian volcano in early 1815, on the other hand, led to a so-called year without summer in the northern hemisphere in 1816. The climate of earth has changed drastically, without any human input over conditions – even before humans existed, so what the heck have gas stoves or gasoline engines – or even coal-fired power plants have to do with it?
I’ve got another couple of hard “nopes” – but anthropogenic climate change is just the main one at present. What are some other personal hard “nopes” among you all? Discuss as you wish.
Climate Protester Rushes Stage, Josh Hawley Turns the Tables
Is there any more of an obnoxious protest movement than the one propagated by the climate cult? They glue themselves to roads and pour soup on famous works of art, all the while never having to reckon with the fact that their predictions of doom have been continually disproven by the passage of time.
Remember Al Gore’s now-defunct doomsday clock? Or the claim that the Arctic would be ice-free by now? And did polar bears ever go extinct? There’s also another cataclysmic event on the way, as prophesied by the church of climate.
Sen. Josh Hawley got a taste of that on Thursday when a climate protester rushed the stage he was speaking from. Watch until the end because he does a good job turning the tables.
Someone just ran on stage and interrupted Josh Hawley's speech at the Heritage Foundation.
"China is not our enemy! The climate crisis is!"
The crowd laughs at her and she's taken off the stage by security pic.twitter.com/X7J1bl2LpY
— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) February 16, 2023
The whole rushing-the-stage thing is bad enough. It shows a profound disrespect for basic boundaries while highlighting the clinical narcissism these climate protesters possess. Everything must revolve around their obsession, and conveniently, that obsession seems to involve defending China a lot. That’s exactly what this woman did as she screamed “China is not our enemy,” while being dragged out of the room to the laughter of the audience.
Isn’t it strange that Greta Thunberg never goes to Beijing and that so many in the climate movement want to let China off the hook for leading the world in carbon emissions?
Ask yourself, who benefits the most from the world shifting to “renewable” energy? That would be China, which provides or controls much of the rare earth materials needed to produce things like batteries and solar panels (neither of which are renewable, by the way). Someone should really look into how much of the climate cult is being funded by Chinese interests, wouldn’t you say?
Returning to the clip, Hawley makes a really good point at the end of it.
HAWLEY: It’s interesting. This administration wants to use the climate crisis as a justification for its agenda in Ukraine and elsewhere. Maybe they ought to visit with that gal.
That’s exactly what’s going on. John Kerry, Biden’s climate czar, has already made it clear that the administration is going to ignore human rights abuses, if it means getting a “climate” deal done with China. Never mind that such deals are worthless and amount to absolutely nothing.
Then there are the connections between the Biden family and the Chinese to consider. It just so happens that the president’s climate agenda plays right into the hands of Xi Jinping. What a coincidence, right? Thankfully, Republicans are finally pushing back, and there seems to be an anti-China consensus forming. That’s going to put Chicom-simping Democrats in an awkward position going forward.
Jews eat kosher, Muslims have halal, Hindus eschew meat, and many Christians fast during Lent. So naturally, the fastest-growing religion today — earth and climate worship — is developing its own faith-based dietary restrictions.
“Climatarians” (also called “reducitarians” or “climavores”) are people who make their food choices based on how what they eat will impact the earth, with the aim of reducing their carbon “foodprint.” The Earthist version of original sin is that, simply by living, people commit climate sin every time they eat, breathe, travel, and heat or cool their homes. Naturally, the younger generations are the most pious Earthists, having been recently exposed to the most evangelical Earthist education system yet.
“Climavores, as you might expect, follow a diet less defined by ingredients—unlike veganism, for example,” global consulting firm Kearney informs us. “Instead, Climavores actively make food choices based on climate impacts, practicing climate-conscious eating based on a series of dietary trade-offs intended to benefit the planet.”
Climavores see beef, lamb, and cheese at the very top of the environmental damage scale; pork is in the middle, followed by chicken and eggs. Plants of all kinds typically have the lowest impact. …
Most Climavores eschew labels, viewing climate-conscious food choices paired with their efforts to “live and shop green” beyond food as a meaningful way to personally impact environmental outcomes. Our survey found this is especially true among younger consumers. Respondents 18 to 44 years old were up to twice as likely to consider the environmental impact of their food choices.
And as the older faiths are gradually supplanted by the Church of the Climate, societal changes are in the works that reflect and support the new religion. Axios reports:
Food manufacturers, restaurants, and supermarkets are racing to cater to the zeal for lower-carbon eating choices, which has people eschewing plastic packaging, ingredients flown in from afar, and foods that are environmentally damaging to produce. …
Terms like “climatarian” are getting newfound attention from corporate America as young consumers gravitate toward what they perceive as “green” diets.
- “By 2030, our routine food choices will be climate-directed,” advises a report from consulting firm Kearney. “The companies that mobilize now will win the future of food.”
- Restaurant chains like Just Salad, Chipotle, and Panera Bread are putting “carbon labels” on their foods — and, in the case of Just Salad, adding a “climatarian” filter on its app.
- Supermarket chain Fresh Market is among the many food prognosticators that declared “climatarian eating” a top trend for 2023.
Back in the bad old days, righteous folk censured people who lived outside Christian proscriptions, and with good reason — things like theft, adultery, sloth, and single parenthood lead to issues that hurt all of society. Under the same reckoning, prepare to be judged for your apostate food choices. Ordering a big, fat steak in a restaurant may earn you glares from fellow diners who have been taught that your dinner hurts them by causing droughts and heatwaves or something.
But Leftists are nothing if not authoritarian, and soon the choices will be made for you. More from Kearney:
The greenie left is coming for your coffee
It wasn’t enough that the greenie left came for our light bulbs, our flush toilets, our guns, our plastic straws, our gas stoves, or our hamburgers.
Now they’re coming for our coffee.
According to the New York Post:
Canadian researchers analyzed coffee’s “contribution to climate change” in a piece published in early January and suggested people moderate their consumption of the popular drink as a part of the solution.
Researchers Luciano Rodrigues Viana, Charles Marty, Jean-François Boucher and Pierre-Luc Dessureault wrote in an analysis published in The Conversation that pollution from preparing coffee was “just the tip of the iceberg.”
“Limiting your contribution to climate change requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception. Choosing a mode of coffee preparation that emits less GHGs (greenhouse gases) and moderating your consumption are part of the solution,” the researchers at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi wrote.
They even had recommendations about what kinds of coffee to drink, and no, it’s not that nice fancy cup of Starbucks cappuccino you’re enjoying, let alone that hearty cup of Dunkin’ Donuts brewed coffee you like to have in your hand.
Climate Activism Isn’t About the Planet. It’s About the Boredom of the Bourgeoisie.
The downfall of capitalism will not come from the uprising of an impoverished working class but from the sabotage of a bored upper class. This was the view of the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Schumpeter believed that at some point in the future, an educated elite would have nothing left to struggle for and will instead start to struggle against the very system that they themselves live in.
Nothing makes me think Schumpeter was right like the contemporary climate movement and its acolytes. The Green movement is not a reflection of planetary crisis as so many in media and culture like to depict it, but rather, a crisis of meaning for the affluent.
Take for example a recent interview with Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich on CBS‘s 60 Minutes. Ehrlich is most famous for his career as a professional doom monger. His first major book, The Population Bomb, gave us timelessly wrong predictions, including that by the 1980s, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death and it went downhill from there. Ehrlich assured us that England would no longer exist in the year 2000, that even modern fertilizers would not enable us to feed the world, and that thermonuclear power was just around the corner.
To End Climate Lunacy, Stop Treating Warming & C02 Hysterically
Those who oppose economically destructive “climate” policies – like those promoted by the Biden administration and at the recent United Nations COP27 conference – will continue to fail to stop the advance of these policies so long as they continue to accept the false claim that warming of the planet and carbon dioxide emissions are harmful.
They are not. On balance, global warming and CO2 emission are beneficial.
Before getting to why that is, however, it is crucial to understand why accepting the false climate claim is so harmful.
When the destructiveness of climate policies is shown, the response is that the policies nevertheless are necessary to address what President Biden refers to as the “existential threat” of global warming and increased CO2 emissions.
When it is noted that these climate policies will at most microscopically and insignificantly reduce temperatures and CO2 emissions, climate policy mandarins push for even more draconian policies.
The result has been that since the 1990s, climate policies have become increasingly destructive and wasteful. Even worse, their continued intensification appears unlikely to be stopped until the public and policymakers are persuaded that global warming and CO2 emissions are not harmful. As Margaret Thatcher famously said: “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.”
To win this argument, it is necessary to focus on the scientific facts.
A warming planet saves lives. Analyses of millions of deaths in recent decades in numerous countries, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, show that cooler temperatures killed nine times (July 2021 study) to seventeen times (In May 2015 study) more people than warmer temperatures. The planet’s recent modest warming (by 1.00 degree Celsius on average since 1880, as calculated by NASA) thus has been saving millions of lives.
CO2 emissions do not pollute and instead are environmentally beneficial. In 2017, over 300 scientists, including Richard Lindzen of MIT and William Happer of Princeton, signed a statement that made this point: “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. To the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not poison.” Every one of us, indeed, also exhales carbon dioxide with every breath.
Since 1920, deaths each year from natural disasters have decreased by over 90 percent. And this happened, data from EM-DAT – The International Disaster Database presented by The University of Oxford show, not only as the planet has warmed, but as world population has quadrupled.
Global warming has not increased hurricanes. A NOAA report, updated on November 28, 2022, states that “there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts. The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.”
The same report sums it up in bold: “We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.”
Global warming also does not increase land burned by fires. As environmental statistician Bjorn Lomberg has shown using data from the Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, Remote Sensing of Environment, and Earth’s Future, the percentage of global land burned per year in 1905-2021 has been declining.
Sea levels are rising – but only by a small fraction of an inch each year. An EPA report updated on August 1, 2022, states: “When averaged over all of the world’s oceans, absolute sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2013,” including a slightly increased rate since 1993 of “0.12 to 0.14 inches per year.”
The UN climate models that President Biden, John Kerry, and other climate doomsters use to predict future global temperatures are so speculative and unreliable that they have been unable even to reproduce the 20th century’s temperature changes. This is a key point in the must-read book by Obama Department of Energy Under Secretary for Science Steven Koonin, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.
These kinds of facts should persuade the public and policymakers to stop accepting the false claim that global warming and CO2 emissions are harmful.
When this false claim is no longer widely accepted, policymakers will stop imposing climate policies that particularly impoverish the world’s poor.
They will stop holding international boondoggles like COP27 and that demand vast climate-related foreign aid programs.
They will stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on domestic climate sinkholes.
And they will stop using purported “social cost of carbon” factors (even though the true social cost of carbon is zero) to regulatorily restrict domestic fossil fuel production, transportation, and use.
Global Warming? Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover At 56-Year High
Here’s the Rutgers Global Snow Lab snow coverage map across the Northern Hemisphere.
And another from NOAA with more resolution.
“Extensive snow extent early in the season is an indicator of persistent cold as we head into winter proper,” weather blog Severe Weather Europe said.
Most mainstream media outlets overlooked this data because it is an inconvenient truth for the climate change narrative they’re pushing.
A severe winter for the Northern Hemisphere might complicate power grids for western countries that are hellbent on disrupting energy flows by sanctioning Russia, forcing the world into the worst energy crisis in a generation. Since the US and Europe’s natural gas storage facilities have flipped into withdrawal season, the clock starts as storage levels could quickly wind down if temperatures stay below average, which would continue to boost energy prices.
Let me tell you the endgame of electric cars.
It's not to replace your current gasoline car with an electric.
There won't be enough raw materials for all the batteries to do that.
The plan is to replace your car with walking while only the elite can afford an electric car.
— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) December 2, 2022
— Lisandro Chacin (@lchacin64) December 2, 2022
Climate Change Motivates a Reevaluation of Nuclear Energy.
Ironically, the people who profess to care most about climate change have been those who most vociferously reject the technology that can solve it. But this is changing
As world leaders and activists gather in Egypt this week to ruminate about global warming, there are signs that many are willing to look beyond doctrinaire—and heretofore less than fruitful—policies founded on renewable generation sources, such as wind and solar. Whatever the merits of climate change arguments, it is clear that the issue is causing many inveterate opponents of nuclear energy to embrace the technology as the one available that can do something about it.
The influential American Climate Perspectives survey, published in 2021 with addenda out this year by environmental nonprofit ecoAmerica, pointed out that American attitudes about nuclear power are shifting decidedly into the positive column, with the movement most profound on the left. A summary released by the organization along with the report noted that support for nuclear power among Americans grew by 10 points between 2018 and 2021, from 49% to 59%. And while support among Republicans held steady during that time (hovering around 65%), support among Democrats increased sizably over the same period—from 37% in 2018 to 60% in 2021. And this shift seems to be indicative of a worldwide movement of opinion.
Renewable energy sources are perfectly fine technologies for generating electricity at certain scales under particular weather conditions and in localities close to the point of consumption, and they are widely regarded as an essential part of achieving a carbon-free future. But experience shows that there is no way solar and wind power and the attendant battery storage technologies will be able to sustain a modern economy on their own.
According to Frank Hiroshi Ling, chief scientist at the Anthropocene Institute, a clean power and climate technology incubator that cooperated with ecoAmerica on its report, a growing realization that renewables are not up to the task may be spurring a corresponding interest in nuclear energy. “The Democrats traditionally have been the early advocates for renewables,” Ling said. “Yet renewables have not scaled up as quickly as many had hoped. People are learning that there are a lot of limitations to increasing capacity through renewables.”
The challenges of implementing a purely renewable electric grid have been well documented. From a technology standpoint, the key limitation is the intermittency of solar and wind power generation when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, respectively. On the manufacturing and supply chain side, renewable generation technologies and batteries to support them require a lot of resources, such as rare earth metals, that are not processed in the U.S. and have a train of environmental baggage all their own.
“I would not necessarily call myself pro-nuclear,” Ling said. “But I am looking at all the technologies that we need to achieve stabilization of the planet’s climate. That means we should look at energy systems from the perspective of resiliency, and that means looking at a diversity of mixes. I am also in favor of renewables. But every energy source out there has its drawbacks. Nuclear would address many concerns, but we still have that problem with the public perception.”
The Dirty Secrets inside the Black Box Climate Models
The world has less than a decade to change course to avoid irreversible ecological catastrophe, the UN warned today.” The Guardian Nov 28 2007
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra
Introduction
Global extinction due to global warming has been predicted more times than climate activist, Leo DiCaprio, has traveled by private jet. But where do these predictions come from? If you thought it was just calculated from the simple, well known relationship between CO2 and solar energy spectrum absorption, you would only expect to see about 0.5o C increase from pre-industrial temperatures as a result of CO2 doubling, due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship.
The runaway 3-6o C and higher temperature increase model predictions depend on coupled feedbacks from many other factors, including water vapour (the most important greenhouse gas), albedo (the proportion of energy reflected from the surface – e.g. more/less ice or clouds, more/less reflection) and aerosols, just to mention a few, which theoretically may amplify the small incremental CO2 heating effect. Because of the complexity of these interrelationships, the only way to make predictions is with climate models because they can’t be directly calculated.
The purpose of this article is to explain to the non-expert, how climate models work, rather than a focus on the issues underlying the actual climate science, since the models are the primary ‘evidence’ used by those claiming a climate crisis. The first problem, of course, is no model forecast is evidence of anything. It’s just a forecast, so it’s important to understand how the forecasts are made, the assumptions behind them and their reliability.
I’ll consider that ‘global warming’ may be a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves
Climate delegates were accused of hypocrisy after 400 private jets arrived in Egypt for COP27.
Numerous posts on social media criticised delegates for travelling by private jet to the UN climate summit.
Posts and reports included various estimates for the number of such planes bringing delegates to the gathering in the beach resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Egyptian sources corroborated widespread claims that some 400 private jets landed during COP27.
Some media cited lower estimates by flight-trackers, though there may have been private flights that were not logged by monitoring services.
One misleading post in Spanish claimed there were as many as 1,500 private jets. It was accompanied by an old photograph of planes from an aviation forum in Las Vegas.
‘More than 400 private jets landed in the past few days in Egypt,’ a source close to the Egyptian aviation authorities, who asked not to be named, told AFP on Thursday.
‘There was a meeting ahead of COP27, and officials were expecting those jets and made some arrangements in Sharm el-Sheikh airport to welcome those planes.’
Another one of our @TheBabylonBee prophecies fulfilled pic.twitter.com/ACRzAnloFh
— Kyle Mann (@The_Kyle_Mann) August 31, 2022
