Psychiatrists have detected the first case of “climate change delusion”

From Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun:

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of “climate change delusion” – and they haven’t even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children’s Hospital say this delusion was a “previously unreported phenomenon”.

“A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events.”

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

“The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies.”

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What’s scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this “climate change delusion”, too.

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: “If we do not begin reducing the nation’s levels of carbon pollution, Australia’s economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.”

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd’s guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: “Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . .”

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd’s next campaign slogan?

Of course, we can laugh at this — and must — but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.

Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide — the gas they think is heating the world to hell.

The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they’re even planning to tax farting cows, so there’s no end to the ways you can be stung.

Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and — hey presto — the world’s temperature will then fall, just like it’s actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

But you’ll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd’s mad plan — one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.

The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases by 2030.

Indeed, so fast are the world’s emissions growing — by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants — that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That’s how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.

And that’s why Rudd’s claim that we’ll be ruined if we don’t cut Australia’s gases is a lie. To be blunt.

Ask Rudd’s guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same — especially China and India: “Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels.”

So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.

A year ago China released its own global warming strategy — its own Garnaut report — which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.

Said Ma Kai, head of China’s powerful State Council: “China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth.”

In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: “It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China’s energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high.”

Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.

The plan’s authors, the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.

“It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people.”

The plan’s only real promise was in fact a threat: “India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries.”

Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won’t stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that’s a promise to gas the world like it’s never been gassed before.

So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?

Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.

Their conclusion? They couldn’t actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: “No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.”

In fact, they couldn’t find much change in the climate at all.

Yes, India’s surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: “The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . .”

It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: “While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses.”

Nor was that the only sign that India’s Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.

For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won’t even discuss it.

The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed “and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories”.

Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.

In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions — delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they’ll instead drive broke.

And there’s that delusion on which their whole plan is built — that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.

So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?

Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.

Advertisements

68 thoughts on “Psychiatrists have detected the first case of “climate change delusion”

  1. Ya know. This isn’t really funny. My oldest (8) is terrified of global warming. They’ve obviously talked about it at school, and if anything comes on the news about it or whatever he throws a fit. I’ve done about all the deprogramming I can do and it has helped. But, if this junk wasn’t taught in the first place, it wouldn’t be a problem, and he goes to a parochial school..

  2. It is interesting that the two giants of the developing world, China and India reject any caps on their carbon dioxide emission. If I knew nothing else, this information alone would pre-dispose me to reject AGW. You see these countries are smart enough to compete in business and technology with the developed world, but they have not been rich and self-indulgent enough to embrace soft-headed distructive ideas like AGW. They are not decadent – and stupid – enough to ignore their own economic self interest

  3. It’s already happened. Here in the states, we’ve just started paying for the lunacy expounded. We’ve haven’t built a new oil refinery since 1976. We’ve decided not to drill oil where we KNOW oil is. Food supply was diverted to the fuel we decided we didn’t need. Corn has sold as much as $8/bushel. You figure it out. In Kansas, my own state, our governor blocked the building of coal fired electric producing plants, advocating windmills instead. (Apparently, she didn’t understand that one can’t mandate the wind to blow.) If Australia is following the same path, then Mr. Rudd may be correct. We don’t have to lessen our fuel supply, we don’t have to lessen our power supply, we don’t have to lessen our food supply, we just simply choose to do so. By all means, we should choose a whacked out climate theory above human suffering. But then, the goal never was climate stability.

  4. They’ve only just now detected the first case? This is international hysteria on a far greater scope then that which occurred from Mr. Welles’ radio dramatization in 1938 of The War of the Worlds. At least then they at least had a credible actor in the lead, unlike today’s flaky stars such as Gore, Hansen, DiCaprio…

  5. Isn’t mass hysteria wonderful? There’s only one problem with a stampede, though. Once it gets going, nobody can control where it goes.

  6. I need to count the number of references I hear to “fighting global warming” in one commute to work.

    I saw an article today, I will see if I can locate it, that finally grasped the scale of what is going on. They noted that the cuts Australia wants to make between now and 2020 at the cost of billions of dollars will be made up by increases in Chinese emissions by August. This August. The cuts represent 28 days worth of China’s INCREASE in emissions.

  7. crosspatch (21:01:01) :

    “I saw an article today, I will see if I can locate it, that finally grasped the scale of what is going on. They noted that the cuts Australia wants to make between now and 2020 at the cost of billions of dollars will be made up by increases in Chinese emissions by August. This August. The cuts represent 28 days worth of China’s INCREASE in emissions.”

    That might be this article – at the top:

    Indeed, so fast are the world’s emissions growing — by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants — that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That’s how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.

  8. Please US readers. Have pity on us here in Australia as we appear to have an inordinate number of AGW believers! The US has a ‘GREEN CARD’ system that prevents thinkers entering there, from this country that is spiraling into third world status. I did mention in an earlier post to beware of the utterings of ‘ The Sydney Morning Herald’! (Can you not change that term ‘Green’, as future historians will associate it with the worse excesses of the 20th century!).

  9. Michael (20:20:09)
    What is the source of your profond “uninformed” statement and please quantify the amount of impact caused by “man as opposed to nature”.

  10. Isn’t mass hysteria wonderful? There’s only one problem with a stampede, though. Once it gets going, nobody can control where it goes.

    We get is going in a circle.

    If that fails, we get it headed towards the nearest cliff.

    (I confess I am beginning to care less and less which.)

  11. Don’t worry, Kansas, our Florida governor has also denied permits for coal-fired generating stations and is also forcing building wind turbines where wind does not blow hard enough to generate power (except in a hurricane).

  12. “orcing building wind turbines where wind does not blow hard enough to generate power (except in a hurricane).”

    You know, there are a lot of abandoned railroad tunnels that would make great wind turbine locations … not the kind of turbine you are used to seeing that look like a propeller … but more like a turbine used in a jet engine.

    You could have turbine blades that would spin even when the wind is at speeds too great to use conventional turbines and it wouldn’t matter which way the wind blew through the tunnels.

  13. Is this all not just a prestige thing. Rudd wants to be a leader.
    Or would the weather over Australia suddenly improve if Garnaut’s ideas were suddenly enforced?

  14. This isn’t restricted to Australia and America. This week the UK government led by Gordon Brown issued a report which proposes that the British people should pay higher food prices where methane is produced as a by product of food production.

    The words used are something like……”The Department of Food and Rural Affairs is looking for a mechanism for internalising the external greenhouse gas costs of agriculture that would put a price on the environmental consequences of farming.”

    In other words the British government is seriously considering taxing cow flatulence.

    Max

  15. Pfft. Here in Sydney, Australia, we’re getting a desalination plant. IT was originally going to be powered by 100% green energy, but that’s go by the wayside. So, I’m guessing it’s going to be powered from the grid. Which means the extra water costs all Sydney residents are going to be slugged with to pay for the wretched thing (it’s raining… the dams are filling. Why not build more dams?) is going to be increased because of the carbon tax.

    The irony is delicious… we’re going to pay a carbon tax to offset the emissions of the evil greenhouse-causing CO2 in order to create the most potent greenhouse gas of all!

    Oh, wait… I live here :( The irony sucks :(

  16. CO2 emissions growing by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants

    Actually, the main culprit is the Kyoto Protocol, which drove energy intensive industries out of energy efficient countries into energy inefficient countries, plus a large increase in the energy used in transportation, which caused a surge in economic growth in these countries. So now it takes 50% more energy to produce a ton of steel in India and China than it did in Germany or Japan and transportation is far less efficient requiring yet more energy.

  17. Andrew
    Thanks you for clear thinking and accurate reporting of the real story. No doubt you are aware of the 31000+ eminent scientists who have signed the partition indicating that the so called global warming has plateaued in recent times. There seems to be a total lack of understanding by the doom sayers that the earth needs CO2, every living plant, trees, vegitables all food, need CO2 to survive. Also the grass and food eaten by herbivores giving of gas recycles into the food they eat.
    Basic scientific principals seem to be non existant in the political rush to attempt re election. Or is there a more sinister adgenda.

  18. This is potentially a great source of revenue and an exciting new field for those involved in psychiatry and counselling. What can we call this syndrome, though? “Climate change delusion” sounds good, but doesn’t begin to address all the ramifications – someone might be obsessional and guilt-wracked about composting or plastic packaging, for example, but it might relate to climate change only in a general way. “Ecochondria”? “General Environment Dysphoric Disorder”? We need a proper name for this unfortunate condition.

  19. Randomengineer – what exactly is your Foundation for mentioning Hari Seldon?

    Apologies for going OT, but have you read Wolfbane by Frederick Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth, by the way? If it hadn’t been written in 1959 I would have said it was a satire on AGW, with the highly ironic conclusion that it’s exactly Man’s destructive nature that will eventually lead to his salvation.

  20. Michael May: I will agree with you that “Global warming is a real phenomenon. And yes, human activity has contributed to it.” But if human activity has contributed only 2 to 7% of the 0.6 to 0.7 deg C rise in global temperature, is that contribution worth causing irreparable harm to the mental health of children? Note: My 2 to 7% includes all anthropogenic sources.

  21. Thank goodness for China and India. We can rely on them to continue to produce more and more CO2, whilst the global temperature falls and harvests shrink.

    Kevin Rudd speaks Mandarin, so he should not be able to claim he does not know that Chinese science rejects AGW. He just does not want to know about any of the science. He prefers the godless religion of AGW demagoguery.

    Being a man of faith rather than of science, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7043713.stm his psyche and his socialist beliefs drive him to be authoritarian and proscriptive. He will never admit he is wrong on AGW , which is why Australia is headed for commercial and financial oblivion, in much the same way as the UK, under Goof Brown. ttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG09Dj01.html

    Who will rid us of the turbulent preachers?

  22. One of the very few journalists who really knows what is going on is Christopher Brooker and this article in the Telegraph is a beaut.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/10/do1004.xml

    “As it builds two new coal-fired power stations a week, China has no more intention than India of joining the Western economic suicide club.”

    Do read the comments.

    “Here in Australia, the electorate must be in with a chance of being awarded the Dummy Prize of being the ‘World’s Most Gullible Voters’..Not only did they kick out a PM whose Govt had produced 11 surpluses out of 13 and given Tax Cuts in the last 2 Budgets, enabling them to have unrivalled prosperity, but they voted IN a man whose main policy is ‘Tackling Climate Change’ and who, despite his country NOT being a G8 member, turned up in Japan in order to try and ‘encourage’ the delegates to compose a binding Target on Carbon Emissions….

    The voters in Australia will soon be looking at themselves in their respective mirrors and wondering why they did such a stupid thing – esp when it starts reducing their standard of living just so they can be the ‘Nice Guys’ of the Planet …!!

    Small consolation for their kids….
    Posted by King Canute on July 10, 2008 11:16 AM”

    Good eh?

  23. Basic scientific principals seem to be non existant in the political rush to attempt re election. Or is there a more sinister adgenda. Well, there are a number of agendas, if you can call them that, but basically they all boil down to money and/or political power. The beauty of the AGW bandwagon is that it can accomodate any and all who wish to climb aboard. But, it’s a “deal with the devil”, because in order to do so they have to be willing to give up their right as an individual to think for themselves. In the AGW faith, no doubt is allowed.

  24. This thread is about a young man who “developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead . . . . to the deaths of millions of people . . . .” Every religion has fanatics who are an embarassment to the religion.

  25. Just a thought – if many kids have played that appalling “Greenhouse Calculator” game by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, there may be more cases like that poor 17-year old in the future. If you’re an impressionable child and are told that you have already used up your fair share of the world’s resources, what are the choices for you? Logically, either die right away, or live out the rest of your life with the stigma of “climate criminal”. This is atrocious, life-denying, miserablist rubbish.

  26. Do you think this will be covered by medicare? How about workers compensation? I’m trying to determine if I can profit from this scam.

  27. With online games directed towards kiddos telling them, based on their lifestyle, when they should (or should have) die, and the onslaught of propaganda they receive in schools telling them of our impending doom, and how we are killing polar bears by turning a lightbulb on, I would expect to see a lot more kids pushed over the edge by Anthropogenic Climate Change Neurosis Syndrome. Just one more legacy for the AGWers to be proud of.

  28. Thank goodness for “Whats Up With That.” It provides the world with a daily dose of sanity.

  29. Apologies for going OT, but have you read Wolfbane by Frederick Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth, by the way?

    Try The Space Merchants.

  30. Not only did they kick out a PM whose Govt had produced 11 surpluses out of 13 and given Tax Cuts in the last 2 Budgets, enabling them to have unrivaled prosperity,

    So that’s what was wrong with Howard. I wondered. (I knew it had to be something.)

  31. Anthony, I think I’m getting blocked. Last two comments didn’t post.

    REPLY: Haven’t seen anything. But sometimes word combinations will trigger automatic dumps into spam filter. I’ve already emptied spam filter today so can’t recover whatever it was.

  32. Oh joy! “a previously unreported phenomenon…”

    So now the psychiatrists can wallow in this trough too. Delusions of grandeur all ’round!

    On a less serious note, I was amused to see that the children’s tale “Chicken Little” is actually not a Psych 101 primer, but goes way back to “Jataka Tales of Indian Buddhist folklore”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_Is_Falling_(fable)

    In our version, the chicken is eating lunch one day when she is hit on the head by a falling acorn. Based on the predictions of certain scientific models, she determines that “the sky is falling”, and resolves to go tell the king. She is joined along her journey by other characters with rhyming names (Henny Penny, etc), who are picked off by an opportunistic fox.

    And just so, a movement is born.

  33. Hm. I’d have to say I disagree with your beliefs. However, your blog was on the front page of WordPress, so I read it. I don’t have anything more profound to say, though, because I’m dehydrated from the hot weather here.

  34. Heard a radio programme yesterday, says it all,

    “Dominic Arkwright is joined for a discussion on the concept of groupthink, a condition that afflicts many governments and corporations, by author of Suckers Rose Shapiro, Irish broadcaster Malachi O’Doherty and Tobias Jones”.

    Listen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/offthepage/pip/9j3pi/

  35. kmcdade :

    Let the data do the talking.

    Note how global temperatures have dropped since the peak in ’98. Note how oceans have cooled and sea levels have been dropping for the last few years. Note h

    Note how the “big six” ocean-atmosphere cycles switched to warm from 1977 to 2001, but are now beginning to enter their cool phases.

    Note how the Aqua Satellite falsifies CO2/vapor feedback loops (so crucial to CO2 warming theory).

    Note how the “consensus” has unraveled over the past year or two (but don’t weigh that into the data mix).

    Listen to both sides in the debate. Count the cards. Cut the deck. There was a “consensus” on resources and population issues a while back. But that turned out to be dead wrong on all counts. These are basically the same guys who were wrong before. It doesn’t make them wrong now, but one must consider the history when placing one’s bets.

  36. The psyche wards will be bursting at the seems soon enough based on this.

    Well, for once, they have a real condition to deal with.

  37. Michael May said (20:20:09) :

    “Global warming is a real phenomenon. And yes, human activity has contributed to it.”

    Global cooling is also a real phenomenon – and much more dangerous than any warming – unless Michael May thinks a cyclical Ice Age is good: click. Any human activity that slows planetary cooling, while greatly increasing plant growth, is entirely beneficial. Unfortunately, the human influence on the planet is completely over-hyped.

    According to Dr. S. Frederick Singer, these are the percentages of the atmosphere’s “greenhouse” gases:

    – 95% water vapor
    – 3.618% CO2
    – 0.360% methane
    – 0.950% nitrous oxide
    – 0.072% misc gases [argon, xenon, etc.]

    CO2 accounts for 3.618% of the “greenhouse” gases; therefore, 96.775% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is a natural occurence. The remaining 3.225% is the result of human activity.

    Using simple math (.03618% X .03225) = 0.00117 of all greenhouse gases are due to human activity, and the remaining 99.883% of all greenhouse gases are naturally occurring.

    According to the UN/IPCC, as of 2005 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 379ppm. Two centuries ago, the total was roughly 275ppm. Since the start of the Industrial Age, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by only about 104ppm [parts per million. In other words, over two centuries the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased by about one molecule in ten thousand.

    Since 96.775% of CO2 in the atmosphere is there as a result of natural occurence, that means that about 366ppm out of 379ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere already exists naturally, while the remaining 13ppm (3.225%) is the result of human activity.

    Most of the approximately 100 ppm increase in CO2 over the past two centuries is natural [volcanoes, ocean outgassing, etc.]. Yet the UN/IPCC mendaciously implies that the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 is due exclusively to human activity.

    Based on this small increase in overall CO2 concentrations [and by using deliberately misleading charts in which the Y-axis begins at 300 ppm, rather than at zero], James Hansen, Al Gore, the UN and the rest of the climate deceivers all tell us that we are facing a “planetary catastrophe.” That is their stated hypothesis, which has been repeatedly falsified.

    Why are they deliberately lying?

    The U.S. uses nearly 80 billion barrels of oil per year. Assume a “carbon tax” of $40 per barrel [some estimates are much higher]. That amounts to a $3.2 trillion additional tax on 300 million U.S. consumers, every year, and much of it to be paid into and administered by the opaque, unaccountable UN. The carbon tax would show up in higher prices in everything that is manufactured, and everything that is transported by air, rail, ship or trucking companies. Utility bills will skyrocket. $4 gasoline will be remembered as being cheap.

    Politicians will never let us get into the position where the lights don’t come on when we flip the switch; it would mean their jobs. All the devious scaremongering over AGW/global catastrophe has just one goal in mind: a carbon tax on the developed nations.

    The AGW scam/hoax is all about the money: taxpayers’ personal wealth, and how politicians and the UN can get their hands deeper — much deeper — into the pockets of everyone who uses energy in any form. That’s all of us, folks.

    Word up.

  38. Putting global warming aside – for I understand it is a theory and not very well understood – there are more immediate and visible effects of industry that need to be guarded against. Take a look at this listing:
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/061018_polluted_places.html

    Seem like some places you want to live? Me neither. But I believe some of you were talking about how China and India are clever enough to not commit economic suicide – perhaps that is true, but they are also heartless enough and greedy enough to subject many of their citizens to pollution levels so high as to make a Robber Baron wince.

  39. The AGW scam/hoax is all about the money: taxpayers’ personal wealth, and how politicians and the UN can get their hands deeper — much deeper — into the pockets of everyone who uses energy in any form. – Smokey

    AGW is more than just a scam now. It’s a Biosafety Level 4 virus.

  40. MG: Taking nothing from the negative moral propensity of Chinese leadership, they are choosing between X pollution and Y poverty. Poverty is an incredible killer, and dirt farming is none to kind to the environment, either.

    China and India will clean up as they rich up. Same as the west (but probably quicker) and for much the same reasons. In 20 to 30 years they will be emitting far less Dirty-snow-global-warming particulate pollution (while burning far more fuel) than they are today.

    But they can’t get there from here anytime soon without a big, smoky Vroooooom. And, as it was in the west, it’s temporary.

  41. Actually, I just rechecked EIA stats and it’s actually less than 32 bil. barrels per year for the entire world.

    (Let me alter my fears of running out from non-worry to negative worry.)

  42. Pingback: dotdashtilde » Blog Archive » “climate change delusion” coming to DSMR soon?

  43. You are right Evan Jones, I inadvertently added a zero when doing my back of the envelope calculations. My mistake. Thanx for verifying. The U.S. uses 20.2 million BPD currently. I don’t think it alters my conclusion, though: AGW is a scam to separate taxpayers from their money by pretending a carbon tax is necessary to save the world.

    And re Paul’s comment, as stated I got the figures from Dr. Fred Singer’s blog. Interesting Jaworowski link though, I had not seen it before. Thanx for posting it.

  44. AGW is a scam to separate taxpayers from their money by pretending a carbon tax is necessary to save the world.

    I don’t think it’s a scam. I think they actually believe those things they believe. (The horror!)

    Unfortunately, this doesn’t make it less dangerous; it makes it more dangerous. A con man knows from the getgo what’s the game. It’s ever so much easier to drive off a scam artist than a true believer.

  45. At least some people know full well that AGW/global catastrophe is a scam.

    If Al Gore actually believed in the hoax he is perpetrating, he would be a traitor to the human race by his profligate waste of resources and excessive carbon dioxide emissions, would he not?

    And neither the UN/IPCC, nor James Hansen, not Michael Mann, nor Gavin Schmidt, nor the Nobel Committee, ever say one word criticizing Gore’s excessive “carbon” emissions. Not one word! Gore’s huge emissions appear to be perfectly acceptable to all of them.

    These are not stupid people. Therefore, it logically follows that they are all in on the AGW con job/conspiracy with the obvious goal of drastically raising taxes on the citizens of the developed world by using global warming scare tactics.

    ”The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

    ~ H.L. Mencken

  46. If Al Gore actually believed

    He does. He punctiliously protects himself from contrary points of view. In the history biz we call that a “need not to know” basis. This also protects him from legal action. It’s amazing what a man can manage not to know if he doesn’t want to know it.

    in the hoax he is perpetrating, he would be a traitor to the human race by his profligate waste of resources and excessive carbon dioxide emissions, would he not?

    Not by his lights. He “purchases offsets”. (As the indulgence boyz used to say, “further sins require further expense.”)

  47. These are not stupid people.

    Not stupid people are as equally able to be stupid as the rest of us. OTOH, they are probably less complaisant at this moment than Gore.

    But they Believe, and that is the nut of the problem. If their motive were merely to rule in order to loot us, they have a vested interest in keeping the host alive (sort of). But True Believers unnerve me. These are the sort of dudes that, as Torquemada (allegedly) said of the “town of 10,000”, half heretics, half faithful, “Kill them all. God will know his own.”

  48. To go with the literary reference:

    I can deal with a Fred Kinnan. Even with a Jim Taggart (but less so). But the Ivy Starnes and Ma Chalmers of this world are a whole different bag of beans.

  49. Re “climate change delusion”, I’m now waiting for some psychiatrist to opine: “The problems occur when a patient’s overheated internal climate reaches a certain threshold, a flipping point.”

  50. The way the commenters on this blog are treating the individual with a serious mental disorder is pretty reprehensible. the post itself goes to some good lengths to look at the story in context, e.g. China and India’s actions, and so while I disagree with the perspective at least it’s addressing the issue with integrity. The rhetoric and wit is not funny.

  51. I recently saw a bit on TV where school kids were talking about how horrid the future will be. According to what they have heard, major coastal cities will be under hundreds of feet of water while, at the same time, the oceans are going to boil dry.

    Here in Canada, we have David Suzuki (a geneticist turned eco tub-thumper) spreading the gospel of doom.

    No wonder people are becoming neurotic.

  52. I think a parallel could be drawn between the way conditions are named in psychiatry and climate science. Whether it be ADHD or AGW, the minute someone gives a name to a collection of phenomena, it becomes a “thing”. And once it becomes a thing, it becomes wonderfully easy to ascribe to it a cause – and a cure.

  53. Yeah this goes right along with “coffee sessation syndrome” & “teenage/parental rebellion syndrome”. The DSM ( the ‘bible” psychs use to “diagnose” people) was a magazine sized document in the 1950’s. Today, its a book the size of an unabridged dictionary.

    Just because people are afraid of it doesn’t make it a disease.
    Just because people offer a cure/treatment doesn’t make it science.
    Or helpful for that matter.

    Psychiatry is just another delivery system for drug companies.

Comments are closed.