Guest opinion by Fred F. Mueller
In large-scale wars, there are sometimes prolonged periods of fierce clashes with neither side being able to place the decisive blow that will ultimately tilt the balance in its favor. Then all of a sudden, certain events occur that mark the decisive turning point where one side definitely loses the strength to continue posing a threat to its opponents. From that decisive moment on, it will lose the initiative, being largely confined to defensive actions and hoping to be able to force its opponents to accept a peace agreement instead of having to face the enormous costs of a prolonged war. One of the most famous turning points in World War II was the battle for Stalingrad, where the seemingly unstoppable German onslaught could finally be brought to a standstill. The outcome is well known: Hitlers annihilation a few years later.
Switching to our times, one might well get the impression that in the decades-long war of Greenpeace, WWF and their countless NGO brethren for control of the public opinion about the so-called global warming threat allegedly caused by human CO2 emissions, such a turning point has been reached. The UN meeting in Warsaw (Poland), where further measures to curb these emissions should have been laid on keel, has seen a number of leading countries bluntly refusing to continue supporting the scam while many others stayed on the sidelines, paying lip-service to the noble cause of saving the climate and the planet while abstaining from any sizeable commitments. Maybe historians wanting to highlight the real dimensions of the blow dealt to the CO2 alarmists might coin the word Warsawgrad later on. Having failed to reach any substantial accord on the main question, the focus of the event has instead shifted to financial aspects, with third world countries trying to extort as many billions as possible from developed nations under the pretense that they should be held liable for each and any natural disaster happening on their territory. Upon seeing the related list, one wonders why they haven’t come up with claims to include asteroid impacts, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcano eruptions as well. But there might still be room for improvement…
The CO2 alarm finally seems to run out of steam
The clear impression one can draw from the course of events and the echo it finds in the media is that the CO2 scam advanced by Greenpeace and their numerous allies in state agencies, scientific institutions and the media is finally losing traction. The greed of too many profiteers has generated costs and technical consequences in key industry sectors to such an extent that the tide in public opinion seems to be finally turning, at least in some more lucid countries such as Autralia. Of course, just as in many other historic examples, the final shot has not yet been fired, but from now on, it seems likely that the faithful of the Anthropogenous Global Warming (AGW) belief will have to fight an uphill battle. While some country leaders such as Germany’s Merkel still seem staunchly committed to continue their course, it is becoming increasingly obvious that a number of decisive nations such as Canada, Australia and Japan are already manning the lifeboats. And as in the case of a dam break, once the first cracks have appeared, the subsequent sequence of events will probably follow the usual scheme. We might eventually see a stampede of highly qualified story-tellers and academic charlatans flooding out of all sorts of state agencies und NGO-related consulting services in a frantic search for new fields of activity.
In quest for new business models
One signal hinting that this threat has already been clearly perceived in the leading ranks of Greenpeace are new or newly revived ideas for alternative business models being floated by prominent members of the organization. If the public gets tired of sinking money into the CO2 black hole, fresh ideas have to be brought forward in order to save the planet from humanity while keeping the flow of donations at current high levels. Among the ideas currently thrown into the discussion are plastic garbage in the oceans, with subtle modifications such as micro-plastic particles coming back into the human food chain or causing fish liver damages. Other topics that might well be rediscovered after having been left dormant for some years are fine dust particles in the air, pharmaceutical active substances in the water or the noise levels inextricably linked to business and traffic activities. The bets are open which ideas will replace the CO2 hypothesis once the wheels are definitely coming off the current model.
Chinese cleverness
Upon reviewing the evolution of the CO2-related blame game that has been going on at such UN events over the past two decades, one cannot but pay respect to the clever strategy of one country that had been put on the pillory for excessive emission of CO2 not too long ago: China. In pace with its remarkable economic rise, the country has in the meantime overtaken all other countries to become the biggest CO2 emitter in the world. Nevertheless, this time it has been successfully avoiding to be blamed, forging an alliance of poor and developing nations instead that is aggressively claiming billions of money in compensation from developed Western nations while shielding the CO2 gorilla in their ranks. According to some reports, even renewed political efforts by the US administration have ultimately failed to drive a wedge into this coalition.
Is the smart money shifting focus?
Another development that can be observed in parallel to the Warsaw events is a shift in financial streams that seems to take place in the wake of the debacle the AGW proponents have suffered in Warsaw. While we might still be years away from a decisive collapse of the “climate-saving” energy policies still upheld by a number of politicians such as EU Commissioner Conny Hedegaard or President Obama, who have gone way too far in their ignorance of the laws of physics, markets and common sense to be able to back down without losing face, the smart money seems to have immediately gotten the message. Uranium shares, which had been on a constant decline since the Fukushima events, are currently experiencing a sudden rise that might well signal the sector has bottomed out. With news from Spain indicating that people operating solar cells for their private consumption while maintaining their connection to the power grid will now become liable to pay a special levy, chances are that more and more banks and trusts will start to rate investments into such projects as “higher risk”. On the other hand, investments in uranium and coal mines as well as in conventional power equipment producers and operators might become attractive again after a prolonged period on the dark and cold side of the markets.
chad wozniak – Kursk was another example of Stalin’s propaganda: von Manstein was well on his way to winning the battle when Hitler ordered him to stop attacking and took away his three best Army Divisions (because of the American invasion of Italy). vince causey- yes, Hitler made mistakes (a good thing for our side) but there is no getting around the fact that Russian losses were about ten times German losses. Without American help, the ratio would have been even higher. A good guide to what actually happened on the Eastern Front is ‘Deathride’ by American Historian John Mosier (Simon & Schuster 2010).
The comment site at the Daily Mail has been interesting. We have gone from 95% pro AGW to 98% anti-AGW. in fact, Warmists hardly dare raise their heads there any more.
.
Regards the Greenpeace activists being held in Russia, I think Russia should convict them for a nomination 6 months in a Siberian open jail. But, because these activists hate oil and coal so much, and Russia is fuelled mainly by oil and coal, they should be held in a special wing without any heating – during the Siberian winter. These activists would appreciate saving the planet, by not using any fossil fuels.
However, should they change their minds, and demand their cells to be raised above -50 c, their pleas for fossil fuel heating should be recorded and broadcast to the world. – plus an apology for being such fantasist pricks in the first place. 🙂
R
I agree.
The Greenpeace pirates should rot in a (cold) jail.
John M. Chenosky, PE says:
November 24, 2013 at 10:21 am
Jon says don’t forget get chemical contaminants in our environment. What is your CV? I am a Retired Chemical Engineer with 40 years of environmental experience. In the 60s and 70s we had problems and effectively addressed them.
What are you talking about? Sounds like you’re parroting someone else’s liberal dribble.
You’ve been out of the job too long … do your research 🙂
It is interesting and ironic that the vast plans of western european expansionists have on several occasions been done in by harsh eastern european winter weather, not climate.
@ur momisugly Jim Cripwell – Excellent questions about leadership and delivering the death blow. Given that institutional inertia is almost all in favor of CAGW, an opposing force is required. To me, what would be very powerful is to get some major academic/institutional support. Is it possible to have a symposium or meeting of academics/real scientists who can come up with some ideas on what institutions to target? There must be many scientists ready to jump ship now and go public, how do we give them a vehicle with which to do so?
One other point. One of my complaints about the AGW hysteria is that it crowds out work on other environmental issues from fishery management to PCBs and BPA, just to name a couple. There are issues we can actually address but it seems that if you aren’t talking about AGW or connecting your concerns to AGW, you are not listened to.
Money simply exists to finance AGW. AGW is a useful tool for the power elite. Like communism in the 30’s it offers a simple solution, a devil, and a sense of banding together to fight the good fight. That the chief proponents of it seek to enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense is ignored because that is not part of the devil, or the simple solution or the feel good politics of it all. AGW feels right and many respectable people say it is right and find it quite easy to blame the devil’s of big business and big government for everything wrong with the world.
“Jon says:
November 24, 2013 at 8:33 am
Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm
“Yes like DDT?”
“What about DDT?”
“What I mean is just because there are environmental cranks out there doesn’t mean that we should drop our guard with respect to our environment.”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259
“Environmental leftists traditionally have viewed the people killed by malaria as unfortunate, collateral victims of mankind’s highly necessary efforts to protect the natural environment from the alleged ravages of DDT. Some environmentalists, however, take their rationalizations in favor of the DDT ban much farther: That is, they view malaria as nature’s way of imposing a necessary check on the potential problems associated with overpopulation, and therefore as something that is not wholly undesirable.
For example, former (1969-1985) Sierra Club director Michael McCloskey said (in 1971) that his organization “wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control … [because by] using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.”
In a similar spirit, Club of Rome director Alexander King wrote in 1990: “My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”
“In September 2006 the WHO announced that it would thenceforth actively support indoor spraying of the chemical “not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.” “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. “DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” Elaborating on this theme, the WHO issued a statement asserting that DDT “provides the most effective, cheapest, and safest means of abating and eradicating” infectious diseases like malaria and typhus, which “may have killed half of all the people that ever lived.”
In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, “If there’s nothing else [besides DDT] and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
This change of heart was too little, too late. The longstanding, uncompromising, inflexible dogmas of Mr. Hind’s organization and others on the environmental Left had already condemned at least 50 million innocent people to death in three-and-a-half decades.”
Jack says (November 23, 2013 at 11:15 pm): “The actual turning point in WWII was the minor Battle for Ceylon. It threatened to cut off the trade route from India to England. It was also the first time the Axis forces were defeated anywhere in the world.”
The Italians in North Africa were defeated in summer 1940. They were rescued by the Germans, who advanced to Tobruk, but the Germans were driven back to their start line in November 1941. The Luftwaffe was defeated in the Battle of Britain, summer 1940. The German army was defeated in front of Moscow in December 1941 and was still on the defensive when Japan raided the Indian Ocean in April 1942.
Lubos Motl says (November 24, 2013 at 12:40 am): “Iinteresting to look at Stalingrad. But we could also call it the Warsawloo. ;-)”
The difference between Stalingrad and Waterloo is the difference between a “turning point”–with a long road still ahead–and the end of the road. No doubt Fred Mueller picked Stalingrad as an example familiar to our European friends, but Americans may be more familiar with the battle of Gettysburg and the surrender of Vicksburg, both in July 1863. Neither was a Waterloo, as the War of Secession continued for nearly two more years.
Chad Wozniak says (November 23, 2013 at 9:52 pm): “A minor historical point: the real turning point on the Russian front in WWI was not Stalingrad – it was the battle the following summer, July 1943, at Kursk.”
I’ve seen it hyped as such when people want to sell a book on the subject, but it’s still hype. In 1941 the Germans attacked the USSR on three fronts with three army groups. In 1942 they could only scrape up the strength to attack on one front with two army “groups” filled out with ill-equipped allied armies. In 1943 they could only attack on a small front with two armies and one army “detachment”. Kursk was a spoiling attack with limited objectives intended to weaken the Red Army and shorten the line. Even a German success wouldn’t have reversed the outcome of the war.
Gary, you’ve got your dates wrong. O’Connor’s offensive against the Italian army in North Africa started with the Battle of Sidi Barani in November 1940. The offensive ended south of Benghazi in late December 1940. The Germans were already starting to land troops at Tripoli in January, and their counterattack came in March 1941.
Churchill’s decision to drain North Africa of troops in Christmas 1940 was probably one of the worst decisions by the Allies of the entire war. Instead of finishing Libya off, the forces sent to Greece were largely lost there and in Crete. It can be argued that the Allies never got their act together properly until Churchill was removed from strategic direction of the war and replaced by Eisenhower.
As for Kursk, Stalingrad, et.al., the turning point was the Soviet winter offensive of 1941-2. Between frostbite and Soviet action, the German losses totalled nearly one million during the four months December 41 to March 42. The Wehrmacht never recovered, which is why as you note it was only capable of one major offensive in 1942. Even had the Germans won at Stalingrad it would have had little effect on the final outcome of the war. The offensive into the Caucasus was already stalling out from sheer logistics.
And you’re right about Ceylon. It was an unimportant naval raid which was intended by the Japanese only to take the Royal Navy out of the war, which it did until 1945. The turning point in the Pacific was two events, Midway and Guadalcanal.
“I hope the Russians scuttle the Greenpeace ship very publicly in shallow water so it can be used as an artificial reef.”
I hope they confiscate it and equip it wit a reactor and armour plating for use as an icebreaker.
I reckon they will need it…
To Charles Steigel: The warming in the Arctic is not accelerating. And the conclusions you come to from the information you describe is highly speculative and unrealistic, as are most climate change future scenarios. Give it a rest, the planet and the environment is fine and always will be.
David Wells, I agree with your assessment, except that long before we run out of fossil fuels, technology will have devised new renewable energy supplies, such as fusion and /or other types. We will never run out of affordable energy.
I think one of the scariest points was the intended fund to be controlled or administered by the UN. Given the countries who typically control such units within the UN, I would imagine the amount of money handed to countries for actual “climate mitigation” would be miniscule. The majority would be used for “administration costs”. I am glad that there are now countries standing against such a fund and that the Warsaw Conference was so successful (sarc).
In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, “If there’s nothing else [besides DDT] and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
Yes but good god … at what expense to the environment! Did you ever read silent spring?
cgh says (November 25, 2013 at 6:43 am): “Gary, you’ve got your dates wrong.”
Yes, winter 1940. Thanks for the correction. By now I should know better than to rely on memory. 🙁
“As for Kursk, Stalingrad, et.al., the turning point was the Soviet winter offensive of 1941-2.”
THANK YOU! Great minds think alike! 🙂
“Even had the Germans won at Stalingrad it would have had little effect on the final outcome of the war.”
Though Stalingrad was a center of war production and the Volga a major transportation artery, the oilfields of the Caucasus were the real prize of the campaign, and its original goal.
“The offensive into the Caucasus was already stalling out from sheer logistics.”
As Glantz & House write at the end of Armageddon in Stalingrad, “In retrospect, however, it appears that Germany, if Hitler had concentrated his forces and resources, might have taken either Stalingrad or the Caucasus oil fields in 1942 but was incapable of capturing both. The latter goal appears especially possible in retrospect given that the Red Army had its own logistical difficulties in the Caucasus region.”
http://www.amazon.com/Armageddon-Stalingrad-September-November-Trilogy-Studies/dp/0700616640/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385423748&sr=1-1&keywords=armageddon+in+stalingrad
Jon says:
November 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm
“In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, “If there’s nothing else [besides DDT] and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
Yes but good god … at what expense to the environment! Did you ever read silent spring?”
Nope. The book “silent spring” led to a ban on the use of DDT for 3 and a half decade. Finally in 2006 WHO had to lift the ban because the claims in the book “silent spring” could not be validated by science.
Why would anybody read such a unscientific book?
And because of the unscientific based ban on the use of DDT for almost 3 and a half decade up to 50 millions have died?