Josh writes: Following the IPCC Synthesis Report we have had many catastrophists describing the impacts of climate change as ‘Irreversible’ and using the phrase ‘Immorality of inaction’ – I can certainly think of some irreversible impacts that require more immediate action.

Irreversible_scrPosted by Josh

Cartoons by Josh

88 thoughts on “Irreversible

  1. Carrying over the previous IPCC post’s references to worldviews and mental models, there is a long time belief among political and social radicals that if beliefs can be created at what they refer to as the “psychophysiological” and “intracerebral” levels, these false beliefs become irreversible. Literally grounded in physical connections hardwired into the brain.
    Tony Blair’s Ed Guru, Sir Michael Barber now head of Pearson Education even wrote a book called Irreversible Change. The idea is that if Behavior is required, beliefs will eventually follow.
    All these IPCC models are deigned to force behavior changes through political compulsion and regulation. It’s not a coincidence.

    • The Montreal Protocol was their test case that emboldened the Socialists to reach for their holy grail of complete control of the western world’s economic engines through control of energy.
      The first step had to be to encourage an elimination of nuclear power as a viable source in the eyes of the public. In the US, it meant elimination of a safe disposal repository for spent high-level fuel. Harry Reid came through for them.
      Then they came for coal. The cheapest, most abundant energy source.
      Natural gas was “good” when it was limited and expensive. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of shale formations, now means natural can be made cheap and abundant in many parts of the world. So now they come for fracking.
      Crony capitalists selling wind turbines, electric cars, and solar panels were happy to jump on board the eco-bus in exchange for wealth and as long as a provided a cut back to the cause. Even the rail barrons have gotten in on the act by silently opposing new pipelines in the guise of environmental activism.
      …and meanwhile in squalid cities and towns in Africa and Asia, mothers continue to cook their meals with charcoal harvested by the men logging the rain forests and jungles. While their lack of electricity heat and AC systems means they also live in open homes exposed to the mosquitos at night carrying diseases.
      Such are the values of today’s Eco-polticians.

      • “…and meanwhile in squalid cities and towns in Africa and Asia, mothers continue to cook their meals with charcoal harvested by the men logging the rain forests and jungles. While their lack of electricity heat and AC systems means they also live in open homes exposed to the mosquitos at night carrying diseases”
        Well, they should just go back to the good old days of their ancestors, back when they had abundant cheap energy and no concern for mosquitos? Right?

    • The idea is that if Behavior is required, beliefs will eventually follow.

      This is why recycling is mandated. Everyone knows that their bills go up from recycling as recycling actually uses up more resources.
      In the UK they actually show the extra costs in the tax bills.
      It would be better to hide stuff in the ground and await improved mining technologies.
      But forcing people to act “green” forces them to buy into it.

      • Before mandated recycling, people use to make a living from it. And everyone knows, making money is bad. If this was allowed to continue, some might get the idea that free market capitalism can solve the causes championed by progressives, better then socialism can.

    • Hmm – that’s “brainwashing”?
      Perhaps related to the notion of Kantians (neo-Marxists among them) that words create reality, rather than describe it to facilitate communication.

  2. On a theme.
    Even those you might expect to set their priorities correctly or, do what they are paid to do – or is that asking too much? Then, what happened in Africa, when everybody took their eye off the ball……..

    In 2009, the World Health Assembly endorsed a new WHO work plan on climate change and health. This includes:
    Advocacy: to raise awareness that climate change is a fundamental threat to human health.
    Partnerships: to coordinate with partner agencies within the UN system, and ensure that health is properly represented in the climate change agenda.
    Science and evidence: to coordinate reviews of the scientific evidence on the links between climate change and health, and develop a global research agenda.
    Health system strengthening: to assist countries to assess their health vulnerabilities and build capacity to reduce health vulnerability to climate change.

    W.H.O. link
    How could they ignore this – EBOLA?

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted it botched attempts to prevent the spread of the deadly Ebola virus and has pinned the blame on some of its own staff.
    In a draft internal document, the WHO said it should have recognized that traditional infectious disease containment methods would prove ineffective in West Africa because the health systems on the continent were broken.
    In a blunt assessment of their own failings, the document said: ‘Nearly everyone involved in the outbreak response failed to see some fairly plain writing on the wall.’
    Daily Mail here.

    Tell me again, why do we [the taxpayers] here in the West – more particularly the USofA – continue to fund this organization [W.H.O.] where dereliction of duty is the accepted norm and where institutionalized gross ineptitude and serial incompentence: is the modus operandi?

    • Athelstan: Can you imagine ‘the management’ deciding to run Ebola clinics on the power from a wind turbine or a PV array? That would help…

    • You fund it, because WHO is about the best option available. Shovelling money to almost anyone else is less efficient. At least they confess their error quickly, where as IPCC sees no problem of spreading ,scenarios’ which turn out to be overestimating warming over and over again.
      The option on stop funding is good if you have a good alternative. Which is yours?

      • Maybe we could get Africans to sign up for free health insurance funded by fiat money and use part of it to fund WHO (of course, after paying the bureaucrats)…

      • Dawtgtomis
        Thanks – but might you have missed the pensions, and expenses, and nice conferences in agreeable venues [with or without extra], that those wonderful [/SARC, Mod] bureaucrats have a ‘right’ to receive from us proles.

  3. “Interstellar” was a fun movie, but I couldn’t help thinking about the underlying basis of the story, the failing ability of the Earth to support humanity, as being caused by AGW, and all things evil human. Always the propaganda.
    I was watching an old movie this morning, The Net. In one scene protesters were carrying signs saying “Healthcare is a right, not a privilege”. So back in 1995, they were training people to think properly to support a policy to be enacted more than a decade later. It happens all the time. When you are old enough to recognize it, and when you try to warn young people, you just sound crazy.
    Public education is an oxymoron.

      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ CAUTION *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      ************************ SPOILER *****************************
      How many people who watched Interstellar noticed that, in the movie, a “bad guy” character named Dr. Mann lied about the climate data of a planet in order to further his own agenda?

    • Actually, there was no mention of AGW in “Interstellar”. There was an unexplained “blight”, some sort of Nitrogen breathing microorganism that was infecting plant species one-by-one and driving them to extinction. Oddly, the last crop was corn. There were a lot of logical problems with that movie, but AGW wasn’t one of them.

      • It was Hollywood’s first step back from the failing meme, methinks. Why else would they have done away with such a clear opportunity to peddle more propaganda

  4. The cartoon accurately depicts what is in the heart of CAGW social reconstruction. Get on board or else. They think it, say it, then they do it.

    • I have a bit of colorblindness although I have never been able to ascertain exactly what kind. Years ago I believed I was weak in green but now I think it is red since I usually miss the maple leaves in autumn. Others will say, “Wow, look at those colors!” and I look and see the same green to brown hillside I’ve seen all summer.
      Anyway, no problem with the cartoon. The luminance variations make it easily readable and if the exact hue of brown for me is not the same for you well it doesn’t matter and there’s no particular way to discover it.

  5. Well, done, as usual, Josh. Amen.
    — I must add this, though, as someone who was born in and lived most of her life in northwest Washington State, USA: “wood burning” is the “one of these things is not like the other” {a la “Sesame Street” before it became “Socialist Propaganda Place”} bit…. .
    “Wood burning” is on the order of “corn stalk chopping (into sileage for cow food).” Yes, I agree, the falling of a mighty Douglas Fir with that deep groan and giant sigh before it lands with a thud you can hear for a mile is much more moving than a spindly corn stalk’s unremarkable demise… but, the principle is the same. Trees are a crop. You can drive by or hike through millions of acres of replanted forest in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and the surrounding area. Trees grow back (within 50 years — and there are millions of acres of old growth in our National Parks that will never be cut for you to go and gaze upon in wonder)!

    • That is not the type of wood burning that is a problem. And the issue is not the lose of trees, but the significant health consequences. There is a big difference between burning wood in a well built fireplace or stove, and burning it in a open fire pit within an enclosed hut. The later is the norm in many parts of the world that progressives are trying to prevent from modernizing.

      • Remember that Josh is English. “Wood Burning” evokes a very different image for him then for us in the western US.

  6. Like the effect of the crosses on the horizon… look like windmills….
    Every windmill a giant cross
    the slayer of and
    the memorial to
    the hundreds of bats and birds it has felled over the years.
    In memory of that little swallow, just one of the many lying silent beneath of those crosses…
    “Lost” — Neil Diamond

    “Lost… on a painted sky….. where the clouds are hung for the poet’s eye… .”
    For you, dear Josh, a true poet at heart.
    Rest in peace, little swallow.
    Requiescat in pace

      • Hi, Janice.
        Is there any chance you might slow things down in order to let us slower types catch up ?
        Tell me about the swallows.

      • Hi, U.K. (U.S.)
        Please see my comment above today at 10:04am.
        You are NOT slower than I,
        you just needed a bit more information.
        If you want some specific information about swallows, please ask me. Where I grew up, they arrived in March, built nests in the little houses we made (if English Swallows (blue or green back with white vest)) or in the eaves of barns or houses (brown with peach vest and the true swallow tails on their fine cut-away jackets). In early October, they flew away to the south.
        Is THAT what you wanted to know? (somehow I don’t think so) Let me know.
        Aside to: John Hultquist — THAT IS WHY I, TOO, DETEST STARLINGS — they tear up swallows’ nests and smash their eggs and take over and breed their own vile young there. House Sparrows behave similarly, drat ’em. (Saw your good point made about starlings the other day on WUWT.

      • Hi Janice.
        I think you mean Tree Swallow ((Tachycineta bicolor), rather than English.
        I’m on the “dry side” and have long thought our visitors were the Tree type.

      • Hi, John (“They also serve who only stand and wait.”) Hultquist,
        Thanks for the correction. Lol, we also enjoy eating “English” muffins…. which I guess no Englishperson ever sees unless they come to the United States, heh.
        And my grandpa showed me how to “put some English” on a ping pong ball.
        Take care, out there,

      • J. Philip, that video should be set on automatic replay in front of Hansen, Mann and all the other criminals who I hope will some day feel bars in their hands.
        As for starlings, sorry I don’t have animosity towards these birds. They are among the most intelligent and have a group dynamic that rivals that of humans. In addition, of all animal species they have one of the most advanced communication systems so far discovered.
        [“Most advanced communication systems” … So starlings use Facebook, but don’t Twitter? .mod]

  7. REVERSIBLE? Of course if governments stopped funding Climastrologists.

    World Health Organization
    In 2012, 90% of all malaria deaths occurred in the WHO African Region, mostly among children under 5 years of age.
    Hunger kills more people every year than AIDS, malaria & tuberculosis combined……
    Some 805 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people on earth.

    • Jimbo,
      Unfortunately, the Malthusian greens and Fabian progressives want those people to die they see these deaths as a positive. It is notable that they don’t consider their or their family’s existence expendable but everyone else is. They see humanity as a disease for Gaia. So when they are told that “every 5 seconds a child dies from hunger or related causes” these people quietly rejoice, it is what they want to happen.

      • M Courtney,
        Some of them are stupid, maybe the majority of them. But some of them are truly evil monsters.
        Guess which ones always end up calling the shots?

      • dbstealey, yes some people are bad.
        But not many. Lots of people support green policies. The vast majority don’t want to cause ill.
        They do advocate the catastrophe that Josh illustrates, but they (almost all) don’t mean to.

      • M Courtney,
        Believe it. We have a generation that has been indoctrinated by their professors of environmental studies into hating the modern world. The worst of these are very bad.

      • Gentlemen, you are Americans. Didn’t you notice the election results last Thursday, over there? Let me present that as counter-evidence.
        Indoctrination washes off most people as they have other sources of authority. Friends (including increasingly online communities), family, church and cultural resources like movies, books and music. No-one controls everything.
        Machiavelli was being risk averse from a ruler’s perspective; wise but not necessarily true. Yet he and Hobbes were wrong. There is no need for an over-arching power to crush man. The yearnings of each and all to better themselves leads to the progress of mankind.
        OK, I am a lefty who believes in the power of the ‘lumpen masses who are exploited by the elite’ to choose what is right for themselves. So I fear, once again, we are going to drop into that Monty Python form of argument – adding heat instead of light.

      • Stupid people? No. I wish it were that simple. Those who believe in these IPCC goals are not stupid. They are as smart and educated as anyone. The problem is their worldview, not their intelligence.
        Consider for example, Ted Turner, founder of CNN. He has said he believes the right population for the planet is under 2 Billion people. He has also said “a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Of course that’s for the little people; he has 5 children. Bill Gates too is deep into eugenics.
        This is serious business. And this is I think the point Josh is trying to make. If these ideologies really took hold, we would see endless Killing Fields. It’s the only possible solution to meet the IPCC goals.
        The irony is cheap energy can eliminate the systematic poverty that gives rise to high birth rates.

      • M Courtney
        November 8, 2014 at 11:04 am

        Just do an internet search on: “humanity is the cancer of nature”
        There are many other similar searches. I am sure if face to face with someone these people would not want them dead. But they are happily proposing just that as an academic argument and it is apparent with Holdren’s views on QALYs that letting people die is not a problem. In the UK in the winter months around 3000- 5000 people will die of cold in energy poverty every month and you won’t find any politician at all concerned not one little bit.

      • M Courtney,
        You didn’t answer my question:
        Guess which ones always end up calling the shots?
        The Camille Parmesans always end up in positions of power. Just like the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Pol Pots, the Putins, the Kim-jong Ils, al-qaida, ISIS, Mao, etc., etc., and etc.
        Your ‘monsters’ always end up calling the shots, and the stupid people do what they’re told.
        [BTW, where’s your dad? Haven’t heard from him lately.]

      • dbstealey, I didn’t answer your question about who ends up in charge because…well, I was watching Dr Who… but mainly because there is a sampling error. Monsters are obvious. The good-natured public servants – less so. How many WUWT articles about Texan schoolbooks are there?
        But there are 100s of people who add input to schoolbooks in Texas, let alone the whole USA. And there is a wider world than that. Yet we notice this woman.
        ‘Nuff said.
        My father is very ill. He has the form of cancer that Moloch had in that Allan Moore comic. His heart is affected to and he is unable to concentrate as he used to do. But he should see Christmas and we aren’t moving my wedding forward from April, yet.

      • M Courtney,
        Please give my best wishes to your dad. I think he will remember me. I am very sorry to hear he isn’t feeling well. I always thought the world of him, even though we never met in person.

    • I recall hearing that Malaria was nearly eliminated before the ban on DDT. All that took was a book and a consensus.

  8. The CAGW or just plain AGW movement beggars belief. The world has such a propensity to preposterous notions that “just grewed”,
    But this one tops the lot. I am intrigued as to how so many commentators and other camp followers will react when even the most diehard believers finally accept they have been duped by this monstrous fraud.
    That will be interesting.

  9. cnxtim: Religious history has shown that people can continue to believe even the most outrageous things in the face of reality. I’m not talking main-stream kind of religion but he “earth is doomed” kind of prophet that still has followers even after his/her predicted doom has come and passed. Several times. AGW is a new-age religion so expect some of its followers to continue until death, regardless of what the world is actually doing.

    • Unfortunately, Rhoda, you are correct.
      The main reason for that persistence in belief in both Envirostalinism and in Socialism in-spite-of-the facts (including replicated experimental data) is:
      I cannot admit I was —> WRONG.
      To paraphrase John Milton:
      “Better to reign in Socialist or Envirostalinist Hell than to admit I was wrong.”
      As D.B. Stealey ably pointed out above, that there are good-intentioned among the followers, is irrelevant (even more irrelevant is their being in the majority): the power-holders cynically use socialist and or environmental policies to gain just two things:
      MONEY (e.g., windmill and solar investors)
      POWER (which is ultimately about gaining money/property)
      thus, the root of this ev1l is:

      Gullible dupes, often piously and pridefully clinging to a willfully twisted interpretation of Scripture, are the “useful idiots” who make a “dictatorship of the elite” (F. Hayek) possible.
      I have NO sympathy for those who refuse to give up such patently mistaken, repeatedly disproven, beliefs. They are, unless truly feeble minded, to be scorned.
      These dupes’ pride which supports the greed of the power holders —> misery or death for millions.

      • If the outcome of all this is the usurpation of my liberty, then that is evil. I don’t care how innocently “stupid” the perpetrators are. They are my enemy.

      • I think you’ll find that both socialists and capitalists are interested in money and power. We have had energy cartels for decades: OPEC for one. We have had banking cartels for 30 years or more. Run by capitalists. Those capitalists ensure that the US ‘electoral democracy’ is between two brands of right wing capitalism. They invest in both sides, to ensure the money and power remain.
        It’s really rather silly to claim that the socialists are the only ones interested in money and power. Anyone interested in power is also interested in money. It’s the medium of greasing palms, which is the route to political power.

    • A lot of people make the claim that CAGW – and I think the C is crucial to the point – is like a religion but I don’t think that in itself should concern us. There are plenty of strange or crazy worldviews out there that are doing little harm, except to those who get sucked in to a controlling regime within the cults concerned. The difference with CAGW may be that it already resembles a kind of political religion of which writers like James Billington and Michael Burleigh have tried to pioneer scholarly understanding. Not that I’m saying that any scholar gets such a complex subject exactly right. See for example the sharp UK philosopher John Gray criticising Burleigh’s approach in October 2006. But we don’t often enough talk about the combination of the religious aspects of CAGW and the determined power seeking going on in conjunction with it, at national and international level. The Nazis were like this but there are of course dissimilarities too. But it’s as a budding political religion that I think CAGW should be discussed. It should sober us up on all sides of the debate.

  10. If human life is so uniquely valuable, then we should start with an issue where the science is indeed settled. The leading cause of anthropogenic mortality is a choice, pro-choice. It’s amazing how widely morality and science can vary between individuals.

    • n.n.
      Then why do we believe “the death penalty” to be any more acceptable? This is one I’ve never been able to get a grasp on the differentiation. After all, life is life.
      I post this at the risk of being “unscientific” but with high confidence that the post to which I’m replying will not be considered in the same vein.

      • Scale
        (and i,m pulling the following numbers out of my ass…)
        In USA , 100 losses of life due to death penalty per year … maybe 5% innocent of the subject crime … around 5 per year.
        In USA 1,000,000 losses of life due to abortion per year … maybe 80% not health related (physical or rmental) and not for the sake of convenience … around 800,000 per year.
        The death penalty is structured to make it difficult to carry out. The other seems to be structured more like an assembly line … to make it easy (except for recent changes in some states).
        I’m not advocating anything. I’m just responding to your querry.

      • I was referring to the one that occurs after birth. I get the culpability concept, but that assumes the judicial system is 100% accurate. And we all know it’s not. So for the mistakes, it’s pretty permanently uncorrectable. That’s why I have difficulty with the differentiation.

  11. The more lies they put out, the less credibility they will have. The less science and more politics, the less support they will have. Let the IPCC bury itself.

    • “Let the IPCC bury itself. ”
      But a lot of innocent people will have to be buried before that happens, The IPCC controls the propaganda machine,
      Even after 18yrs of no warming the ‘sheepel’ still believe there’s CAGW & CO2 is a pollutant, it’s being taught in the schools.
      Sadly because of the holy trinity PMP (power, money, politics), this is a long game.

  12. Janice Moore
    November 8, 2014 at 11:58 am
    “I have NO sympathy for those who refuse to give up such patently mistaken, repeatedly disproven, beliefs. They are, unless truly feeble minded, to be scorned.”
    I beg you to re-read what you said.
    If you say it again, then its no holds barred.

    • Dear U.K. (US),
      1. I think it quite possible that you may have misunderstood me in part.
      (and written correspondence is not the way to mend this, thus, fire away, but, no return volleys will be coming from me)
      2. I stand by my statement (and am hoping you understood it in full).
      Your WUWT Ally for Truth in Science,

      • Yes, I was going to answer,

        So then, to the death?

        But then Dr Who came on and I was distracted. Which is good. It wouldn’t have been a worthwhile fight.
        I don’t believe that at least one of us is truly evil.

  13. joelobryan
    November 8, 2014 at 10:01 am
    The Montreal Protocol was their test case that emboldened the Socialists to reach for their holy grail of complete control of the western world’s economic engines through control of energy.
    The Montreal Protocol was brought to you by…
    Margaret Thatcher
    & Ronald Reagan

    The prime beneficiary was Du Pont.
    “Socialists”, huh?

    • Yes, breaking the Unions who produced coal (the means of production).
      Clearly, Maggie Thatcher was a socialist.

      • Maggie was interested in breaking the NUM because they had designs beyond a Union – taking over Britain via Marxism. More fool the honest and decent miners who were duped by it. Britain screwed up hugely by not having someone to come in above both Thatcher and Scargill’s heads and telling them in no uncertain terms that Britain’s interests did not lie with either of them gaining a pyrrhic victory……..

      • Margaret Thatcher was for individuals, not the cliques who ran much of Britain’s economy. Coal worker unions and local housing authorities were powerful cliques that she fought.
        (BTW, illogical to say the unions produced coal – workers and those who financed the means of production produced coal.)

  14. That cartoon is an accurate depiction of Auschwitz-Treblinka.
    I fail to see how ‘global warming’ is remotely comparable……..

  15. If the impacts of climate change are ‘Irreversible’ then let’s declare the end of civilization, close up the IPCC, shutdown research of 100 year climate forecasting, and call it a day.
    It’s like telling a cancer patient their condition is irreversible and will die within a month, but it would be immoral if they did not stop drinking beer and eating hamburgers with extra cheese.
    Yes the past is irreversible and always has been, yet humorously, Climate Science seems to claim this as a new discovery. As to the future it continues to evolve unpredictably, with humans contributing as best they can to the present.

Comments are closed.