Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Naomi Klein, the green gift which keeps on giving, appears to be preparing the ground for a disappointing Paris COP 21 outcome.
According to Klein;
Australia has just announced its emissions reduction target before climate talks in Paris later this year. Do you think it’s sufficient?
This game of countries’ leaders saying about other countries “they are doing it too” is so childish. I’d say it was shocking but then [Tony] Abbott tried to keep climate off the agenda at the G20.
I think we need to be very careful raising expectations over Paris – there won’t be a deal in line with the science.
One part I find particularly shocking is that Australia is very much on the frontline of climate change. In Canada, most people don’t experience the extreme weather, but in Australia it is severe…
It’s not just about things getting hotter, it’s about things getting a lot meaner. You see that in Australia where the treatment of migrants is a profound moral crisis. It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme – climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.
Its nice to know that Naomi shares our view, that Paris COP21 is unlikely to achieve anything of consequence.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, if the whole continent of Australia is the frontline of climate change, then climate change is definitely not global.
One can always tell who are true urbanites by their total lack of outdoor reality. When one only shuttles between close doorways and protected transportation there is a tendency to believe everyone experiences the same comforts.
Australia occupies a position ranging from Latitude S11° and S39°.
Other areas of the world occupying similar latitudes include;
Southeast Asia,
India,
Arabia,
North Africa (Sahara),
Central America and
Mexico.
Are all of these countries afflicted with the same climate change problems, as they should be in a global climate?
Naomi Klein = High Priestess of the Climate Change Religion
I have combined two comments above, how about this headline:
COP21, meeting of the Parisites
CO2 makes racism more severe?
Is there nothing this wonder gas CAN’T do?
So some good did come from the Vietnam War. It drove Naomi’s parents out of the USA.
It’s such a cliche that offspring of ideologue activists becomes an ideologue activist. Not much free will, intellectual curiosity or creativity in that. This collectivism by design causes peoples minds to collect to form a consensus mind as we see in the global warming end of the world (eow) industry. This is well known by the Marxbrothers. To differ is harder and requires a different mind – one that questions things and collective mind finds dissent disturbing, although their personal therapy is calling such people anti-science, right wing knuckle draggers. Being a sceptic automatically offers more choice. You can say ‘hold on here’, investigate and, depending on findings agree or disagree.What’s wrong with that? Indeed it is thoroughly logical to boot. It certainly is a far superior reading of “the precautionary principle” than to cook up a crisis with dysfunctional models and then demand we spend trillions because it come true in a hundred years.
Strange, I also note that the eow climate change literature is nearly all written by ideologues without a scientific background (two of them Naomis so I guess the alphabet must be pretty well covered!). There may have been some scientific types doing this more than a decade ago, but outside of M E Mann, there isn’t much popular publishing on the subject by warming scientists. Interesting, they are not prepared to put it out there, are they.
might come true
In her case, it is at least three generations, since her grandparents were Communists.
She appeals to The Guardian readership. Though even there, there’s usually only a few hundred regular commenters om the various and numerous climate change stories.
There are even comments that show up that are counters to the AGW accepted ‘wisdom’. The reactions to those are fascinating.
The hazards of living in an echo chamber are manifest in that paper.
Where does Naomi publish again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Yep, during the last Ice Age level of open racism was 400 feet lower than it is today.
True. Twenty thousand years ago during the LGM was a world of respect for nature and among men, peace, love and brotherhood. Except for the rampant cannibalism, of course.
Cannibalism? Was it not diligent recycling of human flesh and wise population control?
Yes. The most powerful tribes then were true to their Green faith in a white world. They hated their fellow humans so much that they ate and recycled them.
Of course, they also wiped out the meatier megafauna while they were at it.
Without human technology Gaia is doomed.
If cAGW is correct, a single CO₂ concentration doubling, associated with 3.7 W/m² primary forcing, is catastrophic to climate.
According to the standard solar model solar luminosity is increasing.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Solar_evolution_%28English%29.svg
At this rate in just 170 million years solar forcing will be 3.7 W/m² higher than it is today, a pittance compared to depths of its past history.
Of course, if climate sensitivity is much lower than it is in cAGW nightmares, Gaia may live a bit longer, up to a billion years or so, at which point temperatures go through the roof, no matter how much CO₂ we have. In a billion years solar forcing increases by 22 W/m², equivalent to 6 doubling of atmospheric CO₂ concentration, at which point there would be sixty times more of it, 2.5% (slightly toxic).
However, all this gloom and doom can be averted by clever technology, so Gaia definitely needs a hand 😉
See eg. The search for a strategy for mankind to survive the solar Red Giant catastrophe by M. Taube and W. Seifritz.
IMO if descendants of humans still exist in five billion years, they will have long since abandoned the earth. I suppose they might be able to survive beneath its surface after that becomes uninhabitable, but even subterranean existence won’t be possible if, as seems likely, the red giant phase will engulf our planet, despite then orbiting farther out.
It makes more sense to leave earth where it is than trying to move it. Humans could spread first to the asteroids, then perhaps to moons of the giant planets and eventually to the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.
By five billion years in the future, if we and our descendant species haven’t already gone extinct, then we may have spread throughout much of the galaxy.
UnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnPRECIDENted ….. KILLLLLLLLLLLLLerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr …. sea levelllllll RRRRRRRise … it WILLLLLLLLLLL HAPpennnnnnnnnn …. in 2097!!!!!
(Just like “GREENHOUSE! It WILL happen in 1997)
I just made the mistake of reading the Gaurdian article and some comments, my god what are these people on. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry, how did these people become so deluded.
It’s completely in line with what Naomi believes–that “climate change” has deleterious impacts EVERYWHERE. Why, it even makes normal people delusional and she’s a prime example.
But she’d never believe it could happen to her; no, the “climate change” meme is only that and she’s fallen for it. The only real impact of the meme is making fools of highly gullible humans and again, she’s a prime example.
It would be entertaining were it not so dangerous.
Klein’s statement is totally way off the mark, and wrong in every aspect. In Australia sea level rise is demonstrably miniscule as shown by tide gauges. Despite Warmist/Alarmist warnings, Warragamba dam in NSW and others in Queensland are overflowing. Tim Flannery still lives in his waterfront property just 5 metres from the Hawkesbury River’s mouth, despite his predictions of flooding seas. Flannery’s dud predictions sparked government installation of now disused desalination plants in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane that now cost over $2,000,000 per day to not run. The plant in Perth runs on minimum output. Green mania sees huge amounts of money wasted on solar and wind electricity production at grossly excessive costs. Climate in Australia is exactly as it was in the Nineteenth Century, or perhaps a little less severe, to judge by the records.
As for migration, Australia is one of the world’s major ‘immigration nations‘, together with New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America (USA). Since 1945, over 7.5 million overseas people have settled in Australia. This year’s immigration is over 200,000 people. Overseas born population is 27.7 per cent of the total population, higher than most OECD countries.
Naomi Klein’s previous book, The Shock Doctrine, was actually quite thoughtful and thought-provoking, even if a touch overstated (as a polemic probably should be). It really is a pity for her that she has latched onto AGW so late in the game. It probably won’t do her reputation much good in the long term.
Waiting for the right-wing contingent to verbally abuse me for this comment………………….
No use for abuse, Smart. You’re probably right; many well-intentioned and intelligent people have been snookered by the “climate change” meme–it’s a political tool and not the results of honest scientific inquiry. And you know how lame so many political tools are–religion for the elites and useless fodder for the masses.
The Australian government surely knows the true story behind the global power grab using CAGW as the motivator. Hardly likely that a political activist from across the world would change any policies. Sovereighty is actually important down under.
We’re hip to the tricks, Naomi.
Naomi Klein is an example of an idealogue who uses science as a means to try and impose her ideology on all and enrich herself in the process.
While the comments here are fascinating, they offer relatively little informed debate about the real prospects for the COP 21 Conference in Paris. Do you not find it sad that the only ones who even pretend to have an insight into what will happen at this enormously important international conference (because of the potential damage it could do) are the members of radical environmental organizations and representatives of the extreme left like Naomi Klein? Why is it that individuals like those who comment on Watts Up With That know so little about the pre-conference work and the politics going on behind the scenes? To understand this, you simply have to look at how western governments have been browbeaten into agreeing to make environmental non-governmental organizations official observers at all the COP-related meetings, during which the government officials are constantly harassed to provide the ENGOs with detailed briefings and the media keeps up a constantly repeating alarmist patter. The reality is that most people who disagree with the the global warming catastrophe thesis have extremely little hard information about the prospects for an agreement nor about what to do to influence the outcome. As someone who used to work in this area, but is now retired, I would only offer the view that the forces in favour of an extremely damaging and legally-binding agreement are working furiously behind the scenes and in the media to influence political leaders and senior officials. Whether there will be an agreement will depend largely on whether there can be a reconciliation of the different positions of the developed and developing countries over such matters as the $100 billion per year Green Climate Fund (e.g. sources of funds, allocation, transparency and accountability, etc.) and how stringent will be the penalties for non-compliance with the emission reduction targets. The targets agreed in principle by the G7 leaders in June (i.e.40 to 70% reduction from 2010 levels by 2050) are so ridiculous that no government not dominated by the Greens would ever contemplate them. However, as we have seen many times in the past, there is no political downside to promising to reduce emissions, only in actually doing so.