[December 2021. Since many years, already, Grégoire Canlorbe is now totally retired from politics and no longer has any responsibility in any political party. His ideas also have much evolved since this article, which he doesn’t endorse anymore.]
By Grégoire Canlorbe, Vice President of the Parti National-Libéral
“The agreement of the Paris COP 21 was not signed to save the planet and to prevent us from roasting due to an imaginary temperature increase of +2°C. Behind all that masquerade is hidden, as always, the ugly face of power, greed, and profit. All the industrialists who are in favor of that commitment, which will ruin Europe and immensely impoverish its citizens, do so for the good reason they find in it a huge and easy source of income. As for NGOs, when they are not simply motivated by greed, their motive consists in a resolutely Malthusian ideology. Their object is to return the world to a very small population, on the order of a few hundred million people. To do so, they impoverish the world, remove the power of fossil fuel energies, and thus ensure that the number of deaths increases.”
Professor István Markó (1956 – 2017)
The eminent Davos man that is Emmanuel Macron does not only profess his faith in cosmopolitanism—namely, the refusal of sovereign nations, as well as of genetic and cultural differences (between men), and of moral boundaries (in the human heart).1 Climate activism, which fights for the reduction of the human emissions of carbon dioxide—in the name of the warming supposedly caused by those same emissions—occupies an essential place in the creed of the current French President, who does not hesitate to challenge Trump on this ground. Be it climate activism or cosmopolitanism, Macron’s conceptions lie in the lineage of the global superclass whose emissary he is.
By “global superclass,” an expression we owe to Samuel Huntington, and which owes its popularity to the political commentator David Rothkopf (who took it over), one must understand a transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people, whose gestation dates back at least to the beginning of the twentieth century and whose constitution accelerated with the fall of the Soviet bloc. Among its members, the global superclass includes as much financiers, and the leaders of various international institutions, as executives and business leaders, writers, university professors, NGO bosses, or movie stars. More or less informally, cosmopolitanism constitutes the ideology par excellence of the global superclass, but it is far from exhausting the gist of its worldview: climate activism, which we will see is in league with Neo-Malthusianism—and with what might be called Gaia’s cult—is equally well anchored among the members of the global superclass.
We intend to show here that climate activism, which one has to notice unfortunately is very largely endorsed, in France, among men and women (who claim to be) on the right, has no place in a right-wing program worthy of the name. In other words, we intend to show that the right must endorse climate-realism, by which we designate a posture which readily acknowledges that climatic conditions have never been stable but perpetually variable, and regards as highly improbable human responsibility for the “contemporary” warming; 2 which, without denying the need to preserve the environment, sees CO2 as a benefit, and not a pollutant; which, without losing sight of the damage occasionally caused by modern industry, encourages the exploitation of fossil fuels and nuclear power, and suspects a Neo-Malthusian plot to be at work behind the calls for the exit out of the nuclear power and coal. On the condition that it espouses climate-realism, the right will lead an authentic resistance to Emmanuel Macron—and, by extension, to the global superclass that mandated him.
From the questioning of anthropogenic CO2 to Gaia’s philosophy
The thesis of anthropogenic global warming, which is the basis of climate activism, argues that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution, and that they have caused a warming of the global temperature that is worrying both for the planet and for humanity.3 Most often, this thesis falls within a broader vision of man and Nature, which could be called the doctrine (or philosophy) of Gaia; this vision is that of the human being as an entity foreign to Nature, and of modern industry as a parasitic activity that empties the Nature of its blood. This vision is also that of Nature as a protective and benevolent mother, who would never do harm to her children, and whom the human being, in turn, indulges in mishandling shamelessly with his exploitation of mineral and agricultural resources, his action on the climate, or his demographic development (which weighs in on resources).4
The truth on carbon dioxide
That carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing since the beginning of the XIXth century, and that carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect, this is attested; however, it is a dubious notion, at the very least, that these emissions are the determining factor of warming, to the extent that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is quite minor. In addition to representing only 0.04% of the composition of the air, CO2 has a greenhouse effect of 1: by comparison, water vapor, which has a greenhouse effect ten times more powerful, represents 2% of the composition of the air. With regard to the temperature recorded since the end of the Little Ice Age, and therefore the end of the XIXth century, there is indeed a rise, but the increase in question is only 0.8 degree centigrade. Therefore, it is not only unlikely that the human emissions of CO2 are involved in the warming: it is simply wrong, moreover, that the warming in question has risen to an alarming level.
The bad trial brought against CO2 does not stop there. In its denunciation of industry, hard ecologism—another way of referring to Gaia’s doctrine—is never as vehement, and as aberrant, as when it incriminates carbon dioxide as a pollutant for the planet. Far from damaging Nature, the human emissions of carbon dioxide contribute to make the planet greener, for the good reason that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Thus, despite deforestation, and as a result of the increasing concentration of CO2 in the air, the planet has gone green by about 20% over the last thirty years. The harmony with which anthropogenic CO2 is inserted into the cycles of Nature is all the greater as the “lung of the Earth,” in other words phytoplankton—which produces 70% of the oxygen present in the atmosphere—also bases its diet on carbon dioxide.
Vegetation, through photosynthesis, converts the CO2 from air, soil water, and sunlight into organic matter devoured by herbivores, omnivores, insects, and many bacteria and fungi. Several studies, exploiting observations of various kinds, found a 30% increase in the productivity of vegetation during the XXth century; that growth corresponds to the food of almost a quarter of all living beings on Earth today, which is the immense benefit of a greater carbon dioxide content in the air, and of very slightly colder temperatures, since the beginning, around 1860 – 1900, of the exit out of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1300 to 1860 and provoked in Europe as in China a great number of famines and distresses well documented by the written archives of those countries.
It is worth keeping in mind that despite the so often repeated claim that the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere has never been so high, the rate in question is, in fact, extraordinarily low with respect to that of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm that it used to reach hundreds of millions of years ago. Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic—periods in which plants reached heights, and displayed levels of health, without comparison to the present period—look like the golden age of the vegetal world; and the crusade of the supporters of hard environmentalism to obtain the reduction of the current CO2 rate, which hardly exceeds 400 ppm, may well lead to an age of darkness for the vegetation. Engineers working in greenhouses know full well that plants are more fulfilling, and more resilient, in the presence of increased CO2 levels; and that conversely, a decreasing rate of CO2 is very detrimental to them.
Eventually, the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide from petroleum, coal, natural gas, and cement since 1751 are just one percent of the carbon that flows naturally between oceans, the atmosphere and vegetation and soils. By the admission of the IPCC (Figure 6-1, page 471 of the 2013’s AR5 WG1 report) a fifth of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed each year by the vegetation and the oceans of medium and high latitudes whose surface is relatively cold. The carbon dioxide released from the use of oil, coal, natural gas, and from cement production, represents only a small fraction (5% to 6% in 2017) of the carbon dioxide that each year enters the atmosphere and comes essentially (namely, almost 95%) from the degassing of the oceans—especially the zone between the tropics—and from the degassing of the soils where the dead vegetable matter rots. Those 5% or 6% are very well verified by the measurements of the quantities of the two isotopes 13 and 12 of the carbon from the air—measurements that have been made routinely for more than forty years.
The truth on the planet
Admittedly, the supporters of climate activism, whether they are, or not, “Davos men”—an accepted expression to designate, by synecdoche, the members of the global superclass—do not limit themselves to incriminating CO2 as a pollutant, and as the decisive factor of warming. They conceive of human industry—more particularly, coal and nuclear power—as a vampire who bleeds the unhappy planet dry; invoke the unavoidable exhaustion of resources, pillaged shamelessly by that same industry; point out the extinctions of which man has rendered himself guilty with his imprint on the environment.
Concerning the deleterious impact of the human emissions of CO2, one commonly represents to oneself the following facts as evidence that the so-called warming linked to the human emissions of carbon dioxide is damaging Nature: the level of seas and oceans would increase year after year, engulfing entire islands, while the level of glaciers and polar caps would decrease; besides, temperatures would register a gradual augmentation, while the frequency of extreme weather events and the area affected by droughts would also reach increasingly high levels.
Again, CO2 has a radiative effect in the troposphere that is completely negligible compared to that of water vapor; and since its concentration in air is also a consequence of the temperatures that modulate the degassing of the ocean, the responsibility of CO2 for the warming is all the more unlikely. There has been certainly an increase in the temperature recorded since the end of the Little Ice Age (which extends approximately from the beginning of the XIVth to the end of the XIXth century); and more specifically, an increase in temperatures at high and mid-latitudes with a maximum in the 1940s, then a cooling down till around 1975, and a new plateau since 2000. As we have already mentioned, the magnitude of the increase in question is quite modest: in fact, the figure of 0.8 degrees centigrade, which is often advanced, must be taken with caution, since the changes are much more marked at high latitudes than in the tropics.
The sea level is rising; but, as shown by hundreds of tide gauges, from about 1 mm / year to 3 mm / year depending on the movements of the soil that carries them: by comparison, a storm brings variations from one to several meters in a few hours. In the extreme majority of cases, rising water levels have therefore nothing to do with the engulfments that strike here and there (and that are most often due to a classical erosion effect).
For ice, it is necessary to distinguish between ice packs whose maximum surface at the end of winter, and thickness, vary from year to year with oddly fluctuations in opposite directions in the Arctic and Antarctica; the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which seem to continue to thicken, the snowfall offsetting the flow of glaciers or rivers of ice that, on the periphery of the ice cap, bring the ice to the sea; and some arctic glaciers that have been declining in recent decades. On average, the Artic ice level has not been decreasing since more than ten years; and ironically, as Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon reminds us, it is less ice, and not more, that polar bears need for their survival.5
It is an equally chimerical notion that extreme events, including tornadoes and storms, are on the rise: Richard Lindzen, a MIT physicist specializing in the atmosphere, recalls that the decrease in the temperature differential between the high latitudes of the hemisphere North and the zone between the tropics can only reduce the strength of atmospheric circulation, and therefore the frequency of extreme events. As for deserts, they have also been in recession for twenty years, as plants, in virtue of the increased rate of CO2 in the atmosphere, have less need for water, and can therefore thrive more in a desert environment.
In the end, there are probably many meteorological or industrial misfortunes the planet would rather do without; however, the rise in temperature seems to be quite natural, and its magnitude is not abnormal at all. The rise in water levels is not worrisome, either: these are the great storms that, every ten or one hundred years, cause damage; quite simply, the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are thickening, and the state of the sea ice has no effect on the sea level. As for the frequency and the gravity of extreme events, they diminish, as well as the extent of the deserts in the world. CO2 is not a poison, it is even the essential food of plants; and as Lindzen eloquently summarizes, “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin.”
Admittedly, the reality of pollution, whether or not it is linked to industry, cannot be denied: the Pacific trash vortex is a testament to the extent of pollution that man is capable of engendering. However, it is not self-evident to present the human being, let alone his industry, as necessarily polluting—and therefore, as necessarily toxic to the environment—; and this all the more as the treatment of industrial pollution improves day after day. One only has to think of the Beijing air, whose toxicity has considerably diminished, and is now out of proportion to the smog that used to reign in London a short while ago. The skyscraper-sized air-purification tower that China experiments in Xi’an is a testament to the care that man is capable of giving to the Creation that is left between his hands. With regard to pollution associated with nuclear energy, let us remember that no one died as a result of the nuclear accident that occurred in Fukushima.
Concerning the resources of the globe, the Neo-Malthusian conceptions are articulated around the conviction that, if economic growth exceeded demographic growth as of the Industrial Revolution, thus allowing the propulsion of demographic growth, this situation is not only unsustainable, but will culminate into the depletion of resources—including food resources. We will come back a little further on this subject. In the meantime, it is worth noting that the peak oil is constantly being pushed back, even though proponents of hard environmentalism have ceaselessly described it as imminent. In the words of the late István Markó, “Those who convey the idea that the finite character of resources renders infinite growth impossible, leave out of account the ability of the human being to innovate in our technology, to enrich our knowledge of nature, and to enhance our extraction strategies.”
Extinctions are an undeniable phenomenon: thus, over the last 600 years, about 800 species have disappeared; but it is absolutely false that only man is involved in extinctions. In the vast majority of cases, the species that have disappeared, or are jeopardized, owe their extinction to Nature itself: with the arrival of new invasive species or parasites (viruses, fungi, bacteria, and so on). If it happens to the human being to exert a deleterious imprint on his environment, and the species which it shelters, it is just as true that Nature is not hospitable by itself; the comfort of life does not fall from the sky, and it is at the cost of his efforts to make his environment hospitable that the human being has raised his condition. As István Markó once again reminds us, modern industry, though booed by hard environmentalism, has played a decisive role in this respect: “The victory of medicine, which is so often praised, would never have been possible, without the chemistry of fossil resources. It is the chemical and industrial advances in pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizers that have enabled us to master our environment.”
From the concern for biodiversity to the struggle against cosmopolitanism
In approaching with an overview the popular speeches on pollution, the depletion of resources, warming, one cannot but notice that they revolve around the following idea: Nature is good, but man is bad; Nature would never harm her children, man is the only one responsible for extinctions and other catastrophes; whatever he undertakes, man is an evil creature whose imprint on Nature is necessarily novice, and in the final analysis, man is an intruder on Earth. This view of man’s relationships with Nature is opposed by the vision developed by Patrick Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace—an organization he was to distance himself from by reason of his deep disagreement with the hard ecologism eventually promoted by Greenpeace.
“Being an ecologist,” says Moore, “I see all life as one system on Earth. Ecology is about the interrelationships among all of the different forms of life, including humans of course. We came from nature, we evolved from nature in the same manner, evolutionarily, as all of the others species did. To see human as separate and, in a way, the only evil animal, is how it is now projected.” If the right, in France and elsewhere, wants to base its ecological policy on an image of Nature that works, a healthy and accurate conception of Nature, it must endorse ecologism in the sense of Patrick Moore—and, by extension, espouse climate-realism. On this condition, and only on this condition, the right will prove an authentic opponent of the global superclass, which not only endorses the cosmopolitanism legitimizing its existence, but the Gaia’s philosophy sustaining its climate activism (and as we shall see, its Neo-Malthusianism).
A word deserves to be said about the panda, whose strategies for survival and reproduction, instinctive, leave one to wonder about the angelic conception of nature as a mother concerned with the fate of her children. In addition to feeding exclusively on a certain type of bamboo, whose energy capacity varies during the year, and is very weak during the heat of the female, the panda is a solitary animal, avoiding its congeners. Therefore, the reproduction of the panda is highly hazardous; and this is not only because, for a though very short fertility time (namely, three days), the male and the female are struggling to meet each other, but because the male is generally too tired to engage in an intercourse (by reason of the low energy quality of bamboo at this time of the year). Mother Nature is not more benevolent to the panda than she is to the human being: she does not embrace her child that is the panda, she condemns him to extinction; and it is genuinely the human being which saves the panda.
That some species have died by the fault of man, and that man has the duty, not only not to undermine biodiversity, but to rescue endangered species, we certainly do not deny it. We will even venture to argue that the preservation of natural species, a fortiori the protection of endangered species—whether their disappearance is linked to the action of the human being or the cruelty of Mother Nature in person—is a goal we must seek for the same reason that cosmopolitanism must be fought: living creatures, including those social organisms that are human nations and ethnicities, must survive and flourish in the richness of their respective natures; the flowering and diversity of life must be recognized, preserved, sanctified.
From Gaia’s cult to the Neo-Malthusian profession of faith
The global superclass, which claims its attachment to biodiversity,6 however promotes a false and misanthropic view of Nature, to which it associates a cosmopolitan profession of faith that rejects ethno-cultural diversity. Because global warming is thought of as a global issue, climate activism is in league with the cosmopolitan ideal of a global government that would supplant, at last, sovereign nations, dissolve genetic and cultural identities, dispel political boundaries—be it to promote human flows or the flows of goods. However, this alliance goes beyond pragmatism: Davos men are not less sincere in their adherence to the cult of Gaia than they are in their veneration of the god-Humanity—a humanity free of national subdivisions, and of cultural and genetic specificities.
In addition to the demonization of carbon dioxide, an equally decisive aspect of Gaia’s philosophy consists in the belief that contemporary economic growth, which has outreached population growth, and thus allowed the leap forward of the world’s population, amounts to betraying Mother Nature: a betrayal for which the price to pay is the ineluctable disappearance of food resources (under the weight of demographic growth). Climate activism, Neo-Malthusianism, and cosmopolitanism are therefore narrowly solidary ideals; and one can expect a resolutely Neo-Malthusian agenda on the part of the world government that the global superclass, which acts under the pretext of fighting against global warming, aspires to develop from the UN.
If hard ecologism culminates into the rejection of fossil fuels and nuclear power, it is, first and foremost, because growth based on nuclear power and coal amounts to an emancipation from Nature—an emancipation that the clergy of Gaia likens to a transgression and a rape. In the words of economic historian E.A. Wrigley, the Industrial Revolution, by basing growth on fossil fuels, has allowed the emergence of a “world that no longer follows the rhythm of the sun and the seasons; a world in which the fortunes of men depend largely upon how he himself regulates the economy and not upon the vagaries of weather and harvest; a world in which poverty has become an optional state rather than a reflection of the necessary limitations of human productive powers.” This is what economist Deepak Lal, specialized in the comparative study of civilizations, has called “Promethean growth,” as opposed to mere “Smithian growth,” which consists of increasing the extent of the division of labor.
To a large extent, the horizon of hard ecologism, we believe, is to return to a traditional growth, thus Smithian, based on the division of labor and associated with an economy of organic type (or agrarian economy)—a growth limited by the area of cultivated land and supported by birth control. A more moderate, more pragmatic version of this program certainly promotes the exit out of nuclear power and coal, therefore the evacuation of Promethean growth (for the benefit of the return to Smithian growth); but professes an intermediary way between the return to an agrarian economy stricto sensu and the continuation along the path of fossil energies and nuclear power. This intermediate path consists in the development of so-called intermittent energies—namely, solar energy, tidal power, and wind power. Basically, it comes down to the same thing: the return to an economy slavishly linked to the vagaries of the sun, the wind, and the tides—and to a growth that no longer depends on the way man domesticates Nature, a growth whose only hope lies in the extension of the division of labor.7
In line with its blaming modern industry, hard ecologism also rejects Promethean growth for properly Neo-Malthusian reasons. Neo-Malthusianism consists in the conviction that current population growth, which has been propelled by the Industrial Revolution, and has been overtaken by economic growth, will lead ineluctably to the disappearance of food resources—and therefore, mass starvation. In the hope of preventing this catastrophic outcome for the human and the planet, Davos men, who sacrifice to Gaia, are ready to sacrifice economic and demographic development—and therefore, to impoverish the world and increase the number of deaths. As such, the fight against the human emissions of carbon dioxide is not only a response to the goal of saving the climate: it lies within a more fundamental struggle against the industries (namely, coal and nuclear power) that have allowed the demographic explosion of humanity.
Why France should lead the resistance against climate activism
As a remedy for the toxic conjectures of which the global superclass has made a habit, it is also good to read Patrick Moore on Neo-Malthusianism. Although, as Moore reminds us, Malthus, in his time, predicted with relentless logic that mass starvation was inevitable, given the linear character of food production, and the exponential character of population growth, “The truth is that has been reversed now.” Nowadays, population growth “is actually tapering off in terms of an exponential curve;” in contrast, “food production has become exponential in its ability to feed the entire world population,” which definitively discredits the criminal messianism of Davos men, for whom only the reduction of the population—through the renunciation of Promethean growth—will allow the preservation of food resources, and the survival of humanity.
In the end, here are, in our opinion, the three reasons why a proudly right-wing France will have to lead the resistance against climate activism. Firstly, the alleged anthropogenic global warming, which we have seen is far from being established, is thought of as a global problem; and as such, serves as a Trojan horse for the global superclass: promoting the reduction of the human emissions of carbon dioxide is very precisely a pretext for promoting the development of the UN into a global government.
Secondly, CO2 is far from being a poison, and even constitutes, as we have seen, the basic food of plants (and of phytoplankton species). France being a garden, it must become the Garden of Eden of right-wing ideals—freedom, territory, and aristocracy—; and to do this, CO2 emissions will have to be strongly encouraged. France, the spearhead of a freer world, but also greener, more territorial, more aristocratic—a more beautiful world, in short!
Thirdly, the fight against global warming conceals a more fundamental struggle against what we have called, taking over Deepak Lal’s expression, “Promethean growth:” namely, growth based on fossil resources and nuclear power, that which domesticates Nature, and which no longer requires population control to adjust the demography to the limit of cultivable land. Climate activism is genocide by deindustrialization: motivated by a Neo-Malthusian ideology (that does not take into account the progresses of agriculture, which have become exponential, and the henceforth linear character of population growth), it intends to reduce the world population by depriving it of the exploitation of fossil energies and nuclear power. In leading the resistance against climate activism, France will lead the resistance against the genocidal ambitions of the global superclass.8
The author of the article, Mr. Grégoire Canlorbe, is Vice President of the Parti National-Libéral, founded and chaired by Mr. Henry de Lesquen. Grégoire Canlorbe is also a supporter of the Association des Climato-Réalistes—the only climate-realist organization in France.
This article is dedicated to the memory of Prof. István Markó, who gave his very last interview to Grégoire Canlorbe (which was related on Breitbart News Network). The author wishes to thank, besides, Mr. Camille Veyres, scientific expert on climate; Mr. Deepak Lal, economist, and former President of the Mont Pelerin Society; Mr. Patrick Moore, co-founder and former President of Greenpeace; Mr. Václav Klaus, former Czech President, and a spearhead of climate-realistic national-liberalism; Mr. Willie Soon, Harvard astrophysicist; and Mr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric physicist, for the precious discussions that fueled this article.
1 Rejecting cosmopolitanism does not mean rejecting free trade, globalized capitalism, or the “cultural dialogue” among nations. Cosmopolitanism attacks nations and their borders, calls for the dissolution of racial and cultural identities, preaches moral relativism: rejecting cosmopolitanism means rejecting this mortiferous program, and not rejecting globalization.
2 The allegedly contemporary warming is observed from 1975 to 1997, but neither before (cooling from 1945 to 1975) nor after (stagnation of temperatures from 1999 to 2015).
3 More specifically, the thesis of anthropogenic warming argues that the human emissions of CO2 have caused a warming of the order of a fraction of a degree Celsius, in an unobservable quantity, called the global average temperature, and that in thirty or forty years, there will be an increase of this temperature that will be worrying for the human and the planet.
4 The so-called scientific consensus on the decisive role of the human emissions of CO2 in global warming—and on the worrying, abnormally high character of this warming—does not exist. There is indeed a consensus, but this consensus is “ideological” and religious: it is motivated by the religion of Gaia, and not by logico-experimental considerations. The same can be said of the so-called scientific consensus on the non-existence of human races: science is by no means unanimous on the subject, and scientists who claim otherwise do so as religious, not as scientists. In this case, it is the religion of cosmopolitanism that drives them to lie.
5 In Willie Soon’s words, “Polar bears need less sea ice to be well fed and to reproduce. Why? Think about this for a minute: Polar bears eat a lot. Any large colony will need a great deal of food. The bears’ staple diet is seal blubber. But seals are a long way up the food chain. So a fully functional and healthy eco-system is required. And that means oceans warm enough to support the lower links in the food chain from plankton all the way up to seals.”
6 The “United Nations Decade on Biodiversity” (2011-2020) demonstrates the importance of the theme of biodiversity for the UN—and more fundamentally, the global superclass. Nevertheless, the biodiversity that one is trying to preserve here is quite relative: indeed, it does not extend to ethno-cultural diversity, even though it is perfectly legitimate to include among living beings the human ethnicities and nations, which are, strictly speaking, social organisms (or superorganisms).
7 Among the proponents of hard environmentalism, some go even further: in rejecting not only Promethean growth, hence modern industry, but the international division of labor that Smithian growth calls for. Producing “locally” is expected to allow a lower emission of CO2 levels, hence the rejection of capitalist globalization by this extreme version of Gaia’s doctrine. That said, the global superclass, which promotes globalization in the name of cosmopolitanism, cannot reject Smithian growth—and the international division of labor that it implies.
8 Three genocides prove at work in Western Europe. A genocide by substitution—the replacement of the indigenous populations by the migrants arriving en masse. A genocide by deindustrialization—the dismantling of nuclear power and fossil industries in favor of the impoverishment of the population (and of the increase in the number of deaths). And a genocide by malnutrition—the proliferation of cancer by reason of the sugar that has invaded the diet.
Sugar doesn’t cause cancer.
However eating too much of it and gaining too much weight does increase cancer risk.
Since cancer cells process carbohydrates differently from normal cells, sugar metabolism does offer an avenue for fighting tumors.
fasting.
The world population in 1950 was 2.5 billion. It is now 7.6 billion Couldn’t all the pidly (0.6- 0.7 C) amount of warming we have seen in the last 68 years all be attributed to the extra 5.1 billion people on the planet? We know that the more people you put in a room the hotter it gets. And just think even if you dont heat your hut in the tropics you still have to cook. Has anyone done the numbers on this?
Average adult male basal metabolism is around 100 watts. Female around 70 watts.
With average activity, you could use 100 watts for all 7.5E9 global humans. So about 750E9 watts is global energy added to the environment due to humans. Global solar insolation is orders of magnitude greater.
Average adult CO2 exhaled due to metabolism is 1 kilogram per person per day.
So 7.5E9 kilograms per day for all humans. That’s .0075 gigatonnes per day. Times 365 gives about 2.7 gigatonnes CO2 per year due to global human metabolism. Fossil fuel burning is at least 30 gigatonnes per year last I checked.
Years ago there were very crude estimates of global metabolism that were at least 2 orders of magnitude greater than just humans alone. That might have been just termites, so my memory is hazy and I did not bother to google anything.
The atmosphere is now just over 3000 gigatonnes CO2. The global ocean holds tens of thousands of gigatonnes of CO2 in aqueous carbonate and bicarbonate.
The annual exchange of CO2 between air and surface is at least 600 gigatonnes per year, about 1/2 is biology and 1/2 abiotic/ocean.
Most of the increase of atmospheric CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm is due to destruction of global biology, burning of tropical forest, farming, land use, etc. Maybe 75 ppm, about 20 ppm is due to fossil fuel burning, and maybe 5 ppm due the 0.3 degree increase in ocean temp.
So you agree then , it is NOT the CO2 caused by the fossil fuel burning itself that is causing the small AMOUNT of temperature change but all the activities that the extra 5 billion people do Ex: 1)cooking 2) industrial processes producing heat including burning of fossil fuels, 3) land use of creating UHI effects 4) burning of tropical forest etc. that is the major contributor to temperature increase. The extra 100 ppm CO2 factor may be unmeasurable.
No, not true. All the energy utilized by human beings in a year is equal to one (1) hour’s worth of sunlight falling on the earth.
Excellent. Thank you.
If you fleshed that out a bit with citations it coukd be fantastic article (not trying to speak for Anthony).
The basic heat of metabolism must be fueled by something; i.e., that food you eat. Which came from plants, or animal protein which the animal packed on by eating plants (unless the meat came from a carnivore, but eventually it all gets back to a plant). And all those plants grew via photosynthesis, from energy derived from the sun. Now it’s a thought problem… humans turn the energy stored by the plant back into heat energy. For that matter, fossil fuel combustion takes the energy stored by plants eons ago and turns that back into heat. Are those heat sources enough to raise the temperature of the Earth? If the human population on this Earth was still 2.5 billion, fed with the improved agriculture of today, would there be other living creatures to equal the biomass of 5.1 billion people? But if the answer to the previous question was, “It doesn’t matter. Inconsequential.” then, ditto.
Title should be; why any sane, rational person should espouse climate realism, but yes, excellent.
I highlighted the body of the article minus the footnotes and pasted it into a word processor. It is 4,587 words. The English does not lie easily on the North American ear.
There’s enough material for about ten small WUWT articles or five big ones. How can we comment and have an intelligent discussion about so much stuff?
Has Viv Forbes’ article from AT in May been posted here?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/how_weather_and_climate_work.html
Well you could start by commenting on the obvious racist subtext.
He does mention genetic differences, but I’m not sure that that qualifies as racism.
Wanting to protect European culture isn’t racist.
There is however a contradiction in free-market nationalism, since ideally free markets mean free trade. I’ve thought since my youth that nations should be able to protect 10% of their economies. Many would chose to protect food production. The US needs to protect its vital defense industries.
We’ll see who wins the trade wars which Trump seems to be planning. Maybe his talk of hundreds of billions in tariffs is just a negotiating tactic. Free trade has to be fair trade, but it never is, not with Europe or China. Japan has been more responsible, opening up its economy once it became a powerhouse. NAFTA could IMO be fixed without going to war against Canada and Latin America.
Yes Percy, although I can’t say I read the whole thing, as I agree with Bob, who says generously that it doesn’t lie easily on the ear. For my part it seems like a pompous rant, and shameless attempt to shoehorn several objectionable and unreasonable falsehoods within a rudimentary shell of truth about the benefits and dangers of CO2…
But commenting on the racism…
“A genocide by substitution—the replacement of the indigenous populations by the migrants arriving en masse.” and “… it is perfectly legitimate to include among living beings the human ethnicities and nations, which are, strictly speaking, social organisms (or superorganisms).”
These statements are wrong.
2017 total migrants to europe: 186,000 (https://reliefweb.int/report/world/migration-flows-europe-2017-overview)
The number is declining (https://www.undispatch.com/number-refugees-migrants-coming-europe-now-dropping-heres/)
Population of Europe: 741 million. (Google)
Substitution at this rate will take several thousand years. Even the most superficial use of a search engine should dissuade any reasonable person of the notion of some kind of planned substitution of the population of Europe. I welcome migrants and believe they enrich the countries that welcome them – history informs this opinion.
‘human ethnicities and nations are not ‘strickly speaking’ social organisms, or in fact social organisms at all. This type of reasoning leads to real genocides rather than the hyperbolic ones the author has invented.
Finally, “Rejecting cosmopolitanism…” I happen to like all ice cream, and reject this notion entirely.
In 2017, 650,000 new asylum seekers applied for protection in the EU:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics
Indigenous Europeans are not replacing themselves, while immigrants tend to have large families.
In 2016, 25% of French teenagers were Muslim.
No. Source, please.
Oui!
https://www.nouvelobs.com/education/20160202.OBS3878/exclusif-ces-collegiens-qui-placent-la-religion-avant-l-ecole-l-etude-qui-accuse.html
Ipsos is a reputable polling concern.
Result (rounded): 39% without religious belief, 30% Catholic, 26% Muslim, the rest Protestant, Jewish and Other. Should come as no surprise, given the demographics of France.
Summary in English for those who don’t read French:
https://pjmedia.com/blog/latest-survey-finds-25-of-french-teenagers-are-muslims/2/
An investigation of French youths’ religious beliefs was conducted last spring by Ipsos. It surveyed nine thousand high school pupils in their teens on behalf of the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and Sciences Po Grenoble, and was released on February 4, 2016, by L’Obs, France’s leading liberal newsmagazine. Here are its findings:
38.8% of French youths do not identify with a religion.
33.2% describe themselves as Christian.
25.5% call themselves Muslim.
1.6% identify as Jewish.
Only 40% of the young non-Muslim believers (and 22% of the Catholics) describe religion as “something important or very important” ;
But 83% of young Muslims agreed with that statement.
That study apparently covered only a few selected precincts (nine thousand pupils!) in a country of 67 millions, where approximately 800 000 births are registered each year.
Nine thousand is a large, statistically significant survey, sanctioned by the highest school authority.
Please present an alternative poll with lower Muslim numbers, if you know of one.
To give you an idea of how hugely statistically significant that result is, consider that public opinion polls of Trump job approval in a nation of 320 million survey from 600 to 1600 people, with a margin of error under four percent.
The issue is how well designed the poll is, not the numbers, beyond a certain level.
your steadfast blindness is a nice example of degeneracy in action.
@hunter;
Due to the limitations in displaying nested replies, it is useful if you indicate to whom you are responding.
Hunter,
Are you replying to me?
Piffle.
Tell that to the people of London, Birmingham, Bradford, Paris, Malmö, (and so on for a page of examples.)
And your claim of +186,000 for Europe in 2017 is a bare faced lie.
But it isn’t a question of the race of the invaders that is the problem, as is quite obvious. It is the fact that many have not the slightest intention, let alone in many cases the ability, to intigrate with the indigenous population of where they chose to form their vicious and C.7th parallel society.
The crux IMO is that Europe, after its horrific wars of religion in the the 16th and 17th centuries, enjoyed an Enlightenment in the 18th, which the Islamic world has not yet experienced.
And cannot expect to experience given that the enquiry and intellectual rigor needed for such enlightenment is denied Muslims by the internal contradictions of what is essentially a delusional faith of monumental proportion.
Jay
“I happen to like all icecream”
Yes, I like icecream. But, unfortunately I am diabetic, so icecream is actually toxic to me.
And whilst icecream is often tasty (Italian icecream is justly famous, but Israeli icecream is particularly good, I found), there are some flavours on offer that turn the stomach.
Do you enjoy Female Genital Mutilation Icecream? How about stoning gays icecream? Let’s not forget that organised grooming, gang rape and sexual slavery icecream?
I bet you are licking your lips right now!
So lets not forget the slitting animals’s throats without stunning icecream. Nice!?
Or driving lorries into holiday crowds icecream? With a flake, perhaps? Or – last year’s favourite, the blowing up little girls coming out of a pop concert icecream. Mmmm! Nice!
Jay, make sure your brain is switched on before making a fool of yourself.
Tell that to the Swedes, the Germans, the British, the Italians, the soaniards, all who are rapudly losing their countries and their safety.
Dear Mr Watts, perhaps you could check to whom you open your columns to : Mr Canlorbe’s boss, Mr de Lesquen, refers usually to Africans as “Congoîds”, rings a bell?
Does he refer to himself as a Caucasoid?
I think not, Caucasian sounds better.
I’ll grant that “Congoid” sounds bad. It might not even be a legitimate physical anthropological category.
“Caucasoid” means Caucasian-ish. The ~9 Ka paleoamerican “Kennewick Man” was described as Caucasoid.
I think you should check some recently described DNA profiles of pre-Columbian Americans : apparently, there are two strains (or whatever the English word for that is), perhaps three, and they definitely had not arrived recently from the Caucasus, but came from Siberia. They may have been whitish, a bit like the persons coming from central America that the current US Government is trying so hard to discourage from entering the area of the “Manifest Destinity”of the White Man (the real one, from Northern Europe_Aryan, to make it short).
“Caucasoid” refers to his features, not necessarily his place of origin. His traits differ markedly from those of modern American Indians, as do those of the few other remains of his age.
There were probably four major waves of immigration to the New World from the Old (Siberia), the last being Eskimo-Aleut and the penultimate the Na-Dene people (Athabaskans and Navajo).
Kennewick Man’s ancestors most likely arrived via Siberia and Beringia, wherever his more distant ancestors originated. There is however genetic, anatomical, cultural and linguistic evidence for trans-Atlantic migration to North America as well as via the Bering Land Bridge and Pacific Coast.
My original sin is great, since I’m descended both from the European settlers of North America and Australia. The Amerindians and Aborigines came to regard my ancestors as the French National Liberal Party now does immigrants from Africa and Asia. OTOH, I’m descended from Matoaka “Pocahontas” Powhatan, who met the boat full of smelly Englishmen.
Some Amerindian groups welcomed the newcomers, as long as they helped them defeat their traditional enemies. Other Rocky Mountain Indian tribes still hold a grudge against the Crows on that basis.
Yet the Cro-Magnon ancestors of Europeans too were immigrants from Africa, via SW Asia some 43 Ka. They wiped out and interbred with the indigenous Neanderthals.
My present wife is South American, with a lot of indigenous ancestry. My first wife belonged to the Blackfoot tribe (1/4), but our kids aren’t eligible, as too dilute.
Well, nobody is perfect. (Please Mr Watts, allow just this OT comment) : at a time when people in Europe are wondering about their identity, mine is rather simple : four centuries of boring peasantry in Burgundy and along the Swiss border (a mixture of Catholics and Protestants though). My generation changed things a bit, with a wife born in the Mekong Delta, a sister-in-law from Nigeria… and a few mixed-raced children now in their thirties. Old Europe, some people keep saying in America, well, Western Europe at least is moving ahead
France has traditionally been welcoming of immigrants who adopt French culture, as probably your family members have.
It’s not about ethnicity, but culture. The problem is that in large parts of urban France, neither the writ of the government nor the magnificent culture of France run. Instead, the most benighted version of Islam does.
“Full steam ahead” was the progressive policy of Capt. Smith on Titanic’s great voyage.
At least the French Empire was less barbarous to the “natives” than the Belgian.
Although there was the torture which so appalled Frantz Fanon.
So we are to banish the man because his boss uses a word that you don’t approve of?
PS: Look up ad hominem
When a leftist can’t refute something, he charges racism.
It’s what they do.
Does the word “context” mean anything to you? In the first thirteen lines of a post supposedly talking about climate change, I read : “cosmopolitanism, genetic differences, global superclass, transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people” (somehow, I think that stinks, but of course, you may differ), and just a hint of regret for the “fall of the Soviet bloc” (and for that again, I am willing to acknowledge your right to concur with the Club de l’Horloge’s opinions). Nothing “ad hominem”, nobody should be banished, we live in free countries, don’t we? Aren’t you interested in some background information about a faraway country such as France?
After M. Canlorbe’s interview with Dr. Lindzen, I looked for the success of the National Liberal Party in the last elections and found it, umm, wanting.
Apparently in France, the other parties of the center and Right have pretty much sucked the oxygen out of this group’s chances at the polls.
It appears that UKIP in Britain does better than M. Canlorbe’s party.
As your France changes from the Disney-land fantasy you inhabit into a harsher reality, you may regret the reactionary dismissal of outside views.
His point is that the purpose behind the global warming charade is political, not science.
Percy, you got that right! The whole of catastophist climate science, its professors, its activist leaders are indeed white and largely male. That may have heen a sub point. The main suffers are to be the third world folk and of course the poor. Or did I misunderstand you? Certainly the Davos Men are mentioned.
I firmly believe most scientists and activists arent in league with the Davos Men, but are rather (paid-for) dupes.
“Pompous rant” — I’ll go with that. Too long. Too much stuff for this sort of platform.
Bob……sorry…the”other word” conjures up TOO MANY bad thoughts !
.
“How can we comment and have an intelligent discussion about so much stuff?”
SUGGESTION : Let’s ALL bring it to the attention of OUR POLITICIANS
CONTINUALLY until “they” become , like most of “us” ,
opponents of AGW and especially CAGW !
The REASON and the LOGIC are well expressed and cogent !
I like the idea of bringing the WHOLE ISSUE together as A SINGLE ENTITY
so that an overarching view can be taken.
The “English” is pretty good……I had to look up a few words even though
“English” is my native language ……….but living IS learning in order to live better !
Regards ! Trevor.
A good general review of the issues. The hatred of the hard-core greens for people is indisputable, and renewables are backed precisely because they cannot yet work.
Meanwhile in other news, it’s worse than we thought
https://www.iceagenow.info/co2-shortage-hits-europe/
The irony!
By “global superclass,” an expression we owe to Samuel Huntington, and which owes its popularity to the political commentator David Rothkopf (who took it over), one must understand a transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people, whose gestation dates back at least to the beginning of the twentieth century and whose constitution accelerated with the fall of the Soviet bloc. Among its members, the global superclass includes as much financiers, and the leaders of various international institutions, as executives and business leaders, writers, university professors, NGO bosses, or movie stars.
Antisemitism anyone?
I’m sure it is pure chance, but have just finished reading the “Canadian Manifesto” on Scribd. The author goes to great lengths to point out that, despite the movers and shakers (Davos men) being predominately of Jewish origin, his manifesto is not anti-semitic – it’s anti Davos man.
It is too easy for those who try to draw public attention to such “anti-social” behaviour to be smeared as racist/bigoted/…insert chosen vilification .. by (the agents of) those engaged in such behaviour.
SOP in the US for anyone daring to disagree with Democrat positions on the issues.
The racism card is frayed around the edges.
In fact, the Left is the last bastion of institutional racism, as shown for instance by Harvard’s anti-Asian quotas.
Also, IMO, Jewish men and women are a minority among “financiers, and the leaders of various international institutions, as executives and business leaders, writers, university professors, NGO bosses, or movie stars”. Probably a higher share than in the general population, however.
Just a bit of information for those of you who do not know much about the French political scene : Mr de Lesquen’s “Parti National-Libéral” exists only because there are certain fiscal advantages to an organization which pretends to have a political activity. It has no members of Parliament, either in the National Assembly or the Senate, does not exist in the European Parliament, and -as far as I know- has no elected member in local bodies. Mr de Lesquen and his deputy’s friends, who insist so much about aristocracy (in France!) are well known for frequently reminding their listeners on the French extreme right radio station Radio Courtoisie that Mr Macron used to work for Banque Rothschild. Could it be a hint of something?
Lesquen and Courlande used to head the Club de l’Horloge, an association of people who apparently seem to regret the good old times of 1940-44.
Internal French politics is not relevant or interesting to many of us here.
Reactionary dismissal of the climate argument presented, which you do, by claiming messenger is “racist” is predictable and derivative. Your alleged facts against things like immigration concerns are false.
So continue and demonstrate more of the smug provincial fact resistant stereotype you seem to aspire to or discuss the issues.
Do you know anything about French history?
Do you even understand that President François Mitterrand received the Francisque? Do you even know what the l’ordre de la Francisque is?
Do you know that French nationalist Jew haters were a big part of the Resistance?
Do you know that many former defenders of Jews on the left were the first to work with the occupying power in the occupied zone or in the Pétain government in the “free” zone?
Don’t go searching for sins that aren’t there.
Are you one of those people who declares that mentioning someone with a Jewish sounding name, in a negative light, is de facto anti-semitism?
Mark,
The essay seems to contain every negative stereotype used by anti-semitites
in their rants. Which might be a coincidence but I doubt it. In addition to which the claim that there is “genocide by substitution” currently happening in Europe is clearly out and out racist as well as being complete nonsense.
IMO, it’s neither racist nor nonsense. Doesn’t’ mean that the author isn’t racist, but it is a statement of fact, not nonsense. “Genocide” might be loaded, but is warranted. The difference with other genocides is that in this case it’s suicide. Western Europeans have quit reproducing at replacement rate, while immigrants are more than making up for the lack of indigenous babies.
Here’s another demographic factoid. If present trends continue, the UK (if still together then) will become the most populous Western European nation by 2050, surpassing Germany and France.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/uk-population-largest-europe-2050-driven-immigration-ageing/
That’s how badly those two countries are failing to reproduce, and how welcoming Britain is to immigrants, contrary to anti-Brexit lies.
“If” the trend continues. That article only shows that UK was welcoming to immigrants before leaving EU. Nothing about after it. Maybe you are right and it still will be, but that article doesn’t say that. The record ends in 2016.
And I distinctly remember that it was many of the Leavers who were anti-immigration. So if it’s a lie, then it was spread by them.
The nature of the population in Europe is changing, rapidly.
That’s a fact. Pointing it out isn’t racist.
So why are churches closed, destroyed, or converted to mosques?
Why do traditional commerce close, replaced by middle east traditional commerce?
Why are Arab names more and more common?
No, it’s all about context (cf supra : “Does the word “context” mean anything to you? In the first thirteen lines of a post supposedly talking about climate change, I read : “cosmopolitanism, genetic differences, global superclass, transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people” (somehow, I think that stinks, but of course, you may differ), and just a hint of regret for the “fall of the Soviet bloc” (and for that again, I am willing to acknowledge your right to concur with the Club de l’Horloge’s opinions). Nothing “ad hominem”, nobody should be banished, we live in free countries, don’t we? Aren’t you interested in some background information about a faraway country such as France?”
The article is about the politics of those behind the global warming charade.
Francois: Of course we’re interested. Perhaps you would be interested in a bit of backround about the American political scene. The unwarranted cry of “racism” has been used to strike at conservatives for a couple of generations, with our press fairly leading the mob. So I’m weary of it and suspicious when you tar this author in this manner, his article barely hints at racism or anti-semitism. I’ll grant that talk of global financiers can be a dog whistle, and your information helps me use a gimlet eye. But what if he’s a full-blown racist anti-semite, who happens to be giving sage advice to french conservatives; who has correctly surmised what Agenda 21 is about; and, dog-whistles aside, who recognizes that the greens are the ones who are even more hateful of “Isrealis”; and who’s policies do far more harm to poor people that could benefit greatly from coal-fired electricity? If you brand them racist and refuse to listen, you might just miss something that is not racist which you need to hear.
Barely mentioning the “elites”, bankers, rich people, or those who don’t care about nations or states because they have no feeling of belonging to any nation or state, is an antisemitic “dog whistle”.
Posing with Louis Farrakhan is totally fine. No hint of antisemitism.
I was amused by the reference to Macron:
“Be it climate activism or cosmopolitanism, Macron’s conceptions lie in the lineage of the global superclass whose emissary he is.”
I was recently in Paris and this joke was going the rounds (loosely translated);
“What is the result when a group of scientists attempt to grow a politician in a Petri-dish?”
Answer: “Macron”
“Promethian growth … Smithian growth … agrarian economy … birth control …”
Idle-wealthy left wing malcontents spent half a century in Russia indulging such revolutionary speculations. Then came 1917 and the genocidal convulsion of the Bolshevik revolution.
I somewhat fear that we are on the same trajectory now.
Which one of these 5 are not the same? Global Warming. Carbon Pollution. The above piece by Mr Canlorbe. Ocean Acidification. Increasing Sea Levels. Please show your work.
Global Warming = nonsense.
Carbon Pollution = nonsense.
The above piece = (couldn’t read it).
Ocean Acidification = nonsense.
Increasing Sea Levels = going up steady but slowly.
Climate realism is acknowledging climates have always changed.. and always will.
Climate realism is acknowledging CO2 is an essential contributor to all plant and animal life on Earth but only a tertiary contributor to any effects on climates.
Climate realism is acknowledging man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 has a miniscule contribution to the its tertiary effects on climates.
Climate realism doesn’t need to be ’embraced’. It has no emotional needs. Get Real!
The rest of the article was beyond drivel…. just modern mashup pseudo-socialist psychobabble.
As I see it, the question of whether climate change is caused by man is a red herring — utterly irrelevant and unimportant.
The message we should be pushing is that the alarmist program only makes sense if all of the following propositions are true; and while #1 is true, all the rest are highly doubtful, especially #3 and #4.
1. The climate is changing. Earth may be getting warmer.
2. That climate change is happening faster than life on earth can reasonably adapt to it, and thus poses a danger to man or to species on which we depend.
3. Reducing CO2 production by reducing the energy consumption and/or pollution caused by human activities can substantially improve the outcome.
4. Proposed alternative methods of alleviating the outcome of #2, such as Benford’s boatload of iron filings, would have costs or side effects worse than those of the method in #3.
And with apologies to David Hume, extraordinary demands on other people require extraordinary proof.
1) The climate has always changed.
2) Nonsense on stilts. 0.7C over 150 years is not rapid, nor is there even the slightest bit of evidence that animals aren’t adapting. Assuming they are able to notice it at all.
3) Nonsense squared. There is no evidence that the tiny, tiny bit of warming we’ve been experiencing is even being caused by CO2, so eliminating CO2 can’t stop it. Regardless, CO2 is very good for plants. Even NASA has noticed that the planet has greened up by over 14% thanks to CO2.
4) Number three is already killing 10’s of thousands of humans per year due to energy poverty. It’s condeming 100’s of millions of others to lives of abject poverty.
Mark W,
reread the post by jdgalt. He is in agreement with you.
I think #1 needs clarification.
Sure, the climate changes, but I don’t think it’s noticeable to us. I mean, of course, real climate change…as in climate zone boundary movement, which takes place in millennial terms.
The relative constancy of Earth’s temperatures over eons is the direct product of the relative constancy of solar irradiance and orbital parameters. There’s a closely fixed amount power being supplied to warm the different components in a passive system and nothing can severely change that.
Moral relativism is probably the Left’s biggest intellectual crutch.
It allows an ends justifies the mean rationalization. Whatever is needed mentality.
From that, Gulags and concentration camp gas chambers are born.
And this is not far off, it will happen. Luckily for me I’d rather die a free man on my feet than live, grovelling on my knees. Unfortunately for me I have a young child to protect and raise.
Wow! +10^24
This turns the tables on the lefties and eviscerates the reasoning of tge “climate consensus”.
This staggering thesis is completely at odds with science, which has Man as just another species of animal and things like coal and uranium as natural as mice.
The double think that worships an unshielded nuclear reactor pouring out lethal cancer inducing radiation just because it predates human activity, whilst condemning any that are shielded safe ,ore useful, but human constructed, is severe.
One notes that people tend to judge others as if they themselves: Green ideologists act as though fellow human beings were stupid greedy incompetent and unable to construct machinery safely or even Do Big Sums.
My experience of Greens is that this describes them fairly accurately.
Nice article – has the rating button gone?
Just to confirm that the Gaia and blood correlation. I was at my local farmer’s market the other day, surrounded by the usual green and clean, left leaning well meaning and university educated, sustainable flock, when one asked me about fraccing, and I said how useful it would have been if the lock the gate mob hadn’t persuaded the government to totally ban coal bed methane. But I said I was happy because it meant they would have to open more coal mines when solar and wind stopped working – well. The response was ‘You people are just just like Dracula, sucking the blood out of Mother Earth.’ So Gaia is alive and well.
This author must be wearing a 25 lb tin foil hat with all the conspiracy imagination he’s espousing
The “Right” in any western country is pretty easily marginalized and lampooned with the legacy label of racism, nativism, etc. Having any identifiable “right” movement take up climate realism as a platform would be damaging to the cause of defanging the AGW cabal. Hopefully, it has no traction.