Guest essay by Eric Worrall
More green jingoism – President Macron of France is apparently now leader of the global climate effort, but for some reason Macron doesn’t qualify as enough of a climate leader to make it to the title of the article.
Climate change is World War III, and we are leaderless
By David Shearman
Posted Tue at 5:05am“World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing,” writes environmental activist Bill McKibben, so when Malcolm Turnbull implied that the insurgency that demolished his government was based on climate ideology, what lessons are there for Scott Morrison?
As a child in Britain during WWII, I lived in a street of mothers and children. Every father was away fighting. Each house and garden was surrounded by a metal palisade fence.
One morning the fences were gone, mother was delighted. Then a horse and cart came and took away every metal cooking pot and pan, some treasured, but mother smiled at her sacrifice. It was difficult for me to understand.
She had responded to the call from Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Aircraft Production, for the women of Britain to: “Give us your aluminium. … We will turn your pots and pans into Spitfires and Hurricanes.”
…
Britain was a united and cohesive community. Young and old worked daily in small ways for the common cause. But most importantly, in the free world, two countries — Britain and the US — had leaders in Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt who could explain the need for duty and sacrifice.
Their like is yet to emerge today, and indeed the Western world is bereft, perhaps apart from French President Emmanuel Macron, who explained to Congress and the American people that secure borders are irrelevant to this threat, and all of us are world citizens needing to act in concert. “There is no Planet B,” he said.
…
Dr David Shearman is the honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia and Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Adelaide University.
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-28/climate-change-is-world-war-3-and-we-are-leaderless/10168962
Poor President Macron – he has made such an effort to be a global climate leader, abusing President Trump’s hospitality by strutting his stuff in front of the US Congress, offering US climate funding refugees seven figure grants to emigrate to France, yet the author David Shearman doesn’t think Macron rates a mention until the eighth paragraph.
Well, this is an idiotic premise from the start.
I will say this – the biggest human threat to the planet, and to humanity itself is the same one that my generation and my parent’s generation grew up with – and that is thermonuclear war.
To compare a possible degree uptick to World War 3 is beyond idiocy.
And I daresay Macron will be absolutely useless in either case.
Jesus – this guy is what bitch-slaps are made for.
“the biggest human threat to the planet”
Nah. The planet doesn’t care. This big ol’ dirt ball will keep flying around the sun NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.
A lot of leftists insist on policies that would make exchanges of thoughts with Russia more difficult, or even impossible (on Twitter some openly call for a great firewall of the US against Russia), making global war much more likely.
” the biggest human threat to the planet, and to humanity itself is the same one that my generation and my parent’s generation grew up with – and that is thermonuclear war.”
Joel – even though thermonuclear war is bad enough, I think the current world trend to embrace communism is far worse. We see it promoted from the United Nations and its offshoots, the American left, Europe and even Australia and New Zealand.
Thank God for Donald Trump who is not afraid to call a spade a spade.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
It should finally be understood that the collapse of the climate is not a political or religious issue.
There is also zero chance of that happening.
Why do you have to invent such wild fantasies? Is your real life that empty?
I’ll go further than that. It’s not even a real issue.
War is made more likely by
– pro vaccine conspirationnal activists who consider any criticism of any vaccine is an hostile act probably inspired by Putin
– the call to ban immigration from Russia because of lack of vaccination in US and Russia
– anti Trump conspirationnal activists who see Russian troll in any pro Trump, or even anti-anti-Trump message (many such anti-anti-Trump messages are written by people who actually dislike Trump, but not for “Trump-Russia” reasons)
– the call to ban Russia from social networks
– the call to build a wall at the frontier of Russian networks
Such people speak freely on Twitter and I see no backlash from “moderate” anti-Trump people.
I do not believe that. I believe the biggest threat to the human species is their propensity to elect leaders like Macron who are vain and completely incompetent.
The biggest threat is mandatory vaccination of children. Its intent is to break the mind of parents who then become complicit and weak. It’s a national rape.
(Mandatory vaccination is obviously not targeted at augmenting vaccine coverage and will only produce the opposite.)
Wow, simply, wow.
If you are a vaxxer, then you are a science religious fundamentalist, a true believer, you have scientism. (The exact opposite of a skeptic.)
https://freebeacon.com/issues/rand-paul-mandatory-vaccines-first-step-to-martial-law/
simple-touriste, …… tell that to all the people who were diagnosed with Polio when they were children (teenagers and/or young adults).
And you think children should suffer this type of infection just to appease your religious beliefs, to wit:
They were diagnosed with “polio”? What was “polio” then?
Why have we seen an explosion of “polio” in India following vaccination?
https://youtu.be/qb7YEm4YCMs
‘The biggest threat is mandatory vaccination of children.’
So that beats thermonuclear war. Rock, paper, scissors.
As if there were even a grain of truth in your assertion about vaccination in the first place. And THEN compare it to rape.
I honestly don’t know where to go with such utter blithering idiocy.
Just hold your breath and don’t talk for a while.
Forcing parents to risk the health of their own children with an unsafe drug.
No equivalent since the kapo.
Seriously – you’ve made an idiot out of yourself enough for one thread.
Simple-T, there simply is no words to use in the face of such blatant ignorance. I just hope you never have children and if you do, I feel sorry for the suffering they risk because of your idiocy.
As usual, zero evidence from the vaxxers.
What are your relevant qualifications, again?
Simple, You must be younger than fifty and gone to school in the modern so called education system. Vaccines rate right in there with other great human inventions, e.g., agriculture, the wheel, control of fire, separate drinking water from domestic waste (we had to learn that one several times), recovery of fossil fuels. Go back and carefully analysis childhood mortality over the past just two hundred years. Average human longevity increases during the 20th and 21st Century are large due to childhood vaccinations. Until childhood vaccinations became mandatory a child had a high probability of dying or being disabled prior to puberty, usually before they were two years old.
Yes, I am old enough to have known people afflicted with polio. My mother remembers decimation of her town – twice – by smallpox.
And you have the evidence that was polio, right? Nope. It was paralysis of some form. A syndrome nobody could diagnose with certainty.
Even if that was polio, then what? How do you know the vaccine had anything to do with the decrease of polio?
Who is at risk of polio now in the West?
Okay, dumbass – we’re making comparisons to nuclear war, here.
The n*zi communist tactics employed by vaxxers make war much more likely.
Which vaccines, please?
Which diseases?
“carefully analysis childhood mortality over the past just two hundred years”
Answer here:
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2015/02/03/newday-gupta-rand-paul-vaccine-views-are-dangerous.cnn
at 0’50”
(but then, there is no correlation here with almost vaccines prescribed now)
Yes, I think I would rate global nuclear war as the greatest threat.
But I would rate green extremism and climate change alarmism as the second greatest threat.
These are catastrophes for the world and they are certainly man-made. They have caused the corruption of science on an industrial scale.They have caused the world to fritter away trillions of dollars incompetently trying to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Their “green” policies often harm the environment that they claim to be protecting (e.g. biofuels and the Volkswagen scandal).
In a few decades our children will look back and try to understand how we could have been so deluded. They will also have the right to be angry at the vast sums of money that we wasted.
Chris
Should be World War IV. I thought WW III was the war against terrorism.
Yes, it’s 3 or 4 if you count the Cold War and also Marshall Plan no. 38 and Great Society no. 24
Comparing global warming to World War II is simply disrespectful and disgraceful. Millions of brave men and women in the Allied countries lost their lives to save the world from Nazi barbarism. In contrast man made global warming is an exaggerated made for television ficitionalized crisis. Are we to seriously compare Al Gore to the soldiers who stormed the bloody beaches of Normandy or to the sailors who lost their lives in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?
I heartily agree. Disgraceful. However see this as just part of the junk vocabulary created by the left for their blind followers to use. To call anyone who tries to think or behave scientifically a “denier “ with it’s obvious holocaust connotations is equally offensive given the blind ignorance it demonstrates in those mouthing it. People en mass are increasingly embracing extremism and its justification in support of their cause. Fire deniers. Lock them up, even attack physically. What cause can justify this? We are only a few degrees away from the burning of heretics.
Unfortunately, climate change threat is about a million times more dangerous than the threat of World War Three.
The world a few tenths of a degree warmer, but still cooler than it has been for 90% of the last 10,000 years and still 3 to 5 degrees cooler than the Holocene optimum is a threat????
Having plants grow bigger and stronger, is a threat????
Oh not just a threat – a MILLION times more dangerous.
I swear, maybe Darwin was wrong.
This guy must have thumbs on his feet.
I can appreciate your empirical research there with climate change Mihaly but it’s now a second order problem as the mates and I have fed the tree rings into the computer and lo and behold the threat of a giant asteroid hitting earth is about two million times the threat of climate change and as you know the tree rings never lie.
A million times more dangerous than World War Three?
You can’t invent idiocy like this.
There were no WWII deniers. If the things are so bad, we should soon start to have real world evidence.
Also, if things are so bad, why do ecoloons oppose nuclear fission so strongly?
The “Europhile” on Twitter now advocate for a WALL on social media against speech coming from Russians. That’s how far gone these Stalinists are.
(Of course it could be a provocation. But like “Rape Melania Trump” the point isn’t who holds the sign (Posobiec), but which group accept protesters with that sign.)
Ironic that this article showed up in The Guardian today. France and its Paris pledges.
——————–
Macron has lost a minister. Has he lost credibility on the environment too?
Nicolas Hulot’s shock resignation is a heavy blow for the French president. He can save face – but he needs to act
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/29/macron-minister-environmental-credibility-nicolas-hulot-shock-resignation
Hulot or Gore: who had the greatest footprint?
The sort of fanaticism exhibited by some of the greens is a serious threat, if they take control of a government and try to enforce their system on others who do not share it. BTW, the NSDAP had a seriously green program in their party platform.
DSDAP=The National Socialist German Workers’ Party. IT wasn’t my idea of a party. Too bad we can’t use the English term. Just trying to help the lesser informed, Tom.
Just trying to avoid auto moderation
It is fair to say that France is leaderless!
In the close circle around Macron there is someone who is on video playing videogame with the person who hosted the people who made the Saint-Denis terror attack.
Macron is too close to Islamic terrorists for confort.
No its a little short…………….but it has a little bit,…….
Not so. La Republique has its Marianne. Or was it Jeanne d’Arc? In any case there’s madame Macron.
Send your money now to Paris if you want to be saved. If not, we also have some nice weapon systems to sell you along with our customers in the Middle East. PS. We miss Saddam.
Allegedly “far right” party Front National was very Saddam friendly, even more than the rest of the other French parties.
The French Parti Socialiste was a member of the same association of political parties as Saddam’s party.
Your’e a liar son,………. this is your 3rd politicised pack of lies posting about the lady and her party……..
The lady? Which one?
Some people never miss an opportunity to promote and glorify the NeoCon destruction of the Middle East, no matter what the posted topic actually is.
PS: We have have some nice weapons systems to sell our Wahhabi terrorist pals in secular and enlightened and democratic Saudi Arabia!
PPS: “Bomb that killed 40 kids in Yemen made in US”
PPPS: We miss you, King Abdullah!
http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/1/1/7/8/0/a5155995-181-bush-kisses-saudi-prince-4-15-09.png
The ME was stable, when?
The Middle East has been destroying itself without anyone’s help for hundreds of years.
I see you are still trying to push the notion that if the US didn’t sell weapons, nobody in the ME would have anything more dangerous that a rock.
What’s worse, Bush exchanging a kiss of friendship with the King, or Obama bowing to him?
When hasn’t the ME been destroying itself? If the west was to cut off all ties to the ME, the ME would still continue it’s self-destructive ways, same as it has for hundreds of years.
Pure, brainless, emotion-laden crap. Honest-to-God, they will say anything now, in their desperate attempt to save their failing “climate change” ideology.
“Doctors for the Environment”? How about “Engineers for Horticulture”? Or, “Dentists for the Arts”? I don’t get the connection.
“’Doctors for the Environment’? … I don’t get the connection.”
Well, according to the Goracle, the Earth is running a fever so it obviously needs a doctor (/sarc)
The reality is that the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. So the real enemy here must be Mother Nature. Currently we have no weapons that will work against Mother Nature and force her to provide the optimal climate whatever that climate may happen to be.
Macron is only joking, he actually meant to say it is ‘Scallops War’ with rosbifs, which takes me to another joke as reported in ‘the telegraph’ whole of the UK’s total worth is only 10 trillions while the Apple shares valuation exceeds $1 trillion.
The first Hurricanes’ wings, rear fuselage and tail surfaces were covered by fabric, but the fabric wing-covering soon gave way to aluminum. The early models also had a two-bladed prop, as seen on those sent to Iran, before the British Empire invaded Iran, with the Soviet Union.
The Warren truss the rear fuselage was built on was made of aluminium. The ribs and stringers of even the early mainplanes were made of aluminium. There was a lot of aluminium in Hurricanes.
Does he mean this President Macron, dropping like a stone in the polls?
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-popularity-hits-new-low-after-benalla-scandal-polls-bodyguard-no-confidence-motion/
The French confidence in Emmanuel Macron was an exercice in collective hysteria.
Macron could only win with the help of the “justice” system who investigated his serious opponents while doing nothing against his allies and the members of his party “En Marche”.
Excellent comment. Goes for the bimbo-based fishing expedition against Trump as well. Recognizable around the world in fact this abuse of the “justice” system.
The fact that many anti Trump people are satisfied with the Stormy-Cohen story shows that they never cared that much about Russia.
It is clear that old Macaroni is in cahoots with the swivel-eyed global warming hoaxers.
Same as his chum, old Justin True Dough, over there in Canada.
Shame on them both, and all those who voted for them. The chickens will come home to roost…
More power to Donald Trump’s elbow, and his ongoing efforts to root out these traitors…
No longer anthropogenic nor catastrophic nor global nor warming. Science cum politics cum emotional exploitation.
n.n
You forgot Beavers.
Yes and soon to be brackish backwater of history flickering out with no apology and more likely a replacement cause to push with equal acidity
I’m wondering if there was another ww would France be anymore help than they were in the last one and which side would they be on.
Dunno if France would side with the US or Russia if it came to a shooting match, but at least France and the UK spend more on defense than do the more populous and bigger economic powers of Germany and Japan.
As for your thoughts on France Don’t know. But one point in WW2 they went to war because Germany invaded Poland we did not finally commit until Pearl Harbor.
Not that many of the people in the U.S. did not see it coming. My own dad enlisted prior to the war he was shipped out to the Pacific early Jan.1942.
They appeased Hitler by offering Czechoslovakia on a silver plate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
Mais oui, led by that notorious Frenchman Neville Chamberlain wasn’t it?
[??? .mod]
Rich Davis
Didn’t Neville Chamberlain also lead the first wave of Germans when they bombed Pearl Harbor?
No that was his step son Mitsuo Fuchida
michael
I did not know that. Those Frogs are even slipperier than I thought! Thanks for the insight
@mod
It was the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who proclaimed “Peace for our time”, while holding up the agreement with Hitler.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
Not fair to hold the French entirely responsible.
Sorry implied sarc
Look up America First movement centered around Chicago then German super weapon time-line to realize just how lucky the free world is to exist today based on a one year window of providence and bravery.
IMO, Hitler’s fascination with “super weapons” was probably his failing. And yes, the time-line is very scary. If he actually focused on and deployed the E-boat and ME-262 fighter, Germany probably would have won. Just these two weapons alone out performed anything the allies had at their disposal by a wide margin.
I’ve read that another problem was German tendency to over engineer everything.
The Panzer tank was a marvel of engineering that could out fight pretty much anything on the battlefield at that time.
The problem was the US could build 10 Sherman’s in the time it took to build one Panzer, and as Patton said, “Quantity has a quality all it’s own.”
Getting it wrong on 3 or 4 out of 10 super weapons does not mean they would have failed with more time. It just means they wasted time and effort in those particular directions. You could say the same about U.S. weapons development over the decades.
It’s more like a branching time line of events starting with the ME-262 production rate and sane usage of the ones they had, then V2 refinement and production rate, then potentially new warheads for the V2 using a wider window to operate in for development and production rate. Pearl Harbor closed the door on that branching time line but no thanks to the organized protests in Chicago and Berkeley in making that window as risky as it was. Somewhere in a branched reality there are difference accents being used by thugs in alt-Chicago and alt-Berkeley if those places still exist.
potential info source:
http://bobrowen.com/nymas/americafirst.html
France and England had mutual defense treaties with Poland. The US didn’t.
The US probably wouldn’t have gotten involved in the European war had Hitler not declared war on us.
Actually the US (FDR) went to the aid of the UK just a few weeks after Rudolph Hess landed in Scotland. His message indicated that the Nazis were going after the Russians, which was not part of the original plan (which was to establish a NWO and clean out the French and English colonial empires). The interests which were funding the Nazi war machine, which included more than a few American industrialists, realized that the ball park had changed and finally turned on Hitler.
Communists were on the side of Soviet Union.
China and Iran’s,…..James….. The UN will stand with China and Iran as well.
Russia fear Chinas brand of ”socialism” and will stand with America and Japan against the german/franco China/iran/turkey axis.
It sounds to me like their money-grabbing/finger-pointing/hair-pulling/teeth-clenching/sobbing/spittle-flecked climate gabfest this December may be their last hurrah, their Waterloo. The world will rejoice.
But…but…but I thought China was the leader in the fight against global warming!
They are leaderless, rudderless, and up sheet creek without a paddle. Stick a fork in them, they’re done.
Art…I am confused. I thought the world’s leader of Klymit Power issues be Ms Angela Merkel, leader of the poster child of Green …Germany…even though it is building more Coal Plants than we in Oz can imagine (just 2 of the newest ones would set us up for the next 20 years or so) and it is failing to meet every emission pledge in the last decade.
However Mr Macron probably deserves to be the latest Great Green Hope as he leads a nation that creates electrical power with a 70% plus mix of Nuclear Power…yep…that makes so much sense…Go Green …Go Nuke…
If only Australia was allowed to go nuke or get back to coal/gas we would return to having affordable, reliable and efficient power as we had for most of last century. From which we gained a world class living standard and a nation that was as socially fair…with some issues and problems of course…as any on the planet.
CORRECTION: Fighting climate STUPIDITY is World War III, or should I say, “World War Z”, as in the walking brain-dead Zombie apocalypse.
Posted before but it’s so good here it js again.
I have a French battle rifle for sale, never fired and only dropped once.
Apologies to the valiant French resistance and with great appreciation for what the French did to help in the founding of the US of A. Leadership is always the problem and it looks like they’re headed back to the Vichy days.
William Shirer noted in “The Collapse of the Third Republic”, that World War I cost France 1,357,800 dead, 4,266,000 wounded (of whom 1.5 million were permanently maimed) and 537,000 made prisoner or missing. That’s exactly 73% of the 8,410,000 men mobilized. France had 40 million citizens at the start of the war; six in ten men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight died or were permanently maimed (mutilé de guerre).
Since the US has over 325 million people now (more with illegals), that’s as if we lost more than 11 million killed in four years.
The hideous butcher’s bill that France rang up in WWI, and Britain to a lesser extent, was due almost entirely to the military inability to adapt to the realities of industrialized warfare. In the Napoleonic wars a century before, infantry marched into solid shot fired from muskets and cannon. Troop losses were severe, but nothing like those of WWI where infantry were exposed to machine guns and explosive artillery. The military top brass however continued to use tactics which were essentially those of the Napoleonic wars.
The sheer conceptual bankruptcy of military thinking in WWI is exemplified by the concept of attrition, much in vogue in battles such as Verdun: “we will ultimately kill more of your troops than you of ours, so if we lose a few hundred thousand of ours in this battle it will be worth it”. Once you start thinking of human lives in this fashion, you deserve to lose.
Sorry Roger, have to disagree.
The massive death toll in the Great War was due almost entirely to the military ABILITY to adapt to the realities of industrialised warfare.
Industrialisation not only supplied the latest weapons and equipment, but also provided the infrastructure to support and move the troops and supplies required to keep the massive armies in the field.
As for your ‘you deserve to lose’ comment, well, unfortunately here I beleive you are also wrong. That sort of mind set makes you someone the sane public should never touch with a barge poll in times of peace but during the brutal times of total war they are exactly the sorts of requirements needed.
War isn’t nice. It is brutal. To win you often need a brutal and pragmatic mindset. The original concept for Verdun was not to grind each other down because we had 102,000 and they only had 100,000 and our last 2000 would march into Paris, but to force via limited offensives the French into a battle they could not afford to lose and destroy them with the superior mounts of heavy German artillery. It was the fact that the French were not prepared to stick to the German script that this didn’t happen and rather than slowly destroying the French the battles devolved into attrition.
Why? Cause war is brutal. If you are not prepared to fight brutally you will be defeated by someone who is.
(also, paradoxically the drawn up battles of attrition actually had lower casualty rates than the open war of movement battles. Casualty rates were also considerably lower as a percentage of troops involved – about 0.3 to 0.5% – than in earlier periods. Gettysburg was very roughly about 20-30%. The Great War didn’t maim more people because it was better at maiming, it maimed more because industrialisation made it so much much bigger)
Moral of the Story? Don’t EVER let the political situation devolve into war.
Parabellum.
Moral of the Story? Don’t EVER let the political situation devolve into war.
unless you have an unemployment and over population problem and owe money to your enemy.
War is the last ditch attempt of one elite to remain in control over another.
If you take the attitude that you will never, ever fight. You might as well hand over your sovereignty to your neighbors and get the it over with. They are going to take it eventually anyway.
More people died in the 1918 flu epidemic than in WWI
LOL
Typical argument of the Big Pharma people. So you think the epidemic and war aren’t linked.
Maybe you think polio in the US isn’t war related, too.
And here we come to the true seed for France’s 1930’s military policies. It was demographic.
Germany had the same issue but started with a higher birth rate.
https://voxeu.org/article/demographic-consequence-first-world-war
Part of the costs of war that we do not always contemplate
michael
JIMG1 Your mention of the French Resistance…If you are Aussie the story of Nancy Wake…The White Mouse…will be known. I am not sure about O/S posters so I recommend checking out what Nancy did with The French Resistance during WW2.
Nancy was…too put it mildly…not the easiest individual to get along with and it was a case of her way or no way but her WW2 exploits are the stuff of Legends… real ones.
A pity he can’t lead his cohorts to clean up Paris.
…I could hear one of those old patriotic songs playing in the background while I was reading that
There’s no depth too low for them to sink to
Eric-
“We are Leaderless (Except President
MacronMaroon)”There. All fixed up, mate.
Micron.
I challenge any of these alarmists to never get on an airplane again or simply be considered a piece of S%@ur momisugly.
I called McKibben out on this years ago and he mumbled crap about the greater good and buying indulgences, I mean credits.
Challenge them on why developing countries are allowed/blessed to increase CO2 levels…
..since it’s destroying the planet
“Macron, who explained to Congress and the American people that secure borders are irrelevant to this threat”
The Macron thinks borders are irrelevant. From his point of view, I am sure he is correct.
So who is this “Macron” character, anyway?
As it turns out, The Macron is the supreme leader of the Strogg Battle forces, determined to conquer Earth. The Marines put up an epic fight in The Battle Of Houston. This was the first major victory against the Strogg invasion force, and was the turning point in the war. Eventually, the Earth was freed of the Strogg threat, and the Marines carried the war to the Strogg homeworld of Stroggos. There, The Macron was confronted and defeated by a heroic Marine force.
Apparently, he has had something of a makeover since then, and before he took over leadership of France.
/revision/latest?cb=20091110235852
Here is what he looked like during the Battle of Stroggos:
At least he looks a little better now. Still the same old Macron, though.
There was a untited effort in the UK in World War 2 ( it deserves capitals) because of the level of threat to the country. Does this guy REALLY believe that the threat level is the same? First, a lesson in history, second, a lesson in science.