Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to SMH reporter Harold Mitchell, the ignorant voting intentions of climate skeptics are frightening politicians, preventing them from acting on climate change.
The reality is we just don’t care enough about climate change
By Harold Mitchell
24 October 2018 — 11:19pmMy dear old dad used to say: “Son, always listen carefully to people who are smarter than you.”
…
The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s now 26 years since the first Rio earth summit when the world agreed to avoid dangerous climate change. Sachs argues we are not doing enough.
But why aren’t we? Well, it’s all about our politicians being re-elected. Even though many of them believe that action is required, many feel they will not lose their seats if they support inaction. Louise grimaces, “A double negative,” but still correct. Power prices today are more important to them than a liveable world for the children of tomorrow.
…
Plainly real leadership is required and Sach’s favourite president was JFK, because of his resistance to “dumbing down” important issues for a few votes. Sachs quotes the great president’s inauguration speech: “For man holds in his hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life”. He was speaking of nuclear war but could have added our ability to destroy millions of species including ourselves.
I’m also an admirer of JFK and I agree with him when he said: “The ignorance of one voter in democracy impairs the security of all.”
And I’d add climate change sceptics as well.
Thankfully its not up to comfortable upper middle class elites whether energy prices skyrocket thanks to forced introduction of renewables.
Though I will say one thing – perhaps true ignorance is taking the predictions of alarmist climate scientists at face value, after decades of failure, and all the tricks, bullying and downplaying of adverse data revealed by Climategate.
President Obama admitting Democrat plans for more green energy would make electricity prices skyrocket.
Yet another in his ignorance of AGW skeptics, and the associated sciences, assumes that skeptics are skeptics out of ignorance. In my experience AGW skeptics are more knowledgeable about the subject and its associated issues than most.
“The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Rubbish! You know as well as I do the booga booga tipping points keep getting pushed out to suit the doomsdayers and their failing political and economic narrative-
https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
An open reply to Harold Mitchell (Harold, you are welcome to respond here):
You say “The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.“. Note that he does not say that we have to stop increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now. We’ve got 12 years before we have to start. You don’t explain why, but it does tie in nicely with China’s commitments under the Paris Accord – they are free to increase CO2 emissions until 2030, and it’s pretty obvious that this agreement wouldn’t have been accepted by other nations if delaying until 2030 was a genuine threat to the planet. So, logically, it must be perfectly OK for us lesser nations to do the same.
So I’m with you on this, Harold. But 12 years is quite a long time, and many things may change in the meantime (how many accurate 12-year forecasts have you ever seen in your lifetime?). So I suggest that a more reasonable approach would be to re-assess the situation in 2030, rather than committing now – 12 years out – to cutting CO2 emissions in 2030. If the rest of the world has not cut CO2 emissions like the USA has, and if today’s climate model predictions prove to have been accurate, and if there is reasonable evidence (greater warming in the tropical troposphere fir example) that that warming was indeed caused by CO2, then I doubt that you will have any difficulty in getting across-the-board agreement to reducing CO2 emissions. Obviously I can’t speak for everyone here, but I really do think that the readers of this blog would be the first to agree. That’s because they are on the whole evidence-based people, ie. they tend to judge issues on their merits (Nullius in Verba).
Here’s an opportunity for us all to get on the same page and work together. Are you with us, Harold?
Indeed!?
And just how did Harold Mitchell decide that the politicians finessing specious climate claims and doom predictions are smarter than him?
We’d also like to know how his Father avoided devious charlatans who are likely all smarter than Harold?
All Harold does is prove Hannum’s “There’s a sucker born every minute” in reference to P. T. Barnum. Barnum, the Prince of humbug, said “The people like to be humbugged”.
Or as Abraham Lincoln is alleged to have stated, “You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time”
I suppose, Harold falls into the first category, fooled all of the time, by people he believes are smarter than him. And he like being fooled.
But..
The Emperors magnificent new apparel is just so beautiful,such a wonderful weave,texture so fine..
You have to be a real ignoramus,totally unfit for positions of authority if you cannot see the fabric.
Pretty sure Hans Christian Anderson was writing a precautionary tale, but there again who knew that Monty Python would become a training manual for the bureaus?
Sure I listen,but bafflegab does not convince me that the speaker is “smarter”.
So how did Harold Mitchell decide who was smarter than himself?
Or does everyone qualify?
Here in Aus it’s fondly known as The Silly Morning Herald!
“It’s now 26 years since the first Rio earth summit…”
Indeed. In all that time you have not proven your case. Just saying “experts say” is not enough. How many times has your hypothesis’ failed during those 26 years?
Jeffrey Sachs is the main reason we did not renew our subscription the Scientific American.
Harold Mitchell is just a SMH reporter. Be advised, a REPORTER ! He should have taken his dear old Dad’s advise and listened to somebody that is smarter than him but therein lies the problem any and everybody is likely smarter than him, what a conundrum he faces !
I understand what we all exhale contains 40,000 ppm CO2!
These over-zealous carbon cycle haters can hold their breath for as long as they want! Forever would be ideal!
I have a daughter, 50 years of age, highly intelligent, works at a Domestic violence refugee. Gets home tired and does not have much spare time.
She sad to me that she felt that the climate was changing. So I wrote a very long and detailed report, covered everything, but the result was that she did not find the time to read and then understand it.
That is the problem. So perhaps we need a very simplefied explanation, say “71 % of the is water. The Sun heats that up and the wind then moves that warm and moist air all over the globe. That is weather .”
But with the Media looking for scary stories, and politicians always in search of votes, all we need are a few colourful graphs and most people seem to accept it as true.
Because the other way, the truth, is just too hard.
MJEi
“See above, 71 % of the planet is water” Sorry.
MJE
From piece above : “A recent survey by The Economist ranked Jeffrey Sachs as one of the three most influential living economists of the last decade. Time magazine ranks him as “probably the most important economist in the world”. ”
Jeffrey Sachs, the Harvard punk economist, cocaine legalizer (Bolivia being his baptism) , sent by Soros to Poland, Then off to Russia with “shock therapy”.
This is not an expert, rather an economic hitman. I’m afraid dear Prof. Feynman might not have recognised the punk for what he is.
Its a real shame Feynman is longer with use to chew up and spit-out people like Men and their BS ‘science ‘
“We have met the enemy, and he is us!”
“Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the Problem!”
It is quite clear from our human history that the governments we often most empower are the source of most of our misery and human atrocities. Governments that have very limited power over individual choices are the most benign and generally beneficial. Governments that try to control most aspects of human life quickly become the most evil!
No government or groups of governments can control the climate. The notion that they can control the climate is stupid beyond belief!
We are being told to surrender our freedoms for a security that does not exist to governments with no immunity to the diseases of corruption and malfeasance. No thanks! And a pox on all of those ignorant idiots who argue for it!
My dear old dad used to say: “Son, always listen carefully to people who are smarter than you.”
Problem is that dear old dad failed to teach Harold Mitchell how to recognize people smarter than him.
The idea that ANYONE on that side of the fence is preoccupied with security is laughable – and frankly the only reason they try this angle is that they believe others respond to buzz-words the way they do.
Nice insight
I guess “ignorant deplorables” is the new campaign slogan and con job from the Party that sees election loss as a temporary setback by mistaken voters in supporting the only legitimate leadership of elite message managers.
Claim: Climate Skeptic Voters “Impair Security” With Their Ignorance
Okay, here’s my counter-claim:
Claim: Climate Alarmist Elected Officials “Impair Security” With Their Stupidity
“Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
He who protects freedoms (Liberties) with security (force) has neither.
If everybody pulled their heads in and focused on their own behaviour and not on other peoples opinion , opinions are like buttholes , everybody’s got one. Life’s like a mirror, we get back what we put out .
Personal development, learn to understand yourself before trying to understand others.
Think, Emote, Seek&Search, Action, Knowledge, is the 5 step process behind ever thought. Most people live their lives not getting past the first two steps. They get a thought , rap it in emotion and run with the wolves and dribble on and on. If only they could give the same advise to them selves as they give to others. When making decisions, most will emotionally take the path of least resistance and follow their leader and the money. Because your leader will sack you and there will be NO money. I should not have used the word “MONEY” because the real tern these day’s is “CURRENCY” and there’s a big difference.
https://curiosity.com/topics/the-difference-between-money-and-currency-curiosity/
Carbon Dioxide’s ability to create heats is Logarithmic. The planet is circa 6.4bn years old. Life started only 500 million years ago. CO2 comes from Volcanoes and was at 4,500ppm back then.
So how come Earth did not burn up?
Simple…CO2’s ability to create heat is Logarithmic.
Double today’s CO2 at 400ppm = 80ppm…you may get a degree of heat. Double it again?….about 1/10th degree C and so on.
The Greens, media et al have never understood the Logarithmic heat creation.
Please note:
Through Oxygen isotope ratios we have been able to look at ice cores over thousands of years we can clearly see that we have been much warmer in the past.
“The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” Could you be more specific, to two decimal places? I want to pop the drop-dead date into my calendar…
“The ignorance of one voter in democracy impairs the security of all.”
And I’d add climate change sceptics as well.”
There is nothing worse then someone ignorant who thinks science shouldn’t be based on scepticism.
Nearly equal a strawman that argues something that scepticism isn’t even based on. Nobody is sceptical of climate change, but the contribution towards it.
Put these both together and we then have political climate change, exactly like the person this article is based on.
Matt G, “The ignorance of one voter in democracy impairs the security of all.”
What gets me, IS when people think that not voting is a type of protest. If you don’t vote and are registered to vote, your vote goes to who is in power at that time. People don’t get the power of voting has over our future. The only way the masses can create change in a social democracy IS to put yourself out for one day and VOTE. “The president-elect came second in the popular vote in November but the biggest bloc in the US electorate was those who for different reasons did not vote.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/american-non-voters-election-donald-trump
We should be governed from the bottom up, not the top down. Get someone of the street to govern. There’s a good chance they wont be corrupted by capitalists.
“The depression was caused by a number of serious weaknesses in the economy. Although the 1920s appeared on the surface to be a prosperous time, income was unevenly distributed. The wealthy made large profits, but more and more Americans spent more than they earned,” Are we repeating the same steps as back here.
What was the Great Depression and why did it start in the USA?
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/what-was-great-depression-and-why-did-it-start-usa
People don’t get the power of voting has over our future. The only way the masses can create change in a social democracy IS to put yourself out for one day and VOTE
and in many locales, it’s even easier than that. You can fill out a form at your leisure in the comfort of your own home and the drop it in the mailbox.
So Richard Feynman said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” without showing any verifiable proof.
Pah! So much for scientists.
Harold Mitchell
24 October 2018 — 11:19pm
My dear old dad used to say: “Son, always listen carefully to people who are smarter than you.”
Harold, what dear old dad failed to make clear to you was that most everyone is smart than you (if what you wrote is any indication)
The key point is that we have little more than 12 years to stop increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Those people that are smarter than you that dear old dad said you should be listening to recognize that if you truly believe that to be the case (hint: it really isn’t) than you shouldn’t be giving a pass to countries (like China) that are greatly increasing their emissions while attacking the countries (like the US of A) that have been reducing their emissions
It’s now 26 years since the first Rio earth summit when the world agreed to avoid dangerous climate change. Sachs argues we are not doing enough.
again, if you believe that then you should, first and foremost, be going after the countries that are greatly increasing their emissions rather than the few that are actually reducing theirs.
But why aren’t we?
because you are giving a pass to the countries that are greatly increasing their emissions (see a pattern yet? those people that dear old dad told you to listen to would have)
Well, it’s all about our politicians being re-elected. Even though many of them believe that action is required, many feel they will not lose their seats if they support inaction.
and despite the “inaction” of US politicians to do what you want them to do, the US has been reducing their emissions. Perhaps your “actions” aren’t needed after all.
Power prices today are more important to them than a liveable world for the children of tomorrow.
That would be because being able to live in the world today is also very important. Skyrocketing energy prices make the world very difficult to live in for the poorest among us while there is no evidence that skyrocketing energy prices today will have *any* impact whatsoever on the livability of the world tomorrow. You are asking for harm to those living today in exchange for virtually no added benefit for the future, those people dear old dad told you about, they realize how unbelievably stupid that is.