Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The new right wing Brazilian government is demonstrating they have no fear of shooting green leftist sacred cows.
Brazil’s new foreign minister believes climate change is a Marxist plot
Ernesto Araújo has called climate science ‘dogma’ and bemoaned the ‘criminalisation’ of red meat, oil and heterosexual sex
Jonathan Watts Global environment editor
Fri 16 Nov 2018 04.13 AEDTBrazil’s president-elect Jair Bolsonaro has chosen a new foreign minister who believes climate change is part of a plot by “cultural Marxists” to stifle western economies and promote the growth of China.
Ernesto Araújo – until recently a mid-ranking official who blogs about the “criminalisation” of red meat, oil and heterosexual sex – will become the top diplomat of South America’s biggest nation, representing 200 million people and the greatest and most biodiverse forest on Earth, the Amazon.
His appointment, confirmed by Bolsonaro on Wednesday, is likely to send a chill through the global climate movement.
Brazil was where the international community first came together in 1992 to discuss reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Its diplomats have played a crucial role in bridging the gap between rich and poor nations, particularly during the forging of the Paris agreement in 2015.
But when the new government takes power in January, the foreign ministry that leads that work will be headed by a man who claims climate science is merely “dogma”.
In his blog, Araújo states his goal is to “help Brazil and the world liberate themselves from globalist ideology”, which he sees as anti-Christian.
…
The right wing Jair Bolsonaro government was elected after a previous green left wing president was jailed for 12 years over contract fraud, a huge scandal involving theft of vast sums of money from the state owned oil company.
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro survived an assassination attempt during the campaign which almost claimed his life. He continued to run the campaign from his hospital bed – a level of determination which many believed helped cement his victory.
Naturally President Bolsonaro’s opponents are flinging the usual slurs – racist, dictator, anything else they can think of. But this time it isn’t working.
This all seems very familiar somehow.
One interesting thing I noticed, Google Translate doesn’t seem to work on Ernesto Araújo’s blog, at least when I try it. I was hoping to obtain a translated copy of the original statement about cultural marxism. If anyone speaks Brazilian Portuguese please post a translation in comments if you can find it.
Bolsonaro said before the election that he intends to stay in the Paris Agreement, for now – though I suspect it may be a short stay.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Even the Trump administration admits climate change is down to human action. There is no other reason. It is OBVIOUS!
http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/11/22/trump-administration-report-attributes-climate-change-to-human-activities-cnnpolitics/
Hardly. Just keep trolling and spreading disinformation like a good leftist.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/21/trump-cold-weather-global-warming/
Yeah, yeah, yeah – anyone who believes in climate change is automatically labelled a “leftist”. http://www.visegrad2017.com, a site I run, is far from being “leftist” – don’t pigeonhole people.
Not true. You may say it, you may even believe in that “religion” without the real evidence and even desire the harm that “fighting climate change” will bring, but none of those things make it true, make it “harmful” nor make it important.
Funny how whenever you comment on social/economic policy, you do so from a left to far left position.
None of the lead authors of the report were appointed by Trump. And one doesn’t even work for a government agency — he’s an academic. To call this a “Trump administration report” is completely inaccurate and misleading, but what did you expect from CNN.
Also what you would expect from ivanski and his propaganda site.
Once again ivanski reveals that his only skill is moving goal posts.
Note how he proclaim an admitance that man has played a small part in the extremely small warming over the last 150 years as being an admittance that all of the lunacies he supports must be adopted.
The extremely small warming that CO2 is capable of producing is 100% beneficial, as is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The only thing that’s obvious is how you mischaracterize the position of others.
Do you ever read anything than other what is on WUWT?
Co2/ppm are at 400 – a level that it was at 2 – 5 million years ago when this planet was 2 to 3 C warmer. This is proven by the WMO which is a completely independent body. Read and then comment with something worhwhile to add to the debate: http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/11/22/greenhouse-gas-levels-in-atmosphere-reach-new-record-wmo-finds/
You are close to seeing the real effect of the Paris agreement. The UK is very close to not having enough electricity supply to get through the winter, and if our grid fails, the economic damage will be huge. All we need is a week of windless days and a problem with one of our power stations, then areas of the country will be without electricity for a week or two. The EU are also trying to stop us having mothballed spare capacity as this is considered an “illegal subsidy” of the supply industry, rather than an essential safety measure. If the supply fails a great many older citizens will die of cold, unless “climate change” suddenly makes our country 10 degrees C warmer than it usually is. Green philosophy does not care about people, it cares only for polar bears or some other furry toy styled creatures. The political fall out of this failure could be severe, because “green” killing people is a very powerful message of policy failure.
Typical sceptic scaremongering here. As bad as that of those you accuse of spreading doom and gloom about climate change. You do that, don’t you?
Notice how ivanski doesn’t even attempt to refute the charge. It’s because he knows he can’t. All he’s capable of is distraction.
Ivan,
You are being silly here because the “scaremongering” is almost all coming from the warmist/alarmist camp, the Media, the Socialists, the Democrats are the ones who push the doom and gloom message every day.
Have you been reading what Al $$$ Gore, Governor of California, Dr. Mann have been saying recently?
David, can you explain/provide sources for the claim “The UK is very close to not having enough electricity supply to get through the winter” please.
A cursory glance at the National Grids Winter outlook document suggest:
Total maximum technical capability from generation: 104.7 GW
Peak transmission system demand/Normalised demand: 48.2 GW
or ACS peak underlying demand: 60.5 GW
I don’t pretend to understand the issue, but I can’t find anything to tally with your claim.
Wondering weather to speed up my plan for a back-up home generator, or not.
@ur momisugly Luker, I don’t trust any of those numbers you quoted.
Everybody needs to produce steel in their backyards. Mao.
Perhaps as reliable production falls, a million backup generators will hum. Luker Pete, if you have doubts about whether the UK has enough electrical supply, look at New South Wales in Australia. I guess it works if you shut down industry and have a monthly utility bill of $1200/month.
Don’t worry though, just as soon as the communists seize control, the first ban will be on your back up generator, whether you have electricity or not. Or something to run it, like fossil fuel, will either be non existent or so expensive as to render a backup generator useless.
Here’s a link to UK current grid supply and demand. Fraction of generating capacity is not clear, but it neatly divide the producers by type, including offshore ties.
http://gridwatch.co.uk/
That total capacity assumes that wind and solar will be producing nameplate power all of the time.
This will not be popular. I worked in waste water treatment, doubt CO2 causes global warming, bit think mankind could be warming the oceans. Mankind uses the oceans as a toilet for industrial, human, and animal waste. The third world and Asia are the biggest problems. Polluted (darker) ocean water absorbs more sunlight than clean water. If the oceans are warming its because of this and not because trivial atmospheric CO2 acts as a blanket. If this is true spending money addressing atmospheric CO2 will hurt economies greatly and do nothing to solve the problem. Waste water treatment IF properly done would cost a tiny fraction of the money proposed to pointlessly address reducing CO2. In addition human ocean pollution depletes ocean oxygen levels, causes acidification, and adds significant carcinogens. My experience is libs don’t care about ocean pollution and think CO2 is evil. CO2 is a good thing, it makes plants grow better and helps combat deforestation.
Why is WUWT taking a Guardian headline and re-stating it as if it’s factually correct?
Jonathan Watts (no relation as far as I know) is notoriously unreliable. He’s the one responsible for the misrepresentation of the last IPCC report (“We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN”)
Jonathan Watts is an excellent journalist who writes high quality articles like this one that raise important environmental issues. All US sceptics should help financially support the Guardian fof its excellent environmental coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/23/scientist-unveils-blueprint-to-save-bees-and-enrich-farmers
The recently published NOAA report that comprehensively sidelines the US sceptics once and for all.
WUWT should now start to focus on practical solutions to mitigating the risks of climate change. It would be much more effective use of everyone’s time and energy: http://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/11/24/fourth-national-climate-assessment/
Geochem wrote:
“In March of this year the six largest fossil fuels companies in the world stipulated in US Federal Court that climate science is a fact and that humans are the driving force behind the observations being made.”
The judgement is at
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2017cv06011/318403/283
The case against the oil companies was dismissed, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
In these “global warming” actions asserting claims for public nuisance, defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
The scientific issues are discussed here:
ANALYSIS
The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level.
The sole claim for relief is for “public nuisance,” a claim governed by federal common law. The specific nuisance is global-warming induced sea level rise. Plaintiffs’ theory, to repeat, is that defendants’ sale of fossil fuels leads to their eventual combustion, which leads to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which leads to more global warming and consequent ocean rise.
____________
It is scientifically irrelevant what these companies stated – they have no particular expertise in climate science.
The companies’ admission does not quantify the warming caused by fossil fuels, the very essence of the scientific question, which is:
“Will increasing atmospheric CO2 cause a little global warming or a lot?
That is what the fractious mainstream climate argument is about – what is the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity (CS) to increasing atmospheric CO2?
The IPCC alleges a ridiculously high CS in their climate computer models in order to create a false alarm – it is notable that their models run far too hot when compared to actual observations.
Even if one attributes ALL the warming since 1850 or since 1979 to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated CS is only about 1C/(2xCO2), which is not dangerous, but is net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.
[References: Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018]
The energy companies chose a certain strategy, which may prove to be too expedient and short-sighted. This approach will probably cause them bigger problems in the future.
I conclude that the appeasement strategy adopted by the energy majors have done a great disservice to their shareholders and the public. For example, this appeasement strategy has resulted in the loss of $120 billion in energy revenues for Canada, due to a lack of export pipelines.
The energy companies are in a war with leftist extremists, and the companies are lying down and letting the extremists walk over them. One of my colleagues, a senior energy executive, recently remarked to me:
“These senior execs want their eight years at the top to be peaceful, and then they take their big cash package and retire, dumping the problem for their successors.”
I miss the likes of Lee Raymond at Exxon – a tough, brilliant man who understood the big picture – that once you give in to a lie you are on a slippery slope and you cannot easily recover. The current crop of CEO’s are sellouts who have betrayed their stakeholders.
Visiting this site you can choose language
https://blogdacidadania.com.br/2018/11/chanceler-extremista-quer-libertar-itamaraty-do-marxismo/