From Real Clear Energy
By Charles N. Steele
December 26, 2018
It’s one word – but it could change the course of the world for decades to come.
Discussion at the UN climate change talks held in Katowice, Poland recently reached a stalemate. The issue? A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released earlier this year, entitled “Special Report 15” (SR-15). Most of the nations at the conference want to “welcome“ this report, but the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait want simply to “note” its publication.
It might sound like a silly squabble over semantics, but it’s far from that. SR-15 claims that we have only twelve years to avert climate catastrophe and calls for a fundamental transformation of society and end to the use of fossil fuels. Endorsing it is a critical step towards adopting it, and adopting it would change virtually every element of civil society as we know it today.
Unsurprisingly, the U.S. has taken a good deal of heat in the press for its refusal to endorse the report. Critics characterize the move as political and motivated by willful ignorance. But the fact of the matter is there’s good reason for skepticism. Environmentalists have been known to hastily embrace faulty data in the name of a political agenda – and SR15 is no exception.
To put it bluntly, there’s a lot less here than meets the eye. The report argues that the Paris Accord target of a 1.5C increase is better than a 2C target. But the farther one reads, the more it appears the IPCC’s report is not really about climate change. It’s less a scientific report and more a political platform, driven by ideology, not science.
This would seem a wild accusation, but for two things. First, SR15 doesn’t actually attempt to quantify either the possible costs of warming or how much it would cost to avert warming. In fact, there’s no serious attempt even to show the likely consequences of proposed actions; it’s simply assumed they will work and be desirable.
Second, SR15 clearly proposes radical, global transformation of society. It calls for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems…,” “unprecedented in terms of scale…,” “fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations….” These are direct quotes from IPCC. What do they mean?
Looking closer, these fundamental transformations are less about global warming and more about promoting “social justice,” as embodied in the UN’s “Sustainable development Goals.” The report makes no attempt to conceal this; in the summary, it argues “Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change.”
It goes on to contend that we must “eradicate poverty” and reduce inequality across nations. As part of these efforts, governments must impose draconian carbon taxes and other measures to effectively shut down existing energy production, re-direct finance to alternative energy, and transfer wealth from developed countries to less developed countries. Individuals must change their diets and “lifestyle choices” to become “sustainable.” All of this in a decade or so. It’s a call for global central planning and income redistribution – a sort of “socialism lite” dressed up as sustainable development.
But the fact of the matter is that the IPCC, the UN, and national governments are not capable of eliminating poverty. They don’t know how. People are poor when they cannot produce wealth. Shutting down economic activity, subsidizing alternatives that can’t create enough value to succeed on their own, and transferring income will not make the world wealthier. And governments cannot effectively manage the economy. A century of consistent failures of socialism shows this.
And, as the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom report demonstrates, there is a systematic positive relationship between economic freedom and human prosperity around the world. A free market system, not central planning, does much more to reduce poverty and generate economic well-being. IPCC’s proposals are driven by green ideology, not scientific economic analysis.
Does report offer any solutions for the problem it ostensibly addresses, that is, man-made global warming? Not really. Even if one accepts the IPCC’s estimates of the extent of global warming, careful economic analysis suggests that drastic action is not required. The report’s proposed remedies for climate change fail cost-benefit analyses.
Charles N. Steele is the Herman A. and Suzanne S. Dettwiler Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Socialism “lite”?
I don’t think so.
Sounds pretty damnm heavy to me.
This is nothing more or less than a zombie return of Cold War Marxism, only in a more extreme and dangerous form.
Going even 1% down this road is what would produce true catastrophe.
‘Hastily embrace’ faulty data – or produce it?
Take a look at this:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-27/angela-merkel-nation-states-must-give-sovereignty-new-world-order
if you had any doubts about the “agenda”.
Saw that too. That is imperialism, simply put. At least Macron and Merkel a that conference didn’t mention (yet) the currency for this new empire – look at Varufakis and Sanders pushing Bitcoin, and Keynes. At the Bretton Woods Conference 1944, Keynes of the London School of Economics, pushed the “Bancor”, a global “basket of currencies”, successfully opposed by FDR and Dexter White. Today they are going for a Bitcoin Bancor – will someone try a Euro-cor?
The smelly detail is the preface to Keynes first edition of the tome : FOREWORD TO GENERAL THEORY German Edition
“The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. ”
Thin ice anyone?
And Not A Shot Is Fired.
Britain is giving Brexit a shot.
No one said it would be easy.
Shame no one else in the EU dares take sides with us, Italy,France,Greece,Spain groundswell wants out, politicians won’t give them a voice, hence the gillet juenes
Policy doom ahead – 60 percent probability
Scary realizing that if Hillary had won we would have embraced the IPCC insanity with the world’s warmest welcome.
Even hotter with war with Russia, a thermonuclear welcome.
We barely squeezed by. See War with Russia: From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate by Stephen F. Cohen. He is very worried and any de-escalation is to be praised.
Though the “news” won’t tell you because it would expose the collusion lie, Trump is putting the hurt on Putin. That’s why Russia is starting to act like N. Korea did. New aggressive actions against Ukraine, multiple announcements of new offensive weapons, and the announcement of establishing an air base in Venezuela, more aggressive actions by Russia’s Navy, etc.
Price of gas here in my part of Hoosierland is $1.99 a gallon for regular today. Russia’s oil sales are being hurt through competition lowering prices and sanctions. Texas alone is now producing more oil than Russia. And there is a bigger threat to Putin’s oil based economy on the horizon because their customer base in their primary market, which is Europe, is going to be really cut when the oil pipe line gets run across the eastern Mediterranean to Europe. Remember that huge reserves have been recently found off Israel.
Thermonuclear war be damned, with my grocery points I got gasoline at $1.51/gallon (40 cents off of $1.91).
Where in Hoosierland are you? I’m in 46825 for 60% of my time remaining. Oh and I just saw gas for $1.89 here.
46056, near Anderson.
bonbon
I’m 63 years old. When I was seven years old my father fabricated a bomb shelter for a customer in his steel fabrication business. At the time we constantly heard sonic booms from B-58 Hustler supersonic nuclear bombers flying out of what was then named Bunker Hill AFB in Kokomo, IN (Now Grissom). The Cuban Missile Crisis went down at that time. Later as an SF soldier during “the cold war” I was trained in the transport, placement, and operation of a SADM device. Please excuse me if I have become a little jaundiced by the harping on the possibility of nuclear Armageddon over the course of almost all of my life time.
57, here. Atomic Cannon, Eight Inch course grad, a heaping helping of Insurgency/Counter Insurgency courtesy of USA Infantry School on multiple “campus” locations with some OJT thrown in. Not overwhelmingly influenced by the “Russia gonna nuke us!” angle. “Mad Mullahs of Iran gonna nuke us!” I am a bit more concerned about MMI yanking the lanyard, Putin wants to be in-charge of everything, MMI will be happy with destroying half of everything.
The arrow of time is full of scary twists and turns like the chads in Florida with Al Gore, the V2 rocket production rate in Germany, and the anti-WWII movement around Chicago in the late 30s and early 40s.
So we only have 12 years left until the gloom-and-doom prognostications start being realized? It is rather amusing that The Guardian (surprise, surprise) reported on something like this back at the end of July, 2008. Back then, we only had 100 months left according to “scientists,” which worked out to November of 2016:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
Quote from the piece:
“..Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change…”
And now, according to the IPCC, we still have 12 years (until 2030). When you keep crying that there is a wolf at the door when the wolf is never there…..
In 12 years, so in 2030, surely not coincidentally the year China is projected to reach max CO2-output and has no obligattion to do anything about it until then.
I smell a rat.
The West in the meantime kills its economy, et voila,in 2030 a world government with China in charge.
It is always a decade. Two years would be too little, and two decades would not cause enough panic. It has been like that for 30 years. It will be for at least 10 to 20 years. I guess by 2040 we will have new generation with new estimates on CO2.
But the interesting thing is, none of it is applied to China and India.
The ‘we’ that must do all these dramatic and draconian things is the West. Its never specified as such, but that is the unavoidable implication. China and India and the developing world are not thought of as any part of any problem, whether its their contribution to global warming by doing 75% of the CO2 emissions globally, or by being either terminally unequal or authoritarian or both.
Always ask, when you hear or read that ‘we’ must do something, who exactly this ‘we’ consists of. Ask whether it includes, for instance, China. ‘We’ have to reduce emissions. Does that mean China has to?
Silence. Repeat the question. Get banned from that forum.
Now ask another question. Why is this?
The response to “we” is always the question: Why, do you have a turd in your pocket?
Why the sudden panic? Hasn’t consensus science told us that the present levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will remain for hundreds to a thousand years even if we immediately ceased all mankind-originated emissions into the atmosphere? Therefore, a twelve-year fundamental transformation of civilization’s sources of energy and methods of managing economies and income inequality around the world won’t make any difference if CAGW is real . . . our goose is already cooked, as it were.
But let not your heart be troubled, for in that last sentence above there rests on mighty big “IF.”
“..It goes on to contend that we must “eradicate poverty” …”
I contend they meant “eradicate the poor”
Climate change has been going on for eons. Current climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. We must not mix up weather cycles with true climate change.
Based on the paleoclimate record and the work down with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even is we could remove all of the CO2 from our atmosphere which would end life as we know it on this planet, the climate change we are experiencing today would continue unabated.
The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science. At first it might seem plausible but upon further inspection it is full of flaws. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. If CO2 really did affect climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.
Radically changing society will have no effect on climate and will create many new problems as has happened in the past. Look at communist countries like China that have greatly improved their nation’s wealth by switching to a market economy. Look at nations like North Korea that has a low per capita carbon foot print with poverty and missary for most. Communist countries become nations of slaves where all but a few masters are in poverty. The system just does not work.
http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket.htm
Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.
When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 409 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert.
A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect.
In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.
So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet).
So all we have to do is calculate Twet.
Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. Water vapour outnumbers CO2 by a factor of 50 to 1 assuming 2% water vapour. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .15 x .02 =0.003 or 0.3% to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.003 and we get 0.00315 or 0.315 % CO2 therefore contributes 0.315 % of the DWIR in non deserts. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, CO2 or Twet contributes a maximum of 0.00315 * 1.75 C = 0.0055 C.
Therfore Since Twet = 0.0055 C we have in the above equation CO2 max effect = 0.175 C + (.9 * 0.0055 C ) = ~ 0.18 C. As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature.
So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.18 C?
Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which at the present rate of increase would take 278 years, we would increase the effect of CO2 (if it is a linear effect) to 4 X 0.18C = 0.72 C Whoopedy doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you. Good link to rarely seen data.
Reading the IPCC document SR-15 leaves one in no doubt that it is not based on science but is purely based on politics and a politics that seems to be aimed at reducing the World population by eliminating the poor and weak, leaving a World dominated by the present rich Elite.
The UN, the UNFCCC and various left-wing groups have never wanted to eradicate poverty. They want to eradicate wealth, out of a hatred of rich and successful people.
With so many countries apparently supporting the UN/IPCC declarations of doom and “welcoming” SR-15, surely there must be one country ready to be the “guinea pig” for the world and “decarbonise” by 2030 and demonstrate the economic benefits.
President Macron started, but was thwarted by the yellow vests.
Chancellor Merkel was leading the charge, but now seems reluctant to destroy Germany’s coal industry.
Anyone else ready to step up to the plate? Perhaps Canada?
The climateactiontracker website lists Morocco and The Gambia as likely to meet 1.5C target,
and Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India and Philippines as likely to meet 2C target, all based on “fair share” allocations – that seem to allow them all to increase CO2 emissions.
In Canada ,Trudeau attempted it until the top manufacturing emitters forced a meeting with him and threatened to leave the country unless he watered down the Carbon tax rules. He did so. They will apply in 3 days. At the end of 4 years the CO2 taxes will be about 5 billion and the special extra fuel taxes will be another 9 billion for a total of $ 14 billion. If the CO2 taxes dont get paid because the top 620 emitters change to a non CO2 fuel, the temperature will go down 1/1000 C by the end of the century. Inflation will go up because the fuel that they wsitch to will be more expensive. The people of Canada will only get the extra fuel surcharge money back. However both the switch and the fuel surcharges cause their own separate inflations. Therefore even though we get all the fuel surcharge back, the total of the 2 separate inflations will be more than the government rebate, so the people lose. If the 620 emitters pay the $5 billion CO2 tax and don’t switch ,there are still 2 separate inflation causes( the tax on the CO2 and the tax on the fuel surcharge. In this case the people will come out even if the rebates are from both the CO2 tax and the fuel rebate tax. However the same amount of CO2 will still be put into the air. We wont stop driving our cars because of an extra 11.5 cents per litre on gsoline tax. Therefore, what good did either of the 2 taxes do?
This is ABSOLUTE MADNESS
Socialism doesn’t address the creation of wealth, it only addresses the redistribution of it. Socialism assumes that wealth is self-creating and that only so much exists, and everyone deserves an equal portion except for an elite class that deserve most of it.
The elite class get to run the government, make policy, decide who gets what, and treat the rest of humanity as a bunch of stupid cattle (or maybe sheep). Just look at out own U.S. Washington D.C. elite for examples.
The problem is, of course, that a lot of humanity is fine with this, at least until they are starving to death. Just look at Valenzuela as an example.
Climate Doom is just a tool to get people so scared they will go for outrageous plans. The worst case scenario for climate change, assuming they are even a little-bit right about CO2, is that the world becomes more temperate, more food is grown, forests grow faster, large areas of the world become more habitable, and some areas will have to build sea-walls or move communities to higher ground. That’s the WORST case.
How this turns into “We have to completely change all of society” is nothing but politics – a power grab.
You can’t have wealth transfers justified by failure unless you have failure. And you can’t make $500 billion in annual transfers seem like a small number unless you can compare it to a much larger number.
Looking closer, these fundamental transformations are less about global warming and more about promoting “social justice,” as embodied in the UN’s “Sustainable development Goals.” The report makes no attempt to conceal this;
Nor have they been trying to hide it. See this from 2017:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/climate-and-disaster-resilience-/ndcs-and-sdgs.html
What has a change in the average global annual temperature got to do with climate change? Is there an average global annual climate that fluctuates as this average global annual temperature changes?
If it is around 288K does that mean the planet radiates an average global annual radiation of 390 watts/m2? (S-B)
Sounds like there should the same weather all over the planet on an annual basis. Am I wasting my time booking flights for Tenerife if I can stay at home and experience the same cool temperature 15C (night time too)?
So, this time the re-allocation of all human capital and resources to produce all that is needed to satisfy all human needs and desires is going to be organized by the UN, under the convenient catch-all of ‘saving the planet’.
And, like so many other schemes before it, it starts with the concept of “Tax yourself richer.”
The thing these people have never learned from history is that while the most powerful of rulers may get to write the history books for a few generations, they can no more rule human destiny than they can rule the autumn leaves falling from the trees in the wind, or rule the movement of sand grains on the beach during a winter storm. They are utterly deluded. They have neither the desire, nor the ability, to create something new that other humans might value, only the desire to control what other humans create by their own abilities and labour.
Any reasonable, thoughtful person would conclude that the world is unable to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the extreme ways that the Climate Establishment is demanding.
Most, if not all, of the Climate Establishment individuals would know this. They know the demands they invent are unable to be met without immense civil disruption, for which ‘war’ is another word. They must know that their demands are much the same as a declaration of war, or at least a signal that they intend to make such a declaration.
Thereby there is revealed a problem, a problem of a failing of the human mind.
Even in the last 150 years, we have well-documented examples of declarations of wars or of wars without formal declarations, by people who know that their acts will kill fellow humans. Yet, they persist through some strange process of charisma or propaganda or some elusive deception of the normal minds of others.
Why do humans periodically take up arms to kill each other? Darwin offered no explanation in terms of the origins of species. Less scientific thinkers have offered explanations from the trite to the downright deranged.
We should admit to the probability of at least a small amount of planned warfare if the Climate Establishment continues to push its agenda. Maybe they justify their homicide by guessing that the physics of climate change, if unchecked, will kill more humans than their little wars will. That is by way of an excuse based on unproven principles. There is no excuse for homicide based on purposeful misunderstanding.
As the impending clouds darken, historians should be looking to and publicizing the signs of imminent past wars. Who were the players, what were their words and acts, did they admit to knowing war would follow? Were there any signs useful for prediction of war today or tomorrow? What defenses should be mounted, what preparations made?
It should be surprising to some to note the lack of awareness of impending conflict in statements offered by current national leaders. Before some past wars, WWII in particular, the nations about to be invaded were preparing for invasion years ahead of the outbreak. What preparation do we see now? There is not much for the public to see. The public is left to imagine what might be happening at private, top level. We, the potential victims, can but hope that our present leaders are aware of the potential for conflict and are preparing appropriately. That is what leaders are for.
However, this time, the leaders have a strange twist to the task. The main proponent of drastic change is the United Nations, a body originally formed with a charter to do what it could to create peace. Now, it is fomenting war. That situation remains so untenable that the dominant solution is to change the leaders of the UN and all who are promoting mass murder because of their ’cause’. Geoff
Just google ” Die große Transformation”(The Great Transformation) by Otmar Edenhofer , head of the PIK (Potsdamer Institut für Klimafolgenforschung) in Germany. In an interview he states frankly, that
the CO2 climate change agenda has nothing to do with environmental protection.
In fact it serves as a pretext for a planned economic program for renewable energy production,”The Great Transformation”, created by leftists!
If done, the consequences will be as dramatic and disastrous as Mao’s “Big Leap Forward” !
I humbly suggest that the UN move its offices to a more neutral location and that we as citizens of the nations of the world find a way to provide them with a reasonable territory. I suggest that the two ice covered continents, Greenland and Antarctica be considered as appropriate territories that might greatly benefit from some future warming and provide for the UN a suitable number of sunpowered and/or windpowered vehicles such as skidos to get around on. A timber rich nation like Russia or Canada could also contribute a significant amount of lumber for the UN to construct their on habitat outright of wooden structures or wood reinforced igloos ie nice places although perhaps somewhat chilly places to sleep while resting from plotting their plans for world domination, check that, I mean socialist-lite world future.
I have found a way to find the people who completely make up stories about Alien Abduction. The ones who claim our Alien friends are warning about Man Made Global Warming going to destroy the Earth in 10 years. They then start talking about their 1993 abduction experience when the Fallen Angels disguised as Big Eyed Grey begin the Global Warming Story. It is not even go fiction then.