JAMES DELINGPOLE28 May 2019
Besides the Brexit Party, one of the big winners of the European Parliament elections — in Germany, France, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK — were the Greens.
There’s a lesson buried in this story — but it’s not what you might think. And it’s definitely, definitely the opposite of the conclusion being drawn by the Conservative Party.
In the Conservative mindset, green issues are one of those politically neutral, morally and socially positive causes you can embrace without betraying your principles or alienating your base.
This delusion is widespread, as we can see from the number of Tory leadership candidates who have decided to campaign on a green-friendly platform. Rory Stewart, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Matt Hancock, even the hard-headed and supposedly right-wing Dominic Raab have all, with varying degrees of canting enthusiasm, mentioned environment and climate change among their urgent priorities.
And every time they do so, it simply confirms to me how unfit they are to rescue the Conservative Party from the doldrums let alone lead Britain to a bright, post-Brexit future as prime minister.
https://twitter.com/BreitbartLondon/status/1093600285765890048
How many times do I have to explain this? The Greens are not caring, nurturing saviours of the planet. They are Watermelons, green on the outside red on the inside. If they genuinely cared about nature they certainly wouldn’t push such environmentally damaging schemes as industrial wind turbines or biofuels. For the Greens, environmental issues are merely a convenient, fashionable, and cuddly mask to disguise their aggressively anti-capitalist, anti-growth, anti-human, redistributive, big-government-heavy agenda.
For a Conservative candidate to embrace even a fraction of the Greens’ agenda is about as ludicrous and suicidal as coming out for the nationalisation of industry or higher taxes or a clampdown on free speech.
Pandering to the Greens is the new wave of corporate stupidity.
Memorize Pastor Niemoler’s quote from WW2!
Delingpole hits a game winner with this article!!!
Thinking about the picture, it recalls pass demonstrators and their self-righteous screeds/ To that end, new words for Barry McGuire’s ‘Eve of Destruction’:
The whole damned planet it is explodin’
storms are attackin’, seas are arisin’
You’re old enough to fry, but not for votin’
You don’t believe in CO2, but what’s that car you’re drivin’
And even the Rio Grand is running dry
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
Don’t you understand, what Greta’s trying to say?
Can’t you feel the fear that she’s feeling today?
If the turning point is passed, there’ll no running away
There’ll be no one to save with the world in a grave
Take a look around you, boy, it’s bound to scare you, boy
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
Yeah, the world’s so mad, feels like it’s overheatin’
We’re sittin’ here just contemplatin’
We can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation
Handful of Senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring mitigation
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’
And you tell me over and over and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
Think of all the heat there is in Red China
Then take a look around at California
Ah, you may leave here for four days in space
But when you return it’s the same overheated place
The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your head, and wipe the sweat off your face
Hate your next door neighbor for destroying this place
And you tell me over and over and over and over again my friend
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction
I would have chosen different words.
The problem is not “the climate” but the political climate that is threatening to blow up our relatively honest and compassionate western civilization.
How about something simple like:
Pandering. Kinda says it all…
sounds like something from CNN ( Chit – Not – News . )
Alarmism personified in song. So what? There is a lot of this going around. Any reason we should read these nonsensical lyrics? The entertainment industry is awash with this stuff.
Thinkers not deniers ? Certainly.
Greens do not think, they deny that climate changes all the time, perfectly naturally, so that rules them out.
Climate skeptics to not “deny” climate changes ; they do not deny “carbon”; they do think ( even critically at times ) about what causes climate to change all the time and to what extent we can detect a human driven influence on the natural changes with have occurred since the climate existed. ( either 6500 years or 3.5 billion depending on who is counting ).
Yes…I was immediately struck by the skillful use of doublespeak in the creation of that sign. Those three little words contain multiple layers of dishonesty, obfuscation and transference. One could write a dissertation… perhaps even a book, on why that sign is so rationally repugnant and perfect as propaganda.
Suffice it to say that the person carrying that sign is aggressively opposed to rational thinking and rational thinkers at a very deep level. If I was a gifted cartoonist like Josh, I would draw a person carrying this sign on top of a huge pile of dead bodies, and call it “Claiming the moral high ground!”
Didn’t one of our Presidents say: “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but if you can fool most of the people most of the time you have a consensus and that is good enough for autocratic rule.” I think it was Obama, or maybe it was on of our Vice Presidents. Al something. Bore was that his name?
Yesterday, my local weatherman told the audience what the day’s temperature “should be” for this date. Our cold, rainy, unseasonal end of May weather was clearly “not normal”. Hmmm? I wonder why he “believes” that our temperature and weather “should be” … anything. He then went on to say that tomorrow’s temps will STILL be “below normal” … by ONE degree F. Ohhhhhh … mammmmmmaaaa … I can’t live in a world where temperatures aren’t what they … “should be”.
Indeed, the word normal is being used for average, when temperatures are normally far from average (as are most weather conditions). They are confusing a normal distribution with the normal binomial distribution for weather.
Facts and common sense should never be allowed to get in the way of ideology. The example of religious teachings is evident in the way ideologists rant. If things are good “it’s because God is pleased”, more prayer and penance to the church to keep it that way. If things are bad ” it’s because God is displeased”, more prayer and penance to the church to make amends. This is the way of controlling the herd instinct in the population and it has worked for centuries. Better education has made people see through this charlatan ideology so a more sophisticated story had to be invented. Step up to the plate “Climate doomsday caused by mankind burning fossil fuel”. The only cure is to turn the clock back to a more idyllic time when life expectancy was only half of today, poverty and hunger the order of the day and energy provided by beasts of burden. Of course, it will require half the world’s population to perish as food, health provision, housing, heat, light, and power will be in very short supply without the adequate distribution ability that is taken for granted today. The real catastrophe for the world will be if these climate zealots get their own way. The fact that the climate doom and gloom predictions during the past 50 years have never materialized in no way serves to stay the verbal rubbish uttered every day by self-opinionated (and self-serving) tossers who pass themselves as serious scientists, able politicians, representatives of the media and saviors of the planet.
Ancient Scouse – cogent observation. It gives me hope and strength that there are others on this planet with the cognitive ability to recognize what this is all about. Charlatans have polluted this planet since the beginning of mankind. What is truly frightening this time around is how enduring and wide spread this particular AGW hoax has become.
It is because this hoax (CAGW) is the VERY LAST thing they have, everything else has failed, they are at the bottom, to tax and control others for the weather itself!
I do wish you were right, that this was the LAST one. But I fear that you’re a long way wrong. Time marches on, and no matter what the future brings you can be sure they’ll invent something to fear.
Fearing CO2 is so ridiculous on the face of it. Everything about the fear is implausible. Yet they take up the mantle and run with it. Why? because the subject doesn’t matter. It’s the cause that matters. To destroy prosperity, to extract taxes, to force subjugation of the masses, to force control of the populace, etc…
If this one ultimately fails, there will be more. You can count on that.
“This [religious teachings] is the way of controlling the herd instinct in the population and it has worked for centuries. ” I’m pretty sure that there is little evidence it has been “working” for about 50 – 60 years now. Religion was one of the first things attacked.
According to the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland the Essence of Good Advertising must have three components:
All marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.
All marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility both to the consumer and to society.
All marketing communications should conform to the principles of fair competition as generally accepted in business.
Why can we not hold those who are advertising climate changing actions to the same standards?
Why are we not charging them with fraudulent advertising?
That’s similar to my belief that we should hold politicians to the truth in advertising rules as applied to private corporations. If a politician doesn’t live up to his promises, he automatically gets booted out.
This will never happen. As a general rule, lawmakers do not pass laws that restrict lawmakers. More importantly, an honest politician is not electable. Voters, in general, do not want to hear about the reality of their situation. They want unrealistic promises, their individual needs placated and a false sense of moral superiority.
And that goes for all sides.
NO You are wrong, the Australian voters proved this. We knew the reality of our situation and rejected the unrealistic promises of the greens and elected an honest Christian politician.
I hope that is true, Barbara. I was speaking mainly about the U. S., for that is what I see here. I was also speaking about multiple issues, not just climate change. Most of the country is in denial about government spending and debt, and any politician that tries to address it, is crucified from all sides. Conservative politicians can’t be honest about crony capitalism, and liberal politicians can’t be honest about socialism and the abysmal failure of the welfare state. None of them can be honest about the deep state and Washington bureaucracy.
Climate change is not a real problem and never has been. It’s a political smokescreen that, among other things, allows politicians to pretend they are doing something and that they care. For the most part, they will not even talk about, much less take action, on the real problems we face.
The voting public seems fine with that.
From your mouth to God’s ear.
Start by referring to them as “environmental extremists” or something derogatory. Everybody wants a clean and heathy environment, so referring to calculationally challenged humanity-haters as “environmentalists” is not getting the rational message across.
From experience, the green blob does not negotiate in good faith, but constantly wants more.
NO authoritarian negotiates in good faith either left or right. Socialism either uses force immediately (Russia) or, if that doesn’t work, resorts to incrementalism until they have enough control to use force (Venezuela). And yes the radical greens are watermelons.
But defending the working classes is the role of Labour, not the Tories.
There’s a reason why Maggie Thatcher started the whole Global Warming scare.
There’s a reason why the most left-wing leader of a political party in recent UK history is the brother of the UK’s leading AGW sceptic.
Why be surprised that a generation of Tory politicians who grew up under thatcher are following her lead? Green is anti-industry. Blue is anti-organised society. They are twins.
She started the Global Warming scare?
Really? All by her little self?
She may have latched onto it for political reasons, but it was already in existence and growing rapidly.
Regardless, she later recanted. Your belief that all Tories blindly follow her lead has more to do with your hatred of Thatcher and Tories than it does with political reality.
Regardless, Labour may claim to be interested in the plight of the working classes, however their policies have only hurt the working classes, while enriching to Labour leaders.
“But defending the working classes is the role of Labour, not the Tories.”
Labour abandoned the working class decades ago. They’re now the party of foreigners and government employees.
There is no major working-class party in the UK. The UKIP are probably the closest, and they can’t win in a first-past-the-post election system… at least, not until the Tories are finally obliterated.
Maggie Thatcher started the whole Global Warming scare? She left office in 1990. How in the heck did she start it?
Besides Al Gore says he started it like he invented the internet. OK, I won’t give him the internet but control of the population via Fossil Fuel and CO2 scare had been in the works by the communist/socialist since their first shot at it in the 60s and 70s with the Ice Age Cometh, The End Is Nigh of Paul Ehrlich and his student, Holdren, who became Obama’s Science Advisor, of course.
The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich – Goodreads
Search domain http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/760870.The_Population_Bombhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/760870.The_Population_Bomb
In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich achieved infamy by publishing The Population Bomb, one of the most controversial eco-books ever printed. Ehrlich has been condemned to spend eternity with Thomas Malthus, in a dungeon reserved for doom perverts. To this day, professors still use the two lads as great …
yes, she did
it was part of a strategy to reduce the influence of the coal miner’s union, the leader of which took his orders directly from the kremlin on a weekly basis.
look it up if you are too young to remember.
i remember.
The coal mining unions didn’t do their industry any favours – I remember the power cuts and 3-day week in the early 70s, and the long-lasting strike in the early 1980s; after all that, reducing dependency on coal was an entirely reasonable policy. The ‘dash for gas’ was linked. Thatcher later realised she was wrong on the climate change issue, but the genie was out of the bottle by then. One benefit of the anti-coal drive is there’s still a lot of useful coal down there for future generations to exploit, should they need to.
There are genuine ‘green’ issues out there. How to drop the climate change meme is tricky because so many are brainwashed to the required degree to ever see the light of common sense again. Climate change is divisive to the same degree as Trump and Brexit. So any politician regardless of belief or understanding is going to have to pander to the public’s environmental concerns however muddled and bizarre they may be. So rather than avoid the topic it would be sensible to embrace it head on with strong decisive action such as support for safe Nuclear energy as being carbon dioxide free, cheap and reliable to keep the economy healthy combined with vast amounts of well designed native tree planting which is ultimately what people want , love and cherish to protect wildlife and enhance economic activity and general amenity. Renewables are best not seen nor heard and only exist where they are genuinely viable in every sense. Action on plastic concern is easy through homeland recycling or incineration. Grouse moors need licensing and tree planting strategy. Agricultural sprays must be reigned in. Animal welfare cared for by a minister and real pollution dealt with in a positive pragmatic way with home regulation and guidance rather than EU oversight. All these things can be done to satisfy the aspirations of Green Party supporters. And to support such encouraging actions a vibrant economy is essential so an easing of business rates and other stifling taxes must occur alongside support for entrepreneurial enterprise. 🙂🍃
Edward, I appreciate your comment and agree with most of it but not this part,
” combined with vast amounts of well designed native tree planting which is ultimately what people want , love and cherish to protect wildlife and enhance economic activity and general amenity.”
I live in the Southwest of the US. We and the whole West have way more trees than Mother Nature can handle because we interfered with her management (and the Indians) of the forests. Thanks to a century of fire suppression, then, greens eliminating logging, our trees are numerous, sick and burning. Our big job is to thin our forests, do prescribed burns and, when humans are not threatened, let Mother Nature’s fires do their very beneficial thing and stay out of her way.
I get it. Those who unquestioningly accept the word of those they agree with are the new thinkers.
“Thinkers not Deniers”? Guaranteed that person was told what to write, as anyone who believes the AGW crapload is no thinker.
You forget, Mr Delingpole, that it was the Conservatives Conservative, Saint Margaret the Thatcher that put “money on the table” to demonize CO2 and went on to whine about it at the UN. She handed the Greens their agenda on a silver platter. Maybe if she hadn’t started the “green crap” we wouldn’t be where we are now.
Credit where it’s due.
Mrs T was among a ‘fluorescent green’ capitalist
video: https://youtu.be/VnAzoDtwCBg
transcript: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
“The freiewelt.net site here also reported that the final tally in Germany shows the SPD socialists and leftists together lost 13% while the Greens gained 10%, thus meaning a net loss of 3% for the left of centre parties. This leaves claims of a leftist victory blared out by the media to be a myth.
According to freiewelt.net: “The left spectrum in Germany did not grow, rather it got a bit smaller.”
https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/29/europes-alleged-green-victory-in-eu-elections-is-fake-results-show-its-a-media-created-myth-more-fake-news/
The Tories cannot, do not and will not listen. The sceptic view lives in the shadows – here, on the GWPF and a few other blogs or online news sites such as Forbes and Breitbart. It doesn’t hold a candle to the BBC, ABC, CNN, Sky, ITV, Channel 4 and almost all the published media. Even the formerly ‘right wing’ Daily Telegraph fielded Louise Grey and the execrable Geoffrey Lean; it can’t speak out on many issues because it would upset their investors. Trump has done little overt swamp-draining since opting out of Paris.
It seems to come down to a race – will the Green Blob win big time before cooling captures the headlines? The best analogy I can find is the English Civil War – it split families down the middle, depending on who wanted to live free and who supported ‘the divine right of kings’ (aka Big State/Nanny knows best).
I’m losing the will – we can’t ‘win’ a debate where the other side doesn’t have to listen. We know that almost everything we hear on the news and in politics these days is ‘sound and fury, signifying nothing’. But it’s everything to those making the noise.
I have pointed this out before, but it’s worth repeating.
How serious are British politicians about climate change?
Lets put it this way. They have authorised expenditure of £5bn to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament). Many contractors expect the final figure to be double that.
The Palace of Westminster sits on the banks of the River Thames, mere feet from the hight tide mark.
I have not heard of a single politician pointing that our government is about to spvnk £10bn on a building that will be ‘engulfed’ by imminent sea level rise.
Which offers three possibilities:
1. Politicians are congenitally stupid.
2. I am a genius for recognising this.
3. The politicians are lying to us.
And I’ll cut down the odds somewhat here by saying that 2. is completely out the question.
Option 3. And that’s not just in the UK, ALL politicians know that CC is a non-issue. After all, they pay climate “scientists” to conclude that taxing air is justifiable. None of them want to shut down that revenue stream.
Compared to politicians, you are a genius, but 1. and 2. are definitely true.
Which offers three possibilities:
1. Politicians are congenitally stupid.
2. I am a genius for recognising this.
3. The politicians are lying to us.
why assume those possibilities are mutually exclusive? embrace the “and”. 1 *and* 3 covers it very well 🙂
HotScot
Positively brilliant. Bravo!
Okay, but you might want to fill the void with things like opportunity, wealth, freedom, competitiveness, family, and future.
Naive, pseudo science believing fools.
Maybe an energy blackout or a policy induced recession would help clear the minds and focus attention on what’s really important. All the noisemakers and climate stunt artists need to get busier and make a larger (negative) impact.
Delingpole makes a good point. Witness the election of President Trump. America’s workers, and the unemployed who used to have good jobs, figured out that the Democrats were doing nothing for them. Similarly, British conservatives can easily suss out that the Conservative party is not representing them. A Conservative party that actually stands up for conservative policies would quickly get those voters back plus a bunch more.
Having said the above, there is some wisdom about being unclear about your policies. I can’t remember who said it but it goes something like: “Every time you clearly state a policy, you give someone a reason to hate you.” So, when the Conservatives embrace Green policies, they give their base a reason to hate them. The conservative base has probably figured out the watermelon nature of green policies.
The world needs thinkers, not
deniersuseful idiots.Fixed it for ’em.
See http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
The British political elites are almost all victims of this CO2 derangement syndrome.
Here are some quotes:
“A very large majority of establishment academic climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .The first is an almost total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent patterns which are trivially obvious in solar activity and global temperature data. This causes the natural climate cycle variability to appear frightening and emotionally overwhelming. Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded. The delusionary world inhabited by the eco-left establishment activist elite is epitomized by Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes science-based fiction, ” The Collapse of Western-Civilization: A View from the Future” Oreskes and Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change. Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to convince themselves, politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions……………
When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html See also https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html
and the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
OThttps://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-05-27-what-failure-to-reverse-climate-change-could-mean/
By 1979, we knew nearly everything we understand today about climate change ― including how to stop it, according to the book, Losing Earth. Over the next decade, a handful of scientists, politicians and strategists risked their careers to convince the world to act before it was too late. Losing Earth tells the human story of climate change. It reveals the birth of climate denialism and the genesis of the fossil fuel industry’s coordinated effort to thwart climate policy through misinformation propaganda and political influence. Here is an extract.
The fossil fuel industry is doing nothing of the sort. More petrol $$’s have gone into appeasement than into “denialist” propaganda (to use the infantile groupthink climate slander phrase).
A natural cooling period has already started (AMO peaked almist 10 years ago) and ocean waters have begun cooling. Sometimes the AMO “turns” rapidly.. creating a degree of worldwide cooling in only a few short years.
I cannot wait to see the mental agony the cognitive dissonance will cause, due to the undeniable cooling, to all the brainwashed lefties…who cannnt think for themselves.
The CAGW alarmist crony scientusts will blame that cooling on Climate Change…and that will be a lie too…but the propaganda MSM and the leftists that own Academia will give them political cover with even more lies.
The truth does not matter to authoritarian lefties…nor to their mindless minions who (I repeat) cannot think for themselves.
By 1979, we knew nearly everything we understand today about climate change ―
___
Wasn’t that when they were predicting Global Cooling, the coming Ice Age and mass starvation due to overpopulation and famine from cooling? All due, of course, to CO2 and fossil fuels.
Exposing the Greens for what they really are …. a radical political group …. won’t happen for the same reason AGW isn’t exposed for what it really is. Both narratives are based on the faith that their goal is to save the planet and anyone taking exception is the enemy. After all, who doesn’t want to save the planet?
I have some bumper stickers made that say “Save the Planet – Emit CO2” I am thinking about ordering a batch that says “Mobile Plant Feeder”, with an arrow pointing towards the exhaust pipe on my ICE transportation vehicle.
CO2 is the foundation of life on this planet. AGW types against CO2 are actually against life. They aren’t saving the planet from anything, except getting better. They are not the solution to a problem. They are the problem (paraphrasing Ronald Reagan).
LOVE IT, James!
British conservative pols (and American!) should heed the adage:
“Lay down with dogs, Get up with fleas!”
The ‘Green’ catechism is part of the Socialist agenda! It is diametrically opposed to and incompatible with Conservative ethics.
Government control over the private sector is fascism. We in the US already have a partial fascist economy, somewhat rolled back by Trump cutting corporate taxes. Fascism is not an “extreme right-wing” form of politics and economics. It always was and still is Left wing, a form of socialism in which the means of production is controlled, but not owned by government. Greens are true fascists, not communists.
When the government controls CO2, it has an interest in almost every engine. Now government can impose even more regulations and fees, through any means necessary limit who can operate, in effect gaining a controlling interest in the entire economy without taking ownership. That’s fascism. Yes, it’s fascism lite, but we are moving in a dangerous direction. Where does it stop?
People in power like their power and want to keep it. They would rather not have to face new competition, because that takes work. It’s easier to form an alliance with those who want to take over the system, give them some control while pretending to believe in the economic principles that built the economy in the first place. Thus, too many on “our team” benefit from the other guys while blaming them. We are fooled.
The Greens and Marxists have already said the ultimate goal of climate change politics is to dismantle capitalism. Vaclav Klaus warned us about their intentions more than a decade ago. Having lived through communist dictatorship, he recognized the danger.
When conservation becomes the excuse to control everyone and everything, competition is crushed. Competition is the driver of greater performance and lower cost, i.e., efficiency. But those in power want to be protected, and want to promote “stability”. That’s your economic class structure. Our Country Club Republicans don’t want new members of the club, and go along with the Democrats who lock in power, pretending it’s for the benefit of those they control, ends justify the means.
We are heading for a new fascism, probably along the lines of China or Mexico. It’s perhaps an industrial feudalism, an oligarchy. Greens will fool people just like any other greedy SOB who wants power. We still have a chance to correct our system here in the US. The EU may be able to save their Union too. What they have is cracking. Socialism has shown its weakness in many nations. The old cry “we need to do more” is running out of people to take more from.
The US public sector controls 40% of GDP, and the private sector is robbed of too much energy. It’s like a car with a 3000 W stereo system run by a 100 HP engine. That’s a hell of a stereo system, but isn’t the point to go somewhere? Borrowing and spending $10T over the last 10 years did nothing to boost the economy. Government cannot create jobs, or grow the economy by spending. The positives government can do are counter-balanced by negatives in the private sector, robbed of resources.
Why doesn’t government do better? Because there is no need to make money. They just take more when they want it. They don’t have to weight costs and benefits. They are not efficient. There is no competition, because government has more guns and courts and jails.
What turned the US economy around? Tax cuts. The car stereo was downsized. We still have far to go to restore our economy. We are not running a capitalist system. We don’t have free markets with basic regulations. We have controlled markets where government can pick winners and losers, and rob companies of resources just to begin operations. What justifies a local government to charge $100,000 for a building permit for a single family home? Now they come back and say we need to force builders to include “affordable housing”.
There are too many bureaucrats needing too much taxation to support too much regulation on too many businesses now able to hire too few workers whose taxes support too many people “unable” to work who depend on government for their welfare. How about we fire half the government workers, and shut down half of the bureaus, cut government salaries in half, and cut half the regulations. Just to start.
We should explore our pressure relief valve, Article V Convention of States. This approach to making amendments to the Constitution bypasses Congress to restore the power of states and divide power again. It should not matter as much who is elected President of the United States. The outcome of an election should not make us worry the survival of the nation is at stake. If we have that much worry, there is too much power in Washington. There is too much.
Amen to all of it.
Oligarchy -> government by the elite. It’s been misused by the media just to refer to Russian industrialists. Doesn’t matter whether left or right. The never Trump “conservatives” are just a part of the elite just as Pelosi et al are. The elites have gained control of the modern axis: government bureaucracy, media, finance and education. Eisenhower worried about the military industrial complex. He would be totally aghast at the present complex.
Good comment. Thank you.
The salaries of the bureaucrats may not be the key problem. Look at the budgets. Welfare programs with all the entitlements are very expensive. We house the people, buy their food, health care, schools. Politicians need their support to get elected. So we increase the minimum wage knowing that prices go up and they will ask it again.
Politicians also need business support to get funding for the elections. The donor class has a good payback with policies that select the winners, subside them and keep competitors in bay. Musks of the world enjoy climate change alarm. They live on it.
Arms race bankrupted Soviet Union. Memorial day reminds me how important consistent warfare if for the USA. Trump has not started a singe war in his term, but many would have done so.
Even conservative TX senator John Cornyn is talking climate gibberish. Texas has a lot of wind (purposeful ambiguity). That’s probably why. https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Cornyn-says-days-of-ignoring-climate-change-are-13848205.php
The article reminds us,
David Cameron also spouted the green mantra, and his wife is reported as being a true believer. But it was this slip (if slip it was) caused me to vote Conservative for the first time, them appearing the least crazy of the significant parties. Depending on their words and actions, I may change my mind again.
How apropos that “deniers” is in green. People are not so naive.
No need to panic, not yet anyway, Russians survived 70 years of communism, and guess what, Chinese doubled their population in 50 years of the Maoism. Europe has deficit of young populous, poor plebs reproduce more frequently, there is a silver lining to every cloud. /sarc
If the EU does go socialist, as it seems they will, one of two things could happen;
1. The beast government arises and tries to take over the world (again), bringing about Armageddon.
2. A hundred years of oppression take their toll on the EU population while the current third world gain power and technology, eventually destroying the EU socialist government by war or sanctions; and the world continues its cycles of boom and bust.
No amount of facts will ever turn a religious believer from their faith based opinion.
The climate alarmists actually believe in what they are doing, they believe they are the chosen ones whose role is to save the world.
The fact they (the COGS) are deluded, the fact they wrongly interpret virtually every metric that measures climate, often pushing completely false claims, simply because it makes a better story that the factual truth. These are all allowed in their religious crusade to save the Planet.
That is what we are up against. These are not people that are prepared to discuss or debate, because for them the “truth” as they see it, transcends all opinions except theirs.
We talk about facts. They talk about belief.
We talk about benefits they talk about risks.
We talk about climate history, they talk about climate damaging the future.
We talk about natural variation of climate, They talk about man made climate variation.
There is no common ground.
Scientific facts and religious belief are rare bedfellows.
The two do exist, but often it seems to be for social convenience, not because of any complimentary coexistence between them.
That is why they must be put down, with force if needed, because if they ever gain enough power believe me they will use force, they believe the ends justify the means.
Religion is what you need when there are no laws that apply to what you are about to do.
Do you have an example you can share, to illuminate your thinking?
Alarmist MUST always rail against so-called “den!ers” so that alarmists can keep on using fossil fuels every day, because someone else is so why should they stop?
Mrs T was among a ‘fluorescent green’ capitalist
video: https://youtu.be/VnAzoDtwCBg
transcript: https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
I pisses me off a lot when people call me a “denier” because I am skeptical about a hypothesis whose predictions appear to be unfalsifiable. The conclusions seem to apply for any possible issue. If it is warmer than average – global warming. If it is cooler than average – weather. If it is more stormy – global warming. If it snows – its just weather. If it is too dry – thats global warming. If it is too wet – thats global warming. If it is just right — still global warming.
I see no difference between this hypothesis and a religious ideology.
There is one falsifiable prediction from all (except the Russian) ICPC climate models.
These models ALL depend on the “greenhouse amplification” from increased atmispheric humidity…caused by the slight warming from CO2. The CO2 induced warming (about 0.7 C per “doubling”) by itself is not “ALARMING”.
There is universal agreement that this humidity amplification will create an atmospheric hot spot in the tropical upper troposphere. Radiosonde (weather balloon) measurements and satellite measurements do not find the “hotspot”.
The Alarmists keep claiming to find it…BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO HIDE THE HOTSPOT FROM BALLOONS. So they are lying. Also see this recent article by Roy Spencer regarding another more recent falsification of the hotspot prediction:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/the-weakness-of-tropospheric-warming-as-confirmed-by-airs/
The climate models UPON WHICH THE CAGW HOUSE OF CARDS IS BUILT…have been falsified.
The religious know their beliefs are based on faith and belief. The Alarmists do not.
A couple points.
In this older video Lindzen near the end comments that by allowing ourselves to be called skeptics, it concedes some apriori case for alarm. So Lindzen says to the extent possible call me a denier, since there wasn’t even a good apriori case for alarm
Second point.
Lindzen discusses Mike Hulme’s book.
Do think of Mike Hulme’s comments in religious terms. In a modern context that has largely forgotten the old religion, they are supplying a new narrative structure based on Climate Change
In effect, Contemplating Climate Change is New Age replacement for Bible Study !!
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria
https://tinyurl.com/mml5aca
Richard Lindzen
50 min to end
“That impasse begins with the word Skeptic. Whenever I’m asked am I a Climate Skeptic, I always answer: NO. To the extent possible I’m a Climate Denier. That’s because skepticism assumes there is a good a-priori case that you have doubts about. There isn’t even a good a-priori case !! “ (for alarm)
Lindzen discusses Mike Hulme’s book
3 min to 5:15
Mike Hulme “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”
“The Idea of Climate Change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change but what climate change can do for us”
“Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs”
“We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects”
“These myths transcend the scientific categories of true and false”
What Is Sustainable Beef?
“Interest in sustainability has skyrocketed among major players in the food service industry in recent years, mirroring conversations in the broader green and food communities about the agriculture industry’s role in serious environmental challenges.
“Bryan Weech, director of livestock agriculture for World Wildlife Fund (WWF), told The Huffington Post that ‘there is no one, universally accepted definition’ for beef sustainability. Weech also represents the WWF on the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, one of several groups working toward a definition.
https://www.beefmagazine.com/blog/what-sustainable-beef
Sustainable Beef?
Going After Our Food Supply
https://newswithviews.com/most-radical-environmental-group-in-america-now-controls-the-beef-industry/
We had a news bulletin on the local radio last week decrying the local farmers who are farming organic beef. Apparently they are struggling to sell it, therefor they’re not raking in the money like they were expecting. Poor buggers.
I would love to know what inorganic beef is like.
Re. Barbara, My 29. I hope that you are right. I would not use the word
Christian in regard to a politician, this is the problem, which Tony Abbott had.
He was a very honest person but he did not seem to realise that he was a
representative, and thus should represent what the community majority
wanted, and not his own personal beliefs,
Lets just hope for a good manager for the important job of running this great
country.
MJE VK5ELL
Business interests are often seduced by spending complexes, military industrial for example. So it isn’t surprising that alt energy sector got the junk science nod and funding. That the global oil industry has plenty of bad actors was highlighted as well in the 1970’s for example. It’s there that greens, disillusioned net oil deficit nations in the west all lined up under various reactions including climate and energy state interventions and policy.
So trillions have been wasted, the poor suffer under rationing, the cost of energy is inflated. A ruling elite benefits and individuals are being crushed under the weight.
The highest cost is the loss of critical thinking and logic in a society. The totalitarian base is enforced by a system of propaganda about almost anything if the intellectual capital of the society is dominated by political science instead of actual verifiable science.
Add money incentives, an entire academic class of like minded political activists or beneficiaries, a dumbed down population in regard to science standards/logic and you see how difficult it will be to reverse.
Climate fraud is only one symptom of social decline, England has socially rotted as has much of the western world. Will the net distributed progress given by the west to the world overcome it’s own local decline? Will China, India and the rest of the third world aspire to individual freedoms or are we headed for a Dark Age??
[SNIPPED. Clean the language up. Mod]
Is this the same dellingple?
The UK Conservatives don’t need an affiliation with Greens to take them down they have done
it with Brexit quite nicely .
The politicians need to be held to account for 10’s of thousands of premature fuel poverty deaths
caused by policies designed to enrich their friends and donors .
They “knew ‘ what they were doing .