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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 .