By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.
On July 4, 2019, I published the article “THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM”.
There was a reason why this article was published on July 4. My article begins:
Ever wonder why extremists attack honest scientists who oppose global warming and climate change hysteria? Ever wonder why climate extremists refuse to debate the science?
IT IS BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISM WAS NEVER ABOUT THE SCIENCE – IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN FOR THE TOTALITARIAN OBJECTIVES OF THE EXTREME LEFT.
Some people may think this was statement was inaccurate, or that I was being unfair. However, one week after my article was published, Democratic New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, fully verified my statement. He said, as written in the article below:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said… … “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.
Following is another excerpt from my July 4 article that demonstrates how utterly impractical the Green New Deal is – the Green New Deal is energy and economic lunacy – it cannot work:
“4. Humanity needs modern energy to survive – to grow and transport our food and provide shelter, warmth and ~everything we need to live. Wind and solar power are too intermittent and too diffuse to be practical or effective. Green energy schemes have been costly failures.
Fully ~85% of global primary energy is from fossil fuels – oil, coal and natural gas. The remaining ~15% is almost all nuclear and hydro. Green energy has increased from above 1% to less than 2%, despite many trillions of dollars in wasted subsidies. The 85% fossil fuels component is essentially unchanged in past decades, and is unlikely to significantly change in future decades.
The fatal flaw of grid-connected green energy is that it is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily due to intermittency – the wind does not blow all the time, and the Sun shines only part of the day. Intermittent grid-connected green energy requires almost 100% backup (‘spinning reserve’) from conventional energy sources. Intermittent wind and solar electrical generation schemes typically do not even significantly reduce CO2 emissions – all they do is increase energy costs and reduce grid reliability.
Claims that grid-scale energy storage will solve the intermittency problem have proven false to date. The only proven grid-scale ‘super-battery’ is pumped storage, and suitable sites are rare – Alberta is bigger than many countries, and has no sites suitable for grid-scale pumped storage systems.”
In addition to green energy’s fatal flaw of intermittency, there is also the second fatal flaw of diffusivity. The land area of the wind farms required to provide 100% of Great Britain’s energy demand would comprise about 10% of the country’s total land area – it’s explained at 1:58 in this video:
In the USA, this 10% would total about 300,000 square miles, or all of Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, and more land and much more money would be required to provide back-up power for when the wind does not blow.
Then there is the incredible cost. According to the article below, “The Green New Deal in its entirety could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade.” That would more than quintuple (5x) the USA’s national debt – to solve an imaginary “global warming / climate crisis” that does not even exist in reality.
All over the world, countries that once had a future have fallen into dictatorship, poverty and misery. It is notable that of the ~167 large countries in the world, most are totalitarian states, and all but “the chosen few” citizens of these countries suffer under brutal leftist dictatorships.
Now the last great democracies, the hope of the world, are under attack by leftist extremists.
Radical greens have used wildly exaggerated scary stories of runaway global warming and climate change to stampede the gullible, in order to achieve their political objectives.
The absolute lunacy of the Green New Deal and its delusional acolytes is now clear – global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense was never about the climate – it was always a false narrative, a smokescreen for the totalitarian objectives of the extreme left. Once the left controls our energy supply, they control everything in our society – it will be “One Man, One Vote, Once!” – the end of freedom.
_________________________________
OCASIO-CORTEZ’S CHIEF OF STAFF ADMITS WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE by Peter Hasson, July 11, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/11/saikat-chakrabarti-green-new-deal/
Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting climate change, her top aide admitted.
Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday.
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts.
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.
Ocasio-Cortez’s press office didn’t immediately return an inquiry regarding whether Chakrabarti’s admission would undermine the congresswoman’s Green New Deal advocacy.
The Green New Deal calls for a number of hard left proposals, including getting the U.S. entirely off of fossil fuels within 10 years, providing universal health care, basic income programs and job guarantees.
The proposal also calls for “social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”
Transitioning to “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” within 10 years — just one of the Green New Deal’s expensive proposals — could cost more than $5 trillion, according to one estimate.
The Green New Deal in its entirety could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade, according to another estimate.
The war against fossil fuels is really a war against the young. It will be truly a hellish world for generations yet unborn should the greens/socialists succeed. Yet it is presented as hope for the future and many ignorant, indoctrinated, and inexperienced, youth are enlisted in a cause which will destroy their future. It really is disgustingly cynical and evil on the part of western elites.
We should probably stop trying to assume motive. We each view the world through our own experiences, ideologies, etc. While it is true that some people are scheming or that some of the time people lie about their motives, most of the time what appears like a hidden agenda is just their worldview forcing the “solutions” into a specific direction. Its not that many pushing climate action are secretly pushing communism. They just have a worldview that makes government control the primary “solution”. And when you only have a hammer, you tend to treat every problem like a nail
I disagree in that it is certainly true that the “useful idiots ” don’t know what is going on behind the scenes but the evil being put forward by powerful forces is too great not to assume motive, particularly when these people have admitted the truth behind their actions- numerous examples are available for your perusal. Okay, don’t assume motive, but please please speak out against this fools errand loudly and repeatedly!
I tell my children that we have failed them by letting this AGW scare fester so long, albeit aided by powerful forces. When the media turns on the people we are indeed in dangerous times. I feel compelled to speak out at every turn against the fraud that is being perpetrated on mankind by a number of powerful influences as noted above. We only need follow the money and corrupt politicians to see what is happening behind the scenes. It is truly frightening to me how many times the truth behind the movement has been admitted, yet it still has legs. If we don’t speak up we are condemning our children to a fate worse than George Orwell imagined!
+100 spot on.
Those who refuse to challenge and refuse to speak out, are the ones who have accepted defeat. They imagine silence and submission is easier, than the future insanity ahead of them.
They could not be more wrong.
The “out of line renewables” chart has incorrect summary text. It should say 20c / kW of capacity, not 0.02c.
Chakrabarti is not the only one seeking to kill capitalism. Christiana Figueres, who was formerly the head of the UN Framework Agreement on climate change said in Feb 2015: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”.
Keith – here are a few more names, and there are many more at http://www.green-agenda.com/
___________________
For radical greens, it was never about the environment – the environment was a smokescreen for their extreme-left totalitarian political objectives. When radical green extremists take power, it will be ‘One Man, One Vote, Once’ – the end of democracy.
To understand radical green objectives, see http://www.green-agenda.com/, excerpted below:
• “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations
• “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
• “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
• “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
• “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
• “One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
• “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
• “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
• “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival or millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA
• “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth
9. Conclusion
Radical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and many millions of lives. Banning DDT and radical green opposition to golden rice blinded and killed tens of millions of children.
Green energy and CO2 abatement schemes, driven by false fears of catastrophic global warming, have severely damaged the environment and have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been allocated to serve the real, immediate needs of humanity. Properly allocated, these wasted funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.
The number of shattered lives caused by radical-green activism rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – radical greens advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to their resulting environmental damage and human suffering… … and if unchecked, radical environmentalism will cost us our freedom.
Full article at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/
It’s funny to me how any time someone has anti-capatalist ideals, they are immediately labelled as Marxist, or compared to historical failings of obviously flawed communists and socialists. As if socialism will always = totalitarianism and brutal fascist dictatorships.
But strangely I agree. Socialism will always be currupted into totalitarian rule, or dictatorships by one or a few who wish to capatilise on the ability to easily lie and dupe the masses through such a system. That’s just part of human nature. The ability to take advantage of a situation or another person, if we can, is normal human behaviour.
The only difference is that an uncorrupted, ideal socialist(if such a thing exists) defeats this selfish nature within themselves, whilst those who don’t become the next dictator, capatilising on the ideals of others for their own gain.
Some of us had no delusions of what was sought by AOC’s New Green Deal as it was merely a continuation of what Barack Obama had already stated with regards to supposed “climate change”. His words and intent were, “…under my system of a cap and trade program, electricity rates (energy prices overall) would necessarily skyrocket…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
I had no delusions when I heard that. I fully understood this had nothing to do with climate change or any such proclaimed nonsense. This was always about bringing down Western civilization, all capitalist nations as we know them, and transforming them into what these extreme leftists wanted. Anyone who claimed differently was either a naive but useful idiot, or was an evil scumbag seeking to destroy all the benefits caused by having free market trade based capitalist societies and nations.
Famous economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman wrote an incredible book titled “Free To Choose” then created a 10 part video series by the same name which aired on PBS discussing the virtues of free market trade and capitalism in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4&list=PL0364ACCE6C7E9D8E In this video series and in his book, Friedman discusses how no other economic system brought as much prosperity (and potential for prosperity) to the average person than free market trade and capitalism.
This assault on free market trade, capitalism and Western civilization as we know it is not something new to those of use who have taken the time to educate ourselves. Heck, even political correctness, also known as cultural Marxism to those of us who know, is nothing but another one of many attempts to destroy Western civilization as we know it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrx6xU_bwxM
So those of you like the author of this piece, Allan MacRae, who are new to the concept of the radical left attempting to destroy Western civilization as we know it, welcome to the club. It’s just a shame it has taken you this long to finally recognize what has been going on for quite a while, all done in the name of various leftists attempts at accomplishing the very same goal.
KS wrote:
“So those of you like the author of this piece, Allan MacRae, who are new to the concept of the radical left attempting to destroy Western civilization as we know it, welcome to the club. It’s just a shame it has taken you this long to finally recognize what has been going on for quite a while, all done in the name of various leftists attempts at accomplishing the very same goal.”
KS – Your above statement is false. I’m not “new to the concept”. I’ve understood this issue for many decades. I’ve done major business on six continents and seen a much harder side of life than almost everyone I’ve met. I’ve travelled to Honecker’s East Germany and Fidel Castro’s Cuba, and ran a multi-billion dollar enterprise in the FSU.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/26/world-mourns-mass-murderer-and-climate-warrior-fidel-castro/#comment-1912198
From my post written circa 2000-2005:
[excerpt]
I’ve also been to Cuba, and it is a cesspool of poverty and degradation (Trudeau boys, please take note).
What is truly interesting is that there are still apologists for Castro and Cuba here in Canada, even as Fidel himself has recently admitted that Cuba is a failed state.
They are probably the same “useful idiots” who said that Communist East Germany was a good model for Canada to emulate. I seem to recall several former [Canadian] NDP leaders who tried to sell us that line of BS (the names Broadbent and Lewis come to mind).
I travelled to East Germany, going through the Berlin Wall at Checkpoint Charlie in 1989, shortly before the Wall fell. East Germany was a cesspool too. While not as materially poor as Castro’s Cuba, it was an even more vicious police state where neighbour spied upon neighbour, and nobody felt safe from the Stasi secret police. Those who tried to escape were shot, and often allowed to bleed to death in “no-man’s land” between the many barbed-wire fences that formed “the Wall”.
Epilogue
The last person to be shot and killed while trying to cross the border from East to West Germany was Chris Gueffroy on February 6, 1989. He was 20 years old. Rest in peace, kid.
Well I for one am glad to have you as a friend in our fight against those who seek to destroy all the good free market trade and capitalism has brought us. Please forgive my improperly placed assumptions.
All OK KS.
Best, Allan
Epilogue:
It is difficult to see the human degradation and despair that results from very corrupt, incompetent typically leftist governments.
You meet really nice people, work with them for a while, and then leave them in the hands of a vicious dictatorship, where they and their children have no hope for a better future.
This post shows that scientific arguments against them are useless, as it’s not about science.
True, this is all about politics, and which way people are “rusted” to their particular side. “science be damned, I think this”. That is politics for ya.
citizens of the UK, Germany, indeed much of Europe look at this green new deal and see we’ve had pretty much all the elements of it for years now, with very little effect, if any, except more convenient public transport and less CO2.
I really don’t see what the fuss is about. Even the Chinese have high speed rail.
Griff – you are wrong – again!
Intermittent wind and solar power generation schemes are so inefficient that they do NOT even significantly reduce CO2 emissions – all they do is increase costs.
The electric grid is complex, and there are a lot of complicating factors, and it depends on the percentage of solar and/ or wind. Low percentages aren’t a problem, higher percentages do present challenges.
These technologies can reduce co2 emissions and fuel use over their lifetimes. Even where there is a lot of hydro, they can free up generation and reservoir capacity. They don’t free up any capital, of course.
Like any technology, they aren’t a solution to every problem, everywhere. Unless you hate and fear nuclear, and then make up imaginary, practical, economical and safe storage technology that hasn’t yet reached the discovery scale.
Randy – if you have very little wind energy in the grid, it might actually reduce CO2 emissions – a little. But then – who cares – when wind power is so small as to be insignificant.
Bit if you have lots of wind energy in the grid, it will increase CO2 emissions, unless you have ample backup hydro power.
We are told that co2 presently are 0.041 percent of the atmosphere.
Can anybody tell me, how much of this insignificant trace gas is due to human activities ?
No. Noone can, scientifically… As science requires consensus. Whilst there is a claim that 0.013 is all human, there is also a claim that 0.0001% is human. You do your own research.
There is a search engine called ‘Google’, in case your question was not retorical.
The science on whether increased co2 much matters seems to be unclear – a red barn roof wouldn’t absorb much more heat from the sun if it had 4 coats of paint than it did after the first 2 coats, and 4 more coats would have no effect. There is not much doubt that human activity is increasing it, but it might not matter much.
I have no idea what your worried about. Conservatives are in charge, and will remain that way… No matter how many cities and towns claim a climate emergency it will amount to nothing, the global economy will always prevail… Money is “God” Maybe some localities will feel some pain, but globally we are on track to maintain status quo.
Voicing out against some “green” movement when you could be managing some offshore, multi billion company is surely a waste of time and millions of dollars.
I agrree, IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN, BUT FOR CAPITALISM
Tommy wrote:
“IT WAS ALWAYS A FALSE NARRATIVE, A SMOKESCREEN, BUT FOR CAPITALISM”
Sure it was Tommy – and AOC and Bernie Sanders are NOT leftists, correct?
As the catastrophic global warming scam becomes fully exposed as the world’s greatest-ever fraud, this Is the left’s latest BIG LIE – “It wasn’t our idea – it was the capitalists!”
Only the dumbest of the dumb will believe this lie – but there are lots of them out there.
Watermelons – says it all.
When you start building giant fans on some of the best farmland in the country, as they’ve done where I live, you’re literally telling the world that your ideology is more important than your food supply. The stupid, it burns.
MORE VERIFICATION OF THE TOTALITARIAN OBJECTIVES OF THE RADICAL GREENS:
PROMINENT ENVIRONMENTALIST PROPOSES A CLIMATE DICTATORSHIP BECAUSE DEMOCRACY IS JUST NOT WILLING TO DO HIS POLICIES.
By Bjørn Lomborg
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10156188900228968:0
The gall of this argument is staggering. It is even more staggering that the Swedish newspaper bringing this large interview today does not clearly mark the viewpoint as extreme and unreasonable. Instead, they seriously have their political analyst muse about whether a climate dictatorship is really necessary, and ending with a conclusion of ‘yeah, possibly.’
The claim comes from Jørgen Randers, professor of climate strategy at BI Norwegian Business School. His main claim to fame is as co-author of the 1972 Limits to Growth book, which scared a generation to believe we would run out of all resources and kill humanity with suffocating air pollution. Time magazine headlined their 1972 story on the book: “The Worst Is Yet to Be?” and it began: “The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips, backyards and outlying fields, hoping to raise a subsistence crop. London’s offices are dark, its docks deserted. In the farm lands of the Ukraine, abandoned tractors litter the fields: there is no fuel for them. The waters of the Rhine, Nile and Yellow rivers reek with pollutants. Fantastic? No, only grim inevitability if society continues its present dedication to growth and “progress.””
Of course, their scare scenarios were almost entirely wrong. You can read more in my Foreign Affairs article and my short summary in Project Syndicate below.
Now Professor Randers — correctly – tells us that democracy is unwilling and unable to pay the exorbitant amounts that he and many other environmentalists are asking us to pay. Surveys of willingness to pay for climate policies show most people in the US are willing to pay $180 per household or $70 per person. In China, the average willingness to pay is $30 per person per year. (They would all rather use it on education, health, poverty alleviation etc.)
Yet, the current Paris promises will cost each American $500 per year, each European $600 and each Chinese $170. Of course, most Americans and Europeans are unlikely to elect leaders that will actually incur a much larger cost than most people are willing to pay.
Moreover, these promises will not *solve* global warming – indeed, they will together achieve almost nothing: By the UN’s own estimate, the Paris Treaty will reduce emissions by less than 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C and yet cost $1-2 trillion per year by 2030, mostly in reduced GDP growth. So Paris will deliver far less than what most people expect, yet will cost much more than most people are willing to pay.
Of course, most smart people would be against paying lots for achieving little or nothing. If anything, this suggests that democracy works just fine.
BUT RANDERS INSTEAD TAKES THIS UNWILLINGNESS TO SPEND FORTUNES ON LITTLE BENEFITS AS AN ARGUMENT FOR ENDING DEMOCRACY. ‘IF PEOPLE DON’T WANT MY PREFERRED SOLUTION, THEN PEOPLE ARE STUPID, SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE THEIR FATE, AND WE SHOULD INSTALL A CLIMATE DICTATORSHIP INSTEAD.’ THE ARGUMENT LITERALLY SEEMS TO BE: IF I CAN’T HAVE MY WAY IN A DEMOCRACY, I WANT MY WAY WITH A DICTATORSHIP.
That is hardly a good argument. It is also phenomenally expensive: Look at the costs to achieve the sort of climate policies that Randers and many others are advocating. If the EU fulfils its promise of cutting emissions by 80% in 2050 (which is the most ambitious climate policy in the world today), the average of the best peer-reviewed models show that the cost would run to at least $3 trillion per year, and more likely double that – meaning $6,000 for each EU citizen per year. Of course, few will vote for that.
Moreover, asking for a dictatorship neglects one of the main reasons for democracy: *how do you ensure that the dictator does what is good for you?* Throughout history, many have asked for dictatorships, but when they got it, it turned out that the dictator didn’t do what they hoped – and then how do you change your leader?
Look at China, which unfortunately is held up by many environmentalists as a green ideal. It gets 86% of its total primary energy demand from fossil fuels (International Energy Agency data, latest from 2014, extrapolated to 2017). How is that ultra-green? It gets just 12% from renewables (the last 2% from nuclear). Even in 2040 with all its Paris goals fulfilled, the IEA estimate that China will get 16% of its total energy from renewables (and most of this will still be hydro and biomass, with just 4.2% from wind and solar PV). How is this seen as ultra-green? Remember, China got a higher share of its total energy from renewables (mostly because it was incredibly poor) *every year of the last century* than it will in 2040.
But the most depressing fact is that instead of focusing on these incredibly ineffective policies that will cost a fortune but do little to fix climate, there are many other ways that would do much more good.
First, we should increase spending on green R&D – if we can innovate the price of future green and reliable energy down below fossil fuels, everyone will switch.
Second, we should focus on cheap and effective adaptation, which in the long run will avoid most of the extra damages of climate impacts at very low costs.
Third, we should recognize that the main vulnerability for climate is poverty: if you’re poor, you will much harder hit by climate change (and, of course, hit harder by pretty much every other challenge, as well). Thus, if we lift people out of poverty, we will likely help them much more against future damages from climate –- and help them much, much more period. It is not surprising, that when the UN asked almost 10 million people around the world what they wanted us to focus on, they asked for education, health, and nutrition. And placed climate at the very bottom of their list of priorities.
Increasing green R&D, adaptation and much more focus on poverty alleviation is something that most people would vote for. It is efficient, morally good and much, much cheaper.
And (although I can’t believe I really have to point it out)
we could keep our democracy.
________________________
I like your points , particularly the one regarding the benefits of relieving poverty
Chakrabarti is a fool because the economy will be overhauled by just doing nothing about the climate crisis. It’s going to fuck things up so badly, every state will become indefinitely dependent on the federal government and it will destroy the global economy. This is also why climate deniers who see it has a socialist conspiracy are fools. Had they listened to scientists decades ago, this whole economic shift could’ve been avoided, but they all got duped by the merchants of doubt that were hired by the fossil fuel industry. Now it’s too late. The economic system is going to change if we do everything to mitigate the crisis, and it’s going to change if we wait until the (****) hits the fan. The period of having a choice has passed, and all those fossil fuel executives will be dead while their progeny live in a world of water wars, ecologic collapse, and climate refugees exacerbating political tensions around the world — maybe even WW3
[Edited for language. mod]
Correction, junk science deniers.
Linda, you can make up own “facts” but we will all have to live with reality. Don’t worry, socialism isn’t so bad.
Then move to Venezuela, Tom.
Junk scientists:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ” IPCC climate researcher Phil Jones
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4203
Real scientists:
“The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. […] I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the [deep state], is biasing science toward what the [deep state] wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today.” – Geologist and Astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmitt on the UN IPCC report
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/18/apollo-astronaut-scientist-rejects-ipcc-climate-report/
“An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.” – Professor Richard Lindzen
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/09/prof-richard-lindzen-demolishes-the-climate-change-scare/
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate forecaster, Weather Action: “None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.”
Prof. Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem: “There’s no evidence that links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London: “The IPCC, like any U.N. body, is political. The final conclusions are politically-driven.”
Prof. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT: “And to build the number up to 2,500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree…. People have decided you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science that’s pure propaganda.”
Narrator: “This is a story of censorship and intimidation…”
Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist: “We’ve just been told lies, that’s what it comes down to….The whole thing stinks. I’ve seen and heard that spitting fury at anybody who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way…The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I’m a heretic. The makers of this program are all heretics.”
Prof. John Christy. Lead Author, IPCC:
“I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate; well I am one scientist and there are many who simply think that is not true.”
Prof. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris:
“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. it’s not science – it’s propaganda….This claim, that the IPCC is the world’s top 1,500 or 2,500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it’s simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists….Those people who are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists”
Prof. Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, THE most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA:
“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”
Prof. Patrick Michaels: Dept of Enviromental Sciences, University of Virgina
“The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now. It’s a big business.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London:
“It’s become a great industry in itself. And if the whole global warming ferago collapsed, there would be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.”
James Shikwati, Economist & Author:
“One clear thing that emerges from all environmental debate is the point that somebody keen to kill the African Dream, and the African Dream is to develop.”
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate forecaster, Weather Action: “None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.”
Prof. Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem: “There’s no evidence that links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London: “The IPCC, like any U.N. body, is political. The final conclusions are politically-driven.”
Prof. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT: “And to build the number up to 2,500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree…. People have decided you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science that’s pure propaganda.”
Narrator: “This is a story of censorship and intimidation…”
Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist: “We’ve just been told lies, that’s what it comes down to….The whole thing stinks. I’ve seen and heard that spitting fury at anybody who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way…The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I’m a heretic. The makers of this program are all heretics.”
Prof. John Christy. Lead Author, IPCC:
“I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate; well I am one scientist and there are many who simply think that is not true.”
Prof. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris:
“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. it’s not science – it’s propaganda….This claim, that the IPCC is the world’s top 1,500 or 2,500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it’s simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists….Those people who are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists”
Prof. Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, THE most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA:
“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”
Prof. Patrick Michaels: Dept of Enviromental Sciences, University of Virgina
“The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now. It’s a big business.”
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London:
“It’s become a great industry in itself. And if the whole global warming ferago collapsed, there would be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.”
James Shikwati, Economist & Author:
“One clear thing that emerges from all environmental debate is the point that somebody keen to kill the African Dream, and the African Dream is to develop.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
The Great Global Warming Swindle.. quotes from the first 8 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjGPxZUm52A
NASA climate scientist John Casey: Global Warming is the Greatest Fraud Perpetrated Upon Humanity
“One cannot go to the mainstream media and find the truth – it’s simply not there. What you will find is lies, deceptions, smoke and mirrors all in an attempt to foist an Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development program throughout the world….This is now a major global effort for a new form of one world order.”
“The scientists across the U.S. and across the world who know the truth about the climate cannot and will not tell you the truth, for a lot of reasons, some of which you already know. Power, money, political influence, fear – all of these factor in.”
“Al Gore and company, and the United Nations especially, and all the sustainable development people out of the U.N. and now ensconced in our government structure here in the U.S. believe that what comes out of our tailpipe controls our climate.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
Physicist Hal Lewis’ Resignation From The American Physical Society
Excerpt of Physicist Hal Lewis’ resignation letter from the American Physical Society: “For reasons that will soon become clear, my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.”
Tom Hall is trying to stampede the sheep again.
More honesty like this, please?
Allan, Thanks for the reply and the link. I’ll check it out.
Another of my favourite idiot quotes was from Connie Hedegaard, who at the time was the EU Commissioner for climate: Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
How deranged is that? Do something about a theory even if its wrong.
Thank you Keith,
Re this quote:
Another of my favourite idiot quotes was from Connie Hedegaard, who at the time was the EU Commissioner for climate: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”
To which, as an energy expert, I would have to answer Ms Hedegaard “Not just NO, but HELL NO!” She could not be more wrong.
Green energy has been a huge costly failure, a disaster at all levels, and a colossal waste of tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources that should have been put to better use – to mitigate some of the REAL problems of humanity – not fictitious ones.
Properly allocated, these squandered funds might have ended malaria and world hunger.
Absolutely agree Allen.
There is no consensus that hundreds of years of science can prove or disprove what the climate will do in the future, we are purely a pawn in gods will.
Thank you for taking our side in a war against the immoral, baby murdering leftys, who want nothing but to further their own God hating agenda. Gods peace be to you good sir.
Y’all sound like you know what your talking about… It takes people who have the wisdom of 60-80 years to truly understand what us real Americans want. Y’all should be praised for being the vioce of us true red white blu american stand for.
More leftist extremist nonsense: ‘To fight climate change, we need a dictatorship’.
CLIMATE CHANGE DEMOCRACY DENIERS STRIKE AGAIN
July 22, 2019 By Steven Hayward In Climate, Democracy, Leftism
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/climate-change-democracy-deniers-strike-again.php
[excerpt]
As I’ve been pointing out for more than a decade, the most ominous contradiction of the environmental left these days is the way in which they champion the rights of nature while going along with the rest of the left in denying human nature, let alone the natural rights of humans—which is the central premise of democratic self-government. The result, as I have been warning, is the increasingly open anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian stance of the climatistas.
For example, back in 2009 I noted the work of an Australian philosopher who wrote that “When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it.” (And there are more such statements at the link.)
This week Foreign Policy offers the straightforward headline: “Democracy Is the Planet’s Greatest Enemy.”
…
Socialist /communists buy people with their own money and carbon taxes are their Trojan horse .
They know they are destroying the middle class so why not buy the poorest of them with a carbon tax credit .
A little tuque every few months just to buy their vote .
That is exactly what British Columbia is doing … well that in addition to lying through their teeth about how effective carbon taxes are .
Deregulated energy prices largely negate the effects of carbon taxes a a stick . The university socialist that promote the scam know full well t energy demand is inelastic unless prices are raised so high as to get
politicians fired .
But perhaps the biggest fraud is the implication that a reduction in fossil fuel use allows humans to control the earths temperature . A massive lie by people that know better and to the unfortunate massive incidents of fuel poverty deaths . But maybe isn’t that the point .
Socialist /communists buy people with their own money and carbon taxes are their Trojan horse .
They know they are destroying the middle class so why not buy the poorest of them with a carbon tax credit .
A little tuque every few months just to buy their vote .
That is exactly what British Columbia is doing … well that in addition to lying through their teeth about how effective carbon taxes are .
Deregulated energy prices largely negate the effects of carbon taxes a a stick . The university socialist that promote the scam know full well t energy demand is inelastic unless prices are raised so high as to get
politicians fired .
But perhaps the biggest fraud is the implication that a reduction in fossil fuel use allows humans to control the earths temperature . A massive lie by people that know better and to the unfortunate massive incidents of fuel poverty deaths . But maybe isn’t that the point . Population control and a hollowed out middle class .
Isn’t the biggest joke you pay tens of thousands so your kids can go to brain wash school ?