Is it climate socialism – or eco-fascism?

Green New Deal climate alarm socialism is really intolerant, totalitarian eco-fascism

Paul Driessen

Green New Dealers have convinced themselves that our planet faces an imminent, existential, manmade climate cataclysm – that can be prevented solely and simply by government edicts replacing fossil fuels with biofuel, wind, solar and battery energy. They achieve this state of absolute certainty largely by propagating constant scare stories, while ignoring and suppressing contradictory evidence and viewpoints.

They deliberately and deceptively talk about “carbon pollution.” Carbon is soot – what our cars, factories and power plants now emit in very small quantities. The honest, accurate term is carbon dioxide: the colorless, odorless, invisible gas that we exhale and plants need to grow, by using the tiny but growing 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere that is CO2 to grow faster, better and with greater resistance to droughts.

They are climate change deniers, who say Earth’s climate is stable and can be kept stable by controlling minor factors (human carbon dioxide and methane emissions) and ignoring water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) and fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, clouds, oceanic circulation, volcanoes, planetary orbits and other powerful natural forces that have brought climate changes throughout history.

They insist that even another half-degree increase in planetary temperatures since Earth emerged from the Little Ice Age (1350-1850) would be cataclysmic. That’s absurd. They also rely on computer models that project rapidly soaring temperatures – but already claim average global temperatures should be 0.9 degrees F higher than they actually are, according to satellite and weather balloon measurements.

Climate Crisis True Believers say tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming more frequent and intense. In reality, from 1950-1984, the US averaged 55 violent (F4 to F5) tornadoes every year; but over the next 33 years (1985-2018) only 35 per year. And in 2018, for the first time in recorded history, not one F4-F5 tornado touched down anywhere in the United States. (Is this due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels?)

Similarly, from 1920 through 2005, fifty-two Category 3 to 5 hurricanes made US landfall (1.6/year on average). And then, from October 2005 until August 2017 – a record twelve years – not one Category 3 to 5 ’cane struck the US mainland. Harvey and Irma ended that hurricane drought in 2017, but were hardly unprecedented in their intensity or rainfall. (Was that drought due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels?)

The Washington Post reported that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up … and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” That was in 1922, and explorers wrote about Arctic ice cycles long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860, whereas at this time in 1854 it was “still frozen up.” As to continental USA weather, a commentator said “Snows are less frequent and less deep, and the rivers scarcely ever [freeze over] now.” That was Thomas Jefferson, in 1799. The 1970s manmade global cooling scare was replaced by today’s warming crisis.

After rising some 400 feet since the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, oceans are rising at 7 to 10 inches per century. That’s a minimal threat to coastal communities, some of which are more seriously threatened by land subsidence – including Chesapeake Bay lands (Maryland), Hampton Roads (Virginia), Houston and Miami. There has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise in more than a century.

Seawaters cannot become “more acidic.” They are slightly alkaline. They may be getting slightly less alkaline, depending on where and when pH levels are measured. But they are not becoming acidic.

Coral bleaching can result from pollution but is mostly natural, caused by coral animals ejecting their symbiotic zooxanthellae single-celled dinoflagellates, when seawaters become warmer or colder. Corals replace them with new species better adapted to the new temperatures – and then recover their former color and glory, as they have in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, Hawaii’s reefs and elsewhere. Corals also grow as seas rise, just as they have since the last Pleistocene Ice Age, creating today’s splendid reefs.

Polar bears are at their highest population levels in memory: as many as 31,000 of them. They’ve survived multiple ice ages, interglacial periods and warming episodes. They are hardly endangered.

We face no climate crisis, no unprecedented warming, climate or extreme weather threat – manmade or natural. Equally important, proposals to replace fossil fuels with biofuel, wind, solar and battery power would be far more ecologically destructive than their climate crisis – and would severely harm food supplies, nutrition, jobs, living standards, health and life spans, in rich and poor countries alike.

For the United States alone, replacing 100% of US gasoline and petrochemical feed stocks with ethanol would require some 700 million acres of biotech corn. That’s four times the land area of Texas turned into biofuel corn plantations – or soy/canola farms for biodiesel – leaving little land for food and wildlife.

Let’s suppose we’re going to use wind power to replace: the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours of electricity that Americans consumed in 2018, coal and gas-fired backup power plants, natural gas for home heating, coal and gas for factories, and gasoline-powered vehicles. We’ll also use wind turbines to generate enough extra electricity, every windy day, to charge batteries for just seven straight windless days.

We’ll also account for electricity loss along lengthy transmission lines, and every time we charge and discharge batteries. As we erect turbines in steadily lower quality wind locations, instead of generating full nameplate power maybe 33% of the year, on average, they will do so only 16% of the year.

Instead of the 58,000 we have now, the United States would need some 14 million 400-foot-tall turbines, each one capable of generating 1.8 megawatts at full capacity, when the wind is blowing at the proper speed. Each turbine would need about 120 acres of open space and access roads, as at BP’s 50,000-acre Fowler Ridge wind energy factory in Indiana. That would total 1.7 billion acres – ten times the area of Texas … or most of the Lower 48 United States! Plus thousands of miles of new transmission lines!

Their bird-butchering blades would wipe out raptors, other birds and bats across much of America. Would Extinction Rebellion go apoplectic? or not give a spotted owl hoot, since wind turbines are “eco-friendly”?

Manufacturing those wind turbines would require something on the order of 15 billion tons of steel, copper, rare earth metals, concrete, petroleum-based composites, gravel and other raw materials. Extracting them would require a hundredfold increase in global mining: removing hundreds of billions of tons of earth and rock overburden, and crushing and processing tens of billions of tons of ore.

Imagine the cumulative land use, eminent domain, property rights, environmental and wildlife impacts.

Using batteries to replace coal and gas-fired backup power plants for intermittent, weather-dependent wind facilities would require some one billion 100-kilowatt-hour, 1,000-pound lithium and cobalt-based Tesla battery packs – and still more mining and raw materials. And that doesn’t include extra battery storage for the cars, trucks and buses that Green New Dealers want to replace with electric vehicles.

Climate Crisis True Believers proudly proclaim themselves environmental socialists, while obstinately ignoring and suppressing these climate and energy realities. They certainly promote a political-economic system under which central government controls the means of production, while limiting private property rights or replacing them with communal ownership. That’s classic socialism.

But what they really want is eco-fascism: an even more extreme and intolerant system under which an authoritarian national or international government does not own businesses and industries outright, but dictates what they can make, do, sell and say – while redistributing wealth and property, employing laws, intimidation, and Antifa-style violence to control people’s thinking, speech and access to information.

Along with Google, Face Book, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, universities and the “mainstream” media – they try to censor, marginalize, ostracize, disinvite, shadow-ban, electronic book burn, and algorithm-eradicate differing, alternative, contrarian evidence, analyses and viewpoints on energy and climate.

They got Dr. Peter Ridd fired for exposing fabrications about the Great Barrier Reef’s demise – and Dr. Susan Crockford cashiered for daring to challenge bogus claims about polar bears. Robert Kennedy Jr., Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and others even want climate and energy dissenters prosecuted and jailed.

We must keep speaking truth to power – to ensure that our future is not compromised by climate lies.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many books, reports and articles on energy, climate and environmental issues.

FIGURE 1. This graph compares the average temperature predictions of 102 climate models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) versus actual temperature measurements by satellites and weather balloons, and reanalyses of those measurements. Based on John Christy and Roy Spencer; updated September 2019.

clip_image002[4]

FIGURE 2. America’s unexpected 12-year reprieve from Category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall, by far the longest such “hurricane drought” in US history. Based on official government hurricane records.

clip_image004[4]

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “Is it climate socialism – or eco-fascism?

  1. Every totalitarian system needs a bogeyman factor in order to come or stay in power. When people are afraid of something they cannot possibly comprehend, they can be squeezed dry. So it happened during the inquisition, when Hitler took power in Germany or when the Socialists took over a whole swathe of countries ruining them in the process. Without the invisible outside enemy, they could not possibly have gone where they went eventually. When WW2 was over, people living in the Reich could not comprehend that they were the bad ones. They were told that their cause was just, that they did the right thing. And the mob can be ruthless but they want their good life. And geen energy robs them of this. It’s already starting so we are going to see some interesting developments over the next couple of years.

  2. Is it a skunk… or a polecat? Or a country kitty with a fluid drive?
    Call it what you will, the odour is the same!

    • Voluntary socialism (a.k.a. Christianity, or the golden rule) is what made the US what it was before the days of “Screw you, I’m trying to make the most money here!”.
      When the government dabbles in despotic socialism, It’s the Devil’s playground.

      • ”Voluntary socialism (a.k.a. Christianity, or the golden rule) is what made the US what it was before the days of “Screw you, I’m trying to make the most money here!”.

        Hmmm, the Screw You factor was probably the biggest single factor promoting the ‘Revolution’ ? Pretty much all of the Founders were in the position of being obstructed, or having their earnings limited by absentee authority ?

        The Screw You, or, I want More idea is probably the biggest motivating factor for all of humanity, thankfully it leads to progress better than 50% of the time 🙂

    • Robert Conquest:
      “… it’s very striking, incidentally, how many Communists became Fascists in the ’30s and vice versa. Hitler always said you could turn a Communist into a Nazi; he couldn’t turn a Social Democrat into a Nazi. The wish to get absorbed in an ideology was there, and it just changed focus …”.
      http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?id=33

      • Hitler never said any such thing.

        “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
        – Raul Hilberg

        • He may not have said any such thing, but the fact remains that the NSDAP would welcome ‘Sinners’ who repented ? Think Roland Freisler, and others who being former Communists had to prove their loyalty by appearing to be totally committed.

        • Hey, moderators, we need to boot this white supremacist off this website. He taints it with his presence.

          And yes, I am being serious

      • The ever-present conflict between ideology and realism…
        What the climate change conundrum reflects so well.

  3. Not off-topic, but significantly tangentially topical: I’ve posted this before. It’s good to watch for the 1st (or 2nd or 3rd, etc.) time.

    • A Tyranny of the Elite is certainly what the GreenSlime/Green Blob climate change alarmist scammers are hoping to achieve.

    • A good video in that it exposes the false dichotomy of the contemporary political spectrum. A source of much confusion.

      There are a couple of errors though concerning the term republic and democracy. The USSR was a conglomeration of “republics” The DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) claims to be both a republic and a democracy yet we consider it a communist dictatorship. The ruling party is voted in 100% at each election. We, in the west, might consider it a sham but we would have to ask how they consider they are either.

      A republic is simply “a constitutional form of government”. When Ben Franklin said, “We have given you a republic, if you can keep it.” I believe he meant, as opposed to the monarchy to which they had been subject.

      Many times I have heard the claim that the US is a republic and not a democracy. It is a republic as it has a constitution and it is a democracy but it was not intended to be a universal democracy. A democracy is a means of collective decision making. Are all people allowed to have a say in the decision making process? Some were excluded in the beginning days of the US. Women, slaves, indentured servants, criminals so could it be called a democracy. There were certain prerequisites to being able to vote in those days and, I believe, there should be certain prerequisites today but they would be different. Acquiring the privilege to vote, it should not be a “right”, must include some knowledge of the constitutional nature of the government and its purpose described therein.

      • An interesting bit to add concerning voting.
        Spending/taxing bills were to originate in The House of Representatives.
        (Very simplified), Those who could vote for members of The House were those who paid the taxes.

    • Excellent! Concise and poignant. Best of all, a clear refutation for those that claim the USA is governed ‘by a democracy’!

  4. ALL Fascism is Socialism.

    Fascism is National Socialism.
    Communism is International Socialism.
    They only real difference is if you put your own nation ahead of you plans to Rule The World.

    Because ALL Socialism end in Despotism and Deep State bureaucracy, and such nations MUST continue to grow and take over others to keep Other People’s Money coming in to prop the whole thing up.

    ~¿~

    • There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

      Ayn Rand

      Eco-fascism is just socialism disguised in green.

    • To the totalitarians posting here:

      Socialism, communism, and fascism are all mutually exclusive because they are very different principles.

      Communism and fascism can be totalitarian so it is not surprising that totalitarians promote the falsehood that they are not different from socialism.

      Totalitarianism is evil.

      Richard

      • Socialism, communism, and fascism are all mutually exclusive because they are very different principles.

        Yeah, sorry to break it to you but they are not. They’re actually all shades of the same thing.

        Remember the original fascists, the Nazi party, were the national socialist party. Fascism grew out of the socialist left, not the right as you may wrongly believe.

        as Schitzree correctly points out:
        Fascism is National Socialism.
        Communism is International Socialism.

        notice they both have socialism in common and they inevitably lead to Totalitarianism as can be seen time and time again throughout history.

      • “Richard S Courtney October 29, 2019 at 12:10 am

        Socialism, communism, and fascism are all mutually exclusive because they are very different principles.”

        I just had to put on my Playtex 24hr girdle as my sides just about split with laughter.

      • Totalitarianism is evil
        Amen, Richard, amen.
        Any system that concentrates power and authority to the few themselves (at times) via bureaucracies is evil.
        The excuses/justifications for the need for doing so may vary, but the end is always the same.
        Today, “Man’s CO2” is the excuse/justification to control.

  5. All very interesting and true, but can we get these facts out to the “”Useful idiots”” who vote these politicians into office.

    Hopefully more lights will go out, thus getting the message over to the voters.

    MJE VK5ELL

  6. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860, whereas at this time in 1854 it was “still frozen up.”

    Kinda sums it up. Much was made by observers of natural changes in the past, yet today observers of smaller changes still feel impelled to make much of it.

      • yes and no. They’re certainly different logos (different color schemes for one thing) but they do have some elements in common. Both have a semi-circle (blue on Obama’s, yellow on cfact’s which is at a slightly different angle to Obama’s) and both have a curved line under the semi-circle (red on Obama’s, green on cfact’s) so I can see where Barbee can see a similarity between the two but suspect any such similarity is purely coincidental.

  7. Nice summary, Paul. Two things actually worry me, there really isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have a really healthy biosphere, and the next glacial cycle of our current Ice Age is somewhat overdue. If some collection of nutjobs/jackwagons/socialists/fascists tries to interfere with climate cycles I think we should stop them. I need a drink.

  8. Posts like this make my anxiety melt away…. I would love, absolutely Love to see this post emailed to ever news media source, and if possible to every xr member and to the followers of obama and greta. It would be the greatest email sending in history, but damn it would be worth it…

  9. Regardless, the objective is absolute power over everyone. They are searching for the One Ring to Rule Them All.
    This go-around, they think it might be a tree ring.

  10. This is a concise summation of the insanity that surrounds the alleged climate crisis. If there was a problem with the climate, leading to an environmental crisis, renewables would be not even be considered a solution, for the cure would be far worse than the disease.

    The fact that renewables are considered to be the ‘only solution’ clearly reveals that the ‘problem’ is not about the climate or the environment. The real ‘problem’ is that post-modern, neo-marxists haven’t been able to get the whole world to surrender all the power and control to them through democratic processes, so they had to resort to deception, fear and manipulation.

    If that doesn’t work, or doesn’t work fast enough, violence will become justified in their minds. We are very close to that point now.

  11. Re “Seawaters cannot become “more acidic.” They are slightly alkaline. They may be getting slightly less alkaline, depending on where and when pH levels are measured. But they are not becoming acidic.”

    Instead of using the relatively benign “alkaline” (especially since alkaline drinking water is now a health drink fad), I suggest using the term “caustic” which has the appropriate “scary” connotation to weigh against “acidic”.

    • Caustic means “able to burn tissue by chemical action”.
      It is not a synonym for “alkaline”, even if it generally refers to basic solutions.
      A solution is only caustic if it is so highly alkaline that it will eat into flesh or organic tissue.
      More generally, it can, in common parlance, refer to any chemical capable of causing burns or eating into tissue, although the precise scientific definition refers only to highly alkaline substances and not oxidizers or acids.
      Aqueous solutions are generally considered to be in the range of “neutral” when they are between 6 and 8, although some definitions are more narrow, such as for soils, which are considered neutral between 6.6 and 7.3.
      Obviously these differ from the precise chemical definition of neutral as having a pH value of exactly 7.
      Seawater is not caustic.

      • And seawater is not turning acidic. But its a scare tactic, so caustic is an appropriate response. Btw, dna is an acid and wont cause chemical burns.

        • I have a degree in chemistry.
          So I have an interest in getting facts straight.
          Beyond that, I am not exactly getting how replacing alarmist language with equal and opposite scary language is exactly helpful.
          Pointing out the actual facts of what is and is not going on with the ocean is sufficient to dispel any alarmism, if people can be persuaded to pay attention.
          Everyone knows what caustic means, and everyone knows the ocean is not caustic.

      • Besides, only halfwits are scared by the idea of an acid.
        Everyone knows our stomachs are full of acid, although few probably realize how strong the hydrochloric acid there is (gastric fluid pH = 1.6).
        People with heartburn have some idea.
        And if questioned, I suspect many people know full well that acids are common in foods and the environment.
        Most freshwater is mildly acidic.
        Lemon juice is highly acidic (pH =2.2), vinegar less so (pH = 2.8), apple juice less still (pH 3.8), and so on: Coffee 5.0, tomato 4.2, milk 6.4, potato 5.8…

        These common substances are harmless and commonly ingested.
        If one goes to the alkaline portion of the pH scale and considers items an equal distance from neutral on that side, it becomes obvious that acids are not very dangerous to living tissue, but bases sure can be.
        In fact what makes something dangerous, toxic, etc, has far more to it that pH.
        Milk of magnesia has a pH of 10.5, and ammonia is only slightly higher at 11.0, and bleach is at 12.0, about as far from neutral as lemon juice.

  12. This is a nihilist death cult and with carbon dioxide they are attacking the very basis of life on planet earth

  13. In summary, folks, this whole fustercluck is POLITICAL, not scientific. So make the politicians responsible for dealing with it, deal with it.

  14. The all thing relates to Malthusianism.

    Socialism = Eco-fascim :
    – this is a mean to achieve a population decimation goal.

    Paul R. Ehlrich discribed the Malthusian (fake) fears and goals in “the population bomb”.
    John Holdren, former Obama’s science advisor, is one of the many Paul R. Ehrlich disciples.
    Many billionaires who are pushing this futur holocaust are Malthusian, as Ted Turner is.
    They have power and cash and own most the MSM.

    The actual planetary threat is Malthusianism. The others movements are just useful idiots.

  15. The Nazis were not only Socialists, but were born of the ultra green movement. They loved nature and animals, but hated humans. Fascism is about complete control over everything, from means of production to control over thought and breaking the family unit so they control everyone. The current eco insanity ticks all the boxes for creeping fascism. Socialism and Fascism are basically the same.

    For most of human history, the People have been forced in to believing utter pagan rubbish on pain of death. Whole classes of parasitic high priests arose to keep the People from using logic. Do note, the human brain is basically exactly the same size as it was 10,000 years ago. The same brain that swallowed pagan BS – human sacrifice and all that sort of lunacy that we laugh about is the SAME brain that believes that a 30% increase in the atmospheric concentration of a minor but essential trace gas is going to make the planet uninhabitable in 11 years, 2 months and 2 days. Hyperventilate, hyperventilate, but don’t soil your pants over it.

    • And today’s green radicals would do well to recall and UNDERSTAND the fate of the most infamous of fascists- Hitler & Eva Braun / Mussolini & Clara Petacci.
      Public tolerance of insanity is not likely unlimited.

  16. The AOC/Bernie socialists have taken over the Democrat party. “Moderates” (clueless voters who don’t know that in the Democrat Party it’s all about The Leadership and The Caucus). Three or four congressional leaders shape the legislation and decide in Caucus how the individual members will vote on all important Bills. Swing state member’s, “to keep up appearances” get a pass on non-key issues so as not to appear “too radical”. Willfully uninformed voters, especially young voters who care mostly about the government paying off their student loans, along with most government employees and all welfare recipients vote democrat no matter what. Rent seeking professionals and major corporations whose donations to non-profits determine election results, by swaying those clueless moderates, will soon destroy the economy if they don’t reject liberalism. $Hundreds of billions spent on ethanol/wind/solar/storage to save the planet from non-existent global warming is pure corruption and the professionals and corporations promoting it know it. This madness has to end NOW, before the 2020 elections.

  17. Dennis G Sandberg, sums it up well. why has the Democratic party changed. As a outsider here in Australia I look back to my childhood and the
    time of FDR.

    Now despite the rich who quite naturally wanted to hold outdo their wealth, FDR and Harry Hopkins seem to really care about their people, whereas today’s Democrats seem to care more about other countries people and not their own in the USA.

    Not sure that Hitler’s Germany was a 100 % dictatorship, business did their own thing. In fact a better control of business, especially the military
    – industrial complex such a was done in the UK and the USA would have been far better for them.

    Also Hitler was not happy about calling up women, he was all for them staying home and bringing up the kids.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • “Michael October 28, 2019 at 9:31 pm

      Not sure that Hitler’s Germany was a 100 % dictatorship, business did their own thing. In fact a better control of business, especially the military
      – industrial complex such a was done in the UK and the USA would have been far better for them.”

      If those businesses were owned by Jews the story was rather different. The Nazi “military complex” was also built by prisoner, predominantly Jewish and Polish, slave labour. Thousands died building his war machine, and a lot of them died sabotaging that machine too.

  18. Paul Driessen estimates 700 million acres of biofuel crops to supply our motor fuels. In fact, no matter what the crop, soy, corn or switchgrass, the process is so inefficient that if you used the crop itself to fuel its own production (since fossil fuels would be banned), it would take closer to 7 BILLION acres to fuel the U.S. If every arable acre in America were planted to biofuel crops, and the crops self-planted, self-harvested, and were dried and burned in place for their caloric content at 100% efficiency, we could not supply more than a fraction of our transportation fuel requirements. These estimates are from memory, but I have spreadsheets where I have calculated the figures based on USDA data on arable croplands, actual yields, and the energy content of crops. Any high school student with an inquisitive mind, the Internet, and basic arithmetic could figure it out. Of course, planting America in biofuels would leave us with no food, feed or fiber, and our ecosystems would suffer and many species become extinct. One can argue, slice and dice the numbers, but the result is about the same. This is why almost nobody other than academics with research grants is taking biofuels seriously.

    • just to be pedantic, indulgences were particular to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity only. The Eastern Orthodox church, for example, did not have indulgences (though some parts of it did have the similar functioning “absolution certificate”), and of course Catholic indulgences were one of the issues that lead to Martin Luthor’s theses and the protestant reformation (so you could say protestants don’t indulge in indulgences).

      • One might argue that the Catholic model is still going strong, whereas the Protestant model in much of the world is in severe decline ? Maybe because instead of indulging it has bent the knee to so many causes which at first glance seem to run counter to scripture ?

        The Catholic model has also proved to be a workable template for many would be usurpers, think The Society of Jesus and the SS :O

  19. In his book ‘Blue Planet Green Shackles’, Vaclav Klaus (2nd president of Czech Republic) was spot on when he stated that the largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity is no longer socialism or communism but, rather, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.

  20. To answer — fascism (goobermint control over all industry). The word “socialism” is just a smokescreen — it has been used in the media/education system for decades just so it would become “acceptable”. Rather obvious Orwellian wordsmithing, but works on the indoctrinated.

  21. I believe that if most of the followers of this Eco-cult were made to put all their possessions made from or because of fossil fuels into a bag, once they were standing naked, they might finally understand the future they think they are creating. To paraphrase Dean Wormer (as David Middleton does quite often) “Naked and starving is no way to go through life”

  22. Yes, but none of this addresses the really fundamental point. The GND will make no difference at all to global warming.

    It cannot, because it will only affect US emissions. It will not materially affect global emissions. Even were it to eliminate US emissions, the planet would warm (or not) pretty much the way is is (or is not) at the moment. The developing world + China + India are going to carry on increasing their emissions regardless.

    So the question everyone ought to be asking is why the GND advocates want to do something so expensive and so totally unproductive.

    It is exactly like California, refusing to make its transmission lines safe, and instead spending the money that could be used to do that on subsidizing wind and solar and electric cars, none of which has any effect on the national level of emissions, let alone the global level.

    It is like Tuvalu deciding that global emissions are destroying civilisation and raising sea levels, and then deciding that this makes it sensible to get their own emissions to zero, despite the total lack of effect this will have on global emissions or global sea levels. But what it will do is stop them building sea defences.

  23. Green New Dealers have convinced themselves that our planet faces an imminent, existential, manmade climate cataclysm – well, there you have it in a nutshell.

    When someone has completely convinced himself that he’s right, he will be unwilling to listen to a differing point of view, mostly because it might prove that he’s wrong.

    Remember all the people who insist that the moon landing didn’t happen, despite the evidence to the contrary? Well, what real difference is there between them and the Greenbeaners/Ecohippies, XRists/ Warmunistas?

    There is no difference. They are all the same. It’s like watching a rat in a maze trying find the way out, convinced that there is one, when in fact, there is not, no matter how many buttons the rat pushes.

    But the more we know about them, the better. If you don’t know your enemy, that’s when it sneaks up on you and BOOM! You'[re doomed.

    • Its not just that. The US does 5 billion tons of emissions, and falling. The rest of the world does 32 billion, and rising.

      The GND folk have convinced themselves that a plan which will eliminate the 5 billion while the 32 billion rises back to 37 or more will somehow magically save the planet.

      How? Is it supposed to lower global emissions? It obviously is not going to do that. So how is it going to make any difference to the planet?

      And why doesn’t anyone ever point out this obvious truth?

  24. Very funny and entertaining to read about «eco-socialism», «fascism» and how they are «the same evil thing»… In the meantime, somewhere in the Planet a Communist Party – who proclaims itself to be a Marxist party – is continuing on its way to Socialism and Communism… «With Chinese characteristics», they say… It seems that they have taken «hundreds of millions of people out of poverty» (without declaring any major war on ther countries)… But do not take my words seriously. Just check with respectable entities such as the IMF and/or the World Bank. Also please check evento the CIA World Fatbook (very reliable information there…).
    Incidentally, the Chinese Communists (and other progressive countries) continue to exploit coal and oil and to install coal-fired electricity generation plants, as they fully realise how bogus the «global warming» alarm is… Just a «red herring» to divert people from their real social and economic problems. It seems that the «Democrats» and «Liberals» of North America (USA/Canada) have long ago degenerated into Neomalthusianism of the worst kind. Go figure why…

  25. “And then, from October 2005 until August 2017 – a record twelve years – not one Category 3 to 5 ’cane struck the US mainland. Harvey and Irma ended that hurricane drought in 2017”

    Neither Harvey, nor Irma were major Hurricanes at the landfall. The really measured speeds hardly qualified them as hurricanes at all.

Comments are closed.