Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom

If you read one book on climate change, let it be this one

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

There are many books on climate change, from both sides of the debate. On our side, the books are better written, scientifically sounder and a lot closer to the truth than on the totalitarian side. Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Gregory Wrightstone and the late Christopher Booker are among many sceptical authors who have written excellent, elegant and informative books.

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, left when it ceased to be concerned about the environment and became just another profiteering, hard-Left front group – in his words “a racket peddling junk science”. He has now written the best book about climate change that I have read – and I have read many.

The title, Fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom, is clunky. But the book itself is written in Patrick’s characteristic, gentle, easy-going style so that the non-scientific reader can understand it easily. The book is already available on Amazon in advance of publication, and Patrick is already getting rave reviews from readers. Here is one:

“I just bought a Kindle version. I cannot believe it. I’m into the 3rd chapter. It clarifies in such a fine detail even for non-scientists like me. I called my tennis partner and canceled the game. I’ll be sitting with the book until done and then I’ll read it again.”

The central thesis of the book is this –

A while back it dawned on me that the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, extremely remote, or both. Thus, the vast majority of people have no way of observing and verifying for themselves the truth of these claims predicting these alleged catastrophes and devastating threats. Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists – all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject – to tell them the truth. This welcomes the opportunity to simply invent narratives such as the claim that “CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing a climate emergency.”

No one can actually see, or in any way sense, what CO2 might actually be doing because it is invisible, odorless, tasteless, silent and cannot be felt by the sense of touch. Therefore, it is difficult to refute such claims because there is nothing to point to and tangibly expose the falsity of these claims. One can’t simply point to visible CO2 and say, “Look what awful things CO2 is doing over there.” Thus, CO2 as a harmful, world-ending emission is an almost perfect subject to invent and propagate a doomsday story, and this fact has not gone unnoticed by those inclined to peddle unsubstantiated fabrications. CO2 has become the scapegoat for an entire laundry list of negative effects that could require 118 books to record and tabulate. Indeed, the website www.goodreads.com lists 118 books on the subject of climate change; and that’s confined to books exclusively written in the English language.

When one studies these “narratives” of invisible and remote circumstances, it is hard to avoid noticing that the purveyors often stoop to ridiculing and shaming, and likewise exhibit an unwillingness to discuss the allegations in a civilized manner. It is virtually impossible to engage in debate. as they usually dismiss those who question their narrative as a skeptic, liar, denier, or in the pocket of “big oil.” And if the alleged skeptic has employment, these narrators will work underhandedly to have you removed from your livelihood or position. In summary, these purveyors of global environmental catastrophes are definitely a scurrilous and dishonest lot. Healthy skepticism is at the very heart of scientific inquiry, and it has played an integral role in determining factual, scientific truth. It is the duty of scientists to be skeptical of all new claims, especially when they are predictions of catastrophes that have not yet occurred.

Fake Invisible Catastrophes covers a lot of ground in a short compass: “Africa’s oldest baobab trees are dying at an unprecedented rate, and climate change may be to blame” [USA Today], “93% of the Great Barrier Reef is practically dead” [Huffpost], “The Great Barrier Reef is now terminal” [National Geographic], polar bears in the Arctic, a million species allegedly threatened with extinction, garbage in the Pacific, genetically modified food, fear of nuclear radiation, forest fires, mass walrus deaths and ocean “acidification”, which Patrick describes as “a complete fabrication”.

The hard science is confined to a single, massive chapter, Climate of fear and guilt, which Patrick placed third in the book so that readers would not be frightened off by it right at the outset. Yet it is a clear, compelling chapter dealing with the numerous science fictions peddled by the profiteers of doom. The chapter lists some of the thousands of alleged harms from our sins of emission: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, more snow, less snow, more drought, more floods, higher sea level, fewer glaciers, no ice at the North Pole, mass species extinction, more storms, stronger storms, burning forests, dying coral reefs, disappearing fish, fatal heatwaves, skinnier pigs, fatter horses, failing crops, food shortages, acid oceans, billions of climate-change refugees, more cancer, more heart disease, more lung disease, more mental illness, fewer French wines.

Patrick bluntly states: “The fact is there is no hard evidence that any of these things have been or will be triggered by human-caused emissions of CO2. It is all conjecture based on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide controls temperature, which itself has never been determined as fact. More importantly, most of these claims are predictions about things that haven’t occurred to date and may never occur.”

The science chapter points out that science is not done by consensus (“not a valid scientific term but a social and politicalk term”), and that many of the world’s greatest scientists – Galileo, mendel, Darwin and Einstein – overthrew the pre-existing consensus.

One of Patrick’s favorite scientific points is given a good showing in the science chapter: The great decline of CO2 – why did it happen? “Beginning about 150 million years ago, carbon dioxide has steadily declined to the lowest known level in the history of life on Earth. During the last glacial maximum, 20,000 years ago, CO2 fell to about 180 ppm, only 30 ppm above the level where plants begin to die from CO2 starvation.” Had it not been for us, within a few million years enough CO2 would have left the atmosphere to starve most plants and trees.

And here is how temperatures in the deep ocean have declined since 50 million years ago:

Even Homer nods. The following graph of Central England temperatures compared with global CO2 emissions in millions of tonnes uses a statistical dodge usually perpetrated by the climate fanatics.

The graph appears to show that the former have barely changed, though the latter have soared. The truth is that the y axis of the CO2 graph has been stretched, while that of the temperature graph has been compressed. Let us uncompress it.

The trend is little more than 1 degree in 360 years, or less than a third of a degree per century. But almost three-fifths of that warming was in the 30 years since 1990, since when our damp island has warmed at a rate equivalent to 2 degrees per century:

Aside from a few nits like this, Patrick’s book is a first-class read. Even I, who have had the climate as one of my interests for 15 years, found much in it that I did not know. The book will be expecially valuable for those who have, until now, been content to drift along with the Party Line. To them, the book will be a revelation: the desanctifying of Attenborough is particularly satisfying.

These days, best-seller lists are heavily influenced by pre-publication sales. So, if you order now, you will be of real value to the marketing campaign. And Patrick, who has taken more knocks than most of us for daring to question the profiteers of doom, deserves our support.

4.9 39 votes
Article Rating
87 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hotscot
January 20, 2021 6:18 pm

Thank you Chris.

Off to buy it.

Pat from kerbob
January 20, 2021 7:55 pm

I brought Moore to calgary in 2017 to be keynote speaker at an IEEE conference. He wowed them and got a standing ovation.
My thrill was picking him up at the airport to get him to the hotel, then spending 2 hours over supper listening to him talk.

I’m pretty sure no sensible person could sit across from him that long and still believe the climate charade.

Placing my order tonight

Buckeyebob
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 21, 2021 5:54 am

I’ve met him twice. Such a compelling and common sense speaker.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Buckeyebob
January 21, 2021 4:48 pm

Plus he’s a fisherman, early in the process I got a call from him to discuss logistics, he lives in Winter Harbour on north tip of vancouver island, he called via satellite phone
We were almost done and he yelled “fish on” and had to go, salmon had hit the downrigger.

Ted Jemima
January 20, 2021 7:59 pm

If humans died the CO2 in the atmosphere would not go to 0, there would still be CO2 produce, just not in excess. Also, your graphs all show different things. The one with CO2 production vs global temperature shows an increase of >1 degree C (nearly 2 F) in the last hundred or so years while you claim temperature has only risen 1 degree C since the 1600’s. Your data does not agree with itself which suggests you are cherry picking data. A course in basic math would serve you well.

Boff Doff
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 20, 2021 9:07 pm

Which bit of the CO2 graph is confusing you? Yes, respiration, decomposition, forest fires, release from the oceans etc will all be sources of atmospheric CO2. Greedily absorbed by plant life until they starve. That’s why the graph heads inexorably downwards.
No, it won’t go to zero. it will hover around 150ppm. Not much room for humans at that level though.

fred250
Reply to  Boff Doff
January 20, 2021 9:31 pm

While the global temperature remains around what it is now, there will be “just enough” atmospheric CO2, for quite a while…

Problems will occur if the world goes into a protracted cooling trend.

Thing is, atmospheric CO2 constantly needs replenishing, which is what human have done in a small way.

We can be VERY PROUD that we help kick-start the carbon cycle to a higher level of activity…

…. giving it the breath-of-life, so to speak.

Pity so many ignorant people hate nature and want to see atmospheric CO2 brought back down to basic subsistence levels,and the world’s population with it.

Thanks to India, China, Africa and their increases in Coal and Gas Fired power stations etc..

……. they WILL NOT SUCCEED. !!

Ellen
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2021 11:36 am

Have mercy, they want people brought down to basic subsistence levels! And not very many of them, either.

fred250
Reply to  Boff Doff
January 20, 2021 9:38 pm

“Greedily absorbed by plant life until they starve.”

.

Actually, plants are part of the carbon cycle.

When they die, they return the CO2 back to the carbon cycle, one way or another.

It is sea critters that make shells, die, and sink to the bottom, thus removing carbon from the carbon cycle, that are the problem.

We MUST continue to REPLENISH that lost atmospheric CO2.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Scissor
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 20, 2021 9:16 pm

Did he say CO2 would go to 0? The way I read it, he said that CO2 had trended down to 180 ppm, just 30 ppm above the level at which plants starve.

The CO2 production vs temperature graph was for central England. It wasn’t global. Realize that temperatures are declining or not changing much at all in many places. The trend from 1600’s was 0.3C/century from 1990 it was 2C/century. Trends can change over different scales. There does not seem to be any math error in my estimation and there was no attempt at cherry picking. In fact, it appears that Charles was doing the opposite.

fred250
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 20, 2021 9:17 pm

You could of course download CET data and CONFIRM that the trend is exactly as shown on the graph..

Which it is. 0.0029ºC/year = 1.047ºC over the period from 1659 to 2020

comment image

If you were capable of reading the CO2 graph, you would see it gives the say amount of warming. (from about 8.7ºC – about 9.7ºC)

If you downloaded the data, could also confirm that there has been no warming in CET since 1997,

A course in very basic maths at junior high level competency, would serve you well.

Seems you missed out.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 20, 2021 9:33 pm

click image to expand..

line after image should say “same” amount of warming

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 20, 2021 10:23 pm

This CET graph from Wiki shows annual means, 10-year (orange) and 30-year (black) moving averages 1659 – 2016.
The problem is while the moving averages begin OK they should not extend to the endpoint but stop at least 5 and 15 years respectively before the end of the series — as shown it is misleading.
comment image
Wiki credits Met Office U.K for the data but no source for the graph.

fred250
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 20, 2021 11:11 pm

On a previous topic, a couple of weeks ago, someone posted an “hours of sunshine” graph for England which was pretty much a direct match to the rise in CET since 1970

comment image

David K
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 21, 2021 7:17 am

Sorry, if you look at the graph you can see they are using a trailing average. In other words the lines show the average for the previous 10 or 30 years, not the average for the middle of the range. To get the result you want just shift the lines.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  David K
January 21, 2021 2:05 pm

That could be right, it’s hard to tell.
If that is the case it’s a graphic trick that a dodgy company might use to convince investors that their sales are on the way up or stock salesman that prices are shooting up, in other words that the graph has some forecasting utility and that is deceptive.

very old white guy
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 21, 2021 4:57 am

there is no such thing as excess CO2

beng135
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 21, 2021 9:37 am

WTF?

paul courtney
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 21, 2021 12:38 pm

Dear Aunt Jemima: Your comment indicates you should stick to pancakes.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Ted Jemima
January 21, 2021 7:55 pm

There is a NASA Earth Observatory document entitled “Satellite Detects Human Contribution To Atmospheric CO2”. It describes a Finnish study which used satellite data to map the excess CO2 purportedly caused by human activity. However, the mapping of the United States clearly shows a close correlation between the location of excess CO2 and areas of increased vegetation, particularly the broadleaf vegetation of the East, and a lack of correlation with areas of intensive human activity. This suggests that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the increase in vegetation which, in turn, is caused by a warming Earth. The human contribution would appear to be too small to be relevant.

Peta of Newark
January 20, 2021 8:06 pm

I’ve mentioned before, you all think crazy doncha? Angie Baby haha
Say again, Learn to dance
Fact is, you don’t need to learn. It is built into us. It is in our genes. It’s what we are.
Imagine what it’s like..

And when our children do what is written in their genes, dance, they are told that they are behaving illegally, that they are on drug-fueled, crazed, selfish and hedonistic trips.
They are controlled, fined, stigmatized and sanctioned.
Just For Being Human
By folks who patently don’t know

And even more frightening, is that Greenpeace use music festivals/events to recruit and fund-raise.
Is that why Patrick dumped them?

Imagine To Be Free
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnVttJb5rAc

I am crazy posting that, normally I don’t ‘do’ songs with words
Contemporary Politics & Politicians caused that, “If their lips are moving…….(you know the rest)

[Allow it some serious grunt. Warm up the subs. Feel it. Do what comes naturally..
And if anybody points & laughs, its because they’re jealous ##]
Enjoy

## Wonders how many other fields of Human Activity that applies to?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 20, 2021 9:50 pm

I like your stream of consciousness posts
Sometimes
When I understand your drift

I’m trying

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 21, 2021 11:07 am

Probably should stay away from the computer when you’ve been drinking that much. 🙂

Lil-Mike
January 20, 2021 8:31 pm

Can’t see CO2 … of course we can … well not me personally, but Greta can see CO2. She says so herself.

RoHa
Reply to  Lil-Mike
January 20, 2021 10:59 pm

Haven’t you seen the photos of all that black, menacing, CO2 belching from cooling towers?

KAT
Reply to  Lil-Mike
January 21, 2021 12:26 am

Greta cannot see CO2 any more.
She recently celebrated her 18th birthday – I believe!
A new replacement doomsday guru is required.

Human beings have always required an impending catastrophe/disaster to worry about.
I blame the current fixation with AGW on the Russian policy of “glasnost and perestroika”.
With the ending of the cold war the human race required a new impending doomsday catastrophe to replace the now defunct “Nuclear Armageddon”.
The “world is going to end because CO2” ticks all the right boxes.

fred250
Reply to  KAT
January 21, 2021 12:51 am

“Greta cannot see CO2 any more.”

Perhaps she lost the ability to see CO2 when she lost her ……..

Poor guy …. .. hope he was deaf.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Graemethecat
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2021 9:20 am

I very much doubt she has, Fred.

Personally, I find the sight of an 18-year old woman with pigtails and dressed like an eight year old girl deeply disturbing and creepy.

fred250
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 21, 2021 11:57 am

ok, the guy was blindfolded or with a deep fetish of some sort.

Nick Graves
Reply to  fred250
January 22, 2021 9:38 am

You’ve reminded me of ‘Mary Long’ by Deep Purple:

“When will you lose your stupidity, Greta Thunberg?”

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Lil-Mike
January 21, 2021 3:29 am

Spare a thought for Greta.

She will be 18 and an adult this year.

Poor girl, now with only the downward slide into being a Former Child Activist. Good thing she has her education to fall back… oh… I mean good thing she has her good corporate work ethic to impress during job interviews… oh… I mean good thing her parents are fully supportive and in no way manipulative controllers seeking to live out their own globalist fantasies at her expense… oh…

Oh well. Guess she can always become a professional public speaker. Having Greta attend your function and How Dare You How Dare You How Dare You has got to be worth a few dollars! 😀

Richard Page
Reply to  Craig from Oz
January 21, 2021 6:11 am

I think, as a public service, we should buy a copy and send it to ms Thunberg- never know, it might do her some good. I know she skipped most of her education but she can actually read, can’t she?

gringojay
January 20, 2021 9:04 pm

All very well & good to publish or recommend a comprehensive book, but I want to hear what Hollywood actors have to say about any subject so I will know what to think.

KAT
Reply to  gringojay
January 21, 2021 12:36 am

Please be more topic specific so that your request may be considered in detail.
Suggested topics – where a remarkable level of expertise has been shown by current Thespians:

  • Bed defecation
  • Spousal abuse
  • Drunk and disorderly behavior
  • Divorce and related marital dysfunction
  • Hypocrisy, etc
fred250
Reply to  KAT
January 21, 2021 12:54 am

You forgot

  • pedophilia and sexual predation.
Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Philip
January 20, 2021 9:31 pm

For information. Canadian Rex Murphy did a wonderful interview of Patrick Moore early 2019. That interview can be found on Rex’s YouTube channel, RexTV.

John F Hultquist
January 20, 2021 9:34 pm

There is money to be made by some, and money taken from others to redistribute. Global warming is the excuse to do this.
Science is not a concern to those pushing the climate scam.
And, Gaia doesn’t care.
Truth. {or <i>Amen</i>, if you prefer}

n.n
Reply to  John F Hultquist
January 20, 2021 10:05 pm

Awomen, apparently. I wonder if it’s now hywomen. No, not yet.

Loydo
January 20, 2021 10:08 pm

Patrick bluntly states: “The fact is there is no hard evidence that… “higher temperatures”… have been or will be triggered by human-caused emissions of CO2.

Wait, what? “higher temps”?

Poor old Patrick, bluntly wrong…and queuing up to hand over good money for it too, wow.

Lets hear Watts or Middleton or May or Eschenbach or Rotter come out agree with Patrick;
no hard evidence for humans contributing to higher tempertures. Or do we just let it pass and watch the pack pile on Loydo for disputing the story and spoiling the party?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Loydo
January 20, 2021 10:57 pm

There is no evidence Loydo. Just conjecture and hypothesis. Every bit of warming we’ve seen in the last 50 years also occurred to the same level between 1910 to 1945. No one blames CO2 for that. No one blames the Roman Warm Period, at least as warm as today, on CO2 Same can be said for the Minoan or the Medieval Warm periods. Which is why the hockey team used lies and distorted statistical methods to try to hide the Medieval Warm Period.

When the Modern Warm Period is simply as warm as the Roman and Medieval periods, there can be no serious dismissal of natural causation.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Loydo
January 20, 2021 11:04 pm

“Hard evidence or facts are definitely true” (Collins).
There is ‘hard evidence’ or fact and there is inference.
“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report” (IPCC – AR5).
That is an inference, ‘hard evidence’ or a fact does not carry degrees of probability.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 20, 2021 11:19 pm

“The fact is there is no hard evidence that… “higher temperatures”… have been or will be triggered by human-caused emissions of CO2.

A COMPLETELY TRUE STATEMENT.

Get over it, mindless twerp.

Yes there has been some SLIGHT and HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming since the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years

But as YOU have shown MANY, MANY TIMES

There is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for warming by atmospheric CO2

Would you like to at least make an abortive attempt, loy-child.??

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

YOUR continued inability to PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL proves my poin and proves Patrick Moore’s point.

You are an utter and complete FAILURE . Loy !!

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
January 20, 2021 11:44 pm

Poor old Patrick, bluntly wrong

You have hard evidence, Loydo?

Let’s see it then

fred250
Reply to  Redge
January 21, 2021 12:57 am

“Let’s see it then”

Loy-coward runs away, and hides in the corner with its fingers in its ears, sucking its thumbs. !!

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 1:01 am

“for disputing the story”

.
A chihuahua yapping IN FEAR behind a 6ft fence, does not “dispute” ANYTHING.

It is “random noise” from a completely meaningless NON-ENTITY.

You need actual SCIENCE to make a meaningful dispute…..

…. and you are a scientific ABYSS.

Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 2:03 am

Where is the contradicton ? 😀

KAT
Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 2:45 am

So Loydo the resident “chessboard pigeon” has been triggered very early in this post.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pigeon-chess

“Pigeon chess” is defined at Urban Dictionary as “having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.” 

Last edited 3 months ago by KAT
Fran
Reply to  KAT
January 21, 2021 9:39 am

When I was growing up, ‘k!lling flies’ was the phrase used to describe pointless activity. Replying to Loydo is that king of activity – can’t figure out why so many people do it.

TonyG
Reply to  Fran
January 21, 2021 11:54 am

Same here. The endless back&forths that ensue are no better than spam, and accomplish nothing.

John Bell
Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 5:57 am

Loydo please stop using fossil fuels every day EVERY DAY as you do – ya flaming hypocrite.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 9:39 am

Loydo,

You have been asked a dozen times of more by Fred250 to present actual, empirical evidence that temperatures are a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and not vice versa. You haven’t answered, not once. Remember, computer models are not evidence.

paul courtney
Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 1:04 pm

Dear Mr. Do: You ask Watts et al to “agree” with a statement Mr. Moore did not make. Why did you change it?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 1:13 pm

“pack pile on Loydo”

.
And there that “victimhood” that you have felt all your pitiful life. !

Perhaps if you at least tried NOT to be a complete and absolute moron

.. “victimhood” wouldn’t own you…

…. just saying !

Broadie
January 20, 2021 10:24 pm

Add John L Daly’s ‘Still Waiting for Greenhouse’ to the must read list.

I love the similarities between the Virus and the CO2 Scare. Both are necessary to our survival. In the wrong environment they are capable of causing death. They are colorless and odorless and therefore exist in the darkest corners of our psyche.
I find myself strangely attracted to cellars full of fermenting wort and to the arms and companionship of family and friends.
This leads me to the scientific proposition that we have survived previous attempts by empowered elites to ‘scare the crap’ out of us due to genetic selection for individuals prepared to enjoy a beer and the company of friends.

Joel O'Bryan
January 20, 2021 10:35 pm

Summary: The Climate scam is nothing but a Global Marxist power grab. By scaring the masses of the Free World into giving up their liberties the Marxists plan to grab total power and control by controlling energy as the life blood of modern societies that sustains all of humanity at current levels.
If a few billion have to die by their calculations, so be it is their mindset. They simply join Lenin, Stalin, and Mao who did the same thing last century to their own countrymen and countries.

This sadly is not hyperbole nor sarcasm. It is the truth. G e n o c i d e on a grand scale is coming if we let this happen. The sooner People wake up to what the Left is doing the sooner we can send them back to where they belong.

Last edited 3 months ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 21, 2021 12:33 am

A sad day for America, and a dangerous day for your children and grandchildren. The Dems are not just socialists – they are covert Marxists who are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Based on the Dems conduct, America is headed down the poverty road to Venezuela – into a Chinese-style dictatorship where only the elite have rights and everyone else lives like a slave. I hope to be wrong, but the depths of Dem corruption say I am correct.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 22, 2021 8:19 pm

“I am compelled to reject Bolshevism for two reasons: First, because the price mankind must pay to achieve Communism by Bolshevik methods is too terrible; and secondly because, even after paying the price, I do not believe the result would be what the Bolsheviks profess to desire.”
– “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism” by Bertrand Russel, 1920

Bertrand Russel was directionally correct, but he underestimated the evils of Bolshevism – for example, the ~130 million of their own citizens murdered by Stalin and Mao, and more killed by Pol Pot and all the other Marxist Tin Pots of Asia, Africa and South America.

Haven’t these leftist lunatics killed enough people? – about 200 million souls just in the 20th Century!

Leftists (aka Socialists aka Progressives) say it will be different this time – believe me, it won’t!

Do we really have to do this again? Apparently yes.

I fear for our children and grandchildren.

Those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.
– George Santayana

Regards, Allan

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 21, 2021 5:18 am

I agree with you Joel.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/12/canadas-trudeau-promises-massive-carbon-tax-rise/#comment-3145102

It’s ALL a Marxist-Democrat scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19, paid-and-planned protests by Antifa and BLM, AND NOW the mail-in ballot US election scam – it’s all false.
 
We published that the Climate-and-Green-Energy scare was a false narrative in 2002, and by 2009 I wrote that there was a covert agenda, Now the radical greens are admitting that “Global Warming aka Climate Change and Green Energy” was false propaganda, a smokescreen for their neo-Marxist objectives – see recent statements from environmentalist Michael Schellenberger, from Saikat Chakrabarti, former chief of staff for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the latest movie trashing green energy scams from Michael Moore, “Planet of the Humans”.

I called Covid-19 correctly on 21March2020 – NO LOCKDOWN! Covid-19 was a relatively mild flu except for the very elderly and infirm. Covid-19 is less dangerous than seasonal flu’s of recent decades that nobody remembers – the lockdown was not just a huge over-reaction, it was a global scam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cjgicrA504

The UN, the WHO, the IMF and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are using the Covid-19 false crisis to reshape the global economy into their neo-Marxist model – the Great Reset.

In October 2019, Event 201, sponsored by the WEF, the Bill Gates Fdn, etc. simulated a global coronavirus pandemic. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about
Just months later a relatively mild Wuhan-lab-manufactured coronavirus flu was overblown into a false global pandemic, promoted by the WHO into an economy-destroying global lockdown.

The Covid-19 lockdown enabled the huge mail-in vote – the Dems produced millions of false ballots.
 
The radical green objective is to destroy prosperity and move the USA to a planned economy – with a few rich at the top looking down on the peasants – that describes most countries, and the USA is next if Biden wins.

We stand at the abyss. If Biden wins, it will be the end of freedom. Europe and Canada have already fallen far down that “poverty road to Venezuela”. If America falls, there will be nowhere left to run to.

griff
January 21, 2021 12:29 am

‘Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace’ He wasn’t a founder – he had no intention of creating an organisation like Greenpeace, with its aims: he was involved with an anti nuclear test organisation already at the time it merged with other groups to become Greenpeace and promptly left the new organisation. Safe to say he was against Greenpeace on everything except nuclear testing from the start.

Cam_S
Reply to  griff
January 21, 2021 7:20 am
Reply to  griff
January 21, 2021 8:21 am

Do not get your info on Dr. Patrick Moore from griff. What about the whales griff?….what about Greenpeace in effect declaring war on an element of the Periodic Table? What about Greenpeace being taken over by radicals like….Loydo, griff?

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
January 21, 2021 11:19 am

I used to think Griff was merely mistaken, but with this post he has shown himself to be a bare-faced liar.

Beware of the Internet, Griff. It will catch your lies out every single time.

fred250
Reply to  griff
January 21, 2021 11:58 am

griff is now regularly reduced to OUTRIGHT LYING !!

… to add to his gross imbecility.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
January 21, 2021 4:52 pm

You’re just an asshole

Iain Reid
January 21, 2021 12:52 am

I have only one critisism of this book, and it is shared by many others, when I click the link to buy it takes me to Amazon.
I prefer,not to buy from Amazon if at all possible as I don’t believe that their business methods are as ethical as they should be.

I usually then try and us ethe internet to find an alternative supplier, but thta is not always so easy.

Alec

Reply to  Iain Reid
January 21, 2021 2:04 am

You certainely will find other sources 😀

Oldseadog
Reply to  Iain Reid
January 21, 2021 3:58 am

Me too. Does anyone know where else it can be bought please?

Oldseadog
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 21, 2021 7:52 am

Thanks, Krishna, but I need a paper cop[y.
Anyone?

Zig Zag Wanderer
January 21, 2021 1:25 am

For joy: it’s available on Kindle Unlimited. This means I can read it under my current subscription, highlight passages for reference, and buy it if I choose. I can even report typos.

I’m probably Amazon’s worst customer. I read about 20 books a month for few measly dollars since I retired. It saves me heaps, and introduces me to loads of new authors, all of whom I can try for free. I’m hooked.

January 21, 2021 2:00 am

After “The Neglected Sun” by Vahrenholt & Lüning the follow up, “Unerwünschte Wahrheiten” too is a must read, ’til now only in German, is to put on the list. (Unwanted Truths – What You Should Know About Climate Change)

“It’s never been as warm as it is today – is that right? Have the recent temperature changes actually been caused by us humans alone? And what influence do the sun’s activity fluctuations have? Questions that exemplify the 50 subject areas that the authors deal with in this book. Natural disasters of the past 150 years are placed in a climate-historical context of millennia. This shows that the simplistic representation in the media does not do justice to the complex context and leads to fear and uncertainty. A courageous pamphlet against an overheated climate debate and climate policy activism.”

Martin Cropp
January 21, 2021 2:27 am

The same applies to CFC,s and the ozone hole. It’s all theory, no real data, not predictable, ppb vs ppt. Every report on the ozone hole reinforces the sanctity of the Montreal protocol and how much worse the hole would be without it.

The mistake is trying to disprove the chemistry. Thats a blind alley.

Rune
January 21, 2021 3:23 am

The “Projected CO2 Level in Absence of Human Emissions” chart — I’m curious about its origin?

Other CO2 reconstrutions I’ve seen surely paints a more ‘jagged’ picture of CO2 levels? (our ancestors started walking on two feets about a million years ago, so the chart should be similar to other charts up to that point?)

Sara
January 21, 2021 4:53 am

Okay, it’s up there on Amazon’s books market, and sits right next to Death Guard Mortarion Daemon Primarch of Nurgle Warhammer figurine, so I will add that (not the Death Guard Mortarion! or not yet, anyway) to my list of books to buy today, along with Spectroscopy and Optical Diagnostics for Gases. I already have a comfy chair and plenty of tea, but I’d better stock up on turtle cheesecake and chocolate chip cookies.
This blinkin’ winter isn’t over yet. Dry, sunny day one minute, overnight it’s slop (rain + snow) and that’s followed by snowflakes, who need to be in school. (If that’s too obscure, it has a double meaning. Have a nice day.)

PeterT
January 21, 2021 8:14 am

Just ordered it!

beng135
January 21, 2021 9:47 am

The book is spot-on. Perfect example — the demunists/press fearmongered by making out that Wash DC was under siege by right-wing terrorists, but the whole inauguration area was deserted except for troops, police, political apparatchiks, the propaganda-press and thousands of toy-flags. Looked like the aftermath of a military takeover instead of a US presidential inauguration.

Last edited 3 months ago by beng135
R. Morton
January 21, 2021 11:21 am

Got mine

Last edited 3 months ago by R. Morton
John Dowling
January 21, 2021 11:25 am

Um, like to buy the book but £25-ish for a pensioner is a bit steep. Maybe wait for the Kindle/ paperback issue.

R. Morton
Reply to  John Dowling
January 22, 2021 12:29 am

Kindle version is available now for $8

Rudi
January 22, 2021 4:35 am

There is a but. Apparently St. Greta can actually see CO2, according to her mother 😉

Rudiger
January 22, 2021 12:27 pm

How can I get this book if I live in Stcokholm, Sweden ?
http://www.amazon.co.uk does not ship it to sweden for some strange reason.

Bellman
January 23, 2021 6:03 am

The graph appears to show that the former have barely changed, though the latter have soared. The truth is that the y axis of the CO2 graph has been stretched, while that of the temperature graph has been compressed.

Thanks for pointing that out. It’s been a bugbear ever since James Delingpole used it to “refute” AGW a decade ago. The other problem is it’s showing human CO2 emissions, not atmospheric CO2 levels.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
January 23, 2021 8:23 am

Here’s a graph I made scaling atmospheric CO2 to best match CET temperatures.

comment image

Graemethecat
Reply to  Bellman
January 23, 2021 9:07 am

AGW is refuted definitively by the ice core data, which show that temperatures always change before atmospheric CO2. Get used to it.

Bellman
January 23, 2021 6:35 am

But almost three-fifths of that warming was in the 30 years since 1990, since when our damp island has warmed at a rate equivalent to 2 degrees per century.

I’ve pointed out the problems of fitting a linear trend through seasonal data before. You make the trend 2°C / century, but that actual rate is only 1.2°C / century.

RelPerm
January 24, 2021 8:04 pm

Chris, thanks for the recommendation. I got my book in the mail today, and it is excellent.

%d bloggers like this: