Guest post by Michael Kile

If Machiavelli set out to devise a strategy to drive the greatest wealth transfer in history, monetizing “climate change” on the pretext of saving planet Earth from an anthropogenic apocalypse would be at the top of his list.

Globalists and climate controllers are very keen on it too. One of them is former “rock-star” central banker, Dr Mark Carney, OC, the UN Secretary General’s new Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

Dr Carney: A market in the transition to net zero is now being built…which can accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy. It’s turning an existential risk into one of the greatest commercial opportunities of our time. It’s now within our grasp to create a virtuous cycle of innovation and investment for the net zero world that people are demanding, and that future generations deserve. In this way, private finance can bend the arc of history towards climate justice…..and the Glasgow of COP 26 can be reunited with the Glasgow of Adam Smith. (Reith Lecture 4, transcript, page 6, December 26, 2020)

A “net zero world that people are demanding” is a tactic as old as Methuselah. Scare sufficient folk – especially the young – into believing what you want them to believe and soon they are pressuring countries, corporations, pension funds and the gullible into supporting your Net Zero ideology in the name of “climate justice”.

Changes in the weather were once attributed to gods or demons, but no longer. Many folk now assert ad nauseum the developed world is the primary cause of most – if not all – atmospheric variability. The dodgy pseudoscience of “attribution” has fooled them, with help from UN agencies and a MSM obsessed with crises, both real and imagined.

A new religion has been created in the process. Nasty predictions proliferate at a rate not seen since the age of Jeremiah. Follow the weeping prophets and you could reap large profits from one of “the greatest commercial opportunities of all time”, or at least since the Dutch tulip mania. In the utopia of Net Zero everyone will be a winner.  All that is required to realise this Green fantasy is an arbitrary price on “carbon” (dioxide) north of US$75 a tonne. As for private finance, be alert. It could include your savings.

Dr Carney: To unlock that market, which could be worth more than $100 billion a year, we need the right infrastructure to connect demand from companies who have or are putting in place net zero goals, with supply of offsets in countries around the world. A new private sector taskforce is working to create this critical market in time for next year’s Glasgow summit. (Reith Lecture 4, transcript, page 6, December 26, 2020).

On Christmas Day last year, two billion people celebrated a divine birth in a manger a long time ago. The next day there was another miracle, an immaculate conception at BBC Radio 4.

A few economists, bankers, bureaucrats and carefully chosen alarmists zoomed in to hear about a “market solution to the climate crisis”. Yes, we can be saved from our sins of emission. Redemption is possible, but only if we have faith, change our values and get with the Great Reset.

Big Climate wants a binding “ratchet mechanism” for recalcitrant countries at the Glasgow UN Conference of the Parties (COP26) in in November. Together For Our Planet evangelists, Extinction Rebellion zealots, President-elect Biden and possibly some of NASA’s brainwashed Climate Kids, are ecstatic at the prospect.

The choice is stark: either set out on a long march to the Promised Land of Net Zero, or face a catastrophe by 2050, one with more “tipping points” than Sportsbet on a good day.

Few can resist the Great Hubris. Promoting salvation – with funny-money and virtue-signalling – is more fun than exposing a global boondoggle. A new chapter is being written for a future edition of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

The BBC Radio 4 event was the climax of The Reith Lectures 2020. Dr Carney, a former Governor of the Bank of England and Canada, was guest speaker. His theme: “how we get what we value”.

The four lectures: From moral to market sentiments; From credit crisis to resilience; From covid crisis to renaissance, and From Climate Crisis to Real Prosperity.

The key message was be prepared, for the “world didn’t prepare enough for the pandemic, climate change, and the 2008 financial crisis,” at least according to this Radio 4 tweet.

We have to change the attitudes that led to this “trio of crises”, said Dr Carney.

If we value the present much more than the future then we are less likely to make the necessary investments today, to reduce risk tomorrow.

So despite a history of financial crises that stretches back centuries banks didn’t build adequate rainy-day buffers in advance of the global financial crisis [of 2008].

Or despite overwhelming scientific evidence, society is still underinvesting in addressing climate change, even though actions today will be less costly than those required in the future.

And despite varied and ample warnings, we didn’t invest adequately in preparedness or healthcare capacity for a pandemic.

These tragedies of the horizon won’t be addressed by fixing market imperfections alone. (Dr Carney, Radio 4 tweet, December 3, 2020)

The trouble with “tragedies of the horizon” is that it’s hard to prepare for the future, especially “known unknowns”. Hence we value the present. Dr Carney called it our “recency bias”.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision. If the world “didn’t prepare enough”, maybe it was because foresight is often blind or myopic. Perhaps there are just too many crises that lack simple solutions: atomic weapons, cyber warfare, electoral fraud, human inertia, etc.

As for the mantra that present actions are “less costly than future actions”, it is surely only true if we know what the future will be with great confidence.

What about the “overwhelming scientific evidence” and “remorseless logic of climate physics”? Could it be that what we have here is more “precautionary principle” – not a principle of science – than proof of causation?

That the climate is changing is hardly surprising. It has been doing so ever since the planet acquired an atmosphere. What is surprising is that so many blame it on “carbon” when the controversy is actually over 0.04 per cent of an invisible trace gas, carbon dioxide. Given its vital role in photosynthesis, yearning for a Zero Carbon world is an odd aspiration.

Dr Carney is right: “you can’t manage what you can’t measure”. So plucking future temperatures out of dubious climate models is a big call, as are speculative scenarios about melting icecaps, acidifying oceans and so on.

Dr Carney: Our oceans have become 30 percent more acidic since the Industrial Revolution. Sea levels have risen 20 centimetres over the past century, with the rate of increase doubling in the past two decades. The pace of ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic has tripled over the last decade. Extreme climate events, hurricanes, wildfires, and flash flooding are multiplying. What had been Biblical is becoming commonplace. (Reith Lecture 4, transcript, page 2, December 26, 2020)

There’s a whiff of argument by false analogy here too. If A is like B, and if A has property P, therefore B has property P. This is true if and only if A really is like B.  

Covid-19 is not like climate change, except in a general sense: both are natural phenomena that potentially affect everyone. Both can be ramped easily into a future scare.

Specifically, of course, they are different. Covid-19 is the DNA genome sequence identified by Chinese researchers early last year, and its mutations. Climate change is whatever you want it be: for example, that extreme weather event last year for which the developed world allegedly should pay loss and damage compensation.

Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at City University, New York, thought so too.

Professor Krugman: Well, Mark, I’d like to ask you to, if possible, argue me out of the pessimism that I’m feeling right now. The overarching issue, you’ve alluded to that, you know, beyond COVID climate change it’s the fundamental place where we need to bring values into effect, we need to get beyond just individual self-interest in our collective interest. If you asked me a year ago, I would have said that the reason we have such a hard time dealing with climate is that it is kind of custom-made to play into our short-sightedness. It’s an issue where the consequences of individual actions are very diffuse. They may be enormous but they’re very widespread, and the time horizon is very long. But COVID is everything that climate is not. The effects are pretty easily traced. We can actually link, you know, infections, deaths, to specific parties, specific events, quite quickly, and then there’s the timescale. Instead of playing out over decades it plays out, often, over weeks. If we can’t do this, if we can’t respond effectively to this kind of crisis, what hope is there for us being able to do the right thing for the even bigger crisis of climate change?

Dr Carney: I think there’s a couple of things that provide some hope, some possibility, but absolutely no assurance. (Reith Lecture 3, transcript, page 8, December 26, 2020)

There’s another difference. Experiments and trials are possible with Covid-19, as Dr Kevin Fong explains here: Breakthrough: the race for the Covid vaccine. Try moving a small planet into your laboratory.

Even a few peer-reviewed papers, such this one -“Causal Counterfactual Theory for the Attribution of Weather and Climate-Related Events” – acknowledge the challenge. Researchers have to conjure up a “counterfactual world”, a hypothetical “control” world assumed to be impacted only by natural “forcings” and variability, to make their case.

Most unfortunately, in the climate sciences, no such sample of Earth-like climate systems is accessible to natural observation and even less so to experimental testing … With such strong limitations on the natural observation side and with in situ experimentation inaccessible, we are left with the only remaining alternative: so-called in silico experimentation. (A. Hannart et al, American Meteorological Society, January 2016, p. 100-106)

In silico, Latin for “in silicon”, refers to “experiments” performed solely on a computer, such as computer modelling. However, there’s “another serious difficulty”:

climate models, including the most detailed GCMs, are simplified representations of reality that are affected by both numerical and physical modeling errors. Thus, the real causal effects may differ from the model causal effects. (Hannart et al, p. 106)

Such admissions seldom appear in the orthodoxy’s media releases. They are the dark secrets in Big Climate’s attic.

Historian Niall Ferguson asked this question:

Mr Ferguson: Well, Mark congratulations on these lectures. As a Glaswegian I was very happy to hear Glasgow and Adam Smith feature throughout. You referenced Greta Thunberg but didn’t make any mention of Bjorn Lomborg. I thought that was a pity because he’s another influential Scandinavian whose views in some ways seem closer to yours, after all, Greta Thunberg called in Davos in January for an immediate cessation of emissions and we immediately found out what that would mean economically because COVID-19 forced very drastic reductions in economic activity. It reduced emissions but it created massive unemployment, so I wonder if you could say a few words about Lomborg’s views, particularly in his most recent book, False Alarm.

Dr Carney: I haven’t read Bjorn Lomborg’s latest book. But I’ll say this, that one of the things about his approach, which is a sort of, which is a classic economic approach, which is actually what I’m arguing against. But I want to say it was 15 or 20 years ago when he came out with his, “Don’t worry about the Climate”. How’s that working out for us? (Reith Lecture 4, transcript, page 8, December 26, 2020)

As for financial markets, it seems ironic that many central banks – who did not see or predict the 2008 crisis – now have incorporated Dr Carney’s infatuation with climate change into their mission statements. Once upon a time they focused on managing inflation, now they arguably are creating it. 

Dr Carney: “Some people did see it coming but those who were in authority tried to convince themselves that it was unlikely to happen, as opposed to asking the question what happens if it happens?” (Reith Lecture 2, transcript, page 14, December 9, 2020)

Steve Baker, a Conservative MP for Wycombe and member of the UK Treasury Select Committee, was worried about magic money and the free-lunch syndrome.

 About one in every five US dollars that exists today was created ex nihilo last year. The central bank pledge to keep interest rates ultra-low for a very long time has created asset-price inflation in many markets. According to Jeremy Grantham, we’re witnessing ‘one of the great bubbles of financial history’. Do the banks have an exit strategy?

Mr Baker: Mark reminded us that public money is not unlimited but the pandemic’s accelerated a phenomenon we’ve seen over the last decade. It’s become the norm for the governments to issue debt and for another part of the state, the Central Bank, to buy that government debt out of newly created money from nothing. With this money the government pays its obligations. Now, I would say this encourages people to believe it’s possible for there to be such a thing as a free lunch.

Anita Anand (presenter): It’s one of those things we’ve heard, you know, there’s no magic money tree, but now we seem to have discovered a magic money tree. Is your worry that culturally we can now not un-discover said magic money tree?

Mr Baker: That’s absolutely right. ….I do think what we’ve seen here now is that government finances are where they are, we’re able to finance this deficit because of the extent of QE, and I think that is teaching the public there’s a free lunch, that there’s something for nothing. (Reith Lecture 3, transcript, page 6, December 16, 2020)

 In the arcane world of central bank “values” it’s also permissible to penalise prudent savers by depriving them of a fair rate of interest, while encouraging governments and speculators to borrow even more money. Their argument: trust us, for it will deliver “greater good” in the future.

Addressing an audience of bankers and financiers at Coutts Bank in July 2019 about the “risks and rewards” posed by climate change, Dr Carney argued that capitalism could help “save the planet”. It was part of the solution.

Is that why he jumped out of the monetary frying pan into the climate fire?  Later that year, António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, announced his appointment as a Special Envoy. It was a long way from Fort Smith, his birthplace in Canada’s Northwest Territories.

See Climate hysteria: follow the money

Perhaps there is another reason. Somewhere in a feminist manifesto it is written: “behind every great man is an even greater woman”. On his appointment as the Bank of England’s youngest governor eight years ago, his wife Diana Fox Carney was described by Jon Swain in The Daily Telegraph as an eco-warrior who says banks are rotten”. (November 26, 2012)

Journalist Homa Khaleeli (here) wrote at the time that Ms Fox Carney was “keen to get her opinions heard; some of them had a “distinctly left-wing slant.” She was – and probably still is – an “environmental campaigner”.

There was another media moment last December. Prince Harry suggested Covid-19 was nature’s way of punishing humankind for creating climate change.

“Somebody said to me at the beginning of the pandemic, it’s almost as though Mother Nature has sent us to our rooms for bad behaviour.” He urged people to imagine being a raindrop to help repair the Earth.

Prince Harry: Every single raindrop that falls from the sky relieves the parched ground. What if every one of us was a raindrop? If every single one of us cared? We do, because we have to, because at the end of the day nature is our life source. (Reuters, December 2, 2020)

What if, indeed. That’s quite a lot of water. There are 7,800 million people on the planet today, with about 10,000 million projected by 2050, Net Zero’s target year.

The expanding human biomass also worried Bertrand Russell, the BBC’s first Reith lecturer. He wrote an essay on it in 1963, when there were only 3,200 million of us. Of all the long-run problems facing the world, ‘this problem of population is the most important and fundamental, for, until it is solved, other measures of amelioration are futile” (Population Pressure and War).

What if nature is punishing us for our proliferation, not climate change. What if we are the elephant in the global greenhouse?

After all, population growth and demand for protein is driving industrial-scale animal farming, Chinese live-markets and the spread of zoonotic diseases like Covid-19. Three out of four new or emerging infectious diseases come from animals.

What if you have not taken the St Francis Pledge or signed the Catholic Climate Covenant? What if you want to go further?

What if today’s climate alarmism is driven more by fear of the unknown – and the unknowable – than verifiable data?

What if the only vaccine that can inoculate us against climate-controlling grandiosity – the UN calls it “ambition” – is a daily dose of humility?

What if the planet’s climate – like corona virus and anthropogenic population growth – is beyond our control? What if nature controls us, not vice versa?

Michael Kile           

 February 15, 2021

A version of this essay was posted at Quadrant Online on January 20, 2021.

4.9 13 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Frank from NoVA
February 17, 2021 6:19 am

They’re not smart, they’re Misanthropic Marxist Malthusians.

C. Earl Jantzi
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 17, 2021 6:34 am

Educated “idigits”. Let’s see, when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth was lush with foliage and the CO2 level was 12,000 ppm. Now we are down to 400 ppm and we are being scared about climate change, when ALL plant life starts to die at 180ppm. At 150ppm our food chain collapses and ALL life on Earth dies. Which scenario is more likely? DUH!

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 17, 2021 8:15 am

Oh but they are smart. C. Earl JantziC calls them educated “idigits”. Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls them Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI).

They literally aren’t in their right minds. Iain McGilchrist talks about the left and right halves of the brain. Roughly, the left hemisphere specializes in language and logic. The right half looks after context. It’s the BS detector that tests ideas against experience. It provides common sense.

What happens if the right hemisphere is somehow disabled. Such a person will believe almost anything that isn’t obviously self-contradictory. They will underestimate the difficulty of projects and they will almost always be disappointed with the results.

Thanks to all the fools who misunderstand Bloom’s Taxonomy, our education system ignores the fact that high level thinking takes place in the context of domain specific knowledge. ie. Teachers flatter themselves that they are teaching high level thinking skills. Really what they are doing is teaching high level BS skills.

Defund the universities.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
February 17, 2021 10:01 am

Taleb would instantly see climate science as a striking example of his “narrative fallacy” (which he also calls a fraud) – arising from our tendencies toward overinterpretation and creation of compact ‘stories’ rather than delving into raw truths.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 17, 2021 2:22 pm

It’s not just liberal arts intellectuals and climate so-called scientists.

It’s the management of the American Physical Society. It’s the American Chemical Society.

It’s the National Academy and every single scientific society in the US and likely Europe.

It’s scientific groups and physical scientists who should know better, and perhaps do know better, who nevertheless actively collude in AGW alarm.

What explains them? This question has been a huge unsolvable for me from the beginning. I’ve written to them and gotten silence in response.

It’s not money. It’s not grants and university station. My working surmise is moral and intellectual cowardice.

All except for Marcia McNutt. I think she believes it all because she hasn’t the capacity to do otherwise.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2021 2:24 pm

But I agree with commieBob. Defund the universities of public money. We should not be paying for political advocacy.

There isn’t a major university in the US that isn’t actively violating the tenure agreement. Those that do should lose their public charter and lose all public support.

Gerard Flood
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2021 4:59 pm

It’s a tiny, politically-savvy cabal of activists which target influential institutions of Civil Society to pervert their official purposes for partisan purposes. When ordinary members allow their institutions to be white-anted by those with programmed ulterior motives, Civil Society becomes corrupted and the consequences are lies, the exclusion of honesty, corrupt appointments to office, and destructive policies and practices. The price of freedom and human flourishing is to network to defend your institutions from perversion of their proper objectives.

Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2021 7:37 pm

I don’t know about academia, but I do know why banks and bankers have got on board with the GND. Banks make their money from the issuance of debt, and most people will need to go into debt to pay for an electric car, electric heating, electric boiler, and electric stove.

Reply to  Observer
February 17, 2021 11:10 pm

people will need to go into debt to pay for an electric car, electric heating, electric boiler, and electric stove.

…electric bill…

Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2021 8:39 pm

“It’s not just liberal arts intellectuals and climate so-called scientists.
It’s the management of the American Physical Society. It’s the American Chemical Society.
It’s the National Academy and every single scientific society in the US and likely Europe.
It’s scientific groups and physical scientists who should know better, and perhaps do know better, who nevertheless actively collude in AGW alarm.”

A new group to whine about every week, in your ever shrinking alt.world. Raylan got it right.

Pat Frank
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 17, 2021 10:27 pm

bob, thanks for reminding us that you never know that you never know what you’re talking about.

Reply to  Pat Frank
February 18, 2021 1:19 pm

By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr

When we started our careers, it was considered an honor to be a member of professional societies that helped practitioners keep up with the latest developments in their fields through relevant meetings and publications. Senior author Dr. Jay Lehr had the privilege of leading one of these societies long ago.
But things are different now. Whether it be chemistry, physics, geology or engineering, many of the world’s primary professional societies have changed from being paragons of technical virtue to opportunistic groups focused on maximizing their members’ financial gains in support of the climate scare, the world’s greatest science fraud. In particular, they continue to promote the groundless hypothesis that carbon dioxide emitted as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels is leading to environmental catastrophe. You have been hearing about it for the past decade and more, with 21 candidates for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in the next election promoting some form of a Green New Deal—a plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and replace them with wind and solar power thereby returning society to the lifestyle of the 1880s.
Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote in 1994 that radical greens had taken over the organization after the fall of the Berlin Wall, leaving him no choice but to resign. The takeover of environmental institutions by extremists is now almost complete, the most important of which may be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). President Donald Trump is aggressively trying to win back the EPA in the best interests of the nation, but it is an uphill battle as the climate cult has also taken control of academia, political parties, and governments themselves.

February 18, 2021 1:24 pm


RE societies – it’s called “The Long March of the Institutions” – started in the 1930’s and going strong.

The novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, written by George Orwell in 1949, foresaw a time “when much of the world has fallen victim to perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, historical negationism and propaganda”.

Orwell had remarkable foresight. Here is the real “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, an interview that year with ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who described their long-term program to ideologically undermine the western democracies. Note especially Bezmenov’s discussion of “ideological subversion”. It is all about manipulating the “useful idiots” – the pro-Soviet leftists within the democracies.

Read the following papers to understand what is happening and why:

By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019

Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2021 7:39 am

I have no time for Mark Carney – everything attributed to him in the above article is false nonsense – unscientific, uneconomic drivel.

The question is does Carney really believe those falsehoods, or not?

Excerpt from a letter I sent to Alberta politicians:

In the late 1980’s I proposed three of the four successful major initiatives that revitalized the then-moribund Alberta oilsands industry, and combined these initiatives into a comprehensive oilsands strategy that was adopted and implemented through the Syncrude Management Committee. The result was $250 billion in capital investment in Alberta and 500,000 jobs created across Canada. Canada became the fifth-largest oil producer in the world and the strongest economy in the G8.


There is some irony that the greatest economic successes of Stephen Harper, David Dodge, Mark Carney and many others were enabled by my oilsands initiatives of the mid-late 1980’s, before they started their senior political careers. One of my knowledgeable colleagues observed ”These guys woke up on third base, and thought they hit a triple”.  🙂

February 18, 2021 7:49 am

Global politics has now become toxic and unhinged, with the extreme-left panicking, and trying to force the neo-Marxist Great Reset on us all.

Why now?
Solar-driven global cooling is upon us, and the fraud of catastrophic human-caused global warming is about to be exposed to even the most obtuse of humanity.
The big picture is described below – its perpetrators are among the most evil scoundrels on Earth, and to date they are succeeding.
For decades, climate skeptics have been correctly arguing that the science of the global warming extremists was wrong, but it was never about the science – it was always a fraud – a false scheme concocted for political and financial gain.

People generally give the warmist cabal too much credibility – alarmism is a tactic – these people know they are lying – they’ve known it all along.
SITUATION ASSESSMENT – first published many months ago:
It’s ALL a Marxist-Democrat scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19, the specious linking of these frauds (“to solve one we have to solve the other”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot US election scam – it’s all false.

The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.

The tactics used by the warmist propagandists are straight out of Lenin’s playbook (below). The Climategate emails provided further evidence of the warmists’ deceit – they don’t debate, they shout down dissent and seek to harm those who disagree with them – straight out of Lenin.

The purported “science” of global warming catastrophism has been disproved numerous ways over the decades.

Every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions, some 50 or so since ~1982, have failed to happen. The most objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to correctly predict – and the climate fraudsters have been 100% wrong to date.
There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”
The proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve one we have to solve the other”- utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.
Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments: The sheep are well-described in this essay by Nassim Nicholas Taleb as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” – they hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent significant effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their warped worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.

Farner Steve
February 19, 2021 7:10 am

There are other tools being used on the sheep.
Envy is one of them. This captures it well.

Michel Lemaire
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 19, 2021 9:00 am

… in sillyco experiments…

February 17, 2021 6:21 am

The Climate is the new Goddess, St. Greta Her Prophet.
The Climate she changes at our whim. She has a spot so sensitive that if you touch it with CO2 she orgasms and kills us all.
We must withdraw her CO2 even though it takes a hundred years of foreplay. Nothing else will change in the next century. No new technologies will be discovered. No innovation to deal with the slowly increasing CO2 which will drive Her over the edge next century: Act NOW! Save your great-great-great-grandchildren from a fate worse than death. Stop having kids until the problem is taken care of. We are running out of resources. Don’t burden the world. Let the old people die of covid; useless things, keep your eye on the real problem: Our Goddess Climate! She Changes! And we control her! So mote it be.

Reply to  Old.George
February 17, 2021 7:33 am

We are running out of resources.

To build batteries with, or at least batteries with enough energy density to be useful. At the rate lithium and cobalt reserves are being depleted, by the time all the auto companies fully switch over to building nothing but electric vehicles the batteries alone will comprise the majority of the cost of a new car. Only the wealthy will be able to afford them, the rest of us will be forced into public transportation, have to walk, or use bikes. Horse-drawn vehicles may make a big comeback, but feeding all of them along with all 10 billion of us will will be a major challenge, especially if we have to only use battery-powered farm equipment… or horse-powered ones.

Perhaps that’s the real intent, our “best and brightest” (ie, arrogant and dumbest) really intend to reduce our population down to a more “manageable and sustainable” level.

Last edited 1 year ago by Don
Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Don
February 17, 2021 8:43 am

The socialist driven g e n o c i d e s of the 20th Century were just the Warm-up round, trial-run for what the global socialists have planned for the 21st Century.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 19, 2021 1:01 am

Global capitalists have run the joint for the last 70 years and plan to run it for the next 70. If you don’t like the way things are panning out that’s who you ought to blame.

Reply to  Loydo
February 19, 2021 3:01 am

Really? You truly are delusional, as well as willfully stupid.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Don
February 17, 2021 5:01 pm

Lithium is not a very good material for a battery. Sulphur based batteries hold far more. Liquid metal even more. If we devoted money waster preparing for war to research we would solve all the world’s problems. First, we must eliminate war. It is inevitable, it is matter of how much we want to suffer first.

John Tillman
February 17, 2021 6:45 am

China’s population is stable and soon will start to fall. Its demand for animal protein results from increasing wealth, not more people.

Natural demographic transition has led to stable to falling population in most of the world. Only Africa and a few Asian Islamic states still are growing far above replacement level. Further economic development in those countries should work the same effect as have the industrial revolution, public health and female education in the rest of the world.

Earth Day 1971’s putative population bomb is being defused by political and economic liberty.

Peter W
Reply to  John Tillman
February 17, 2021 4:17 pm

I have a theory about that population bomb business which, as I recall, mathematically proved we would all starve. However, at the time CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing, and has continued to increase, thereby increasing plant growth and food production. In other words, more CO2 defused the population bomb.

John Tillman
Reply to  Peter W
February 18, 2021 2:16 pm

It helped, but the Green Agricultural Revolution (new crop varieties, fertilizer and pesticides, not wacko, pseudo-enviros)) was more important, combined with natural demographic transition in most of the countries which were still rapidly growing fifty years ago.

Ron Long
February 17, 2021 6:50 am

What a collection of Globalist/Marxist stupidity. Did any of these clowns ever analyze the cost/benefit ration to their economy crippling ideas? You know, like is the cost of adaption much less than the cost of net zero, especially considering that the theory/religion of CAGW might be false? This is like watching a train wreck (which I did), it starts out looking minor but keeps accumulating destruction until the final result is a disaster. I am glad we have WATTS with a finger in the dike, now lets keep pushing for a reality check.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Ron Long
February 17, 2021 7:17 am

Where is the reality check going to come from? Even cursory examination of COVID statistics shows that lockdowns and mandates did nothing to alter the course of the disease. Yet, I imagine most people are convinced they did. They are convinced that wearing a mask kept them healthy, until it didn’t, and then it was because someone else, somewhere, didn’t wear a mask.

COVID-19 has been in decline since late December in the U.S. There was actually a news article maybe ten days ago titled “COVID-19 is disappearing and no one knows why”. Joe Biden claimed to have a plan, but admitted weeks ago, there was nothing he could do. Soon we will hear people saying, in the media and public, that Joe’s plan worked!

I ask again, where does the reality check come from?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 8:38 am

These are Emperor’s New Clothes delusions all around us. What would we do without all these experts telling us our eyes are lying to us?

Ron Long
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 9:04 am

Maybe it gets argued in front of the Supreme Court? Some of the Biden agenda looks to raise a States Rights issue, which may be sufficient for the big showdown.

Rick C
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 9:47 am


Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 10:11 am

Certainly not from reality.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 2:26 pm

Kevin can you write, or have you written, something up about this? I’d love to see it. And your article would greatly clarify the circumstances.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 18, 2021 6:59 am

Pat, when you say “this” do you mean the article about COVID-19 disappearing (I went looking for that article last night and can’t find it — it either offended someone or has moved), or do you mean about the irrational beliefs and views I’ve encountered? I am actually beginning to write a little history of the pandemic as seen from here.

Want to read silly statements made by public officials?– I got those.
Want to know how students hacked their twice weekly PCR tests? — got that too. We were a blinking red light at the CDC ops center ’cause of the epidemic here from Sept to Nov, but I don’t know how much of it was real. Vanished suddenly in Nov. Lots of confusion about the meaning and interpretation of PCR results. The more educated people appeared to be, the more apparent confusion and hysteria they suffered.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 18, 2021 9:51 am

Hi Kevin — I was asking about your mention of COVID statistics showing that lockdowns and mandates did nothing to alter the course of the disease. Also the bit about masks being mostly worthless.

The controversy swirls around those issues.

Everything I’ve read supports your take. I’d love to see your WUWT article about it all. You’ve got the serious math talent to nail it down.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 19, 2021 8:58 am

SD, MI, ND, MN, WI all have seen a ten fold decrease in daily Covid cases since mid November without the predicted post Thanksgiving and post Christmas surge. Each state had/have different mask and travel restrictions yet NO ONE is interested in examining why, including one of the largest health care systems in SD.

Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 7:01 am

As kids we referred to a “Carnie or Carnizoid” as one of those guys who would cheat little kids at the carnival ring-toss game.

This article covers most bases in this climate change delusion — Dr. Carney refers to a “virtuous cycle” — a religious reference if ever there was one. And Krugman ties all sorts of unrelated things together, just as explanations from religion do. Knowing the cognitive deficiencies of most people, why wouldn’t scammers structure their scam to look exactly like a religion? A religious epiphany can turn the whinny 16 year-old in the house who won’t clean her room into a sage in an adult delusion. The 16 year-old has not changed one iota. That is the trouble with this whole issue. From the outside it greatly resembles any of the modern fake-religions that are actually scams to enrich the high priesthood, yet one cannot get the people caught in it to examine any of the premises of this religion or even the silliest of its proponents’ statements critically. They cannot take an objective stance outside their delusion. Are those being interviewed here scammers, or invested in the delusion? Impossible to tell.

Martin Kulldorff may be right, “300 years of the enlightenment is over.” Frightening.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kevin Kilty
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 10:09 am

Kevin: Perhaps its unavoidably religious in concept and not consciously seeking to be. Start with big sins that threaten the world and life itself. Become woke and concoct a bunch of Thou Shalls and Shall nots.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 17, 2021 3:09 pm

Antifa and BLM put me in mind of the black-robed thuggish monks of the 5th century, who rioted through the streets of classical civilization, tearing down statues, destroying temples, murdering free-thinking philosophers to the point of their extinction, burning books and destroying libraries (public and private), and disrupting the lives and ceremonies of the majority pagan population.

They were not opposed by the Christian officials of the Empire, who saw their motives as good. City magistrates never used the military power at their disposal to stop the destruction. Apart from a few instances, the people did not band into armed defensive groups to meet and defeat the religious thugs.

And so the religion spread, militant triumphalist ignorance prevailed, and civilization fell in the West.

Humans haven’t changed since 400 CE. The impulses and responses are the same. Progressivism is the new religion and its believers have taken over most of the official bodies. It opposes free thought, seeks to destroy individual selfhood and is militant. City and state magistrates don”t oppose the destruction wreaked by our modern monkish thugs because in their progressive lights the cause is good.

We have to see that Trump is not our Julian-the-Apostate soliton. Groups must emerge to physically oppose the Antifa/BLM monks. Leaders must emerge to displace those who would see the end of our individualist free thinking civilization to their aggrandizement.

We have 300 years of conscious Enlightenment and 240 years of freedom of thought, conscience, speech, and self to inform our outlook and organize our response. The Roman population had none of that.

The outcome may be different this time. Action must be taken.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2021 8:56 pm

Good posting, Pat. You mention city and state which is where I think the response to this has to begin. Organize to prevent progressives from winning local elections and thereby preventing them “time at bat” to get skilled at politics.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 18, 2021 9:54 am

Hoping for the best Kevin. I’ll cheer their emergence.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 17, 2021 9:21 pm

Groups must emerge to physically oppose the Antifa/BLM monks.”

Anyone who tries is labeled white supremacist, and denounced in just about all of the media. And then THEY get arrested, not the thugs.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 17, 2021 10:28 pm

Agreed. Fencing with the teeth is no way to fight a snake, Jeff.

February 17, 2021 7:08 am
Reply to  Ossqss
February 17, 2021 10:23 pm

20 years to wean off 2%.

It is reasonable to predict that no amount of subsidising and targeting will change economic reality for energy sources. When fossil fuels are no longer economically competitive, other energy sources will find their niche. Until then, keep dreaming.

February 17, 2021 7:26 am

Anyone falling for this grift is not smart. Anyone pushing this grift is criminally clever, not smart.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  2hotel9
February 18, 2021 9:59 am

They could be merely foolish and gullible.

Benjamin Blair
February 17, 2021 7:58 am

There are sane, level-headed people out there who with luck will still be around when the climate bubble bursts and the world sees what a confidence trick has been pulled on them by the self appointed elites. Truly it is a”treason of the intellectuals as the French once recognized. “The world is going to need sane people when everyone is staring at the shambles these geniuses have created.

Look up the word Boondoggle people. Check the meaning of millenarianism while you can still find it in dictionaries before the word is banned by our new puritan censors.

Matthew Schilling
February 17, 2021 8:07 am

Some things are so abjectly ridiculous only a smart person could believe them. The masses don’t “believe” so much as they accept. The paradigms of every culture is stipulated. They’re recited and received… to be recited again and received again.

But, it takes real brains to actually believe appallingly stupid things like climastrology. Yet, Globaloney Warmunism is just the ugly little sister of the worst mental hag of all time: macro-evolution / abiogenesis. Macro-evolution isn’t science, it is a sick joke – where the believer is the punch line.

(Now I will sit back and watch how many otherwise intelligent people on this site try to defend the indefensible.)

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
February 17, 2021 8:09 am

(Darn it – reworked a sentence and left a verb in the singular: The paradigms of every culture are stipulated) The ability to edit a comment ought to be a given…
(And then I found the Edit Button! Too late for my previous comment, but lesson learned!)

Last edited 1 year ago by MattXL
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
February 17, 2021 9:25 pm

Yeah, it’s not obvious, you have to know it’s there.

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
February 17, 2021 10:43 pm

I do not believe a “smart” person believes ridiculous ideas. On the other hand there is no limit to what a well-educated person will believe. They are well versed in the way of the world. They know to be with the right people in a debate rather than actually being correct. It is about presentation rather than what is presented. If it comes from a text book or the grade 5 teacher it is accepted as true. Never trust your lying eyes; trust what you are taught.

Curiosity is being gradually subdued. Education is about thinking the right things and the prestige of attending the right school. Courses in Climastrology require students entering the lecture room to leave their curiosity at the door. It is the way of all religious teachings – have faith.

Tom Abbott
February 17, 2021 8:14 am

A discussion on how to control people. I imagine this kind of discussion has gone on in every totalitarian mind. How can we get people to do what we want them to do, they say. That’s what they are trying to figure out. They don’t have any concern, or possibly any knowledge, that what they want others to do might be harmful to them.

Intellectual Idiots. Rationalizing insanity.

Joel O’Bryan
February 17, 2021 8:20 am

Some thoughts on this long piece:
Paul Krugman is the George Costanza of economics. Every instinct he has and writes about inevitably turns out to be wrong. Krugman’s track record of being wrong on just about everything is remarkably consistent, just like Jerry Seinfeld’s sidekick. Do the opposite of whatever Krugman says if you want to be “right.”

Quoting the claim from the IYI Dr Carney:
“, for the “world didn’t prepare enough for the pandemic, climate change, and the 2008 financial crisis,” at least according to this Radio 4 tweet.”

With liberals (progressives) this another demonstration of the “never enough” affliction they all have. It is a diseased mind state characteristic of Progressives. For them, if if some public policy fails (such as a QE stimulus), then it wasn’t because the policy itself was fundamentally flawed, it simply is taken as evidence the policy action was not big enough, or enough money thrown at the “problem.” They can never admit the obvious, that the underlying policy they are proposing is fundamentally flawed, and by extension they were wrong. Here in the US we saw this Liberal hubris arrogance on display almost everyday of the 8 year long nightmare of President Obama. (Shovel-ready jobs anyone?)


COVID-19 is not a DNA genome sequence. It is a Corona virus which is an RNA virus, and COVID-19 is the name the WHO assigned to the morbidity and mortality disease state associated with being infected with that virus, not some “Chinese researchers.” The Chinese researchers one year ago were being suppressed and controlled by the CCP, just as Big Tech is now doing to here in the US to anyone who tweets or YouTubes information or opinion counter to the messages proclaimed by Pope Fauci.
This is a minor point, but an annoying one to me because it shows poor attention to details and lack of editorial review prior to being published.

my take on why we have not seen rampant inflation since the introduction of massive QE stimulus money printing since the 2008 financial crisis is because actual energy costs have declined. The cost of oil and natural gas is present in every product we buy and every mouthful of food we eat. The US has become a dominant player in global fossil fuel production since 2008, thus adding to world supply is the reason for this decline in real energy costs. And not just oil. Cheap natural gas is replacing coal, which frees up coal to go to China even as Japan, Korea, the US are still in the process of a switch to nat gas for electricity.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 17, 2021 9:59 am

“… lack of editorial review prior to being published.”

An alternative hypothesis is that the editor(s) is/are of similar ideological mind and were not critical because they support the meme that the end justifies any means, including, but not limited to, misinformation.

I was watching an old JAG re-run and was reminded that any accusation of sexual assault is to be taken seriously by the military, and investigated. Would it were that the government took accusations of voting fraud equally seriously! The hypocrisy rampant in government is blindingly obvious.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 17, 2021 8:44 pm

I was watching an old JAG re-run and was reminded that any accusation of sexual assault is to be taken seriously by the military, and investigated. Would it were that the government took accusations of voting fraud equally seriously! The hypocrisy rampant in government is blindingly obvious.”

The difference is that the accuses in your TV watching have a history of credibility.

But keep it up Clyde. We love your lengthy, interesting stories about what you did generations ago….

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 18, 2021 12:45 pm

They do provide a good counterbalance to your recent, short, uninteresting comments.

Richard Page
February 17, 2021 8:25 am

Hmm yes – one of the Goldman Sachs world domination and eternal profiteering con artists at work. Given the number of ‘former’ GS employees in top positions at government banks and international finance organisations, one wonders if they ever truly stopped working for them? Certainly GS have benefited enormously from decisions taken by these people – perish the thought that any of them would have questionable ethics?

Carney was barely adequate at the Bank of England, loudly idiotic over a wide range of political issues that should have been of no concern to his public job and a supporter of policies that favoured international investment companies such as, you guessed it, Goldman Sachs.

I have little problem with capitalism, except I don’t have enough of it, but I do not trust Carney, his dodgy business practices, nor his unethical behaviour.

But that is just my opinion, nothing more.

Flight Level
February 17, 2021 8:31 am

Smart people don’t get indoctrinated by climate madness. They realize the advantages of reining the chanting brainwashed crowds as free workforce for a very profitable green business.

Says who slavery has been abolished ? It’s even more pervert now as modern enslaved brains actually beg for the privilege.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Flight Level
February 17, 2021 10:08 am

Something that rarely gets mentioned in the dialog about slavery is that indentured servitude amongst Whites was common until fairly recent times. I see little functional difference between indentured service and slavery except that the possibility of release was held out as a possibility within the servant’s lifetime, whereas being freed from slavery was a rare occurrence. Even today, many of us still “owe our souls to the Company Store.”

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 17, 2021 10:38 am

Doesn’t slavery imply the provision of labour with nothing received in return? But serving an indenture allows one party to provide the labour in return for receiving instruction on how to become more skilled and thereby increasing the value of the work in the future. Thus indentures should be regarded as a very valuable means of the unskilled becoming upskilled, which is precisely why so many value indentures while hating the thought of slavery. In Western society, there are laws to prevent a situation where anybody “owes their soul to the Company Store”.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike Lowe
February 18, 2021 12:57 pm

You asked, “Doesn’t slavery imply the provision of labour with nothing received in return?” Well, while it hardly makes up for the loss of freedom, slaves are provided with food, clothing, and shelter, which are the basic necessities that most work for. Basically, indentured servants worked for the same necessities.

I think that you are confusing an unpaid apprenticeship with indentured servitude.


Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 17, 2021 11:32 am

With the US Constitution, the former colonies did away with Debtor’s Jail where a private person could send a deadbeat to jail.
Except of course, don’t pay your taxes to the government and the IRS can send you to jail.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 18, 2021 1:39 pm

Debtor’s prison is different from indentured servitude. Basically, an indentured servant is someone who contractually agreed to work exclusively and full-time for someone to pay off a debt, such as the cost of passage to the United States.

There were instances of miners, loggers, and others earning less than their basic needs and becoming increasingly in debt to the company they worked for, and risking arrest for non-payment if they quit working for the company.

Clyde Spencer
February 17, 2021 9:31 am

Our oceans have become 30 percent more acidic since the Industrial Revolution.”

I’m incredulous that this debunked claim is still being repeated! It demonstrates that the alarmists are not concerned about facts. Instead, they operate by trying to scare the gullible.

I would suggest checking anything that Dr. Carney says.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 17, 2021 11:49 am

“Our oceans have become 30 percent less caustic since the industrial revolution”

This is actually the truth. So I always say this to anyone who claims that oceans are acidic or becoming more acidic. It shuts them up immediately as they cannot argue otherwise since it was their proposition to argue in the first place.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Doonman
February 18, 2021 1:45 pm

Read the following:

Even your statement isn’t completely accurate.

Gary Pearse
February 17, 2021 9:44 am

Stupid is the Orwellian Smart. Carney was a showman (a ‘carny’ showman, perhaps?) as head of the Bank of Canada and then of the equivalent in UK. Tall, handsome, known as the “George Clooney” of finance, he was a photogenic star, but I’m not surprised he’s basically a lightweight intellectually and easily snowed under with Gullible Warming.

He’s an elite and likes to hobnob in such a celebrity stuffed issue as climate and global reset idiocy. To brush off the really smart Lomborg as an economist is telling.

Clooney delivers as an actor at least.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 17, 2021 11:35 am

Lomborg scares them because he can and does run intellectual circles around them. Michael Crichton did the same sort of thing to them.

February 17, 2021 11:49 am

Why can’t someone sue these people who openly lie about the climate apocalypse? 2°C over a hundred years is not an emergency – it’s slow, too slow! We’re about, what, 10°C below what T-Rex faced everyday, when the whole planet was teeming with life.

Stephen Philbrick
February 17, 2021 11:53 am

I was happy to see Mr. Ferguson asked Dr. Carney about Lomborg, but unimpressed by his answer. He claims that Lomborg said “Don’t worry about the Climate”. No, that’s not what he said, and it isn’t even a crude summary of his response. 

Lomborg posed the thought experiment, “if you had X dollars to spend on solving world problems, how would you allocate it among the problems?” Thoughtful respondents evaluated problems, attentional solutions and costs, and allocated the money. Climate change didn’t get zero but it wasn’t near the top of the list. Is that what Carney means when he said, “… one of the things about his approach, which is a sort of, which is a classic economic approach, which is actually what I’m arguing against.”?

If so, I want more Lomborg and less Carney.

I suspect that Kearney realizes that if you got intelligently about allocating resources to solve the world’s problems, you wouldn’t spend as much money on climate change as Carney would like.

Rory Forbes
February 17, 2021 12:32 pm

The fallacy is their belief that we need their “superior intellect” to fix us … that we have somehow broken the planet and don’t know what to do. They fully believe only they can see what’s wrong and all we require is more regulation to keep us from further damaging things.

February 17, 2021 2:40 pm

“Machiavelli set out to devise a strategy to drive the greatest wealth transfer in history, monetizing “climate change” on the pretext of saving planet Earth from an anthropogenic apocalypse would be at the top of his list.”

No, just thats the sort of thing Machiavelli might have written in an attempt to airbrush out 50 years of wealth theft by an increasingly corrupt and monstrous oligarchy and predictably (for this site) blame it on “climate controllers”.
comment image

Machiavelli has been hard at work these last 50 years convincing the gormless there is an ‘us and them’, like some cornpone western. Except these days it’s not ‘them’ injuns they should hate, it’s ‘them’ evil commie leftists, because, well socialism. But they lap it up like they’re onto something new and so proud to display their absolute certainty that AGW and covid fit neatly into the conspiracy and as if the oligarchy cares about ‘left’ or ‘right’ as long as the cameras are turned elsewhere.

Last edited 1 year ago by Loydo
Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
February 17, 2021 3:40 pm

Loydo – for once I really don’t know where to begin. I find myself agreeing with you, partly, but you are making far too many rookie mistakes here – you are confusing a very tiny minority of greedy, rich financiers with their hooks sunk deeply, oh so damn deeply, into greedy, rich (and unethical) career politicians with the entire countries of fairly honest citizens who just want to put food on the table and be left in peace. Put the blame exactly where it should lie – the backers that keep propping up the useful idiot’s in power and the people like Carney who work for them and a big slice of the pie.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 17, 2021 7:23 pm

No, I’m not confusing “a very tiny minority of greedy, rich” with anyone. I agree the blame is with the “backers”. But blame for what? Do you blame this tiny, rich elite for consolidating their wealth and desiring more? Is that not human nature? Would not you or I do the same thing if we were part of that stratospheric culture?
I suggest no. I suggest ways of re-distributing their obscene wealth back downwards – like tax. But every time someone makes that suggestion out they come with their propaganda machine and self-censoring, their front-line hacks and their well-funded think-tanks and their paid pundits to label it any such idea as “socialist” and therefore “evil”.

But there is the rub; the ripped-off, disaffected and disenfranchised have been brainwashed into doing the spadework and bidding of the very clique that has a foot on their neck! Powerful financial forces have shaped this completely unfair, hyper-capitalistic outcome and conviced a sizable minority that black is white and alternative facts are legitimate and that any deviation is a path to hell. But those driving it are fallible, blinded, greedy humans who can’t see past the bank balances. So they use every device at their disposal – they’d be insane not to. And who are their decoys? The left leaning politicians (no, I dont mean the Democrats or the Labor Party; they are just tweedledumber), the environmentalists, the foreigners, uppity black sportspeople and now even scientists and doctors, anyone who sees the damage and the injustice and the risks of racing faster and faster into this exponential cul de sac and tries to draw attention to it.

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
February 18, 2021 6:04 am

“I suggest ways of redistributing their obscene wealth back downwards – like tax” – actually, everything you’ve suggested will impact those lower down the financial scale and leave the rich unscathed. There needs to be a mechanism to narrow the wealth gap – unfortunately what you suggest will widen it even more and leave the vast majority of the population in endemic poverty whilst entrenching the position and wealth of the global ‘elites’. Like I said earlier, I do agree with some of what you say, but it needs much more work to be practical.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 18, 2021 12:40 pm

“unfortunately what you suggest”

So what do you suggest?

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
February 18, 2021 3:04 pm

Loydo – if I had an easy answer I’d tell the world. Unfortunately I don’t and neither does anyone else. If you tax those elites then they will simply pass that on to the rest of us and they will be untouched. Reducing how they are able to make money might help, as will eliminating their power base – namely this climate change money-making boondoggle and the swathes of gullible people they are conning. Surely even you can see what is happening with this? The rich elite climate change meetings in Davos? It’s a way to perpetuate the revenue stream and keep their boot on our necks.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 18, 2021 6:08 pm

Sorry Richard but you’ve swallowed the very propaganda I talked about. Do you really believe climate change is high on their list of ways to make money? And thats how they are going to continue to accumulate an obscenely unfair proportion of the world’s wealth and power? And if they were just going to pass on the the tax imposition, why do you think they’re fighting against that so viciously? Jobs? ROFL.

Reply to  Loydo
February 19, 2021 2:56 am

That is precisely what it is about, stealing money. And you have swallowed the propaganda.

Reply to  2hotel9
February 19, 2021 2:21 pm

“They’ve” been stealing it for decades, but have convinced you they shouldn’t have their taxes raised, because it’ll stop trickling down.

Lurker Pete
Reply to  Loydo
February 18, 2021 8:51 am

Loydo, how can you see all this and not see the climate scam for what it is? You do realise it’s these same bankster globalists who invented and funded the scam from whole cloth?

I’m sure you’ve untilised that famous convolouted logic of yours to ease your cognitive dissonance in this regard, but that level of self delusion is really something to behold!

Reply to  Lurker Pete
February 19, 2021 2:24 pm

Yeah, even deluded seaice has been scammed.


Gerard Flood
February 17, 2021 4:52 pm

[1] Statement : “The expanding human biomass also worried Bertrand Russell, the BBC’s first Reith lecturer. He wrote an essay on it in 1963, when there were only 3,200 million of us. Of all the long-run problems facing the world, ‘this problem of population is the most important and fundamental, for, until it is solved, other measures of amelioration are futile” (Population Pressure and War).” COMMENT : Bertie’s ideological fantasies re population, resources and production were demolished by chemistry grad, global econometrics maestro [developer of the ‘GNP’ metric], and ‘Development Economists’ supremo, Colin Clark [1905-1989],

[2] PROJECTION: Demographers currently think world population will top out at 10 to 12 billion, and decline from there on.

Jeff Alberts
February 17, 2021 8:49 pm

Dr CarneyOur oceans have become 30 percent more acidic since the Industrial Revolution. Sea levels have risen 20 centimetres over the past century, with the rate of increase doubling in the past two decades. The pace of ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic has tripled over the last decade. Extreme climate events, hurricanes, wildfires, and flash flooding are multiplying. What had been Biblical is becoming commonplace. (Reith Lecture 4, transcript, page 2, December 26, 2020)

Absolutely none of that is true. Yet the author of this article didn’t mention it, at all. Just went on about Covid.

Jeff Alberts
February 17, 2021 9:24 pm

Given its vital role in photosynthesis, yearning for a Zero Carbon world is an odd aspiration.”

That’s a strawman. No one is advocating a “zero carbon world”, just zero carbon civilization. Either one is stupid.

February 18, 2021 10:24 am

….things go wrong.

Seasonal Updates (ercot.com)

February 18, 2021 1:21 pm

Certainly helps your gummint career these days to embrace the scam.

Except perhaps in Texas this week. :-o)

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights