Guest post by Rud Istvan,
I reflected on some of my recent comments/posts both at WUWT and Climate Etc. A pattern became apparent that I want to try to elucidate. The motivation is simple. The climate/energy debate has advanced beyond he said/she said ‘facts’. Koonin’s new book Uncertainty (which I just finished reading and which originally inspired this guest post) does much to advance a more nuanced perspective by highlighting factual climate ‘inexactitude’ (aka wrong stuff) and related ‘uncertainty’ (aka unknowable stuff) in the climate debate. But his ‘science’ approach partly lacks counters to the extra ‘religious climate believer so science immune’ dimension touched on here, albeit Koonin does touch on it lightly in his ending chapters. This post intentionally isn’t such a ‘light touch’.
As an introductory example, ‘climate believers’ ignore the intermittency and lack of grid inertia that their renewable solutions (Green New Deal, GND) automatically introduce. This may just be from physical ignorance of alternating current electricity complex math (a+bi, using the square root of minus 1, physically indicating phase shift). But after many blog interactions, I now think it more likely comes from deliberate willful ignorance, which in US law is defined as ‘criminal gross negligence’… “knew, or should have known”.
There are many other examples of climate science ‘criminal gross negligence’.
For example Dr. Susan Crockford exposed the ‘polar bear experts’ who claim polar bears are endangered by (modeled) diminished summer Arctic sea ice, when in truth, about 80% of their annual feeding caloric intake depends on the spring seal whelping season—when nobody claims Arctic ice diminishes.
For example, claimed GAST temperature rise depends on ‘negligible’ (per BEST) UHI plus insufficient land based measurement stations infilled for global coverage. A classic example of the latter is BEST station 166900 (footnote 24 to essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke). BEST 166900 is the South Pole’s Amundsen Scott, arguably the most expensive and best maintained weather station on the planet. BEST ‘automatic adjustment algorithm’ compared it to McMurdo, 1300 km away on the coast and 2700 meters lower in elevation. The BEST quality control algorithm concluded that the Amundsen Scott measurements for 26 extreme cold months must be excluded based on McMurdo—NOT. BEST automatically but wrongly warmed Amundsen Scott.
For example, Fabricius (NCC, 2011) claimed Milne Bay corals were declining from ocean acidification (OA). Her SI showed that her one barren (7.8 pH) seep was toxic because of H2S, as toxic to marine organisms as cyanide is to us— and for the same reasons. (Essay Shell Games in ebook Blowing Smoke, the first of two major illustrated and extensively footnoted examples in that ebook essay debunking the Seattle Times major series, “Sea Change”.)
There many other similar subsequent guest posts here and at Climate Etc.
So, how does this climate perversion of true science continue for several decades? What motivates obvious deliberate ‘criminal gross negligence’?
There are at least three answers as to why ‘climate gross negligence’ continues.
First is money, in the form of tenure and government grants. Go along to get along. Mann’s bogus 1999 paleo hockey stick is but one famous example. He got rich and tenured off a VERY bad paper, since thoroughly discredited. His bank account does not care.
Second is academic acceptance; peer pressure if you will. This is what drove Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech’s Chair of Earth Sciences position, by her own explanation. Young climate scientists hoping to rise cannot be apostates, and she could not in good conscience counsel them otherwise.
Third is ‘being cool’. There is no other explanation for John Kerry as Biden’s ‘climate czar’. It is stupid and ultimately self-defeating, but definitely a big plus at any present MA cocktail party. AOC and her GND is a lesser example of the same ‘cool’ social phenomenon from Brooklyn in Congress.
So, what to do?
There may be some effective counters beyond ‘science’, to which true climate believers are apparently immune. The following three suggestions are all borrowed from Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, long since used against skeptics labeled as deniers. My proposal is to counterattack, not by using the Marquis of Queensbury rules skeptics usually employ, but rather by using the Alinsky rules.
First is to freeze the enemy and then ridicule it. Mark Steyn did this very effectively against Mann with his book “A Disgrace to the Profession (volume 1)”. Unassailable, since Mann hasn’t yet responded and it has been now years since the implicit ‘Volume 2’ threat was made in writing.
Second is to make the enemy live up to its own rules about climate science. This was Koonin’s central point, made repeatedly in his new book.
Third is to go outside the expertise of the enemy. Renewable intermittency and lack of grid inertia are expertise examples previously discussed herein, which Greens ignore or do not even comprehend, because outside their expertise.
Concluding reflections
Many here at WUWT may have, as I previously did, thought that a ‘scientific’ rebuttal sufficed against warmunists (see footnote 22 to essay Climatastrososphistry in ebook Blowing Smoke for the precise derivation). It does not. They have a socio-religious belief system (Greta Thunberg being an example) that requires stronger counter measures.
The discussion (ha!) has always been political, not scientific…
Many years ago I was dragging a dolly with my tools and a bottle of R-22 across campus at Wright State University. A young head full of mush came up to me and began to lecture me on the evils of “freon”
I asked him would he answer a few questions? Yes he says. I ask him do you have any youngers at home? Yes. Have they ever needed an antibiotic? Yes. I then stated refrigeration was part of the process that made the antibiotic. Would he have his sibling die for the cause of eliminating refrigerants? No answer. I asked do you have a refrigerator at home and would you give it up to eliminate refrigerants? I stated EVERYTHING you have in your life was made possible by refrigeration. Are you prepared to become a subsistance farmer in the name of eliminating refrigerants? After a few more such questions I wish him a good day.
He and the crowd that had gathered were silent as I walked off.
It was a good day!
30 some years ago when congress was debating whether to join the Montreal Protocols that banned freon, NASA suddenly came out with a press release announcing the discovery of a huge northern hemisphere ozone hole. The last few holdouts in congress caved and the Senate ratified the treaty.
A few weeks later, NASA came out with a small press release, that confessed that they had suffered from a data glitch and there was no northern hemisphere ozone hole after all. Oooops.
Even back then, NASA had become corrupted, willing to fiddle with the data in order to influence public policy.
The ones that concern me the most are the scientists or science populists who admit that they don’t know climate science, but they “know how to read a graph”. Examples in the UK include Brian Cox and David Attenborough.
I heard Brian Cox some years back saying that about the hockey stick – he was convinced by the climate crisis because it was presented as a graph, and his patronising assumption was the the general public wouldn’t understand the significance, but “as a scientist” he could see from ONE GRAPH that the problem was real. Never for a moment did he consider that the source of the graph might be suspect.
These so-called scientist experts are unfortunately trusted sources to the generally well-educated but non-scientific public.
And when someone who CAN read a graph raises doubts they are rapidly excluded from public view, as happened to Johnny Ball and David Bellamy.
And why should that graph be persuasive?
It went up and down before, why should it be expected to stop without man?
Yeahbut…
It would still go up and down before the industrial revolution without Mann!
“I heard Brian Cox some years back saying that about the hockey stick – he was convinced by the climate crisis because it was presented as a graph, and his patronising assumption was the the general public wouldn’t understand the significance, but “as a scientist” he could see from ONE GRAPH that the problem was real. Never for a moment did he consider that the source of the graph might be suspect.”
Well, you can see what Brian Cox is talking about when you look at the bogus, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart (below). It *does* make it appear as though the temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter for decade after decade and that we are now at the highest temperatures in human history.
That appearance comes from deliberate fraud on the part of the Climategate Charlatans and their Spawn. This bogus Hockey Stick is the ONLY thing the alamrists can point to that shows warming, and it’s all computer-generated science fiction created to sell the Human-caused Climate Change scam.
No unmodified regional surface temperature chart from around the world shows this Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile. They all show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. They put the Lie to the bogus Hockey Stick chart and its claim of unprecedented warmth today.
The Hockey Stick Chart is the BIG LIE of alarmist climate science.
Without this Lie, the alarmists would have nothing to point to, to make their case. That’s why they created it. They had to have something to point to as “evidence”.
Looking at the Hockey Stick chart, it is understandable that if you believed what you were looking at was valid, then you would think the world is in trouble from overheating. That’s the impression the Climategate Charlatans wanted to give and they did a good job of it.
The Hockey Stick chart is what Brian Cox and every other alarmist use to justify their fear of CO2. In fact, it is the only thing that says CO2 is detrimental to the Earth’s atmosphere.
But it’s all a BIG LIE.
No other unmodified chart on Earth resembles the Hockey Stick profile. They all show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, which means we are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today, as the alarmists claim, and if we are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today, then that means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Here are a couple of examples of unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from around the world. As you can see, their temperature profile looks nothing like the bogus, bastardized “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart profile. All the other regional charts resemble these two. The do not resemble the Hockey Stick chart. The Hockey Stick chart is an outliar.
Brian Cox ought to be studying his regional surface temperature chart. It might give him a different outlook on things.
None is so blind as he who refuses to see. Their identity is tied up in the idea that mainstream consensus can’t be too wrong. Why they believe that considering history is replete with instances of almost everbody being very wrong and very sure about what they were wrong about.
Chip away and pray.
Rud, it’s been my experience that even EE’s with no exposure to electric power systems or electric machinery understand grid inertia. Pretty much the same thing for lack of understanding of Demand Curves. Utilities in the 1920’s were painfully aware of probelms with depending on renewable (hydroelectric) generation, but those lessons were lost when hydro meant projects such as Hoover dam with years worth of water storage capacity.
EE’s deal with AC circuits all the time and we intuitively know that letting your signals get out of phase leads to problems.
We need to get the terminology ,I’m a climate believer I’m not a believer of AGW nor I’m i a climate skeptic I simply believe we have a ever changing climate, I think labels used by sides particularly in public debate to ridicule does no one any good.
Ridicule a street level activist, certainly not , if you suspect/know he or she is a activist, ignore put nothing there way ostracise them, spend no money with them ,don’t invite them round ,you have the upper hand, leave them guessing.
Professional activists,scientists, ect, ridicule, pressure them,show fraud, call out every opportunity.
China and India have entered into a thirty year cooperative agreement with Mother Nature to test the predictive capabilities of the IPCC’s climate models.
Those two nations, along with a host of other developing nations around the world, will be adding many gigatonnes of CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere in a long term experiment to determine how well the climate models predict the future trajectory of the earth’s global mean temperature.
In return for her cooperation in supporting the experiment, Mother Nature will be granted a full time tenured position in the Real World University School of Earth & Environmental Sciences.
Although she was reluctant to accept the terms of the deal, it must be noted that Mother Nature was made an offer she couldn’t refuse.
What’s with oil industry executives?
Here’s one ready to play the climate game.
“Vicki Hollub CEO, Occidental Petroleum”
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/oil-industry-transition
“It’s been quite a tumultuous year for the oil and gas industry, from a historic pandemic that sent oil prices crashing to growing pressure and urgency for companies to align their strategies with the world’s escalating climate ambitions.”
(they believe) It’s in their financial interest to push the religion. If I were to have a criticism of capitalism I would start there.
Oil money is at the top of the list of who is pushing this crap.
How can it be in their financial interest if the goal of the alarmists is to stop all fossil fuels?
Imagine what they would say and do if unreliables were more profitable than fossil fuels.
Then study what is going on…
Hedging their bet. Per chance to profit in the short-term, to survive in the long-term. An optimal strategy in an unstable climate or hostile environment. Some people will find it more difficult to suspend disbelief until both their lives and livelihoods are at risk.
You can’t use facts and reason to change someone’s mind unless their opinions and beliefs are based upon facts and reason. When people’s beliefs come from feelings and are supported by groupthink, you have to change your approach.
I think somebody with experience successfully deprogramming cult members might be able to help.
Belief, faith (“trust”) are an issue. Another is special and peculiar interests. Another yet, is that people will agree on one point, will disagree on another, and will agree to disagree when there are overriding or alternative concerns. For example, Democrat minorities voted against normalizing marriage of couplets in California, but after demoracy was overridden by a transgender/homosexual judge, rather than stand their ground, they took a knee on this issue, and went along to get along for the sake of sustaining a consensus based on other, priority interests.
States will have to decide on their own how to proceed to protect their people. States can then form compacts with other similar-thinking states and pursue policies that will enable them to survive.
We shall see with S. 1
Is there a thing called Federalism? If so, will it work to stop the insanity…
According to the constitution, states can’t form compacts with each other without congress’s permission.
Sorry Rud, but as a common or garden layman, I have been saying for years on WUWT that countering the climate fanatics with science is futile.
They are also impervious to ridicule and most other tactics levelled against them.
There are only two things that will get to them, the first being restricting their access to money, which just isn’t going to happen.
The second is wishing for what no sensible climate sceptic wants; for the climate to take a volte-face, much as it did in the early to mid 70’s when it suddenly warmed (or at least that was my anecdotal perception) and begin to cool markedly over the coming 5 years relative to the Sun’s inactivity.
We don’t want it or like the prospect, but nothing else will stop the massive cover-up that’s going on at every level of government across the western world.
Do not underestimate the real raw human nature…as,
it never fails in the “end’ to uphold the self,
and it happens to be the most impossible to change.
cheers
Rud, the reason for John Kerry’s appointment is the same as Biden’s, your #1: the use of political power for financial gain. When a pol is part of an organization, he needn’t get paid personally, the cash just goes into the machine. There are at least two groups getting contribution and tribute from Kerry’s appointment, and one is their political party. As with criticisms of Greta on a mental hygiene basis, pointing out Biden or Kerry’s past shady dealings and profiteering gets you canceled, as thousands rise screaming to their defense. Skip it as playing to the opponent’s strength.
AOC isn’t so clean on financial gain. It can’t be brought up in this context, isn’t an argument, and undermines your better ones. Ridicule is the field where these opponents’ qualities should be played.
The other mythical point of the Death Cult is that carbon can be deliberately extracted from any process on Earth by technological means, which is fundamentally false. In the only place in the Universe where we know life exists, even anaerobic life is part of a carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen cycle. It is literally in our DNA, not as a catchphrase. There is no carbon free source of energy available to humans. Renewables use carbon. Fossil fuels are no different than other bio-fuels, and are based on extraction from once living plant and animal matter. Petroleum-based plastics are chemically similar to, and used along with biologically derived and naturally occurring plastics. The CO2 from burning fuel initially came from the atmosphere, put there by biological processes. A nuclear power plant depends utterly on technology using carbon as a fundamental component.
The only way that I can think to use this point is to go to the obvious weaknesses of ignorance and dishonesty. Wind and solar power are based on industries, practices, and labor all dependent on the use and expenditure of carbon, much of which goes into the atmosphere. An increase in the number of installed wind turbines or pv panels must be preceded and followed by the multifold increase in the emission of carbon just to support those devices.
The final point is hubris: even from the reviews of Koonin’s book, he seems to propose that there are useful actions that can be taken to secure the future against climate change. None of those things are real. No one has done this sort of thing before in any government or criminal enterprise. No one can predict the future. The only means available to anyone in the world to achieve these goals requires despotism and world government, much too easily corrupted, and on the record destined to failure. This is the faith-based fault in the climate cult religion, their mythical view of science as an omnipotent abstract can empower true believers to see the future, anticipate negative consequences, and manipulate fate, all of which are ridiculous in their own right. This is a fear response to the unknown, deliberately exacerbated by propaganda, and destined only to repeat past barbarisms.
Dear Rud,
Rules For Radicals? Is that the best you’ve got? Sorry, but that’s just pathetic. You (we) have to be a lot smarter than that.
You are correct, though, in this respect: arguing science with science illiterates is futile. Climate Realism (and conservatism in general) must grab the audience where they are most vulnerable. And I submit, though you may be appalled, the most vulnerable region is the hormonal one. We all have one, illiterates included.
Climate Realism has to be made sexy. That’s right, sexy. We need real models, the attractive kind, the appealing ones. You can’t sell soap with a pig; you need a lovely bimbo (I can hear the steam rising but it’s true).
Real men (and real women) like it hot. The best venue for Climate Realism is the beach — Bikini Land, Surfer Paradise, where the Beautiful People go to play. You don’t need an advanced degree to enjoy the sun.
Alarmunists and their ilk are ugly non-breeders. Everybody knows it. The sexy people are subconsciously repelled by all those -nists and -azis. Go with what sells. Climate Realists have the right stuff and it shows. We don’t need a Party; we need to party.
Not pathetic. This is reality. Alinsky merely set out in English, somewhat repetitively, a list of tactics to be imployed for financial and political gain. It is simple, to the point, and totally stolen from history and the oldest written records available. You are even playing to it in the rest of your comment, based in part, I’m sure, on marketing and advertising; a different aspect of the same thing. Propaganda works best outside of rationality. Climate change is profitable propaganda.
We moved from NH to FL back in 2018. I always give the reason for that move as “In order to get away from that terrible Global Warming up north!” Having studied the matter since 2006, my observation is that we are heading for the next ice age, perhaps even the next BIG ice age. (Has anyone noticed all of the cold weather lately?)
” He got rich “
Rud, seriously, Mann did not get rich off of MBH98.
He got rich ripping off the citizens of Pennsylvania and the citizens of America in general, he has never had a real job producing anything any person would actually pay him for.
Again Mr. 2hotel9 he did not get rich.
Additionally….. “producing anything any person would actually pay him for.”
People paid Mr. Mann for the book(s) he wrote
Micheal Mann’s newest opinions on saving the world are the same as his old opinions on saving the world: The New Climate War, Best Sellers Rank: #27,987 in Books
So, what you are saying with “27987” is that Mann hasn’t sold a lot of books?…… Thank you for proving my point that he is not rich.
And yet, he pays a team of lawyers for years in two countries for self initiated lawsuits with no problem. Which proves he is rich, unless you think lawyers work for peanuts.
Once again, Roger is wrong, twice, ignorantly taking both sides of the argument. Payment for books he wrote makes him moderately wealthy. Subsistence from green thermogeddonite supporters makes him independent of income. Speaking and appearance fees finance his expenses on climate evangelism tours. University tenure and department board membership make him more wealthy. Fraud pays him well.
If you can’t tell feelings or indoctrination from reality, you may be almost as good as a bot, but without the uncertainty of software.
Mr. dk_, “moderately wealthy” is NOT rich. University pay doesn’t make him rich.
I assume you have had sight of his bank accounts.
‘Rich’ is a relative term. I’m extraordinarily rich compared to a peasant on the Indian subcontinent, but by western standards, I’m no better than middle class.
Michael Mann is undoubtedly what I would consider rich. He has the means to sue people in court and risk handing over considerable amounts of money if (and when) he loses cases.
Perhaps he has a wealthy benefactor to pay for all that litigation, court cost and compensation, running into millions.
That makes him extraordinarily rich in my estimation. Could you afford to risk $millions mounting court cases against people?
HotScot, Roger is dishonestly taking the position that unless you have as much money as Musk or Gates, you aren’t rich.
Roger, thank you for proving that you have no intention of arguing honestly.
“moderately wealthy” was only the start of the argument. You ignore all of the other income streams that have taken him from moderately wealthy to rich.
Yes, he got money fraudulently.
The only reason why anyone bought his books was because of his fame.
He was famous for the hockey stick.
Keep beating that dead horse, swing away. He got rich ripping people off. And you are poor because you believe his lies.
Michael Mann is rich enough to sue multiple people in multiple countries for years on end for the pure pleasure of losing his cases. Some one paid for all those lawyers. If it wasn’t him, then someone is fronting the money for him, which is just as good as being rich.
Payng for lawyers makes him rich? Are the clients of public defenders rich too?
Oh, Roger, you are SO right!
Poor Mickey Mann’s net worth is only a measly one and a half million! How ever will he survive on his paltry college professor’s salary and speaking fees? Let’s not forget he also apparently received over a million in stimulus money according to the Wall Street Journal; he may have to subsist on franks and beans now that he is so destitute! Maybe you can send him some money to help him keep his GHG emissions down! Is there any alarmist lie you will not quickly swallow and then regurgitate ad nauseam?
You’re still lagging on the apology to us for your lies about Officer Sicknick’s tragic death from stroke; but then we’re getting used to you not apologizing for lying as you do SO frequently!
Roger,
You already let others do your thinking for you; you ought to at least have the energy to do some Internet sleuthing! It took me about 5 or 10 minutes to find the info, so I’m sure you shouldn’t have to spend more than an hour or so!
Stupid and lazy is a poor combination for success in life!
Once again, Roger shows that he is not capable of making an honest argument.
No, paying lawyers doesn’t make one rich. Having enough money to pay the lawyers makes him rich.
While he made no money off of MBH98, it was the key to his admission to the club. It was his membership in the club that enabled him to get rich.
Cause 4: It is a useful tool to spread socialism, fascism, and communism.
You have to distinguish between the useful idiots, corrupt scientists, and the international organizations interested in spreading statism by any means necessary. Lying is a feature, not a bug, for such people.
Geez Rules For Radical mentioned. How many have read that. If I had a nickel for every time I have referenced that book in the past 10 years as to why is such a phony war ( the scam sham of climate and weather weaponization for an agenda that has nothing to do with it) I would be rich man in terms of dollars. I am rich in other ways ( blessed) But Charles post here is heartening because maybe we will wake up and see all our hand wringing over “science” is not what this is about. But I think you all know that now
It will take much stronger medicine to cure this illness. Luckily such medicine has already been developed and tested. The cure will be available within a few days.
The society that grew out of the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution has had a pretty good run for 250 years. And it’s spread far beyond the “western” democracies. Now it’s under attack, not from outside but from within.
The “climate/sustainability” movement has been around for over 50 years, and its themes of coming doom and “decarbonization” are now firmly implanted in most of our educational institutions, governments, corporations, mass media and “chattering class”. On that front, we’re in serious retreat. When universities have “professors of climate communication”, you can see how deeply this dogma is now embedded in our societies.
Our societies are also under attack on two more fronts that appeared relatively recently: the “gender/identity” and “racial/identity” movements. The one seeks to make us uncertain of our own sexuality, and the other seeks to make those of us with European ethnicity ashamed of our history and our race. Softening us up for the changes to come. The speed with which governments, academies and corporations have caved in to the demands of these groups is really remarkable; now their “climate change” and “sustainability” offices are joined by “diversity” and “inclusion” departments. Corporations are the worst, with their cringingly obsequious (and patently hypocritical) declarations of conformity to the new order.
Then there’s the movement by most of the mainstream media, and the social media giants to try and suppress dissemination of any ideas that don’t follow the new orthodoxy. And they are doing very well at it. In the UK, they even have police monitoring posts on social media, and “paying a visit” to offenders who dare to have thoughts of their own. Who’d have ever thought that the internet, with its promise of free exchange of information and ideas, could be a weapon to suppress that free exchange?
There doesn’t seem an evil mastermind behind all these encroachments on our energy security, our sense of who we are, our freedom of speech, even our freedom of thought (although George Soros is doing his best to be an evil mastermind). It’s more that there are diverse groups that all tend to move in more or less the same direction, towards some sort of collectivist future. Many of them are influenced by the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, who postulated that Marxism couldn’t be achieved by revolution in the industrial democracies, but had to be realised slowly by infiltrating and taking over the “institutions” of government service and education. So far, Gramsci is making Marx and Lenin look like rank amateurs, with the progress his ideas are making.
It’s precisely the lack of an evil mastermind that makes it so difficult to fight against these forces. I’m reminded of Churchill’s 1938 speech “The stations of uncensored expression are closing down; the lights are going out“. There’s another paraphrased quote, very appropriate in our present troubles: “We have met the enemy and he is us“
More than pretty good — the Scottish Enlightenment is the source of real social revolution. Socialists, communists, and wreckers like Marx are the throwbacks — social neanderthals getting someone else to steal for them.
I believe it was Gramsci who coined the phrase ‘The long march through the institutions’, which summarises it succinctly.
If we are to slow the train wreck of Paris Accord and GND, I believe the focus should be based on challenging poor quality standards on science produced or promoted by government agencies. Your 2008 post “ISO-8000 Data Quality – something climate science could benefit from” was on target and there are OMB requirements that state government agencies are required to us good quality assurance practices, specifically warning against potential abuse of the Peer Review process.
A movement akin to that challenging the oil industry should be initiated to:
This should be done proactively rather than used to challenge, in court, the inevitable regulatory actions supporting the Paris Accord and GND compliance.
I was concerned by the statement of Amy Coney Barrett during her Senate testimony about the expectation of judges deferring to government scientists when ruling on issues involving science.
Years ago I was working with a manager of a landfill in California about the disposal of some waste. He made a statement which is applicable to climate change. He said, “You need to understand that what I do is 90% political and 10% scientific.”
This paper would seem to prove that Biden’s plan is grossly and criminally negligent.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/24d5dfbb-a77a-4647-abcc-667867207f74/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf
“Today’s mineral supply and investment plans fall short of what is needed to transform the energy sector, raising the risk of delayed or more expensive energy transitions”
Whenever people tell me that the climate is going to self destruct unless humans “do something about it”, I ask them if they can control the weather for 30 years.
It always stops them dead in their tracks because they look extremely silly if they say yes and their argument is moot if they say no.
The only “something” that is ever offered is either obvious nonsense or blind panic: always great cover for violence and riot. Except when individuals slip, and then talk about mob levied fines, jail, slavery, lynching, or reeducation for denial; retribution and inquisition for climate unbelief and green apostatism. Remember the committees for public safety?
In the UK very soon a law will be passed that allows the police to break up a demonstration if its deemed to noisy, I kid you not.
It will be which riots they choose to break up that will be interesting. Funny how life imitates art, isn’t it? I recall the recent film of modern play written as Shakespearean tragedy called “Charles III.”
Were I in the U.K., I would emigrate. After all, even the wokest royals are getting the idea!
Through the plandemic anti government protesters were violently attacked by the cops including old ladies, yet woke protests were left alone or the cops dropped on one knee,
I would emigrate at a drop of a hat the misses wont ,parents ect, so I’m stuck unless something happens 😗
Happily for me, a maternal Great Grandfather last made that choice for me and most of my kin. At least superficially, what he left behind in 1890s Wales somewhat resembled your current situation.
Quietly, but seriously, look into the practical details. Perhaps the other situation will change, but if not, you might save a mate by knowing enough to persuade him to go. At least today you’ll know more about what to expect than my Great Grandad and his brothers.
I’m saddened by the recent changes. I’d hoped to spend some retirement time in various parts of various ancestors’ England, Wales, Ireland and Scottland. Now I can’t imagine the circumstances where that will ever happen.
I live in rural Wales 1hr away from the south wales coal field ,15mins from the old hard rock mines of mid west Wales, died out around 1890 . To holiday or not? Well every thing is here to see , not nice to go out in a city or town at night ,its become very commercialised because we really only have a service industry left , London is a ripoff for native ,tourist alike, if you walk the old industrial areas you can still get a sense of the past.id do it before its all gone, you can still find a old gaffer who will talk to you about the past,
If we can’t stop the rot in the US soon, emigrating may become an attractive option.
There are hundreds of trillions of dollars tied up in baby boomer’s 401K’s and survivors pensions and equal amounts in European retirement plans.
At the same time, the world debt is also hundreds of trillions.
Retiree’s die with unspent wealth each and every day. As a matter of course, they leave it to their children.
Governments, which have already spent this money “on credit” have finally figured out a way to balance the books. And that is to inflate away the debt while simultaneously charging higher prices and new taxes for everyone so governments can “SAVE THE PLANET”.
It’s a con game and always has been. Just write the checks and die broke. You won’t know it when you’re dead anyway. Tough luck for your proteges, but they believe all this nonsense anyways.
I started weighing-in in a public manner on the topic of global warming, then climate change in the late 1980s — just about coincident with that hot summer of 1988. I have yet to see it do an iota of good.
John Burnham pointed out in the mid-1980s that science was losing out, or maybe already had lost, to the return of superstition. His thesis was that the first battle lost was in the subject of health as first rate scientists stopped communicating directly with the public and left the task to the science educators, journalists and mediocre public health types. Or worse still, advertisers. Even the politicians are in the act now. People are not smart, but rather superstitious, and the fight to prevent its return in new form or even old ones has to be engaged every day.
I also note that the Gen Z and Millennials get everything they know from the internet or rather their Iphone. It’s the first place they turn with any question. Look at the biased and misleading information they are likely to find there. Can’t read a map, but Google will send them onto abandoned streets and non-existent roads.
Well Rud,welcome to the Bright Side.
Climatology has been political from the outset.
Created by Bureaucrats no less.
After The CRU Emails(Climategate) it was obvious the scientific method was not welcome in The Cult of Calamitous Climate.
“The Science” (Trademark) was front and centre.
As a full blown State Owned Religion.
For our Kleptocracy’s are all bankrupt,the only way for our parasitic overload to eat is to tax air..behold the “Carbon Tax”.
Catastrophic Climate has been a glorious way to steal from the many to enrich the few.
So thank you for conceding what many of us already have seen,no amount of evidence,will change the meme.
For reason is not at play.
Emotion has been the tool all along.
Once we tolerated our bureaus engaging in Policy Based Evidence Manufacturing,we lost “science” as a tool.
Measurements?
No value to the narrative.
Our “enlightened leaders” have “Computer Projection” to divine our future.
I now believe it is going to take an infrastructure collapse followed by actively banning members of Gang Green from our societies,before the herd smartens up.
The danger of a State Religion must now run its course..
Banishment or death appears to be the only cure for stupidity of this level..
For The Cult of Calamitous Climate celebrates Weapons Grade Stupid as “Virtue”.
And after decades of their shrieking,preaching and stealing,I want to give them what they demand..
I cannot wait to see a Carbon Based Life Form live a “Carbon Free” existence.
I insist these person live as they demand we must,free of fossil fuels,steel,nylon ,plastic..Of course most cannot go 5 minutes without their electronic tethers and completely melt down should signal be lost…But they demand their brave Old World.
So I doubt your proposed solutions will work.
They amount to word games with monkeys.
Truth with consequences is the only tool we have.
If our fellow citizens so hate our technologic luxurious civilization,let them do without.
As long as I can have the camera rights,using ariel drones to record their “living the dream”..For the children ..of course.
And they have set goals, made a plan and are working the plan in coordination. You only think your goal in treating the subject fairly will help society meet the goal you think they are debating. It may be unrelated. I ordered Unsettled in hardback April 26. Amazon is now promising by May 28, maybe. Bet it won’t be a bestseller if books are not shipped in quantity, but trickled out. So will get less attention. So will help meat their goal. Whatever it is…