Climate lockdown: Paper published in prestigious journal laments ‘democracy’ & calls for ‘authoritarian environmentalism’ modeled after COVID lockdowns to fight climate ’emergency’

From Climate Depot

Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change – Published online by Cambridge University Press – American Political Science Review – December 6, 2021

ROSS MITTIGA – Assistant Professor, Instituto de Ciencia Política, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile, ross.mittiga@uc.cl 

Abstract Excerpt: Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? … While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach.” 

.   . 

The paper’s author Ross Mittaga, calls for “authoritarian environmentalism” to address the alleged climate “emergency.” : “It is ultimately an empirical question whether authoritarian governance is better able to realize desired environmental outcomes and, if so why and to what extent? Yet, it is undeniable that nearly all wealthy democratic states have failed to respond adequately to the climate crisis. By contrast, various less affluent authoritarian regimes have been successful in implementing stringent climate policies…”  

#

Climate Depot Note: Here is a full report on the growing movement to push climate lockdowns:Reality Check: ‘Climate lockdowns’ touted by Gates & Soros funded professors, Govts, media, & academia

Watch: Morano’s full 25 min speech on Climate Lockdowns at Heartland Skeptic Conference in Las Vegas

Watch: Morano’s full 25 min speech on Climate Lockdowns at Heartland Skeptic Conference in Las Vegas

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot

December 31, 2021

AbstractIs authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature—which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights—would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.

#

Below is an analysis of the new study by Professor Alexander Wutke, Political Psychology at U Mannheim who does not support the paper’s ideas.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1476850341564063756.html

Other academics have critiqued the paper.

Professor Alexander Wutke, Political Psychology at U Mannheim: “A prestigious journal in political science, @apsrjournal, has published a disturbing piece of l political theory. In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change. The study’s main question, as I see it, is whether we should abandon democracy to save the climate. It argues why it could be justified to dismantle democracy in order to ensure climate policies through authoritarian governance. To make the point of abandoning democratic governance the study builds on an unholy alliance of democracy-skeptic references from Hobbes to Schmitt to Extinction rebellion. … If most citizens disagree with you about the optimal trade-off between climate change mitigations and other goals, where do you take the right from to put your preferences over the expressed will of most other citizens? … Overall, I find the article troubling for the context in which it is published. We are going through a 3rd wave of autocratization as @AnnaLuehrmann / @StaffanILindber put it. Pressure on democracy is mounting from multiple sides. … In this climate, we need elites who stand up for the principle of self-governing free and equal people… I think my reading reflects the core argument of the article: a hierarchy of desired goals with climate politics first and democracy second. The article argues that crises not only can legitimize but may require authoritarian governance.” 

By Alexander Wuttke

A prestigious journal in political science, @apsrjournal, has published a disturbing piece of l political theory. In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change.

A longer thread to explain why I disagree with the study’s conclusion and arguments.

The author of the study is @RossMittiga.
I’ve been in touch with Ross before publishing this thread but let’s focus on the study itself.

Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Changehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001301

I preface that I am no expert in political philosophy. I do not know the disciplinary standards or expectations. Please tell me where I get things wrong. Also, there is much to like about this article. It is well written and accessible for empirical scholars like myself. It does not shy away from controversial conclusions.

It is clearly written, even when calling for the dismantling of democracy. The study’s main question, as I see it, is whether we should abandon democracy to save the climate. It argues why it could be justified to dismantle democracy in order to ensure climate policies through authoritarian governance. The study preemptively states that the relative efficacy of democracies vs authoritarian is an empirical question but still expresses sympathies with climate policies of authoritarian governments.

I take from a recent @vdeminstitute symposium that democracies are more likely to provide environmental goods for their citizens – but results seem less clear for global commons including climate politics

But if it was an open question whether democracies do or do not better at climate change mitigation, where does the impetus come from to question democracy? Why not authoritarian governance and see their regime type as an obstacle to climate change mitigation? It would make equal sense to think about justifications to eradicate authoritarian governments that do not pursue sufficient climate policies.

Yet, the starting point here is to see democracy as the problem.
(This mirrors sentiments often heard from climate activists.) (Also, if it’s an open question whether regime types determine climate policies, why agonize over trade-offs between regime vs climate? If we do not know whether the two are related, why not spend the energy in areas where potential effects are promising and not open questions?) I am genuinely puzzled about the origins of this anti-democratic intuition that seems to give rise to the entire endeavor of exploring whether we should sacrifice democracy for the sake of a higher good. Still, while I cannot grasp the motivation for this question, let us take the study’s answer seriously. 

To make the point of abandoning democratic governance the study builds on an unholy alliance of democracy-skeptic references from Hobbes to Schmitt to Extinction rebellion.

The core argument is a distinction between foundational (FL) and contingent legitimacy (CL).In a Hobbesian tradition, any government’s most fundamental goal is to protect the safety of its citizens which provides foundational legitimacy.

Not mitigating climate change threatens safety and thus undermines foundational legitimacy. Democracy, on the other hand, is nice to have but the principle of self-governance of free and equal people only provides contingent legitimacy.

That’s unfortunate for democracy as it now is only of secondary importance. Democracy does not fulfill primary needs. Its value is contingent and more like a fashion. In our times, people value it, but in earlier centuries people did not. So its value is not foundational but contingent on the people’s current desires.Distinguishing fundamental legitimacy (safety, climate politics) vs contingent legitimacy (democracy) is the core of the argument.

And it leads the author to anti-democratic conclusions. I find all of this troubling and not convincing.1st, what is the epistemic value of people’s opinions a few decades ago for normative judgments today?
2nd, why would climate change mitigation so clearly count as a primary goal?
3rd, why are the values we want to realize with democracy -equality and freedom- not primary goals? We could have long discussions about each of these questions. But isn’t the point of democracy to establish procedures exactly to pacify and regulate conflict over these and similar questions? Democracy is based on the principle of epistemic humility. The existence of intellectual fashions reminds us not to be too certain with our beliefs. We need democracy to decide on what the primary goods are and what is most important. If most citizens disagree with you about the optimal trade-off between climate change mitigations and other goals, where do you take the right from to put your preferences over the expressed will of most other citizens? I see the point that climate change makes our lives less safe and secure but many threats do.

Are all these (anticipated) threats reason to give up on democracy and who decides on which threats count? What I consider most valuable about this article is that it takes the problem of democratic trade-offs seriously. This is an underappreciated issue. We regularly have to balance democracy against other goals such as minority protection, rule of law of multilateralism. We too rarely discuss that, indeed, it is a (perhaps desirable) limitation of popular self-governance when courts overrule referenda or unelected international organizations put limits on parliamentary sovereignty. However, the article does not do much to help resolve these tensions. The article mainly treats these trade-offs as an either-or-question. In the rank order of legitimacy, only one goal can get first place. And this is safety (climate) and not democracy. But, in fact, institutional design is complex and often a question of degree and combination. We engage these trade-offs by, eg, tilting some rules towards rule of law and others towards pure democracy. I think the real and difficult question is not to decide whether democracy or protecting the climate is more important and then choose one over the other but how to balance multiple desirable goals at once. This is also why the article’s reference to the COVID-19 crisis is misguided. Yes, many countries changed legal rules, formal or informal institutions for decision-making to cope with the pandemic. But the point is that we never gave up on democracy.

Neither in principle nor in practice. Yes, we changed rules but not with the intention of dismantling democracy but with the goal to uphold the democratic principle in difficult circumstances. The article argues that crises not only can legitimize but may require authoritarian governance. This is not true. Democracies have fought the pandemic without giving up being democratic. (And yes, do not get me started on how democracies could have done a better job at it) (Note that the article does discuss specific authoritarian policies such as banning politicians from running for office after failing a climate litmus test, moving away from the either-or-approach that characterizes the main argument which pits democratic vs authoritarian gov) Overall, I find the article troubling for the context in which it is published.

We are going through a 3rd wave of autocratization as @AnnaLuehrmann / @StaffanILindber put it. Pressure on democracy is mounting from multiple sides. In this climate, we need elites who stand up for the principle of self-governing free and equal people.

This does not imply denying trade-offs or existing problems. To the contrary.
Being a committed democrat means acknowledging democracy’s imperfections and working on them Live in a democracy it is easy to become complacent and take freedom for granted. And it is easy to become frustrated for all the things that do not go your way. Stripping other people who disagree with you of their right to participate seems like a quick way to achieve what you think is best for society. But once we open pandora’s box we must be prepared that it will turn against ourselves some time. This article spends three sentences on the value of democracy and multiple pages on its drawbacks and flaws. It does not try to improve democracy or to make democracy compatible with the climate crisis. As a discipline, we should publish and discuss these positions and then reject them. 

You made it to the end of this thread. Congratulations!

Now let me add that @RossMittiga objects that I mischaracterize his article and that he would not advocate for an either/or dichotomy or for dismantling democracy. I see the point but I think my reading reflects the core argument of the article: a hierarchy of desired goals with climate politics first and democracy second. The article argues that crises not only can legitimize but may require authoritarian governance. This is not true. Democracies have fought the pandemic without giving up being democratic. (And yes, do not get me started on how democracies could have done a better job at it) (Note that the article does discuss specific authoritarian policies such as banning politicians from running for office after failing a climate litmus test, moving away from the either-or-approach that characterizes the main argument which pits democratic vs authoritarian gov) 

#

4.8 10 votes
Article Rating
180 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick MJD
December 31, 2021 10:51 pm

The COVID-19 lockdowns, many now being ruled unlawful, was just a trial run for “climate lockdowns”. Social “scoring”, as happens in China, will be a thing globally. QR codes, “health passports”. Coming soon! In fact, right now, some countries put yellow stickers on people who “don’t conform”. We have seen this before.

Redge
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 1, 2022 1:24 am

And that country is ours, the UK, something I would never have thought possible

Klem
Reply to  Redge
January 1, 2022 2:14 am

And mine, Canada. I never thought it was possible either, but we’re seeing it happen every day before our eyes. We baby boomers are doiing this, we’re taking the freedoms that we took for granted away from our children and grandchildren.

My friends think I’m insane.

Only one guy I know understands what I’m saying, he escaped with his life from Venezuela 12 years ago. He has seen it before, he lived it.

Redge
Reply to  Klem
January 1, 2022 2:39 am

I disagree it’s our generation doing this.

As far as I can see this is coming from Generation X and the Millenials which have begotten a generation of Doomers

Last edited 15 days ago by Redge
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Klem
January 1, 2022 3:49 am

“We baby boomers are doiing this, we’re taking the freedoms that we took for granted away from our children and grandchildren.”

What’s this “we” crap? I’m a baby boomer. I’m against taking freedom away from people. You don’t speak for me, and probably many millions of other baby boomers.

Speak for yourself.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 1, 2022 9:48 am

It’s not a generational thing at all. It’s an ideological thing.

You have baby boomers like Brandon and Bernie but also clueless kids like AOC. Stupid comes in all ages.

Kazinski
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 1, 2022 11:28 am

Biden and Sanders aren’t baby boomers, they were both born when Hitler and Stalin were in power, right near the beginning of the war before Fascism and Communism we’re completely discredited.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kazinski
January 1, 2022 12:30 pm

Fair enough, but you merely emphasize my point. The clowns running this show range from pre-boomers (Brandon/Bernie/Pelosi) through boomers (0bozo) to millennials (AOC). Even gen z if you count St Grrrrrrrtreta.

Duane
Reply to  Klem
January 1, 2022 3:54 am

Baby boomers aren’t running any governments today … generational cohorts have zilch to do with human behavior.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Duane
January 1, 2022 7:25 am

Good one

Sara
Reply to  Klem
January 1, 2022 5:39 am

It isn’t “baby boomers”. We’re far too fond of our freedom to do what makes us happy. It’s the next bunch of numbskulls who depend entirely on tech junk to make things happen. When tech fails them, they will be lost, hungry, and very, very cold.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Klem
January 1, 2022 7:15 am

Unfortunately, it’s not the baby boomers running the show anymore. It’s my generation (I’m 48) who are running this CAGW sh*t show.
Interesting comment about your friend from Venezuela. It’s scary that your friend is seeing those parallels with what’s happening now.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
January 1, 2022 9:46 am

I work with the engineering community in Alberta, due to the heavy oil engineering connection thousands of former PDVSA engineers moved here

They are almost 100% opposed to what the federal liberals stand for

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Redge
January 1, 2022 1:59 pm

And France in 2 week’s time.
Basically we non vaccinated then have to wear a yellow star of David,

On ALL state news it is us who are carrying around the plague and infecting everyone then smashing the hospital system by getting really sick, while the vaccinated crowd are doing the right and sensible things…..

Quilter 52
Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 1, 2022 5:28 pm

I dont support people being tagged with yellow anything but right here in Oz at the moment we are pretty close to 95% vaccinated, Omicron is spreading rapidly and of those ill in hospital 80% are unvaccinated. We have around 1000 in hospital so numbers are small compared to many other places around the world. Almost all the others have other conditions that limit their ability to fight the disease. Please be brave and get vaccinated. It really doesn’t hurt, your chances of anything going wrong are pretty small and much smaller indeed than the chance of getting ill from COVID. You may just save our own or a family members life. However, absolutely your choice. Charles Darwin rules apply.

Ruleo
Reply to  Quilter 52
January 1, 2022 7:36 pm

80% are unvaccinated

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, just… no.

Ruleo
Reply to  Quilter 52
January 1, 2022 7:37 pm

BTW how’s that heart disease working out, eh? Clot shots for thee, but hell no for me.

very old white guy
Reply to  Quilter 52
January 2, 2022 4:10 am

BS, writ large, as everywhere else the vaxxed are the problem.

very old white guy
Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 2, 2022 4:10 am

The vaxxed are dangerous carriers of a more severe plague than the whu who flu.

very old white guy
Reply to  Redge
January 2, 2022 4:08 am

Our fathers and grandfathers died in vain in two world wars and other conflicts against just what we are now allowing in our own countries. My comment over many years , that people have become terminally stupid, is as valid as any observation that has been made about our society and people today.

In The Real World
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 1, 2022 2:34 am

The Covid lockdowns had absolutely no effect on total atmospheric CO2 levels ..https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Because the amount of human produced CO2 is so small as to be insignificant .
In the UK for example it is a total of 0.000012% , [ or 1 part in 10 million parts of atmosphere ].

The whole Global Warming scam is about bringing in a new world socialist government ,https://thenewamerican.com/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/
and if they cant do it by taking money from Western economies , then another way is by using Soviet style control of everybody .

Danny Newton
Reply to  In The Real World
January 1, 2022 12:38 pm

Human production of CO2 is such a small fraction of total, this should shock no one. The IPCC used to claim it was only 4% of the total produced by all causes including termites. There seems to be an effort to ignore natural causes and divide up the human portion and pretend the rest does not exist or that it is invisible to incoming solar radiation.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  In The Real World
January 1, 2022 4:44 pm

“Inside every Progressive is a Totalitarian screaming to get out”.- David Horowitz

Duane
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 1, 2022 3:53 am

What COVID lockdowns? Certainly not in the US.

Sara
Reply to  Duane
January 1, 2022 5:40 am

Well, I live in the Midwest and I haven’t been locked down, period. Not once. Doubtful that it will happen.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
January 1, 2022 2:10 pm

I will add here that I am being SNOWED DOWN by Mother Nature’s snow machine. I thought we were having Globull Whamming or something? What happened to the hot air? Politicians get shy on us?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Duane
January 1, 2022 7:17 am

There’s a whole world outside the US that’s been locked down.

Ted
Reply to  Duane
January 1, 2022 12:39 pm

The unemployment rate in the U.S. went from 3.6% to 14% because of COVID lockdowns.

Duane
Reply to  Ted
January 1, 2022 1:56 pm

There were no COVID lockdowns in the US. Certain businesses were regulated , but there were no government orders preventing peiple from leaving their homes. People self isolated in the US.

Ruleo
Reply to  Duane
January 1, 2022 7:38 pm

Absolutely false buddy.

very old white guy
Reply to  Duane
January 2, 2022 4:11 am

Wrong.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 1, 2022 1:44 pm

None of the lockdowns stopped COVID in any way. They only delayed the inevitable. Which leads to more lockdowns, ad infinitum.

homer d
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 2, 2022 3:05 am

I had no idea that at least half of the population are sheep. If people said NO, then lockdowns, mandatory masking, etc would be over. I have never masked and have no fear of sheep.

DonK31
December 31, 2021 11:02 pm

The best form of government is always a benevolent dictatorship with me as dictator. If anyone but me is going to be dictator, not so much. Then a Republic with a list of rights that even the government can not change is better along with written limitations on what the government is allowed to do.

Ron Long
Reply to  DonK31
January 1, 2022 2:48 am

And add a little insurance, like a Second Amendment designed to prevent tyranny?

TonyG
Reply to  DonK31
January 1, 2022 12:17 pm

a Republic with a list of rights that even the government can not change

Why change them when you can just ignore them?

Danny Newton
Reply to  DonK31
January 1, 2022 12:40 pm

Why settle for dictator, while you are dreaming, go for the golden ring. Pretend to be God and demand to be paid to terra-form the planet.

DonK31
Reply to  Danny Newton
January 1, 2022 1:38 pm

God of Science was Fauci’s job. He blew it.

MarkW
Reply to  DonK31
January 1, 2022 1:49 pm

Better is a short list of what the government is allowed to do.

Last edited 14 days ago by MarkW
Iain Russell
December 31, 2021 11:33 pm

A similar article in the Lowy Institute’s Interpreter on ‘centrally planned economies’ to control The Climate Crisis led me to comment that China is the largest CPE in the world and also the world’s largest GHG emitter. Its CPE response to the freezing conditions of this NH winter is to burn more coal. Go figger!

M Courtney
Reply to  Iain Russell
January 1, 2022 3:08 am

The arguments that democracy should not be normative are arising in many fields. It’s not just environmentalism. It is being discussed with respect to surveillance and terrorism too, for example.

With absolutely no proof, I suspect that the beneficiary of changing the normative standards – China – may also be behind funding of these papers.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  M Courtney
January 1, 2022 3:54 am

I wouldn’t put it past the Chicoms. They seem to have a lot of westerners in their pocket, including the President of the United States.

SxyxS
Reply to  M Courtney
January 1, 2022 6:20 am

Considering Chiles past (run by a wall street lackey dictator)it is a little bit surprising that a woke scientific prostitute is crying for dictatorship (under a different name and asslame excuse).
But i guess it’s no tyranny as long ecomarxist do it.

Rich Davis
Reply to  SxyxS
January 1, 2022 10:00 am

That was a period of 17 years that ended 31 years ago. Lots of naive kids with no memory of Pinochet in Chile and certainly no memory of Allende from almost 50 years ago.

MarkW
Reply to  SxyxS
January 1, 2022 1:59 pm

Considering the economic growth that occurred in Chile during that period, maybe the rest of latin america should try their own wall street lackey dictators. I must point out that this dictator also voluntarily left office when he lost a plebiscite. If only socialist dictators would be so enlightened.

SAMURAI
December 31, 2021 11:48 pm

From the start, CAGW has always been a political scheme (not an actual scientific phenomenon) for central governments to steal power, control, authority, and taxpayers’ money.

At least now these tyrants are admitting to their true motivations behind this evil CAGW scam.

This silly CAGW hoax has been going on for 40 years with absolutely none of their hilarious catastrophic prophesies coming even close to reflecting reality.

Contrary to the propaganda, people are getting completely exhausted in trying to live their lives under constant government-generated fear, resentment, irrationality, and hate.

Societies will collapse if 2 + 2= 5, which is what Leftist dogma proposes. We’ve enter a very sad and extremely dangerous chapter in human existence where reason, logic, empirical evidence, moral/ethical absolutes, etc., no longer exist, and tyrant have replaced with evil subjectivism where they are the arbiters of what is acceptable to believe, even if these beliefs are objectively insane and completely devoid from reality…

People are fed up with all this insanity.

n.n
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 1, 2022 12:03 am

2+2 “=” 5 NOW

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 1, 2022 4:04 am

“People are fed up with all this insanity.”

And they are not going to put up with it, especially if the Earth’s climate is the question because the Powers-that-Be are going to have to provide some evidence climate action needs to be taken before most people would be willing to make big sacrifices.

Since there is no evidence that the Earth’s climate and CO2 need fixing, those resisting these climate change restrictions will have the upper hand in the argument. Like we do now.

People who don’t want to be locked down will look for reasons not to be locked down, and then they will listen very carefully to the skeptic argument that the alarmists don’t have any evidence to back up their climate doomsday claims.

The People will say: “Well, do you have evidence?” And that will be the end of that, because as we all know, they don’t have any evidence, just speculation, assumptions and assertions. I don’t think people will allow themselves to have restrictions put on themselves based on that.

Bring it on! The political landscape is getting ready to change.

Btw, Happy New Year to everyone.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 1, 2022 5:19 am

One only has to ask where did the term “snowbirds” come from. Then ask, where would I like to live during the winter! Warm is good! Cold is bad!

I always ask people what exact temperature they think would be the best and generally it is “whatever the science says”!

SAMURAI
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 1, 2022 6:36 am

For the first time in US history, California and New York actually lost about 200,000 and 300,000 (respectively) with most of them fleeing to conservative states like Florida, Texas and Tennessee,

As Leftists abandon logic and reason and implement tyrannical taxes, onerous rules and regulations, rent controls, insane COVID mandates, exploding homelessness population, defund the police policies, allow crime to run amok, let infrastructure deteriorate, mismanage forests causing wildfires, teach: CAGW, gender fluidity, socialism, CRT, and fail to adequately teach math, science and language in public schools, people are fleeing Leftist states in droves.

I can’t wait for this year’s midterm elections where droves of Leftist hacks will tossed out of office.

People are finally getting fed up with Leftists destroying everything.

TonyG
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 1, 2022 12:19 pm

People are finally getting fed up with Leftists destroying everything.

We can only hope. I’m not that optimistic.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 1, 2022 7:21 am

I always ask people what exact temperature they think would be the best and generally it is “whatever the science says”!

So do they consult a scientist where to set their thermostat? I think not! Dealing with an abstraction is one thing, but when it becomes personal then people use their own judgement or preferences. That’s why the ‘climate crisis’ ranks last in polls.

a happy little debunker
December 31, 2021 11:48 pm

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

n.n
Reply to  a happy little debunker
January 1, 2022 12:05 am

The democratic/dictatorial duality.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  a happy little debunker
January 1, 2022 3:04 am

Churchill once said, “I didn’t become prime minister to preside over the dismantling of the British Empire”- so I think he meant democracy for some and being good colonials for the rest.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 1, 2022 8:21 am

The British Empire brought democracy to a lot of countries.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
January 1, 2022 10:15 am

Like so many things in life, it’s complicated. Not all bad, certainly not all good.

“The Nazis did a great job building the Autobahn system” might not be considered an adequate summation of the period of German history from 1933 to 1945.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 1, 2022 4:14 pm

Very true

EOM
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
January 1, 2022 2:21 pm

Magna Carta

DonK31
Reply to  a happy little debunker
January 1, 2022 7:01 am

His attitude changed when the alternatives were to lose the Empire or lose the war.

Ozonebust
Reply to  a happy little debunker
January 1, 2022 9:15 pm

Happy
The USA has not had a free functioning democracy for many years.
Now we see some capitalist rat bags are trying to achieve the same thing via Covid and climate.
Here is a earlier attempt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ozonebust
January 2, 2022 5:48 am

You are speaking of the Bureaucratic Hegemony the US now lives under. We are no longer governed by elected representatives. We are governed by unelected bureaucrats who consider themselves to be Priest-Kings who have a far better understanding of how we should live than we do ourselves. This exists from local government all the way to the national government. The bureaucrats no longer serve us, we serve them.

The Bureaucratic Hegemony is a living entity. It’s own survival is one of its primary instincts. It will never give up power willingly.

Drake
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 2, 2022 9:15 pm

Thus, Drain the Swamp!

Phillip Bratby
December 31, 2021 11:48 pm

She should be locked up (under an authoritarian state run by ….) for her own good.

Geoff Sherrington
January 1, 2022 12:03 am

Has any government taken the preliminary step of polling its voters to see if they want authoritarian measures imposed on them?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 1, 2022 12:37 am

No need. There are always those willing to follow and enforce.

TonyG
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 1, 2022 12:21 pm

There are always those willing to follow and enforce.

More than you might think, as has been clearly demonstrated over the last two years.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 1, 2022 1:34 am

They don’t have the guts to do that, because they know that in a fair vote, with the question clearly and transparently expressed, those against authoritarian measures would easily outvote those for them.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Neil Lock
January 1, 2022 3:06 am

Plus, it wouldn’t be too healthy for the authorities so stupid to offer such a questionnaire.

TonyG
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 1, 2022 12:22 pm

“Would you prefer democracy or authoritarianism? Make sure you choose correctly.”

Drake
Reply to  Neil Lock
January 2, 2022 9:16 pm

Yep, that is what happened in Switzerland == NOT.

Redge
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 1, 2022 2:53 am

The UK convened a carefully selected randomly selected citizens* climate council to “advise” the government on how to tackle climate change, and the gov has already refused a referendum on Net Zero citing this document

*We’re not citizens BoJo, we’re subjects with additional rights!

Willem Post
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 1, 2022 7:02 am

The US Media are the whores aiding and abetting the wannabe Dem/Prog eco-MARXISTS.

That duo will try to decide your fate, just as they did regarding the 2020 Elections, which features, for starters,

1) just walk in open borders to multi-culturize the US
2) 6.8%/y inflation, that erodes buying power of fixed income folks
3) businesses not able to hire people, because they get free COVID manna checks from heaven
4) multi-$trillion annual budget deficits
5) $trillion-plus annual trade deficits
6) near bankruptcy of the Social Security and Medicare Systems
6) please, be free to add to the list

Last edited 15 days ago by Willem Post
Willem Post
Reply to  Willem Post
January 1, 2022 2:45 pm

Addition to my comment:

Here is an excerpt of my BBB article

Distrust in Government

I am not surprised at the lack of public trust in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. The games of smoke and mirrors played in Washington are off-the-charts outrageous.
 
Never, ever, has there been such a level of deceit, as Democrats have inflicted on the US People, since January 2021, using a controversial election in 2020 (see Appendix), to obtain government power, to relentlessly implement:
 
– An increased size and intrusiveness of the federal government
– A major change in US demographics by means of just-walk-in, anybody-is-welcome, open borders 
– Increased Democrat command/control over the federal government and the American people to “Remake America”
 
However, Dem/Progs made a fatal mistake. 

– They intended to use top-down, command/control of the very-inefficient federal government to very-expensively “Remake America”. 
– Their strategy is a highly un-American approach, significantly different from the history of US economic development. 
– They never mentioned the words “private enterprise”.

In contrast, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” specifically did not rely on government. MAGA relied on: 

– Eliminating business-stifling government rules and regulations 
– Freeing up the creative energies of the American people 
– Putting America and the American people first again, within secure borders

Here is an example of Dem/Progs trying to force their visions onto the American people by various underhanded methods, as discussed below:
 
“Build Back Better” Would Cost $4.490 Trillion Over the Next Decade, if Provisions Were Made to Last 10 Years
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/build-back-better-would-cost-3-95-trillion-overt-the-next-decade
 

David John
January 1, 2022 12:08 am

To the proponent of this lunacy, I notice that Hobbes gets a mention, but not Calvin. Why? What about Wallace and Gromit? The Wiggles? Monty Python? Mister Rogers? BC? The Wizard of Id? Bob Newhart? Flip Wilson? Come on, man!

Doug
January 1, 2022 12:20 am

It doesn’t take much to bring out the Nazi in some people

gringojay
Reply to  Doug
January 1, 2022 12:36 am

Recruiters are filling the ranks.

82F9E68C-C84E-4C0B-9202-8AD2255C676C.jpeg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doug
January 1, 2022 4:12 am

Yes, there are a lot of little petty dictators around. Give them a little authority and they are bound to abuse it, whether it is the President of the United States, or some guy being appointed head animal control officer. The authority goes to their heads and they start thinking they are the smartest person in the world whose ideas and thoughts are beyond question, and everyone should obey because the petty dictator wants it that way.

Power corrupts a lot of people. Everyone wants to be in control of their own environment. Some people go overboard with it when put in a postion of authority.

Willem Post
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 1, 2022 7:16 am

Tom,

Biden does not decide anything, just as any other demented person, who

1) needs prepared note cards on what to say,
2) is forbidden to talk to the press,
3) cannot read from a teleprompter, because he does not understand what was written for him.
4) who did not even campaign to get “elected”

ECO-MARXIST handlers, aka, the White House staff, and appointees in various federal departments are calling the shots.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 1, 2022 2:06 pm

Mr “Jupiter” MAC=cretin

Mr ‘paranoid about being so short” / mediocre KGB hack/MIELKE STOOGE -“Vlad the poisoner” Putin

Rich Davis
Reply to  Doug
January 1, 2022 10:17 am

We should call them NetZs

fretslider
January 1, 2022 12:51 am

The big problem with this paper is the fact that there is no climate crisis to begin with

We have a parliamentary dictatorship and no way of getting rid of it

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
January 1, 2022 4:19 am

“The big problem with this paper is the fact that there is no climate crisis to begin with”

That *is* the problem.

If the authorities try to impose restrictions on society over CO2, then I predict there will be a lot more people turning to the skeptic side of the argument. People will be more interested in the nuances of the issue because now it affects their lives directly. If they learn the nuances, they will realize the climate alarmists are just blowing smoke when they claim there is a climate emergency.

It’s time we forced the alarmists to prove their case, or admit they don’t have enough evidence to be making the predictions they are making. Placing harsh, expensive restrictions on people over CO2 will be what forces the issue.

Willem Post
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 1, 2022 7:18 am

Tom,
Do not underestimate the Media

TonyG
Reply to  Willem Post
January 1, 2022 12:30 pm

Also, do not underestimate people’s blind trust in the media, despite knowing that they’ve been lied to repeatedly.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
January 2, 2022 7:54 am

I know, the Leftwing Media is the most dangerous organization there is to the personal freedoms of everyone. Democracies cannot function properly if the people are told lies all the time.

The radical Democrats wouldn’t have a chance at the polls if the Leftwing Media were not promoting them 24 hours per day,

That’s what makes them so dangerous, they enable the radical Democrats. And of course, we are seeing exactly what happens when radical Democrats get the political power. Chaos ensues.

Mac
Reply to  fretslider
January 1, 2022 4:55 am

There is an intelligence and critical thinking crisis however.

marty
January 1, 2022 12:59 am

Does he really believe that China and Russia are better at coping with the so-called climate emergency? I am convinced of the opposite!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  marty
January 1, 2022 4:22 am

I think the Chicoms currenly have 13 million Chinese citizens locked down in one province because of the Wuhan virus spreading wildly over there, and there are reports of stavation among the people because they can’t get access to food because of the lockdown.

It doesn’t look like the authoritarian Chicoms are doing better than the rest of the world with regard to the Wuhan virus.

Willem Post
Reply to  marty
January 1, 2022 7:21 am

They are coping much better, because their smart people do not buy the eco bullshit, and they control the Media.

As a result, the EU, US, etc., will slide into irrelevance, as they exhaust themselves tilting at wind mills

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Willem Post
January 1, 2022 12:43 pm

they exhaust themselves tilting at wind mills

And they’re building windmills at a loss … just to tilt at.

Keitho(@bat1heavy)
Editor
January 1, 2022 1:46 am

Suddenly we find Communism installed and any cares for the climate and environment are in the rearview mirror. Idealogues and useful idiots in lab coats achieve what the USSR and the CCP struggled to bring about, the destruction of the democratic ideal.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Keitho
January 1, 2022 4:28 am

It’s our own stupid leaders who are harming Democracy.

Therapeutics will eventually put an end to the Wuhan virus lockdowns, and this will help Democracy, by taking away from the authoritarians the reason for having lockdowns in the first place.

I don’t think large-scale societal restrictions over CO2 will ever get off the launching pad. When people start to hurt over climate change restrictions, they are going to start asking questions, and the alarmists don’t have the answers.

January 1, 2022 1:52 am

I think it was around the time of WW2 that Bertrand Russell wrote “The open society and its enemies”. He knew that without democracy there can be no truth or transparency in the ruling class.

Without this the climate agenda would likely be conveniently dropped, behind a wall of falsehood and manufactured data.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Phil Salmon
January 1, 2022 4:01 am

It was Karl Popper wot rote that.

Vincent Causey
January 1, 2022 2:08 am

Well, I think I’ve spotted a slight flaw in the plan. The problem is, if you are a democracy to begin with, you need the consent of the people to replace the current democratic institutions in order to create the dictatorship.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Vincent Causey
January 1, 2022 2:21 am

I think the G3P lot have already thought about that, Vincent.

Install a load of controlled, useful idiots in puppet governments & QUANGOs to tell us what we voted for.

There are also allegedly Dominion ‘voting machines’ to avoid the need for tyrants to have to bother to be democratically-elected, as they initially were in the past.

I believe their hope in their Baldrick-esque “cunning plan” is that years of gaslighting will stop the peasants being so revolting. Only time will tell.

Willem Post
Reply to  Vincent Causey
January 1, 2022 7:23 am

Keep dreaming
SCOTUS packing is next on the agenda, after the BBB and Election-fixing laws

Last edited 15 days ago by Willem Post
Ed Zuiderwijk
January 1, 2022 2:12 am

I never thought I would see Mo Salah in a piece about some perfect latin American idiot.

(it’s graffiti on a backwall of the St John’s shopping centre in central Liverpool)

Mark Broderick
January 1, 2022 2:12 am

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Kevsta
January 1, 2022 2:15 am

Ha. If they think the public are getting a bit uppity about Covid restrictions at this point just try locking them down because weather. Its like a toddler playing with a hand grenade.

ozspeaksup
January 1, 2022 2:35 am

hope mr mittiga has family that will visit him after hes lost his job and a few angry people “talk” to him severely
the growing rage globally over the inept and near totalitarian lockdowns should be a warning

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ozspeaksup
January 1, 2022 4:34 am

Yes, that ought to tell us something. People are getting fed up enough to come out into the streets.

Therapeutics for the Wuhan virus will save the day for Democracy. Once it is realized that therapeutics can turn the Wuhan virus into a mild disease, the authorities will lose their power over the people, because the people will reject their orders.

Joseph Zorzin
January 1, 2022 2:58 am

Any talk of terminating democracy to save the Earth, by nerdy intellectuals will find a well armed public who don’t agree.

Ulric Lyons
January 1, 2022 3:15 am

“A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety.”

Double nonsense. Indiscriminate and arbitrary restrictions on healthy and naturally immune people are thoroughly illegitimate, and the threat of climate change only exists in bogus and unphysical models of the climate.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
January 1, 2022 4:08 am

“A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become pointless techniques of government. Climate change poses no threat to public safety.”

Yes, easily fixed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
January 1, 2022 4:44 am

“Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety.”

This author couldn’t prove that if his life depended on doing so. This is not science, it is talking points. That’s what Alarmist Climate Science is: Talking points.

People are not going to accept drastic restrictions over talking points. They will want to have a good reason for having restrictions placed upon them. The alsrmists dont have good reasons. They have exaggeration and distortion.

Last edited 15 days ago by Tom Abbott
Duane
January 1, 2022 3:52 am

Demanding authoritarian control over people’s lives is not even just “a feature, not a bug” of warmunism … it is the entire underlying point of warmunism, which is merely an excuse, like all dictators have always used, to strip people of their right to self determination.

There is no possible way for governments to be granted authoritarian power in just one area of policy, and Democratic in all others. A government is either authoritarian, or it is democratic, each condition being fully exclusive of the other. The infamous “slippery slope” might be said to apply if we allowed authoritarianism only for purposes of saving Gaia. Yet the warmunists actually would dispense altogether with the slippery slope and go full on black hole/event horizon on us, demanding immediate authoritarian powers over all human activities.

Warmunism is merely the Trojan Horse of dictatorship.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
January 1, 2022 2:18 pm

I’m wondering how long till griff pops up to inform us that only paranoid people would associate the global warming movement with socialism.

2hotel9
January 1, 2022 4:07 am

Good idea! Lets start with them. Round up all these leftist enemies of the human race and put them to hard labor, make them live the 1st BC lifestyle they keep trying to force on us.

Tom
January 1, 2022 4:18 am

I’d say, scratch an environmentalist, and you’ll find a communist, but not of the ruling political elite kind, but of the useful idiot kind. I allow that many people who would invite in totalitarian rule are do-gooders who want to help people. C.S. Lewis understood the tyranny of the “omnipotent moral busybody”. However, I reject the notion that the response to the pandemic is, as some would say, a dry run for a climate change driven authoritarian government. First, the threat from COVID is very real; it’s actually happening. Globally, millions of people are dead. The first task of organized society is to protect itself, to provide safety and security for its constituents. The mask mandates, lockdowns, travel restrictions, and vaccinations are in response to a real situation, not a hypothetical one. Furthermore, I think the substantial majority of people have consented to this because they can see the risks for themselves. It’s not a computer model of a pandemic, but an actual pandemic. Given that these actions have the consent of the majority of the governed (including me), they do not represent authoritarianism, except among the hard-bitten reactionaries who can’t see beyond the end of their nose. Some of these people are actually anti-science types who reject the need to get vaccinated. How much more proof do you need that vaccines are safe and effective? They similarly reject the idea that there is any such thing as a greenhouse effect, the science of which is beyond dispute.

Nabrid Obcsje
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 4:28 am

How much more proof do you need that vaccines are safe and effective?

Pandemic of the vaccinated

Tom
Reply to  Nabrid Obcsje
January 1, 2022 5:06 am

The death rate from COVID in Iceland is 107/million people; in the USA it’s 2,536. Again, how much more? COVID Live – Coronavirus Statistics – Worldometer (worldometers.info)

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 9:52 am

Infection rate is proportional to how many people go shopping in big box store shopping malls…

RickWill
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 5:36 am

They similarly reject the idea that there is any such thing as a greenhouse effect, the science of which is beyond dispute.



Rory Forbes
Reply to  RickWill
January 1, 2022 12:53 pm

Yes, there is a ‘greenhouse effect’. However, with respect to a human component, it’s ineffectual. The only thing we know for sure about increased CO2 is … so far it has been 100% beneficial.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 5:54 am

“The mask mandates, lockdowns, travel restrictions, and vaccinations are in response to a real situation, not a hypothetical one. ”

Yet these hypothetical solutions have not worked. A year and a half later we are still being told that prevention is the only way to go and that these things work, we just need more of them. The definition of insanity on display.

Tom
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 1, 2022 6:03 am
  1. The virus mutates, so infections continue; we don’t have a cure for the common cold yet.
  2. The death rate and hospitalization rate for the unvaccinated is much, much higher than for people who have been vaccinated.
  3. Do you deny that people are dying from COVID?
Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 6:59 am

To your point #1: That was exactly my point also. But let’s add influenza A and B that that, same scenario.
To your point #2: While that may have some truth to it, depending on if you really believe the “official” statistics and it is reasonable to doubt the validity of them, it is not YOUR place to tell people what they should do for their own health. If you are vaccinated and wear a mask everywhere you should have no fear of those who are not and do not .
To point # 3: Again, the validity of the “official” stats are in question. There is a big difference in dying with COVID and dying from COVID. The doubt comes in because of the political and economic advantages of COVID being the cause of death.

Tom
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 1, 2022 7:11 am

You are suggesting there is a conspiracy to fudge the numbers, not just in the US, but across the world. I can appreciate that some errors or over reporting may exist. Dying with, dying from… people are dying from something, or is that fudged too?

Kazinski
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 11:47 am

Exactly, people who claim China has more than 4,636 covid deaths are conspiracy theorists.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 12:56 pm

Are you tying to appear obtuse for some sort of effect, or does it come naturally?

Willem Post
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 7:30 am

I just visited my VA doctor.
COVID came up.
He said the VA experience was, more than 80% of COVID deaths were merely due to COVID being the straw that broke the camel’s back.

These already weak people were living on borrowed time. Anything could have tipped the scales.

Remember, any death attributed to COVID, means extra federal disbursement to the hospital.

Last edited 15 days ago by Willem Post
Tom
Reply to  Willem Post
January 1, 2022 8:35 am

Ah, so being merely dead isn’t so bad as otherwise kinds of dead; I see. It’s true that the elderly and people with weakened immune systems, etc. are much more susceptible, but if it kills you, it kills you. I’m in a high-risk category due to age, so perhaps I take it more seriously. I agree that there may be some influence in reporting, but ultimately, it is a doctor that signs the death certificate. Doctors are still human, but it’s not some government functionary making the call. I’d invite you to look at the mortality demographics for flu and COVID at these two links:
• Flu deaths in U.S. by age | Statista
• COVID-19 deaths by age U.S. 2021 | Statista

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 12:59 pm

In matters of health, doctors are often the least well informed or likely to be up to date. Also, the media is keeping nearly all opposing opinion well suppressed.

Tom
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 2, 2022 9:38 am

Doctors are human. I am very familiar with medical mistakes on a person level- as in nearly killed me. However, I still go see the doctor when I am sick. What do you do?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom
January 2, 2022 9:56 am

However, I still go see the doctor when I am sick. What do you do?

I try to stay informed, choose my doctors carefully and because they’re human, I don’t believe everything they say.

Tom
Reply to  Tom
January 2, 2022 9:35 am

I see the clapping monkeys are out in force; dissing any post that does not hew to the party line.

RickWill
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 6:07 am

They similarly reject the idea that there is any such thing as a greenhouse effect, the science of which is beyond dispute.

Anyone with the slightest understanding of science would never state that any science is beyond dispute. So I can only assume you are a layman and some further understanding might help.

The “Greenhouse Effect” is a fairy tale. It is easy invalidated by the incorrect notion that atmospheric water vapour is the most powerful “greenhouse gas’. This is simply WRONG. Atmospheric water exists in all three phases – gas, liquid and solid. The solid phase has the most significant influence on the global energy balance; able to turn day into night to knockout 90% of the surface insolation when ocean surface temperature reaches 31C over mutilple days or 30C peak over any year.
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
Atmospheric water is a net cooling agent in the atmosphere. Trying to separate the impacts of the different phases is a fools errand that only naive climate modellers would attempt.

The energy balance on Earth is a function of two key temperature limiting processes. The upper limit of 31C for tropical ocean warm pools due to convective instability and persistent cloud formation (commonly observed as monsoon) and -2C for the lower limit due to sea ice formation lowering the rate of cooling as sea ice insulates water below. As soon as I see someone playing with MODTRAN output to explain the energy balance or talking about CO2 forcing, I know they are in need of a clue because they have none.

Even the notion that ocean heat uptake is indicative of an energy imbalance due to “greenhouse gasses” is WRONG. The global ocean surface temperature is increasing because the net water cycle is slowing down as insolation over ocean reduces while insolation over land is increasing. That process has been occurring since 1585 and will continue for the next 10,000 years as the current precession cycle advances.

I agree on the Covid aspects that the majority of people recognised the risk. Australia, for example, has so far benefitted hugely from the broad compliance of the population but covid “rules” were wearing thin. Hopefully Omicron will prove to be more effective in engendering immunity and less harmful than the vaccines.

Tom
Reply to  RickWill
January 1, 2022 6:21 am

We have the “law of gravity”; no one disputes that gravity exists. This is while we cannot fully explain why we have a “law of gravity”, but its behavior is dependable and repeatable. Similarly, we have a “Stefan-Blotzmann Law”, which describes how radiant heat transfer works. It is dependable and repeatable even though I doubt we have fundamental theory to explain why it works the way it does. Because we have an understanding of how radiant heat transfer works and understand how it works with gases, we know there is a greenhouse effect. It’s not disputable.

The “Greenhouse Effect” is a fairy tale.

After you wrote that everything else was unnecessary.

I have a degree in chemical engineering. I’m not sure if that qualifies me a lay person or not.

I guess I should ask, exactly what do you think the greenhouse effect means?

Last edited 15 days ago by Tom
Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 10:43 am

As another layman with a degree in Chem E, I agree with you completely, Tom.

There seems to be an ideological desire to simplify the scientific problem. Instead of acknowledging that there is a mechanism that reduces cooling and many other complex phenomena that on balance do not result in a crisis, it’s more convenient to claim that the phenomenon that is admittedly badly named a greenhouse effect doesn’t exist at all.

RickWill
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 1, 2022 6:39 pm

There seems to be an ideological desire to simplify the scientific problem.

The idealogical desire is to for most to conform. Not something I am inclined to do absence evidence. The GHE effect is nonsense because it starts with an assumption that water in the atmosphere has a single phase (gas) and clouds are something completely independent of said gas.

If you want to learn how the energy balance is achieved on planet earth read the linked paper:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
Challenge any detail you like but you will need a good understanding of physics to carry on a conversation.

RickWill
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 6:09 pm

I guess I should ask, exactly what do you think the greenhouse effect means?

I have no idea of what it means as it is a fairy tale with no scientific merit that people, who do not know how Earth’s energy balance actually works, dream this nonsense up.

There are powerful feedback mechanisms that tightly limit the temperature of the global oceans to the range -2C to 30C.

The GHE is some nonsense that tries to separate the phases of water in the atmosphere to separate functions. Clouds (a combination of water liquid and solid) are treated separately to the vapour. It is nonsense. They cannot be separated. Cloud persistence over tropical oceans limit the energy uptake in an exquisite and powerful feedback system we see at work every day limiting the maximum SST to 30C.
comment image

Globally, the atmosphere over land is always releasing heat absorbed at the ocean surface. So land is always net energy losers and oceans always net energy absorbers. The oceans control the heat uptake and they have regulated upper and lower temperature limits.

If there were no atmosphere and an optical clear layer placed over the oceans then the surface of Earth would be warmer than it is now. On average atmospheric water is a cooling agent as is the land in its current location. The GHE is simple nonsense; conceived by people who do not understand how convective cloud forms and how ocean temperature regulation works.

For decades now, the climate models have been predicting rising temperature in the Nino 34 region. In the same period, that reliable measurements have been conducted, it has remained trendless over those decades.

Open ocean surface temperature is stuck between hard limits of -2C to 30C. Atmospheric processes ensure the upper limit due to the properties of atmospheric water – water vapour is only a trivial part. Solid water dominates the energy balance. Starting with an assumption that the amount of solid water (reflective cloud) is unrelated to the surface temperature is where the GHE theory becomes a fairy tale. Anyone starting with that basic assumption is doomed to fail.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  RickWill
January 1, 2022 10:08 am

Rick, you need to seriously study some meteorology textbooks, especially the radiative heat transfer chapters. Sometimes you have reached the right answer using the wrong logic…but anyone who believes the GHE is a fairy tale or that WV is not the most powerful greenhouse gas is no different than a flat Earther….You can oppose the ridiculous extremist stories without resorting to false statements that hurt your position.

Rich Davis
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 1, 2022 11:02 am

Exactly right, DMac
To make blatantly wrong claims in support of the correct conclusion is to undermine the correct conclusion.

RickWill
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 1, 2022 6:43 pm

To make blatantly wrong claims in support 

As I asked, read the linked paper and point out where and why it is wrong:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf

If you cannot do that then your claim that there is a GHE relies on someone telling you such with no ability to actually understand. It demonstrates your gullibility.

RickWill
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 1, 2022 6:27 pm

Rick, you need to seriously study some meteorology 

My work on convective instability is world leading. No one has identified the persistence of convective cloud formation to the same degree and precision I have. I have even identified the exception of the Persian Gulf as one of the few locations where convective instability fails to regulate ocean surface temperature to the 30C limit.

If you want to challenge my understanding then you will need to do a lot better than suggesting I read text books that lead the incompetent on a journey of failure. Maybe you have never done original work to know when you have achieved a level of understanding that is beyond the current text books.

Read the linked paper and identify what a text book is going to provide on ocean surface temperature regulation through convective instability that is not adequately described:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf

No atmospheric model is able to model the atmospheric column to the resolution I am using to identify the cloud persistency.

Despite all the evidence that open ocean surfaces regulate to 30C there are climate models predicting that ocean surface will eventually reach 40C – pure bunkum.

Atmospheric water has a residence time of 7 days and it varies over a 25% range in a year with the minimum occurring when ocean heat uptake is at its maximum. To think there is some positive feedback mechanism involved with atmospheric water is laughable in the extreme. This is the sort of garbage science that the GHE leads people into. It is a fairy tale with no basis in reality.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 6:20 am

 First, the threat from COVID is very real; it’s actually happening.
____________________________________________________

I’m rather sure the media is cherry picking exaggerating and propagandizing what ever truths about Covid that there are.

For example, the media reports an increase in deaths of children due to Covid as a percentage, but doesn’t report the number of those deaths.

Tom
Reply to  Steve Case
January 1, 2022 6:35 am

The media exaggerates everything, especially if it’s bad news. But where is the data to show the degree of exaggeration. You are just speculating, and in order for the data to be very wrong would require the complicity of a lot of health care people and others. In other words, a conspiracy.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 10:48 am

Well Tom, there I would have to disagree with you. When a small group sets the standard for reporting rules and government payments can eliminate insurance company costs and simplify hospital reporting and reimbursement, there are powerful structural incentives in place for individuals who are merely pursuing self-interest to act in a coordinated manner without the need of collusion or conspiracy.

Tom
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 2, 2022 4:17 am

Rich, I should not have used the word conspiracy. You can, of course, have groupthink at work, just as we see with climate alarmism. There does not have to be an explicit conspiracy in order for people to behave as if there was one.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 12:36 pm

in order for the data to be very wrong would require the complicity of a lot of health care people and others. In other words, a conspiracy.

Do you hold the same position with regard to the CAGW crowd? In accordance with your statement, that would mean it’s a conspiracy, right?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 2:37 pm

You speak of “conspiracy” in the same way true believers of media bilge do … gaslighting anyone who suggests they exist. There are far more conspiracies than are generally believed but it doesn’t require one for all the usual suspects to get behind a lie when it’s expedient.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 2:16 pm

“Furthermore, I think the substantial majority of people have consented to this because they can see the risks for themselves. It’s not a computer model of a pandemic, but an actual pandemic.”

Bollox. 1-2% of people die of it.
Our family has just had a bought of real nasty FLU, which is now doing the rounds.
It’s put all 4 in bed repeatedly with temps up to 39-40C for up to 4 days.

That makes Covid look like a comfort cake walk…not forgetting in an average nasty flu year more die of it than have of Sars-cov.

Having had both I know I prefer not to have flu, and masks don’t work for either, they are simply a religious ceremony akin to throwing incense around by priests in expensive fancy clothes.

Hey but don’t let me get in the way of your crazy non-science!

Tom
Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 2, 2022 4:20 am

Since vaccines have become available, why do we see the death rate from COVID higher in counties that voted for Trump? Would you suggest that the pro-Trump counties are over-reporting? Or is it because those are the people most likely to eschew the jab? Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates : Shots – Health News : NPR

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom
January 2, 2022 1:46 pm

Tom, it’s not ideology on the part of those doing reporting. The ideology is possibly driving those setting the reporting rules.

Red counties have the same exact incentives as blue. The incentives are financial. If it’s not covid, Uncle Sugar doesn’t necessarily pay, it may have to be reimbursed by insurance or written off.

No hospital administrator (trying to stave off bankruptcy at all times) is going to code a treatment as other than covid-related that they can get away with calling covid, if that reduces the amount or delays the timing of reimbursement.

It is very unlikely that almost nobody died of the flu last year, let’s not pretend that worthless cloth masks did that.

I’m not saying as some do that covid is a harmless cold or a total hoax. Many people really died.

It looks like Tony Fauci may have illegally funded the Chinese lab that may have incompetently released this k!ller on the world. That needs to be rigorously investigated.

And it looks like a lot of people are getting very rich off of the opportunity, not least of all, potentially Fauci himself. Is it Munchausen by proxy?

To the extent that they are not complicit in the root cause and have not immorally acted to block the use of effective therapies, I applaud the free enterprise system that has developed even partially effective treatments. Donald Trump is right to be proud of his accomplishment.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tom
January 1, 2022 3:44 pm

Some of these people are actually anti-science types who reject the need to get vaccinated

I don’t reject the need to get vaccinated at all. Unfortunately, these covid 19 vaccines are pretty useless at best, and dangerous at worst. We’ve never had a successful vaccine against any covid virus, and that hasn’t changed.

Everyone I know who has been vaccinated has had a nasty reaction to it, typically for multiple days. Not just the first one, but the same reaction to the second one. That indicates quite clearly that the first one didn’t improve the body’s defences, even against the vaccine, let alone against the virus.

Myself, I had no reaction either time, but nobody knows why it’s so varied.

Tom
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 2, 2022 9:07 am

I’ve had two shots and a booster; mild reaction from the booster, which is what nearly everyone I know has experienced. Either mild or no reaction at all. If vaccines don’t work, how to you explain this? Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates : Shots – Health News : NPR

Steve4192
January 1, 2022 4:50 am

I have two thoughts on this:

One, if his theory is that authoritarian governments are better equipped to fight climate change than democratic ones, how does he explain that the world’s #1 emitter of CO2 (and nobody else is even close) is authoritarian China. While the democratic west has slowly and surely reduced it’s CO2 footprint for the past 30 years, authoritarian China’s CO2 emissions have positively skyrocketed during the same period. It doesn’t seem to me that his thesis holds up.

Two, he assumes that this authoritarian power is only temporary, but history shows us VERY clearly that authoritarian governments only seek to expand power, and do not surrender power once they have it. Liberty surrendered to the government is never returned willingly. The only way to get it back is to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steve4192
January 1, 2022 11:00 am

Deserves more than a simple up vote
👍👍👍

peterg
Reply to  Steve4192
January 2, 2022 12:53 pm

The only way anthropogenic warming is an issue is because a minority of people in democracies are convinced it is. No democracy, no global warming action. Global warming activists would be best advised to push democracy for all its worth.

Sara
January 1, 2022 5:36 am

 Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? – article

Oh, golly! Someone ask all those people who simply disappeared when they displeased Stalin. He had a team of experts who could make anyone disappear in every way, including retouched photos, unmarked mass “graves”, delisting, erasure from every possible thing.

Mao wasn’t much better, and neither were Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. When my brother and sister and I were little kids, our dad served Sunday dinner at the table, and got mad at us if his adult-sized portions weren’t consumed. He’d yell at us “Millions of people are starving to death in China”. My smart-ass response was “Well, send it to them. I can’t eat all of this.” When you are six, your stomach isn’t the size of an adult’s stomach, and our dad had a much bigger appetite than we three Small Persons. And now? There is a museum in Cambodia with a display of the bones of people who were executed and starved to death by the Khmer Rouge. Ib regard to Mao’s indifference to starving Chinese people (10 year drought), one Chinese man documented it and it was smuggled out of China to the rest of the world.

Anyone who thinks or even suggests that totalitarianism is the answer to “fixing” climate change needs a strong dose of his own medicine. At least these people are actually stupid enough to let us know what they “think”. On the other hand, no one is forcing them to live in freedom, right? It must be painful for them to realize that the rest of us think they are so stupid they don’t even know they are alive.

Force totalitarianism on people to “stop” climate change? You first.

Bruce Cobb
January 1, 2022 5:40 am

Yes, let’s sacrifice democracy on the altar of an imaginary threat, the so-called “climate crisis”. Good plan. The spin on this totally bogus idea is that it is not too late to avoid sacrificing democracy, as long as we do what the climate crisis ideology demands. It’s like a gun to the head of democracy. “Do this, or democracy gets it”.

Tom
January 1, 2022 5:52 am

The issue to me, is not “Will democracy get environmental decisions wrong?”, it’s “Will authoritarian governance get environmental decisions right?”

In the history of the world, authoritarian governance has always led to ignorance, poverty and corruption. Believing that it will lead to environmental utopia ignores historical precedence.

.

Thomas Gasloli
January 1, 2022 6:25 am

Authoritarians do what authoritarians do: Covid, Climate, etc., just the excuse to do what they already wanted to do.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
January 1, 2022 3:17 pm

Authoritarians adopt destructive Covid and “climate” policies to gain power, not because they have any moral, ethical or scientific commitment to “doing the right thing”. They have no interest in that at all … ever.

markl
January 1, 2022 7:16 am

The Marxists have shed their stealth and decided it’s time for the push to force their ideology globally. Agenda 21 is their roadmap. CC is just one of the wedges to divide societies so they can rebuild them under their guidance.

George Daddis
January 1, 2022 8:22 am

Start with a false premise and you can then argue any conclusion you wish.
“Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety… [ than COVID].”

Where’s your data?

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
January 1, 2022 8:23 am

So, what exactly makes this journal “prestigious”?

Ted
January 1, 2022 8:37 am

“severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government”

Common doesn’t equal legitimate.

January 1, 2022 8:50 am

Among the references the paper cites is …

Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Could that be for any other purpose besides suggesting that material from skeptic climate scientists is unworthy of consideration?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Russell Cook
January 1, 2022 3:22 pm

How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Except that is precisely opposite to her intent. The fact is; only a tiny few “scientists” have set the narrative, while the rest merely go along to get along.

Slowroll
January 1, 2022 9:13 am

Well yes, the warmunists want an authoritarian government to address climate change because they realize that people in Democracies know it’s codswallop. Thereby they have proved that they are watermelons.

Pat Frank
January 1, 2022 9:36 am

For those who think Covid-19 is a crisis

Executive Summary: Covid-19 is no more dangerous than the seasonal flu.

I. The extent of comorbidities in Covid-listed deaths: The CDC admitted that 94+% of deaths assigned to Covid-19 included an average of four (4) comorbidities.[1]

“For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.”

Likewise, Kompaniyets, et al., reported that 94.9% of patients with severe Covid-19 (N = 540,667) suffered from at least one comorbidity.[2]

II. Deaths from Covid-alone: The CDC reported a total of 764,473 Covid-19 deaths in the United States from 1 March 2020 through 17 November 2021, i.e., across 20.5 months.[3]

From the comorbidity statements of CDC or Kompaniyets, et al., an estimated 5.5% = 42,046 or 5.1% = 38,988 deaths, respectively, were caused by Covid-19 alone.

Annualized, the total burden of death per year from Covid-19 is 447,496. Deaths from Covid-19 alone are 24,612 or 22,822, respectively. The Covid-alone adjustments allow comparison with annual flu deaths.

III The influenza-alone death rate. The CDC annual influenza-associated deaths range between 12,000-52,000 over 2010 through 2020, with a mean annual death rate of 33,400.[4] However, a large hospitalization study (N = 13,297) indicated that only about 22% of influenza-associated deaths occur without underlying ultimate cause of death (UCOD) comorbidities.[5] The adjusted mean annual estimated death rate from influenza-alone as UCOD is then about 7348.

The CDC reported a comparable average annual influenza-caused death rate of 6309±3801 over 1976-2007 including underlying pneumonia.[6] Deaths from pneumonia and other acute respiratory diseases (ARDs) are heavily correlated with influenza and have been reasonably assigned to an influenza UCOD.[5]

IV Treatment-renormalized Covid death rate: The estimated Covid-alone annual death rate is 3.6-3.9 times the reported annual rate of influenza-caused deaths. However, this direct comparison is not justified, because of differences in treatment.

Early ambulatory out-patient treatment is standard protocol for influenza,[7, 8] but has been suppressed or excluded for those presenting Covid-19.[9-13] The NIH Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines document does not mention early treatment, while the CDC recommendation mentions only in-patient intravenous monoclonal antibodies.

Physician-recommended early treatments have produced an average 67% reduction in Covid-19 mortality.[14-20] Normalization of Covid-19-alone mortality by the risk reduction fraction achieved with early treatment procedurally aligns treatment of Covid-19 with treatment of influenza.

Early treatment renormalization by 0.33 yields an estimated UCOD intrinsic annual mortality rate of 7531 (Kompaniyets) to 8122 (CDC) deaths from Covid-19. This range is entirely consonant with the influenza UCOD death rate (Figure below).

Figure: Comparison of US annual deaths from influenza or Covid-19 as the ultimate cause of death (UCOD) under a regimen of early treatment. The uncertainty bars reflect the range of annual deaths over 1976-2007 (influenza) or the 2.1% statistical uncertainty in the CDC modeled estimate of deaths (Covid-19 burden) as of September 2021.[21]
 
References:
[1]      CDC, C.f.D.C. Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics. COVID-19 Death Data and Resources 2021 [Last accessed: 14 November 2021]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities.
[2]      Kompaniyets, L., et al., Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020-March 2021. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2021. 18(p. E66 https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd18.210123.
[3]      CDC. Covid Data Tracker Weekly Review. 2021 [Last accessed: 22 November 2021]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/.
[4]      CDC. Disease Burden of Flu. 2021 [Last accessed: 14 November 2021]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/.
[5]      Glezen, W.P., M. Decker, and D.M. Perrotta, Survey of Underlying Conditions of Persons Hospitalized with Acute Respiratory Disease during Influenza Epidemics in Houston, 1978–1981. American Review of Respiratory Disease, 1987. 136(3): p. 550-555 https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm/136.3.550.
[6]      CDC, Estimates of Deaths Associated with Seasonal Influenza — United States, 1976–2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 2010. 59(33): p. 1057-1062
[7]      Uyeki, T.M., Influenza. Ann Intern Med, 2017. 167(5): p. Itc33-itc48
[8]      Krammer, F., et al., Influenza. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2018. 4(1): p. 3
[9]      Hope, J.R. (2021) Ivermectin – Truth and Totalitarianism. The Desert Review,  URL: https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/ivermectin—truth-and-totalitarianism/article_2e03f334-252f-11ec-a086-eb72bc65ec02.html Date Accessed: 21 November 2021.
[10]    Niemiec, E., COVID-19 and misinformation: Is censorship of social media a remedy to the spread of medical misinformation? EMBO Rep, 2020. 21(11): p. e51420
[11]    CDC. Information for Clinicians on Investigational Therapeutics for Patients with COVID-19. Covid-19 2021 [Last accessed: 24 November 2021]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html.
[12]    NIH. Therapeutic Management of Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19. Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines 2021 [Last accessed: 24 November 2021]; NIH recommendations for treatment of Covid-19]. Available from: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/hospitalized-adults–therapeutic-management/.
[13]    CDC. Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Covid-19 2021 [Last accessed: 24 November 2021]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-home-care.html.
[14]    FLCCC. HCQ for Covid-19. COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,155 studies 2021 [Last accessed: 20 November 2021]; Available from: https://c19hcq.com/.
[15]    FLCCC. Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 66 studies. COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,155 studies 2021 [Last accessed: 20 November 2021]; Available from: https://ivmmeta.com/.
[16]    Accinelli, R.A., et al., Hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin in COVID-19: The association between time to treatment and case fatality rate. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 2021. 44(p. 102163 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893921002040.
[17]    McCullough, P.A., et al., Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Rev Cardiovasc Med, 2020. 21(4): p. 517-530
[18]    McCullough, P.A., et al., Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am J Med, 2021. 134(1): p. 16-22
[19]    Procter, B.C., et al., Clinical outcomes after early ambulatory multidrug therapy for high-risk SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection. Rev Cardiovasc Med, 2020. 21(4): p. 611-614
[20]    Procter, B.C., et al., Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science, 2021. 6(03): p. 219 – 221 https://ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/1100.
[21]    CDC. Estimated Covid-19 Burden. Covid-19 2021 [Last accessed: 22 November 2021]; Estimated COVID-19 Infections, Symptomatic Illnesses, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html.
 

Covid vs Influenza Deaths.png
Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 1, 2022 1:11 pm

This is an executive summary .. of what?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Curious George
January 1, 2022 1:25 pm

Read the comment and find out.

Pat from kerbob
January 1, 2022 9:43 am

I think we are approaching a point where these people will need to be removed? Prevented from speaking? Jailed? Worse?

Here in canada, referring to the “climate crisis”, Trudeau openly mused about how great it is that China can change policy and turn on a dime with their form of government.
Of course, they do so by bulldozing human rights and actual humans.

These people are so incredibly dangerous

Al Miller
January 1, 2022 10:12 am

The call to authoritarianism will be the battle call

Kazinski
January 1, 2022 11:22 am

Milton Friedman maybe dead but he had a few things to say on this topic, it’s actually not a very new idea:

“Nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program.”

“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

“Where in the world do you find these Angels to organize society for us?”

skiman
January 1, 2022 1:10 pm

Havent read all comments so not sure if others have mentioned this; but surely this is what a well thought out and SUPPORTED constitution is supposed to protect against, the tyranny of the majority. Democracy means many things to many people and there are those who use it to their own advantage. A good constitution however must be supported by all sides of a question, regardless of the question. You change that at your peril and if not done justly you lose your soul.

michael hart
January 1, 2022 1:33 pm

“Yet, it is undeniable that nearly all wealthy democratic states have failed to respond adequately to the climate crisis. “

l’m glad this whackjob thinks this is the case.

MarkW
January 1, 2022 1:55 pm

By contrast, various less affluent authoritarian regimes have been successful in implementing stringent climate policies…”  

Care to name any of these imaginary regimes?

Last edited 14 days ago by MarkW
MarkMcD
January 1, 2022 3:19 pm

It occurs to me we are letting the scumbags get away with something that we should not.

How about we ‘rebrand’ their civilisation-destroying ‘solutions’ and start calling ‘lockdown’ something a little closer to the truth – ‘Lock-Up’!

Even the Sleepers will awaken once they being to realise we are all being locked UP to fulfill an agenda.

Lockdown makes it sound like we’re being made safe – evidence in vast quantity from around the world proves that’s a lie so how about we start renaming it for what it is – lockups.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkMcD
January 1, 2022 3:39 pm

It was always the sick who were forced to quarantine for a specific period. Now everyone gets quarantined at the whim of some government hack and his trained seal “medical team” … permanently; while being forced to take multiple doses of some kind of experimental treatment, misnamed vaccines. Even the natural immunity from surviving an infection is disregarded, forcing people to risk the side effects from ineffective medication.

Walter Sobchak
January 1, 2022 5:39 pm

The same excuses for every tyrant in history:

It’s The Same Old Song

Brett Nelms
January 1, 2022 6:25 pm

Ill be glad when we can talk about the subject with facts and adults. There is zero evidence of climate change apart from Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall. These same folks seek the separation of Church and state but the desire for the state to control them. What a confused bunch. You would rather a Govt that creates problems (Covid) then controls you through shutdowns and the like.

Kevin McNeill
January 1, 2022 10:35 pm

First question, does the climate need saving? If the answer is no then ignore opinion piece. If the answer is yes, you’ve lost the plot.

Jules Guidry
January 2, 2022 7:59 am

AGW, has never been proven in a credible scientific method to exist, should be immediately cancelled for what it is, a scam.
Research the studies which show there is no study which definitively prove that Man had anything to do with any of the weather(climate) changes at any time. Look for the studies re: volcanoes and how they affect weather patterns. Very interesting.

Gary Pearse
January 2, 2022 11:11 am

“calling for the dismantling of democracy. The study’s main question, as I see it, is whether we should abandon democracy to save the climate.”

But, as it turns out, saving the climate itself IS an authoritarian néomarxiste global governance tool and not a product of science. Proponents did genuinely think there was
Catastrophic Anthro Global Warming in the offing, (despite its creator being Canadian communist highschool drop-out genius Maurice Strong, inventor of UNFCC, Kyoto Summit, IPCC …) and indeed, they made falsifiable predictions early on: Westside highway under water by 2000, later shifted another few decades to put off falsification which still won’t save the prediction.) Children won’t know what snow is! Big sea level rise, GBR coral death, collapse of Antarctica ice sheets, extinction of polar bears, penguins, caribou, frogs, ….

Their temperature predictions for the first decade of the new millennium proved to be 200 to 300% too high and an 18yr stop in T rise. Goalpost shifters argued that they were only ‘projections’ a change without a difference. The data wroughters set to work to get rid of the 1930s- mid 40s 20th Century T highs, the deep cooling that followed and scuttle the Dreaded Pause.

Tempered by the hammering caused by the Pause and its induced Climate Blues that terminated a number of climate scienctists’ careers, they now fear the possibility that we may have entered a 30yr cooling period and have admitted models are running a way too hot (Gavin and Jim!).

The climate change poppycock is precisely why we need strong democracies and sceptics to be heard. Much put upon sceptics have provided yeoman service to mankind and to science. Climate scientists were relieved of the duty imposed by the scientific method of exercising scepticism in their work by the egregious advice of Dr. Stephen Schneider – his ignominious legacy.

%d bloggers like this: