Conrad Black: Washing away the Climate Lunatics

The recent piece by Conrad Black titled “Washing away the climate lunatics: Canada at risk of turning into Europe” offers a poignant commentary on the current state and potential pitfalls of climate change policies, especially those aimed at achieving net zero carbon emissions. It provides a stark warning to Canada, drawing on the troubles Europe has experienced with similar policies. Black’s article, which references Dr. Benny Peiser’s address to the Friends of Science Society in Calgary, delves deep into the socio-economic and political upheavals triggered by these policies, particularly in Europe, and forecasts the implications for Canada if it follows suit.

The Illusion of Net Zero and the Reality of Economic Backlash

One of the central themes in Black’s argument is the critique of Europe’s aggressive climate policies, which, although initially wrapped in the guise of environmental stewardship, have rapidly led to significant public dissent and economic disruption. This is vividly illustrated by the farmer protests across Europe, a reaction to policies perceived as economically damaging and impractical. Governments, faced with mounting opposition, have begun to retreat from their ambitious climate goals, highlighting a crucial disconnect between political agendas and public acceptance.

“As long as the heavy costs of displacing fossil fuels by so-called renewable energy were carefully disguised and diffused, everybody could wallow in collective self-praise for doing the healthy and environmentally responsible thing,”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5

Black notes, shedding light on the initially obscured financial burdens that later became unbearable for the taxpayers.

Technological Transitions and Economic Consequences

The article also tackles the impact of forced technological shifts, such as the transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles (EVs) in Germany, France, and Italy. This move, although aimed at reducing carbon emissions, has led to unintended economic consequences, including diminished auto sales and increased competition from cheaper Chinese EVs. This situation underscores the potential risks of rapid policy-driven economic transformations without considering global market dynamics and consumer behavior.

Black elaborates, emphasizing the unintended outcomes of these policy-driven market disruptions.

“Once they had fully committed themselves to the boondoggle of electric vehicles (EV’s), and forced the powerful automobile industries of Germany, France, and Italy into conversion of gas powered vehicles to EV’s, sales of EV’s plummeted after the customary faddish start, just as much cheaper Chinese EV’s flooded into Europe,”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5

Judicial Overreach and the Misinterpretation of Climate Science

A particularly alarming development cited by Black is the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling against the Swiss government, which was found to have violated human rights by not adequately addressing climate change. This judicial decision exemplifies the overreach of legal frameworks into democratic processes and scientific domains, where the nuances of climate science are still under debate.

“The European Court of Human Rights crossed the jurisdictional Rubicon by overruling the voters of a democratic country,”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5

Highlighting the problematic encroachment of judicial bodies on national sovereignty and democratic decision-making.

The Role of CO2: A Misunderstood Element

The narrative that CO2 is solely a harmful greenhouse gas ignores its critical role in photosynthesis and its beneficial effects on agricultural productivity, especially in arid regions. The argument that increased CO2 levels could actually bolster food production is a facet often overlooked in mainstream climate debates. Furthermore, the assertion that net zero policies could lead to an increase in global starvation by reducing nitrogen fertilizer availability is a stark reminder of the complex trade-offs involved in climate policy decisions.

“CO2 as essential to food, and thus to life on earth, and that the more there is of CO2, the more food there will be, especially in drought-stricken areas,”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5

Thus presenting a contrarian view that challenges the prevailing narrative on CO2 emissions.

Conclusion: A Call for Rational Climate Policy

Black’s article serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of hasty and ideologically driven climate policies. It calls for a more nuanced, scientifically grounded approach to environmental stewardship. The backlash in Europe provides a clear indication of the need for democratic engagement and economic pragmatism in policy formulation. As Canada faces its own environmental policy decisions, it would do well to heed the lessons from across the Atlantic, ensuring that policies are both scientifically sound and economically viable, thereby avoiding the socio-political turmoil experienced by its European counterparts.

In sum, the debate around climate change and the measures proposed to combat it is far from settled. A balanced approach that considers both environmental goals and economic realities is crucial. Policies must be based on rigorous scientific analysis and broad-based consensus to ensure that they are sustainable in the long term and are embraced rather than imposed on the populace. As the discourse evolves, it remains imperative that policy decisions are guided by pragmatic and scientifically validated insights rather than alarmist and economically detrimental prescriptions.

4.9 35 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

52 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cuddywhiffer
May 1, 2024 6:09 am

The best and least damaging course of action to deal with the alleged climate issue, is to do NOTHING.
Why do we continue to believe that there is a problem. There isn’t, other than ignorance.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  cuddywhiffer
May 1, 2024 8:15 am

“Many of the world’s problems result from men of ability who lack the will to wait.”

Joseph Schumpeter

MarkW
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
May 1, 2024 9:02 am

Even more problems are caused by people without ability, who lack the will to wait.

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2024 9:39 am

Good point, but worth noting that the biggest monsters in history have only been too ‘able’.

J Boles
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
May 1, 2024 9:31 am

And who area also in control of O.P.M. ($$$)

damp
Reply to  cuddywhiffer
May 1, 2024 3:15 pm

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” – T.S. Eliot

May 1, 2024 6:18 am

“A Call for Rational Climate Policy”

I would argue that we don’t need a climate policy of any kind. Just let the climate get on with what it does. We can’t change it anyway.

Tom Halla
May 1, 2024 6:21 am

Failure to recognize the Green Blob is collectively utterly bugf@ck is the failure of politicians.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 1, 2024 8:10 am

They recognize that “Climate Change” is the route to one party rule, their party. Any guesses to what party that is? The other party, the stupid party, is afraid of that party, and goes along to get along.

May 1, 2024 6:22 am

From the article: “In sum, the debate around climate change and the measures proposed to combat it is far from settled.”

Very far from being settled.

There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. That’s how far from settled it is.

There is no evidence CO2 will cause the Earth to overheat or cause extreme weather to be more extreme. No evidence whatsoever.

People who think they see evidence of CO2 effects on the Earth’s weather or climate are delusional.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 1, 2024 7:13 am

I almost throw up when I see “carbon pollution” in any media. They’re so stupid as to not even say carbon dioxide. And if they did- it would still be stupid. It is what it is- maybe or maybe not contributing a small amount to a trivial warming- but calling it pollution is certifiable lunatic.

Neil Lock
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2024 8:03 am

Ah, but “carbon pollution” does exist. It’s called soot, or particulate matter if you want to be technical. I think this line of “argument” is probably deliberately intended to conflate the two in the minds of susceptible people.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Neil Lock
May 1, 2024 9:05 am

Of course it is. It is deliberate.
He who controls the language controls the ideas. K. Marx

Editor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2024 5:54 pm

It’s much worse than ‘certifiable lunatic’. It’s Newspeak. Deliberate, calculated Newspeak, as in George Orwell’s 1984.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 2, 2024 8:23 am

Right speak. Right think.
G. Orwell.

rtj1211
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2024 4:29 am

I simply stopped buying/consuming MSM. If 90% of the world’s population simply ignore the MSM, they will go belly up. Almost all of them. A Darwinian failure to adapt…..

May 1, 2024 7:02 am

“This judicial decision exemplifies the overreach of legal frameworks into democratic processes and scientific domains, where the nuances of climate science are still under debate.”

“Nuances”. No. The unsound suggestion that incremental CO2 might cause climate harm should be rejected outright on scientific grounds. It is simply not capable of driving the climate system to a bad outcome. Same for CH4 and N2O.

How can this be so obvious? Please read the full description at this video.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY

Atmosphere modelers know perfectly well that the very minor radiative effect of incremental non-condensing GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of “warming.” Neither can it force energy to accumulate on land or in the oceans, certainly not to any harmful extent.

Also, “nuances” reminds me of John Kerry. Not a happy thought, considering his ill-informed advocacy positions against fossil fuels, cows, and fertilizer.

Reply to  David Dibbell
May 1, 2024 7:18 am

The use of the word “nuances” implies there is a consensus but with some extremely mild differences. Yet Black talks about climate lunatics. Our problem with them ain’t about nuances. It’s about their entire case.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2024 7:58 am

Thanks for your reply. It motivated me to go read Black’s post, which is very good.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  David Dibbell
May 1, 2024 9:15 am

I did not find the word “nuance” anywhere in Black’s outstanding piece.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 1, 2024 10:41 am

Neither did I.

Reply to  David Dibbell
May 2, 2024 6:23 am

How in the world was the Swiss court able to rule for the defendants, did the government even show up? Was it a ‘set-up’ – government lost on purpose to get around the referendum that blocked climate action (IIRC)?

In court a case re: supposed harm from CO2, they have to show they have been harmed, or very likely to be harmed in the future – but how could a few extra degrees of imagined heat over the next century, in a mountainous country no less, possibly hurt anyone? How could anything the Swiss do affect the world climate?

There are so many things wrong with that court case that collusion between defendant and plaintiff must have been involved.

May 1, 2024 7:06 am

“Policies must be based on rigorous scientific analysis and broad-based consensus to ensure that they are sustainable in the long term and are embraced rather than imposed on the populace.”

And, a benefit/cost analysis!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2024 9:15 am

Cost-risk-benefit analysis, along with a proper analysis of alternatives.

Sot on and I agree.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 2, 2024 8:25 am

Correction: Spot on.

cuddywhiffer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 1, 2024 2:42 pm

Correction. NEVER upon consensus, just good science.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2024 6:27 am

“…based on rigorous scientific analysis and broad-based consensus…” however science and the public domain have been hijacked by essentially fascists with a new Final Solution and no one is exempt.

Mr.
May 1, 2024 7:13 am

Tragically for western societies, the Fabian “long march through the institutions” arrived at its evil destination the day Obama was elected.

Fauning obeisance to the UN, WEF and Soros’ Open Societies has become the established modus operandi for all our current western governments.

As Conrad Black implies, the standard currency now used by Fabian useful idiots everywhere is climate catastrophism.

technically right
May 1, 2024 7:14 am

All of this is propped up with copious amounts of government money, nearly all borrowed or printed out of thin air, in the form of subsidies or giveaways to the favored class. It simply can’t continue and eventually the result will be collapsing economies and violent civil unrest. See Venezuela and Sri Lanka as examples.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  technically right
May 1, 2024 9:17 am

How many trees are sacrificed in printing 1 billion euros?

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 1, 2024 1:29 pm

Are euros still printed on paper? Down here, our currency notes are printed on special plastic. 🙂

Reply to  bnice2000
May 1, 2024 2:51 pm

No doubt produced from hydrocarbons.

Mr.
Reply to  bnice2000
May 1, 2024 5:44 pm

And the plastic note technology developed in Oz was sold to mints all around the world.

As was wi-fi technology.

Boy, did Oz get dumbed down on electricity generation though 🙁

Mr Ed
May 1, 2024 7:15 am

My personal view on the “climate change” issue is that back in the 60’s there was a significant
amount of air and water pollution in the country. That led to an environmental movement to address
said pollution. It is from that environmental movement we went to this climate emergency
situation which is completely non-existent. This radical movement seems to be all
about power and control in a fascist manner. One example is in the management of our
national forests. There is no sound policy to this and the corruption is severe and
on several levels. This can be seen in several sectors on many levels.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Mr Ed
May 1, 2024 9:18 am

Agreed. The 60’s. Ah, the good old days when cleaning up the environment was directly related to health benefits.

observa
May 1, 2024 7:19 am

 A balanced approach that considers both environmental goals and economic realities is crucial.

….and right on cue Elon has got the EV fan club scrambling to make excuses for pullback on Tesla supercharger rollout-
Tesla Axing Its Supercharger Team Puts The Entire Industry In The Dark (msn.com)

J Boles
May 1, 2024 7:32 am
ScienceABC123
May 1, 2024 8:04 am

Like the poor, the crazies are always going to be with us.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ScienceABC123
May 1, 2024 9:19 am

Like the poor, the crazies politicians are always going to be with us.

Same thing, eh?

John Hultquist
May 1, 2024 8:34 am

Conrad B. appears to be a controversial lad. I wonder what the high priests of the ClimateCult™ will think of his views or whether they will bother.

Reply to  John Hultquist
May 1, 2024 9:08 am

Yes, even scumbags can be right. I don’t think I’ll be citing him as someone whose climate views somewhat align with my own. “With friends like that” etc.

(Yes, I know, he was pardoned. But he definitely helped himself to a few cookies.)

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John Hultquist
May 1, 2024 9:19 am

I am awaiting the Mann defamation cased against Black.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 1, 2024 2:55 pm

Expect to see little pieces of Mann spread across the landscape, Conrad Black would slaughter him in legal combat.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nansar07
May 2, 2024 8:27 am

If only we could schedule a jousting match. If only….

Bob
May 1, 2024 1:49 pm

Very nice. The first question to be answered is, has the CAGW hypothesis been found to be correct? The answer of course is no. Until the CAGW crowd can support their claim with sound scientific facts there is no need to do a damn thing about so called catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Edward Katz
May 1, 2024 2:16 pm

Conrad Black hits the nail on the head in his criticism of unelected international bodies trying and often succeeding in pressuring elected governments to take measures that they, the unelected ones, believe is essential for fighting a largely mythological climate crisis. And when the elected ones lack the resolve to take a firm stand against the alarmists, who inevitably can’t justify their hysteria, it’s the taxpayer who suffers since it’s his money that’s going to prop up fashionable, but usually unproven theories and technologies, that fail to deliver the results in providing alternate reliable energies or in actually reducing emissions. So it’s up to consumers/voters to demand answers from candidates on their environmental stands rather than merely to fall for their sky-is-falling propaganda.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Edward Katz
May 2, 2024 8:28 am

It is also the citizens of those countries that surrender, give up, or have taken away their freedom.

Editor
May 1, 2024 5:49 pm

The court system, in the west at least, suffers from a devastating weakness: The courts will never analyse scientific data for themselves, they always rely on interpretation by ‘experts’. When things go wrong in politics and society, the courts are the last bastion of defence. But if politically-motivated ‘experts’ reach critical mass, then the courts are wiped out too. That’s where we are now. In the past, the only public defence has then been armed revolution. I hope we can pull back from the brink before it truly is too late.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 2, 2024 8:28 am

Many in California are buying guns. And elsewhere.

May 1, 2024 5:53 pm

Sorry Mr. Black. It’s not really about the science at all. The “science” is a just a cloak that hides the real agenda.

leefor
May 1, 2024 11:21 pm

UNEP knows climate emergency. https://www.unep.org/facts-about-climate-emergency

“The most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about two-thirds of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), is largely the product of burning fossil fuels. (IPCC)”. That’s at 0.042%, as opposed to water vapour 0.25%. 😉

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  leefor
May 2, 2024 8:30 am

Water vapor is generally listed as 0.5% to 1.0% with an approximate maximum of 5% in the reports I have read. It can get below 0.25% in certain areas, of course. Deserts come to mind.