The “War on Climate Change” is coming…again
Kit Knightly
Last week, a senior member of Parliament for the UK’s Labour Party went on television demanding the UK – maybe even the entire world – be on a “war-like footing” to combat climate change.
Speaking on the BBC’s flagship political magazine Newsnight, Barry Gardiner MP argued for unity of purpose against climate change’s “existential threat”:
“…if this were a war we wouldn’t be arguing about whether the Labour strategy or the Tory strategy were better, we would be working together to try and win […] Well, it is a war. It is a war for survival and climate change threatens everything […] So actually instead of playing party political games about who is up, who is down, what we need to be doing is saying let’s get together, let’s mobilise on a war footing and that is what is needed…”
Two days later, the exact same thoughts were expressed in a Financial Times column by Camilla Cavendish, former head of David Cameron’s Downing Street policy unit and Kennedy School of Government alumnus:
The answer is surely to invoke a wartime spirit, and make the fight against climate change a joint endeavour against a common enemy. If the public and political will is there, human ingenuity can prevail, with remarkable speed. In the second world war, America transformed its manufacturing base to produce tanks and ammunition. The Covid pandemic resulted in the discovery and development of vaccines at scale, saving millions of lives.
It’s interesting to note the comparison to Covid, but we’ll come back that.
The campaign isn’t isolated to the UK, in fact it kicked off on the other side of the Atlantic, with the Inquirer running an article headlined “President Biden should address the nation and declare war…on climate change” on July 16th, which argued:
Biden and his aides need to grab that metaphorical bullhorn and call the TV networks to announce a prime-time address from the Oval Office that will declare a national emergency — in essence, a state of war — to fight climate change.
Joe Biden himself called climate change an “existential threat” on July 27th.
The invocation of metaphorical war is of course nothing new.
“War” is a very important word in the world of politics and propaganda. It has – or is assumed to have – an immediate effect on the collective public mind; an instant connection to generations of shared memories, that promotes feelings of conformity and solidarity.
Some psychological study or focus group clearly figured this out decades ago, and as such the word “war” is frequently used to control narratives.
In Western “democracies” the deployment of the W word is code for bi-partisan agreement, attempting to breed faux solidarity between the same people they encourage to hate each other 90% of the time, whilst branding any dissenters as outsiders who are a threat to the safety of the group.
More pragmatically, being “at war” creates an “emergency” which justifies “temporary” suppression of human rights and freedoms and permits increases in the powers assumed by the state.
OffG – and others – have discussed this ad infinitum, past a certain point any authoritarian government needs to exist in a state of war in order to avoid collapse, and so enemies are created that, by their nature, can remain forever never undefeated.
See: “The War on Drugs”, “The War on Terror”, “The War on Covid”
…and, now, the war on climate change.
Or, more properly, “the war on climate change…again”.
Because neither Barry Gardiner nor Camilla Cavendish are the first person to express this thought. Not even close.
Then-Prince now-King Charles expressed the exact same sentiment in the exact same words in a speech to the COP26 in November 2021, contemporary opinion pieces in the Guardian agreed with him.
They were, in fact, echoing a University College London report from May 2021.
CNN warned we were “losing the war on climate change” in April 2019, plagiarizing the exact same headline in The Economist from a year earlier in August 2018.
Bill McKibben wrote “We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII” for the New Republic in August 2016.
Venkatesh Rao wrote “Why Solving Climate Change Will Be Like Mobilizing for War” for the Atlantic in October 2015, repeating the same arguments from a CNN article four months earlier.
Hell, all the way back in 2003 the New York Times was running editorials “After Iraq: Declare war on global warming”
(Ah, remember when Climate Change hadn’t yet received it’s unfalsifiability makeover and was still just known as “global warming”?)
Essentially, every few months they trot out this idea of “declaring war on climate change”, get almost no engagement from the public, and then go back to spouting alarmism and fear porn for a while before trying again.
They have been doing this for years. So far it has not worked.
…but this time might be a little different.
Why? Because we now live in a post-Covid society.
Consider, with the exception of the vaccines, everything brought on by Covid – the lockdowns, the financial collapse, all of the “Great Reset” – was originally meant to be a “response” to climate change.
They had a package of “solutions” ready and waiting for a public “reaction” that never came. People were simply never scared enough at the idea the world might get a bit warmer.
It could be argued that global warming’s repeated failure to spark a global panic is the very reason they resorted to “Covid” in the first place, but whatever the cause-and-effect relationship the fact of the matter is that Covid has laid a foundation for the “war on climate change” that never existed before.
- “anti-Covid measures” provide precedent both for the use of extreme ‘responses’ and their apparent “effectiveness”
- Covid created enough fear that they can increase climate hysteria by linking environmentalism to future potential “pandemics”
- Covid (allegedly) “inspired global cooperation” and “demonstrated what we can achieve when we all work together”
- Covid lockdowns (allegedly) “showed how the world can heal” by cutting emissions.
- And, most vitally, the roll out of the Covid narrative demonstrated that once people have invested their virtue or personality in a story you can tell them almost anything relating to that story and they’ll be incentivised to believe you – NO MATTER HOW ABSURD IT MIGHT BE.
We noted earlier that several recent articles “declaring war on climate change” reference Covid, almost always as a global success story.
It is now common place to talk about avoiding climate disaster through the medium of Covid. The United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and International Monetary Fund have all run articles in the last couple of years with near-identical titles eg:
What the Coronavirus Pandemic Teaches Us About Fighting Climate Change
Perhaps the most blatant example of using Covid imagery to sell climate change and globalism is the call to create a “Global Climate Organization”, from Dr David King in the Independent a few days ago (our emphasis):
“In terms of a health crisis, such as the Covid crisis, we have a World Health Organisation and it’s based in Geneva and is part of the United Nations. We don’t have a world climate crisis organisation. That’s what we need, so that all countries of the world could come together through a body of this kind, as we do when there’s a health crisis, we all contribute to the cost of the WHO. We need a global system that pulls us all together to battle with this external threat to our manageable future.”
We know what this is, this is the “pivot from Covid to climate” they literally told us was coming.
The “Great Reset” has made a good start, but they still have a raft of fun policies they want to introduce (eg. rationing food). In a post Covid world, they are hoping to finally make “climate change” frightening enough that people will beg them to completely reshape the world as they see fit.
The amusing part is that it still doesn’t feel like it’s landing, to be honest.
Outside of the media echo-chamber and the virtue-signalers, all the “terrifying” temperature maps, the experts warning that “millions will die instantly” if they turn their air conditioning off, the new buzzphrase of “global boiling” is being met with a bit of a “meh”.
Unfortunate for them, because they’ve set themselves a deadline. Every year that passes without catastrophic climate breakdown, every summer the ice caps don’t disappear, every unseasonably cold or wet July is another nail in the coffin of their narrative, a few more normies disengaging from the story.
Which is probably why the coverage of “heatwave cerberus” and “global boiling” is fervid verging on feverish. There is an element of sweaty-palmed desperation seeping into every tweet, every headline.
They are running out of time.
The dark corollary of that is that someday soon they may well give up trying to persuade people, and start trying to force them.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
http://www.stopworldcontrol.com
(very good website that warns humanity about the agenda for world domination)
The absurdity of “going to war” on your own climate.
let’s melt off these polar caps first, and then go to war
What Cold feet you have, sir … ? 😂
The language is obscene, but it is the globalists’ preference. To address this REAL danger we need the language of peaceful, determined, co-operation and a fair sharing of the burdens to be carried.
Ever “war on” be it drugs, poverty, terror, crime, has failed dramatically. Perhaps it is best to avoid all talk of war and just hope for the best. I certainly won’t be rallying round. Just a trick by the Tories to try to stay in power somehow….
Off guardian doing an excellent job as usual.
>More pragmatically, being “at war” creates an “emergency” which justifies “temporary” suppression of human rights and freedoms and permits increases in the powers assumed by the state.
Yeah, we have heard this one before. Nothing is ever an emergency. A deadly pandemic is not an emergency. A hurricane is not an emergency, unless it happens to you. Whatever is going on in the news, it is not an emergency, just listen to me instead and buy my stuff. Correction: crime is allowed to be an emergency because it sells guns. We know that always, at all times, somebody wants to sell you some stuff that you don’t need instead of the stuff you may really need. In the name of rights and freedoms, of course. Everybody must have the right and freedom to be as suicidal and stupid as they like. How can you sell useless and dangerous stuff without fools to buy it?
Well, it looks like you are going to have to figure out all by yourself what is dangerous and what is not. Because the so-called “free markets” clearly want you to die, after sucking all the money out of you. Don’t say that God didn’t warn you: the Bible clearly says that the love of money is the root of all of evil.
Actually, to me, the scary part of the War On Climate Change is the War on CO2 and the drive to zero carbon. This is their strategy to get us off fossil fuels and drive us green no matter the cost or impact to our lives.
I think what controls global climate and ocean temperature is quite complex. I don’t think there is a provable correlation between CO2 and global temperature and aren’t there thousands of volcanoes within our oceans that possibly could effect ocean temperature somewhat.
And, while I’m on the subject, trees and vegetation love CO2. They thrive on CO2. So why don’t we manage our forest better to minimize wide spread fires and destruction of millions of trees. We need a War On Forest Fires! But, I guess, that is of little interest to governments because there is no element of that war to expand control over us.
Vegetation enjoys increased CO2, but only where the other relevant factors ie water availability, temperatures, pest infestations, wind strength and erosion etc are propitious. Increased CO2 will cause climate destabilisation that will negatively effect the health of vegetation. The rapidity of CO2 changes and consequent climate changes, is crucial, too.
So it might be alright then, and we might not need to feel constantly afraid and guilty all the time, and with our decreased dejection perhaps we’ll make more headway? Maybe there’s an argument to stop the doomsaying, then?
People were upbeat twenty, thirty years ago, because addressing anthropogenic climate destabilisation would have resulted in a cleaner, greener, sustainable world. That optimism died slowly as the fossil fuel industry created the denialist industry, and Western politicians took business money, and, like loyal servants, refused to do anything concrete, so that, now, after decades of regress, not progress, our situation is dire.
A belter from Time:
https://time.com/6298051/climate-anxiety-essay/
“Don’t Ignore Your Climate Anxiety”
i.e. “Don’t ignore the bullshit we rammed down your throat because we have no intention of letting you forget it!”
In the face of the these “real and serious threats” (i.e. of climate catastrophe) “people are feeling a wide range of negative emotions—sad, scared, overwhelmed, anxious—that are leading to new terms like eco-grief, climate anxiety, and solastalgia.”
“Eco-grief” and “solastalgia” are definitely things because they are listed on the National Library of Medicine site and you don’t want to mess with them! And if you feel any doubt, the MLoM have vast articles detailing the painstaking and “scientifically verifiable” analysis they’re done investigating these absolutely real new psychological phenomena. On the other hand “climate anxiety” would appear to be something cooked up by Time itself and of doubtful scientific status since they simply list ways of “dealing with it”. But I daresay that all three conditions are pretty much the same thing i.e. panic induced by the media over a massive pile of shite.
Blah de blah de blah psychobabble leading to this:
“Without grief and anxiety, we will not be motivated to change. Without hope, we won’t think change is possible. As journalists and scientists and policymakers try to inform people about climate risks, they should find ways to communicate that allow people to feel this multifaceted emotional response.
Emotions are important not only to wellbeing, but also to action.”
It’s not too late to act and superglue your willie to a Van Gogh. Or, to be more precise, watch some scripted photogenic dupes go through the rebellion motions to implement changes already planned at the top levels.
Thanks for the update. I wonder if they’ve put ‘Eco-grief’ and ‘Solastalgia’ into the diagnostic and statistical manual-5 ( of bullshit) yet?
No worries! They’ve got a vaccine for that!
Eco-V and Solas- V
You think they’d leave us hanging, ye of little faith?
A good salesman changes his sales pitch to suite his target customers.
Politicians and especially presidents/prime ministers are good salesmen.
So while talking all this green crap that does not stop them doing the opposite.
When visiting coal producing areas if they need there vote. Promises will be made that clean coal is the future. Same for oil or gas or fracking with plenty more pipelines being built. As it gets near an election they are even more sensitive to the way the political wind blows (pun intended).
This does not stop them doing the opposite of there promises once elected.
But as corporation’s own the politicians and there is big money in coal/oil/gas this will continue. At the same time there is big money in so called renewable energy , win , sun
crazy ideas like carbon capture.
Then there are supposed trillions in carbon credits with Blackrock and the like.
World government organisation’s trying to control the world resources and dictate world polices.
They managed to sell the fake pandemic maybe they think they can sell the fake world is boiling message. I don’t think it will work but that wont stop them.
I was going to say that politicians were nothing more than prostitutes but on second thoughts, for the latter at least you get something for your money.
‘Green crap’?? So, you think that the planet is ecologically in good condition, do you?
Based on what geological time scale? Compared to the Jurassic/Cretaceous we are a stunted planet. They had at least 5 times as much co2 ppm. The sun was 4% cooler (apparently) so no danger of runaway greenhouse at that time, you see. However the sun was also cooler during the Permian/Triassic mass extinction (The Great Dying), biggest extinction event in earth history, when co2 was allegedly at similar levels to now and suddenly rose at slower rates than we’re producing now.
Could greenhouse gas be a single cause fallacy?
Could such a thing be suggested in polite society without being cast out as a heretic?
I see too many inconsistencies and unknowns to talk so authoritatively. So can we stop, please. A2
I MOST definitely do not believe that raised greenhouse gas levels are a ‘single cause’ of ecological collapse. Just a very important one. The idea of CO2 as a ‘single exception’ is, in my opinion, incorrect, too.
This is CNN World Doppler la nina Jet streaming fear mongering for flat Earth Politics. Anyone can look this up on their Phone!
Did you give up on Science? Well, you shouldn’t be IMO. Disinterested Science, or Science that is only interested in understanding, that knows that Science is more about doubting than lightly asserting, that knows its place within the larger world of human activity, is still alive.
Can a scientist maintain the same position vis-à-vis the issue of putative global warming for more than 30 years? Not as a matter of stubborn opinion mind you but as a matter of a scientifically argued critique? Well, Richard S. Lindzen can and did. I just discovered him while looking for the origins of the climate question: Lindzen is a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, 1964, Harvard University; S.M. in Applied Mathematics, 1961, Harvard University; and A.B. (mcl) in Physics, 1960, Harvard University. From the MIT website:
“Richard Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983, when he joined the faculty at MIT, until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology.”
I sympathize with Lindzen because we share the same love for Mathematics and if there is something I’m convinced of, it is that scientists who besides of being specialists in their practical field are also mathematicians, can only be disinterested scientists; ascribe that to a mathematician’s fanaticism I’m glad to be charged with. I discovered that Lindzen was already questioning the claims of the 1990 and 1992 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Scientific Assessments for which he wrote a first critical review, to be followed by several critical papers of what he qualifies as the “the issue of the putative global warming”. Let’s hear him:
1992, in the review alluded to above: “In discussing the problem of global change, the volume [of the IPCC SA] displays a number of unjustified biases leading to an almost complete omission of discussion of several issues that are of the highest priority. These biases are, I suspect, sectarian in nature. Specialists in trace chemistry, clouds, and surface properties have a tendency to ignore water vapour. Radiative transfer specialists tend to ignore dynamics, and everyone seems to ignore mathematics. It is hard to realize from this report that about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds-C02 contributing less than 2%. (Although Chapter 3 of the report presents correct numbers on this matter, the unwary reader might infer from p. 48 that CO2, accounts for 25% of the effect!) The report makes no mention of the fact that dynamics plays a crucial role in determining the mean temperature of the earth, and that relevant dynamic processes have errors of about 50% in present models. Similarly, such unmentioned issues as the absence of evidence of numerical convergence, and the numerical production of regions of negative water vapour density must surely represent serious problems.”
(…)
“Climate is, perhaps, too undeveloped a field to warrant a coherent review. The Policymakers’ Summary is another story-in more ways than one. To begin with, it is hardly a summary at all; rather, it is an attempt to selectively extract positions from the wide assortment represented in the text so as to make it appear that we can offer clear encouragement to policymakers wishing to assume that there is an unambiguous problem. This selectivity is accompanied by an unpleasant measure of sophistry. Thus. the uncertainty about likely warming in the text becomes an expectation of 0.3°C per decade (p. xxii); the inability to attribute observed warming over the past century to CO2 becomes (p. xxix) ‘broadly consistent with the predictions of climate models’. A special point is made of the existence of the natural greenhouse effect (p. xix) – though there appears to be no relation between this obvious fact and the nature of the response to enhanced C02. Similarly. the claim that one is certain that the water vapour feedback will be positive (p. xi) is hardly justified. Nowhere in the report is it noted that this feedback depends crucially on the miniscule amounts of water vapour in the upper troposphere where water vapour is not regularly and reliably monitored, where the water vapour budget depends on transport by cumulonimbus convection, and where the models are beset by numerical problems.
“The first page of the volume consists of a self-promoting statement claiming that the report is ‘the most authoritative and strongly supported statement on climate change that has ever been made by the international scientific community. The issues confronted with full rigour include: global warming. greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect, sea level changes, forcing of climate, and the history of the Earth’s changing climate. The information presented here is of the highest quality’. If these claims were true, I would have no difficulty recommending that everyone run not walk to get a copy of this report. It goes without saying that these grossly immodest claims are far from true.
“John Houghton [who edited of the IPCC SA] has claimed that there were no political pressures brought to bear on the preparation of this volume. This may be true. However, there can be no doubt that this volume is being used by the body politic in a most unholy way. The Policymakers’ Summary encourages the frequently stated view that hundreds of climate specialists from dozens of countries all agree that. . . It matters little what. . . is; the bulk of the text shows little if any agreement on any issue of substance. The bloated claim of rigour and authority adds to the exploitation. However. not surprisingly, politicians are frequently going even beyond the rather stretched version of the truth found in the Policymakers’ Summary. In the USA, Senator Tim Worth is not unusual in claiming (New York Times. 3 March 1991) ‘The panel of hundreds of scientists from 25 countries expects a global warming of 5 degrees in the 21st century. unless we reduce emissions’. Even the Policymakers‘ Summary does not go that far. The summary docs, however begin the distortion that Senator Worth is merely continuing. [Emphasis added]”
1997, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
“The specific feature which led Santer (the lead author of Chapter 8 of IPCC 95) to claim discovery of the discernible impact of anthropogenic forcing fails the most elementary test of statistical robustness: namely, it disappears when additional data is considered. Chapter 8 concludes that our ability to quantify the magnitude of global warming ‘is currently limited by uncertainties in key factors, including the magnitude and patterns of longer-term natural variability and the time-evolving patterns of forcing by (and response to) greenhouse gases and aerosols.’ In brief, a decade of focus on global warming and billions of dollars of research funds have still failed to establish that global warming is a significant problem. Normally, this would lead one to conclude that the problem is less serious than originally suggested. While the IPCC 1995 report does not go so far as to state this explicitly, it is certainly the most subdued and reserved of the numerous IPCC reports issued since 1990. [Emphasis added]”
2019, An oversimplified picture of the climate behavior based on a single process can lead to distorted conclusions: “The present picture for the global warming issue presented to the general public hinges on the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared, and that adding it to the atmosphere must, therefore, lead to some warming. Indeed, the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and the level of CO2 has indeed been increasing, but this hardly constitutes proof. However, the fact that large scale computer models can be made to replicate the warming with increasing CO2 is held to be strong confirming evidence. Beyond this, is the claim that any warming at all is indicative of catastrophe, especially if higher than the politically defined goal of + 1.5 °C (of which over 1 °C has already occurred), and demands major reductions in fossil fuel use. [Emphasis added]”
The above sounds familiar… Mere models that forecast catastrophes like pande**cs used to justify totalitarian, dictatorial kind of policies.
“In this complex multifactor system, the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables—especially the temperature difference between the equator and the poles) is described by just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is con[1]trolled by the 1–2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable (any single variable) among many variables of comparable importance. We go further and designate CO2 as the sole control. Although we are not sure of the budget for this variable, we know precisely what policies to implement in order to control it.”
(…)
“In fact, this view on climate was initially opposed by many leading figures including the director of Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the director of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, the head of the World Meteorological Organization, the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the former head of the British Meteorological Office, a former president of the US National Academy of Science, the leading Soviet climate scientists, etc. Even in 1988, when James Hansen presented his famous US Senate testimony, Science Magazine reported widespread skepticism in the then small climate science community. However, all these individuals were from an older generation, and many are now dead.
“Between 1988 and 1994, things changed radically. In the USA, funding for climate increased by about a factor of 15. This led to a great increase in the number of people interested in working as ‘climate scientists’, and the new climate scientists understood that the reason for the funding was the ‘global warming’ alarm.
“In France, in the 60s, there was essentially one theoretical meteorologist, Queney. Today, there are hundreds involved with models if not theory, and it is largely due to ‘global warming.’ Is it unreasonable to wonder whether or not a political movement has succeeded in capturing a scientific field?”
I could go on with the quotes, but what’s the point; better read the author. I warn you; the guy is a mathematician and does not shy from using the rigor of Mathematics to scientifically prove the unjustified character of the alarm of those who want to “save the planet”. He also contributes to a site called co2coallition.org, of which I like the motto:
“Saving the people of the planet from the people who are ‘saving the planet’”
feedback depends crucially on the miniscule amounts of water vapour in the upper troposphere
While that may be true for net insolation, it is the water vapour close to ground level that mediates the weather and climate we experience much more directly.
I’d say that what we experience at the bottom of the troposphere depends on what’s going on at the upper level and viceversa. I’d say also that the greenhouse effect doesn’t make a bottom troposphere sealed from the upper part. More specifically, Lindzen in the quote you mention is alluding to the fact that water vapor feedback has been modeled assuming that humidity was constant across the whole depth of the troposphere (top and bottom), which isn’t true as water vapor decreases with altitude. He writes in Climate Sensitivity, 2019:
“The most commonly discussed feedback is the so-called water vapor feedback (Manabe and Wetherald, 1975). In this early and highly influential paper, Manabe and Wetherald assumed (with little le basis) that relative humidity would remain constant throughout the depth of the troposphere (where our weather occurs) when one increased CO2. This implied that since saturation vapor pressure increases with temperature, specific humidity would increase with warming, and since water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, the impact of a doubling of CO2 would be about double what it would be without such a feedback. [Emphasis added]”
(…)
“The situation with respect to climate sensitivity is that we basically see no reason to expect high sensitivity. The original basis for considering that high sensitivity is possible (namely, the hypothetical water vapor feedback of Manabe and Wetherald, 1975) is clearly contradicted by the measurements of TOA [Top Of Atmosphere] radiative fluxes which show that the total long-wave feedback, including cirrus cloud variations, may even be negative. Analysis of the temperature data leads to the conclusion that if anthropogenic contributions are the cause of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and if aerosols are limited to a contribution of 1 Watt per square meter, then climate sensitivity in excess 1.5°C is precluded. [Emphasis added, meaning that human action on average temperature is less than the target of 2°C, – even assuming models correct, as he states below]”
It is plain from the above, and I’m just getting started with this, that the 1975 Manabe and Wetherald modeling for water vapor feedback estimation, which is at the base of computing climate sensitivity (to human action), depends on water vapor level at the upper, as well as the bottom troposphere.
But Lindzen is a nuanced scientist:
“Have we then proven that dangerous warming is truly impossible? Not quite. Although current estimates of short-wave feedbacks don’t even suggest positive feedback factors in excess of about 0.3 (with the possibility of negative values remaining), we can’t preclude that something may someday be discovered that raises this to a value that is significantly larger. Our simple calculation that suggested that sensitivities in excess of 1.5°C were precluded depends upon the assumption that models are correct in producing negligible natural internal variability. It is, however, remotely conceivable that there was in reality (as opposed to in models) natural internal variability that was exactly what was needed to cancel the effect of high sensitivity, but that this internal variability would eventually be overwhelmed, and allow the high sensitivity to reveal itself. This remote possibility is far from “settled science,” and the thought that multi-trillion dollar policies would be implemented to putatively prevent this, seems far from rational. This is especially so when one considers that for about 95 percent of the time since complex life systems appeared (about 600 million years ago), levels of CO2 were much higher than they are anticipated to become (as much as 10-20 times today’s levels) without evidence of a relationship to global mean temperature. [Emphasis added]”
That was beyond my grasp, but thanks. Under an article a month or so ago, I did allude to the following: IPCC and associates have consistently tried to deflect from water vapour or remain non-commital. Considering that water is such a glaring factor in the form of mist, clouds, snow, ice, open water surface, etc. too, that alone undermines its pronouncements.
I would very much like to see where Dr. Lindzen gets his data for this conclusion – especially since it flies in the face of almost all standard paleo conclusions.
I’m not saying he’s wrong – only that it’s puzzling.
With all due respect, I don’t think mathematical rigor is a good substitute for real climate data. And what you’ve quoted presents very little real climate data.
Real climate terms are bandied about; but a term is no more representative of real data than is a computer model.
Besides the ease of discrediting the IPCC reports – which conveniently omit on-going geoengineering – Dr. Lindzen (at least in what you’ve quoted) does very little to counter claims of climate change due to human activities. In fact, I could find nothing linking him with any mention of geoengineering. (If you know of such a link, I would appreciate a “link” to the link.)
And since his expertise focuses primarily on the physics of the atmosphere, he should definitely be aware of – and concerned about – geoengineering.
In short, a good use of words is not really the primary criterion of good science.
Regarding the terms; I quoted from scientific papers so naturally they contain peculiar terms, and sure enough efforts are needed to understand and digest for laymen like us. That said, I don’t think what I’ve quoted is particularly too difficult to grasp. Some terms here and there are easy to find on the internet or in other scientific literature.
What I’ve quoted was not to meant to provide a proof; I’ve presented a mathematician’s skeptical view who is also knowledgeable in the field of meteorology, who was participant at the IPCC, regarding the justification for the alarm over earth temperature change. After that, one has to read the literature of course, which gave that view. There is no escape from attempts at understanding.
I just discovered this scientist while looking for the origin of the climate question (there are a few others) and I already learned that the scientific consensus for the IPCC SA is a myth and that the summary for policy makers didn’t reflect the uncertainties and discrepancies within the work groups, and that there are serious theoretical flaws in the models used (we already have first-hand experience with the recent medical theatre).
His view is that there is no evidence-based justification for alarm (of the kind that would suggest policies we already had a taste of during the last three years) regarding Earth’s temperature rising; not that it is not rising (last quote above). In fact it fluctuates like everything else in nature an a pattern for this fluctuation is wanting. He doesn’t say science it settled; I don’t think he says let Industrial production and consumerism trends have free reign, either; but there is no escape from reading the author. IMO, a mathematician that is also knowledgeable in their concrete field, in that order, is less prone to misinterpret results and should have more intuition as to where to direct efforts than without mathematical background.
When you say “climate data”, what do you mean? There are direct data collected from nature then there are data computed through models which may or may not be adequate. The difficulty arises when one tries to interpret these data; how do we make sense of them? One argument Lindzen advances is that rising temperatures may be just part of a larger pattern we haven’t discovered yet (that’s what models are presumably made for) made up of rises and decreases and within which human life adapts very well. Is that better or is it better making life miserable believing it’s the end of the world?
Again, I quoted his views, results of his work. Why he doesn’t mention geoengineering I don’t know. I haven’t myself a formed opinion about the subject. Perhaps Off-G could invite him for an interview.
Science has to express itself in a precise language because it needs to be nuanced and say what it has to say exactly in an unambiguous way, and at the same time Science has to be the transparency itself in a way that anyone who can read can trace back the results of a scientific result until it is understood and appreciated. That may not be the primary criterion for good Science but I’d put it second since transmitting and publishing Science, good Science, is important. My defence of Science, – not *The* Science that locked us down for a 99.9% survival rate flu – is not absolute and I can get the prevailing skepticism about Science. I don’t know how to express this but I see no conflict between my understanding of disinterested Science and the prospect of abandoning the reign of Quantity altogether. In fact, in my view, good Science being about humbly doubting, is a hint to the inadequacy of “measuring”.
This guy has displayed the same view for more than 30 years (he’s 83 years old) and that’s admirable for a scientist, and for that he deserves to be read.
You can get Lindzen’s (and many other author’s) writings at Anna’s Archive.
“they are running out of time” and into what? Whoever’s cracking the whip on the politicians and medias doesn’t brook failure and they’ll be out on their ears. I look forward to all these social darwinists turning on eachother, red in tooth and claw.
Chemtrails OFF G…………..
or you con trail believers..?
In good faith and with inside information
I yelled “WOLF!” three times.
Yet no wolf appeared.
The fool concluded that wolves do not exist.
—Anonymous
I’m sort of glad Bidet is into a “War” on climate change.
The USofAs hasn’t “won” a war since … since …maybe since they genocided the aborigines of the continent they stole.
Why? Because “winning” is for suckers. The essential thing is to keep the $$$ churning ’round and ’round …
This would be the most interesting “war” since “The Mouse That Roared.” It would be Brandon and his bunch fighting his own military, which is the number one despoiler of climate (as well as everything else).
Some Commander in Chief he turned out to be!
Well, Barry Gardiner, MP, somebody needs to stamp their “warlike footing” on your 1914-vintage skull.
The world had already had more than enough of war by then.
There’s nothing good about war, don’t you know?
Barry Gardiner:
Everybody starts life with good intentions, and I’m sure Mr Gardiner’s christian ethics as a young man were not the reason he claimed for a second home when his constituency can be reached on a bicycle in 40 minutes from Westminster, thus proving to most cynics that having his trotters in the trough was situation normal for him in Westminster World.
I’m sure Mr Gardiner is genuine in his misconceptions about climate and the environment, but that does not mean that anyone should listen to him.
He is a mouthpiece for entrenched interests, not an independent representative who genuinely holds power and authority to account.
I listen more closely to US Nobel Laureates who called the climate change industry a ‘scam’.
Yup. My sentiments exactly. And if they can’t simulate climate change somehow, hey — there’s always war with Russia, isn’t there?
Surely ‘persuasion’ was abandoned decades ago…?
At any rate, I feel forced these days.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/great-reset/schwabs-daughter-confirms-covid-was-a-precursor-to-climate-lockdowns/
https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1685652105590099969
Although already a month old but still good to know. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/german-firm-sees-us-getting-lions-share-100-bln-euro-military-fund-2023-07-04/
There’s a song from an ancient Hollywood flick, called Annie Get Your Gun. It goes like this: “Anything you can do I can do better!” That ditty should be OffG’s signature song.
The Media makes wild claims about the climate – which OffG debunks with equally wild claims.
“(e)very summer the ice caps don’t disappear” says OffG. Regardless what true believers may believe, this is not evidence – it’s a conclusion. If the extent of sea ice and ice caps were measured solely from top down, as they once were, the conclusion would be valid. But they’re measured mostly from bottom up nowadays.
And it’s underneath that’s wreaking havoc on ice shelves. Warming oceans are slowly seeping beneath ice shelves to warm them. Yet from above they look as they always have. But looks can be deceiving.
OffG has often pointed out that climate is far more complex than the Media would have people believe. Good advice for all concerned.
If the polar ice caps were actually melting — whether from the top or the bottom — all of that water would still have to be going somewhere. But where? Global sea levels aren’t rising. Bangladesh is still there. Heck, all of the Pacific atolls are still there — every last one. And the fear-mongering élites pushing the global-warming story, such as the Obamas, are still busy purchasing beach-front property, so even they don’t really believe this stuff themselves. Meanwhile, temperatures are the same they’ve been all my life.
So where’s the evidence of this ‘looming catastrophe’? Computer simulations? Think-tank white papers? That’s about it, because there is no evidence of it anywhere in the real world.
Currently, it’s mostly sea ice that’s melting. So the water is merely replacing the level of the melted ice.
However, what it is also doing is adding fresh water to sea water, thus diluting the saline content – which in turn is warming the oceans.
It’s only if and/or when the land ice starts melting in earnest that the ocean level will rise noticeably. But 5 to 10 mile thick layers of ice will not melt all that quickly unless they melt enough to begin sliding from the land into the ocean. This will cause the land itself (Antarctica and Greenland) to begin rising, thus raising ocean levels even more.
Good story
Oh I know. It’s dastardly to step outside the prevailing ideology to present actual information. But someone’s got to do it.
Bollocks
Well done Howard for at least trying: respect.
I agree. I don’t understand why acknowledging that the earth changes as it does, as it always has, is considered being part of the global climate scam.
I believe there is a big difference. I do believe the earth is changing. I don’t believe all the UN blather that is just one more attempt and plan of the creeps to reign us in.
I do believe humans pollute. I don’t believe we cause natural climate change.
So, thank you for the info Howard.
It is NOT ‘natural’ climate change. It is anthropogenic and occurring one to two orders of magnitude faster than during ‘natural’ climate change. That is the problem.
Many feel that’s a statement of faith, though, not something necessarily supported by evidence. A2
Antarctica is losing ice at ~252 Gt/year, and Greenland at ~254 Gt/year. The rising land will not cause any direct rise in sea level, unless more glaciers start accelerating. However, it is likely to increase earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Bollocks
The powers ignore the threat of WWIII, which threatens to replace climate warming with nuclear winter. But as history shows, nobody sees the conflict they are trying to avoid as its looms towards them.
https://patternofhistory.wordpress.com/
Worth watching regarding climate change
“Exploding stars and solar activity have a much more influence on the weather than we have thought.
Clouds are a very important factor of clima change. Understanding clouds is extremely important to understand the clima.
I was disappointed because I didnt got more money to study my clouds.”
“When I heard the word cosmic waves I was thinking on their influence on clouds.”
Jake, did you find this one in your Grandma’s basement??
Good start with the military hoax Apollo missions being presented as an example of how our ”…perspectives changed forever..”
Svensmark’s ‘theory’ regarding cosmic rays was refuted some time ago, becauseEarth observatories and satellites, that measure cosmic ray flux, show NO correlation with his theories. In any case, cosmic rays are a proxy for Solar activity, as an active Sun produces an active magnetosphere that blocks more cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, and vice versa.
The entire “story” deserves and needs to be mocked as the utter crock of nonsense it is.
According to them, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Man has managed to change its climate and bring it to the brink of destruction in 200 years or so.
They can’t forecast the weather for more than about 6 hours ahead accurately in the UK, using massive computers and presumably now “AI”
Laughable nonsense.
The Big Black Cock (BBC) provide this handy timeline link
The same cock of blackness desperate attempts to explain why the UK has had the wettest July is also down to climate change are simply hilarious.
Mock these clowns
These days and for the last decade I’ve lived in SW Wales. The weather moves around, and you could have a month of rain going sideways with the semi-storm S Westerly airstream. Proper Welsh weather, according to the incumbents.
Face it, whatever happens, plus all the chemtrailing, microwaving Clouds taking on geometric patterns which may cover half the sky, and the HAARP (national instrument of Wales)-ist activity, they’re going to scream ‘Climate Change!!!!!!’ and still some ‘Global Warming!!!!.’ We are ever so manipulated.
Chiefly they want you terrorised and in a permanent state of panic. Don’t give it to them.
Don’t give in to them. What they have planned for us is much worse than minor inconvenience.
I should have added ‘ a months rain in June.’
WTF! Only 9 upvotes for something taken directly from the ideological playbook? Outrageous!
Human activities won’t cause the Earth’s ‘destruction’. They will simply destabilise the global climate greatly, leading to a wet hot-house mass extinction event, destroying most, or all, of humanity. After a million years or so, the planet’s biospheres will recover.
Note from Admin: over the course of an hour today you posted over 30 comments. That’s more than one every two minutes. Please take more time in your replies. This is not a place to spam, especially not dealing with divisive subjects like this. Thank you.
War like footing or plain old war footing simply means notice to execute dissenters.
“Abstract
There is an eerie convergence in academic and media commentary between ‘public health’
policies in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic and policies to address climate change.
Bruno Latour argues that unprecedented state control and surveillance of citizens in their
homes, meetings and movements, are needed to address climate change. This claim rests
on two assumptions. The !rst is that reducing carbon emissions is the way to address the
modest increase in global temperatures since 1850 despite the failure of this approach
to impact either atmospheric carbon or global warming. The second is that forcibly
destroying the creative agencies of billions of people is good for human health and good
for the health of the planet. Against the suppression of the agency of ordinary people in
Covid-19 as a ‘solution’ to climate change I argue that ecological and climate crises can
only be turned around when people, and other creaturely beings, recover their agency
as co-creators and co-curators of their habitats and the cultural and material resources
they need for human flourishing. Evidence from many domains indicates that it is the
loss of such agency by ordinary people, and by other creatures, which is the key driver
of ecosystem destruction. Its recovery involves restraining the industrial agencies which
continue to wreck Gaia…..
…The term ‘lockdown’ originates in the United States prison system (Gottschalk 2015). It refers to the increasingly common practice in the huge mass incarceration gulag of the USA under which prisoners are locked 24 hours a day in their cells by means of centrally controlled bolts on the bars of prisoner cells….
….Lockdowns did not stop more than 100,000 industrial trawlers from ploughing the ocean floor and harvesting such quantities of fish as to change the chemistry and temperature of the oceans, and the Earth’s atmosphere. The ocean ecosystems are not being wrecked by industrial carbon emissions but by industrial fishing.
On land soil respiration is the second most critical regulator of atmospheric chemistry, after life in the oceans, and forests play critical roles in cloud formation, drawing condensation !om the oceans into clouds which then produce rain (Schlesinger and Andrews 2000). Lockdowns did not stop industrial farmers from deep ploughing and chemically dousing soils, so wrecking the capacity of soils to store carbon while supporting microbiota which are critical in soil respiration and atmospheric regulation. And lockdowns did not stop plantation and logging companies turning virgin rainforest into industrial monocultures.”
“Against Lockdowns for the Climate and for a Theology of a Living Earth” by Michael S. Northcott: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358115534_Against_Lockdowns_for_the_Climate_and_for_a_Theology_of_a_Living_Earth
Nothing like a War to unite the little people. Nothing like a War to control the little people. Nothing like a War to abuse the little people for your own criminal agenda.
We must admit that the 1% is smarter than us. Admit it.
They managed to play the game, make the sheeple jump around like fools as they wanted it, picking out only the cream, while we were foolish enough to be left with crumbs.
So why not just admit they are smarter than us, and we deserve to die and leave all our gold and savings to them!
Rational logical thinking, and the truth!
Speak for yourself.
That’s our downfall – rational logical thinking.
The Four Horsemen…Alphabet, Marker, Surface that holds the mark, Writing…?
I was about to rebel and then the image of that shining, davincian genius, Yuval Harari, flashed into what’s left of my weak mind.
He’s all more than me … he almost makes me want to sign up to sacrifice myself for the “greater good” … Almost.
C’mon Erik. Give us one non-sartorial example of where “they” are smarter than us. Just one …
Being morally bankrupt does not equate with “smartness”. On the contrary.
The 1% (er,.. 001%..?), are for throwing old fruit at.
The current controllers of (this part of ?) the plane remain unseen to the domesticated.
No chance of freedom when you don’t know where you are, what you are or where you came from.
Pure AI will put an end to pride in current human “intelligence” as it will be bias/ desires free. The “300” will try to block that of course as they act irrationally towards their own addictions (power, money and sex).
Even a pure AI cannot save this present men-tal mind matrix: to much of the same desires amongst the plebs too.
No worries, Natural Evolution came up with a new consciousness already, messing up the WEF agenda everywhere, including here.
Whilst wading through the increasingly hysterical climate doom mongering I found a piece on the BBC about how farmers are also struggling. But apparently not about aridity:
“Farming can be a rewarding life, but it can also be hard. And young farmers today say they face more challenges than ever.
The biggest one right now is rain. Parts of England had the wettest July on record, leaving some farmers struggling to sustain their cattle.”
The world is burning up …but there’s a rain problem?
Cognitive dissonance again?
The BBC are a cancer in our society.
So the record has been broken: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537
Ocean heat record broken, with grim implications for the planet
The average surface temperature of the oceans between 60 degrees north and 60 degrees south (1978-2023) was 20.96c, beating the previous high, in 2016, by one one-hundredth of a degree centigrade (20.95c).
All that water and they measured it to one one-hundredth of a degree centigrade.
Farming is hard, uncertain work, all right.
That’s why so many folks prefer to fill orders at amazon and go home, microwave a tin of bugs, and check out AssBook. That’s the Life!
No. It is climate destabilisation, leading to, among many other disasters, increased rainfall, in totals and in intensity. Every one degree Celsius increase in global average temperatures leads to a 7-8% increase in atmospheric water vapour, and, consequently, rainfall totals and intensity.
Is the “war on terror” over then, and if so, who won?
The globalist élite — same as always.
Hombre, you need terrorists? No problemo …
I’ll give you a number in Langley that will permit you to customize your needs. Like ordering certain types of food. One from column A. One from column B. ISIS, Tamil Tigers, White Suprematists (wait, that’s a different number).
The War on Terror is just another cuisine … the restaurant is open 24/7.
SAGE are going to have to do better to increase the sense of personal threat due to climate change, cos this time the public just ain’t buying it.
WHAT?
No WAR ON GREED?
That’s the biggest problem/disaster/plague on the planet.
INEQUALITY.
Less is more.
The sun is responsible for climate change. Polititians can’t make war with the sun so they make war with your freedom and wallet and call it combatting climate change.
Nature is primarily responsible for CC. Nature is cyclic, you can’t fuck with it. Man’s actions just might play a tiny part but it is negligible.
They have to resort to fakery to manipulate the facts, such as changing the reported temperature from 2m above ground to surface. It’s a steaming crock of shit.
Anytime the government provides grants (pays you !!) for home heat pumps and electric cars, you know it’s a complete load of bollocksx
UK Labor under Starmer is like the Democrats under Biden or the German Social Democrats under Scholz: 180 degrees bending under kompromat and/or hefty perks from WEF elite. Laborers can get lost, useless eaters, “we” have robots now.
This Left is a stale, toxic leftover.
New world order. Left is right, right is left, when the actual truth is they’re all the exact same. Grifters taking orders from their bossesto destroy society, whilst filling their own pockets at our expense. ALL politicians are crooks in suits.
The trough at Westminster is deep and wide.
I think these dildos started it out with anthropogenic global warming. Why did they use such a fancy word which half the hoi polloi doesn’t know the meaning of? Why not just just human caused global warming? It might occur to some deep thinkers among us that if you eliminate the humans, then you eliminate the purported problem. And then it my occur to them that “Hold on I happen to be human (I am not referring to the predator class) and maybe I don’t want to be eliminated. This is a problem. I love to mention to people that we are a carbon based life form.
I also think that the number of vaxxed people who are beginning to realize that they were deliberately poisoned is growing exponentially, and the predators are having a lot of trouble putting their dogshit back in the tube. They are now desperate to eliminate freedom of speech, and they may shudder when they walk past a lamp post. People are not so ready to follow the commands of “authorities” who deliberately poisoned them and killed their friends and relatives. I think this will be a growing push back.
If they resort to force it means that they have lost their war. They only win by hypnotizing people with the false narratives and living in their Matrix. When you know all the tricks, stage magicians are a lot less fun.
Killing people through poisoning is not the worst of it. The jab permanently incapacitated many victims. They are a drain on their families if any, with no practical access to the theoretical carrots politicians may offer. It they commit suicide, “medical science” puts it down to depression.
One of the strategies of warfare is to deliberately not kill large numbers of the enemy but leave them wounded to bring about strain and collapse in their logistical network.
Questions
Is the globe warming ? I don’t know and I don’t care. Is the rare phenomenon of life on Earth drawing to a close ? I am afraid so. We have raised population and consumption levels to unprecedented heights. How these levels will be sustained is anybody’s guess.The banksters response to high consumption (which they deliberately stimulated for two millennia ) is at once comic and insane. They want electric cars using massive lithium-cobalt batteries to replace the admittedly unsustainable gas guzzler. These electric cars can and do self ignite.A few days ago a sailor on a large cargo ship jumped from a great height into the water and was killed. The ship was on fire ignited by one of the 500 electric cars on board. These fires burn at 1600 deg C, higher than the melting point of steel. There are holes in the steel sides of the ship. Last year another car carrier with 4000 cars sank in 3000 metres of water. Many of the cars were electric and that fire burned for two weeks.
Unless one brings the obvious and by now longstanding geoengineering programs into the discussion, it is pointless to discuss “climate change.”
Yup. It really is past time to realize (Real eyes) the issue at hand is not climate change but the climate CHANGERS. It is the crown jewel weapon of the Military Industrial Complex. I can’t link the PDF here but search for the 1997 USAF document: Weather As A Force Multiplier – Owning The Weather In 2025.
It’s all Fake; Covid, Climate Change, Aliens. This is not to say there aren’t environmental issues, aliens or sicknesses, but these people are masters of co-option, coercion, and fear propagation-
False
Evidence
Appearing
Real.
Stay Vigilant. Peace.
https://www.startpage.com/do/search?q=weather+as+a+force+multiplier.+Owning+the+weather&segment=startpage.brave
Thanks, but I’ve owned a pdf of that for at least ten years now.
EXACTLY
When one divides 127 genders with CoVid vaxxes,
how much climate change does one get?
My calculator is overheating.
My scam meter melted two years ago.
O/T: but important. On 30 July, you posted an immensely abusive (ad hominem) comment to me. You claimed something of me OH so incorrectly, all because you misinterpreted what I’d written (to someone else) in an earlier post. You have probably not seen my reply to you, posted on 1 August. So I provide a link to my response to you, as below:
https://off-guardian.org/2023/07/25/trans-rights-and-the-order-of-speech-part-one/#comment-619813
To all those who’ve thumbed me down!! What I said in my reply to Mann Friedmann on 1st August is still the 100% factual proven truth!!
For (as most people who comment on this site are fully aware).a genuine fact does not cease to be a genuine fact, simply because some [uninformed] people ‘do not believe’ it!!
From Paul Cudunec. on capital’s manipulation of the climate crisis to promote its own agenda of continued and indeed enhanced global domination.
Shining light on the climate of manipulation, Paul Cudunec, 7/31/23.
[Text of a talk given on Saturday July 29 2023 to the Resistenze al Nanomondo international conference in the countryside near Alessandria, Italy]
“Canadian investigative journalist Cory Morningstar (pictured), who spoke at the same event by video link, has long taken the position that man-made climate change is real enough, but that it has been systematically exploited for the distinctly non-environmentalist purposes of global capitalism. She has been exposing this hijacking process for many years now and the mass of detailed evidence she has accumulated is conclusive.”
https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/07/31/shining-light-on-the-climate-of-manipulation/
It sounds, to me, that Morningstar has comprehended what is occurring, very well. I believe that the capitalists intend climate destabilisation to reduce the human population, who they openly call ‘useless eaters’, by as much as possible. How they imagine that they will be spared, I do not know, but I begin to suspect that they intend Hawaii to become an elite bolt-hole.
Good article.
It’s likely they are and will be deploying more assets to start forest fires and trigger other disasters that can be blamed on that nasty climate change business!
They have shown they are desperate and will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve their insane goal of replacing nature and humanity with computers while wiping themselves out thinking they’re becoming “immortal”….
So, be very alert… They did a number on us with the covid op. We must pre-empt their attempts at false flag operations.
Yep, the recent fires in Greece are reckoned to be have been the result of arson. They were so widespread and serious that the chances of the arsonists being amateur crazies is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Don’t believe the hysterical crisis actors, try this for size:
Mittelstands-Union Mittelfranken on Twitter: “Das „Flammeninferno von #Rhodos“ am 25.07.23 aus Sicht eines Linienpiloten. “Laut den Medien brennt ganz Rhodos…Wahnsinn der Scheiß, den sie uns erzählen.” (Quelle: Weltwoche/Schweiz) https://t.co/Xfhc3VOJTn” / X
I’m no scientist, but,
i read that CO2 makes up 0.04% of atmospheric gases (and hoomins contributed only about 4% of that 0.04%)…
And i’m no story teller, but,
there’s that story about the flea on anelephants back…
Now if the elephant is the climate, and the flea is that 0.04%
how long will it take for the flea to bring that elephant to its knees ?
*(like i said, i’m not a scientist or storyteller, but there’s got to be a story about The Science in there – somewhere ?)
les…….😎…….
Unfortunately, neither the flea, nor elephant really matter to the storytellers. Only that the audience are gullible fools.
I wonder if they will ever figure out that it’s an act of God and nothing can be done about it.
Indeed. Climate was an act of God. Though yes, evolutionists will likely require billions of years to figure it out, as is their want.
The more quick-minded Creationists only requiring only the prerequisite 6 days, of course.
Sounds like they’re both hopelessly deluded and misguided!
I wonder if everyone will eventually figure out that everything is an act of God.
This is highly unlikely since the God i’m taking about they have yet to conceive or even acknowledge that she exists.
Which is bad news for them if and when something goes wrong with her plan, for they and their environment will no longer be needed in the name of peace, efficiency, and additional chances.
Its a small club and we might not be in it, or even invited into it either.
Had a discussion recently with three people I know more or less well. It’s not just that they all believed that the “climate emergency” was real (like “Covid” and “Monkeypox” btw., too), but they were so cocksure about it they even said they would appreciate lockdowns for “saving the earth” – and other hard measures, even if this meant poverty and misery for a lot of people. In short – they were really fanatic about all this.
And they asked me why I was so “hot” about these things. See, for them everything was oh so clear – so why was I getting so “hot” about all this? They were so incredibly cool (literally) about it all, implicating that who stays cool is always right. I apologised for my temper and told them that I’m feeling that there is an incredible lot at stake here – so much that I’m unable to stay completely “cool” about it. I felt like a fool – someone who is unable to stay cool as they did, feeling so cocksure about everything.
So if it really comes to “them” starting to use force there will be a civil war also – a civil war between the ones who believe that we need to do everything – literally everything – to “save the world from the climate crisis”, and the sceptics, who refuse to be impoverished just like that in this “War on Climate Change” …
They’ll just lock the rioters bank accounts and it will all be over
Any time we are told that there is a global threat, and the only solution is a global solution, you know it’s a scam.
If they’re so “cool” about climate change then they obviously don’t believe it.
we call them ‘non player characters’ here. Just empty soulless shells of obedient nothingness
I get furious whenever I read or hear the most asinine phrase ever spoken: “Save the Planet.”
What they mean is, “Save our little niche of the planet! So that we can continue exploiting its resources for our benefit.”
The planet will be just fine, hot, cold or encased in noxious gasses like Venus. It won’t care in the least.
So it’s humanity’s little joyride the “greens” and what-not are interested in preserving – no matter who they have to harm in the process.
If any of these jokers really wanted to alter climate trajectory, they would be discussing the immediate and permanent grounding of ALL commercial aircraft, and an immediate end to ALL military exercises, world wide. Therefore; it is bullshit on a stick…
And they wouldn’t forget to include the 100,000 outrageously large ships in the equation. And computers, they cost a lot of energy and give off heat! Some believe that computers consume 10% of the world’s energy.
If they were honest they would be against those wastes. Things would all get better instead of worse. (But that yields nothing for the stock markets and therefore the investor, who wants more and more. That is why everything is getting worse and therefore more polluting.)
Spot on AntiSoof. No one wants to admit that technology creates waste. Wasted environment. Wasted energy. Wasted lives. It’s a great – short ride on the mega-bus to Hell…
Technology provides innovations. Capitalism ensures that the ensuing sales continues, e.g., is needless, subject to changes (fashion or rules) or wasteful.
Except important peoples commercial / private flights of course. And as for the military thing, there’s too much money being made to ever stop that
How much GHG does the UN generate? Or the UN IPCC and UN FCCC themselves?
“Important peoples” indeed, like ‘Bear’ Grylls Boy Scouts in S.Korea, where NATO have just opened their latest ‘defensive offices’ for future officers. 4,500 Scouts from the UK,
Joining Scouts from 158 nations, with a total of 43,000 enduring normal temperatures of 35° Celsius, absent serious planning, unlike my mountain farmhouse on the Balkans,
( which will be hotter than Korea today: normal for August; had much hotter …)
I was tempted to prompt CJ Hopkins to comment on parallels to the Hitler Youth Movement gone global, only just yesterday: hoisted by Baer Grills Boy Scouts with his own Personal Petard… if only we’d had a good Grylling & Drilling, when I was a Scout.
C.F.C.s in deed. ( Corporate Fascist Controllers of Media-Hysteria, co-opted by WPP,
Publicis, I.G.C. & the Omnicom groupies).
“The event was attended by Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol, as well as chief scout and celebrity survivalist Bear Grylls.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/03/south-korea-heatwave-world-scout-jamboree-injury-treatment-headaches-exhaustion
Honestly speaking, I could have made a fortune @£5,000 per person and they would have all learnt how to survive in temperatures way hotter than any ‘new normal’, in Korea, down by the River Arda: and if Grylls wanted to prove himself, he could help with the extinguishing of the many uncontrolled Forest Fires, Unreported …
Sense the Irony ?
BS. Boy Scouts. Bear Grylls & CFC’s NATZO on the long march to Asia, instead;
Just to add to global emissions ! No purpose served, except the Psyop.
Spare a thought for the Firemen in Bulgaria, today.
Not dehydrated kids… & their idiotic
over affluent parents with
Poor Perceptions of
Climate Engineering,
& Opium Wars…
Balky.
aye military industrial complex the biggest polluters of all
Not just pollution ! Also their Geo-engineering.
Understand their experimentation,
Understand their A.I.M.s .
Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors
& Scientist’s Errors in their
Experimentation & poor judgement
Of the Magnetosphere…
damage done.
Balky
At some point they will do that, but only for the peasants flying commercial. The WEF crowd will still be jetting around in their private planes.
So this goes back to Impact Investing first coined in 2007 by the Rockefeller foundation. Shareholder must factor in the impact of their investments or seek to product social impact by transitioning over to more lucrative investments.
“The greatest investment opportunities lie with those seeking fundamental changes in global energy use and production methods. The greatest risks are with those intending to carry on with busines as usual.” – Douglas G. Cogan, Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection, 2003
The book is interesting as it shows what’s in the transition to new technologies and renewable energy (because of most feared but value-guaranteed “climate change”) for shareholders. Don’t be rebutted by “corporate governance”; it just means AFAIK that shareholders must take responsibility and plan for the impacts they produce.
Apropos windfarms:
Just listen to the first 4 minutes.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/l9S4wNEGHuHy/
Not sure if this is how things work in Europe or the USA and elsewhere but this is criminal.
Having just watched that all the way through, I can say with 100% sincerity that it is probably the stupidest thing I have ever seen. There are plenty of reasons why wind turbines are a bad idea, but this numbskull and the woman being interviewed just elevate any sensible arguments to the heights of total lunacy.
So, what she said was wrong? That the farmer gets $12,000, the operator 600,000 in subsidies while the farmer cops the liability if the turbine catches fire?
And what about the need for those turbines to be driven by conventional power plants, with intermittent excess power just being blown off because power plants can’t cope with the flux of energy? All lies?
“All they do is suck power from the grid”, “The blades are too thin and there’s only three of them”… lol what a joke. You can believe that drivel if you want to.
There is NOTHING environmentally friendly about wind turbines and wind farms.
News reports from Scotland (Sunday Mail), for instance, state that turbines use diesel generators running for up to six hours a day ! to keep the turbines running during the cold season. Also it was reported that the turbines leaked thousands of litres of oil from their hydraulic units.
And, yes, wind turbines DO take energy from the grid to a varying extent to compensate for weather conditions.
Never mind that wind turbines are
– bird killers;
– that their blades cannot be recycled and wind up in landfill;
– easily catch fire (lightning and other electrical causes);
– collapse in strong wind conditions, as happened in Australia, the US & Germany, for example – and leak oil everywhere when they collapse, as reported by CNS News on 18 July 2022, for example;
– that their transportation to the installation sites requires enormous diesel-fuelled trucks to take them there;
and that a wind turbine will never produce enough power to equal the power it took to build the wind turbine.
– They are also an eye sore to say the least.
Somewhere recently I saw a graph that showed that worldwide there are more cold-related deaths every year than there are heat-related deaths.
Should we redeploy and call it the war against cooling?
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-cold-facts-about-heat-deaths
the graph and a brief discussion of how lying with statistics can work; spoiler alert: yes, far more cold-related deaths.
I believe I read the opposite …. Heat kills many more than cold.
It may be more complex than a simple hot/cold binary. There would have to be a demographic involved.
For instance, far more old people would succumb to heat than to cold – especially in the inner cities where there is no air conditioning. After all, if you’re cold, you can always bundle up more. But if you’re hot; and already have health issues, there’s very little you can do to cope with the heat. Besides which, your death would most likely be attributed to whatever was your health problem – not to the heat.
Whereas if you froze to death, there’s no mistaking how you died.
With respect to the meta climate problem:
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/spent-five-years-meeting-people-radicalised-online-learned-social-media-2519190
An argument, to which there’s a fair bit of validity, me thinks.
After all, when has anyone actually *CHANGED* their opinion because of an online debate or discussion, because of a particularly cogent, detailed, semi-coherent argument to the contrary? I would suspect very rarely, if at all. Though that would surely make the more interesting study.
So what might actually make someone *CHANGE* their mind on a particular topic, such as climate change? Given that we all tend to dig in our heels when attacked. Come back with an doubly-enhanced, super-strengthened opinion. One that not only doubly-proves our earlier point, but refutes all-comers and all potential future-comers to the contrary… ?
Given that an enemy’s arsenal essentially consists of ‘words’ to throw at us (“sticks and stones may break our bones” ‘n all that). Essentially, black type on white background. That also being the proverbial “their”‘s primary weapon (plus perhaps, the odd link to an unwatchable 3-hour video)…
So something more is clearly required. Though what that is precisely, I do not know. Still up for grabs. Maybe some post-Internet technology?
What was that “AI” all about anyway??
A process of “deradicalization” begins with one small slip-up.
If a trusted “source” says/writes something; and you wish to determine that source’s “source,”; and in so doing discover that your source’s source did not say what your source told you it said – then you’re on your way to questioning even more of your source’s “facts.”
Yes, I would agree with that. Go to the “source’s source”, whenever possible.
Takes a little extra work sometimes but it certainly helps to distinguish those who merely hold secondhand opinions from those who actually know what they are talking about
They LOVE to make war, and spread a lot of fear porn too.
I think THEY should be called the sociopaths from now on…. I believe that would be more informative. The sociopaths….
Which is probably a high percentage of people…. Unsure exactly how high.
Remember the immortal words of the good billionaires and technocrats at The Club of Rome:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Club of Rome, just like the Trilateral Commission, or the Council on Foreign Relations, or the RAND Institute, the WEF, and so on, and I’ll add to that the UN are think tanks, that is, experts, technicians and bureaucrats, many of them graduated from the universities. These guys then are employees of, therefore paid by, the capitalist class to make regular assesments on the state of things in several fields, detect problems, make diagnoses and predictions and so forth. They look after the interests of those how pay them and there’d better be “issues” to investigate, otherwise their usefulness may evaporate, and become unemployed.
One can reasonably argue that there is truth to the problems listed in the quote, or that they are the conclusions of serious investigations: pollution, poverty, famines,…
The issue lies at the point where they have to point at the responsible of these problems. Can one be any more ambiguous than “human intervention”? However, these guys being paid by those very people who set the trends for this “human intervention,” they can’t afford to be any more precise. This, in practice, means that the problems listed will be considered as produced by their immediate agents, not by the primary agents, and therefore, taking pollution as an example, they’ll come up with “solutions” like people should drive less, or smoke less, use alternative heating methods, refrain from using certain aerosols, etc. All these fixes don’t address the real causes. It is only recently that the capitalists were “invited” to participate to the solutions, but even then, the sacrifices they’ll accept to make will be those that yield profit to them and don’t affect them much otherwise, while the greater impact will be on our back, the common people.
This is so because there is an entrenched belief that capitalist class are the ones who built this civilisation, and to a great extent it’s true; but in following Capital’s logic they are hindering the foundations of civilisation, arising problems not being solved, but temporarily fixed, and producing increasingly greater problems which in turn won’t be solved and the impacts of which will be suffered only by the common people who at a certain point will stop cooperating and listening to their “arguments” things having reached an unbearable degree of irrationality and common sense.
It’s a dead end and they know it.
… irrationality and lack of common sense.
My heart aches for them.