After the wildly-off-the-mark projections of computer models in the coronavirus fiasco, computer models and projections have lost a lot of their luster, including the ones spitting out projections of our planet burning up. What’s Greta Thunberg going to peddle now? From the editors at 21st Century Wire, 21stcenturywire.com:
The tea leaves are beginning to turn out. This may well be the year in which the climate change movement begins to go off the rails.
It started off great, as elites and climatists descended on Davos to press home what looked to be the final mile in ramming through the adoption of some form of global Green New Deal by year’s end. Their secret weapon, a Swedish teen, was primed, locked and loaded.
Their cause was then handed another gift in the Coronavirus lockdowns. Climate campaigners were over the moon with excitement over the lockdown and boasted with claims of lower CO2 levels due the economic shutdown. In just two months, COVID lockdown policies had achieved what climate campaigners had been working for years to realize. Or so they thought. It was later revealed that lockdowns had little or no impact on overall CO2 concentration. But since when did a little science get in the way of an apocalyptic juggernaut.
But something strange happened on the way to Wuhan.
One of the key components of the intergovernmental fear campaign to promote COVID lockdowns – was dubious computer modelling. Initially, these were referred to as “The Science” by cock-sure politicians and public health officials. The press quickly fell in line with this groupthink. Any dissenters were roundly attacked and deplatformed. As their mission crept on, it became clear that these models were ever only masquerading as ‘science’. The fictional doomsday scenarios being created by technocrats were then snapped up by the mainstream media, and then used them to hound political officials into implementing a one-size-fits-all centralized policy of de-industrialization and mass travel bans. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that this is exactly what climatists and Green New Deal campaigners have been hoping for.
Nothing pisses people off more than somebody on their side saying he was wrong. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
Forbes has decided to unpublish an article by award-winning climate activist Michael Shellenberger, in which he apologizes “for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years.”
Schellenberger, a progressive, was named one of TIME‘s “Heroes of the Environment,” while his book Break Through was heralded by WIRED as potentially “the best thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.”
His book Apocalypse Never was widely praised as an ‘eye-opening, fact-based approach’ to climate science and ‘engaging and well-researched.’
The auto fuel ethanol mandate is about rewarding crony agribusinesses, and actually reduces the miles per gallons about which everyone professes to worry. From Eric Peters and ericpetersautos.com:
Gas mileage has been a kind of fetish object for the government lo these past 40-something years. But is it really about gas mileage? Or is gas mileage just the excuse for something else – something even more sinister than a handful of people (this is what “the government” is) contravening what buyers want, as expressed by their willingness to buy?
Let’s consider a couple of things that could have easily and inexpensively increased fuel economy; or rather and perhaps better put, made it feasible to go much farther on a gallon of fuel without adding complexity and cost:
Gasoline, for instance.
Not ten percent gasoline. . . and 10 percent ethanol. Which reduces miles-per-gallon because 90 percent gas and ten percent ethanol contains less energy per gallon. An easy way to increase gas mileage without changing anything about the car would be to put gas – not adulterated gas – in the tank. The increase would be on average about 2-3 MPG, which is a larger increase than is achieved by engineering artifices such as replacing relatively simple fuel delivery systems like port fuel injection with high-pressure direct injection, which also adds to the price of the car – negating the smaller mileage benefit achieved.
The desolation, shuttered businesses, and unemployment you see out there is pretty much what the environmentalists hope is a permanent state of affairs. From Joakim Book at aier.org:
Have you recently heard anything about the major existential threat to our lives? I don’t mean the exaggerated virality of the virus currently wreaking havoc with our globalized societies, but the endlessly dangerous impact of climate change? Of rising sea levels and volatile weather leading to crop failures and mass starvation and collapse of precious ecosystems?
Nor should you have: as humans, we clearly had more urgent things to worry about than dying polar bears or cleared rainforests or other kinds of climate damages – real or imagined – accumulating centuries down the line. In the economist’s dry language, our time preferences spiked: we suddenly cared a lot more about the present compared to the future than we did until recently.
If they can make you wear masks and stay inside your home, they can certainly tell you what car you have to drive. That’s the downside to obeying the government—the government gets used to ordering you around. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
It’s going to take a whole lot of ether in the carburetor to restart the car business once the economy “reopens” (neat term, that; it conveys the horrid truth that government has successfully asserted – because people have accepted it – full Decider power to tell us whether and when we may live our economic lives – at its arbitrary whim.)
There is already talk of Cash for Clunkers II – though it probably won’t be cash, as part of the Plandemic’s goals, in addition to Advanced Servility Training, is to eliminate cash in the name of hygiene.
But actually for the sake of eliminating anonymity – and enforcing control.
Every transaction you make – every cup of coffee you buy – will be known immediately to them. Data about your buying habits will be compiled, sold . . . and used to make sure you neither pay for nor are paid for any work that is not fully taxed.
Also that everything you do is approved.
Anything you do that isn’t will be dealt with by throttling your ability to buy and sell. It’ll be like a credit card except one with a real-time-adjustable credit line – adjusted at the pleasure of the government, whenever you incur its displeasure.
Another coming nudge – which will be more like a shove this time – will be in the direction of electric cars, the non-electrics to be characterized as the “clunkers” of 2020 and anathematized in the same manner as walking around in public without a Fear Mask.
The green movement is mostly about fake science and corporate opportunism. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: the mainstream environmental movement is pushing lies in the form of various techno-fixes and band-aids – all of which are reliant and use large quantities of fossil fuels and rare earth minerals. Have environmentalists fallen for a “green” illusion? More than any other documentary to date, this film exposes the wholesale fraud behind subsidized industries like biomass fuels, wind turbines, and even not-so ‘green’ electric car…
…and that is why Moore’s typical leftist cult following has turned on him so aggressively – facts don’t fit their narratives and cognitive dissonance is not a safe space.
The elite want us to all to be Chicken Littles, which will make it easier for them to implement their deadly schemes. From Brendan O’Neill at spiked-online.com:
The elites want us to panic about Covid-19 – we must absolutely refuse to do so.
People’s refusal to panic has been a great source of frustration for the establishment in recent years. ‘The planet is burning’, they lie, in relation to climate change, and yet we do not weep or wail or even pay very much attention. ‘I want you to panic’, instructs the newest mouthpiece of green apocalypticism, Greta Thunberg, and yet most of us refuse to do so. A No Deal Brexit would unleash economic mayhem, racist pogroms and even a pandemic of super-gonorrhoea, they squealed, incessantly, like millenarian preachers balking at the imminent arrival of the lightning bolt of final judgement, and yet we didn’t flinch. We went to work. We went home. We still supported Brexit.
Our skittish elites have been so baffled, infuriated in fact, by our calm response to their hysterical warnings that they have invented pathologies to explain our unacceptable behaviour. The therapeutic language of ‘denialism’ is used to explain the masses’ refusal to fret over climate change. Environmentalists write articles on ‘the psychology of climate-change denial’, on ‘the self-deception and mass denial’ coursing through this society that refuses to flatter or engage with the hysteria of the eco-elites. Likewise, the refusal of voters to succumb to the dire, hollow warnings of the ferociously anti-Brexit wing of the establishment was interpreted by self-styled experts as a psychological disorder. ‘[This is] people taking action for essentially psychological reasons, irrespective of the economic cost’, said one professor.
Those reusable bags we’re all supposed to be using at the grocery store instead of disposable plastic bags promote “green” and “natural” pathogens…like the coronavirus. From John Tierney at city-journal.org:
The ban on single-use plastic grocery bags is unsanitary—and it comes at the worst imaginable time.
The COVID-19 outbreak is giving new meaning to those “sustainable” shopping bags that politicians and environmentalists have been so eager to impose on the public. These reusable tote bags can sustain the COVID-19 and flu viruses—and spread the viruses throughout the store.
Researchers have been warning for years about the risks of these bags spreading deadly viral and bacterial diseases, but public officials have ignored their concerns, determined to eliminate single-use bags and other plastic products despite their obvious advantages in reducing the spread of pathogens. In New York State, a new law took effect this month banning single-use plastic bags in most retail businesses, and this week Democratic state legislators advanced a bill that would force coffee shops to accept consumers’ reusable cups—a practice that Starbucks and other chains have wisely suspended to avoid spreading the COVID-19 virus.
John Flanagan, the Republican leader of the New York State Senate, has criticized the new legislation and called for a suspension of the law banning plastic bags. “Senate Democrats’ desperate need to be green is unclean during the coronavirus outbreak,” he said Tuesday, but so far he’s been a lonely voice among public officials.
The question in the title begs the question of whether or not anybody needs to save us from climate change. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:
The 1978 Humphrey-Hawkins Act requires the Federal Reserve to “promote” stable prices and full employment. Of course, the Fed’s steady erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power has made prices anything but stable, while the boom-and-bust cycle created by the Fed ensures that periods of low unemployment will not last for long. Despite the difficulties the Fed faces fulfilling its “dual mandate,” Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell recently announced a new Fed mandate: to protect the financial system from being destabilized by climate change.
Powell appears to have bought into the propaganda that “the science is settled” regarding the existence, causes, and effects of climate change. But the statement “the science is settled” is itself unscientific. Science is rarely settled as today’s new discoveries disprove yesterday’s consensus. In the case of climate change, many scientists dispute the claim that absent massive expansion of government power a climate apocalypse will soon be at hand.
Computer models of the climate or anything else can model something, but they can’t prove a hypothesis. From by Martin Capages Jr. at wattsupwiththat.com:
As long as humans have been on Earth, they have been adapting to changes in regional climates. A regional climate is the average of the weather for a relatively long period of time, usually 30+ years, at a particular location on the planet. The natural periodicity of prolonged regional weather variations has been documented in various ways by humans for eons. For a comparison of human civilization in the northern hemisphere to Greenland ice core temperatures for the last 18,000 years see here. Some of the means of documenting changes in long term weather patterns, i.e. climate change, include crude prehistoric cave drawings of the animals and plants, paintings of frozen rivers (see Figure 1 of ice skating on the River Thames in 1684), and archaeological digs. There are also written records of climatic conditions as early as 5,000 years ago, perhaps even earlier. Ice, subsea, peat and lake bed cores are also used, for a more detailed discussion of the methods used see here and the links therein.
Most geologists agree that we are currently in an extended ice age. Technically we are in an “icehouse” condition (see here). When ice caps exist on one or more poles year-round for an extended period of time, the Earth is said to be in an icehouse. Global temperature may decrease further if the solar activity remains at its current low level (see here). But geologists deal in massive time increments of thousands, millions even billions of years. The general public makes its observations in decades, perhaps a generation and maybe even in a century, but not much more than that. Such a myopic view of the Earth’s climate can be misleading.
Unlike many websites, Straight Line Logic does not solicit donations. If you're going to lay out your hard-earned money, you should get something in exchange. If you like the site and want to support it, buy The Golden Pinnacle or The Gordian Knot, either as a book or download. The links are on the right-hand side of the page, in the Blogroll section. You'll be supporting the site, and getting a great book and hours of enjoyable reading.