By Jo Nova
It’s the Reality TV version of “Democracy”
For three years the workers of France revolted in Yellow Vest protests week after relentless week, even though the media ignored them, they kept returning. President Macron had to do something that looked like he was listening. So 150 people won the lucky dip draw to be the actors in a show pretending to be “the People’s Government of France”. Only they, apparently, thought they were doing something important. For nine months these 150 people were supposed to learn climate science and figure out what the other 65 million French citizens would have chosen had they been there. Naturally, they were marinated and baked in approved ClimateThink, and no dissenting scientists or citizens were invited.
After this intense love in, they came up with a list of policies as big as a phone book, the government picked the ones they were probably going to do anyway, and flicked the ones they weren’t and then proclaimed the citizens had spoken! In theory there was supposed to be a Referendum option at the end, but this, well, nevermind, became just another round of votes in Parliament.
The 150 were selected from a pool of 225,000 to represent an illusory “cross-section of the French population across their age, gender, education level, socio-professional category, etc etc. ” But if half the population of France are skeptics, no one selected them. Thus we get a pseudo “mini-democracy” where we can avoid all those messy public debates, and 150 people can save the world while the 65 million sleep through it. Turn on the TV, and turn off your brain.
The Australian ABC loves it of course, and despite getting $3 million dollars to spend yesterday (like every day), it couldn’t find anyone who thought the Citizens Assembly was not wonderful.
For thirty years the Experts were the only people that mattered, but now the Permitted-Amateurs are here to save the day:
Asking “amateurs” for policy advice has one big advantage over the standard route of going to the experts, said Professor Curato.
Non-experts can encounter a problem without preconceived ideas – and this can lead to unexpected new solutions.
“If you’re a climate economist, you will only see the problem from an economic perspective. If you’re a climate scientist, you only see the problem from a scientific perspective,” she said.
“Experts don’t have the monopoly of good answers.”.
Of course, Permitted Amateurs were only taught permitted thoughts:
It started with a crash course in climate change, presented by the best French experts, [who hadn’t already been sacked, thinks Jo]… to get all the citizens up to speed on the latest science.
There was also the inevitable conversion of the rare short-lived B-meson subatomic skeptic that only seems to exist in high speed press releases:
Just like any cross-section of society, their knowledge of climate change varied across the group, and Dr Giraudet said these lectures had an immediate impact on the group. “These were a big shock for many of the participants. Some claim that they came as climate sceptics and after these lectures, they completely changed their mind.”
Everywhere else in the real world the conversions all go the other way from believer to skeptic, and usually just as they retire.
The Selected Permitted Amateurs did such a good job they came up with ideas so outlandish they could make Macron look like a sensible man of the centre as he vetoed them or wound them back. They wanted to reduce speed limits, tax big corporations, and stop everyone flying anywhere that wasn’t at least four hours away. Instead it’s just become a ban on trips under two-and-a-half hours.
Lucky French citizens will now get health warnings on their car adverts. What like, Driving Renaults Melts Glaciers?
Ecocide is a magic wand that stops all environmental crime
They also wanted to introduce the crime of Ecocide. Imagine if you could just make a law over highly complex international scientific issues with error bars larger than Antarctica and six dimensions of moving parts? What could possibly go wrong, apart from turning it into a supra-national unelected government body with corrupt scientists, corrupt judges, and working like the WHO does in the service of President Xi?
France would have been the first country in the world to make ecocide a crime. Instead, Macron promised to make ecocide a less-serious “offence”.
As wikipedia says: “Ecocide is human impact on the environment causing mass destruction to that environment.” Making it about as amorphous, unmeasureable, infinite and endless as any container-ship of unemployed lawyers and scientists could want.
France, no doubt, already has specific laws about measurable pollution. But that isn’t enough to be able to sue political targets for sins against our grandchildren that can’t be measured yet, except with computer models.
Photo: Anthony DELANOIX
Were these people randomly selected in the same way that BBC Question Time and ABC Q&A audiences are ‘randomly selected’?
560
Very probably.
And – IIRC – didn’t Boris (can you remember him?!) Introduce something similar in the UK. Though doubtless if you’d complained about the Bolshy Bias Corporation’s adulation of St David of Plummeting-Walrus, you would not have been on the Very Long List Indeed.
Auto
50
And the results as legitimate as those of Putin’s referenda in the Ukraine.
15
This is why politicians love biased extremist “experts.” Anything the pols decide to do will come off as moderate compared to the loons’ ideas.
190
And most of those “experts” are only experts because they “identify” as “experts”.
The example was given the other day in comments in this blog of a supposed “nuclear expert” who was promoted as such but in fact was an anti-nuclear campaigner with no science or engineering background whatsoever.
460
I am often introduced to clients as an ‘expert’ in my field of endeavour. I always object to this by pleading with those introducing me to refer to me as a ‘specialist’ if they must, but never, ever, an expert, as this implies I must know all there is to know about very little.
200
I also dislike the term expert, I especially despise the term Subject Matter Expert, (SME), to me in conjures the thoughts of a person so far removed from reality that they have no one left to converse with. After all, why have more than one expert? Imagine if there were two. You’d get three conflicting answers for five problems that had never showed up in any reality nor experienced in the real world.
And that is why I use the term engineer. Some people even think of weld steel or drive trains.
60
Exactly. As William M. Briggs defines the ‘Expertocracy.’
201
Excellent!
Our political class, instead of actually addressing real issues always have to cast themselves as heroes and rescuers. So with covid they rushed in eager to do some, hell, anything, to try to justify their existence.
The Left are particularly good at claiming their “solutions” to issues are what we need, when usually their solutions have little to do with the problem. Recently the Biden regime passed the “inflation reduction bill” and on close analysis we had vast sums of money ladled out to “woke” causes and precious little to actually do anything about inflation.
110
Actions excluded from the definition of Ecocide:
1. The manufacturing, assembly and installation of solar panels, wind towers and associated power line infrastructure needed to support this activity
2. The mining and processing of all necessary raw materials for the manufacture of the above items
3. The disposal of the above items when no longer viable.
410
In Overheated Economy, Dems Forced To Cool Climate Messaging
By Susan Crabtree – RCP Staff
Eric Sorensen, a Democrat running for an open seat in a northwest Illinois congressional district that Donald Trump narrowly won twice, concluded recently that his campaign website’s top issues section needed a major reshuffling.
A section entitled “Addressing Climate Change,” which was initially leading the page, was relegated to the no. 4 spot, according to a comparison of the archived version of the website. The revamped website’s top two sections were new: “Addressing Rising Costs” and “Securing Reproductive Rights.”
In unpredictable, ultra-competitive races like Sorensen’s, Democrats are deliberating over every move in the final weeks. The race for the seat held by retiring Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos pits Sorensen against Republican Esther Joy King, a U.S. Army JAG officer reservist running a campaign focused on combating inflation.
Yet, for Sorensen’s campaign to follow suit – to re-order his policy priorities and slide climate change down the priority list – is telling. The former TV weatherman’s campaign logo still includes a windmill and a sun. He’s also on the record repeatedly stating that climate change is his top priority while claiming to be the first meteorologist to mention climate change on air 15 years ago.
“Climate change is top,” Sorensen said at a virtual Democratic candidate forum in late April before the primary. “And I was the communicator for events as they happened so our local communities could understand the implications.”
Why the sudden shift? Republicans offer a succinct explanation: The climate message is backfiring among voters in Illinois’ 17th Congressional District, which is split between rural and urban areas and is home to thousands of farms, including 157 dairy farms. (Dairy farms are a frequent target of environmentalists, who argue that the cows and their manure produce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.)
“Eric Sorensen is completely out of touch with Illinois voters,” National Republican Campaign Committee spokeswoman Courtney Parella said in a statement over the summer. “Sorensen wants Illinois families, already struggling to afford basic necessities thanks to Democrats’ inflation crisis, to pay higher costs for his radical climate agenda.”
The Sorensen campaign, which is endorsed by the National Resources Defense Council, a strong proponent of the Green New Deal, now offers a more nuanced version of his top policy priorities.
Last month, Sorensen sent out a fundraising email focused solely on climate change. It highlighted a new study warning that Illinois will be “squarely within an ‘extreme heat belt,’ where dangerously high temperatures will threaten human health with increasing frequency as the planet warms.”
In Sorensen’s telling, however, climate change and the green agenda would be resonating with voters if only the Democratic Party could get its talking points right. In August, Sorensen sent out a fundraising email criticizing Democratic party leaders for not doing a better job selling climate policies, especially in their infrastructure legislation, the Build Back Better Act, which preceded the Inflation Reduction Act.
“This is a common problem that we see with climate change,” he added. “Often, it’s framed around problems that aren’t tangible to everyday life, like ‘saving the polar bears.’ However, that’s not how voters here experience it.”
130
4. Transportation
5. Ongoing maintenance
6. Clearing of vast amounts of land to make way for the monstrosities
7. Windmill blades killing endangered birds of prey and bats
8. Net increase in ’emissions’ over full life cycle of these not fit for purpose products
130
Part of the supposed solution to the imaginary “climate crisis” is the promotion of eating insects (for non-Elites) as they already do in 1000 Aussie schools and elsewhere..
The transition to insect poverty food should be easy for the French as they are already partial to things that crawl and slither upon the earth like gastropods.
Insects are already on the menu in many French restaurants.
The “food of the future” as it’s being promoted in France.
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/oddly-enough/french-restaurant-serves-up-food-future-insects-2021-05-31/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/02/cordon-bleugh-worms-and-crickets-could-soon-be-tickling-french-palates
https://tasteoffrancemag.com/trending/parisian-chef-says-insects-are-the-future-of-sustainable-dining/
Bon appétit!
180
I do wonder what effect harvesting sufficient insects to provide sufficient protein to feed the masses will have on the environment. Insects are a major and critical part of our ecosystems and if they are predatory, what happens to their prey? And if plants rely on those insects, what happens to them?
130
And birds – and other creatures that rely on those insects for their food!
140
The insects still have to be fed so crops will have to be raised to feed them, unless they feed them Soylent Green, which I wouldn’t put past the Left either.
The Big Lie is that insects can convert their feed into protein more efficiently than traditional livestock. I believe the figures used by those promoting entomophagy are fraudulent.
Figures I’ve seen are that a chicken has a feed conversion ratio of 1.6 meaning that 1.6kg of feed gets converted into 1kg of meat vs crickets which is almost the same at 1.5.
150
The only way sufficient insects can be grown is by factory farming them, apparently nobody cares that insects are sentient beings and need space to walk, crawl and hop around in. I’ll gladly eat insects if they can all be free range, harvested and euthanised in a humane way. After all insect lives matter.
290
B ugs’
L ives
M atter, in fact!
Auto
30
It is a sustainable process, you see.
The millions dead from starvation are consumed by flies and ants.
Anyone still living gets to consume those flies and ants until they themselves are absorbed by the process (doesn’t take long).
All under the watchful eye of self-adorned “betters” eating prime steak and flying private jets between multiple personal mega-compounds and resorts around the world, in the solemn service of Gaia.
This is entirely unnecessary. We have enough human ingenuity and resources (nuclear, in particular) to last all of humanity for thousands of years (if nature chooses not to rudely interrupt with a real catastrophe). We are trying to get rid of the wrong people. It’s the nutters that think they’re in charge that need to go.
90
Termites are considerable methane generators through their digestion of cellulose. If they are harvested for food it would reduce the need for protein from methane belching cattle, goats and sheep, reduce their farming and solve the proposed ‘burp tax’ on these poor farm animals.
Actually, on a weight for weight basis these insects produce more methane and CO2 than their larger counterparts so termite farming will not solve the so called ‘climate problem’ although outback ‘mustering’ of termites would be an interesting activity.
110
Methane and the environment, what a great paradox. We have cows grazing on a paddock that cannot possible produce any additional methane than the vegetation allows. Likewise we have termites that are also bound by what the paddock “has available” Like filling your car with petrol once the fuel is used, thats it. You cannot make the car move. No fuel, no move.
So, lets take the cows and termites out of our paddock and what happens. The grasses, foliage, growth of what ever eventually dies then the fungi and bacteria come along and convert this biomass to its constituent parts and low and behold produce methane in the process.
Reducing some life forms that produce methane does nothing for the environment as other life forms will do the same job regardless
190
Clearly you’d never heard of the green utopia, everything is made of hard green material, maybe it’s obsidian, maybe it’s just painted concrete, it really depends on where you buy it from. We all know the cheap stuff comes from china, the glassy stuff is what’s left after Sleepy Joe presses the button, thinking he is ordering more ice cream.
50
Termites use microbes to break the cellulose down to simpler sugars before ingesting. It’s their bacterial friends that they spread onto the wood fibres that make the methane. Exactly the same process that cows use in their internal processes.
I’d love to hear the greens justify why 4 legs are bad but 6 are good, (termites), or legless, (bacteria), is better.
They are so numerist, (akin to the other ‘ists).
70
It’s a ploy from the climate cabal’s playbook.
The UK did a similar thing a while back.
https://www.climateassembly.uk/
Far from how the link describes the process, in reality the selection favoured hard core eco-nuts, presented one-sided evidence from bought and paid for climate propagandists, and dished up a list of preordained recommendations to be endorsed.
120
Well, it seems as though quite a lot of those Yellow Vest people never got the French Guv’ment message.
French Fuel Shortage Leads to Yellow Vest Resurgence
From Martin Armstrong –
“The French, especially in Paris, are starting to feel the effects of the gas shortage. There are reports of cars queued for miles outside gas stations. Some have reported waiting for over an hour, only to find that there was no petrol left to fuel their vehicle.
Workers at TotalEnergies and Esso-ExxonMobil in France are on strike at the moment as well. This has led to three out of six refineries shutting down as production has been cut by 60% to 740,000 bpd. Over a third of TotalEnergies’ 3,500 stations are low on petrol. Workers are seeking a 10% salary increase as they feel the oil companies are reaping in profits amid this crisis.
President Emmanuel Macron has urged the people to avoid panicking. Some believe that this situation is only a glimpse of what will come in the winter when reserves plummet and demand soars. There is currently enough fuel for about 90 days.
The climate zealots of the Yellow Vest movement are prominent in France. The group protested for 60 consecutive weeks in 2018 and is extremely anti-Macron. They even stormed the Arc de Triomphe in central Paris. With Macron reelected and fuel woes rising, expect this movement to gain some momentum – with more support than the last go-around.”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/france/french-fuel-shortage-leads-to-yellow-vest-resurgence/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=RSS
140
sixty consecutive weeks in one year?
00
Interesting, shades of those events the Labour party loves to put on where they invite “normal” people to a summit to discuss future direction. Trouble is that only Cate Blanchett and all sorts of “aligned” people get invites. People like me or those here never get selected as we would break the cardinal law of these love-ins and that is;
Never hold a review or major event without knowing the outcome in advance.
As shown here we have a rubber stamping of policy, or burying of any measures the govt does not deem worthy.
The Left never ever want to have any dissenting voices and will go to any lengths to prevent them. Unfortunately usually at some stage they start killing people if history is any guide. We are not there yet, but believe me, its coming unless we can derail this madness.
180
40
Eventually it will collapse under the weight of it’s own stupidty and courruption. Hopefully the fallout wouldn’t end in war. But it will be painfull for everyone, something thats incredibly frustrating for those you can see whats comeing.
110
Don’t panic until you really have to. It might soon derail itself.
But never drop your guard.
90
Nature will win out eventually. Successive cold winters in the NH combined with expensive electricity will do the climate change industry significant damage. The politicians who are brave enough to make the move to reliable and less expensive electricity will be the ones elected.
70
There is only one argument, that mankind controls CO2. Whether CO2 causes Climate Change is irrelevant in fact.
So need to popularize one fact, coal/oil/gas CO2 is under 3% of atmospheric CO2.
I had considered a web site to do this, but the real challenge is to get a reputable body to publish the current Man Made CO2 figure.
Say a major university, the BOM, CSIRO, NASA. That would end it.
But everyone is compromised. Any anyone who disagrees is cancelled, fired, derided as a ‘denier’.
Ideas are welcome, but that is what has to be done.
170
They wont do it as it is a perversion of the facts and what the alarmists claim. They don’t claim what you claim they claim. Some call this a straw man.
219
‘They wont do it as it is a perversion of the facts …’
The fact is that 97% of CO2 is liberated from the deep oceans and the masses need to be told.
120
I find that complete nonsense. Straw man?
Try NASA
“Since the beginning of industrial times (in the 18th century), human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 by 50% – meaning the amount of CO2 is now 150% of its value in 1750.”
Is that clear enough?
The entire alarmist claim is that human activities are responsible for CO2 levels.
If man made CO2 is not the entire concern, why have carbon taxes, carbon credits, nett zero, blow up coal power plants, build windmills? And what is the point of all this if mankind does not control CO2 levels?
150
Yes they claim it because that is what measurements show. They don’t say that 150% of CO2 in the atmosphere right at this moment is man made but that man made CO2 caused the rise. Do you not see the difference? If not look up some of those sources you think you are throwing back at me. As I said, your statement is a false representation of the claims.
09
No one ever said all CO2 is man made? I didn’t. There’s your straw man argument, your false representation. Not mine.
As NASA write “human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 by 50%”
How much clearer can they be. And I have thrown no sources back at you. The same statement is repeated endlessly by all proponents of man made Global Warming. I have only mentioned it in passing.
My statement is that the total CO2 which is measurably fossil fuel is 3%. It’s a very simple statement, a statement of fact, not conjecture or my opinion. In 1958 it was 2.3% +/- 0.15% and has hardly climbed in 64 years.
70
“Some call this a straw man.”
Yes , your comment is a complete strawman..
It also contains absolutely nothing of rational merit.
61
I disagree with this approach. It is far more important to separate CO2 from any direct influence on Earth’s energy balance. No matter what the source, CO2 does nothing directly to change Earth’s energy balance.
Climate is always changing and the northern hemisphere is currently in its most benign state. Extremes are going to get more extreme. July sunlight at 40N peaked at 516W/m^2 10k years ago. It presently sits at 479W/m^2 and is very close to the bottom of the cycle. It will not get to 516W/m^2 in the current cycle but it will peak at 498W/m^2 in 10k years.
There will be need for tremendous adaption over the coming centuries. Gobbling up Earth’s resources on useless stuff will undermine the ability of humans to adapt to the real changes coming. Nuclear power is the most sensible energy source in the long run. Human history in the Northern Hemisphere has mostly been written in the most benign climate period. The Egyptian era watching the desertification of the Sahara region experienced the last significant climate change in the NH.
Below is July solar EMR past, present and future. This is real and significant. There will be winners and losers. The Sahara should continue to green. Australia’s climate extremes will moderate. January sunlight at 35S is presently at its peak at 510W/m^2. It will bottom at 477W/m^2 in 10k years time; a long term decline from present level, moderating the intensity of summer heat.
-14.000 504.913665
-13.000 509.770347
-12.000 513.684102
-11.000 516.221388
-10.000 516.965737
-9.000 515.965394
-8.000 513.183537
-7.000 508.875034
-6.000 503.684382
-5.000 498.052504
-4.000 492.497334
-3.000 487.664954
-2.000 483.736182
-1.000 480.948016
0.000 479.498347
1.000 479.235541
2.000 480.067435
3.000 481.952796
4.000 484.522388
5.000 487.531396
6.000 490.788523
70
Climates change all the time. The proposition is that it is man made change.
Otherwise the consequences of changing CO2 is just an exercise in science. Interesting maybe but academic if we do not control CO2.
NASA, the CSIRO, IPCC and the entire scientific community say that mankind is responsible for CO2 levels. That is wrong. It’s not an argument, but a fact.
No argument is needed. Man made CO2 is a lie. It is the foundation lie. Everyone starts with this, without any hard evidence at all.
What follows, Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Extinction/Extreme events/Sea level rise are another series of dependent lies.
161
And it was the foundation lie which created the IPCC and now allows governments to legislate carbon taxes and attack food production from Sri Lanka to Holland and now Australia. I am only pleased they have not yet started blowing up dams to liberate the water from oppression by the white male patriachy.
130
N
This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that CO2 is increasing. If the increase in CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change then humans should try do something about it. That supports the notion of sequestering, reducing human output etc. If you believe humans are not responsible for CO2 but CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change then sequestering becomes top of the agenda. I am fundamentally opposed to this because CO2 does not influence the energy balance on Earth.
The fundamental is to remove CO2 from any discussion on climate. It has no direct influence on Earth’s energy balance.
123
Again this is muddled
“If you believe humans are not responsible for CO2 but CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change then sequestering becomes top of the agenda.”
“Do something about it”
Do you realise this is self contradictory? We are not responsible for CO2 because we cannot change it. So what is sequestering all about? More just comes out of the ocean. Basic physical chemistry. Science. Henry’s Law. As immutable as gravity.
You could take all the CO2 out of the air and it would be back almost immediately. There’s 50x as much dissolved in the oceans. It’s the warm beer effect. Heat the beer and CO2 comes out.
100
It appears that this particular trace gas has reached saturation point in the atmosphere and cannot cause any more warming.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/12/joining-battle-over-the-science-of-global-warming/
40
Talk to people, telling them they truth. Like C02 is, to the nearest tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, zero.
That temps aren’t rising – UAH pause, per Monckton, is now 8 years.
That more CO2 is Good for Plants (and the rest of the biosphere, including us).
Every little gulps.
Auto
30
Helps
I hate autofoulup!
Auto
00
It’s remarkable but not surprising that they couldn’t find a single individual for the Citizens’ Climate Assembly who didn’t believe in the anthropogenic global warming fraud.
And it would only have taken one.
There is a precedent.
In response to the book attacking Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity “100 Authors Against Einstein”, Einstein responded:
A very interesting story and analysis of this incident can be found at:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/
It gives those of us who really do “follow the (real) science” some hope.
140
“An assessment of the contributions given in Hundred Authors against Einstein shows that no one thoroughly applied the scientific method, as otherwise they would have found the mistakes in their arguments and consequently would have positively acknowledged Einstein’s work.”
So still it goes. Nothing new under the sun.
100
I wonder what they learnt.
so I looked that up
Now a scientific theory is the poorly educated imagination of sci-fi writers.
90
Initial reaction: “What weapons-grade drugs are these people scoffing down?
The single most potent of them all; the chance for ABSOLUTE POWER.
And as we (should) all know;
“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The “body count” is their way if “keeping score”. Adjust your personal affairs accordingly.
120
“hydrogen itself can interact with other gases and vapors”
That’s new. There must be a clue in there somewhere.
Vapors?
30
Oh no! Who must I pay? How many windmills should I build to stop this?
#hydrogenactionnow …or you’re a bigot.
110
I hope someone tells Dr Andrew Forrest that his Green Hydrogen scheme is far worse than CO2. It would make his day.
90
A “science” Potemkin Village…
This is what “democracy” means now, as “the people” have been bred, indoctrinated, and terrified into stupidity, ignorance, witlessness, and insouciance. The “D” word is now “Dupe.” The “R” word is now “Retard.” The “P” word is now “Puppet Show” (formerly Partisan Politics).
Just about every government or “news” reportage that involves “The People” just presents us with a claque of fellow-travelers prattling their scripted pretend-intelligence.
Woe is us…
81
I knew there would be a new word appearing soon. Ecocide can be added to the terms catastrophe, emergency etc.
60
Try James Delingpole’s Four Horsemen of the Ecopolypse.
50
Beware the new doctrine of accelerationism:-
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/accelerating-toward-dark-enlightenment
Time to hit the brakes on these accelerationists!
😄
40
Government by the media. When the church controlled education and, by extention, the production of books, They controlled the world, from behind the curtain of the monarchy- who ruled by ‘divine right’. Who decided which King had ‘Divine right’?
60
“Who decided which King had ‘Divine right’?”
Where there was a dispute, it was usually the pope. Things got complicated during the Great Schism, when there was more than one pope 🙂
80
We could have three popes soon, when communist Pope Frankie retires. Since Pope Bernie, it seems you can end up on a pension plan.
40
“Who decided which King had ‘Divine right’?”
Actually it was God who decided.
The King who was alive after the battle was the one favoured by God.
40
And that was why the Roman Empire converted to Christianity under Constantine in 323AD. Constantine won against the odds. And he moved the capital of the Roman Empire to his city of Constantinople in 330AD. The world changed completely. When Rome fell in 476 AD, there were only 40,000 people in Rome.
20
“It’s the Reality TV version of “Idiocracy”-
You had a typo there…
Seeing they didn’t vote the participants in, it has nothing to do with anything democratic. I’m sure the selection process neatly cleaned out any skeptics before they started, and any awkward questions were ignored once it got going.
The lack of a referendum is the telling factor!
80
You want to talk Ecocide?
Let’s talk Ecocide.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6uSXW-8p4
These mad scientists are determined to send the earth spiraling into another ice age by messing with the atmosphere. They’re like children playing with fire in the middle of dried out tinder box of a forest. To use Donald Rumsfeld’s famous quote, they barely have a grasp on the known knowns, almost none at all on the known unknowns, and no freaking clue about the unknown knowns or unknown unknowns, yet they are totally prepared to roll the dice and hope nothing bad happens.
Insanity.
110
To stop the madness we have to prove CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
62
Warmists have to prove that it does.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
160
If the Warmists were making a scientific argument, this would be true.
This is a propaganda war, facts are irrelevant. We are trying to fight the wrong war.
100
We need to seize the means of production, the Australian Brainwashing Company, and force them to provide balance on climate change.
Journalists failing to comply will be sent to Parramatta.
90
Like this?
https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/17/physicists-co2-molecules-retain-heat-just-0-0001-of-a-second-meaning-co2-driven-warming-not-possible/
40
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” – Alice
We all now live in Wonderland. I wish it was just a bad dream.
120
The implication being “experts” cannot?
This is precisely what the Scientific Method is meant to overcome.
Can a scientist not employing the Scientific Method really be a scientist, let alone an “expert” in a particular discipline?
Sure, an “outsider” might bring a fresh perspective to a problem (this is true and should never be underestimated), but this is highly unlikely if they are first indoctrinated to unquestioningly believe all of the ‘preconceived ideas’ of the “experts”.
This is Corporate HR101, where they “gather the troops” in a room, hand out post-it notes and whiteboard markers, and “blue sky ideas” to create “buy-in” for what the HR/Executive were always going to do anyway, usually resulting in the perpetuation or exacerbation of the problem (not) being “solved”.
What we lack is not “experts”, it is enough well-educated and skeptical generalists with the wherewithal to hold these propagandists to account.
How much better off we’d be if we had parliaments full of well-educated and skeptical generalists, instead of a cabal of (beyond) useless lawyers.
Unfortunately, in a classic circular reference, you will need a critical mass of well-educated and skeptical generalists in the community to achieve this – unlikely given the dire state of our education systems.
80
“Can a scientist not employing the Scientific Method really be a scientist, let alone an “expert” in a particular discipline?”
You’re making the mistake of assuming words like “expert” have a defined and settled meaning. That’s not how the Leftist Language operates. In this new world, words can mean whatever you want them to mean on any particular day, subject to change without notice. Hence the word ‘expert’ can now mean some guy on the interweb or a journalist who was just given the climate change desk. The only immutable requirement is that the ‘expert’ has the correct opinions.
Even ‘truth’ is a malleable concept according to the left so, added to their contempt for language, it’s no wonder there’s no reasoning with them.
60
A (French) Voice.
01
Those Europeans are going to feel what a world with no fossil fuels is like, enjoy your freezing winter Europe.
51
The idiots in Europe and the UK can virtue signal all they like as they freeze . They voted for this and now are discovering the emperor has no clothes . Bad choices lead to bad outcomes – welcome to reality.
50
according to the Pew research centre, there would be more believers in the flat earth theory than climate sceptics. This is because the citizens are well educated, and understand science.
15
Amazing how good Pew is at getting you to believe whatever they want.
70
there would be more believers in the flat earth theory than climate sceptics.
Can’t say I’m suprised by that – Anyone silly enough to belive human control the climate, would probaly belive the earth is flat.
40
I’ve spent 20 years in academia, pF, and I can report that despite my best efforts, and trying new approaches from time to time, almost no one before or after a college education understands science — including the science majors.
00
On the absurd idea of ‘sequestration’, the outstanding proof that this is not possible now self evident on a planetary scale.
All life on earth is made from CO2 and when dried, all things burn. Rock doesn’t burn so we are not made from rock. And if trees were made from dirt, there would be a huge hole around every tree. All living things are made from CO2. More trees, less CO2. Right?
Since 1990 NASA have observed a massive greening of the planet, about 14%. The size of Brazil or Australia! Deserts are shrinking. Glaciers are melting back to where they were in 1000 AD, particularly in Greenland and trees and old leaves are appearing from the ice. Back to where we were. A greener world and more crops, more food.
But 14% more trees means CO2 should have gone down by 14% according to the sale of Carbon Credits/IPCC/UN/EU Climate Science. Rather CO2 has also gone up by about 14% since 1990. So trees capture CO2 but CO2 does not go down but up? How is that possible? How is it no one notices the utter and precise contradiction?
So sequester 14% of the world’s CO2 and CO2 goes up by the same amount? Doesn’t anyone question that? And is that just a coincidence?
What it means is that there is a huge single reservoir of CO2 in the oceans in rapid equilibrium, CO2 in and out, like O2. Trees have nothing to do with it. Nor fossil fuel.
More CO2, more trees! In exactly that same ratio? It means the world is starved for CO2 and that increasing CO2 is a great thing.
Contradicting everything we have been told by ‘Climate Scientists’.
So much for sequestration.
CO2 does not warm the oceans but water surface temperatures are changed cycles in gigantic currents and increased solar intensity. Oceans store all the surface heat, not the air. The air can get +40 to -20C in a single day but the oceans do not change. But both sources of air heating are predicted to plummet as the De Vries cycle and the PDO/AMO plunge right now. We will need all the coal we can get as the winters get worse and summers are cooler. By up to 4-5C.
In any country, fewer than 1% of people are scientists. People like the French can be convinced by the false voice of authority, brainwashing. Told things which are not true, repeatedly by people in white coats who dip chalk in blue liquid.
Real science, rational science is about facts and proof. And in 34 years of rapid, man made, tipping point, rapid sea rise Armageddon, there is no problem. Not a single prediction has come true. And every hurricane, flood and drought is not Climate Change.
But as the winter hits in Europe and the cooling climate hit the Global Warming will disappear. As will the EU. And the UN is a disgrace. 40,000 full time employees supporting World Peace and we stand on the brink of Nuclear Armageddon according to the US President.
Defund the UN and EU. They have proven to be self serving greedy enemies of humanity. And take Macron’s government as well. All telling lies for cash, $1,500Billion a year in cash.
That sort of money would have dragged whole countries out of poverty, but that is not what the EU/UN want. And the French, British, Americans get to sell lots and lots of weapons and live test them on disposable evil Russians. It’s just so tragic, these proxy wars. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Kosovo, Ukraine and many more. Remember when the US funded Osama Bin Laden against the Russians?
51
The French “Citizens Climate Assembly”. You can bet that the Froggy Government analysed the 150 people via social media comments etc. to ensure there wouldn’t be any Yellow Vests!
60
It is an old idea. We used to call it ‘soviets’. The French tried it before, after 1789. That one failed when Robbespierre showed up and the rest got their sanity back.
00
Any climate sceptic who changes his mind is not a true sceptic. There is no data or information that can be presented that could change a true sceptics mind.
On the other hand alarmists can change and change quickly as they realise that they’ve been lied to and are probably victims of propaganda.
The fact that almost everything alarmists claim can be proven to be wrong helps but victims of a religious sect are sometimes too far gone to be able to comprehend what is the truth.
00