…
The expert science bubble has popped. New polling shows 60% of US voters agree that that Climate Change is a religion and has nothing to do with the climate. Even more shocking is that 47% of US voters strongly agree.
It’s an Exocet for the priests of Climate Science. Their power depends on people believing “they are The Science”, and The Science is sacred. But word is spreading that the experts are more like prophets-of-gloom than disciplined researchers. And once the idea is seeded, it won’t go away. People who didn’t notice before will suddenly see the failed predictions, the ice age that never came, the droughts that become floods and the snow that children wouldn’t know. Humans are excellent at pattern matching, just give them the right pattern to look for…
This is an idea that has barely been mentioned in mainstream TV yet half the nation are already 100% sold.
Ten days ago Vivek Ramaswamy talked about the climate religion on Fox News, and so Rasmussen asked the punters. And thus the emperor has no clothes — fully six out of ten agree that “Climate is a religion”.
Vivek Ramaswamy on FoxNews:
…the climate religion actually has nothing to do with the climate. It is all about power, control, dominion and apologizing for America’s own success. And the reason why is that this religion looks the other way when PetroChina picks up the projects that American companies drop. Last time I checked, it was global climate change, and also it’s hostile to nuclear energy, which is truly bizarre because that’s the best form of carbon-free energy production known to mankind.
This Rasmussen question is Kryptonite
There is no pussy footing around the question, no ambiguity, no caveats:
“Do you agree or disagree with this statement: Climate change has become a religion that actually has nothing to do with the climate and is really about power and control?”
AGREE – by Party
-
-
- DEM: 45%
- IND: 59%
- GOP: 79% All Voters: 60%
-
Even nearly half the democrats agree. Does anything show better that democracy is not about voters anymore? There are no vote winners for pushing the climate faith, instead there is a vast untapped sea of voters who think climate change is a money making scam. They want someone to vote for, not a politician who says I’ll be less of liar than the other guy.
Strong questions bring out strong answers
In a world of wishy-washy surveys, just saying the flagrant bleeding truth in full technicolor will bring out a stronger response than tip-toeing around the point. Sometimes just asking the question provokes the answer. How many people heard the question and went — oh yeah, now that you mention it…
The last dynamite poll in the world of surveys was in late 2015 when Donald Trump stepped out and said “climate change is a total hoax”, and when asked, 31% of US voters agreed, which was astonishing in an era when three quarters of Americans would also say “climate change is happening” and “was a threat” to the US.
Now, half the voters are so cynical they believe the media is actively trying to deceive them. And the meme is even more dangerous because it’s closer to the truth — “climate is a religion” not only includes the hoax, but also explains the blind passion of the teenage throwers of soup and glue. They are not hoaxers, they’re just deluded kids.
Live by the smear, die by the smear
For 30 years the Climate Crisis Team have talked about the dark influence of fossil fuel money, like it was Gore’s Law of Physics, and it worked to inure sleepy people against skeptical points. But now the tables are turning and the insidious suggestion that “it’s all about power, control and money” will work every bit as well against those who never once spoke up to stop the namecalling and demonization of other scientists.
They could have told the world there are no sacred cows in science, instead they created the cows — “there is a consensus!”. They could have said that science is not a religion because there is no bible, but instead they held up the IPCC reports like The Word of Mother Nature. Instead of debating skeptics, with their overwhelming evidence, they called them deniers and fled from the room.
97% of climate scientists acted like science was a religion. Karma comes back to get them.
The creed of the global warming craze,
Can cause illness like mental malaise,
While its arrogant dons,
Pose as climate icons,
As false mentors fool young proteges.
–Ruairi
UPDATE: The Rasmussen survey was by phone and online and involved 950 likely US voters on March 6-8, 2023.
h/t ColA via Gateway Pundit
– foundational myths
– liturgical practices
– irreproachable dogma
– guaranteed savior
amen
341
The big wake up has been a long time coming and we are still not there yet, especially here in Victoria!
521
The Dutch farmers & right thinking population have woken up!
They have reacted & this is now the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction.
I wonder if our Australian media will report this or sweep it under the Climate Change carpet again?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/european-farmers-fed-climate-policies-shock-political-establishment
170
And then there is Covid and the science “con”sensus miracle mRNA protection.
Cue The Who with “Won’t get fooled again.”
70
The public has deduced what these two atmospheric physicists have put on paper:
“Challenging Net Zero With Science”
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023-02-23-E-Challenging-Net-Zero-with-Science.pdf
351
That’s a massive document and, in a sense, it echoes the style of the IPCCCCC material which denotes CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”.
The arguments provided do undoubtedly cast a wet blanket over the global warming drama but tends to muddy things by referring to the “dangers” of CO2 before going into radiation analysis that involves “all five” greenhouse gases.
This issue is about CO2 and that’s what should be detailed.
The atomic physics and atmospheric physics of the problem must be exposed.
200
Yes, but the logical question is not whether CO2 causes warming but whether we cause CO2. The presumption that burning fossil fuels increases CO2 is never challenged. All the atmospheric physicists talk about is the physics of the atmosphere, of course. And that is enough to debunk CO2 drive global warming, if it was not just self evident that the models are wrong.
The missing discussion is one of physical chemistry, the behaviour of dissolved gases which atmospheric physicists tend not to know, Henry’s Law which is 220 years old! The current distribution of CO2 is 98% ocean, 2% atmosphere. And any new CO2 from burning fossil fuel is going to end up 98% ocean, 2% atmosphere. So no problem.
Any increase in CO2 by Henry’s law is entirely attributable to an increase in (ocean not land) surface temperature and correlates perfectly with solar activity and ocean oscillations. The increase does not correlate at all with temperature. For the last decade CO2 has been increasing steadily and temperatures have stalled and now plummeting. This is exactly as expected and now agreed by all players.
I think the reason this is coming out now is that you would have to be asleep not to notice Global Warming has stopped and the world is cooling. Especially Australia and the whole Southern Hemisphere. Why then we are being punished by politicians and nobody says anything about the Chinese is the more interesting story.
The 5% per annum drop in CO2 from our 251 ‘biggest polluters’ has already started. That will wreck Australia. As intended by China.
It is remarkably easy to corrupt a democracy. Just pay off a few politicians in control of committees.
You can name them, the ones who stand up for China, even in the face of the millions dead from the Wuhan Flu accidentally released but intentionally distributed. The Xi appointee unqualified non doctor Tedros Adhonem announced the Wuhan Flu was not infectious human to human while millions were boarding planes to the US and Italy. And the communist mayor of Florence announced his ‘hug a Chinese day’.
We are under siege by China and have been for years. It is how warfare is conducted in a nuclear age. Germany did the same before WWII.
341
Yes TdeF,
I have agreed with you on that, time and again.
You have clearly shown that CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant, even IF it was capable of doing the things claimed of it by the global warming frat$rnity.
That’s one nail, but it still leaves open the ignored question; is CO2 capable of punching “heat” back to Earth, or is that the one true fabrication that enslaves us.
100
As for CO2 reflecting heat back to the earth, remember that logic even if true only works over hot land, which is less than 25% of the earth’s surface. Then as CO2 is largely transparent and has only a very narrow opaque band in the infra red, so the effect is tiny. As Prof Plimer points out, a black curtain does not get any blacker if you increase the thickness by 50%. So you do not get any change in effect, even if it were true. And it is all about the 50% increase in CO2 being significant in enhancing an effect, which it isn’t. Even if there was an effect.
And finally that no one disputes the tiny proposed greenhouse effect of CO2 is not enough to change world temperature. So what was proposed was is that over land and in the tropics the extra tiny heat might be enough to evaporate more water which is an effective greenhouse gas and this water in the air produces the effect they seek. But this would result in a warm, wet area over the tropics which in thirty years has not been proven to exist. So even the proponents of man made CO2 driven atmospheric warming have nowhere to go scientifically. It’s busted. A million radiosonde balloons are not wrong.
The extra 50% of CO2 has changed nothing. But it was this vilification of the element carbon which was the entire argument of the IPCC. They have nothing else. And all those half a million giant windmills are an unprecedented human tragedy of wasted effort and tens of trillions of dollars which could have been spent on improving life for everyone. Imagine if that money had been spent on fusion research? We might have been so much better off with infinite energy with no downside.
The druids of earth, wind and fire and human sacrifice. The vendors of Medieval carbon indulgences to prevent hell fire. Again. All rent seeking opportunists lying to everyone. Al Gore being only the most famous, supported by armies of liars who suppress the truth and line up for their wages. There is not a shred of truth in any of it.
310
Most people think science is beyond them not realising it is just the observation of nature. That being the case it would be simpler to highlight the observations that disprove the Climate Change rubbish. Start with the failed prophesies. There is still ice in the Artic during it’s summer when it was supposed to be all gone in 2013. We still have a snow/skiing season in the Snowy Mountains often starting earlier and ending later, Britain has been completely snowed under several times since Professor Viner said kids would npot know what snow is back in 2000. We have had a succession of floods and very full dams since Flannery said the rain that falls won’t fill the rivers and dams. Our agricultural output has boomed and the world has more food even though there are many more people. In fact not one prophesy has come to pass, indeed the opposite has happened. Currently we can see that cheap renewables are neither cheap nor renewable. It is the obvious that need to be hammered into their skulls. Once again it will be left to these sort of forums to spread the facts as the MSM disgraces itself as usual.
330
If you trigger a process which chemically results in CO2 emissions, and you do more of it then it is a pretty long bow to suggest that the activity of combusting fossil fuels does not increase CO2 levels. At least in the short term until nature finds a new equilibrium.
Can you please elaborate how you can ignore what appear to be a pretty simple mechanism?
Its like suggesting that consuming more calories than you expend will not result in you gaining weight. Or tipping water into a bucket will not result in the water level in the bucket increasing.
214
Dean,
f you turn on a garden tap the water will flow to the ground, then to a stream, then to a river, then to the ocean. In the ocean the water will evaporate, form as clouds, fall to earth as rain, be collected in dams, get pumped to your house, and flow out of your garden tap again.
At no point in this cycle will more water magically start flowing out of your tap, or more flow into the stream, or make the river bigger, or the oceans deeper, or cause more rain to fall, or result in the dam having more capacity, or increase the flow of water from your tap.
It is a cycle and all that ever changes is the location and state of the water.
Climate is cyclical too. The earth, including the oceans, warms and cools. When the oceans cool they dissolve more CO2 and atmospheric levels go down. When the oceans warm CO2 is outgassed, and atmospheric levels go up.
Short of waring and cooling the oceans there’s SFA we puny humans can do about it, so get used to it.
181
A cycle of warming and cooling driven by the Sun.
10
Outstanding.
41
On cue, the oceans are starting to boil as La Niña loosens her grip. Fire Will engulf the climate unbelievers and great floods will come and frost giants will roam the surface.
41
Great article, I wish I could see the poll itself, as I would like to know the sample size and sampling techniques.
94
Is that the “real” PF?
101
Yes
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/03/kryptonite-for-fake-science-preachers-60-of-voters-agree-climate-change-is-a-religion/#comment-2641509
Note sample size of 5,000.
More homes for the Koalas.
81
DM, the real PF isn’t the real PF. It’s as fake as fake can be.
81
Excuse me, Mr Fitzroy is rational and agreeable.
42
You are excused.
40
That’s odd.. I look up, and can see no pigs with wings !!
10
Must be a Canberra ‘thing’!
20
I tried following links but have not found the actual survey yet – just articles about it like this one.
114
Yet another research failure GI!
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/is_climate_change_a_false_religion
70
Follow your way in CC and be the faithful 😀
50
Poll is from Rasmussen.. you need to sign up.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/is_climate_change_a_false_religion
60
PF, let us work with your sudden interest in figures.
Here is a link to the (Please Note) Guardian on the 97% consensus.
See if you can work out how a 97% consensus was achieved for a climate prediction.
60
Peter,
Why don’t you read the link below.
The USA poll only confirms what is happening elsewhere while our morons identifying as leaders stumble blindly to destroying our country!
https://www.foxnews.com/world/european-farmers-fed-climate-policies-shock-political-establishment
50
I disagree that the people recognize the data is not following the projections.
Remember this is right after two major hits to society, the pandemic and an energy shock from the war in Ukraine. The pandemic, the lockdowns, the masking and the vaccine mandates demonstrated pretty conclusively “the science” is not nearly as smart as it let on. The vaccine mandates came at the time the virus had morphed into a version where the vaccines were almost completely ineffective. The two primary vaccination shots were taken up by 70-90% of eligible adults in many areas, the boosters are down around 16%. Apparently, people can read.
Look what happened to the European economies when Russian invaded Ukraine. Their net-zero dreams pretty much went up in smoke as Russian natural gas was cut and they purchased so much LNG on the world market, they caused blackouts in Pakistan and South Africa (albeit buying coal in SA). In essence the green energy king had no clothes. While the lights didn’t go out in Europe, the cost of power rose hitting everyone’s pocket books and many European industries will likely be made uncompetitive in global commodities. Suddenly, the fantasy that green energy is cheaper and more abundant was exposed by reality.
The thing people these two examples very aptly demonstrated is that Science has become a club. By that I don’t mean a colloquial organization pursuing truth but a device that government authorities used to beat people over the head with until they fall in line.
480
Very much so Sean. Up until the mid 1990’s the science debate around climate was reasonable , measured and to an extent representative of the latest research. Then politics got involved. Firstly via the IPCC and then secondly Al Gore. With Gore realising that there were votes in “ climate”. Since then the whole debate has gone bad and is dominated by partisan politics. Just on Al Gore- has anyone noticed he now sounds more and more like Foghorn Leghorn from the Looney Tunes/ Bugs Bunny cartoons?
110
Reasonable except I do not remember a debate. The IPCC was created in 1988 on this very premise. It is the Intergovernmental Panel (for) Climate Change. It’s in the title. And there was never any evidence that CO2 was man made. Nor any evidence that CO2 caused warming. Or that an increase in CO2 or temperature was a bad thing at all. And certainly no realistic evidence that 35 years ago we faced an imminent catastrophe. Now in hindsight, everything was wrong. And increased CO2 has been a massive benefit and no harm was done anywhere.
Except we are now facing a government enforced armageddon as Australia shuts down the industries which generate CO2, from smelting to concrete to glass to farming. To save the planet? Of course not.
190
No TdeF, there was definitely debate prior to 1990’s and if you were involved in science and the application of it, there was a form of reasonability. Mainly because the whole CO2 radiative atmospheric theory was just that – a theory. If you were interested, you understood the exceptions to all the mathematical, chemical, physical, biological and historical variables embodied in the AGW/Climate change theory. Scientists were also not afraid to speak up, because it was a science debate. I can remember listening to Global Warming debates on ABC radio (back in the days when I consumed the ABC) with the actual debate points going to anti-Global warming debater. Now, if those same people point out the AGW/climate change theory discrepancies, they are labelled climate deniers. Even poor old Judith Curry has had those labels thrown at her.
90
Ok. Please name two people in any of those science debates. Even one scientist? I have never heard two scientists debate the proposal. Ever. And the ABC’s science editor Robyn Williams (physics graduate and Tom Jones impersonator) thought sea rises of a metre per year were possible if not likely. He was wrong, of course. Sydney Harbour bridge should be underwater by now and half of Melbourne.
However I must admit to being not the slightest bit interested in the endless predictions of doom at the time. The previous 1970s scare was the coming of the new ice age. These wacky pseudo science observations with their Ripley’s Believe it or Not science stories were always around. L Ron Hubbard says he was a nuclear physicist, not just a science fiction writer like Tim Flannery who also gave his scientific opinions on nuclear power. You have to wonder what the mega fauna thought of nuclear reactions, but I digress.
Judith Curry’s opinion is that there was at the time a group looking to vilify industry as evil and that fits with the Utopian view that mankind is the enemy of the planet. Whatever the scare was and it was Carbon, it also had to justify the WMO joining the United Nations because it’s otherwise impossible to see why an organization for world peace should be involved in the weather. Otherise the WMO had to pay their own airfares, had no club and really were pretty irrelevant.
Meteorology was never an exciting field. At least until they became the most important people on the planet. I am sure no one was happy when a dead wombat archeologist Tim Flannery was made Australia’s first Climate Commissioner. And his friends, none of whom had any qualifications in meteorology. But then Climate Science has nothing to do with the weather, apparently.
60
In passing, Judith Curry now operates a Climate consultancy predicting the future for clients. It is one of falling temperatures caused by sun cycles and the ocean cycles. And she says all her information comes from studying the IPCC report which throws cold water on the alarmist declarations of the politicians who operated the Panel, not the scientists.
70
Too long ago TdeF. I think they were actually both atmospheric physicists, one even maybe CSIRO, since now long retired. He was the AGW agnostic. It was the first time I heard about the deficiencies of the CO2 radiative theory, because the climate agnostic debater pointed out that the “capture” of long wave radiation in the atmosphere is almost entirely satisfied by the first 50 ppm (some say less) top of atmosphere CO2. Hence, the law of diminishing returns applied to that theoretical force. In summation he said it didn’t matter how much extra CO2 was added to the atmosphere, the supposed “damage” had already been achieved. (his words, not mine) The climate alarmist’s summation was pathetic- he said “we think the earth has warmed in the last 10 years, and we think CO2 has also increased, so therefore the 2 are linked”. As I’m driving through country Victoria listening to the alarmists final point , I m thinking ,” … what nonsense, that’s not science, that’s cause and effect'”.
60
Thanks. Amazingly good summary from a third of a century ago! And Ian Plimer’s point too that whatever effect there might be, an increase of 50% in CO2 does not increase the effect. As for the correlation equals causation argument, it is equally valid to argue that warming causes CO2. And it so happens that is true from the law of dissolved gases. The flat beer effect. But then there’s nothing we can do about it, no taxes and half a million windmills and hundreds of millions of solar panels and tens of trillion dollars a year.
Apart from rapid ocean level rise, the other big scare was Ocean Acidification, which is absurd. You cannot put more CO2 in the ocean than it allows. And warmer oceans allow less CO2 in the surface although it is always replenished from below.
I watched ecology students in Tahiti pumping CO2 into fishtanks in an American private venture on the beautiful small island of Bora Bora, the island posing as Bali Hai in South Pacific. All young women in bikinis on the beach. The American supervisor seemed content. Clearly there are real benefits in studying ocean acidification. The CSIRO ran an international conference in Hobart on Ocean Acidification. I wonder if they invited a physical chemist to their talk about the impossible?
40
I was in Sydney in 2004-5, when my daughter, son-in-law and their well-educated friends were discussing the then-fashionable Gore-inspired (and flogged) carbon offset futures. I merely chose to look after the grandkids while their pro-offset discussions continued. What ever became of that? You guessed it!
50
There were debates in the 90’s. I remember seeing them on TV. CAN’t name the debaters from memory, but I do remember those promoting the AGW line were usually not impressive at all. The spate of debates was over a very short time frame, and then it became difficult to find a ‘true’ believer (?) willing to participate.
That was when the government got involved, ‘decided’ opinion based ‘science’ of its choosing was fact. It moved then to label non believers as sceptics, associating them with holocaust deniers, and used personal belittlement.
Remember the poor CSIRO scientist that innocently decided to put up an argument for the ‘NO’ case because he simply believed the argument should be balanced. He was sacked. That caused a public outcry and the CSIRO changed its conditions of service. That change demanded ‘collegiality’ in the conditions. I think the scientist was reinstated in the interim.
Since then, for a reason never explained by governments, the science has all been incontestable under pain of personal and career destruction , destruction of the one cheap energy system which was our economic advantage. It has led to the ascendancy of China by the movement of industries to China and is now causing poverty on the western world’s middle class. Go figure what our politicians now stand for. They obey international elites and place the nation last.
40
Doc. I’d like to know more about the CSIRO scientist who was sacked if anyone can remember more.
40
Should be in ‘The Australian’ archives Jo. I remember the story but I don’t believe the person was identified. It was early days when the debate on the legitimacy of disagreeing with the science was being developed.
50
I have been listening to “prophesies” from the climate change cult members for years and years. As far as I can recall not ONE has ever happened, not much of a track record is it? The absurd gabfests they have to tell the ordinary people what they must do is beyond belief. Hordes of hangers on arrive in private jets from all over the world to lecture the serfs to just obey. Then there is the ‘science’, every so called specialist has a different idea and then the fakery, like the story Jo broke about the stray solar panel in Sydney, one of hundreds of such rubbish they come up with to prove their point. Weather is cyclic, always has been always will be. As often said it isn’t about climate or the environment, it is about greed, control, money and power.
420
Dave:
Do you mean that these predictions didn’t come true?
1981: Scientists (including Steven Schneider) warn global warming would see Buckingham Palace 7 feet underwater
1986: EPA predicts 2 feet of sea level rise for Florida by 2020.
1987 it is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.
1987: NASA’s James Hansen predicts world 3C warmer by 2020.
1988: Maldives completely under water in 30 years
1989: Rising seas will ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000 If nothing is done within 10 years. As global warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet,
1990 IPCC : “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade
2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.
2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020 From 2010 and 2020, Europe would be hardest hit by climatic change, with an average annual temperature drop of 3°C.
2004: By 2007 violent storms would smash coastal barriers, rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities such as The Hague would have to be abandoned
Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century. Prof. Sir David King, Government Chief Scientist
2005 Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warned that there could be up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade.
2007 IPCC AR4 predicts that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people will be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.
In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.
2007 IPCC Chairman Pachauri ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late to save the planet.
2008: ABCNews (the USA one) Manhattan will be underwater by 2015
2009: China will cut emissions 40-45% below 2005 level by 2020 India will cut emissions by 20-25% by 2020
490
100% WRONG
That is a significant achievement.
Chance or the ravings of a loonie can be correct on occasion..
But not our comrades from Gang Green.
Team UNIPCC,has been so wrong for so long that the ideology of the Cult of Calamitous Climate is pure amusement.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming..now referred to as Climate Change..is an intelligence test..
Proof we are governed by Fools and Bandits.
If you can be convinced of absurdities,you will agree to atrocity..What was that Frenchman’s name?
“Save the planet,kill your children,sacrifice your technology..”
Classic “Doomers” song and dance.
I kinda stopped paying attention after Climategate confirmed my suspicions..
These days I am in the Retribution Camp.
And after Dread Covid Theatre,freed of so many former restraints..
The Retribution Party.
Celebrate the concept that civil society is done.
There is no hope of generating wealth and retaining enough of it to remain independent of our parasitic overload.
Hence,time to indulge ourselves in a little revenge.
60 years of theft and lying..
Me feels some retribution is in order..
Time to run for office..”Crush your enemies” “Grind their bones”..
Now those are perfect campaign slogans for a society that brought us “Social Distancing”,”Economic Shutdown”…and “Just two weeks to save healthcare”..Respect muh authority.
There is a brilliant Meme making the rounds..
“Thank you for making us a “vaccine”..We built you a “Playswing”..”.
Check it out.
There is nothing more evil and dangerous than creative productive people,who have lost faith in their futures..
The real motto of Retribution(The Party) of course..is;
“You really shoulda left me alone”.
40
If you believe absurdities, you can commit atrocities.
— Satre
40
Haven’t fires got hotter? Bit like rain has got wetter. Curses!
50
The Left have replaced traditional Judeo-Christian religion and its moral code with one of its own invention based upon:
-Marxism.
-Racism (emphasis of differences in race)
-Genderism (emphasis of difference in gender).
-Ckassusm (emphasis of difference in class).
-Climate change (belief that mankind can alter climate).
-Elitism (the Elites know best and others should do as they’re told).
-Post modernism (there is no such thing as objective reality).
-Low expectations (no incentive to improve oneself due to high taxes and regulations, lowered standard of living due to destruction of the energy supply, reduced freedoms due to covid laws that won’t be repealed).
-State control of your body (control of professional decisions by qualified medical doctors, e.g. banning of HCQ, IVM, no “my body, my choice”).
-Hypocrisy (different standards for the Left/Elite and others).
-Censorship (control of information and language).
331
Classism not Ckassusm. That was a Covfefe moment.
161
Very good summary of modern Leftism, David.
I would like to add their fondness for new-speak. For example, within the last five years we’ve got new terms for one’s gender e.g. ze, hir, zher etc. — plus, the new thought-crime if you don’t keep up: MIS-GENDERING someone.
They do love novel things, our lefties .. there’s always a new fad to adopt. And therefore, a new way to hate the people who don’t go along with it. (Notice how THEIR hate-speech is okay for them!)
Lefties have no choice but to adopt the terms of new-speak, it’s how they signal their allegiance to the cause .. If individuals don’t go along, their career prospects are damaged, they might be shunned (classic sign of a religion there!) by former friends & colleagues.
BUT the one thing the modern Left AREN’T talking about (or at least they’ve stopped mentioning it) is Redistribution of Wealth — that used to be the central tenet of their faith, but no more. I guess their Billionaire Donors aren’t too keen on that policy!
BTW I’m not a redistributionist either, I think wealth will happily redistribute itself if the economic playing field isn’t interfered with by (1) the massive importation of cheap labour, and (2) Governments cranking the digital money printer (Quantitative Easing). Stop those stupid policies, and the wealth gap will shrink by itself .. We’ll still have rich people — but they will have gotten rich by creating great Products & Services, not by being the ‘first spender’ of new money conjured up by Central Banks. And they will have to pay a fair market price for labour, a price which isn’t artificially lowered by importing cheap labour.
230
Thanks Custer.
110
“I disagree that the people recognize the data is [are] not following the projections.”
There is no specific assertion of that in the above. “Humans are excellent at pattern matching, just give them the right pattern to look for… ” That’s the one 🙂 Yes “They” have managed to make it so obvious that anyone can see it. We are now in a world of school-yard pests, kids, flatmates, cookie jars etc. I’ll copy the rest of what you say to the “carry” folder on my phone, as it contains a number of excellent one-liners. I am looking forward to that “cognitive dissonance” demonstration, particularly the one from a card-carrying psychologist (who I will keep at a safe distance).
80
You have to wonder when /if the dopey Dem voters will ever wake up.
I don’t know why this has taken decades. But in OZ I can remember phoning my local NP member ( in the 1990s) and asking him whether he followed Andrew Bolt’s column in the HS and his recent interview with Dr Richard Lindzen.
He said he always read Bolt’s columns and he was sceptical about their so called dangerous CC and told his party this in their regular meetings.
But he never rocked the boat too much and would never speak out in parliament or in the MSM, although he had the safest seat in the House of Reps.
I’m sure he was genuine and always sceptical but he didn’t dare go against the flow outside the party room meetings.
But the crap will soon hit the fan around the OECD countries and as voters have to tighten their belts the “cost of living and Ben Chifley’s hip pocket nerve” will again start to bite. And the sooner the better IMHO.
300
I would like to think you’re right about voters Neville, but in Australia Comrade Dictator Dan of Vicdanistan was elected a THIRD time and Federally people elected an even worse government than the Morrison regime. In the US Biden was “elected”. Despite massive voter fraud which saw Trump not being rightfully elected, an alarmingly lot of people must have still voted for Biden.
The stupidity of voters is very strong after decades of deliberate “dumbing down” of the education system by the Left. The Left have got “the Proles” exactly where they want them. There might be no recovery from our present situation despite occasional glimmers of hope.
320
It’s not just about voters being stupid. Governments around the world have implemented welfare policies such that more than half the population rely to some extent on the Govt for their quality of life – be that because they are Public Scamvants or welfare recipients. These people vote for whoever will let them continue to fund their lifestyles.
220
Its easy to say attached to nebulous, save the planet type goals as long as there is cachet and virtue to be harvested in your tribe. The very same people will of course not change anything in their own lifestyle and never cancel that overseas holiday.
170
The peasants are indeed revolting.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/FarmerCitizenMovement
190
Not “woke” but awaked these Dutch voters 😀
140
eset This! Dutch Elections See Tractor Protest Party Trounce Globalist Govt and EU Green Agenda
The upstart populist pro-farmer party FarmerCitizenMovement (BBB) shook the foundations of politics in the Netherlands overnight, securing a significant victory in Wednesday’s provincial elections on the back of growing resentment against the globalist government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his plans to introduce Great Reset-style environmental policies.
230
I searched the German goolag for bbb and elections to see who wrote what about the landslide result of these elections.
The main German weekly papers “Spiegel” and “Stern” wrote about “populistic rightwing party BBB”.
The more left “TAZ” not beeing suspected to fawn over right wing parties had a more affirmative bottomline.
Quite interesting to realise that spectrum of meanings.
130
I read some reports at ABC and SBS about the election. Only joking!
70
Sadly now looks like they haven’t won enough to stop the worst of it.
40
?
May you clarify please ?
30
Can’t find any Dutch news from within the last 6 hours proving your words.
The Dutch party born out of farmers’ protests won the provincial elections March 17, 2023 (4 hours ago)
BBB sweeps the board, so what happens next and what do they want? (6 hours ago)
60
The official result of Dutch provvinzial elections 2023
BBB won in all provinzes with a total of 19,36% = 139 seats.
Second is VVD Mark Rutte with a total of 11,16% = 63 seats.
30
If only this was true in Australia. We still had flocks of people voting Teal because they thought that party ( sorry, bunch of independents ) were better on “climate”. Whatever the hell that means. I think it’s because there appears to be a Uniparty on the subject in Australia. Sort of tweedledum and tweedledummer when its comes to policy, with the LNP really not much different to the ALP/Greens. At state level its even worse.
280
Ref DM.
LORNE RESIDENTS PLANT 5000 NATIVE TREES
Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie)—Today I acknowledge the sensational conservational efforts of the community of Lorne for planting over 5000 trees through the WIRES and Landcare Wildlife Relief and Recovery Grants. Residents of Lorne, Dale and Taliska Arentsen are one of 24 landholders in the area that have undertaken a mammoth task of restoring koala habitat in a region severely impacted by the 2019-2020 summer bushfires. Guided by Hastings Landcare’s, Peter Fitzroy and his team, the project aims to create additional food resources for koalas while rehabilitating the natural environment and supporting sustainable land management practices
60
The UK has been wasting a small fortune on tree planting. Not planted properly, not watered or cared for, mowed down by hapless council workmen cutting the grass.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11590313/Thousands-trees-planted-councils-11m-taxpayers-cash-die-rush-job.html
100
Well done.
30
I remember back in the 60’s and 70’s many koalas were killed by traffic in the Laurieton and Lake Cathie areas. Dogs were an issue as well. Fires affect all living creatures.
50
I assume the 5000 native trees were what I refer to as ‘firewood trees’ due to their propensity to burn. After the next bushfire roars through, taking the trees and koalas with it, those wonderful conservationist types will be able to gain even more kudos by repeating the cycle.
40
When will all of these be ripped up to put in wind farms or solar panels then? Or is that only in other peoples back yards.
30
“You can fool all of the people some of time; you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”
(Attributed to Abraham Lincoln in The New York Times, August 27, 1887.)
120
Was the quote from a seance?
210
:\
18
Yes Elvis was there too.
60
Abrahan Lincoln died over 22 years earlier.
40
The Good may die, but their attributions live on.
Although Benjamin D’Israeli apparently never said “There are Lies, Damn Lies and Climate Science”.
71
Climate science IS statistics!
But so are some things else.
11
Kalm Keith
Just compare this tree planting effort with the vast areas being cleared for “renewables”. Where are the Greens?
“sustainable practices”? A better definition of “sustainable” would apply to fossil fuels of which we have reserves for hundreds of years.
140
Science done by popular poll in a scientifically illiterate country ?. Its been admirably done by scientists for decades using the scientific method, something deniers can’t grasp.
(You are suggesting that making unverified climate models is part of the scientific method? ) CTS
[Just what country is “scientifically illiterate”? Pat is woefully ignorant and by definition THE denier.]ED
314
The models have been verified if you bothered to look.
You seem happy to replace the scientific method with dumb polls, which explains why you’re stuck here playing Galileo.
214
LOL.. only against massively mal-manipulated urban surface data.
The models are actually a TOTAL FAILURE in any realm of actual science or engineering.
90
I believe they are not even capable of ‘hindcasting’. So cannot even verify what has already happened. Unlike mere observers.
90
” replace the scientific method”
The AGW farce replaced the scientific method with the word “consensus, ages ago… because that actually lacked any real science.
And still do.
80
A little history of science change. Richard Lindzen, in his paper, ‘Climate Science: is it currently designed to answer questions?’ (2008) looks at reasons, why climate science won’t, and does not, seek to describe Nature faithfully…namely, as a consequence of 20th century politicisation of science generally, and of climate science modelling specifically. Enter Government, stage left, with customary dead–hand effect.
Richard Lindzen traces the ways in which science has changed from its traditional practice involving ‘the creative opposition of theory and observation wherein each tests the other in such a manner as to converge on a better understanding of the world.’ (P2) He identifies, in the aftermath of WW2. a shifting paradigm from ‘gratitude’ for the achievements of science during the War and in the ensuing two decades, with the lessening of new discoveries, change to a new paradigm for the science community in the late 1960’s, a paradigm of ‘fear,’ fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc. Lindzen observes that ‘fear,’ as an incentive structure for big government spending in science and expansion of bureaucratic structures for stakeholders, is more compelling than gratitude.
Some consequences of fear as a basis of support.
With the end of the Cold War, there arose a need to look for other fear incentives, which soon put the focus on the environment. Enter, also left of stage, your Anthropological Global Warming, Climate Incentive… Climate Change Science, here’s a small and immature field of science depending on fear-based support, which makes it particularly vulnerable to fear-based corruption.
Richard Lindzen points to ways this is actually taking place in climate science. One consequence of the big spending paradigm in science appears to be that less emphasis is given to theory, because of its intrinsic difficulty and small scale, and more emphasis, instead, is on model simulation, (which calls for large capital investment in computation) and emphasis on adoption of large programs unconstrained by specific goals. More to be gained by perpetuation of problems than by solving them.
‘In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.’ (P4)
‘Perhaps,’ says Lindzen ,‘the most impressive exploitation of climate science for political purposes has been the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by two UN agencies, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) and WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) and the agreement of all major countries at the 1992 Rio Conference to accept the IPCC as authoritative. Formally, the IPCC summarises the peer reviewed literature on climate every five years. The charge to the IPCC is not simply to summarise, but rather to provide the science with which to support the negotiating process whose aim is to control greenhouse gas levels. This is a political rather than a scientific charge… That said, the participating scientists have some leeway in which to reasonably describe matters, since the primary document that the public associates with the IPCC is not the extensive report prepared by the scientists, but rather the Summary for Policymakers which is written by an assemblage of representatives from governments and NGO’s, with only a small scientific representation.’
110
” More to be gained by perpetuation of problems than by solving them.”
ah… Sounds a common system, I’d put the medico-pharma industry right there too! Definitely like cops and gangs… If you are successful you will do yourself out of a job!
(& deer & goat cullers.. shoot the males first and foremost, leave the females so there is always work next year.. personal experience)
60
ED ,the USA, of course , half of which think that the world is less than 10,000 years old !.
Hence this useless poll.
013
“half of which think that the world is less than 10,000 years old !.”
Those will be most the people that still believe the AGW farce. !
70
I think Jo has released the Kraken on the scientific community with this zinger !.
013
I think you are incapable of finding scientific supporting paper for even the most fundamental fallacy of the AGW farce.. CO2 causing warming.
We can wait 🙂
your blatant desperation is obvious for all to see. You know the agw farce has been brought into the open.
80
Is namecalling part of “your” scientific method Pat? No wonder you can’t predict anything.
This post was about opinion polls, not the climate. Did you miss that, or just assume we do science the way you do?
[PS: The name Pat is already taken. Hence Pat “2”]
111
Pat 2 reckons 97.4% of climate alarmists is correct.
50
Are
10
?
01
There’s that word “denier”, used as an insult, of course.. and totally ignored.. of course..
No-one here “denies” that climate changes, naturally.. Do you ?
So pat, tell us what we “deny” that you can produce real measured scientific proof for. (that means you have to actually produce said proof!).. 😉
Until you can do that… you may as well say we “deny” the Easter bunny.
60
This is a very good essay about religion (or lack thereof) and totalitarianism as portrayed in the Leftist Utopia of Nineteen Eighty Four.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/02/74119/
Orwell, Atheism, and Totalitarianism
FEBRUARY 17, 2021BY CARSON HOLLOWAY
The very real controversies of America’s 2021 have conjured up the fictional dystopia of George Orwell’s 1984. The right condemns Big Tech as an incipient Big Brother—surveilling citizens and suppressing disapproved thought. The left replies that Donald Trump is the true Orwellian threat. After all, he lies!
These spirited disagreements conceal an important consensus. Most Americans agree that the totalitarianism depicted in 1984 is bad and that we must beware of letting that nightmare vision become a reality in our own country. Our commitment to preserving freedom, then, invites us to consider the basis of this totalitarianism. In other words, we need to ask: what must the citizens be like to permit such a tyranny to arise?
[..]
Atheism is the moral basis of the Party’s unlimited hold on its own members because it makes them terrified of death as absolute nonexistence. Like any government, the Party in 1984 has the power to kill disobedient subjects. Party members, however, view death not just as the end of bodily life, but as a complete erasure of their being—their thoughts, their words, their affections, their deeds. Winston Smith muses that the “terrible” thing about the Party is its ability to make you vanish, such that “neither you nor your actions were ever heard of again. You were lifted clean out of the stream of history.”
[DM comment: Note the similarity of how the Left “cancels” people, both past and present?]
[..]
The Party insists on teaching its members that there is no external, objective reality apart from subjective human consciousness. This is the lesson Winston has to learn the hard way (under torture) after trying to think for himself. Trying to think for yourself implies that there is something “out there” for you to think about, some “truth” that you might be able to find, on the basis of which you might be able to critique approved opinion.
This the Party strenuously denies, as O’Brien labors to teach Winston. “Nothing exists except through human consciousness.” “Outside man there is nothing.” “Reality is inside your skull.” “You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.”
[DM comment: NOTe how the Left believe in post modernism, that there is no objective reality?]
[..]
Since there is no objective reality, the past has no real existence, and the Party can make it be whatever it decides it to be. As O’Brien forces Winston to concede, the past does not exist in any place where one could go and confirm its characteristics. You could try to say that it exists in records, but the Party can revise all records. You could try to say that it exists in people’s memories, but the Party can falsify people’s memories through misinformation and intimidation.
[DM comment: Notice how the Left rewrite history?]
SEE LINK FOR REST.
112
I wonder to what extent this is due to the increasing cost of money popping bubbles…
40
Yesterday the power went out in northern Perth at Dusk. I enjoyed a splendid “Leunig moment” eating yoghurt (no microwave for heating dinner) and sitting outside in the gloaming watching cumulus gliding past. It was very peaceful. My phone worked and I discovered ETA for power restoration- 1 a.m.
I really appreciate the efforts of Jo and this community to support reliable energy. If such blackouts were to be a regular occurrence it would give people the opportunity to reject the religion of CC definitively. Society has a lot of momentum – it is not too late to embrace reality.
We face many problems in modern society- there is no need to imagine spurious ones.
160
The creed of the global warming craze,
Can cause illness like mental malaise,
While its arrogant dons,
Pose as climate icons,
As false mentors fool young proteges.
170
The numbers are in – 2022 king coal oz exports $141b out of $461b of total exports.
Might pay for some subs and missiles…..
90
“technicolor” – Jo your writing is historical, cultural, beautiful and poetic- and all the while making hard hitting points of logic. Thanks
170
High Church of Climate Change even has collection plates but using electronic funds transfer the modern way.
Old example Gillard Labor carbon tax promised never to be, and at the same time renewable energy surcharge, both 10 per cent each and added to electricity bills, plus 10 per cent GST on top.
When pushed Minister Combet admitted on radio that 10 per cent of the revenue was being remitted to the United Nations as a greens fund climate donation, and the longer term plan was to join the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and send Australian taxes there.
120
Man made climate change.
I have sinned said that man in the Church of Climate Change and he was told to buy carbon credits.
110
‘ … 97% of climate scientists acted like science was a religion.’
They are the high priests.
130
And the other religion led by Minister Bowen is that more solar panels and windmills will deliver lower cost electricity.
This morning at 6.30am across the AEMO grid, solar delivered 300 MW, wind 1,100 MW, battery 100 MW, total demand 23,500 MW.
So 30,000 MW nameplate capacity of solar and wind essentially useless. Double the investment in these ruinables and watch electricity costs rise even further.
Thank goodness we still have reliable hydro, gas and coal generators.
130
I don’t think the climate clowns have realised yet that 10 times nothing is still nothing.
90
The Cult of Climate has been absorbed by the Cult of Woke.
Calling it a religion is an insult to religion.
It is an anti-human cult.
A form of neo paganism that is on verge the reinstituting human sacrifice.
If they haven’t already verged.
Virgins need not worry.
The Climate/Woke cult is also anti-virgin.
Non-POCs might want to avoid residing in regions with active volcanos.
102
Yes Honk i agree there are far more noble religions to follow than this tripe
40
I think we have Covid to thank for this. The whole ‘pandemic’ idea was just too tempting an opportunity for power-hungry types to miss, nor greedy elites to ignore and they overreached by a mile. It flushed them out into daylight and ‘red pilled’ vast numbers of people who now know they cannot trust scientists, the health profession, the media, ‘experts’ or people like Bill Gates. They already knew politicians were largely corrupt.
And so a new pandemic of scepticism is sweeping the globe. This awakening is causing people to re-examine all the totems of modern society, especially sceptical of anything involving huge sums of taxpayers’ money. They also now see that governments are becoming more and more authoritanian, Exhibit 1: the treatment of the Canadian truckers and their supporters. In much the same way that we are programmed to be suspicious of any salesman who tries the hard sell approach, people now are wary of anything that supposedly requires ‘urgent action’ or for which absolutely no dissenting opinion is allowed.
In short, the globalist elites have shown their hand and there’s no going back.
That’s not to say the ‘war’ has been won, far from it. The super-rich and super-powerful won’t give in so easily, nor thwarted by mere plebs. It remains to be seen just how far BOTH sides are prepared to go.
91
I dont agree, the poll is from the USA, if you ran the same poll here you would get a result which is reflective in the way we acquiescence our rights and freedoms to the totalitarian state governments with lock downs, i would suggest 80% of those polled in Australia would believe in AGW BS.
60
“They could have told the world there are no sacred cows in science, instead they created the cows — “there is a consensus!”.”
Sacred Cows make great Hamburger.
As the world cools, the grids fail, and the pain of ignorance blossoms, expect the Religion of Climate Change to become a laughingstock. People who don’t understand energy, grids, supply chains, manufacturing, agriculture, and national economies, are about to get a painful education. Replacing what works with what ‘sounds good’ is an infantile and dangerous solution to a non problem. Navel gazing has a price, and that, right soon.
90
Ministerial bunnies each side.
30
Definition of “FAITH” belief in that which cannot be proven.
Sounds like Climate Change crap to me.
60
“This is Kryptonite for fake science preachers: 60% of voters agree Climate Change is a religion”
This voting result WON’T be kryptonite for fake science preachers because their brains are Teflon coated. As a result, science fact won’t stick to their thinking and neither will the results of that poll. Sixty percent of voters may agree that Climate Change is a religion, however, these days, voting is an illusion and therefore probably only has a placebo effect at best.
51
CO2 has not and cannot cause global warming. It is an inert gas that does not generate any heat whatsoever so it cannot increase the temperature of anything. Just like everything else in the environment, it simply passes on heat energy from hot sources to the colder surrounds via conduction, convection and radiation.
The Earth’s atmosphere contains 420 ppm of CO2. Mars’ atmosphere contains 95.2% CO2, 2100 times greater than that on Earth. Adjusting the maximum, average and minimum temperatures from Mars for the increased Sun’s irradiation of the Earth gives temperatures that are still less than the equivalent temperatures on the Earth’s surface. This is possibly due to Mars having a less dense, thinner atmospheric layer than that for the Earth.
No evidence of the ‘catastrophic’ heating supposedly caused by the dominant CO2 in the atmosphere for Mars !
82
Wrong definition of inert gas.
11
Kalm Keith – why? It is used in fire extinguishers to smoother fires, that is, except lithium battery fires.
10
Inert has a very specific meaning for elements in the periodic table.
Traditionally, the term has been used to describe the seven elements in group 18 of the periodic table:
Helium (He)
Neon (Ne)
Argon (Ar)
Krypton (Kr)
Xenon (Xe)
Radon (Rn)
Oganesson (Og)
10
KK, Thanks for the update with Og to the list of inert elements. Education lives on.
10
I must confess I did see Og but didn’t bother to find out about it. What t hell is it?
00
A lot of parallels to the pre-reformation church.
20
Well done Ruairi, one of your best!
30
Well done Ruairi, some of your best work.
30
As a practising Catholic I can easily confirm that this global climate change is a religion. However it is only a part of a greater religion that is being constructed by the WEF and globalist elite, a group of powerful persons that also include the current (fake) Pope Bergoglio, a state of the art south anerican communist. He is moving the Catholic Church towards a chasm of heresies and making it part of the New World Order.
The climate thing is just a bogeyman for terrifying the sheeples and put them under submission by inventing a non existent enemy.
The New World Order is another Communist take over under another name, and their call to arms is YOU WILL OWN NOTHING AND YOU WILL BE HAPPY, Lenin’s words expressed I bit differently.
20
About the 97% of scientist, that is a hoax,a lie and a damned one at that.
The 97% actually represent less than 100 scientists out thousands who were polled, a good part failed to reply to the convoluted question, many whonreplied where dropped from the poll for some reason or other, the rest, less than a hundred were accepted for the ‘statistic’.
20
47% strongly agreeing is massive.
Unfortunately, if they ran the same poll over here in ‘Strayastan, the average Aussie would reply “what does the word religion mean?”
If only my fellow countrymen and countrywomen had a clue … but lately I’m losing hope trying to talk to local people, they’ve completely checked out of using their brains. It’s frightening tbh.
10
[…] Since 60% of US voters already think climate change is a religion, all Nature has to do is keep pumping out these kind of excuses (below) and no one will believe anything it says. It’s acting for all the world like a Union of Science Bureaucrats that think they know what’s best for the health and wellbeing of US citizens, even if the voters aren’t smart enough. Nature, being paid mostly through government funded subscriptions knows Big Government is always the answer. […]
10
And like any ancient pagan religion their demanding their seasonal sacrifice like the Aztecs. Incans and Myan’s did a Virgin or aa child would do for them
20