Sunday, 3 February 2013

Climate aftermath

The winter of 62. From

Now many people realise just how silly climate science and alarmist claims really are, maybe we have to move on and account for the silliness, the obviously fraudulent nature of those claims and the global politics behind them. Or maybe not. Maybe the project is too big to fail.

That’s the issue now, as it has been for some time. Climate change alarmism is an attack on the developed world by hostile political activists – not a hostile climate. Yes, it’s still worth trashing the science, but undermining the climate power brokers and their useful idiots is more pressing than the long-discredited science.

So let’s forget the science - obvious junk, yet still we are stuck with millions of useful idiots willing to wave the tattered flag for their political dreams.

Why? What’s the attraction? I suppose it is no more than timid assent to the dominant power structure. It's what we tend to do for obvious reasons. It’s why we have power structures in the first place, why they keep expanding, why we have politics to feed them and keep them growing. In fact it’s quite nurturing in an infantile, freedom-sapping way.

So it is not so just useful idiots, although we have plenty of those, but also a case of too many passive shrugs. The useful idiots are the activists, the joiners, the petty bureaucrats with another set of rules to drool over.

So how to move on?

We can’t. These things have to work themselves out because the climate project probably is too big to fail, however absurd it may be. Unfortunately, if global temperatures rise, then the political games will get worse and we may have a very rough time indeed. The warming itself is not a threat – as ever morally corrupt politicians and amoral businesses are the threat.

If the climate cools or remains static, then we may be okay as political support ebbs away in the face of economic imperatives. Too big to fail may become too big to admit, but not too big to ignore. This already seemed to have happened in the US presidential election, where environmental issues did not seem to be important. The world is not warming and although the juggernaut rolls on, the political will may be fading.

If we see global cooling, then the useful idiots will no doubt crawl back into their holes to dream up some kind of excuse, but with luck their idiot dreams will die. Anyhow, if that happens we’ll have more serious issues to contend with. We have no plans for global cooling.

So what to do?

Preparing for a colder climate only makes sense if we actually see definite signs of cooling. At the moment the climate seems to be going nowhere so there is no pressing need to go into full scale survivalist mode. It’s an impossible call though – the best we can do is be prepared for cold if the signs arrive.

Good home insulation.
A 4x4 if you need the car.
Plenty of rock salt for gritting.
A generator for power cuts.
A portable gas heater – also for power cuts.

For anyone thinking of emigrating to somewhere warmer, now may be the time to think more seriously.

Where to go?

Not the EU because who knows what insanity lies ahead.
Not Australia because the new carbon tax suggests high level insanity.
Not the US because...

It isn’t easy.


Sobers said...

I think we are guaranteed some cooler times in the next few decades due to the decreasing amount of solar activity. Russian scientists (ironically it is scientists from an ex-Communist authoritarian State that now have more room for independent thought than those in so called democracies) are of the opinion that the next few decades will be significantly cooler due to solar effects.

My guess is that by 2020 'the science' will actually be settled - against CAGW. Reality will have settled the argument - you can't continue to predict higher and higher global temperatures if your predictions get further and further away from reality.

But as you say there's then the bureaucracy issue - the huge Green apparatus sucking on the taxpayers teat. That won't be so easy to dislodge. But strangely enough I think it can be done, precisely because it is so bloated, and will have so little public support. And cutting it will be 'free' money to the politicians, rather like defence cuts are. By cutting spending on matters 'green' there will be very few ordinary voters who are affected, if any. Yes there will be the usual screams from the Guardianistas, but there will be no people saying 'I'm not voting for X, they're cutting the Climate Research Centre budget'. If you are a politician promising extra cash for schools'n'hospitals, paid for by cutting green subsidies, then I reckon you'd be getting plenty of extra votes.

And there's the issue of fuel bills, which I predict will be a massive issue in years to come - everyone has fuel bills and the demands to cut subsidies to renewables and reduce prices will become unresistable in years to come.

The Greens have a large power base, but it has very little true public support, and thus is very vulnerable to changes of political priority. Its like large area covered in thin concrete. Looks very impressive, very permanent, but small movements of the ground underneath soon produce cracks, and eventual total destruction.

A K Haart said...

Sobers - "And cutting it will be 'free' money to the politicians, rather like defence cuts are"

That's a good point and a likely dismantling mechanism.

I came across quite a few professional environmental scientists in my time, but don't remember one who was really interested in climate change. As you say, people aren't.