Monday, 1 July 2019

Insignificant individuals have no role

This is another in an occasional series of mostly non-technical climate posts. To begin we have one of the many obvious questions thrown up by the catastrophic climate change project.

Does anyone actually believe we are headed for climate catastrophe?

To my mind the answer to this question is obvious – no. To a good approximation nobody believes it and nobody ever did believe it. Look at the behaviour we see around us.

Climate leaders fly all over the world and climate followers drive cars, take holidays, heat their homes in winter, cook their food and use electrical appliances. We see large houses being built in the traditional manner, packed airports at holiday time and hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius doing 80mph down the motorway.

Moving on to international climate mitigation policies we are confronted with technological solutions such as wind turbines and solar panels which cannot deliver reliable energy at the level we have come to rely on. If we consider international climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement we are confronted with the China issue - there is no point to emissions treaties if China doesn’t join in.

If we consider energy technology which has the capacity to deliver a low emission future we are left with nuclear power and nothing else. The climate industrial complex doesn’t want nuclear power, the one technology which would deliver us from the supposed climate emergency.

To a good approximation nobody believes catastrophic climate predictions. Nobody ever did.

So what is the real game?

Again this is well known - Agenda 21. The climate game is a global bureaucratic and political project initiated and sustained by the UN with the willing cooperation of numerous interested governments, NGOs, journalists, universities, businesses, criminals and celebrity virtue-signallers.

Insignificant individuals have no role.

But that’s the plan anyway.


Sam Vega said...

I agree that nobody actually seems to believe in imminent climate catastrophe. Guardian types wibble on about not having children, but if they really believed in imminent catastrophe, they would probably do the sensible thing and commit suicide painlessly before they roast with the rest of us.

I was a bit disappointed with Agenda 21. I didn't want to download a turgid pdf onto my computer, so I found it on wiki. I don't even understand the summary. Just seems to be a lot of good wishes and trendy buzz-words. I sometimes wonder whether our children and grandchildren will look back on all this in the same spirit that the Dutch looked back on tulip-mania.

"Do you remember when uncle Jan went all doolally about flowers?"

Graeme said...

You seem to forget that it has enabled the Thunberg family to make a media star of their deranged daughter. And it has helped extraordinarily dim academics achieve a degree of celebrity - in addition to specialists such as Michael Mann, we have the case of pretend philosopher Rupert Read. It has added to the wealth of venal industrialists such as Deben and it has given a new lease of life to senile TV presenters. It's odd to see that Attenborough is still a BBC fixture when their policy is normally to adopt an age guillotine - Motty, Hugh Porter, Blofield and Alliss all forced to retire and replaced by people who have a lot of developing to do (admittedly Blofield had degenerated into a self-parody but that might well have been caused by being surrounded by the inarticulate halfwits that the BBC employs these days)

A K Haart said...

Sam - Agenda 21 certainly is a morass of good wishes and trendy buzz-words, but if you search it for the word "transfer" for example, it occurs 141 times.

Graeme - reminds me of David Bellamy, I always found him more interesting than Attenborough.

Graeme said...

Ah but Dr Bellamy said the wrong things about climate change. He had to be banned from the screen for our own benefit