Reading a recent post from Bryan Caplan about Alex Epstein’s book Fossil Future reminded me of a couple points regarding climate change that have always bothered me.
I love me some T Coddington in the afternoon! Let's talk about your points:
1) Life flourishes better in heat rather than cold. We're much closer to 'freezing to death' than we are 'burning to death'. Recently I heard Justin Trudeau, dependable WEF lackey, claim that climate change was one of the biggest issues facing Canadians, though Canada in particular would LOVE to warm up enough to grow food like the midwest does. Your overarching point is completely correct -- government has no idea what Earth's "optimum" temperature even is, and the idea that with enough money and power they could somehow get the planet to that temperature AND MAINTAIN IT is literally insane.
2) Climate change HAS to be caused by humans because otherwise humans can't do anything about it, therefore the climate bullies can't force you into changing behavior. As you say, it's a religion, and as most religions, it's all about CONTROL. You will stop flying. You will stop driving. You will own nothing. You will eat the bugs. All that control disappears if humans aren't 'causing' the climate change.
It seems a 2 degree rise is the big bad number to avoid...at all cost.
At the same time...Canadians who are terrified of that potential change...flock to the southern USA every winter where the temps are hopefully 20-40 degrees celsius warmer than where they are fleeng from.
re: Point 2: The question can be posed both from the cause point of view (would you still look for "solutions" if the cause changed) and from the "solution" point of view (if there was a "solution", would you still care about cause?). In 2019 (https://dochdoch.substack.com/p/non-constat-de-supernaturalitate), I transcribed a short podcast section from David Fuller on this:
"I don’t see many people coming forward with what I would consider to be an integral or a balanced framework around climate change, for example - which I think would acknowledge certainly how neatly it fits onto a very sort of religious framework: We’re all doomed! We need to repent right now! Is it genuinely about climate change, or is it about changing people? If you heard that there’s a technological solution tomorrow for climate change, how would that make you feel? Would you be relieved, or would you actually think, no, that’s not the point! The point is that people need to stop being selfish, they need to stop being disrespectful to the environment, stop being et cetera, et cetera. What’s the deeper… is it about changing people, or is it about changing the environment?"
In regards to point 1: How do we know that a warming trend will be a net-negative for the world?
We've been in a warming trend since we came out of the last little ice age in the 1850s and we seem to have done all right.
Every year is the warmest ever recorded! Well, yeah, that's the trend. Unless these alarmists can explain why ice ages happen and when the next one is due, it's hard to take them seriously. As you say, more a religion.
Whether or not a warmer planet is good or bad, we know for an absolute fact that higher CO2 levels lead to a greening of the planet, i.e. higher crops yields and more vegetation cover. This should be seen by all as a good thing unless you were part of a cult of "Elites" who consider humans to be a virus on the Earth and do not want to see the carrying capacity of the planet increase.
Also, it isn't that warm! We were warmer in the Mediaeval and Roman warm periods, neither of which were that long ago. Nothing to panic about. Every degree of warming requires a doubling of CO2. We'll not likely get to another doubling due to a lack of economically accessible fossil fuels. If the powers that be were really concerned about CO2 and climate they would have switched to Thorium power molten salt reactors decades ago and deployed them en masse.
As a former member, you are dead right about this being a cult, at the lower levels, anyway. Most adherents are not looking into the science. Those, like myself, that do, leave. The Elites have made the Earth into a new God for the masses. It is a useful tool for control, that is all.
On point 2, I think covid illustrates your point well: when every death within 28 days of a positive death was being ascribed to covid, the news media reported every death with a counter on the screen constantly showing this. Now there are all the excess deaths around the world, which can not be ascribed to covid, there is nothing at all on the news. So if climate change became not due to humans, we would not hear about it.
I love me some T Coddington in the afternoon! Let's talk about your points:
1) Life flourishes better in heat rather than cold. We're much closer to 'freezing to death' than we are 'burning to death'. Recently I heard Justin Trudeau, dependable WEF lackey, claim that climate change was one of the biggest issues facing Canadians, though Canada in particular would LOVE to warm up enough to grow food like the midwest does. Your overarching point is completely correct -- government has no idea what Earth's "optimum" temperature even is, and the idea that with enough money and power they could somehow get the planet to that temperature AND MAINTAIN IT is literally insane.
2) Climate change HAS to be caused by humans because otherwise humans can't do anything about it, therefore the climate bullies can't force you into changing behavior. As you say, it's a religion, and as most religions, it's all about CONTROL. You will stop flying. You will stop driving. You will own nothing. You will eat the bugs. All that control disappears if humans aren't 'causing' the climate change.
I remember when science showed and shared the work, was a method that was repeatable, predictable and observable.
A seldom practiced theory at any juncture.
"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?"
-- 2005, Phil Jones, Director of Climatic Research Unit
My neighbor has at least that many years being a trained JW.
The difference between him and Phil Jones is he always wants me to see his data.
Funny thing. The FDA and Pfizer wanted to legally hide their data for 75 years regarding the jab.
Nothing says "trustworthy" quite as strongly as imposing your will upon the populace while at the same time hiding your data for fear of scrutiny.
Excellent argument.
99% of scientist paid to disagree with you, disagree with you.
Also whether rising CO2 is a net-negative for the world. Many studies show it is actually a necessity.
What I know for a fact...is this.
It seems a 2 degree rise is the big bad number to avoid...at all cost.
At the same time...Canadians who are terrified of that potential change...flock to the southern USA every winter where the temps are hopefully 20-40 degrees celsius warmer than where they are fleeng from.
re: Point 2: The question can be posed both from the cause point of view (would you still look for "solutions" if the cause changed) and from the "solution" point of view (if there was a "solution", would you still care about cause?). In 2019 (https://dochdoch.substack.com/p/non-constat-de-supernaturalitate), I transcribed a short podcast section from David Fuller on this:
"I don’t see many people coming forward with what I would consider to be an integral or a balanced framework around climate change, for example - which I think would acknowledge certainly how neatly it fits onto a very sort of religious framework: We’re all doomed! We need to repent right now! Is it genuinely about climate change, or is it about changing people? If you heard that there’s a technological solution tomorrow for climate change, how would that make you feel? Would you be relieved, or would you actually think, no, that’s not the point! The point is that people need to stop being selfish, they need to stop being disrespectful to the environment, stop being et cetera, et cetera. What’s the deeper… is it about changing people, or is it about changing the environment?"
In regards to point 1: How do we know that a warming trend will be a net-negative for the world?
We've been in a warming trend since we came out of the last little ice age in the 1850s and we seem to have done all right.
Every year is the warmest ever recorded! Well, yeah, that's the trend. Unless these alarmists can explain why ice ages happen and when the next one is due, it's hard to take them seriously. As you say, more a religion.
And that's the point: they cannot explain how ice ages happen.
Very well put.
Whether or not a warmer planet is good or bad, we know for an absolute fact that higher CO2 levels lead to a greening of the planet, i.e. higher crops yields and more vegetation cover. This should be seen by all as a good thing unless you were part of a cult of "Elites" who consider humans to be a virus on the Earth and do not want to see the carrying capacity of the planet increase.
Also, it isn't that warm! We were warmer in the Mediaeval and Roman warm periods, neither of which were that long ago. Nothing to panic about. Every degree of warming requires a doubling of CO2. We'll not likely get to another doubling due to a lack of economically accessible fossil fuels. If the powers that be were really concerned about CO2 and climate they would have switched to Thorium power molten salt reactors decades ago and deployed them en masse.
As a former member, you are dead right about this being a cult, at the lower levels, anyway. Most adherents are not looking into the science. Those, like myself, that do, leave. The Elites have made the Earth into a new God for the masses. It is a useful tool for control, that is all.
On point 2, I think covid illustrates your point well: when every death within 28 days of a positive death was being ascribed to covid, the news media reported every death with a counter on the screen constantly showing this. Now there are all the excess deaths around the world, which can not be ascribed to covid, there is nothing at all on the news. So if climate change became not due to humans, we would not hear about it.
Climate change alarmism is simply the eschatology of the religion of progressivism. It is merely a part of its whole religious structure.
What is the optimal temperature of the planet? If the current temperature is not optimal shouldn't we try to change the temperature of the planet?
Using logic with liberals is dangerous, and usually not successful.