As a German, I live in a country that has made climate change a central theme of its policies for decades now. So let this be a cautionary tale for other countries. Keep in mind that even though radical activists and most of the media frame this debate in black and white terms and try to make it a left vs. right issue, this just isn't true. There are a great variety of opinions about climate change both on the left and the right, both within mainstream science and the so-called 'climate-skeptic' community. Once you drop the hysterical mindset, these nuances become very visible. And while they make things much more complicated, taking these nuances into account is the only alternative to the disastrous consequences of political hysteria. So here are my top ten arguments to counter the current climate craze:
1. Problem Or Apocalypse?
Here is what Jochem Marotzke, co-author of the 2013 IPCC report, said in an interview with the German magazine SPIEGEL in 2018:
SPIEGEL: "Are there any thresholds above which irreversible processes begin?"Another lead IPCC scientist, Oxford Professor Myles Allen, has said something similar in a short YouTube message: the world isn't going to end soon, and there are certainly no deadlines by which we 'must act' to avoid some kind of apocalypse.
Marotzke: "We cannot rule this out, but the evidence for such tipping points has so far been rather weak. A warming of 2 degrees could most likely lead to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet, causing sea levels to rise by seven metres in the long term - that would be a highly dramatic change. But even if this were to happen, defrosting would take 3000 years. All other alleged tipping points such as the Gulf Stream drying up or the West Antarctic melting are unlikely in the foreseeable future."
Mind you, despite some shrill tones in the IPCC's press releases, this is the 'official position' in science and has nothing to do with 'climate skeptics'. It could be summed up like this: "Yes, we do have a problem and we need to figure out a way to deal with it, but there's a lot we don't understand yet, and anyway, it will take many years until that problem manifests, which gives us enough time to solve it." At the very least, this shows that contrary to popular belief, there is much diversity even within mainstream science about the effects of climate change. This fact alone should make us immune to politicians and activists who want to rush through drastic measures and policies, and ignore the likely unintended consequences, with the argument that if we don't take these measures right now, we are all going to die.
2. The Folly of Long-term Predictions
Without getting into the scientific debate about climate change, it should be obvious to anyone with some common sense how ridiculous it is to make long-term predictions when it comes to human affairs. Just think about how people in 1900 imagined the world would look like in 1950. Or how those people in 1950 imagined the world in the year 2000. Heck, how different our world is in 2019 to everything people could have dreamed of even in the year 2000!
Just think! During the next few decades, we could have a world war that leads to massive de-industrialization. There might be a technological break-through that changes everything and renders climate alarmism moot. (Think about how electricity or the combustion engine have changed the world.) We could have an economic recession that cuts the world's CO2 emissions in half over night. In other words, the very idea that our climate is 'man-made' means we cannot predict it, because everything in the human sphere is utterly unpredictable. And that's not even taking into account black swan-type natural phenomena that could massively change our CO2 calculations: for example, a couple of volcanoes going off could immediately render all our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions irrelevant!
Last but not least, there is also the problem that climate scientists use models to make their predictions. But even the best models have an (often large) margin of error, which means that their accuracy declines rapidly with the time span of their prediction. This is another reason why long-term predictions should be taken with a huge chunk of salt.
A case in point is this article from the year 1989 that cites someone from the UN making the following predictions:
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.So according to this 'scientific' prediction, we have been 'doomed' for 19 years now. The list of unpredictable things that could massively change the whole picture - whether you accept the man-made global warming theory or not - is endless - and therefore the probability that our long-term predictions are accurate rapidly approaches 0%. So anyone who tells you that we all are all going to die in X years if we don't reduce CO2 now is not thinking straight. I must admit though that perhaps humanity will indeed undo itself soon - but if so, it will have much more to do with the massive hysteria here on Earth than with CO2 emissions!
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt's arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
3. Real Environmentalism vs. Climate Hysteria
A big part of today's confusion about climate change is that many people don't distinguish between the 'CO2 is an evil toxin' narrative and real environmental issues such as pollution, the killing of endangered species and the general wastefulness and rampant consumerism that destroy mother nature. All environmental concerns somehow get mixed up with climate change. Consequently, in some people's minds, if you are sceptical about the climate hysteria, you must be an evil right-winger who wants to do away with all environmental protection regulation and likes to pour barrels of toxic sludge into rivers just for fun.
The truth is very different though. Among those who are critical of the current climate hysteria are many environmentalists and 'old-school greens' who genuinely care about our wildlife, about reducing waste and toxins and generally don't like the rampant consumerism in today's world. And this is precisely why they don't like the climate hysteria either: the fear of CO2 overshadows all other, genuine concerns for the environment. Indeed, this hysteria is often a direct threat to real environmentalism, for example when wind turbines kill birds and destroy forests, when electric cars lead to child slavery, more waste or simply because most funds today are channelled into climate change instead of nature conservation projects. It is heart-breaking for those who care for our environment to see people and politicians argue that it's okay to kill endangered birds with wind craft installations because if we don't do something about the climate, they will end up dead anyway in the future. The cruelty and insidiousness of such arguments should be obvious to everyone with some decency left.
4. The Instrumentalization Of The Youth
Yes, they are cute. But do you really believe these children have any idea whatsoever what they are protesting against?
It's one thing if young people take to the streets for various reasons, justified or misguided as they might be. It's quite another if teenagers and even children are exempted from school to attend marches and rallies: it's a form of top-down, state-sanctioned movement that is the hallmark of fascist and communist totalitarian regimes. It's a blatant instrumentalization of the young who, if they are children, have no clue what all of this is even about, and just see it as a fun thing preferable to school. It is quite telling that those who actually don't want to attend are bullied by their peers and even their teachers into joining 'the movement'. One school even officially made attending the rallies mandatory!
In case you still doubt the top-down, totalitarian flavor of the movement, here's the official position of the school board in Vancouver, Canada:
On Monday, Richmond's superintendent of schools also gave permission to students to attend climate rallies.Even if you agree politically with the movement, you should still be terrified of state-sanctioned, semi-mandatory political rallies involving teenagers and children. What if tomorrow, they will send your kids to a cause you, or even your kid, wholeheartedly disagrees with? It is unacceptable.
"There is ample evidence to support the argument that climate change is real and must be taken seriously. As a public school district, we play a crucial role in educating students about global warming and its potential impacts on our planet," said Scott Robinson in a letter posted to the school district's website.
"In many classrooms across the district, climate change will be a topic of discussion this week as teachers engage students in a variety of lessons and activities. I also encourage you, as parents, to discuss this topic and the global advocacy movement with your children."
5. The Budget Dilemma And Limited Resources
Bjorn Lomborg has often made that point, and it's an excellent one: of all people, climate alarmists should understand that our resources are limited. This is true, of course, for government resources as well. But 'doing something about climate change' is very costly indeed. This means that every cent you put into the 'fight against climate change' you cannot put elsewhere. So if you had the choice between, let's say, investing $1000 in the fight against climate change, or using the same money to save a dying child in Africa, what would you do? Or would you rather ramp up public support for the elderly instead of doling out subventions for rich, 'green tech' companies? These are crucial questions that get most people to think. And if the answer is 'why not do both', this is missing the point: every cent invested in the climate change issue, every hour a public servant spends on climate change, and every headline published about climate change in the media is a resource lost for another cause, period. You have to choose, and choose wisely.
But you don't really have a choice now, do you? If the alarmists tell you we are all going to die if we don't cut emissions, then cutting emissions becomes the only worthy cause. If you think it through, this would mean pouring all resources into fighting climate change. This is the inevitable conclusion of the alarmists' proposition, whether they themselves realize it or not. And it will play out if people don't come to their senses and acknowledge that there are many other, immediate problems that need to be addressed and that deserve much more airtime, money and brainpower.
6. Personal Responsibility
How about giving up your beloved smartphones, climate activists?
It's easy for people to proclaim they don't use a car when they are living in a big city where they don't need one, or to say they don't go to far-away places for holiday if that's not their thing anyway, or to bash those who drive big cars if they can't afford one. No, that's not what sacrifice means. For that, you would have to give up something that you value. How about dumping your smartphone and order an old dumb-phone from ebay? I'm sure those Chinese factories that produce your gadgets pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere! Or why don't you give up your café latte routine? Or limit your internet use to one hour a day, saving tons of server energy? But no, it's always someone else who needs to change, it's always other people who need to give up something they value.
Of course, sacrificing something for the greater good is a noble act. But it should be a sacrifice for the right cause, and most of all a voluntary sacrifice. Being bullied and shamed by hypocritical politicians and activists is certainly not a noble act. We should see through the alarmists' game of using the current hysterical atmosphere to coerce us into doing what they want us to do - and from which they profit!
7. Economic Development for the Poor
Economic growth and CO2 emissions are tightly correlated. This means that if you want to reduce those emissions, you need to fight against economic growth. And where do you find most of the economic growth? In the developing countries and emerging markets, of course. How is it fair for the developed West to stifle economic development of those countries just starting out? Should those people not be connected to the grid, construct houses and factories and water systems - all of which lead to more CO2 emissions? How dare you?
There is no way around it: climate alarmism is a form of neo-colonialism and patronizing of developing countries. Just to give you an example: here in Germany, we have completely cut down our forests many times over in our history. We have built our civilization in part using these resources - for heating, cooking, for building houses and ships and weapons and furniture and other products. And yet we have the audacity to forbid other countries from using their natural resources because of our climate change hysteria! And even if they follow strict sustainability policies, unlike the West just a few decades ago, we still chastise them for not doing enough. How do you think such countries perceive this arrogance and hypocrisy? How dare you indeed!
8. The Danger of Climate Change Policies
Hysteria on a political level can only lead to catastrophe: if you are convinced that we are all going to die if we don't take extreme measures now, then the end justifies every means.
The first thing politicians will do, as I have witnessed here in Germany for a long time, is find ever-new means of raising taxes. Meat tax, Renewable Energy tax, Eco Tax on fuel - inventing new taxes is one area where politicians show some remarkable creativity. And if you think that being against tax increases is just a right-wing talking point, consider this: all such taxes simply make essential products like food, electricity or fuel more expensive, which disproportionately hurts the poor and disadvantaged. The rich don't care about meat and fuel prices, but those struggling from pay check to pay check certainly do. But what can you say? Remember, without these taxes, we are all going to die!
The result of hysterical climate change policies: someone's getting rich here - without any effect on emissions
A German farmer complained on Twitter after 500 climate activists trampled over his fields during a 'march', destroying his crops. He said the financial loss isn't really the problem, but it hurts him to see food destroyed and the fruit of his labor taken away from him. And as if the irony of "climate activists" destroying crops wasn't enough, a politician from the Green party tweeted this: "Your carrots are not as important as our climate. Sorry."
This story should give us pause: what else will politicians and the authorities justify in the name of 'our climate'? How about forbidding 'climate change denial' and removing the right to free speech? Or how about regulating how much energy you are allowed to use - or even prescribing the exact purpose of your energy use? Maybe meat will become illegal? And then, what's next? Wake up folks, this is scary stuff!
9. Renewable Energy Doesn't Work
Germany is often presented as a shining example of a successful transition to renewable energy. But let me tell you a different story. It is important, because renewable energy is one of the most visible (and nastiest) of climate change policies that might soon affect your community.
Renewables, by which people typically mean wind and solar, don't work. The reason is simple: sometimes there is neither sun nor wind, especially at night - and so the energy output of the renewables drops to zero. This means that you cannot replace even one single conventional power plant with renewables.
The sad truth about renewable energy technology...
The result of all this is that only a tiny fraction of the capacity of the renewables can actually be used. If you combine that with the massive costs and energy needed to produce all those wind turbines and solar panels, ship them around the world, install them, cut down forests, build new transmission lines etc., taking into account the life cycle of these devices and the problem of their disposal, there can only be one conclusion: this is a bad idea if there ever was one!
...and the sad truth about renewable energy economics
Another much hyped solution is the invention of some magic way to store huge amounts of power. But despite decades of massive funding for such research, there is nothing even remotely on the horizon that could do the job. Batteries and renewables work well to power your fridge at your farm, but they are useless for powering modern civilization with its aluminium factories, steel industry and car manufacturers. The truth is that large-scale energy storage systems are just a pipe dream at this point. And even if at some point in the future someone comes up with a system that works, that would be the time to think about renewables instead of building them now when they simply don't work and waste much more energy than they will ever generate. And if that wasn't bad enough, all of this is super-expensive for the taxpayer: Germany has spent €160 billion ($180 billion) in the past five years alone on the so-called energy transition. (For some perspective, Germany's annual military budget is around $50 billion.)
Soon to come to your community
10. Official Science Has Been Wrong Before
Science is great. However, whenever science gets entangled with powerful political causes or financial interests, or both, a healthy amount of skepticism is always a good idea. In the case of climate change, there is a lot at stake: a whole political generation has built its platform around the issue, plus there is a whole cottage industry of think tanks, government programs, state-sponsored initiatives, research programs etc. that are funded because of climate change. And then, there is the highly subsidised green tech and renewable energy sector. In total, the green energy industry is worth $1.5 trillion dollars. You would be naïve to think that, in this context, it's all about bleeding heart environmentalism and the truth.
And let's not forget that science has been wrong, sometimes spectacularly so, in the past. The phrase that begins with: "the overwhelming majority of scientists agrees that..." was historically applied to things like the superiority of the white race (long before the Nazis), the unquestioned truth of historical materialism à la Karl Marx in the communist countries, and countless other, now obsolete, theories that were once en vogue.
This is not the place to go into the science around climate change. You can start your own journey of digging into that if you wish. But what's most important, I think, is to not fall for the simplistic narrative presented by the media and to look at the nuances. For example, a lot of questions that need to be separated usually get horribly mixed up in this debate, such as:
- Is there climate change going on or not, whatever the cause may be?
- If yes, do greenhouse gases like CO2 cause it? What's the specific role of CO2?
- If so, how much of it is man-made and what role does the man-made part play?
- Are there other causes besides greenhouse gases and what are their effects?
- Is CO2 causing climate change or are the two just correlated?
- How accurate are the climate models used by scientists to make their predictions?
- What effects could climate change have on our civilization?
- Is it warming or cooling?
- Can we do something about it, and if so, what and how?
But regardless of what science says, one thing is clear: there is so much irrationality and hysteria going on at the moment that it makes it difficult for people to think straight. If I can at least convince you that it's a good idea to go back to clear, rational thinking, and maybe even to help your friends, relatives and co-workers get more level-headed about this whole discussion, then my job is done!
Reader Comments
Now ,what's left is to rob its own people ....Can't rob anymore China ?? See East India Company & Opium Wars .. ect..ect..
So we are the last to be rob of our money, by paying "CO2" Tax to the PTB, so that they can back up their virtual $$ on the computer screen with REAL MONEY robbed from us ..
These are false arguments:
• Suggesting that alternative energy should be dropped because start-up costs are high. Start-up costs are a normal factor in doing something new (and the cartoon is mockingly misleading, especially since the PacNW and Cali have lead the nation in 'greening' the environment).
• Suggesting that alternative energy should be dropped because it can't easily replace the entire power generation system. Along with solar, wind is already serving residential needs.
• Implying that fossil fuel-powered generation is preferable because it's already in place (status quo), works fine (despite pollution, finite fuel sources, and flucuating fuel costs), and is preferable as a 'lesser evil'.
Do not trucks, trains, air traffic, coal-fired smoke, and many other things 'kill birds'? It's a specious argument against wind turbines. Indeed, a quick Search indicates that human-caused bird deaths, roughly in order of highest mortality, are attributed to: cats, vehicular traffic, tall buildings, windows, pesticides, and power lines - with hunting, wind turbines, etc. being very low. [Link] [Link]
While Germany may not be as suited to a sustainable economic benefit from wind power as other places, due to terrain or population or whatever, the experience of one place hardly translates to the rest of the world.
Beside the cost argument, the argument against renewable energy is based on its unreliability. What happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind is either to light or too strong? Answer, no power generation. Ah, you say, use batteries. South Australia tried that. Millions of dollars spent for a battery farm which lasts for 20 minutes in a no power situation
And Germany is not the only example of failed renewable energy. Look at Sweden, and most specifically look at the absolute disaster that is power in South Australia and Victoria. South Australia is plagued by blackouts and has the honour of being the most expensive place in the world for electricity, all down to their focus on shutting down coal and gas powered power plants and relying on "renewables". Without the link to other states grid, South Australia would be in absolute dire straits. Bear in mind also that energy companies install solar and wind because there are huge subsidies from government to do so, Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that his companies install renewable energy because of the tax break, otherwise the economics don't pan out.
Thanks for the article!
flashgordonv Right you are, they don't pan out. Now running the rural farm house with a small wind turbine is not the same as powering up a massive urban infrastructure grid (which is a built up secondary grid to the primary). Besides these turbines having a relatively short shelf-life, as said, when the wind calms down you are back to the primary power source (whatever that is) - the cost per kilowatt differential is staggering.
As this article lays bare:
Renewables can't power modern civilization - they were never meant to
Over the last decade, journalists have held up Germany's renewables energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world. "Many poor countries, once intent on building...As for pensions and reserves - if there are any (because were else are they going to take money from), it looks like they have been at this for awhile: [Link] 'OECD WORKING PAPERS ON FINANCE, INSURANCE AND PRIVATE PENSIONS, NO. 10'
It is a warm and fuzzy green financial paper indeed. Right, moving right along...
Renewable energy is an illusion that some people are getting rich from, nothing more.
Also, I live in the vicinity of wind turbines (luckily they are not THAT close and it's only a few), and I would challenge everyone having anything positive whatsoever to say about these monsters to live next to a wind park for 2 weeks and then tell me again how it is all harmless. These things are a plague and a menace and soul-destroying, period.
If you want more info, check out [Link] for a great resource in English.
This is a great resource from an engineer who takes on the nonsense in detail (in German, you can use Google translate): [Link]
What's the solution? Go with what we know? Well, it's better than ripping out what works and replacing it with unproven, problem-ridden, costly, sub-standard, sub-par, half-baked inventions. The people pushing these politics disguised as humanitarianism all deserve to be on the receiving end of their own decision making. Idiots.
Your vision does not match mine, but that doesn't make either of us dumb , stupid , or idiots .
Wind energy is not "ripping out what works and replacing it, etc". Coal use is down because the cost went up.
I like wind and other 'renewables'. It's not politcal , and I'm not pushing it.
The point is to inform ourselves as we go and attempt to share what we're learning. Ideally, adult readers will help expand each other's understanding of all the myriad issues and problems we face, but while SOTT is a good source for a whole range of 'hot topics', it's also is an outlet for the fevered expostulations of emotionally immature commenters.
Well, of all the emotionally immature comments on the internet, at least SOTT has the best I include myself, of course, how could I not? A lot of these articles contradict most people's diverse array of opinions... and I find it amazing that out of all of them, the one guarantee we all have is that we are all basically wrong. How cool is that! Anyway, that is how I think, I re-read it to check how it felt and it felt basically like where I am, which is what all our comments should always be a reflection of.
By the way, I kinda wasn't really talking to you so none of the slurs were meant for you, I must re-iterate. I kinda went on my own rant about after the first sentence so .... anyway, it's not about vision. There's too much wrong and it's too new, and as all these renewables are being put out there more and more that's wrong about them is popping up, and it's just all being pushed under the rug like so much else. It's hard to have a coherent back and forth without getting emotional, I have found. We are very attached to our opinions and so used to being attacked that we hold all the tighter to them. Maybe I do bandwagon for SOTT, that was a choice I made a long time ago and through thick and thin I have had to stick to it. Most days it feels like I am backsliding, but that's life.
Appreciate your explanation.
Everything is politicized and monetized in current (Western) culture. I think we have to just try to evaluate issues as if they weren't propagandized every which way and try mightily to find bits of truth through the fog. In my view nuclear is dangerous (esp. in the U.S.), expensive, and a ridiculous way to heat water. There is so much wind development in many places now that it won't be long before we can see its advantages and drawbacks more clearly. Ditto for solar.
I've always just left my mouth wide open and hoped for the best. I wouldn't want to misrepresent myself. Cruel to them. Cruel to me.
So what do you think about the article we're supposed to be discussing?
"I have not found dialog with you to be productive and will not seek it out in the future."
But I wasn't even addressing you.
"So what do you think about the article we're supposed to be discussing?"
But if you 'have not found dialog(ue) with me to be productive, and will not seek it out in the future', why ask me that now, in what, to all intents and purposes is 'the future'?
"I'm actually just cis."
Oh really. I hope you were thoroughly examined by a 'qualified expert' who was able to determine that for you. LOL.
Again I say, go look at South Australia and see what happens when you trash cheap energy sources (brown coal) in favour of expensive and unreliable renewables. The result is chaos and expense.
hehehe (not the very brightest one, this one?)
2019. Leftists With Amnesia: Vegtard Jeremy Corbyn speaks on 'climate crisis'...[Link]
Create a problem, wait for the desired reaction, then implement the "solution".
This strategy has worked well to control populations for a very long time.
Checkout Dane Wigington's research at www.geoengineeringwatch.org
AC power cannot be stored. it HAS to be consumed as it is created. DC power can be stored, but it does not transmit well over long distances.
the sun heats the earth radiantly. meaning, only the surface is heated. (not the air in-between) clouds act as a heat transfer system. delivering 970.3 BTU's of heat, from the surface to the upper atmosphere. for each 16 ozs of water that falls from the sky.
How about towers that would/could wirelessly transfer huge amounts of power? (As I understand it, Microwave towers transfer some engergy, but not enough to be economical.)
Do you consider 'AC' a discovery or an invention?
R.C.
Tesla also had this idea he wanted to destroy all microbes.
As we all know by now, the human machine is itself microbial, so that was perhaps not such a great idea.
There's probably enough oil and coal to last, like forever, and as for CO2, the whole thing has been bogeyman-ed so far out of proportion, it's difficult to work out what's what and what's snot in that regard, but my suspicion is: heinously faked up international blackmail/world domination device only.
ya know... I never really thought about it. quite like that.. upon reflection. I am unable to discern the difference between the two characterizations.
while I work with high voltage systems quite a lot, I am no electrician.
if my information is correct, and a lightning bolt is a form of plasma. then I will agree with HFL, it does not sound like a good way to transfer energy.
[Link]
( it's not nice to fool with mother nature.)
Here they say peak oil will be reached by 2020/2030 (haha! losers) and that there is MUCH more coal than oil. Note their propaganda still reigns in these articles, but whatever [Link] <- Not much of an article...
But I am sure with some Googling and some skim-reading (don't read too deep! they'll entrap your mind in chaos) you can see that in actual fact, no-one has any idea.
Which means, there is tons and tons more than anyone has any idea of, and HFL is most likely correct. They WANT you to panic, they WANT you to stress, they WANT you to freak out and fear the loss ... of anything at all, as long as you react emotionally.
There's something wrong with you upstairs.
R.C.
3. other.
Brakar's mental retardation and gnat-brain status, which is evident once again in this latest exchange.
He says to me...
"any references to renowned sorces?"
I reply to him by quizzing his spelling of "sources"
"sorces?"
He replies to me quoting his "sorces", by accusing me of not being able to spell "sources".
"u miss a u?"
Honestly, what a 100% hopeless retard.
the situation is however that after living more than half a century/finished stable childhood/school/universities/army/gfs/wife/kids/jobs/same friends all along/etc i know very well where i stand.
but obviously there are still sides which could be improved
Extinction Rebellion's Climate Strike Denounced by Piers Corbyn & Action for Life Movement....[Link]
PIERS CORBYN: ACTION 4 LIFE MOVEMENT....[Link]
JOIN THE POSITIVE MOVEMENT FOR LIFE. CO2 is the gas of life, more CO2 means more trees and more food for the planet. The 'Climate Emergency' hoax is part of the globalist agenda to enforce more control over the people.
Action 4 Life (@Action4Life_) | Twitter....[Link]
Speaking of "Leftists with amnesia". What's in The Guardian today?....
"Corbyn and Sanders vow to crack down on fossil fuel firms UK and US politicians pledge to rein in big oil in light of Guardian climate crisis investigation. Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timeline. Why we need political action to tackle the oil, coal and gas companies, rah rah rah"....[Link]
Pathetic.
South Yorkshire copper: "We were highly trained in tactics that most police officers wouldn't use, or which were new. Looking back now in retrospect, it seemed like we were being trained up for a specific role. I wish to God I'd never been at Orgreave."...[Link]
Though, solar panels and battery tech are cool. And I'd drive a Tesla if I could. Solid state battery tech is closing in and it's going to make certain types of energy solution both possible and economical. -Look at battery development; it's been slow but steady. I was using a circular saw the other day to cut 2x4s. The thing was powerful and run on a basic rechargeable battery pack! That's pretty staggering compared to when I was a kid when you absolutely had to plug in such items. Can you imagine trying to run a big power tool on a bunch of D Cells? Ha!
I'd love to be able to go off grid, not because it will save the environment, but because it's a fun project and it's nice to know you can have your lights on when the rest of the world is browned out due to incompetence and corruption.
Heating a home can be done effectively with sunlight and expensive architectural solutions, but so far, cooking can't be done without burning something or hooking to the grid. It will be interesting to see if that can change; with enough solid state batteries on site, why not? It's just a matter of scale.
I think LFTR nuclear energy is promising as well, but the only people developing it in earnest that I know of are the Chinese. Maybe you'll be able to order a power plant on Alibaba.com in another decade.
Part of Elon Musk's marketing plan is to keep the lie of global catastrophe rolling along so that he can maintain the hysteria needed to propel his solar and battery tech development. That's cagey thinking, but risky. I like Musk and his go-getter attitude and brilliant engineering solutions, but it may be that he's shaping up to be something of a titanic Useful Idiot in terms of enslaving the world under 5G and whatever paradigm will result from this global false climate panic.
There is also the problem of the environmental costs of the batteries themselves. It's a mess.
More CO2 is GOOD for Earth - Seeing is Believing - Time Lapse Video of 2 Plants Growing....[Link]
The only awakening is to recognise and refuse the deceits of false thinking and walk free of its framing.
Waking up TO fear and guilt in a new set of clothes is simply the resetting or recycle of the same mind of dispossession under attempt to control.
You don't NEED an argument against any kind of hysteria.
First of all - don't engage with hysteria as if is a reasoned or reasoning mind.
Feel for the common elements that calm to allow some shared willingness for communication.
Give your true with-ness as an extension of worth to them as equal in worth.
And insofar as they are willing to receive share your witness and perhaps reflect the choices they are making to the capacity to recognise a power of choice in place of an overriding dictate.
Notice the way of any form of emotionally targeted communication.
If the title of this page was arguments against the assertions of climate science as propagated at the UN level, through the Media, KOLs, corporate regs and educational dictate rather than hysteria generated by targeted guilt, penalty and alarmism - I might have wrote something about the climate, the Earth, and its essentially electrical charge relationship within the Solar Capacitance.
Or about the funding focus in the 'man made' components within the unproven greenhouse gas theory - and most tellingly about those elements of theory that provide a 'morally compelling' narrative for the control of a resource kept in scarcity that is both in abundance and almost a renewable resource - and yet can be used to choke back any rival economies. The Economy as a system of control is part of a broad spectrum of services that have become predatory upon their 'dependents' as captured revenue streams, marketshare or getting warmer now - mindshare.
Would you let anyone move into your house, or your body? Why leave your mind wide open? because the Trojans are already inside and have opened the back gates? What does 'Clean up your room mean'? Does it resonate with sweeping the Temple?
It is nothing new to recognise that fears can be hidden by seeking answers somewhere else. But then somewhere else becomes the arena of these fears - that have their true cause and cure in a relational conflict and not in any kind of magic answer set elsewhere. Shifting the forms about so as to maintain the illusion of 'control' is the drive to induce or assign sacrifice in others so as to maintain sustainability of the lie against its full exposure. It says it is too big to fail by conflating its agenda with your survival and so you have to be failed in its place. Why would you believe it?
to me, myself and I. that sounds like you are suggesting that I open up a can of whup-azz on them.
'round here, tis usually said, 'break out a can o' whupass on em."
RC
What you give out is what you get back - but the ego is the idea that you can get what you want just for you, and get rid of what you hate in yourself onto 'them'. That makes you 'special' and them judged by you. You then get to be denied by 'self-special ones'. It is up to you to accept or deny truth. No one else can REALLY do it for you - but you can choose to believe they can and do. Fictional realities do not find support in truth and so a fear of 'extinction' is innate to a fictional identity given worth-ship of false with-ness.
Be with what you can truly love, honour, acknowledge, recognise, enjoy, appreciated, give gratitude for - you know - where your life knows itself in the living.
- grants for research are mostly to justify sustainable / green energy funding (confirmation bias)
- disproving IPCC models and positions requires independent funding (and access to all their raw data & model parameters)
- there is no platform for disproving IPCC consensus (gravy train / echo chamber) peer-review blacklisting
- climate scientists are people feeding families and building careers, - i.e. NOT impartial
- the raw data integrity is even in question, yet alone the analysis / normalisation / refactoring
There is no money in disproving climate change, and money talks.
My money is on those who have nothing to gain. The truth does not fear inspection.
.
I perceive that we are moving (largely by human volition) into a new bandwidth of existence.
Humanity is capable of extending our natural parameters for existence (we are able to make clothes, create light, purify air and water and build shelters). The outside world is more sensitive and vulnerable to any change in bandwidth.
I sense that our Universe is sentient and concerned and considering whether to intervene.
R.C.
But there are 'interventions' that reflect the choices being made (often as default belief structures) so as to prompt the freedom of making better choices. Even these are only possible to the willingness to see and hear as a result of some recognition that we are not seeing the whole truth and so are misguided.
Another angle is of Disclosure being the nature of Revelation - as they say - 'truth will out' abd lies can only find sustainability in a willingness to persist in sacrificing truth to protect the lie - that of course is not protected as such but as a sense of necessary survival - and therefore overrides all else - including listening in the heart.
It isn't that the 'end is nigh' that is the climate directive - but that we therefore give Everything over to Foxy Loxy who will lead us to a 'better future' - at least in Foxy's terms and conditions that are not given full attention any more than the warnings that come with pharma labelled products. The ruse is always THREAT! - therefore Volunteer - or at least lose your voice of dissent (be stigmatised for NOT conforming).
All of this is plain as day - but hidden by our scripted guilt for environmental degradation - which is not really our carrier bags or light bulbs but the cartel of corporate interest riding unaccountably over a broken culture - and not by accident.
Renewing culture is from the true root as an expression of shared worth and not the sustainability of anything. Truth sustains us - but lies passing off as true invites us into false dependencies, addictions and degradations.
The possibility of waking FROM the sustainability of what does not work is the release into the curiosity and willingness for what does. Finding that within ourselves and with each other is the basis of Jesus' commandments. Love cannot intervene - but can embrace with compassion. When we lack that for ourself or our brother we lose our 'connection'. Not in truth but in judgement and grievance - and so there is something within my command (acceptance or decision) that I can more trulu evaluate and align.
The outside world is fundamentally a projected reflective for shared experience of the physical experience - which embraces and raises it to a psycho-physical synchronicity.
Frequency is in some sense a perspective upon the Infinite. The ability to believe we can and have 'intervened' is the original basis for the experience of guilt, and fear in hiding - and so intervening is a signature of the 'Separation'. Did Jesus 'intervene' in terms of outcomes? NO. In terms of bringing illumination to the 'human condition' yes. It is still up to us each where we choose to be by what we accept by acting from as true. And regardless what guilt says - the mind is not locked, denied or broken - but by beliefs it holds dear at cost of true - which may of course be a step by step awakening to a deeper acceptance - through often profound resistence - ie hate and fear seeking sustainability as our sense of narrative continuity.
But if the veils are in any case falling away - the oly choice is whether to accept truth or cling to the old way of making our own and defending it against all else )including the messengers from The Master.
My perspective is that we all herald from One spirit incarnating over and over and over again, up and down the food chain.
In this way Spirit experiences life force from many perspectives.
That's it = spiritual Immortality made enjoyable and entertaining by the creation of a stage for micro-stories.
Binra, if you were were my next door neighbour and my house was on fire, I'd expect you to pull your head out of your beatific arse and come around with a bucket of water.
ITS THE SUN..... and history will one day show that to be true....
But will ANY of mankind be around to 'remember' when so many brains are filled with sand, and NOT the holy water of truth.
R.C.
R.C.
[Link]