Global Warming & the Climate Emergency
What a week that was! No sooner had Jacinda Ardern bamboozled her Labour Party, the Greens and the Maori Party to vote for a motion claiming a “climate emergency”, than a panel of distinguished international scientists calling themselves The Argonauts published a report showing that the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) created a false panic in the world. By overstating the extent of “global warming” by a factor of THREE.
A summary of the report can be read below.
Climate Error Guide 120520 by Juana Atkins on Scribd
The nub of the report:
It was all a big mistake. Concern about dangerous global warming arose from a grave error of physics dating back to 1984. No one had noticed until now because climate scientists had borrowed feedback mathematics from control theory, another branch of physics, without quite understanding it. The control theorists whose science climatologists had borrowed had themselves not realized how it had been misused.
An international team of eminent climatologists and control theorists, gathered by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, spent years hunting the error. Their 70-page scientific paper calculates that, after correcting the error, man made global warming will be only one-third of what climate scientists had predicted.
There will be too little global warming to harm us. Small, slow warming will be a good thing overall. There is no climate emergency. There never was. The trillions wasted on destroying jobs and industries can now be spent on the world’s many real environmental problems. Global warming is not among them.
Last Friday, I had a welcome example of how New Media sites like The BFD can enable ordinary people to make extraordinary contributions to the debate on important issues. I had written a special post about Jacinda Ardern’s “big lie” alleging a “climate emergency.”
There were numerous immediate comments almost all in agreement, including this gem from Carlo5 Enzed:
Carl05 Enzed
The ultimate in human arrogance…..thinking you can control mother nature. The definition of terrorism in NZ is as defined:
1.) To induce terror in a civilian population; or
2.) To unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.
And if it results in one or more of the following outcomes:
1.) The death of, or other serious bodily injury to, one or more persons (other than a person carrying out the act):
2.) A serious risk to the health or safety of a population:
3.) Destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance, or major economic loss, or major environmental damage, if likely to result in one or more outcomes specified in points 1, 2 and 4:
4.) Serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:
5.) Introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism, if likely to devastate the national economy of a country.
How is this government not being held accountable for the fear they are spreading? It’s pure climate terrorism.
Notch up the $200 million in public sector green initiatives as your first major climate taxes.
Maybe I should go camp out on the Beehive lawn for 2 years with a banner that says “IPCC climate change is a fraud”, maybe they’ll reverse their decision.
To which I replied:
Terry
HUGE thanks, Carlo5 Enzed!!! I have just recommended to my colleagues in New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and other like groups overseas (hat tip to you by name!) that henceforth we call alarmists “climate terrorists” and that we say that the only “emergency” is the emergence of climate terrorism.
Carl05 Enzed
Thanks Terry, nice to be acknowledged. They’ve escalated their cause, time we escalated our view of their cause.
So, readers, when you see a BFD article you like; post a comment using Disqus – it’s free, quick and easy. But you must comment within 48 hours as the comment section automatically closes after that period of time has passed.
Newspeak
From our Melbourne colleague, Dr John McLean I was sent a link to a highly instructive article by a Canadian writer, Peter Foster, on the extent to which the “Newspeak” of George Orwell’s 1984 has come to infest what we today call ‘fake news.’
George Orwell pointed out that one of the first casualties of socialism is language. The damage is not collateral, it is deliberate—designed to numb minds and render critical thought difficult or impossible. The instrument of this dumbing down in Nineteen Eighty-Four was Newspeak, the official language of the English Socialist Party (Ingsoc). Newspeak was a sort of Totalitarian Esperanto that sought gradually to diminish the range of what was thinkable by eliminating, contracting, and manufacturing words. New words had a “political implication” and “were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.” The meaning of words was often reversed, as was most starkly emphasized in the key slogans of Ingsoc:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in 1949. Its nightmarish fictional world is now 36 years in the past, so one might reasonably conclude that Orwell was far too pessimistic, but his great book was less a prediction than a warning, and above all an analysis of the totalitarian mentality. Meanwhile, there is another significant date in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book’s Appendix on the principles of Newspeak stressed that the corruption of language was a multi-generational project whose fruition would not come until well into the present century. Ingsoc’s objective was to render independent thought impossible by “about 2050.”
Intriguingly, that is the same year that the world allegedly has to become “carbon neutral,” or “Net Zero,” to avoid climate Armaggedon.
Foster goes on to talk about what he he calls “weasel words”:
Twenty Fifty has become a key date for the UN’s “Global Governance” agenda, which seeks nothing less than to oversee and regulate every aspect of life on the basis of a suite of alarmist projections. The main existential threat is claimed to be catastrophic man-made climate change. “Climate governance” has thus emerged as the “fourth pillar,” of the UN’s mandate, joining Peace & Security, Development, and Human Rights.
So far—as with the other three pillars—the UN’s climate efforts have been spectacularly unsuccessful. It has held 25 enormous “Conferences of the Parties,” or COPs, which have promoted a morass of uncoordinated national policies that have had zero impact on the climate.
COP 21 in Paris in 2015, for instance, was meant to hatch a successor to the failed Kyoto Agreement. But all it produced was a raft of hypocritical, voluntary, fingers-crossed “Nationally Determined Contributions.” The failure of Paris, and of temperatures to rise in line with flawed models, led to a doubling down of “ambitions.” One new commitment that seeped out of Paris was for the countries of the world to hold temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above levels before the Industrial Revolution (The Original Climate Sin). Staying below that level, UN policy wonks rapidly calculated, would require the world to become carbon neutral, or Net-Zero, by 2050.
In a video lecture to Chinese students earlier this year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres claimed that there was “No excuse” not to meet the Net-Zero emission target by 2050. “The time for small steps has passed,” he said. “What is needed now is transformational change.” For “transformational” read “revolutionary;” change that would involve the destruction of Western industrial society and freedom.
In fact, there is no climate “crisis” or “emergency.” However, as Orwell noted, the language of fear and panic is one of the main instruments of political control.
Today, just as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the classical liberal concepts of liberty and equality(of opportunity) are under relentless attack, as are the values of reason and objectivity. Liberty and equality were classified in Newspeak as “Crimethink.” Objectivity and rationalism were “Oldthink.” A doomed Newspeak lexicographer named Syme tells the book’s equally doomed hero, Winston Smith, that even the party slogans will eventually become incomprehensible: “How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished?”
Foster concludes:
Through all of this, the concept of doublethink, that is, effortlessly holding incompatible beliefs, spreads apace. Orwell wrote that “Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.”
Keep that in mind the next time a public figure cites the climate emergency, intones the existential necessity of sustainable development and sustainable finance, and trumpets the job-creating benefits of a resilient recovery and a transformative green transition to a Net-Zero future.
By 2050, unless we wake up, the project outlined in Nineteen Eighty-Four may at last be complete.
lawliberty.org/sustainable-newspeak-by-2050/
Wise words we all need to read and heed!
Please share this BFD article so others can discover The BFD.
