I don’t want to belabor this too much, as Ethics Alarms has been making the same point for more than a decade, but I like posting that “Casablanca” clip, and I must ask: How long will it take the majority of people to realize what a pie-in-the-sky con job and “It isn’t what it is” exercise in magical thinking the climate change emergency is?
Here’s the New York Times:
Countries around the world are failing to live up to their commitments to fight climate change, pointing Earth toward a future marked by more intense flooding, wildfires, drought, heat waves and species extinction, according to a report issued Wednesday by the United Nations.
Just 26 of 193 countries that agreed last year to step up their climate actions have followed through with more ambitious plans. The world’s top two polluters, China and the United States, have taken some action but have not pledged more this year, and climate negotiations between the two have been frozen for months.
Without drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the report said, the planet is on track to warm by an average of 2.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels, by 2100.
That’s far higher than the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) set by the landmark Paris agreement in 2015, and it crosses the threshold beyond which scientists say the likelihood of catastrophic climate impacts significantly increases….
Well…
- Anyone who claimed to expect a sufficient number of nations to meet non-binding goals that would hamstring their economies without counteracting benefits within the lifetimes of the nations’ leadership is so foolish, dishonest or blinded by idealism that they can not be trusted or taken seriously on any other matter.
- And that, my friends, is the United Nations.
- “Pointing Earth toward a future marked by more intense flooding, wildfires, drought, heat waves and species extinction.” If you say so. 1) Prove it 2) Prove there is anything that realistically can be done about it, and 3) Define “future.” You can, can you?
- Check out the accuracy of past U.N. reports on the climate change deadlines and doomsday projections. Why should this report be assumed to be any more accurate?
- “The landmark Paris Agreement.” Quick: what did that accomplish, other than empty posturing and virtue-signaling. Yet President Trump was called an irresponsible monster for pulling out of it. Which is more ethical: quitting a non-binding agreement that nobody is likely to follow, including you, or refusing to join the agreement at all?
Ethics Alarms 
Climate change predictions are like fortune cookie predictions, extrapolated hokum that’s fully baked and packaged nicely for public consumption, all they need is for stupid people to swallow it.
What’s so mind boggling about climate change propaganda and the associated “science” is that these “scientists” actually think that human beings can control mother nature and by doing so they can change the outcome of their extrapolation predictions. It’s delusional thinking for scientists to think they have the ability to control mother nature.
As I have said many times before, there is an agenda driving the climate change alarmists and that agenda is to clean up the environment, which happens to be a really good cause, but lying about the reasons why we need to do it to hype up hysteria in the public is morally bankrupt and just bull shit. If you want to clean up air pollution then dammit, do it, it will be good for everyone, but don’t spew unprovable climate predictions to try and convince the masses, it makes the whole science argument in favor of cleaning up the environment look like a complete sham.
“If you want to clean up air pollution then dammit, do it, it will be good for everyone,”
And most people would agree that there’s nothing wrong with having clean air and clean water. You can get a really quick consensus on the need for those things. That being said, if clean air means zero carbon emissions, there will be a problem.
A M Golden wrote, “And most people would agree that there’s nothing wrong with having clean air and clean water. You can get a really quick consensus on the need for those things. That being said, if clean air means zero carbon emissions, there will be a problem.”
FYI: It’s physically impossible to get “zero” carbon emissions; human and animal waste is also a large contributing factor of carbon emissions.
Now if you’re only talking about getting to “zero” carbon emissions with the carbon based products we burn for energy purposes, I agree there will be a problem for many, many years to come. I do hold out hope that someday the knowledge base of the human race might get to a point to develop/discover a good form of energy that’s compact, powerful enough to be used for wide-spread human transportation needs, is relatively unlimited, clean to use and doesn’t blindly shift pollution from one form to another like battery powered vehicles are doing right now. There is currently a very limited supply of known lithium deposits in the world and it is extremely toxic to the environment to mine and when dead lithium batteries end up in land fills the toxic lithium it can leak into grown water supplies.
You’d think that information would be more widely known. I guess the Climate People are selective on what they consider harmful and what they don’t.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that we should look into better sources of energy, especially cleaner ones. But we cannot throw out fossil fuels until we find a new source and make the necessary changes.
And we won’t get there by demanding unrealistic changes at unrealistic rates for unrealistic outcomes.
A M Golden wrote, “You’d think that information would be more widely known. I guess the Climate People are selective on what they consider harmful and what they don’t.”
Honestly, I don’t think they really give a damn when the negative parts associated with it are not in their own back yard. Out of sight, out of mind. As long as it they can signal their climate science virtue without being questioned or having to know the gory details they’re good with it. It’s people with good intentions using the ends justifies the means rationalization, turning a blind eye to what they may or may not know because it fits their biased narrative.
But, Steve, this is more than virtue signaling. The entire climate change initiatives is about wielding power and control. The proponents of them the Green New Deal don’t care about climate.
They couldn’t define “climate” if their lives depended on it. They care about dictating everything form the words you read, the thoughts you think and the things that give pleasure to your life.
jvb
johnburger2013 wrote, “But, Steve, this is more than virtue signaling. The entire climate change initiatives is about wielding power and control.”
I get your point but it really can depends on who you’re talking about.
If you’re talking about the middle-class family down the street that’s true climate apocalypse believers, they don’t think one bit about wielding power and control, they do their part to pompously elevate their status as believers and virtue signal to those around them by spending a huge pile of extra money that they really don’t have to buy Tesla that they really don’t need. then they screw down lots of solar panels on their roof so the power plant can burn 0.00000000000000001% less carbon based fuel to provide the electrical power that their solar panels are producing plus they get to save a few dollars every month, that is until they plug in that electrical power sucking Tesla into their wall outlet to charge it every few hours and their electrical power consumption levels go straight through the roof causing the power company to burn more carbon based fuels to keep up with their electrical demands. People that are buying battery powered cars are virtue signaling, it’s really not saving them anything significant but it sure makes them feel better about themselves when they shift the production of their transportation pollution to someone else’s back yard, but hey, at least they can ignore the issues and show off their climate virtue in their little slice of the world. WOW, how about those run-on sentences!!! 😉
Is the company selling Tesla’s trying to wield power and control or are they free market business people filling a niche in the market?
If you’re talking about someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she’s a power hungry totalitarian that uses climate change to manipulate people so she can maintain or gain more political power.
It really can depend on who you’re talking about.
I am going to forward this thread to China, India, and Russia, so post your comments and look sharp.
Forward all you want, I have my best face on.
And we won’t get there by demanding unrealistic changes at unrealistic rates for unrealistic outcomes.
Not to underestimate your wisdom and perspicacity, but why the hell is this such a difficult conclusion to reach?
Because it’s not ideologically driven.
Like being in a marriage when your spouse is effing around and won’t stop… why stay?
The left is crazy.
And, the world was covered in ice… we do not control things… if we get right down to the science man is part of nature anyway, so what they do, will effect things like the many before us. not saying we shouldn’t take care and be a good steward of our earth, but this politicizing is just bull crap and being used to control us.
Living in California I can say it’s crazy.
The video is Jordan Peterson answering a climate change question. I agree with him. In matters of “saving the environment” I’m actually more about things we know how to do today like stopping the over fishing and reducing poverty so they can stop burning wood to heat and cook with. We can not fix a projected 2 degree increase in temps 100 years from now and the best bet is to get most people to not burn wood and switch to natural gas for heating and electrical use. Ie we probably need to export natural gas to India and China, etc so they can use it for heating. That’s how we cut our global greenhouse gasses in the US and other places need to help since at least 75% isn’t from the US, stands to reason they can use natural gas in the same way, if they had it to use. Instead they’re building wind farms, transmission lines and solar farms and promoting electric when we have a overtaxed infrastructure today… and it can’t be exported. I predict this will be a bigger issue than anyone expects. We can ship ethanol, gasoline, coal, biodiesel, etc but not wind or solar.
*slow clap*
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, put it simply.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=380576&page=2&p=4522359#post4522359