Worry not, we will all be ‘the poorest, hungriest and coldest’ by 2050 - AGW is an unproven hypothesis, yet it drives its arrogant child, the net zero scam, onwards & upwards, impoverishing all in its wake
I did not see the evidence that it HAD. It certainly need not in the future. Each nation taxing its own emissions of CO2 has very low deadweight loss for a poor country with low CO2 emissions.
“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” ― Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[2] (in his Foreward to: If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.)
This is the work that Bjorn Lomborg have dedicated his time to comparing the cost benefit analyst of taking action vs "climate-change" vs other issues and by far investing our time and money on other issues like health, education and infrastructure the reason is because the second, third, and fourth order effects far outweigh the minimal will outcome of reducing carbon. In fact if the reduction of carbon is because of reduction or access to fossil fuels, than the preceded reduction in carbon as it cannot be measured correctly and the other outcome depend on fossil fuels.
I suppose it depends on what you are solving for. The Malthusians might say that helping developing countries become developed with access to electricity and low cost vehicles (China opening new markets here) and all manner of consumer goods is a truly bad thing. It will, after all lead to more consumption of the world’s resources and more global warming. All these costly, climate-related events inconveniencing the developed world, are just going to be made worse. I mean…what good is it to relieve people’s poverty if the planet is just going to burn them all up in a carbon-induced bath of fire? It makes you wonder who the climate soldiers are actually saving the planet FOR. So, 20% of people ARE thinking about it and it’s being saved for THEM. And the other 80% have been conscripted into the campaign under false pretenses. If you challenge them (note Canada’s legislative attempt to outlaw such doubting), you will be shouted down - shun the non-believers, shun, shun. It is a highly developed form of gaslighting.
Another Sterling effort to show the hideous hypocrisy of the climate alarmists, well done!
The WHO, IMF, UN, WORLD BANK and a score of other similar organizations should be disbanded immediately. Their actions are harmful to humanity as you might expect from Malthusians. Climate change is the biggest scam to circle the planet.
Links below are clipped from X repost, the tiny url apparently will not open so try the long X link. The pres. of Guiana challenges the meme in a most compelling way..dh
Excellent piece. Really thoughtful, informative timely. We should have listened to the John Birch Society in the 60s, and withdrawn from the UN. It would have collapsed under its own weight. It still would if we stopped paying the bills. It is worse than useless.
One can only assume that the real goal is not to make life better for the bottom 99%, but to depopulate the world. As the famous philosopher Mel Brooks said “Fuck the Poor”
The fight against Human Induced Climate Change (HICC) was been orchestrated by rich, entitled socialist brats who have zero understanding of the logistics of the plumbing, power, sanitation, and other energy systems that make our advanced lifestyle feasible.
So tragic that the power-hungry have convinced most of us to go along with spending $trillions to try to “fix” a portion of the 10% of atmospheric CO2 contributed by human activity, when total atmospheric CO2 is 0.044%. We have been fed a huge lie and are only now realizing that we will pay for it in spades. Can the faux fix be reversed?
Worry not, we will all be ‘the poorest, hungriest and coldest’ by 2050 - AGW is an unproven hypothesis, yet it drives its arrogant child, the net zero scam, onwards & upwards, impoverishing all in its wake
Article is great and your 2800 word articles are also great.
Great article. If I did not know better, I would think these environmentalists are clinging to the Malthusian roots.
I did not see the evidence that it HAD. It certainly need not in the future. Each nation taxing its own emissions of CO2 has very low deadweight loss for a poor country with low CO2 emissions.
“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” ― Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[2] (in his Foreward to: If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.)
This is the work that Bjorn Lomborg have dedicated his time to comparing the cost benefit analyst of taking action vs "climate-change" vs other issues and by far investing our time and money on other issues like health, education and infrastructure the reason is because the second, third, and fourth order effects far outweigh the minimal will outcome of reducing carbon. In fact if the reduction of carbon is because of reduction or access to fossil fuels, than the preceded reduction in carbon as it cannot be measured correctly and the other outcome depend on fossil fuels.
https://tinyurl.com/bddb7p26 Try this one, dh
I suppose it depends on what you are solving for. The Malthusians might say that helping developing countries become developed with access to electricity and low cost vehicles (China opening new markets here) and all manner of consumer goods is a truly bad thing. It will, after all lead to more consumption of the world’s resources and more global warming. All these costly, climate-related events inconveniencing the developed world, are just going to be made worse. I mean…what good is it to relieve people’s poverty if the planet is just going to burn them all up in a carbon-induced bath of fire? It makes you wonder who the climate soldiers are actually saving the planet FOR. So, 20% of people ARE thinking about it and it’s being saved for THEM. And the other 80% have been conscripted into the campaign under false pretenses. If you challenge them (note Canada’s legislative attempt to outlaw such doubting), you will be shouted down - shun the non-believers, shun, shun. It is a highly developed form of gaslighting.
Watch the recent documentary film "Climate: The Movie." It has a segment on the effect of the climate crisis scam on the world's poor.
Another Sterling effort to show the hideous hypocrisy of the climate alarmists, well done!
The WHO, IMF, UN, WORLD BANK and a score of other similar organizations should be disbanded immediately. Their actions are harmful to humanity as you might expect from Malthusians. Climate change is the biggest scam to circle the planet.
Links below are clipped from X repost, the tiny url apparently will not open so try the long X link. The pres. of Guiana challenges the meme in a most compelling way..dh
Origin of the link below, https://twitter.com/BBCHARDtalk/status/1773649980823081460?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1773649980823081460%7Ctwgr%5E607c68ce8015c90ebd41262fe7058191823550dd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fscroll.in%2Fvideo%2F1065996%2Fi-am-going-to-lecture-you-on-climate-change-president-of-guyana-hits-out-at-bbc-journalist
Try this one https://tinyurl.com/mrxjdusp
Excellent piece. Really thoughtful, informative timely. We should have listened to the John Birch Society in the 60s, and withdrawn from the UN. It would have collapsed under its own weight. It still would if we stopped paying the bills. It is worse than useless.
One can only assume that the real goal is not to make life better for the bottom 99%, but to depopulate the world. As the famous philosopher Mel Brooks said “Fuck the Poor”
The fight against Human Induced Climate Change (HICC) was been orchestrated by rich, entitled socialist brats who have zero understanding of the logistics of the plumbing, power, sanitation, and other energy systems that make our advanced lifestyle feasible.
They're ignorant idiots, AT BEST.
So tragic that the power-hungry have convinced most of us to go along with spending $trillions to try to “fix” a portion of the 10% of atmospheric CO2 contributed by human activity, when total atmospheric CO2 is 0.044%. We have been fed a huge lie and are only now realizing that we will pay for it in spades. Can the faux fix be reversed?