Battle of Guadalcanal 1942 – click to enlarge
It’s true that science offers no support to the warmsters, and their narrative has been a dismal failure in the halls of science, but those fraudsters have more or less triumphed in the battle for the corridors of power. However, we can be of good heart, since we will eventually win the war: truth always defeats ignorance. Always.
Being right is invaluable in persuading the undecided—eventually (six months, ten years, longer?) they will outnumber and outvote the warmsters. That is our “Long March” to freedom.
We should remember, too, not to agree with the warmsters on anything unless it’s true, and we know it to be true. This is harder than it sounds, for there’s a lot of guilt built up in us after all the years of propaganda. Make them prove everything they say. Everything. All right, don’t make a idiot of yourself, obviously. But ask them what climate crisis? What, exactly, is out of whack, abnormal?
And we must take up other cudgels against this rank anti-science activism, such as Mike Kelly’s demolition of the CCC’s draft advice, based on practical, proven engineering principles. He demolished their draft policy without mentioning science.
Bjorn Lomborg, named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world, is a prolific writer on climate policy. He’s a warmster, but insists on showing them all just where they’re wrong. He’s brilliant.
Then there are the vital matters of affordability and democracy—the NZ electorate has never been asked whether they are happy to attempt the extraordinary sacrifices proposed by the CCC at ruinous cost—is it a trillion dollars a year? The abysmal climate forecasts must also be subject to a public conversation. Some of them are patently extreme, but the official IPCC reports admit to low confidence in anything but modest warming.
All these we must advertise relentlessly. Unrelenting and without pause.
Views: 282
We may just about to be handed a potent weapon in the war against the climate terrorists. Under the new anti terrorism bill, it will become an offense under law to incite fear. When Prime Minister Ardern announced a climate emergency, this is exactly what she did.
Get your act together guys, gather your evidence, gather the experts and get the fund raised. The time will soon come when Ms Ardern can be taken to court and held to account under her own anti terrorism laws. I think concentrating on one high profile offender will produce a better result than a class action against Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, Wellington Council, Auckland Council, Hawkes Bay Council etc.
Any takers?
It always makes me angry to see young kids manipulated and upset re the climate alarmism and feel if the information fed to them is not fact based then the people/ organisation should be held accountable. There can be a fine line between politics, cult and terrorism
Alternatively, we could, en-masse, launch complaints against the news networks, New Zealand Herald and definitely Stuff under this law every time they mention climate change and the so-called climate emergency. Make enough noise and kick up enough fuss.
Even better, it will be illegal to incite fear for political, monetary or ideological reasons. The trifecta!!!!
Tricky says:” to incite fear for political, monetary or ideological reasons. The trifecta!!”
Um; is not this exactly the modus oprandi of religion ?
So the logical defence of the religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change will be that it must not have the hate speech of detractors. The smattering of letters to editors / opinion pieces ; will be again not published. The moderators of the wwweb sites and facebook postings will continue to dumb-down those who have the temerity to argue the tenets of their religion.
Aside: Richard, do you have an easy link to ” Mike Kelly’s demolition ” comments?
Also; who has an opinion on the Higgs’ summary on solar magnetic field effects link here: https://electroverse.net/dr-roger-higgs-global-warming-and-cooling-for-last-2000-years-mimic-suns-magnetic-activity-not-co2/
Cheers, W
Hi JN,
Could be. However, I think that religion has a different spin.
Religion – At some point you will die. It is up to you where your immortal soul will spend eternity.
You can give us money if you believe. Whilst there are some scam artists out there, it is not difficult to see where the money goes. Don’t pay if you do not believe.
Climate emergency – This is an existential threat and if we do nothing about it you will die a horrible and premature death. Your children and grandchildren will have no future and they will also die before their time. It will be all your fault.
You will be forced to give us money through taxes whether you believe or not. We will then shovel billions of your hard earned tax dollars to the UN and no one will be accountable for where it goes.
There are some similarities, but there are also some very significant differences.
Well said, Esra. Religion over millenia generally does more good than mischief and is a force for order. — RT
Hi W,
Kelly had an article published in the Listener on 27 March last in which he expertly skewers the Climate Change Commission’s naive attitude to “renewable” energy and their touching belief in green propaganda promises that nothing will change if we eliminate our “carbon” emissions, which is entirely possible in just 30 years though we don’t yet have a plan for it so we won’t know when we’ve reached the goal and it will cost just a trillion or so a year and everyone will get wonderful green jobs and the rest of the world will emit all our missing carbon but it does depend on everyone else jumping into the rabbit hole beside us. Alice will be pleased.
You can download a copy here (pdf, 1.55 MB).
Do please let us know your thoughts on what he says.
Walnuts, okay. Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley surprised me by publishing discoveries on the internal changes in solar plasma flows induced by Planetary gravitational alignments. These induce small but significant (for us tiny humans) solar inputs on several cyclic regimes. We are now in the early phases of a cooling cycle expected to last past 2050. Note that children still know what snow is, and some died in bed in places like Texas etc. recently.
I like the idea of hoisting them with their own Petards and exposing their stupidities. Subtle planning is needed though, over a longish time period, I suspect. Brett Keane
RT; thanks for the Listener link; I had thought you referred to this:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/06/national-security-needs-eclectic-view/#more-29516
which refers to CCC of Britain.
Further points on the Kelly article in “Listener” pdf.
The ballpark figure of $100,000 per person adds up to some $600,000 for my immediate family; so even at a 30-year spread and nil interest rate (usually 5% to 8% cumulative on mortgage) is $20,000 per year. and a before-tax family income of $23,000 per year inclusive of a WINZ benefit……nah, mate. So he well said the point: the alternative is to leave the poor in poverty.
An increase of 170% in available electricity will be needed just for transport and heating: someone will be able to add to that the transmission losses between generation in the South Island and the major users in Auckland…..so that increased generation capacity may need to be as much as 210% ? ? ?
Cost-benefit analyses are not often done to justify going to war. The “climate change emergency” is being treated as a war. Maybe I am a fifth column saboteur in that scenario.
I am not familiar with the routine travel range and recharge frequency of a commuter car for two people each day for an hour each direction, six days a week. Some other readers may understand the point about only being able to recharge once each eight days.
No alternative energy sources are suggested by Kelly; such as Thorium nuclear or geothermal; which have their own massive limitations, but at least (in theory) could provide reliable base-load electricity and process heat.
Firewood is great for home heating and industrial process heat, however it is incredibly expensive to harvest and dry and store and transport to point of use. It also is pre-limited by “clean air regulations” some of which I totally agree with. This I have some experience with as a tree grower and user.
As far as I can tell, so far the most efficient collection and storage and multi-useful method for solar energy is still trees. They are programmed to be eco-friendly and completely and easily recyclable, self-replicating, with low initial capital cost and minimal lifetime maintenance. There are existing technologies for their utilisation and widespread uptake. The main problem is land valuation and access to sunshine, water and fertiliser. Almost everything else has some sort of subsidy or unquantified lifecycle cost to other parts of the society or environment.
Maybe as an aside:
I grew up in Papua New Guinea (some 14 years). I have some appreciation of Dr Kelly’s reference to North Korea as an example of the living standard of an energy-rationed population when speaking to the Wellington City Council recently. It is quite apt; but possibly lost on that audience. Energy wealth is amazing for conferring a sense of personal freedom.
I am reminded of a (USA) National Geographic article approx 1978(?) on “Shanghai” China; and a picture of the commuter road crowding: highly energy efficient: four-lane road at traffic lights: nearly 20 pushbikes wide by 20 pushbikes long and all in plastic ponchos to keep off the rain.
I also used to be an enthusiast about pushbikes as a primary transport before children and chronic fatigue pointed out some personal limitations.
Cheers, the walnutter
Kelly’s article on security you link to is indeed illuminating. The energy proposals certainly involve eye-watering expense, so it’s surprising there’s not more resistance to them. We can expect more.
Firewood grows on trees. It used to be that grown on trees was the very definition of sustainable, but no longer. Apart from the CO2 emissions from burning wood for any reason, we must now look to limit our paper use (for example) to “save the trees”. This is madness. From timber to paper to apples and oranges, we should be encouraged to harvest as much as we want. Instead, anyone would think we’re not meant to be productive and prosperous, for that’s “bad for the earth”.
Always interesting to read your comments, thanks. — RT
Just saw Helen Clark on the project talking up climate alarmism. No reference of facts just straight in with 3.5 degrees of warming which will be catastrophic for the planet followed up by the expected fawning questions from the panel of what can we do to prevent this. It would be a nice change to see someone with a spine just ask about the (un) reliability of climate models or is the greenhouse gas scenario a theory or proven fact. Oh she has written a book as well so I guess that will explain everything.
Michael Kelly is a trustee of the GWPF. His purpose is to undermine the transition to renewable energy.
He doesn’t argue the science of global warming because he cannot. For two reasons, he doesn’t know enough and he’s wrong.
He might get a silly woman at the Listener to print his rubbish, but no peer-reviewed journal will.
Furthermore, the electrical engineer who looked at his rigmarole would be none other than Bryan Leyland? Who says more CO2 is good.
That is wrong.
Dr Kelly is a senior scientist with a publishing record including 26 papers, 2 book chapters and 4 conference presentations, mostly concerned with nanoscience with some on engineering ramifications of climate change. His analyses of climate policy takes issue with the engineering and financial practicalities—as you would know if you had read them. You might start with his most recently published article, much abbreviated, in the Listener.
You say he doesn’t argue climate change science because he cannot; he says it’s because he will not. He stays within his specialty, demolishes the extravagant policy proposals for their gross inefficacy and their impossibly extravagant budgets, and about those, he’s absolutely right. It’s just not good enough to call his arguments “rubbish”. Try reason: quote the passage you disagree with and say precisely why. Up till now, you’re not worth listening to.
I don’t know any silly woman at the Listener but Kelly’s publication record stands for itself. You’re being silly.
Your final remark is unintelligible. What do you mean by ‘his rigmarole’, when did Leyland look at it and what did he say about it? More CO2 IS good — Mother Nature has increased the primary productivity of the entire world over the last 100 years because of more carbon dioxide, among other factors, such as atmospheric warming since the LIA (Little Ice Age).