COP26: World Leaders Tell Us: ‘Do as We Say or We’ll Let You All Die’
COP26 in Glasgow got off to a good start with world leaders telling billions of ordinary people to, in effect, “Do as we say or we'll let you all die.” The melodramatic hyperbole knows no bounds: apparently, we should all be organized as if for war.
For the hyper-rich and powerful, the climate-change scam is just another opportunity to seize more power and make more money by pretending they're saving us from the ‘emergency’ of the ‘climate crisis,’ but only if we do exactly as they say, making them ever richer and more powerful even as us ordinary people are gradually reduced to being property-less powerless serfs in the coming neofeudalism.
COP 26 Facebook profile picture
Robert Hardman of the Daily Mail (one of the very few outlets of the MSM willing to publish critical comments on the climate-change scam) puts the latest tally of COP26 attendees at over 38,000, with more expected.
Meanwhile, the idiot drama-queens and their poster-child Greta Thunberg are taking turns being ridiculous. They dance around the streets in fancy dress (whoever thought the end of the world could be such fun?!), then are resentfully accusatory and/or pointlessly disruptive (gluing their faces to motorways in the UK).
In an irony (apparently lost on those attending) the conference location in Glasgow -- the most deprived city in the UK -- is a veritable fortress protected by thousands of security staff, insulating attendees from the grim reality outside. But maybe that’s the point: the view outside serves as a grim reminder of how bad things can be allowed to get. And so the useful idiots of climate activism demand ever more harsh measures. They believe totally and uncritically in the core message; their only wish is that they should be among the saved. So their 'protest' is not really a protest at all, it's a masochistic appeal: “Save us! But make us suffer!”
The current global warming is not unprecedented, either in rate or predicted extent. The supposed correlation between the Earth getting warmer and rising atmospheric CO2 levels is problematic. It doesn’t much matter that when CO2 levels were at their highest, humans were not around, because life on Earth thrived throughout: we can adapt. There's no evidence whatever that there's ever been runaway global warming caused by rising CO2 levels, still less of any mass-extinction events as a result. The supposed causal link between atmospheric CO2 and significant rises in global temperature has never been demonstrated let alone proven -- rises in atmospheric CO2 tend to follow rises in global temperature, not the other way around.
Further, there's no evidence that attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels have had any effect whatever, still less that such interventions will result in a significant lowering of global temperatures. There's no clear theory that would justify such interventions in any case -- the gearing between lowering CO2 and temperature reduction is one of the big unknowns. There's no way of knowing what would be the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 in any case. Plant life (and hence animal life) actually thrives even more when levels are much higher in the atmosphere than at present. The stratigraphic (geologic) evidence for this is also convincing. The climate alarmists simply deny it. They are the climate deniers.
Finally, there is no way of knowing whether it would be possible to hold the climate at the supposed optimal level if it were ever reached. The Earth's climate is a complex unstable non-linear chaotic system that is the result of poorly-understood energy flows. Predictions of imminent catastrophe based on statistical modeling have been consistently wrong these past thirty years. Modeling is not science, despite claims to the contrary. Statistical predictions are one thing, the detailed outcomes quite another. And with all scientific predictions, the details really do matter. And so does the data.
There is a real poverty of data driving all this climate alarmism. There are only forty years of satellite data to work from, and it’s notoriously difficult to interpret, due to the temperature of the atmosphere distorting infra-red readings supposedly of the surface. Accurate surface temperature recordings only began in the 17th century with the invention of the thermometer, and systematic measurements only started in the late 19th century (and then only in a few locations).
There really is very little reliable data to work on, only a century or so of partial data. And even that’s been tampered with. The climate-alarmist scientists claim this is enough to predict the imminent end of the world. It isn't. In logical terms, their arguments are not only invalid but preposterously unsound. Our planet has existed for hundreds of millions of years, and life has been around for many millions. And the climate has been constantly changing all that time, from very hot to very cold, long before humans appeared and started emitting CO2. And life on Earth is still here and doing very well. We’re now undergoing a little natural climate-warming, that we can adapt to, as humans have done very successfully in the past.
Apart from temperature recordings, there is stratigraphic (geologic) evidence, and polar ice-cores, and tree-growth-ring records. But all this is indirect evidence, and must be interpreted, which means -- as with any scientific hypothesis -- assumptions must be selected and then tested.
But no testing of the assumptions of the climate-alarmist ‘science’ is now possible because the dissidents have mostly been fired, driven out of their jobs, or denied a public platform for debate. Academia is now in full climate-alarmist mode. It's an ideology, not legitimate science.
The only thing we know for sure is that the current very slight and gradual warming trend is occurring against a backdrop of a longer-term cooling trend over the past 250,000 years and that there are constant brief up-ticks and down-ticks in climate which ride the longer-term trends.
The feature of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis which discredits it beyond any doubt is that -- since the planet has gone through much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in the past, and much higher surface temperatures, and there was no runaway global warming resulting in catastrophe -- if the hypothesis were to hold true the CO2 emitted from human activity must have different causal properties from that emitted from non-human activity. Which has never been demonstrated and is clearly impossible.
This lapse of logic alone renders climate-alarmism an exercise in either self-deception amounting to delusional thinking (climate-alarmist ‘scientists’ have turned confirmation-bias into a boom industry), cynical manipulation (by the rich and the powerful), or ignorant, gullible, stupidity (the useful idiots). The truth is, they’re all on the same side.
And thus, climate activism has become a secular millenarian cult. There's no sign it will dissipate soon because it suits the hyper-rich and powerful elites for things to be this way.
Wen Wryte is the pseudonym of a retired teacher of philosophy.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.