The great climate con

The above video is over an hour and a half, and I do not make such claims on anyone’s time. I listened to it this morning while I was cooking and cleaning, as background. For anyone’s benefit who wants a brief synopsis of what I regarded as high points, read on. If you make your way through the whole thing, as I did, good on you.

1. It is good to see Jordan Peterson and Alex Epstein in touch with one another. Each have facile minds, and each, acting alone, figured out that there is no climate emergency. Epstein analyzes the nuts and bolts of the Climate Alarmist movement, while Peterson hits hard on the lack of morality behind it.
2. Epstein mentions that Michael Mann, the man behind the Hockey Stick hoax, has said that the ideal population of the globe is one billion people. How does he know that? He doesn’t really know anything, but it fits within the larger scheme of things, that Climate Alarmism is really just a misnamed attack on fossil fuels aimed to reduce global population. (The Georgia Guidestones had ten principles, the first of which was “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”)
3. An attack on fossil fuels is an attack on humanity. What people like Mann and those behind the Guidestones are advocating is mass annihilation. Hatred of humanity is at the core of it all.
4. The Climate Alarmists, even as they reek of evil, have seized the moral high ground. Epstein’s two books, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014) and Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas – Not Less (2022) makes a strong case that fossil fuels occupy an necessary and highly moral place in our world. They have helped relieve humanity of poverty, and made our world much safer, protected as we are from so many ill effects of climate. (Reading either of Alex’s books relieves the need to read the other. The 2022 book is like an updated version of 2014.)
5. Climate Alarmists don’t really care about climate. If they did, they would all move to Kansas City to avoid rising oceans. Theirs is a perverse agenda that relies on stealth to achieve real goals.
6. Climate Alarmists imagine that anything that humans do that affects the planet is a bad thing, that is, hunting, fishing, raising beef and poultry for food should all be outlawed. Building dams is an outrage! They seem to think that the planet in its natural state is preferable to a civilized one.
7. Fossil fuels do have side effects, but the good effects far outweigh the bad. So-called renewables, in addition to being unreliable sources of energy, have very bad side effects – rare earth mining is basically strip mining, and both solar panels and windmills require them. Cobalt, needed to manufacture lithium ion batteries (our future we re told) come from the Congo, and mining it has basically placed people there in slavery once more.
8. Finally, Climate Alarmists merely proclaim their objectives, and use them as virtue signals without any other investment. As Peterson mentioned, getting up to speed on this subject requires lots of work (don’t I know it). Coming to grips with the truth of it, and deceit behind it, requires time, intelligence and energy. Being a Climate Alarmist requires none of that. If it did, the movement would shrink to nothing, as the science is nonexistent, even fraudulent.

________________________________________________________

“According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero.” (Climate Depot, Marc Marono) (RSS = Remote Sensing Systems, a company that processes NASA satellite data.) But it gets even more interesting:

If you like graphs and understand how to interpret them, you’ll see spikes and valleys, but a flat line that interprets the variations. Data is taken from satellites and tracked by Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Those high spikes are El Niño events, oscillations in the southern Pacific Ocean, which are generally followed by La Niña, or cooling events. I call the straight blue line a “moving average”. If you can read the fine print, during the period in question here, 2015-2022, global mean temperatures have fallen by 0.07 C°/century since October of 2015.

During that time period, the media have repeatedly screamed “warmest year on record!!!”, and claimed record after new record temperatures, which is nonsense. The hottest decade on record for the lower 48 was the 1930s, and that remains unchanged. It appears we are in a bit of a cooling trend right now, which would make sense as we tiptoe out of the Holocene interglacial period and back into our Great Ice Age.

It is confusing reading about Pleistocene and Holocene, as it seems that climate scientists have ceased to refer to Holocene as an interglacial period, and now refer to it as an “epoch,” with the epoch prior to Holocene known as the Pleistocene (that lasted about 2.5 million years). That word seems to indicate that climate scientists do not expect the Holocene interglacial period to end in typical 10-15,000 year length (we are 11,700 years into this period). That befuddles me. Are they saying that human activity (anthropogenic warming) has caused an end to an ice age epoch and start of a new, much warmer one? What power we humans have! Who knew?