Cli­mate ques­tions

Townsville Bulletin - - NEWS - TERRY McCRANN

CLI­MATE change has be­come the defin­ing ques­tion of our age – and in­deed for that mat­ter, of The Age, along with its north­ern sib­ling The Syd­ney Morn­ing Her­ald.

Pose the ques­tion “Do you be­lieve in cli­mate change?” and you de­fine your­self as a moron. You might just as well go around ask­ing “Do you be­lieve in trees?”

An­swer it in the af­fir­ma­tive, and you then de­fine the ques­tioner as a near- ge­nius in com­par­i­son with the re­spon­dent.

It is un­der this very broad um­brella of stu­pid­ity that all the other cli­mate change/ global warm­ing stu­pidi­ties sprout and flour­ish, like veg­e­ta­tion ab­sorb­ing pure life- cre­at­ing car­bon diox­ide.

It’s get­ting hot­ter; it’s get­ting ( glob­ally warmed) colder; the heat is hid­ing in the oceans; no it’s not: we “mis­cal­cu­lated” the tem­per­a­ture, it’s still in the at­mos­phere; we’re get­ting more “se­vere weather events” and that’s proved by much fewer global cy­clones and hur­ri­canes.

On and on you can go and “they” as­suredly will go, de­fy­ing and in­deed deny­ing not just the most ba­sic facts but ba­sic re­al­ity it­self; de­scrib­ing the sin­gle most im­por­tant ele­ment for all life on earth as not just a but the “pol­lu­tant.”

Bor­row­ing from the Viet­nam War era, look into the mir­ror and chant af­ter me: hey, hey self, how many reefs did I kill to­day by ex­hal­ing?

And it all comes full cir­cle back to the most mind­lessly inane mantra of all: we “must take ac­tion on cli­mate change”. When even ac­cept­ing the most lu­di­crous claims of the cli­mate change true be­liev­ers, there is noth­ing, nada, zero, ac­tion “we” can take.

You re­ally should back away from these peo­ple, say­ing: yes of course, we will take ac­tion on cli­mate change. Then we’ll take ac­tion on trees. We’ll even take ac­tion on evenings, and what­ever else you think we should.

You could write a book or 10 on the cli­mate change stu­pidi­ties and false­hoods and many, many emi­nent sci­en­tists in­clud­ing win­ners of real No­bel prizes have – those sci­en­tists that don’t ex­ist be­cause “ev­ery” sci­en­tist is claimed as a true be­liever by, well, the true be­liev­ers.

I won’t em­bark to­day on even a par­tial it­er­a­tion as I want to make some more im­me­di­ate con­tem­po­rary points.

Pres­i­dent Trump was lac­er­ated by the true be­liev­ers and never more shrilly or with­out any dis­sent­ing voice than at The Age and the SMH and of course their ABC for tak­ing a con­trar­ian stance on Cli­mate Change and the ut­terly lu­di­crous Paris Ac­cord at the G20 con­fer­ence in, well, Paris.

These peo­ple have ab­so­lutely no sense of self- aware­ness, irony or even the plain mean­ing of the words. He was be­ing lac­er­ated as fail­ing to lead be­cause he didn’t meekly fol­low the con­sen­sus. Head­lines pro­claimed that he’d been “left out in the cold”, and pro­claimed not with tongue- in- cheek.

Trump was iden­ti­fy­ing that the Paris Ac­cord, sup­pos­edly dressed in “fight­ing cli­mate change fin­ery”, ac­tu­ally had no clothes; just as in the fairy­tale only one per­son re­marked on the nu­dity of the em­peror, with every­one else go­ing along with “the con­sen­sus”.

That “every­one else” in­cluded of course our prime min­is­ter, who last Novem­ber rushed to de­clare that the “Paris Ac­cord Fight­ing Cli­mate Change Fin­ery” was, well, the finest ever seen in that city – it would have made even Louis XIV en­vi­ous – just as “boy pres­i­dent” Trump was about to de­clare its nu­dity.

Then there’s our ra­tio­nal, plain- speak­ing MP Craig Kelly be­ing similarly lac­er­ated by all and sundry of our right- think­ing true be­liev­ers for stat­ing, sim­ply and quite un­de­ni­ably, that dra­mat­i­cally higher elec­tric­ity and gas prices – brought on by cli­mate change hys­te­ria forc­ing the use of wildly ex­pen­sive so- called re­new­able en­ergy and ban­ning gas ex­plo­ration – would cause deaths.

As An­drew Bolt de­tailed on his blog last week, the real hys­ter­ics were the ones at­tack­ing Kelly. There were end­less ex­am­ples around the world of peo­ple dy­ing in win­ter be­cause they couldn’t af­ford high heat­ing bills.

In­deed, you have to pos­sess an im­pres­sive cock­tail of cli­mate change ob­ses­sion and stu­pid­ity not to un­der­stand that as the most self- ev­i­dently ob­vi­ous. But boy ( non- gen­der spe­cific), are there plenty in the me­dia.

And what about the blind­ing, fatu­ous, hypocrisy: al­most as Kelly was speak­ing, we had Al Gore declar­ing to around 1500 ador­ing Mel­bur­nian id­iots, the fol­low­ing, and more.

Cli­mate change killed 1200 peo­ple in a Pak­istan heat­wave. In the Philip­pines it killed thou­sands and caused 4.1 mil­lion “cli­mate refugees”. In one state in In­dia it caused hun­dreds of farm­ers to com­mit sui­cide. In Rus­sia it killed 55,000 peo­ple in for­est fires. And on and on the Gorester went.

So it’s OK for cli­mate change true be­liev­ers to blame the deaths of tens of thou­sands – and in the com­ing cli­mate apoc­a­lypse not just hun­dreds of mil­lions but bil­lions – on CO2. But for some­body draw­ing the most di­rect con­nec­tion be­tween elec­tric­ity and gas prices and cold- in­duced deaths is a wicked deny­ing scare­mon­ger.

I am in­debted, in­ci­den­tally, to for­mer ra­tio­nal Age jour­nal­ist Tony Thomas for the Gore rev­e­la­tions.

Just as all we Mel­bur­ni­ans can thank Al – ei­ther sar­don­ically or gen­uinely – for some real old- fash­ioned pre- cli­mate change Mel­bourne win­ter; cour­tesy of course of Tim Blair’s The Gore Ef­fect.

GORE BLIMEY: Al Gore re­vealed cli­mate change dis­as­ters to Mel­bourne ‘ id­iots’.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.