Climate questions
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.