When I got involved in global warming over a decade ago, the promoters of that cult wanted Australia to reduce its coal consumption by 20%. It was easy enough to predict that doing that would damage our economy and reduce our standard of living.
Here we are today. The damage has been done, and is getting worse. State governments have gleefully blown up coal-fired power stations in fits of religious ecstasy. As a consequence we have just had the summer blackouts that were also so easily predicted. One sign of an advanced civilization is a stable, cheap, and reliable electrical power. We used to have one of those. We now rely upon diesel generators in part, like most third world countries.
The cost of following the whacko religion of global warming isn’t just economic. It is also destroying lives, ending some before their time, and destroying businesses, hopes, and dreams.
It need not be this way of course. We can go back to having a first world power system, and we could choose the correct path to go from here. This is not a multiple choice exercise though. There is only one correct path. If we don’t take that path we will be staring into the abyss, before we fall into it.
First of all, let’s understand how we got into the dreadful situation of having whackos in charge of our power supply.
Brazil had an election last year and the corrupt and incompetent socialists were thrown out and replaced by people who seem to understand how the world works. The first words out of the mouth of Brazil’s new foreign minister were that climate change is a Marxist plot.
Why would he say that? Actually he is only repeating what the Marxists doing the plotting have been saying.
Maurice Strong, organiser of the first UN climate summit, 1992:
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
US Senator Tim Worth, 1992:
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Richard Benedick, US State Department, 1992:
“A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Mikhail Gorbachev, former chief communist of the planet, 1996:
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Jacques Chirac, former president of France, 2000:
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
The roots of the global warming plot go back to the 1980s but got a kick along with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. Suddenly the left wing side of politics had no basis for existence. Socialism was discredited by its failure — so there was no need to rule the world, interfere in people’s lives, and take income from workers and give it to bludgers.
So the threat of global warming was conjured up on no evidence. Thus that last statement that a global warming treaty didn’t need evidence. That is, it didn’t need to be based in scientific fact. Science fiction will do the trick.
It wasn’t just high level bureaucrats making these statement about what the real motives for global warming are. Heads of state and ministers of state were and remain fully on board for the New World Order. This is the real reason for the global warm hysteria we have endured.
What about the climate officials and scientists? What do they think it is about? They are all on the same page. It is about taking from workers and giving the fruit of their labor to bludgers. And being in charge of the whole process. The scientists involved have realized that they are paid to lie in public, to mislead the public. And also that their voodoo science doesn’t have anything to do with what is really happening in climate.
Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official, 2010:
“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Stephen Schneider, lead author of IPCC reports:
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Kevin Trenberth, lead author of IPCC reports:
“None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”
See that last statement — that none of the climate models even remotely correspond to the current state of the climate? That has been going on for at least 20 years.
Tom Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research, to
“Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”
Tim Wills, Swansea University, 2007:
“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”
None of these people have died for what they have done – only
little old ladies in Australia who can’t afford heating in winter.
The first quote above, from the Climategate emails, reflects the normal dishonesty and lying that goes on in official climate science. The second one sounds a note of alarm at this sort of behavior. He also raises the possibility that we could be experiencing just a normal climate cycle –- something that doesn’t have anything to do with carbon dioxide.
There was a story in Quadrant last year by a bloke who lost his mother to pneumonia. With the rapid rise in power prices she thought she couldn’t keep the heating on, and never recovered from catching a cold. Mortality does start rising as the temperature of a home falls below 17 degrees Celsius. Her story was told and documented. There are so many others that aren’t, their lives foreshortened by a whacko religion, dying in the cold and the dark.
Thanks to the global warming believers amongst us, each winter now comes with a bitter harvest of dead grannies. We can blame the global warmers for this situation — but if we don’t do what we can to stop this and set things to right then we share the blame for not acting. We are the responsible adults, with a grip on reality, and so the deaths of little old ladies in unheated homes and all the other attendant destruction that the global warming cult has wrought is also on our heads. We should know better, we can do better and we must not abide this.
The threat to Australia is also existential. Destroying our power supply weakens us economically, so we are also less able to defend ourselves. The ultimate goal of the global warmers is to subsume our country into a UN-run third world morass. We know that because people from the UN have said that is their plan — witness Ms Figueres above, as nasty a leftie as God has ever breathed life into.
The rest of the post continues at the link.