Category Archives: Climate change

Microplastics, Global Greening, & the Dangers of Radical Alarmism

Jordan Peterson interviews Patrick Moore (ex-Greenpeace)

Video here.

Contains graph showing (at 1:34:36) the declining CO2 content in the atmosphere over the past 160 million years. In that time, it went in a pretty straight line down from 2,500 ppm to now about 3-400 ppm. We are now close to the point where plants will die (at CO2 below 150 ppm). If nothing changes, this will happen in about 5 million years.

Here is Moore’s book (from 2021) Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.

We need to talk about eco-terrorism

The anarchist terrorist who wanted to kill 50 politicians was also a fervent environmentalist. This matters.

Article by Fraser Myers.

Excerpt:

Now, no one here is saying that Jacob Graham or any other terrorist’s murderous plotting was inspired by the speeches of Caroline Lucas or the columns of George Monbiot. Graham alone is responsible for his actions. And there is obviously a world of difference between advocating a political viewpoint (even a cranky one) and expressing a desire to carry out mass murders.

Nevertheless, it is hardly surprising that the green movement would give vent to such violent misanthropy. After all, even mainstream environmentalists like to damn human beings as a stain on Mother Earth. As a pox or a plague on the planet. As a foul, fallen creature that deserves to be punished.

Greenism is an ideology that is anti-human to its core. If it did not directly inspire Jacob Graham to hate his fellow man enough to learn to make a bomb, then at the very least it will have provided him with an ideological justification for his hatred. That alone ought to worry us, given how ‘respectable’ such views have now become.

The misanthropy of green thinking really needs to be challenged. Lives might well depend on it.

Why the Carbon Hysteria is a Huge Threat to Your Personal Freedom and Financial Wellbeing

Interview of Doug Casey in International Man

Excerpts:

International Man: Western countries are leading the charge in restructuring their economies around the issue of climate change. They’re committed to a comprehensive agenda to “decarbonize” their economies by 2050.

What’s your take on this?

Doug Casey: To sum it up in one word, it’s insane. In two words, it’s criminally insane.

[. . .]

Look, this is all about politics and money, but disguised as a religious movement, which is quite clever. There’s no question that Greenism is being promoted as a new religion.

Christianity is a dead duck in Europe, and it’s dying in North America. But people need some type of religion, a replacement for Christianity, to hold on to.

People will be encouraged to treat their taxes as tithes to wash away their sins against Mother Nature—much the way they tithed the church to expunge their sins in the Middle Ages. It’s an exact analogy. They’ll buy “carbon credits” as an analog for building cathedrals and monasteries.

The Hysterical Style in Western Politics

Why the political rhetoric of Western nations is growing ever more insane and unhinged.

Article by eugyppius.

Extract (conclusion):

The hysterical style arises from a fundamental change in the nature of western government, which has been underway since the early twentieth century, and which has recently accelerated. Managers and administrators have replaced politicians as the primary political actors. Along the way, state power has been diffused and deformalised. Today, a wide array of bureaucrats, stakeholders, NGOs, philanthropic enterprises, journalists, academics and advisory committees all have a say in politics. Hysteria is a means of coordinating all of these widely scattered people and getting them to push in the same direction. The more distributed and generalised state power becomes, the more the hysterical style will grow in importance.

In this brave new system, there is no distinction between media propaganda and political processes. Press hysteria is about much more than simply marshalling support or directing public opinion; it is how our states coordinate their diffuse organs. Because Western nations cannot stir themselves without these hystericising impulses, their scope of action has become remarkably constrained. They have serious problems fixing anything, reforming anything, getting rid of anything, or instituting anything, unless they can do so in response to some minimally credible emergency somewhere. Politics ought to be predictable and boring, at least for those countries that can afford to make it so. Instead, we have unwittingly bred an insane system that is forever losing its mind over ephemeral and often quite illusory problems.

Still worse, all the hysterical appeals presently in circulation appear to be locked in competition with each other for attention and buy-in. Thus the hysterical style is forever escalating, with tamer appeals like those of Fridays for Future losing out to the more extreme rhetoric of Letzte Generation, with Pistorius warning of imminent war in five to eight years because he has to shout over the climateers, and with the anti-AfD contingent reduced to Nazi comparisons because they have to make their bête noire sound even worse than Putin. Trifling things like accuracy and honesty are impossible in this competitive system; the hysterical style rewards instead manipulative imagery, facile historical analogies and apocalyptic scientific models. Moderation is likewise hopeless, as it is easily out-competed and as over time the hysterical system selects for crazy excitable people who prefer to live frantic anxious overdramatised lives.

All narratives in the hysterical style have an acute phase, when they first burst onto the scene and command the most attention; and a longer post-acute phase, after they have been out-competed by other things to panic about. Ominously, post-acute hysterias never quite go away, and they continue to exercise some degree of control on the institutions of government for years or even decades. I suspect one reason that Europe can’t close its borders to the third world, is that this would require a coordinating border security hysteria, which is precluded by the persistent influence of the 2015 open-borders maniacs. The Covidians have likewise become a chronic political affliction, who will strive for decades to realise the next pandemic and reimpose random mask mandates wherever they have any power. You have to wonder what it betokens, as ever more post-acute causes accumulate at the margins of influence, subtly pushing politics towards irrational ends and forever threatening to erupt all over again.

The Revolution of German Farmers | Eva Vlaardingerbroek & Anthony Lee

Interview with Jordan Peterson.

From the video description:

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson speaks with German farmer Anthony Lee and journalist Eva Vlaardingerbroek. They discuss the ongoing farmers’ protest, the war on efficient agriculture, what is now being panned as the failed German state, the ludicrous net-zero goals creating excess electric vehicles while cutting off the generation of power, and how a grassroots movement can make genuine change at the local and national levels.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek is a Dutch journalist and previous YouTube host of the “Let’s Talk About It” program on the channel Riks. Vlaardingerbroek has published opinion articles in newspapers such as the Dutch weekly Elsevier Weekblad and appeared on programs like Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News. She advocates for a cultural return to faith and a rejection of the WEF manifested, globalist ideology.

Anthony Lee is a German farmer who has become outspoken in recent months as he followed news of farmers struggling all across Europe. Now affecting his home country, the time has come to take a stand, and not just for German farmers and workers, but for everyone.

This episode was recorded on January 15th, 2023

Fighting for Truth in Climate Science Is Important

Article by H. Sterling Burnett.

Excerpt:

I don’t claim mine is the majority view on this point. Indeed, my life would be easier—and based on offers that have been made to me, my living standard higher—if I conceded the science and joined with those pushing draconian restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and profiting from various green energy boondoggles. All I have to do to receive higher pay, accolades, and to bring an end to the abuse and threats from those who think I’m “worse than the Nazis” (something said and written to me a number of times), is to play the game and join the consensus. All that’s holding me back is my stubborn, arguably foolish, belief that I should speak the truth on this and other matters of public import of which I am knowledgeable as I see fit, let the chips fall where they may.

Ring cites as an example of playing defense, at a great cost to society, the response of big oil companies to the various lawsuits filed in multiple political jurisdictions by cities, states, and various activist groups. Oil companies have largely conceded the science, saying in effect, “Our products have been beneficial, producing a lot of good, but are also changing the climate for the worse, so we agree we must phase them out in a timely fashion. Not now, but over time, and in the meantime, we’re investing in lower carbon solutions.”

That’s like a popular but abusive spouse saying, “Look, I’m a pretty good guy and contribute to society, but along the way, I beat my wife. But I’m doing it less now than in the past, and in the future I expect to stop doing it entirely.” That’s not a very compelling argument.

The fight for sound science, per se, but climate science, specifically, is a fight for truth and all the progress science can provide. It’s a moral fight. That is why I continue to fight for what I believe to be the truth about climate change, even in the face of ad hominem attacks in print, through email, and online, attempted and sometimes successful censorship, and the occasional threat of physical violence and death.