Moderate Climate Catastrophe?

I wrote this in response to Alex Trembath's review of 3 climate ultra-catastrophe books. Alex wrote a classic fence-sitting post. Pretending to take the middle ground. In fact, the only reason why ultra catastrophe is now mainstream is due to fence sitting by people just like Alex - liberals and progressives. Alex is part of the problem. He's one of the reasons climate catastrophe is mainstream today. The refusal, by people like Alex to promote a moderate debate on climate is a huge part of the success of climate catastrophe. No doubt all unwittingly engineered by him and his allies!

"ultra catastrophe in now mainstream"? Yes. A recent search of Google Scholar showed that the most extreme pathway for modelling the effects of man-made climate change: RCP 8.5, is the most cited of the 4 main pathways. Yet, RCP 8.5 is supposed to be a near impossible pathway! On Google Scolar, the citations are by climate scientists. The climate catastrophe narrative is not driven by Greta, nor by the ENGOs like Greenpeace, nor by our craven media. Mainstream climate scientists drive the catastrophe narrative. Most people will not stand up to scientists, will not dare refute them. But media and progressives have systematically imposed a blackout against any views questioning the catastrophism promoted by climate scientists. That's how we're where we are today.

No-platforming began as a far left tactic against racists on the far right. It settled in Western Universities. Took them over to legitimise censorship and non-debate. It was copied by all other left campaigns. In particular the Green NGO campaign to promote anti-humanism, and anti-capitalism, which hides under the banner of climate change. The no-platforming lefties learnt at university became censorship after they graduated and took jobs in media, NGOs, and government. Marching through the institutions = a Gramscian term for taking over institutions by stealth: appointing one's allies to positions of power, in turn, getting appointed oneself. The lefty version of Buggins' turn. Liberals and progressives acquiesced in leftwing censorship by refusing to debate climate change in particular

Alex wrote a review of extreme climate catastrophe books, from the vantage point of mild climate catastrophe! What is a mild catastrophe? Good question. There isn't really one. There are just degrees of catastrophism. Civilization comes apart, how or how long is the 'degree'. The catastrophe is given. Merely rejecting ultra extremism, doesn't make one a moderate. Alex's remark: "To say that anthropogenic climate change touches everything is fair", is an extreme statement. Because there is no evidence that anthropogenic climate change is even a thing, as there is no "greenhouse gas" effect, GHGE, to cause it. We know there's no greenhouse gas effect because Dr Michael Connolly and Dr Ronan Connolly researched tropospheric weather patterns using data from 20 million weather balloons. The data they found directly refutes the greenhouse gas model upon which the whole man-made global warming, and climate change scam is based. This basic GHGE model is embedded in every IPCC climate model. It is the "settled science" that mainstream dogma insist is the basis for climate science. Every model projection, or forecast, hence all climate policy is based on this extreme, anti-scientific idea. All climate policy is based on these climate models; all of them incorporating the anti-scientific greenhouse gas effect. Policy formulations are instrincally model based, because there is no clearcut, objective, science to otherwise guide climate policy. There is no unambigous climate science. The big catastrophist trick is to call climate models 'science'. Settled science indeed! No wonder arts graduates in policy circles dare not question the models. To compound the unquestioning attitute of media / NGOs / bureaucrats - any scientist who doesn't pay lip service to the dogma is hounded and vilified.

This is extremism

It's the extremism of self-styled 'moderates' who are happy to censor dissenting voices from the media. The extremism of people who think they are right because they take the "middle ground". The extremism of anti-scholarship and bending the knee to the Powers That Be. Yet there are honest scientists out there apart for the Connolly's. For example, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner found there could be no greenhouse gas effect. According to them: "If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO₂ as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind of 'superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO₂ such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed." A greenhouse gas effect is not in nature nor evidenced in basic properties of gases (such as CO₂ thermal conductivity). Thirdly, this GHGE is senseless according known scientific laws. The greenhouse gas effect is supposed to manifest at a cold, thin layer in the upper troposphere (for which Connolly's found no evidence). From there it, supposedly, warms a much warmer, denser layer of air at the planetary surface, many kilometres below. Somehow this effect is propagated through eleven, or so, kilometres of warmer denser air. All in fragrant violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says heat always flows from warm objects to colder. Never from cold to far warmer air.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is called a law because it's a formulation of what is always seen in nature. It has never been contradicted by experiment nor observation.

By refusing to acknowledge the 2nd Law and take the science on climate change seriously, but instead, promoting the pseudoscience of man-made climate change, Alex betrays both reason and his self-professed "eco-modernist" manifesto. He's the norm for the so-called progressive today. Progressives who are just another degree of reactionary catastrophist. Mostly because they are too lazy to take the science seriously; but also because they crave acceptance by other progressives. They want to belong. To be inside the big tent. To contribute towards the progressive narrative and project. Rejecting the man-made climate scam would put them outside the pale. Alone, scorned by liberals and progressives.