Sunday, 6 September 2020

Desire to end fossil fuels drives climate debate.

Why I think this?:

  1. Evidence for man-made climate change is entirely modelled. We asked, time and again, for scientific observations and experiments behind AGW. We get nothing. Even Lukewarmers give us nothing. For example, William Happer explained Tyndall's experiment which showed CO2 absorbs LWIR; but agreed Tyndall showed no increase in temperature due to LWIR absorption.
    Summary: climate obsession is NOT driven by 'the science'.

  2. Overpulation concerns are at the heart of US Democratic-run government. For example: 2008-2016. President Obama appointed John Holdren as presidential science advisor. Holdren co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlich (author of 'The Population Bomb' = 10 million best seller), in 1969: "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." [ Paul R. Erlich and John P. Holdren. "Population and Panaceas A Technological Perspective", Bioscience, Vol 19, pages 1065-1071, 1969. ]

    Can it just be an accident the Obama administration managed the lowest economic growth in US history? I don't think so.

    Summary: Overpopulation & worries over limits dominate government thinking. Especially on the 'Left'.

  3. I don't argue that man-made warming was invented as a proxy neo-Malthusian arguement. I argue that neo-Malthusian concerns, already in evidence in 1970s and 1980s, give man-made climate argument fertile reception ground. Climate models of man-made climate change enabled neo-Malthusian thinkers to argue for renewables & energy rationing on 'scientific grounds'. Climate change appears to make their argument scientific instead of anti-human.
  4. Club of Rome's 'Limits to Growth', 1972, was also a 10 million best-seller. It introduced models to argue for limits on economic growth and claimed: "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."
  5. Climate models projecting serious climate change date from 1967. The model for the runaway greenhouse gas effect on Venus was published in 1969. Even before 1970s 'global cooling'!
    Summary: Climate models precede systematic, government-backed, climate alarmism by two decades
  6. Tim Ball has probably done most to connect the population concerns with CO2 climate obsession. I don't accept Tim's 'One world government'/globalization drives the climate agenda. I accept half of Tim Ball's arguement but reject the other half. 'Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science'
  7. Ultra-rich 'pull up the ladder' to stop poor getting wealthier. And have done for over a century. Billionaires: Clans & individuals like: Steyer, Grantham, Soros, Pew, Rockefeller, fund climate extremism and climate obsessions. Same mentality also funded anti-nulcear movement.

Note:

Malthusianism and neo-Malthusianism are both arguments to place limits on humanity.
Malthusianism = directly argues there are not enough resources for humanity. E.g. 'humans are using up resources at a rate of 2 planets worth'
neo-Malthusianism: is a wider argument for limits. It can include the pollution argument too. Such as: we must limit human emissions of CO2 which, supposedly, cause 'climate emergency' or 'climate crisis'.

Supporting books

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Climate modeling fraud

" The data does not matter... We're not basing our recommendations on the data; we're basing them on the climate models. "...