The Rich Get Richer as the Great Green Rush Gets Rolling
Earlier this week, Aviva Investors boss Mark Versey sent his annual letter to company ‘chairpersons’ claiming that the planet faces the “Sixth Great Extinction” and there has been an “alarming” 68% decrease in species in the 46 years to 2016. Extinctions on this scale would be truly alarming, except that the claim is untrue. Meanwhile, the so-called Sixth Great Extinction is a WWF green activist hobbyhorse, with little support among scientists – Versey linked his comments to a WWF report that in fact noted a “68% decrease in population” of various mammals, birds and fish between 1970-2016.
Easily done, mixing up population numbers and actual extinction, although warning bells should have sounded about a ridiculous suggestion that nearly seven in ten Earth species had disappeared in just over four decades. Needless to say, the BBC faithfully repeated the error. Even the alarmist UN 2019 report on biodiversity could only suggest that one million animal and plant species were “threated” with extinction at some undefined date in the future. Given that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct, this looks a more reasonable bet. On the actual extinction front, the report did find that 680 vertebrates had disappeared since the 16th century. One must hope that Mr. Versey’s due diligence is more sound when he comes to investing some of the £250 billion of investment funds under his company’s control.
It seemingly doesn’t matter what green inaccuracies are pumped into the public space since an enormous ‘green rush’ gathers pace by the day. A recent book by Dr. Susan Crockford called “Fallen Idol” revisits the notorious 2019 WWF/Netflix collaboration featuring the falling walruses episode of “Our Planet”. Filmed falling off a cliff, in slow motion for maximum effect, Sir David Attenborough attributed the horrific scenes to “climate change”, despite a pack of nearby polar bears providing a more obvious explanation.
Introducing his film, which Crockford describes as “animal tragedy porn”, to the rich and influential elites gathered at the 2019 World Economic Forum in Davos, Sir David commented: “If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe they will give permission to businesses and governments to get on with practical solutions”.
In the U.K., the true Net Zero cost of such “practical solutions” are starting to be understood, with energy prices set to soar and general inflation starting to rise alarmingly. Green levies on electricity alone are set to rise from £11 billion this year to around £15 billion by 2026. Renewable subsidies support the 25% of energy provided by unreliable renewables, solar and wind. Since such electricity provides only 3% of total UK energy needs, phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them largely from these sources will, at current rates of subsidy, require a majority of the tax that is currently levied on the entire British economy.
That will never happen but in the meantime the wind is set fair and the sun is shining on the financial sector. Trillions of dollars, pounds and euros are up for grabs. A recent report from McKinsey put a figure on it: £204 trillion. The new ‘green rush’, funded by vast amounts of state, institutional and individual capital, is likely to dwarf the Dotcom mania of the late 1990s. Last year the NASDAQ clean edge, green energy index shot up by around 500%. Most investment managers now run large ”green” funds. BlackRock’s Sustainable Energy Fund has nearly $8 billion at its disposal, while a healthy management fee of 1.65% ensures revenues of $12 million a year, more than enough to cover George Osborne’s recent part time salary of £650,000.
Ben Steverman in Bloomberg notes that billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham is “making lots of money” while recruiting other super wealthy people to pursue similar strategies that mix philanthropy and investing. Mr. Grantham’s “philanthropy” extends to funding three university Grantham Institutes in Sheffield, Imperial and the LSE. All three operations play a role in promoting the Net Zero political agenda.
Steverman goes on to note: “For Grantham, the capital flowing into green investing over the past couple of years reflects his warnings for more than a decade: Floods, fires and extreme weather have made warming undeniable, creating momentum for carbon taxes and other climate friendly policies that will transform the world’s economy.”
There are one or two small problems with this rosy scenario of green investing and transforming the world economy. Much of the capital is being diverted from productive uses to fund research and subsidise wind power – a 1,000 year old technology – make better batteries – a 200 year old invention – and produce hydrogen. This latter substance, while ubiquitous, requires large amounts of fuel to separate it from other compounds and has a tendency to explode unless very carefully handled. In addition, and not to be mentioned under any circumstances, small amounts of green unfriendly oxides of nitrogen are produced during the burning process.
Few of these technologies would be funded and promoted at their current levels unless the state diverted taxes to the cause, in the process driving up the cost of living for the poorest in society. Stricter societal controls, as we have seen in the Covid pandemic, would be inevitable if it becomes necessary to restrict energy, general consumption, personal transport and diet. Drafty British homes will become much colder during the winter as inefficient and expensive heat pumps struggle to extract warmth from the frozen earth or icy air.
And of course the entire edifice rests on the suggestion that humans are solely responsible for the climate changing and this has been ‘settled’ by science. In reality, it is based on an unproven hypothesis, about which scientific doubts are constantly growing, and always-wrong warming guesses over 40 years from climate computer models. As Mr. Grantham as good as suggests, his money-making has been made easier by decades of climate scare stories involving fires, floods and bad weather.
The fear-and-nudge green agenda is played out every day. Last week, the U.K. Met Office issued a report warning of armed militias roaming a country ravaged by climate change. Also last week, an American studio presenter on CNN blamed the Tonga volcano eruption on climate change. This week, Justin Rowlatt of the BBC said we were at risk of losing archaeological treasures since peat bogs were drying out due to climate change. Back in the real world, rainfall across the U.K. has been remarkably constant for at least 150 years. Writing in her recent book about “Attenborough’s walrus deception”, Dr. Crockford suggested that it showed how “manipulation of science intersected politics in a way I’d never imagine was possible”. She concluded: “I now have to assume that the walrus deception is just one example of many.”
In the U.K. and most of Europe, we are turning off the gas and hoping the elite’s gigantic green bet will pay off. Decadent, seemingly bored middle class people rebel against non-existent extinctions. Friends of the Earth activists on £40,000 a year measure unmeasurable earthquakes in low income areas of the North to turn off the gas fracking taps. Meanwhile Boris the Bear masses troops on the Ukrainian border and derides Europe as a “shopping superpower” – shopping at the moment for Russian gas.
Further east, the obliging Chinese Communist Party overseas the manufacture of many of our industrial goods, at a price likely to rise in the future as it buys up all the sources of raw materials. And China Net Zero by 2060, you ask. Maybe, although the reported remarks by former Finance Minister Lou Jiwei in the South China Post last December don’t inspire a great deal of confidence. China has said it would “strive” to reach peak carbon emissions before 2030 and carbon neutrality before 2060, he noted, but there was a difference between this and “ensuring” those targets would be achieved.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Junk Science Threatens The Future Of Journalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os2uQIY4UYM
Autumn and winter snow cover has been increasing in the US for the past 50 years, but the press continues to predict that skiing is doomed.
Tony Heller
The big danger is that this fake normal stays
Join the friendly resistance before it’s too late
now is not the time to give up
Thursday 27th January 5pm
Silent lighted walk behind one simple sign
“No More Lockdown”
Bring torches, candles and other lights
meet Broad Street (outside John Lewis,
opposite Queen Victoria St),
Reading RG1 2BB
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
“Junk Science Threatens The Future Of Journalism“.
But what else has it done for us?
The agenda behind climate justice & neoliberal environmentalism is the privatization of nature, I don’t mean natural resources, but monetizing all of nature, the total control of everything!
They already control & manage us like livestock through the financial system, next is the corporate ownership of every living organism & control of all natural processes on earth, because that’s how crazy these psychopaths are & you have to be a psychopath to become a billionaire.
Yes, agreed. See also “the internet of things”.
And the internet of people.
Yes and no. Stop thinking about money. Money is what us poor people are concerned with. These people have so much money that it doesn’t even register as a concern for them. This is all about population control. I am not talking about population size control (even though that may be going on as well), I am talking about actually controlling the population. These people are tired of having the unwashed masses polluting their favourite vacation spots. How are you supposed to enjoy sipping martini on a tropical beach when some dumb yokel from the back country is out on his vacation with his out of shape wife in a totally unsuitable two piece bathing suit and their 5 loud and obnoxious kids, blocking your view? The goal is to make it impossible for the average person to go on vacation. We will no longer have cars that can go anywhere, because there will be no normal cars, just electric vehicles. And in the name of climate change we will have to reduce the energy we produce, so you can’t just plug in your car and charge it. No, you’ll have to wait for your slot. How about taking a… Read more »
These people are tired of having the unwashed masses polluting their favourite vacation spots. How are you supposed to enjoy sipping martini on a tropical beach when some dumb yokel from the back country is out on his vacation with his out of shape wife in a totally unsuitable two piece bathing suit and their 5 loud and obnoxious kids, blocking your view. I think you’re sounding very Daily Mail there. The rich, ‘famous’ and <ahem> ‘elite’ aren’t holidaying in the places regular people frequent and I’m sure they’re not all loathsome of the ‘unwashed’. This alone is fear mongering – which is what we’re trying to negate and get away from here (I hope). The car analogy may or may not happen – who knows what will be the form of transport in 60 or 70 years time but unless we have a massive restructuring of the land I think those roads and motorways ill still be around in 60 or 70 years time. But who knows – live for now, go outside, spend that time in nature and breathe. Life doesn’t need to be complicated with al the excesses of life. A bit of food, shelter and warmth… Read more »
Not at all. It always makes me smile when people put so much value on their dream holiday, a fortnight in Dubai or their greatest aspiration owning the latest model BMW.
Little more than 100 years ago, everyone travelled by horse & most never ventured outside their village their entire life.
Modernity has become incredibly shallow & vacuous if people only value international air travel & sitting in traffic jams.
There’s not a lot of vacation spots that are that exclusive. Beaches in Tahiti, Bora-Bora, Dubai? We can go there if we save money. People do go there. As for them being unwashed: The kinds of people that end up being elites are, in general, characterized by a certain personality type that makes them averse to uncleanliness. I am pretty sure that they find the average home and the average person disgusting. And this is all the more relevant these days when they might think we’re all spreading germs amongst us.
And yes, we can go and live our lives and not care about the future until it’s too late to do anything about it. I am sure that’s exactly what they want us to do.
Can I ask – do you know many of these so called ‘elites’ or done a survey to know what they think of people of what personality types are? For me, there are no elites, no famous people, no royals, no upper class – they’re all just a human construct and a label apportioned to them by other people. They’re just people – they may have more money but they still eat, shit, bleed and die like everyone else. Money is not my benchmark for what defines someone – I care not for how much dosh someone has in the bank.
And neither should you. =)
I don’t think you know what “elite” means… or “famous”, or “royal”, or “upper class”. You do realize that there’s a difference between an average person who is known to perhaps 100 or so people, and someone that is known to hundreds of millions of people, right? We call that “being famous”, and you pretending it’s not a thing is pretty silly.
I think the problem here is that you think these words are prescriptive, which is wrong. They are descriptive. They do not confer special status.
“I’m rambling”
It would seem that you are and that you haven’t been taking the cuddly Klaus Schwab at all seriously.
The problem is that most governments have signed up for the WEF’s “Great Reset” world, where ordinary folk will have no place. Clearly a huge housekeeping exercise was needed to get rid of the useless eaters. The first steps of the clearance appear to have gotten underway around the beginning of last year.
Our Lords and Masters have already decided we wont be allowed to own cars.
It’s about greed & ego, money is just a tool of control. It however doesn’t mean money isn’t Vitaly important. No one hates the fact more than me everything has to have monetary value to exist on planet earth, but it does, & it always will under the current system!
Because money is important. Yes, it sucks having to assign a value to people’s work, but it is the best system we have. We take all the hardship of life and we pack it in a price we’re willing to accept for our work. And the person paying us packs all their hardship into the willingness to pay that. And we reach an understanding where we say that the difficult time I had in making this thing is worth this much money, and that same amount of money represents the benefits you will get from using what I made.
It’s bad, it abstracts away people and effort, but it’s the best we have. If we were 20 people living in a closed community, we wouldn’t need money. But when there’s millions of us working together there is no other way to keep track of everything and at least try to not let anyone get trampled over by the mob. It still happens, yes, but far less than it used to hundreds of years ago.
No it isn’t.
Oh really? What’s better?
Depends on your values, mine are freedom & family, your only needs are food & shelter. There’s nothing easier than providing for yourself, given the freedom to do so.
I don’t think you understand the topic here. We’re not talking about what the best things in life are. We are talking about coordinating tens of millions of people in such a way that they don’t start killing eachother and each one at least gets a chance to be treated fairly.
There’s your problem, too concerned about controlling everyone else!
That’s the problem with socialism, denial of natural process. There is no equity & fairness, it’s a myth.
Controlling everyone? What!? What are you even talking about? You and anyone else is free to leave our money based society and go to one of the moneyless communist utopias that killed 100m people in the 20th century.
By the sounds of it, your idea of a system better than what we have is complete anarchy because that’s the only way you won’t be controlling anyone else.
The elite may believe in what you describe, but the super elite who have so much power that money is irrelevant, are hitting the world with zero covid/carbon to both enslave us and reduce our numbers massively.
The removal of travel is an extension of the whole ‘stay at home’ rule. It’s to stop the prisoners from moving outside their cell. They will continue to restrict us more and more using the social credit system, making it easier to dwindle our numbers.
Think of it like free-range chickens compared to battery farms. The free range chickens are chemical-free (ordinarily), bigger, stronger and healthier. The battery farmed chickens are pathetically weak and drugged up.
Much easier for the farmer to snuff the lives of those battery chickens than the strong free-range.
It is referred to as the “theft of the commons” is it not?
The so-called elite who have now virtually crashed the financial systems have decided that the next way to make money is simply to steal.
Billy Gates is stealing seeds from farmers and genetically modifying them and then patenting the “new” seeds. As he owns the patents the natural seeds are his also. Farmers then have to buy what they previously owned.
It’s happening with everything including the land under the seas and even the oceans.
Criminal is too timid a word for what is taking place.
Pollution is the problem – not climate change and not just the stuff pumped into the air, but that which goes into our food 9including the use of pesticides), into products we put on our bodies and the shit we dump into the ground and water systems.
Climate change is the scare tactic to divert away from the real issue.
I’m sympathetic to the notion that we should all reduce waste (obviously) but the “fear-porn” currently employed on pollution is at least as bad as that employed in the spheres of Covid-19 and Climate Change. The media always seem to ignore the concept of natural decay, i.e. the likely time that the Earth’s immensely clever systems will take to degrade various materials, and they always seem to assume that everything we discard will remain a potent threat indefinitely. As an example, we’re now being scared on TV about the implications of the “massive increases” in microplastic pollution, without anyone providing reliable data on its likely rate of degradation, or on any observed health implications. (My own scientific education would lead me to expect that polymeric materials are, generally, relatively inert, and the small particle size of microplastics should cause the particles to have a high surface area to volume ratio, which should improve the rate of their biological degradation.) The financial inducements to continue ramping up the various pollution scares are obvious. Huge amounts of money are currently being funnelled into the waste industry to tackle these supposed problems. Meanwhile, as I know from my own involvement, many “waste issues”… Read more »
also correctly identifying actual pollutants (i.e. not plant food) is important
I believe that following the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, a considerable amount of oil discharged by the spill couldn’t be accounted for. It seems much of it sank to the ocean floor and was being happily consumed by microbes. Unrefined oil is an entirely natural product and the planet has been dealing with it for millions of years. As you say, micro-plastics are largely inert, and that found in the gut of fish etc. will be flushed out in the natural course of events. The Bikini Atoll used for nuclear testing was supposed to be dead for thousands of years but is now teeming with wildlife. The deaths following the Fukushima disaster were almost exclusively caused during the evacuation of the area, nothing to do with radiation poisoning, as popularised by the MSM. And I can’t even bring myself to blame the MSM entirely for the misrepresentation of disaster scenarios, they have the job of selling news so sensationalise it. We have all known this for generations. It’s our fault there are so many people in the world without the critical thought abilities to do some honest research on what’s published. With the internet to hand, there… Read more »
Another area with wildlife is the area evacuated around Chernobyl power station. There have been some published stories about that. E.g. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
Is it?
I think pollution was a lot worse in the 70s and 80s than it is now, and worse still before that.
Generally I would say our air is cleaner, are waterways are better preserved.
Just in Britain we have lived through much worse times. Our building used to be blackened. London used to have horrific smog. And here we are still standing. In fact, most people probably look back at those times as better moments for nature.
Why don’t we just drop our addiction to crises? Why are we so intent on finding reasons to loathe our species? There are too many of us, we destroy our eco-system, we foul the air, we foul the water, we’re changing the temperature of the planet, we’re going to destroy our world?
As far as I can see, the worst thing we are doing is indulging in self-loathing.
Excellent observation. Exactly this. The need for doom and gloom.
In my own city there are photos of blond sandstone public buildings from the late 1970s and 1980s and they were jet black due to smog and pollution. They were sandblasted once in the 1980s and 1990s and are still blond and clean. There is no greater indication of the rapid decline in airborne pollutants.
The UK is one of the cleanest countries on earth and it is inconceivable firms are pumping toxic chemicals into rivers and reservoirs. All these problems were tackled fifty years ago.
But as covid taught us, propaganda works. Everything is pretty good is not a headline that sells.
Whales swimming up the Thames and Salmon in the river Clyde.
Depends on your definition of pollution..
CO2 is pretty inert, so wont blacken the buildings. But is a greenhouse gas and persists in the atmosphere for 100s of years.
Ummm, I dont think you have an Astrophysicist in the family…
I think pollution was a lot worse in the 70s and 80s than it is now, and worse still before that. I don’t have a measure of that to be able to comment and I agree there are some aspects that are better than in previous years. However, pollution comes in many forms – the amount of shit we dump in the sea, the toxic chemicals and metals fish consume and humans then eat, fluoridation of water (not needed – cavities and fillings are a result of poor dental hygiene and sugary drinks and food), pollution of the soil and food chain via pesticides/glyphosate, plastic nets in the ocean (another diversionary tactic pointing the finger at consumers for plastic straws), anti-biotic use in livestock to fatten them up quicker, fillers in food, aluminium in deodorants, refined sugar, sugar and more sugar . . . I could go on. Pollution is not just the typical – oil, coal, CO2 . . . it’s far more reaching and invisible. I don’t agree with this whole ‘we’re destroying the planet’ – the Earth will still be here for billions of years, until the sun swallows it up but what we’re doing to other… Read more »
I go in the sea frequently and see no major increase in debris or plastic than previously. Not saying that it’s not happening. Just saying that I’m not seeing it in general.
I think calling the over consumption of sugar is stretching the definition fo pollution a bit. I will agree that we eat worse than we did. Too much and definitely too much sugar. But other people’s sugar consumption doesn’t affect me really, so I wouldn’t call it pollution.
we we have an NHS that subsidises poor health choices.
Fishing nets are the greatest cause of plastic waste in the sea. Could I ask where you’re going in the sea to make this observation (genuine question)? =)
Sugar may be stretching the definition of pollution but I believe it’s the greatest cause of health problems in the human population where obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are concerned. Let’s call it a pollutant of the human body. 😉
The greatest cause of health problems in the human race is poverty.
So you haven’t seen any pollution in the sea….. so it isn’t happening ….no more to be said.
The plastic in the sea comes from 10 rivers 9 of which emerge into the sea off the chinese coast.
Fuelled by modern life.
It’s hard to change, but it is necessary.
The planet will survive, long beyond the human race…but not a good reason to trash it as have nowhere else to live.
We need to ban the economic pollution called marxism.
That always leads to real pollution.
The planet will survive, trash the planet.
Good god, what a barrage of meaningless cliches.
Sandwood Bay beach near Kinlochbervie in Scotland.
Disgustingly polluted!
Yes it is.
Nicely thought out, critical analysis there……….
Ahh the ostrich method.
Exactly.
Let’s not forget that politicians exist to create problems and then sell us solutions to the problems they created.
It’s a marvellous system.
For the politicians that is.
Well said -absolutely true and it is the Global Corporates, currently trying to force vaccinate us all and pretending to be “Green” to pile up more subsidies and scammed profits who are 100% responsible for the polluting of the world and the destruction of the natural environment.
Nice try in distracting yourselves.
Can you expand on this please? =)
Nearly all of the ‘climate change’ problems appear to be related to human population growth, not simply CO2 emissions.
Yet trying to deal with countries/populations with the highest population growth is something that’s never mentioned.
There is no ‘climate change problem’. Its a massive, elite-driven, hoax based on warped corporate science – just like covid.
Nice graph. Could be.
I pay less and less attention to “data”, Unless it’s raw data, and that takes a long time to process and digest.
Having been around for half a century now, I find myself drawing increasingly from my own experience and comparing the past and present as I saw it.
I know that type of evidence is typically waved away as being “anecdotal” and low quality. But I find it quite illuminating.
I find this one compelling.
Spot on.
What climate change problem? Earth today has the same average surface temperature it had during the medieval warm period, 1,000 years ago.
If you’re so opposed to people, it seems to me you ought to nominate those you propose for ‘disappearance’. People-haters in the past have always been prepared to do this – the carthaginians, jews, tutsi, etc. And didn’t sublimate their misanthropy, pretend they had the interests of the planet at heart, didn’t wish harm to anyone, just wanted fewer of us. They were proper fascists, open about it.
I don’t think anyone needs to be eliminated. All that is required is thought about how population growth might be encouraged or discouraged. What’s odd is that the ‘big meetings’ never seem to consider it at all, and prefer to go down the road of beating up the West.
Eg, I’d say that the eventual carbon footprint of a person who has 6 children is going to be far greater than that of a person that has two children, even if that two child family currently has a petrol car and the 6 child family has an electric car. For society to measure the ‘environmentness’ by car choice but not family size seems odd to me.
The population growth is in low income countries and the “cure” is for those countries to become wealthier. Urban middle class family sizes in those countries are not so different to what we are used to in Europe, it’s the poverty-stricken subsistance farmers who have huge families, as they did in Europe until a century ago.
Unfortunately, “green” policies are likely to be counterproductive in this respect, keeping low-income countries “sustainably” poor.
Problem is that there’s typically a generation of hysteresis, where the newly secure still whack out half a dozen or so just in case. We see this with New Britons, although thankfully that’s tailing off now.
If you want to terminate a population, get wamxn into the workforce.
Low income countries tend to have one thing in common – a lack of power and specifically electricity. Without power they cannot develop. It’s that simple.
Population growth rate peaked some time ago, and has a levelling off “baked in” by the age of the populations. The UN predict that world population will level off in the next generation and then gradually decline – that is, if global panics like climate change and COVID don’t keep impovershing the poor, because it is universally prosperity that decreases birth rates naturally.
Meanwhile, food supply has increased more quickly than need – there is a world food surplus – and should continue to meet the needs of the predicted population if distributed justly.
Artificial measures like the draconian one-child rule in China are doomed to fail. Look at the Chinese population curve, and the policy barely causd a noticeable kink, but China now has a big problem with an abnormal demographic distribution.
Any solution that actually decreased population (like an engineered virus?) would create similar economically unsustainable demographic problems too. We’re doing OK on population, if we concentrate on genuine prosperity.
David Attenborough would not agree, because he sees humanity as a plague on the planet, rather than a blessing.
Nailed it.
The carbon argument is another false flag, wholly spurious.
Co2, frequently made out to be the bogeyman, makes up just 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere and without it there would be no life on earth.
The earth’s climate is regulated by the sun. The earth’s climate changes and always will. To presume that we as a species can regulate the temperature of the planet is hubris of the most vain kind.
That’s a favourite denier’s argument.
If it’s that simple, why haven’t you won the argument?
Have a read…
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
Rather depends on where this family with 6 children are. In the developed world, they are much more of a problem than in the developing world.
No good in focussing on one single pet element of the picture. You need to understand it all.
Those identifying a population problem never, ever volunteer to lead the way.
Charlie Windsor is a case in point, as might be expected.
Our great minds (i.e. the idle rich) have been agonizing over population since the Victorian era. At the beginning of the twentieth century the panic was about the world’s population reaching 2 billion. The prediction was widespread famine, global carnage and societal collapse. None of it happened and we are now at 7.5 billion.
The stoic injuction is the one to embrace; focus on what you can control, not the big issues you cannot.
I mean, what are the depopulationist types suggesting? That we ban people having sex?
Population concern is a good example of fashionable nonsense. It is grand enough to generate plenty of graphs, scaremongering and worry while being distant enough to be difficult to counterargue.
Doing anything that ‘you can control’ is irrelevant if 99% of the world’s population are ready to replace your contribution; what we’ll end up with under our current approach is the illusion of control because of the impact of measures at a local level, but no actual control.
I don’t know how to ‘solve’ the population problem or even if it is the problem to be resolved, but I do find it suspicious that the World’s leaders don’t even mention this as a problem, dismiss it whenever it is raised, and mainly seem to be interested in measures that have a financial side to them (eg, transferable carbon credits).
Population is none of your business. That’s the response. People want children. Let them.
This is a category of problem people agonize over as a form of displacement to alleviate a sense of existential despair. You are not affected by other people having six kids.
There probably is an upper limit the world can handle. But it could be 100 billion for all we know.
Or it could be 1 billion.
I’m not a climate justice advocate or defending crazy schizophrenic liberal environmentalists. I don’t support AGW, But it’s an undeniable fact, there’s correlation between human population & consumption of natural resources. It’s evident to anyone who looks out of the window, we use more than the planet can replenish.
I don’t think genocide or mass murder are the solution, ecological overshoot is a real threat, but nature will solve the problem for us, the more we subvert natural process with technology the more severe the consequences will be, is all. But hey I don’t care, I won’t be here 😉
How do we use more than we replenish? Where are you getting this?
That is such an ignorant & naive question, it doesn’t deserve an answer.
Energy is never lost, merely converted.
WTF are you talking about?
It’s called science..
No, physics is nature, science is the study of nature. You liberals always try to take credit for everything.
And what type of energy does it become? Thermal.
No the question deserves some ridicule.
Have you put much iron, coal, oil, lithium etc back into the ground?
The planet will be fine if …
a. we change,
b. or the planet will be fine once we are gone. 100years after we are gone Co2 levels will revert to normal.
a. seems the rational choice.
I’d question that.
Certainly in the short term, biodiversity is fucked. I agree change is required, unfortunately the change required isn’t something modern humans are capable of, most can’t put down their tracking devices for more than 5 seconds.
No idea what you think CO2 has got to do with it.
How ever as a child free person I strongly object to paying in taxes for people to have as many kids as they want
Fertility redistribution AKA dysgenics is our mirror world version of fabian eugenics.
They cannot stop meddling, and it’s always harmful.
That’s the crux – if you want children make sure you can afford them. It is not the responsibility of other tax payers to bring up your children.
I dont know where you get the idea from that the elite dont plot and scheme about how to reduce the numbers of ‘useless eaters’ by substantial numbers…
Well depopulation is certainly part of Billy’s agenda.
I suspect the reason overpopulation is no longer mentioned in politics is because it is hidden as an implicit eugenics assumption behind the fashionable globalist agendas, beginning with the book “Limits to Growth.”
Eugenics, once a mainstream position for rationalists, suddenly became unpopular in 1945, for some reason. Hence, the Machiavellian mind still enamoured of Malthusian ideas steers clear of open discussion, and uses code words like “sustainability”to obscure it.
Western birth rates have been falling for some time now, alarmingly in some cases.
Assuming CO2 does cause warming then human emissions wii take 25,000 years to warm the planet by 2ºC as I have illustrated elsewhere.
If you wish to contribute to population decline, you are welcome to do so.
That is downright offensive, badly researched and not supported by facts.
Covid is Climate MkII. Its the exact same people pushing the exact same ideology i.e. that the pre-ordained ‘solution’ to every fake problem they create is world communism.
You will note how Saint Greta preaches that unless we plebs volunteer to revert to living a neo-feudalstic subsistence lifestyle where “we own nothing and be happy”, the world will end in ten years time – while patenting her name and setting up a Clinton-style slush fund to protect her long term interests.
Thats how communism works for the billionaire elite who have been ramming this ideology down our throats since they first funded the bloody Bolshevik coup of 1919.
The attraction is intervention. To people who produce nothing, make nothing and create nothing – the executive types – intervening is all they have.
When the subconscious goal is to find a place to intervene because you lack the ability to actually produce anything of worth, all these ideas resonate without necessarily floating up into conscious awareness. They feel right. I mean, we can’t just stand here and do nothing while the world burns, babies die of covid and children have to endure the agony of being trapped within the wrong body. We must act.
When people characterize progressivism as a mental illness I think this is what they are alluding to. Our lives are being bent out of shape to help the unproductive feel better about the void in their minds. Their barely conscious awareness they can’t really compete.
The overwhelming array of societal problems fix themselves if left to run. Many of our interventions make things worse but come into existence to satisfy the needs of the non-productive. After all, what is Greta Thunberg if not a personification of emotive rehetoric and little else?
progressivism and NPD overlap massively.
Isn’t this all just good old fashioned geo-politics? In a state of the union address to Congress not long after 9/11, George W Bush made a speech to Congress in which he said that the US needed to kick its addiction to oil. Had Bush all of a sudden become an eco-warrior? Most of the oil and gas on the planet is not in the west. Initially we used to control it because we had all those colonies. But since decolonisation we’ve lost our grip over oil and gas. We’ve tried to muddle through. For example, the oil crisis of 73 was resolved with a cosy arms for oil arrangement with the Saudis. But really, what we’ve seen is a long and steady transfer of power and money away from western nations to “unsavory” places we no longer control. I have no doubt that the green agenda is nothing more than a response to geo-political reality. Our leaders want to stop sending our money away to the extractors of oil and gas because it enriches them and they gives them too much power at our expense. Whether that is a good plan or not is different matter. But it has… Read more »
You have articulated my haphazard thoughts about this perfectly. Something an old (lefty) teacher said to me years ago keeps popping up in my head more and more these days.
When big corporations and governments agree massively on any issue, the average person in the street is about to get shafted.
Seems to fit most issues of which I am suspicious indeed sceptical.
Governments + Corporations = Fascism
There are no real checks and balances on government whims. Those who are supposed to be doing that job are inferior and uninterested
There are checks and balances, but they rely on a critically thinking voting public.
So, actually, you’re right, there are no checks and balances…
Not many critical thinkers left now only sheep
Not to mention a functioning MSM (ha ha!) and justice system.
After covid my trust levels are low. With the amount of anti-meat propaganda on the TV and everywhere else, I wonder if meat eating will slowly get taxed out of reach of the poor. Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.
Vaccine profiteer Gates is investing heavily in ‘lab-grown’ meat, which will be his next big payday after he closes down the worlds cattle faming industry.
It might not all be going his way. I know of three cases where Gates is going to be put on trial: Reiner Fuellmich is brining a case in the Hague, an Indian father is raising a case in India for the vaccine death of his daughter (not covid) and the Indian Bar Association has raised a case against him for numerous deaths.
Not a chance in hell Gates is going on trial.
I don’t understand this comment:
“Since such electricity provides only 3% of total UK energy needs, phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them largely from these sources will, at current rates of subsidy, require a majority of the tax that is currently levied on the entire British economy.”
if I look at national grid right now, 21% of our electricity is from renewables – if I am reading it correctly. If that is the case, how do we get to the 3% in the quote above?
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Well, I guess the figure is an average; also, however, our energy needs include much more than just electricity!
National Grid does not suppy our total energy needs. ‘Total energy needs’ includes energy required to run diesel transport, gas home heating etc.
Energy needs vs electricity alone.
We can’t phase out fossil fuels. If we don’t take up the offer of a barrel of oil that’s just been pumped out of the ground someone elsewhere in the world will.
It’s a shame that blood-sucking, narcissistic, psychopathic billionaires and their acolytes never seem to go extinct.
If you taxed title-value instead of “profits/incomes” (“they” never have any) you’d have the joy of watching them slide into poverty.
This post, if written by a fact checker, would use an incredibly patronizing and condescending title (because obviously everyone is a stupid inbred hillbilly):
Fact Check: No, 68% of species have not gone extinct
Even more patronizing bi-line here
This is assuming those articles aren’t written by AI like GPT3
I don’t wish to ‘knock’ this site, but there are well established ‘climate change’ sites that are well supported and produce excellent analysis of the problem we face with this issue.
WUWT and Notalotofpeopleknowthat are amongst the best.
I personally think this site has enough on its plate trying to influence the ongoing covid situation, we are far from out of the woods with this one.
No, I disagree. The climate change scare is a much bigger and much more enduring threat to human freedoms than Covid. As a Sceptic site, the dailysceptic has an important role in trying to expose and reverse this gretest (sic!) threat so far to our liberty, health and wealth.
Totally agree. This site has a wider audience, so more influential than niche sites Can also act as a feed to those important sites..
I beg to differ.
Wattsupwiththat has a bigger audience than most as measured by Alexa website rankings
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/09/study-wuwt-near-the-center-of-the-climate-blogosphere/
WUWT is worldwide CC site. It hosts various world renown experts in the various fields associated with the issue.
I do think DS has a role in raising the particular UK ‘Climate Change Act’ issues which are very political in their nature. But needs to feed into such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation to maximise impact.
As has been remarked this is a crucial issue and we need to manage resources to fight the good fight. We are up against very well funded and extensive lobby groups as well as national and international ‘establishment’ bodies that have plans to employ $trillions.
I agree. The covid scam will segue into the climate scam.
I recommend Tony Heller – he is the scourge of the Climate Change/CO2/AGW propaganda machine where they trot out ….lets say less than “complete” information, which very very often turns out to be…”wrong”.
His use of graphical and public information to demonstrate how data is manipulated/excluded and how archival reporting of weather events serves as a counterpoint to current “scare” stories of “extreme” events which turn out to be not so, is devastatingly simple and unanswerable – how embarrassing for the authors of garbage to have their mendacity brutally exposed in this way. These garbage writers do not seem to get that once exposed as a “liar”, reputation is gone for good. (imho of course)
Let’s address the biggest lie from the start. CO2 does not drive the climate. That rather large bright object in sky does. Even if CO2 did drive the climate, the piffling 3.5% that humanity contributes to the sum total of CO2 in the atmosphere has negligible effect.
And don’t even get me started on renewable energy i.e. wind and solar… Nuclear energy, preferably Thorium or small modular reactors is the way ahead.
“Climate change” The other side of the “great reset” “Covid 19” CBDC coin! It starts in earnest in 1973 with the Club of Rome’s “limits to growth”… Anthropomorphic climate change, the original “Biggest lie in history”
The real science that trashes the contrived religious orthodoxy of the green behemoth is damning! But the majority are oblivious, just like Convid they have been manipulated and indoctrinated by an industry that stands to make untold gazillions and gain total control of our lives and the planets resources! From the air that you breath, the GMO crops that you eat, to the water you drink. They have a plan and you WILL comply!
Two-thirds with Omicron say they have had Covid before – BBC News
Brought to you by Imperial College
What is more interesting perhaps is that part of the report which states ‘it is unclear how many of the participants have been vaccinated’
So did they send out 100,000 test kits and questionnaires and not ask the participants if they had been vaccinated?
Or as is more likely they did ask but didn’t like the answers
This is all complete rubbish from the usual rubbish source.
Imperial College, BigPharma and governments would like you to believe that you can be re-infected, so that they can keep up the fear porn, and keep up the ‘you must be vaccinated’ mantra.
Essentially this is a piece that is trying to destroy the concept of natural immunity and natural herd immunity.
Notice that the claim is what people say. Lots of claims are made, but when examined they crumble to dust. It is difficult to find genuine re-infections – almost all can be discounted.
Whilst Omicron will easily evade artificial immunity, because that is based on a very specific spike protein, it is not going to evade a robust and long-lasting natural immunity gained from any of the SARS-CoV-2, which is based on far more than the spike protein.
If you have had SARS-CoV-1, MERS or one of the coronaviruses that are now common colds (first appeared in the 1960s) then you have cross immunity from them.
Meanwhile Elton ‘jabbed and boosted’ John tests positive for C19.
I’m praying for him…
But his symptoms would have been a lot worse if he hadn’t been jabbed and boosted, allegedly, all we need is proof
Could have been a lot worse if he had not been jabbed
But then he might very possibly NOT have been infected if he hadn’t been jabbed!
Arguably, we are in a mass extinction event! Like global warming this has been happening for thousands of years, ironically many of the species were lost due to NATURAL climate change, but ecological competition certainly played a major part in their demise. It is undeniable that the greatest competitor/predator for most other spp on this planet was/is Homo sapiens. Decreases in biomass are just as much an issue as biodiversity. I’ve never heard of Chris Morrison as it seems he’s never heard of ecological overshoot, this isn’t going to go down well with many here, but human population, linked to increased consumption of natural resources has a dramatic impact on biomass/biodiversity, it’s just a scientific fact. This site always claims to follow the data, well the data regards the natural world is alarming! However, I don’t have any more respect for the likes of WWF or any other NGO as I do Chris Morrisons understanding of natural process. What Chris in his ignorance doesn’t appreciate is that thousands of species are on the brink of extinction. If it weren’t for some well-meaning but ignorant conservationists. However, the problem with nature conservation is its very existence, the moment they intervene it’s… Read more »
Western birth rates are falling. In some cases, alarmingly. How does that affect biomass?
Why do you find it alarming? Are you afraid it won’t keep you in the self-indulgent lifestyle you’ve become accustomed too?
Mrs Dick is repaying the trust placed in her by ‘investigating’ the Pig Dictator
The Pig Dictator welcomes ‘the clarity’ that the police investigation will bring
If the Gray report is published the plebs will be told that no action can be taken as they must await the result of the police investigation
The Gray report may not be published at all until the police investigation is concluded
How many years will the dragged out police investigation take?
Ms. Dick has said there is no conflict if the Gray report is published before the police investigation.
globalism is solely about maximising economic rent-seeking
I always take notice of the super rich with their super yachts that cost millions of dollars a week to run when it comes to “green” issues. NOT. (I dream of having a Carbon footprint like Prince Charles and he doesn’t have a super yacht).
I’ve said this here several times this week but I think there needs to be an alternative ANTI-DAVOS forum including prominent and well-positioned experts from around the world who are on the side of honesty and humanity rather than the tiny clique of wealthy technocrats who have captured the world’s politicians, universities, banks, media etc.
Just the act of assembling such a forum would help draw attention to the unchecked power and influence wielded by the Davos crowd, even if it lacked the resources and power of the real one. It looks to me like a small bunch of criminals are acting with complete impunity in the world right now, so we either allow them to continue running our species into the ground and hope for the best, or do something about it. I think there are enough academics, politicians, business leaders, scientists, and hell even bankers with morals around the world to make an impact.
Maybe like the Oxford Real Farming Conference. It challenges industrial farming and agribusiness (the Oxford Farming Conf.).
Gates of course supports industrial farming.
Does WWF have any close ties to WEF? Similar acronyms.
I think WWF are a part of the machinery, yes.
The fake rustic haircut tells us all we need to know about the Pig Dictator
They must have seen him coming
Yep. So we should all just shut up, stop thinking and pay £3 trillion pounds for Net Zero and incorporate into our lives 15 degree homes, Islamabad style electricity supplies, limited transport, hyperinflation, bankruptcy and a shattered economy. While our Feudalist overlords who offered us the ‘solutions to climate change’ (whatever the hell that means) ride off into the sunset in re-purposed UN aid trucks full of our money with not a squeak from the media. We live in one of the lowest periods of CO2 in history. The world has warmed barely 1 degree over the past 120 years – the difference between Bristol and Birmingham. The UK puts out 1% of all anthropogenic Co2, that’s an atmospheric total of 0.00001% of a trace gas plant food that keeps everything on this planet alive, but is now framed as our greatest threat by architects of the biggest pyramid scheme in human history. As the high priests of the pyramid scheme Al Gore, Di’Caprio, Prince Harry and Obama party in their giant beach front mansions and travel by private jet to exclusive islands in the Maldives (who are currently building 15 brand new underwater airports across their string of underwater islands),… Read more »
Well done.
This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something we can all do by taking our socks and shoes off. Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm. Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostock Ice Core). Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Manua Loa) 410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm. That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years. One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened! Furthermore, the Manua Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 but cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2. Hardly surprising. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital… Read more »
CO2 is a lagging indicator it responds to ocean temps by being less soluble, it’s not a driver.
If it worked like they said the climate would be hopelessly unstable.
Brilliant. Thank you.
A killer question to those who espouse the CC/AGW/CO2 driving climate cause, who are vegan: if you buy your salad ingredients from the supermarket which in turn come from a greenhouse facility, what medium do the growers use to boost their crop that sits on your plate?
Thats right – injected CO2 – GO FIGURE!!!! ( Drive from Rotterdam Ferry port inland and you will see loads of said greenhouses….stop and pay a visit ( once the Dutch Govt allows you in, natch.)
True, increasing the amount of CO2 in greenhouses to encourage growth is done. The other side of the coin is ramping up the light levels, with electric lighting powered by whatever they are prepared to pay for. I guess they would argue that it’s renewable in some form or other.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/927547/GOS_The_Future_of_Citizen_Data_Systems_Report__2_.pdf#page41
Another conspiracy theory coming to fruition.
In other words, the Chinese social credits system.
They seem to like that number….
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/conspiracy/klaus-schwab-says-you-will-own-nothing-in-10-years/
Treasoner Vallance is #2 on the list of criminals in that article
I love the DS for the lockdown and vaccine stuff, but can’t believe there’s doubt about carbon and climate change. That’s a real achievement to hold those views in this day and age.
You need to do more reading.
You have overestimated the intelligence of these people.
Mark Steyn: Last two years have been a moral crime by the government against the governed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd_-tlyaqZs
GBNews
The big danger is that this fake normal stays
Join the friendly resistance before it’s too late
now is not the time to give up
Thursday 27th January 5pm
Silent lighted walk behind one simple sign
“No More Lockdown”
Bring torches, candles and other lights
meet Broad Street (outside John Lewis,
opposite Queen Victoria St),
Reading RG1 2BB
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
The Dirty Truth About Clean Technologies.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mining-the-planet-to-death-the-dirty-truth-about-clean-technologies-a-696d7adf-35db-4844-80be-dbd1ab698fa3
Also, every large wind turbine needs about 350 litres of high quality lubricating oil per annum.
And don’t forget about the mode of transport for the workers for many of the turbine units out at sea. They’ll be burning either Avgas 100, or jet fuel, depending on the type of engine.
The whole point of these low density generators is to move money from taxpayer’s subsidising this energy into the land-owners of the generators.
about 20,000 per wind totem per year.
Following on from the success of the Covid Scamdemic, just the latest scam for the rich to screw the poor they hold in such total contempt.
When it comes to” useless eaters” – the Super Rich top the list!
Because of various factors like the earths orbit around the sun isn’t constant, the sun which drives our climate goes through many different cycles (some lasting 10’s of thousands of years, some could be millions of years, the sunspot cycle is 11 years). So the earth goes from ice age to ice age and the bit in the middle is the warm period. How does the earth get to the warm period? I understand that the earth is still recovering from the last ice age (I recall seeing photos of an area in Scandanavia which were photographed 100+ years ago and recently. The area had changed because the land is still rising after being compressed by glaciers).
CO2 must be a mighty powerful green house gas if 0.04% in the atmosphere can cause that much damage. I understand that 96% of that 0.04% is due to natural emissions, so 0.0016% is due to man. So why isn’t CO2 used in-between glass in double glazing, answer because it doesn’t work.
We are still in an ice age, just interglacial.
80% of the earth’s history has been without frozen poles.
We are currently at the coldest period ever coincidental, with the lowest ever concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the planets history without being in a full blown ice age.
The issue facing humans is the period in which we inhabit earth.
Bleating about other period is just not relevant.
It’s been much warmer on earth during our residence, yet everything managed to THRIVE until we killed it LOL.
Where did you look this stuff up?
0.0016% looks quite familiar – something like the risk of death from C19, according to a well known online calculator. It’s possible that the real risk is our own psychological problem, like being obsessed with one thing or another, whereas in reality we do not have much effect on things we cannot influence much. One could classify it as a form of paranoia, perhaps.