h1

Warmist Fallback Position

January 24, 2011

Man made global warming catastrophe: is it real or not.  The debate rages.  But when warmists lose a round of that debate, they have a fallback position, to wit…

”What if it’s all wrong and we create a better world for nothing”

In their minds, forced sacrifices to “save the world” can only have beneficial effects.  I was surprised to see the above Joel Pett cartoon at the end of the end of Trenberth’s American Meteorological Society paper.  It is not every day that you see a cartoon in a journal article.

So, with the “fair use” rules in mind, here is my response.  If the cartoon does not appear animated, double click.

By the way, for those who are squeamish about the conclusion of the animation, please note the reference to the “10:10 No Pressure” campaign.

10 comments

  1. ”What if it’s all wrong and we create a better world for nothing”

    I dont think we will ever get a better world the way we are going.

    I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    You may also notice that I have not even included the IPCC proposed wealth transfers from western economies to less developed nations in this comment.

    AGW is baloney anyway!

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com


  2. Roger,

    Agreed.

    ClimateSanity


  3. The joke is on all of us, namely that we are all willing to even take seriously what is so obviously a ruse, meaning a Big Lie. Then again, every school boy and girl are taught to not laugh at an upside down urinal placed next door to a Rembrandt in art museums. That and dinosaur bones kiddie corner to End of The World mock ups in science museums. But nobody says a damned thing, for fear of coming off as a simpleton.


  4. I think it’s supposed to be chique to be pro-antropogenic climate change. It has nothing to do with that stupid science stuff.


  5. Wow way to completely miss the spirit of the cartoon and use someone else’s genius and creativity to push you own trite preconceptions , straw men and talking points.


    • Fritz,
      I did not miss the “spirit” of the cartoon. I am criticizing it.

      Thanks for the comment anyway.

      Climatesanity


  6. […] Fallback position || It’s just the weather || The Sun controls climate? Well Duh!!! || Mann is a fraud || The Fraud Continues […]


  7. […] Fallback position || It’s just the weather || The Sun controls climate? Well Duh!!! || Mann is a fraud || The Fraud Continues […]


  8. You’re being a little alarmist about the costs of transition. There are also opportunities associated with those costs. A lot of the solutions to global warming are things that are better for human health anyway (less pollution, more walking, more exercise, fewer asthma cases, fewer deaths). So why not do them?


    • Why deny the benefits of energy abundance? Those benefits far outweigh the costs. Energy abundance is what provides you opportunities for leisurely walking and healthful exercise (as opposed to brutal endless physical labor). Nothing leads to a more healthful life than energy abundance.

      ClimateSanity



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: