Weeping & Gnashing Of Teeth From Our Paper Saying “Climate Change” Not A Big Deal
That peer-reviewed, and therefore indisputable, paper we wrote showing, as many have showed, that “climate change” is overblown has been getting a lot of publicity.
Before we come to that, for those who still doubt the proposition that “climate change” is a pure political scam, I present to you final proof (you have to ckick the pic to listen to the video, since this is a tweet):
Anyway, our paper has caused a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth; also plenty of consternation, not to say constipation, among the usual bleaters.
The main authors at CERES are keeping track of all the publicity, which you can see here. Turns out there is an “orchestrated disinformation campaign by RealClimate.org to falsely discredit and censor our work”.
Well, the left plays hardball, and we do not. Regular readers understand this by now. Accuracy and scientific humility are not concepts known to our enemies. There’s no point shouting “Hypocrisy!” at them, because their appeals are based on emotion. Which is wise, because it works.
We can and should do the same, while also insisting on accuracy. After all, Reality is on our side.
A stringer for the Epoch Times emailed and asked me a serious of questions about the paper, which I post below word-for-word, with his questions in quotes. Pay special attention to the of joy and dearth of celebrations that our wonderful work did not engender, but should have.
BEGIN
“Have you experienced any retaliation, attacks, ridicule, etc?”
Nope. I was canceled long ago, and have been completely on my own for some time—I am my own boss—so there is no chance of retaliation. As for ridicule, I am immune.
Couple of midwits asked irrelevant questions about funding. Which is besides the point anyway. I received none. Zippo, nada, zilch, nothing. The people asking never disclose their own funding, incidentally. Curious, no? Or they somehow, quite mistakenly, believe funding from the government, which has an enormous financial, regulatory, and even emotional interest in the results, is somehow pure and beyond questioning.
One reporter asked about some of the authors not being official climatologists, or whatever, and so was it possible to question their judgment on the paper? But since he himself, the reporter, was not an official climatologist, how could we trust his judgment in asking questions about the paper?
“Have any of the critics made any points that have caused you or others to question your published findings?”
Nope. There have been no substantial criticisms I’m even aware of.
“What has been most surprising to you about the reaction?”
No surprise whatsoever. But it should be surprising.
Here we present, if we are right, what is very good news: the threats of “climate change” are nowhere near as bad as we keep hearing. Isn’t that fantastic? Shouldn’t we be celebrating? Shouldn’t there be rejoicing? We’re going to be fine and don’t have to implement any expensive painful liberty-removing “solutions”!
Alas, there is no celebration. There is no joy and no happiness. There is only anger, consternation, and outrage.
Why is that? I think it’s because many have an absolute need to believe in the worst predictions of “climate change”.
Bureaucrats and rulers need to believe because their belief allows them to grab greater control and power. They do not want to give this power up, which they’d have to if there was no “crisis.”
Experts need to believe because they created “The Science” from which the threats arise. No scientist likes to admit he was wrong, or was very badly over-certain.
Activists need to believe because man being a menace to “the planet” is a premise with them. Which no amount of evidence can ever disprove. The act of offering contrary evidence is seen as heretical to this sect.
“How are you handling it?”
Majestically.
END
I repeat: that there is no joy in results which show the world is not going to end because of “climate change”, and there is only hate instead, I take this to be further convincing evidence that “climate change” is yet another clown world fiasco.
I said this all better on the Meg Ellefson show on Monday, where we talked not only “climate change”, but broken science generally. (Sorry, Substack, I can’t embed foreign audio.)
The best question Ellefson asked was How do we stop this? How do we win?
The only answer is: seize power and use it.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Your last line is refreshing, seizing power and a willingness to use it. I feel most conservatives are lost in some kind of fantasyland with self imposed rules everyone else just laughs at. Meanwhile the people wrecking the western world just do whatever it takes.
The problem I see with all of this is who benefits from these "crisis" responses?
None of the COVID-19 response raises to the level of helping “everyone,” or “the greater good.” The COVID-19 response was specifically designed to cause economic damage.
This is illustrated by the fact that very early on, the CDC death statistics/infection fatality ratios revealed that the virus was only a risk to a minimum number of people. There was never a need for lockdowns, masks, or forced vaccinations.
The intentional misrepresentation of the entire situation was deliberate. As a result the response just so happened to benefit the same people pushing the world towards a global currency and global government.
Furthermore, the WHO used the situation to grant itself new powers, by manipulating existing pandemic agreements in multiple countries.
Why now? Why, under the guise of a global pandemic, based on a minimally harmful virus, would a reshaping of the world’s economic system (through the centralizing of power) be the answer to future pandemics?
Why would reshaping the world's economic system (through the centralizing of power) be the answer to “Climate Change?”
The answer to every proposed global problem is the centralizing of power.
Which leads me to my final point. The same group of people declaring these global problems — are the very same group of people proposing the solution. And the solution is always to grant themselves more power, while simultaneously removing the God given rights of others.
You don't need complicated science to see what's happening. It's right in front of everyone, one only has to look objectively at the situation.
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” – Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) circa 1960s