Ignorant, a. Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened. [1913 Webster]
Recall a group of ignorant kiddies skipped school a while back in order to shake their wee fists at the world and tell us how upset they were about global cooling. I mean global warming. I mean climate change. I mean the climate crisis. I mean climate catastrophe. I mean climate herpes. (Try and beat that one!)
Democracies, the rule of law under the majority of these ignorant tots live, are prone to these kinds of farcical demonstrations. They are encouraged because people are asked to vote on all matters of things, and to vote requires having an opinion. This is why people are told having an opinion is good, even on subjects about which they are ignorant.
And so everybody does have an opinion. This is ridiculous when the subject is quantifying the radiative effects of certain molecules on the fluid flow on a rotating sphere over a semi-aqueous, semi-solid but varyingly rough surface. Unless one’s training is in physics, chemistry, computer programming, and statistics, one’s opinion is likely to be worth less than a scoop of cow dung. Cow dung is at least a useful fertilizer.
It should be obvious to anybody of at least median intelligence that because the media, politicians, celebrities and other bottom dwellers use demonstrations of ignorant kids as evidence that “something should be done” is proof that climate herpes is a political power grab.
There is no other interpretation. Politicians high in the government certainly knew these kiddies were ignorant on the subject. The politicians knew, therefore, that whatever these kids said was of no value to the climate herpes debate. Yet they acted as if what the kids said was of value. Hence the politicians are liars.
Now this conclusion is on the order of dog-bites-man. It therefore has occurred to opponents of government intervention in the climate herpes crisis. Rather, this conclusion is what creates opponents. A reasonable man who knows little or no physics can figure that climate herpes probably is not a real threat because the politicians are obviously lying.
Indeed, that there has been so much obvious blatant transparent mendacity, grandstanding, pressure, hyperbole, agitation, breathlessness, and posturing from ignorant sources is precisely why opposition exists.
It’s also, though, why support exists. Propaganda works.
What will happen next, in September, is a climate herpes “strike“. Same groups of ignorant kids, now joined by ignorant adults and by….wait a moment for the big reveal. First this:
Millions of school strikers have shown they’re serious about climate action.
Will you join?
School strikers are calling on everyone: young people, parents, workers, and all concerned citizens to join massive climate strikes and a week of actions starting on September 20.
People all over the world will use their power to stop “business as usual” in the face of the climate emergency. We will join young people in the streets to demand an end to the age of fossil fuels and emergency action to avoid climate breakdown….
The rest is standard social justice warrior boilerplate which we all know by heart.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The Financial Times ran an article about the strike called “Find out what your company thinks of climate change” (no link; only paywalls). In it they ask “Which company should you work for if you care a lot about climate change? Which should you avoid?”
People finding employers because those employers are sympathetic to a political cause. Where else have we seen that?
The paper says all good companies agree on the dangers of climate herpes. One such company is Patagonia, which said “it actively encourages its employees to take part in environmental protests”. The German bank GLS will close on 20 September. Even Shell will let its employees march.
Only a few companies will feel the sting once, or if, politicians leverage these strikes. Companies like Shell, which know they’re fighting a battle they’ll lose—in a way. The politicians, while lying about the causes of global herpes, also know fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere. But they have to make it appear they are. It’ll be the politician’s job to make a show of stinging Shell et alia such that it looks like a death blow, but which lets Shell continue business. That’s for them to figure out.
The remaining companies will be able to demonstrate their commitment to the cause. It’s all about control. Those at the top of the corporate world know the score as well as the politicians. They know they have to get behind global herpes if they want their share of control—or not to get stung by it.
To support this site using credit card or PayPal click here
The ground temperature data is falsified.
The satellite temperature data is currently being falsified.
The ice cores are lied about.
The tree rings were from one side of one tree.
The models are bupkis.
The data is hidden.
The sources are deleted.
The code is obfuscated.
Simple questions and contrary opinions are shouted down.
There is no science in their “science”. It’s political religion, all the way down.
I’d really like to see what happens if no person in power has any reaction whatsoever to these strikes. There is clearly no reason to react. The only thing that animates these strikes is the reaction of those who the strike targets. If there is no reaction… who knows… it would be great to find out and rid society of these media-personified projections of power early in this century so that we can spend the rest of the century focused on solving real problems instead of reacting to problems of activist’s making.
“Climate herpes…” excellent!
Isn’t this just “Workers of the World, Unite” but with better branding?
“probably is not a real threat because the politicians are obviously lying.” You can’t fix stupid but global warming is very useful for identifying it. Those who belieeeeve are stupid, those who push it are lying and those who oppose it can see the stupid and lies. So it’s not 100% useless.
I consider most companies a term I can’t use on a family-friendly site. I HATE my grocery store, but I have to eat and most idiot, unthinking virtue-signaling idiots are now so steeped in cowardice there’s no place to shop. (As for home-grown, the grasshopper plague is going for my garden and I’m losing. At least I can still hunt meat.) This does have an up side, however. My savings account grows daily as I avoid the vile, contemptible liars and posers and their lying, dishonest businesses. Honestly, I save a lot. I do sincerely hope my saving money and their not getting my business unless I cannot avoid them was their marketing plan. Otherwise, it was obviously to sell to idiots, which they believe us all to be.
This strike will be a giant snooze because 80% of workers and 100% of students do absolutely nothing that anyone else cares about. They and their make-work jobs could disappear forever and no one but friends and family would notice.
We might however get some entertaining videos if they try to block a highway.
the politicians are liars
Isn’t that what is called a “self-evident truth”? A “universal law”?
Anyway, I will start believing in climate change when Al Gore’s carbon footprint is smaller than that of a medium sized town.
I’ve pretty much come full circle on Climate Chlamydia. I started off seeing it as an issue of economics and human nature, then detoured into the details of the science, but now I’m back where I started. No matter how I look at it, the science looks irrelevant to me. Throughout this process, there is always one unshakable conclusion – the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise.
Instead of wasting their efforts trying to avert the inevitable, the Warministas should expend their efforts on adaptation. Assuming, of course, that they are being honest about their underlying motivations.
Pingback: Canon212 Update: JudasPope – The Stumbling Block
When did changing old data become standard practice in science? I’ve been an engineer for 50 years, and I’ve never heard of such a thing before . I was taught that when you collect data, and discover that it’s not correct you throw it out. When did it become acceptable for scientists to just change old data when they decide the calculated results are wrong?
When you start tampering with original data, even if you know it has errors, and you have a good idea of what those errors are, you are claiming that the original calculations were incorrect.
You’ve have implicitly claimed your methodology was faulty, so why should anybody believe your corrections, which could also be faulty, especially when the corrections just happen to make the conclusions agree with AGW theory?