David Craig, on November 10th, 2019(Monday blog)
I really wanted to give up writing this stupid blog after 97% of readers couldn’t be arsed to view my latest YouTube video and couldn’t be arsed to send the link on to other people they know. When writing this thing, I was naive enough to hope occasionally for some reciprocity and just a little effort from those who read it. Sadly, I am usually disappointed.
But then I came across so much stuff, that people need to know about, that decided I might as well continue in spite of 97%+ of my readers’ total do-nothing apathy.
The latest ecofascist lies
I have previously explained how the lying ecofascists’ claim that 97% of scientists agree that man is responsible for Global Warming is a pack of lies:
The claim that “98% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming” is a blatant lie
And now the lying greeny, Greta-exploiting, eco-scumbags have come up with another similarly Brobdingnagian pile of putrid cr*p.
Here’s what the Guardian newspaper wrote this week:
The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.
The story was carried by hyperventilating TV news and newspapers around the world. But here’s someone who took a moment to question the “more than 11,000 scientists” claim.
This video at around 20 minutes is longer than I would usually recommend. But you don’t have to watch it all to see what a pack of lies the “more than 11,000 scientists” claim is. But the lying eco-loon liars get away with this North-Korea-style propaganda because nobody in the mainstream media or in politics dares question the great new Climate Emergency religion.
(by the way, readers can read or leave comments by clicking on the title of the blog)
Category: 
As a Spanish scientist argues in an interview: “The combination of basic needs solved, together with the declining influence of classical religions (with the exception of Islam) produces tremendously free human beings; but I suspect there are very powerful forces (United Nations, various global think tanks or neo-communist movements) that have sniffed the “danger.” How are we going to govern these? And I think they have arrived, in the Voltaire line, when they said: “God keeps our vineyards,” the idea that it is necessary to infuse a new global religion that allows people to control their minds and, therefore, to make men feel “guilty and sinful” again. This new religion aims to alienate human beings to subtract them Responsiveness: If we look at the philosophical-political product that emanates from the aforementioned sources, it has all the characteristics of a religion.There is an almighty and provident god: the State: There is hell: climate change and natural disasters caused by our sins. There are prophets and priests: Al Gore, George Soros, etc. the role of “Rome” is played by the United Nations: “Roma locuta, finite cause”. There are texts – and videos – sacred: the texts perpetrated by the IPCC. “Santa Greta”, the truth revealed to children: a classic. ”
You can read the full interview in this link –> https://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/ciencia/2019-09-29/cientificos-escepticos-climaticos-greta-thunberg-188_2258679/
This b…..it is not at all surprising.
It is worrying that the uneducated will accept this as gospel.
But, how do you stop this fiction?
It is a frustrating business unfortunately and it is impossible to understand how anybody can believe this rubbish considering the amount spent on education. In Brighton we now have some teachers recruited to teach climate change. I would like to sit in on one of their classes. But we might get an opportunity over the next few weeks to question the would be MPs canvassing for votes and I would recommend giving them a hard time over the climate crisis and everything else.
I have discussed this with electrical engineers who should have a better understanding but they do not understand the second law of thermodynamics and believe that there is a net transfer of heat and hence it can travel from cold to hot and create the extra warming. There is no getting through to them. I have spoken to others who have no idea about science and some will say they are not sure but it is impossible to get any further because they are incapable of understanding any basic scientific concepts. With the ones who believe it, they turn to the consensus, and this is used by intelligent people. However, they simply do not understand that science is fundamentally about evidence and not consensus.
They have no idea and cannot understand that an average temperature is just a statistic and not an actual physical temperature. Length and mass can be added and so an average has a meaning. An average height of a group of people can be monitored and if the average for the same group increases then if they are laid head to toe, their total height will increase. It does not mean anything useful but it is still true. The average cannot even be used to make clothes of one size that will fit everybody. But try this with temperature and it is entirely different. If there are a number of containers of water, putting all the water in one container will not result in the temperature being the sum of the others, so the average cannot mean anything. The final temperature will depend on the mass in each container as well as the temperature. If some water is ice then it is even more complex.
How do people think that a single number, an average temperature can possibly describe the climate in the year it applies to, and how can a change define how the climate will change? What is the average temperature that the climate scientists think we need to achieve? When was this last achieved, if ever?
There is hardly any science in the above, it is just rational thinking and people cannot do this any longer. It has been taught out of the younger generations. Our knowledge of nature has been acquired very slowly and there are well known scientists who have contributed some well know laws, but their work depended on the ones who came before. It is impossible for one person to know the totality of our knowledge but in our advanced civilisation we need to understand the basis of science, which is evidence. We are often fooled, and the MMR scare is an example. The scares are spread by the MSM. What is difficult to understand is how the climate crisis nonsense has spread so much and the unquestioning acceptance of it. The real crisis is with us now, and that is the effect of the related energy policies. It is making home energy unaffordable, businesses uncompetitive and it is putting the grid system in danger of collapsing.
I really think there is little that can be achieved to change this. It will have to run until we destroy the western economies or there is an obvious return to colder temperatures. They will come, but it could be many years away. There are many web site and books written about why the climate scientists are wrong and there is a following, but I have no idea what percentage of people believe it is a fraud. Some people have lost their jobs by speaking out. Other do not because they cannot afford to lose their jobs.
I saw one view which is that humans are an evolutionary experiment because no other species is self aware in the way they we are. But we got to where we are because of science. Our early understanding of making tools and shelter required a practical knowledge of materials. This was based on evidence, which is the basis of science. Mathematics is the language of science and it has allowed us to develop and apply scientific theories, all verified by evidence from observation or experiment. It requires a rational mind to do it and one that continually questions everything because science is never established as the climate scientists tell us. The shape of the universe is now being questioned which illustrates this.
It seems that there is an increasing dependence on the state for reasons I fail to understand and the climate has become a political issue. After all many people still believe in god, so why not that we can change the climate. If they will accept the bishop at the Remembrance Festival last night in his ridiculous outfit they will accept anything. They are the politically correct social justice generation and evidence is not part of their world.
I do not believe anybody will change their views and discussion of all topics is now quickly shut down by the media and mob rule, no matter what it is. It is illustrated by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s comment on Grenfell. What he said was the instructions in every hotel and public building about a fire – know where the nearest fire exit is located, if the alarm sounds, do not delay to collect anything and leave immediately. But when JRM said it, it was wrong. Problems are solved by rational discussion which is now not acceptable in universities, in parliament and in the media.
A Thorpe has made many points that I would have liked to (but in a far better way). The endless replacement of traditional values by puerile imaginings apalls me, and
I despair of the mindless acceptance of much of what is put forward by the apparently ‘intelligent’ people in authority. I just do not see how to counter this crude orwellian(?) propaganda which is constantly thrown at us and which you rightly criticise in your columns. Your articles are often inspiring, never dull, and I, for one, hope you find the will to carry on.
It occurred to me after the above post that 100% of scientists accepted the Newton’s description of gravity was correct. Then along came Einstein and everything changed. Research to understand gravity it still going on. Science is never settled as the climate scientists claim. This is something that everybody should understand and it does not need any science or maths to understand this.
Once 100% of scientists agreed that the Earth was flat. Once 100% of scientists agreed that the Sun went around the Earth. Once 100% of doctors believed that leeches were wonderful for curing all kinds of diseases. Science advances with new discoveries except with the BBC and the ecofascists who insist the science of Man-made Climate Change “is settled”.
@ Loppoman It’s not only the uneducated! I have 2 school friends. One taught A Level Science and she referred to Thunberg favourably in a rare conversation last week. The other has a degree in English, and was asked to attend a C of E away weekend some 10 years ago. She returned a fully indoctrinated ACC believer So the church is a full member! It takes courage to stand against this if in public office.Thank you Donald for being one of the few!
Had Ezra scrolled around further, he’d have found that a certain Professor Micky Mouse, Institute for the Blind, Namibia was also one of the signatories. About 10 years ago, 31,487 American Scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s signed the Global Warming Petition Project warning that there is no convincing scientific evidence that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic heating, and that agreements like Kyoto (and Paris) are harmful, and hinder science. But of more concern to us, our idiot government has fallen hook, line and sinker for all this nonsense and so have adopted a lunatic energy policy that provides us with the most expensive and unreliable form of energy known and that has so far cost we consumers £9 billion a year, £340 per household.
David, there is an important distinction to make. The sun going round the Earth was not really based on evidence. It does look as if it does, but it was essentially just a theory. This is where all science starts. Theories have to be proven before they can be accepted. Newton’s laws of motion are still used. They got us to the moon. There is always more to be learned with science. Climate science is just based on a theory that CO2 can warm the earth and nothing more but it is backed up by late 19th century ideas that are not valid and which have been augmented with more bad science. It is not just the cost of energy that matters, it is the research money going into fake science and the threats made to genuine scientists. Some have lost their jobs and others retired. I’m sure global warming has taken hold because we all think we know about weather and we increasingly think we can control everything. We think we can control rivers, but recent events show that we cannot.
Whether our idiot government has TRULY fallen for all this nonsense is, I believe, open to debate. It’s convenient though, isn’t it? Enables them to justify sticking extortionate taxes on fuel for a start. This has the wonderful consequence of not only raising revenue but also discouraging private, discretionary use of vehicles on already grid-locked UK roads. Once the internal combustion engine has been universally banned in the UK, only those sufficiently well off to have been able to purchase an electric vehicle will be privileged to own their own transport. Granny and Grandad, struggling on their State pension, will no longer be able to do the weekly trip to the supermarket or have a quiet drive down to the seaside of a Sunday. The thousands of harder-up younger people and families, genuine lovers of the UK countryside, who spend their summer holidays and weekends camping in older, much-loved diesel campervans and motorhomes will be forced to give them up altogether. The situation now already exists where navigation to an unfamiliar location is fraught with fear lest one trespass onto a “banned” area and face an extortionate fine. With the increasing ban on diesel vehicles in towns and cities, campervan and motorhome owners won’t even be able to sell them. The vehicles will have to go for scrap, thus impoverishing their owners. Once drivers who can afford to have “gone electric” and the rest of us have become prisoners in our homes, another fad will come along of course, to “prove” that electric cars cause some sort of as yet unheard of damage. In the meantime, not a realistic word as to how the excessive quantity of electricity which will be needed to keep the nation’s cars and buses going is to be generated. Sunlight, when in winter the sun is frequently not seen for weeks at a time? Wind, when the very coldest days frequently are also the least windy and domestic electricity demand is at its highest? As someone wrote last week, it’s only a matter of time before, “smart meters” having been universally installed, we shall find our supply either cut off or extortionately charged for when we need it most. Again, the rich will benefit, the rest will suffer. The fact is that we, the general population, the despised electorate, are under greater surveillance and are more controlled now than probably at any previous time and it will only get worse. Do the thousands who now have an “Alexa” or similar sitting in the corner of the living room listening to everything, sincerely believe that what they say does not have the potential to be monitored? The truth is that despite the trillions of weasel words repeatedly trotted out, the very last thing those in power over us want is an enlightened, informed and independently thinking electorate, enjoying full freedom of speech. (Well, we’ve already largely lost that, haven’t we?) They aim to control us comprehensively and the most effective way to achieve that is to control our minds. Religion, the opiate of the masses. Well, given that “man made climate change” is the religion of the moment, it’s certainly working.
@Stillreading I think you are right about what governments believe. The major factor in my view is that they don’t want civil unrest and it is often easier to give in to campaigns but it catches up with them in the long run and by then they have bigger problems to deal with. Everything you say about our energy supplies is true and today I heard that concerns are being raised about how we will dispose of the batteries from electric vehicles.