Well, yes, super then

A central task for any campaign is to develop a narrative: a short, simple story explaining where we are, how we got here and where we need to go. Using the narrative structure common to almost all successful political and religious transformations, the restoration story, it might go something like this. “The world has been thrown into climate chaos, caused by fossil fuel companies, the billionaires who profit from them and the politicians they have bought. But we, the young heroes, will confront these oligarchs, using our moral authority to create a movement so big and politically dangerous that our governments are forced to shut down the fossil economy and restore the benign conditions in which humans and other species can thrive.”

Super, now, the details of who we do this.

You favour Nordhaus or Stern here? You’ve grasped the Dasgupta point have you? Yes, Marty Weizman has a good worry so how much attention do we have to pay to it?

Hmm, what’s that? You’ve no idea what I’m talking about? That is, you’re going to try and solve climate change without having the slightest clue of the science of solving climate change?

Good luck with that really.

42 comments on “Well, yes, super then

  1. Oh Yes–we will help all right Moonbat–help to smash the young leftist-controlled snot and their eco-freak handlers like you.

    Start with an automatic 25% reduction in the young snots exam results.

    Followed by the sacking of the Marxist shite who have brainwashed the young turds and a massive full on Purge of the entire education system until not one viable leftist or eco-freak remains.

  2. I dunno about “the science of solving climate change”… It might first be a good idea to have some decent science used to identify if, and why it’s occurring!

    Shonky computer models =/= “science”.

  3. This shows the problem in a nutshell.

    “The world has been thrown into climate chaos, caused by fossil fuel companies, the billionaires who profit from them and the politicians they have bought”

    None of these assertions can be proven. The chain of causality does not exist. Therefore you are better off keeping the whole thing as murky and obscure as possible otherwise all the world will laugh at you.

    In truth the real danger comes from the billionaires such as Grantham who are trying to profit from climate action. Wasn’t he the guy who warned of peak phosphorus a few years ago? While he is still allowed to walk in freedom and fund morons like Bob Ward and the tools at the Grantham institute, we will see a stream of ever-more desperate climate crusades. Using children is just the sort of despicable action these bastards will stoop to.

  4. Solutions are for problems that exist and can be solved.

    There is no proof WHATSOEVER, zilch, none, zero that the climate is changing due to the actions of man.

    ALL the EVIDENCE (that is, data over the long-term) points to no danger, no discernible effect from Man and that the climate has done NONE of the predicted things, NONE.
    Polar bears
    Greenland
    North pole
    Antartic
    Hurricanes
    Floods
    Temperatures (before fiddling)
    Won’t know snow
    Climate refugees
    Climate chaos
    The list is interminable

    There is clear evidence that data has been fiddled with to support the failing hypothesis of man-made global warming.

    Anybody who says CO2 is a pollutant should be discounted from the debate.

    UK goes green and then sets up diesel parks to cut in when renewables fail and you have ruined system stability.

    The level of public and political discourse is abysmal.

    Oh well, back to the grindstone. Ranting is as good as a mid-morning coffee.

  5. ” …shut down the fossil economy and restore the benign conditions in which humans and other species can thrive.”
    Has he really thought that through? Really??

  6. It’s only a problem if the global climate starts cooling, say back to Little Ice Age levels acouple of hundred years ago, in which case we’ll need abundant fossil fuels to survive the shorter growing period and vulnerability of crops to early and late frosts. Fortunately the increase in atmospheric CO2 acts as a fertlizer and we might miss the famine this time round.

  7. Others here have pointed out the difficulties with detection and attribution of climate change. You know, the bit the IPCC skims over.

    I would like to know what their vision is. What is the end game, what do they want the world to look like once they are done?

  8. But surely the point is to make people feel virtuous and important, to give them a sense of purpose.
    In those terms I’m sure it will have some success.
    And we’re going to keep having demonstrations like this as long as we keep telling half the kids that they are brilliant.

  9. The IPCC vision?

    Well, difficult. For if you read the actual reports that vision varies dependent upon which bit of the report.

    When the economists are writing it’s “richer world is better, bring it on” and all we’ve got to do is gradually replace emissions over time. All entirely achievable at a nice low cost. Then there’s the bits written by the enviroloons which are what gets shown to the politicians……

  10. our governments are forced to shut down the fossil economy and restore the benign conditions in which humans and other species can thrive.

    I don’t think he cares about Stern, etc. He wants to shut the lot down.

    As for the “benign conditions in which we can all thrive”, the USA would have had tens of thousands, maybe more, literally freeze to death during that Polar Vortex if Monbiot and the rest of the death cult had their way and we had no fossil fuels.

  11. Not the economists, Tim. They don’t get a look-in. THe AOCs and Bernie Sanders and Ed Milibands and all of those people who want to ue climate change as a pretext to overthrow industrial society. I want to know what they think is going to be the shape of the world once that objective is achieved. Now, you may think they are ecoloons but by taking their position seriously without objection to their premise is not good enough. I say again, just because there’s an economists’ game here doesn’t mean you should play along with their agenda. For the sake of argument doesn’t apply, they want to kill us all in the name of virtue.

  12. “I would like to know what their vision is. What is the end game, what do they want the world to look like once they are done?”

    This is the official version. It includes stuff like cancelling the defence budgets of Western nations, putting their economies under the control of a world government, redistribution of wealth and technology to the developing world, compensation payments, exempting the developing world from intellectual property law, stuff like that.
    https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf

    For a longer-term view – and considerably more readable! – see this book by one of the IPCC lead authors on Working Group 3, the bit that talked about what actions to take. Essentially, that democracy has failed and we need an authoritarian government led by scientific experts in ecology, the environment, and climate science.
    https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-climate-change-challenge-and-the-failure-of-democracy/david-shearman/joseph-wayne-smith/9780313345043

    In other words, the same dream of global totalitarianism they’ve always had.

  13. There is no effing climate crisis caused by fossil fuels. The whole effing thing is fabricated for political purposes. All these bastards hate the black and brown people who will benefit from extending cheap, reliable coal power. That’s the question I keep asking the evil twats “what have you got against Indians and Africans?”

  14. @ Rob
    If we had had no fossil fuels only a few hundred would have frozen to death in the USA because most potential victims would not exist. Their ancestors would have starved to death in Europe instead of travelling to the USA.
    No fossil fuels means no artificial fertiliser (also no tractors so ploughing only by horse or ox, food imports only by sailing ship, internal transport by horse-drawn or man).
    Monbiot would take us back to mediaeval times

  15. The benign conditions in which human life expectancy is 35 years.

    FIFY

    ‘our best (and possibly our last) hope of avoiding catastrophe. It is also that the impacts on the young people themselves, if their mobilisation and hopes collapse so early in their lives, could be devastating.’

    Moonbat creating fear in young people. It is child abuse.

    If ‘their mobilisation’ collapses . . . what does that even mean? They are whipped up into a frenzy over a false cause and then it is rejected? Who is doing that, George? Well, that would be YOU!

  16. caused by fossil fuel companies, the billionaires who profit from them and the politicians they have bought.

    So these fossil fuel companies spend vast sums of money to extract oil and coal, just for the evil pleasure of tipping it in the sea, do they?

    Not the slightest awareness to the little kiddies that’s where their nice warm houses come from, what grows and transports their food, and what makes their smartphones.

    Take these Greenshirts indoctrinators and force them to live in a fossil-fuel free economy for 12 months. Then shoot the survivor.

  17. “The world has been thrown into climate chaos, caused by fossil fuel companies, the billionaires who profit from them and the politicians they have bought. But we, the young heroes, will confront these oligarchs, using our moral authority to create a movement so big and politically dangerous that our governments are forced to shut down the fossil economy and restore the benign conditions in which humans and other species can thrive.”

    One thing about George is for certain: He never has learned, and he never will learn.

    That narrative is the sort of thing that gets you laughed at.

    It is comforting to know that no matter how stupid we breed them here in the States – think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – the wogs manage to breed ’em even dumber. Thanks, George.

  18. When we shut down the “Carbon economy”, then overnight food production becomes less efficient and what there is can’t be transported to the places it’s needed. Also people will freeze to death in winter because there is a permanent fuel shortage.

    So now the Green government has two responses ready to roll
    1. “We told you the climate apocalypse was imminent and now look, here it is”
    2. “We told you the economy would boom. We need to punish the “wreckers”, “hoarders” and “saboteurs” who are preventing it happening”

    The playbook is written.

  19. Start with an automatic 25% reduction in the young snots exam results.

    Wouldn’t even need that. Just ban the school run and make the fuckers walk to school, rain or shine. To save the Planet, naturally.

    The whole thing would be forgotten by Thursday.

  20. 1) The catastrophe is 10 years away.

    2) We have to act now before it is too late.

    2) a) acting now requires that I get a big grant, or at least a career in journalism writing about the impending catastrophe .

    3) in 10 years time, repeat 1) until it’s time to retire.

  21. shut down the fossil economy and restore the benign conditions in which humans and other species can thrive

    Remember Moonbat is so deranged he looks forward to a peasant future in which pease pudding is the staple diet of the British.

  22. I used to follow the Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise who examined (in considerable detail, comprehensively referenced) the construction of various IPCC reports, the people involved, the papers, the spinning. The IPCC is profoundly political, heavily influenced by third world participants eager for redistribution and highly selective when it goes to the actual research. Tim, do not refer to it as if it were intellectually respectable!

  23. It is comforting to know that no matter how stupid we breed them here in the States – think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – the wogs manage to breed ’em even dumber. Thanks, George.

    The Moonbat has never been (and will never be) elected to any office, unlike AOC.

  24. Chris –

    NYC, and especially the Bronx, is Wogland. All it lacks to be part of the UK is Paki grooming gangs and Brexit.

  25. This guy really is an ignoramus. Fossil fuel companies don’t need to have politicians on their payroll because they are selling a massively useful product that the modern world simply cannot live without. Purveyors of solar panels and wind turbines, on the other hand, are selling expensive unreliable energy that the world would be better off without. Without bought politicians those people would be instantly out of business.

  26. I very much appreciate that you have referred to serious economic thinkers on climate change who have provided different perspectives and information on the issues and potential policies for climate change.

    I am an empiricist and under current technologies there is only one simple solution to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining a reliable, relatively inexpensive electricity supply and that is nuclear power.

    I am aware the UK is having some problems with its latest nuclear power plant and my question is how do the French and South Koreans build plants so cheaply and effectively compared to other countries.

  27. @ TFX
    Forty years ago KWU (KraftewerkeUnion) told one of my superiors their sales pitch included “Do you want German Safety of American Safety?” and in response to the automatic question “What’s the difference?” “German safety costs an extra Dm100million”. American safety is not up to German standards but “more people died at Chappaquidick than at Three Mile Island.”
    The large majority of the cost of a nuclear power plant is meeting the safety regulations, most of which will not be needed during the lifetime of the plant. It may be noted that deaths in coal-mining in China since the Communist Takeover (conquest by force of arms) has been more than twice as many as that from all causes related to nuclear energy since the dawn of time.
    France is not in an earthquake zone.
    I was unhappy about Japan and California building nuclear reactors – so far California has been lucky and Japan has not – two or three of the clean-up team died. South Korea is less likely to suffer from earthquakes than Japan or California.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.