Yippee, the revolution!

Climate change is hurling humanity towards disaster. There is no more room to question the science, when nearly every climate scientist is in agreement that the implications of a global rise in average temperature will spell drastic changes for human civilisation. In the face of such a rapidly encroaching threat, political niceties and traditional incrementalism and compromise cannot come close to the level of change and upheaval required to solve, or even mitigate, the problem of global climate change.

That’s what they mean by no incrementalism. We get to have the revolution right here, right now. No different from any other sect preparing for the end of the world unless……

Sadly.

The current ineptitude and impotency of the ruling class is unacceptable when the consequences of inaction are so far-reaching. More than ever, it is time for workers – those who will be hardest hit by soaring food and healthcare costs, and by property destruction caused by natural disasters and the rising sea – to exert their power and force the hand of major players (governments and corporations) to avert what is almost certain to be the next global mass extinction.

The workers – Marx and Engels ride again.

38 comments on “Yippee, the revolution!

  1. I am with Corbyn, not the younger brother, but the older Piers, an astrophysicist, who calls Global Warming deluded nonsense.

  2. Yes, it really is very simple. All the loud shouty people who want us to live a 14th century lifestyle adopt one this afternoon. No cars,TVs, modern kitchens, no sanitation, no medicines, no transport, no computers, no food, no books, no radio, no Twitter, no Facebook, no Instagram.

    Stop whining about nobody telling you what to do, just do it.

  3. Isn’t this young lady essentially advocating mass murder on an unprecedented scale? Or is she part of the delusion that 7 billion people can solve this by eating a little less meat, heating their houses a little bit less, using their clothes a little bit longer, cutting back on their weekend citybreaks to 6 a year, and all the other tokenist “green” measures that the middle classes use to wag their finger at those other people over there consuming too much?

    She must think it a pity we never had the third world war.

  4. “There is no more room to question the science, ”
    If you cannot question it, it is not science. The young brainwash victim is unaware that Einstein’s theories of relativity continue to be tested as technology advances, most gratifyingly in the recent direct visualisation of a black hole. The theory proves its robustness by not producing awkward inconsistencies in testing using real not model generated data. Feynman warned that the most beautiful theory is destroyed by a single ugly fact.

    The mob she calls “climate scientists “ devote their resources to blocking contrarian research, hounding dissidents and protecting their status and pensions with religious zeal.

    In a different cultural context she would have been off to Raqqa to lead a platoon of morality police.

  5. As BiG alludes to, overpopulation is the biggest threat to the planet.

    Until I hear Climate Change protestors demanding birth control I won’t take them too seriously.

    The best arguments for caring for the environment I have seen was in a speech accredited to Arnold Schwarzenegger of all people. The gist of it was that the climate is changing. We can’t dispute that but we don’t know how much of that change is down to Man’s actions and how much is a natural cycle but chucking masses of pollution into the air and water is bad for us and the planet whether it is affecting the climate or not.

  6. Dear #woke Trustafarians,

    Thanks for your concern, but actually, I’m fine.

    My climate has been changing since I first formed a climate, about 4 billion years ago (when Bruce Forsyth was still an old man – ask your parents).

    And I’ll still be around long after you lot are gone. If you want to hasten your own demise by sabotaging your ability to grow food, generate power, and lift people out of filth, disease and poverty… that’s fine by me. I’ve actually been trying to kill you lot with volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and wasps since your hairy ancestors thought walking on two legs and listening to the Bee Gees was a really neat idea.

    Just stop pretending you’re doing this for me. When the Hunger Games begin, and you’re inevitably beaten to death by those angry workers you think want to be reduced to medieval peasantry, I don’t want the blame.

    It’s not me, it’s you.

    Yours in nature,

    Gaia

    PS – the next filthy, matted-haired posh-boy crustie who does poi on my lawn is getting a volcano right up his arsehole. You’ve been warned x

  7. it is time for workers – those who will be hardest hit by soaring food

    Also in the Guardian – food prices must rise because people are too fat and farting goats will also kill the planet.

    They are completely fucking shameless. I hope every working class person in Britain kicks them in the balls for the contemptible, manipulative lying bastards they are.

  8. @Battery Chicken
    CO2 is not pollution.

    On a general note this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to hitch socialism to a bandwagon where it can be claimed we’ve got no choice but to do it. As the evidence gets weaker the hysteria gets greater. My fear is that a lot of these measures will be taken.

  9. when nearly every climate scientist is in agreement that …

    97% of Roman Catholic priests are in agreement that the Catholic God is the only true God…

    97% of imams are in agreement that….

    If you perform a survey of a religion’s priests, you must expect a small degree of bias in the result perhaps?

    Hasn’t there been enough trouble from the mentally ill with religious mania this week already? And then there’s Sri Lanka also…

  10. it is time for workers – those who will be hardest hit by soaring food prices

    Particularly as they’ll be out of a job once the economy has been radically redirected to reduce consumption of goods & services. The purpose of all production (which is what provides jobs) being consumption, and all that…

  11. ‘The current ineptitude and impotency of the ruling class’

    I was with them for a moment.

    ‘every climate scientist is in agreement that the implications of a global rise in average temperature will spell drastic changes for human civilisation.’

    Where is this place on earth that has the average temperature?

    An increase in temperature here will mean it’s like south Georgia rather than South Carolina – OH MY! THE HUMANITY!

    ‘when nearly every climate scientist is in agreement’

    Yes, and 97% of priests believe in God.

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair

    ‘More than ever, it is time for workers – those who will be hardest hit’

    Okay, they’re going to have to come to an agreement with the feminazis, who will be hardest hit.

    Or the immigrants, who will be hardest hit.

    Or the sexually diverted, they will be hardest hit.

  12. “nearly every climate scientist is in agreement that” they really really want more of your money to let them pursue their vital research.

  13. If they believed their own sh1t, that we all have to reduce our standards of living and energy consumption, they’d be massively against 3rd world immigration to the West. Cos every 3rd world immigrant to the first world massively ups their energy consumption.

    If they were consistent they’d be campaigning against development in Africa, Asia etc. and for keeping the 3rd world populations in place at their current low standards of living.

    And yet they’re pretty much universally in favour of the exact opposite…

    I, for one, hope we can stay wealthy and that the 3rd world can become wealthy.

  14. Everyone I listen to these days seems to spout the ‘Democracy has failed us’ mantra. They say we should bypass the establishment and (self) elect Citizens Committees to run the show. Said committees will dictate the course of action, and we in turn will be told what is expected of us. They haven’t yet broached the subject of gulags but am sure it’s part of their plan.

  15. nearly every climate scientist is in agreement that the implications of a global rise in average temperature will spell drastic changes for human civilisation.

    Well, every scientist is in agreement that the implications of the sun exploding tomorrow wouldn’t be good for us either. Doesn’t mean they think it’s actually gonna happen.

  16. In both style and content the article in question reads like something straight out of The Socialist Worker.

  17. “97% of Roman Catholic priests are in agreement that the Catholic God is the only true God…”

    Aaaargh!! I do wish people would stop repeating the stupid 97% number! The actual number in Doran and Zimmerman (which started it) was 82%.

    https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf

    This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    and later

    Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.

    Other surveys of scientists usually give numbers in the 80-85% range, although it depends a lot on exactly how the question is worded.

  18. @Battery Chicken

    “Until I hear Climate Change protestors demanding birth control I won’t take them too seriously.”

    If they aren’t demanding birth control for Africans, it won’t mean much. That is where most of the world’s population growth is projected to take place over the next half century. [crickets]

  19. NiV
    Since when do the real number matter: this is a question of faith not of objective truth 🙂

    I used 97% precisely because it has become the meme.
    97% of pigs feeding from the trough agree that you should keep feeding it…etc

    Actually, what is remarkable about the true figure you quote is that it is so low: the responders were all climate “scientists” whose feeding trough depends on them believing in the great warbling planet muther. Or something. And even so, almost a fifth couldn’t back it!

  20. NiV,

    In the link you posted it states that 97.4% of respondents who are climate scientists said yes to question 2.

  21. I mean it’s obvious greenhouse gasses are a thing and that increasing them will cause the earth to warm. That’s pretty standard physics.

    What is bullshit is that it’s going to be catastrophic and that there is any possibility at all of RCP8.5 happening, much less that it is a ‘business as usual’ scenario.

  22. I mean it’s obvious greenhouse gasses are a thing and that increasing them will cause the earth to warm. That’s pretty standard physics.
    Actually no. there have been a number of debunks of this, based upon the laws of thermodynamics.
    Putting a thermos bottle inside another thermos bottle does not heat up the contents.

    One can equally argue that global warming increases the CO2 in the atmosphere, because of the reduced solubility of gases in liquids with temperature. That is also basic physics, though rather inconvenient.

    Indeed, the time lag between temperature and CO2 correlation strongly suggests that causation rather than the approved dogma, though both may be driven by a third factor with no direct causation, of course.

    Best answer is this: it is a fact that CO2 has varied widely in both geological and recent history, and that temperature has stayed in a small range. Earth did not do a Venus, even when the CO2 hit values far higher than now, I recall reading 400 ppm somewhere?

    Sadly, the impoverisation and discrediting caused by AGW damages the genuine pollution measures needed, biggest of which is wealth creation.

  23. If ‘greenhouse’ gasses don’t exist then all the heat radiated from the earth goes directly into space and nothing is absorbed and reemitted by the atmosphere. If that was the case then the earth would have an average temp of about -18C.

    I don’t buy that the ‘greenhouse effect’ doesn’t exist. Just that it’s being used as a scam.

  24. “When compared with pre-1800s levels …”

    Well, the 1690s were pretty chill, so things are milder now.

    But then the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Age – they were warmer. So things are rather cool now.

    In other words, what a stupid effing question.

    P.S. Most scientists aren’t remotely equipped to answer such questions because they haven’t looked into the matter at all. They just believe uncritically what they hear around them. (That’s my experience, anyway.)

  25. Earth did not do a Venus, even when the CO2 hit values far higher than now, I recall reading 400 ppm somewhere?

    Current values have risen to marginally above 400 ppm. But 100 million years ago, they were ~3,000 ppm yet Earth still did not do a Venus (the most likely difference being plate tectonics turning atmospheric CO2 into carbonate rocks). It was considerably warmer (alligators at the South Pole) and sea level was many metres higher, but it wasn’t apocalyptic (until that pesky meteor arrived).

  26. @Tim the Coder April 25, 2019 at 4:35 pm

    CO2 has varied widely in both geological and recent history, and that temperature has stayed in a small range. Earth did not do a Venus, even when the CO2 hit values far higher than now, I recall reading 400 ppm somewhere?

    Yep:
    https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046

    400ppm = 0.04%

    Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.04% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements.

  27. Pcar, you leave out water vapor, which can be up to 4% of the atmosphere. There’s your greenhouse gas right there!

  28. “Current values have risen to marginally above 400 ppm. But 100 million years ago, they were ~3,000 ppm yet Earth still did not do a Venus (the most likely difference being plate tectonics turning atmospheric CO2 into carbonate rocks). It was considerably warmer (alligators at the South Pole) and sea level was many metres higher, but it wasn’t apocalyptic (until that pesky meteor arrived).”

    Its argued that one of the reasons pterodactyls could fly (given they would not be able to in current atmospheric conditions) was because the air was far more dense then due to the far higher CO2 levels, thus providing more lift.

    One of my basic arguments against the ‘CO2 is going to kill the planet’ shtick is to ask where exactly did the carbon come from that we are releasing into the atmosphere? It wasn’t always in the ground obviously, as it was made up of animals and plants living hundreds of millions of years ago, so all we are doing is releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere whence it came. And as you say when it was already there the world did not end, far from it, it teemed with life………

  29. @Jim
    I don’t think the difference between CO2 levels of 0.04% and 0.3% would affect the bulk density of the atmosphere much.

  30. Funnily enough was talking about wildfires and the last couple of years had been bad and there was the general nodding around the table about bad humans ruining the environment, then I pointed out that the records derived from studying tree growth patterns from the old growth trees had shown there were more wildfires before the Europeans turned up in any numbers in the mid-1800’s onwards. There was an inconvenient silence before the conversation moved on.

  31. 10-4. Wildfires were 5X what we have today back in the 1930s.

    Ironically, the principal cause of the reduction is the Internal Combustion Engine, which gives us the mobility to better manage wild areas, and to fight wild fires.

  32. “McEver Dugan is the writing coordinator for Earth Strike. Evan Cholerton is the international organiser for Youth for Earth Strike. This article was co-authored with Cosmo Patell, Jonathan Altman, Paxton Batchelder, Isaac Horvath, Alex Rawson, John Ryan and Olivia Sauve, all members of Earth Strike International”

    Paid agitators.

  33. BC, there is a belief on science websites that the more authors for a paper, the more likely it is rubbish.

  34. @Jim April 25, 2019 at 9:12 pm

    One of my basic arguments against the ‘CO2 is going to kill the planet’ shtick is to ask where exactly did the carbon come from that we are releasing into the atmosphere? It wasn’t always in the ground obviously, as it was made up of animals and plants living hundreds of millions of years ago, so all we are doing is releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere whence it came

    That’s my argument too

    On Wind, wave, tidal, solar etc I ask: what are the long-term effects of extracting this energy in ever increasing amounts? Will Earth’s rotation speed change? Tides change?

    Physics & Newton laws on energy.

  35. Dear Mr Worstall

    There is a photo of the Family Thunberg on the Daily Mail website with 2.0 parents, 2.0 children and 2.0 dogs.

    According to National Treasure Stephen Fry, 2.0 dogs cause more pollution, climate disruption and general environmental mayhem than your average 4×4, especially big dogs. They ought therefore to cause much wailing and gnashing of environmentalists’ teeth, but don’t, for some reason. Possibly because they are cuddly.

    Image here: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/22/12/12566806-6946815-image-a-25_1555932268615.jpg

    Mr Price over at Mr Frost’s Nannyblog nails it nicely:

    http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/2019/04/pope-meets-messiah.html

    DP

  36. @ Gamecock April 26, 2019 at 11:29 am

    “BC, there is a belief on science websites that the more authors for a paper, the more likely it is rubbish.”

    Too many ‘scientists’, too little science.

    Perhaps the universe is running out of science.

    DP

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.