“Climate change is the most existential threat of our time,” announced the title character in the latest episode of the celebrated CBS drama Madam Secretary.
In Madam Secretary, renewables are the future while gas (the fuel which, more than any other, has driven America’s energy and manufacturing and stockmarket revival) is the enemy.
That’s why in its latest episode, titled ‘Thin Ice,” and deconstructed here by Newsbusters, the antagonist is a slippery Texas gas baron named Chip Harding (Kevin O’Rourke). The good guys are lead by an enviro-activist called Bella and, of course, our plucky Secretary of State heroine Elizabeth “Bess” Adams McCord who bravely says, “No” to Chip’s evil, clean, abundant energy.
Beneath the warm cuddly exterior of the bunny-hugging greenie beats the heart of a fascist. If you ever doubted it, check out this Voxinterview with William T Vollmann.
Vollmann is an award-winning author and war correspondent once described as the most “ambitious, audacious writer working in America today” and tipped as a plausible Nobel Prize for Literature candidate. He claims once to have been a climate change ‘denier’ but not any more.
The climate change threat is so dire, he believes, that only the most drastic solutions will do:
It’s not just what some consumer does at home. It’s niggling little issues that add up. In Japan, roughly 50 percent or so of all the methane emissions — and that’s one of the three most dangerous greenhouse gases — are caused by rice growing. All this stuff that seems so innocuous. It seems to me that you have to drag people into some kind of regulatory hell, unfortunately. Maybe there’s a better way to do it, but I don’t see one.
Stopping the Japanese eating rice because muh climate change? Now that is extreme. But then, Vollmann is an extreme person: his ascetic, Luddite lifestyle – he doesn’t have a cellphone or use email – at one point led police to suspect that he might be the Unabomber.
Britain has just suffered its worst winter death toll in 42 years.
According to the Daily Star:
It is estimated that 20,275 Brits more than average died between December and March.
An additional 2,000 deaths more than average were expected due to cold conditions between March 23 and 31, this winter’s average death rates show.
Campaigners have called the deaths a “national tragedy” as cold weather victims fatalities could be prevented – especially in the elderly.
According to the Office of National Statistics, one in 10 cold weather deaths are among under-65s, one in 10 among 65-75s and eight in 10 among over-75s.
The Department of Health also said cold conditions worsen winter killers including flu, chest diseases, heart attacks, strokes and dementia.
It means this winter is set to total at least 48,000 deaths due to cold weather – which works out at an average of one death every three and a half minutes.
But what’s more shocking still is that the UK government – claiming to be Conservative, last time I looked – is actually boasting about the disastrous policy which helped kill them.
Here is what Energy Minister Claire Perry had to say on the tenth anniversary of the 2008 Climate Change Act – the most ruinous and pointless piece of legislation in recent British parliamentary history – which is largely responsible for making energy so expensive that the poor and vulnerable cannot afford to heat their homes.
Fewer and fewer Republicans and Independents believe that ‘climate change’ is a credible threat; more and more Democrats do. ‘Global warming’, it is becoming increasingly clear, is a political issue and not a scientific one.
Climate change is going to kill at least 150 million people and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Well, at least it is if you believe climate doomster David Wallace-Wells in the latest issue of New York magazine. Things are bad. Really bad. We didn’t listen and now we can expect to pay a terrible price — starting with all those deaths:
Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of 25 Holocausts. It is five times the size of the death toll of the Great Leap Forward — the largest non-military death toll humanity has ever produced. It is three times the greatest death toll of any kind: World War II.
This is not Wallace-Wells’s first foray into climate disaster pornography.
Last year, he published an essay called The Uninhabitable Earth — a 7,000-word compendium of climate terror hailed by one overawed leftist commentator as “the Silent Spring of our time” and praised by activists including Michael Mann but widely mocked by more sane people for its absurd and hysterical predictions.
Wallace-Wells warned that a sixth mass extinction could wipe out 97 percent of the planet’s population; that Bangladesh and Miami would be drowned; that almost everywhere would become hotter than the Middle East; that terrifying diseases would be released from the ice; that there would be no more hamburgers.
Now Wallace-Wells has toned down his disaster predictions slightly. Though 150 million people is indeed a lot of deaths — “25 Holocausts,” as he reminds us — it’s still some way short of the seven billion or more who would die if his original prediction ever came true.
It doesn’t matter how many air miles eco-crusader Leonardo DiCaprio racks up in his private jet on his mission to save the planet. All that matters is that his intentions are good, one of his fellow celebrities, actress, Felicity Huffman has explained.
“I think Leonardo DiCaprio has probably done more for the environment than anyone. Does he fly privately? Probably but who cares? But he is doing amazing work, and really getting the message out there,” Huffman told the Daily Mail.
The former Desperate Housewives star was speaking with her actor husband William H. Macey at the 2018 Institute of the Environment and Sustainability (IoES) Gala Red Carpet in Los Angeles.
DiCaprio also received praise from Friends actress Courtney Cox, who said who told the outlet, “Celebrity can bring a voice to things that you wouldn’t necessarily be able to do otherwise. So he is using his voice in a wonderful way.”
“We are creating the mess that we are in,” Cox continued. “We need to raise the awareness as much as we can to fix the problem. That is what we do at events like this, so we can honor the people that are changing our world.”
In the chart below from a study by Polovodova et al, we see that 20th century warming is perfectly normal in a long-term historical context. It was no warmer – indeed, is slightly cooler – than either the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warming Period.
What we also learn from the papers is that these warming periods were global – not, as alarmists like to claim to support their scaremongering thesis, local:
In 2016, more than 63,600 Americans died from drug overdoses, triple the 1999 rate. The overprescribing of opioid painkillers largely is driving this spike in deaths. But experts suggest that other things also are at work — including the effects of climate change.
Scientists who have been studying opioid deaths across the country believe that socioeconomic factors and natural disasters should become part of any national conversation about how to tackle America’s wave of opioid deaths. In recent years, global warming has fueled a growing number of turbulent weather events that have taken a grim toll on the human psyche.
“It is reasonable to expect that damage and destruction cause emotional and mental health problems and lead to drug abuse, both new and existing users,” said Stephan Goetz, professor of agricultural and regional economics at Pennsylvania State University. “There are long-lasting effects of such calamities, and they do not tend to diminish.”
And perhaps, Professor Goetz’s co-author goes on to suggest, Hurricane Katrina might be the reason so many more people started taking opioids in New Orleans…
San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five major companies, including Exxon and Chevron, demanding money for damages global warming allegedly caused. A core component of their suit is fossil fuel companies “engaged in a large-scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaign” to promote fossil fuels while they “knew” their products would contribute to “dangerous global warming.”
The cities’ suits against oil companies, however, do not show an industry conspiracy to suppress climate science from the public, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said, according to journalists who attended the hearing.
Alsup said plaintiffs “shows nothing of the sort” regarding some sort of conspiracy against science, Conservative journalist Phelim McAleer tweeted.
This ruling, so early in the trial, may well have come as a shock to the plaintiffs. Judge Alsup, after all, was a Bill Clinton appointment, operating in the most eco-friendly state, California. He might therefore have been open to persuasion by the green narrative.
“Smokescreens”. This, apparently, is the fancy new euphemism used by climate alarmists to describe what we on the skeptical side of the argument prefer to call “facts.” The word appears in an interview given by Katharine Hayhoe, professor at Texas Tech where she is director of the Climate Science Center, and a leading member of the climate alarmist establishment. She was a co-author, for example, of the 2014 National Climate Assessment produced during the Obama era. She also featured prominently in the first episode of the global warming propaganda documentary series Years of Living Dangerously.
Here she is, talking to someone calling themselves ‘Sierra Club’, at EcoWatch.
Hayhoe vehemently advises against engaging with the “smokescreens” skeptics tend to offer as the reasons they couldn’t possibly agree with or act on the issue of climate change. “There’ll be no progress that way,” she insists. “It’s a lot easier for people to say, ‘I have a problem with the science’ than it is to talk about what the real problem is.”
Hayhoe might not realize this but she could scarcely have provided more damning evidence of the political nature of “climate science.”