https://blackmon.substack.com/p/mondays-energy-absurdity-the-malthusians
I’ve written many pieces over the past year about the increasing boldness of the Malthusian wing of the climate alarm industry to talk about their real end goals for us humans. An understanding of those goals is why the meme atop this piece has also been featured atop my landing page for the past two years or so.
Make no mistake about it: You really are the carbon they want to reduce, and they just can’t stop themselves from saying it out loud.
The latest spiller of the Malthusian beans comes to us in the form of one Professor Bill McGwire, whose X profile says he is a “Volcanologist, climate scientist, writer, broadcaster, activist, socialist, best-selling author of HOTHOUSE EARTH: AN INHABITANT'S GUIDE.”
Cool. So he’s got that going for him.
He’s also got the climate alarm religion’s program going for him, and on Sunday, he just couldn’t contain himself from talking about it in this tweet:
“If I’m being brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown (the latest alarmist dogmatic talking point), is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate.”
Welp, he said it, not me.
And hey, let’s be honest: He’s just repeating stuff that’s been said out loud in recent months by luminaries like Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and many other Cardinals of the Global Church of Climate Alarm. So, what’s the problem?
Well, the problem apparently for Mr. McGwire is his tweet got ratio’d into oblivion, leading him to the decision to delete it and post this one instead:
I’ve written many pieces over the past year about the increasing boldness of the Malthusian wing of the climate alarm industry to talk about their real end goals for us humans. An understanding of those goals is why the meme atop this piece has also been featured atop my landing page for the past two years or so.
Make no mistake about it: You really are the carbon they want to reduce, and they just can’t stop themselves from saying it out loud.
The latest spiller of the Malthusian beans comes to us in the form of one Professor Bill McGwire, whose X profile says he is a “Volcanologist, climate scientist, writer, broadcaster, activist, socialist, best-selling author of HOTHOUSE EARTH: AN INHABITANT'S GUIDE.”
Cool. So he’s got that going for him.
He’s also got the climate alarm religion’s program going for him, and on Sunday, he just couldn’t contain himself from talking about it in this tweet:
“If I’m being brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown (the latest alarmist dogmatic talking point), is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate.”
Welp, he said it, not me.
And hey, let’s be honest: He’s just repeating stuff that’s been said out loud in recent months by luminaries like Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and many other Cardinals of the Global Church of Climate Alarm. So, what’s the problem?
Well, the problem apparently for Mr. McGwire is his tweet got ratio’d into oblivion, leading him to the decision to delete it and post this one instead:
An important thing to keep in mind is 1.4 degrees Celsius per century.
That is the rate they claim climate is changing at.
Once you remember that, then the high pressure used car salesman tactics become clear. A particularly warm year becomes a rallying cry that the world is going to end right now so we need to kill billions of people with similarly histrionic proposals. On the other hand, a particularly cold year is said to not represent anything because "the weather is not the climate".
Use of carbon as an energy source can't last forever regardless of climate change. There's only so much out there at any rate.
That said, one of the problems that the central planners have is that they only look at one variable at one time.
Let's say that you're paying attention to climate change, but what happens if you completely destroy your productive capacity as we have, but countries that don't really care about the environment like Russia and China continue to produce? Well, presumably your green society gets rolled over, and all your trees are chopped down for fuel, all your Meadows contain new factories. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you actually do try to push billions of people to die. Most people aren't willing to put up with that. If you're lucky that will mean a major Democratic shift towards anyone who isn't following your agenda, if you're unlucky it'll mean a coup where anyone promoting your green agenda becomes worm food, and the new regime absolutely refuses to follow anything like your genocidal green agenda. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you successfully push billions to die. Well the first in line would be people who agree with you that the earth needs fewer people. People who don't agree with you will have plenty of kids, and eventually the Earth is filled with people who disagree with you and your ideology fades into Oblivion. The history books write of your folly.
I certainly came to the same conclusion that if we wanted to immediately transition everything over to Green energy that you would need a lot fewer people on earth, but mu -- the question is wrong.
That is the rate they claim climate is changing at.
Once you remember that, then the high pressure used car salesman tactics become clear. A particularly warm year becomes a rallying cry that the world is going to end right now so we need to kill billions of people with similarly histrionic proposals. On the other hand, a particularly cold year is said to not represent anything because "the weather is not the climate".
Use of carbon as an energy source can't last forever regardless of climate change. There's only so much out there at any rate.
That said, one of the problems that the central planners have is that they only look at one variable at one time.
Let's say that you're paying attention to climate change, but what happens if you completely destroy your productive capacity as we have, but countries that don't really care about the environment like Russia and China continue to produce? Well, presumably your green society gets rolled over, and all your trees are chopped down for fuel, all your Meadows contain new factories. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you actually do try to push billions of people to die. Most people aren't willing to put up with that. If you're lucky that will mean a major Democratic shift towards anyone who isn't following your agenda, if you're unlucky it'll mean a coup where anyone promoting your green agenda becomes worm food, and the new regime absolutely refuses to follow anything like your genocidal green agenda. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you successfully push billions to die. Well the first in line would be people who agree with you that the earth needs fewer people. People who don't agree with you will have plenty of kids, and eventually the Earth is filled with people who disagree with you and your ideology fades into Oblivion. The history books write of your folly.
I certainly came to the same conclusion that if we wanted to immediately transition everything over to Green energy that you would need a lot fewer people on earth, but mu -- the question is wrong.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
@sj_zero @abgreport
End subsidies, immigration, and unions.
The problem will solve itself. Slowly but eventually.
End subsidies, immigration, and unions.
The problem will solve itself. Slowly but eventually.
@sj_zero @abgreport
The other possibility is that petrochemical supplies fail.
Our world leaders are aiming to squelch the market but the third world is not playing along.
The other possibility is that petrochemical supplies fail.
Our world leaders are aiming to squelch the market but the third world is not playing along.
I think that it's inevitable that that will happen, it's just a matter of when and how.
What's going to end up happening is prices will continue to slowly rise and previously uneconomical sources of oil will become economical, leading to much higher prices for oil but not an immediately reduced supply.
One thing that I think the market distortions we're seeing are going to cause is a premature lack of supply because nobody is investing in those critical future supplies. We are likely going to end up having to have some kind of big crisis and that will be the impetus to restore investment, and the oil companies are going to make money absolutely hand over fist for a while.
What's going to end up happening is prices will continue to slowly rise and previously uneconomical sources of oil will become economical, leading to much higher prices for oil but not an immediately reduced supply.
One thing that I think the market distortions we're seeing are going to cause is a premature lack of supply because nobody is investing in those critical future supplies. We are likely going to end up having to have some kind of big crisis and that will be the impetus to restore investment, and the oil companies are going to make money absolutely hand over fist for a while.
@sj_zero @abgreport
All I can add to this is that I think we are coming to a decision point.
Everyone over 120 IQ points realizes that "something is off."
All I can add to this is that I think we are coming to a decision point.
Everyone over 120 IQ points realizes that "something is off."