As I said in my previous post, my reaction to the scaremongering surrounding climate change (or “climate disruption” as Obama’s science advisor John Holdren would now like us to call it) was based very largely on an instinctive feeling that I’d seen it all before. It hadn’t turned out to be right then so why, I argued, should it turn out to be right now?
As the days pass my point of view appears increasingly to be justified.
While we must continue to repeat the mantra “climate is not the same as weather”, evidence that the recent year 30-year trend of increased temperatures has ended (as did a virtually identical trend between 1910 and 1940 and on several measurable occasions prior to that — mostly of approximately 30 year duration) looks likely to be confirmed to an extent during the coming five months when the clever money (which is to say those who do not pay attention to the ramblings from the UK Met Office) is on another winter comparable to last year.
As they beat a disorganised retreat over the gathering snowdrifts, the warmists will continue to claim that a series of cold winters does not negate their claims of an ever-warming world and that their figures continue to show that this year (whichever year we are talking about) had x of the warmest months on record and that it will turn out to be the nth warmest since the year y.
Or perhaps they won’t.
I also suggested that the cult of Global Warming would morph seamlessly into the cult of Global Cooling and in this prophecy I was, I confess, mistaken. I had forgotten that the scientific alarmist community had already tried to scare us all to death with the Coming Ice Age scenario and that there will still enough of us alive to remember what a farce that turned out to be.
What is needed, as someone pointed out the other day, is some way for the Manns, Joneses and Hansons either to save face or to disappear gracefully while the gullible politicians and other useful idiots are distracted by the new scam.
Remember always a few simple facts about any effective scare.
1. There must always be enough plausibility to ensnare the hard of thinking — the Stands to Reason factor;
2. Ideally it must, at first sight at least, be reasonable enough to attract those of an altruistic bent — which, let’s be fair, is most of us for at least some of the time;
3. For these reasons the most effective scare will always have something to do with the future of Earth, or “the planet” as the Greenies always choose to call it, since a) it is easy to convince people that their future is involved, b) it is equally easy to convince people that anyone who opposes whatever is the current scam is obviously in the pay of “Big Something-or-Other”; c) organisations such as Greenpeace or WWF or the Club of Rome or the Grantham Institute have access to a level of funds which outstrip the GDP of half the countries in the UN so they can always shout louder than the voices of common sense.
4. Note the twist. The eco-fascists are past-masters of the art of using their massive financial clout to pour out propaganda decrying anyone who dares to disagree with them as being in the pay of “Big Something-or-Other”. Neat, eh? Remember …
5. … the Scaremongering Community learned its trade from the post-WWII Oxford Street spivs. It is absolutely essential that you watch their hands at all times;
6. And finally, if it’s sponsored or started by the UN and has anything to do with “saving the planet” it’s a scam.
On that basis, ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Biodiversity.
Climate Change is not yet quite dead though its demise may be hastened by the US electorate a week on Tuesday if the Republicans regain control of one of the levers of power in Washington. But its child has already been born and if you doubt the pedigree just read the report.
“This year’s Global Biodiversity Outlook-3, prepared in close collaboration with UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre, points to ‘tipping points’ fast emerging – changes for example in freshwater systems that soon may be irreversible.”
“The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded that 60 per cent of the services provided by the world’s ecosystems that support human well being are now either degraded or heading that way.”
“Changes in biodiversity as a result of human activities were more rapid in the past 50 years that at any time in human history, it concludes.”
The report, the output of more than 1,300 scientists from more than 90 countries supported by UNEP, the Global Environment Facility and many other partners, underlined that rather than exercising the brake the world continues to choose the accelerator.
If the phraseology doesn’t sound familiar then you haven’t been listening. And pay particular attention to the numbers. Plucked from thin air they are both meaningless and highly meaningful!
More than half of the world’s ecosystems are “degraded” but there is no definition either of “ecosystem” or “degraded”. The use of that notorious phrase “tipping point” is intended to imply (but will never state in so many words) that the 60% figure is in some way significant.
As usual, mankind is to blame for “changes in biodiversity” with the implication that all these changes have been for the worse. And note that, inevitably, it’s this generation — we and our parents — that have done the damage and we will be required (you’d better believe it) to pay for this further insult to Gaia.
As for the last paragraph it could have been lifted almost word for word from the IPCC, the very organisation on which the new “Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)” will be based.
“The independent platform will in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing world-wide understanding and governmental action on global warming.”
As I said previously,
“Another reason for my devout cynicism [about global warming] … was that it appeared to be those self-same protagonists of the global cooling theory who were now expounding the global warming theory and that their recommended cure was in each case the same — namely that mankind was a blight on the face of the earth, that civilisation was destroying the planet, and that only by doing penance to Gaia could the race be redeemed.
This penance always involved, to a greater or less extent, ‘unpicking’ the Industrial Revolution and returning to a sort of ‘golden age’ …”