The West v The Rest Reposted
July 7, 2020
By Paul Homewood
For those who were unable to access Robin Guenier’s essay, I have downloaded it as a PDF on the link below:
15 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Phoenix44 on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Phoenix44 on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Chaswarnertoo on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Phoenix44 on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Chaswarnertoo on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Phoenix44 on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Mike on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Phoenix44 on Electric Van Sales In Dec… Phoenix44 on Electric Van Sales In Dec… pardonmeforbreathing on The UK government’s clim…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I read this the first time but didn’t comment. Surely this can come as no surprise to anybody who has half a brain. The priority of any community, unless it is a hippy type, is to progress out of poverty and you don’t do that by shackling your economy to some virtue signalling ideal. They might talk the talk but won’t walk the walk.
He charts the progress of the stupid Climate conference idiocy – the blind leading the blind. Where he is wrong is in his statement in the conclusion –
“Yet this key issue is largely overlooked in the West –by left and right, by ‘denier’, sceptic, ‘lukewarmer’ and ‘alarmist’, by the mainstream media, most scientific papers, most blogs,…”
It is not overlooked by ‘denier’ and sceptic. We have been trumpeting the ignorance of these agreements for decades. and as for blogs, this one (and GWPF, JoNova, Tony Heller, etc) have been pointing out the ongoing stupidity for years as well.
Robin needs to read more science blogs and not just leftie media twaddle. He still doesnt get the point – the objective of the Conferences is anti-science, inhumane idiocy! Shut them down!
I suggest you read my article more carefully. The key issue I say is overlooked is that Western scientists’ calls for urgent and substantial emission cuts can only happen if the rest of the world changes its climate policies – and that’s most unlikely to happen. That’s the point largely overlooked even by ‘deniers’ and sceptics. Whether or not climate conferences and agreements are ‘ignorant’ is a totally different issue. BTW I think this site is a clear exception to my general point – indeed I get a lot of valuable material from here.
Any chance of getting Mr Cummings to read this? He is having to do the thinking and strategy for two.
Interesting survey of the why’s and wherefore’s of international climate agreements and why they’re not likely to work. One thing I wondered was if the bifurcation of developed (i.e., the west) and developing nations, (i.e., the G77) has led to a natural transfer of industrial emissions and production from developed to developing nations because industry managers foresee the consequence of a shifting policy environment.
This shift has been good economically for the G77, but has created a precarious dependence of the west on developed nations. It’s good that the US has attained energy security through fracking and shale oil, but they have lost pharmaceutical security as they’ve lately realized that essential drug precursors are manufactured by G77 nations who may or may not decide to withhold for political reasons.
GWPF on hydrogen, largely ignores nuclear though – certainly from the small modular angle, so questions remain?
https://www.thegwpf.com/europes-green-hydrogen-hype-is-likely-to-flop/
The ‘caring’ side of Western culture, including WHO, churches, charities, even government ministers believe that if they nag the ‘evil’ side of society long enough, we will solve the problems. They believe that if the West throws enough cash at problems then we’ll eventually solve everything. And to a certain extent they’re right. We have made great strides into eradicating disease. Life expectancy is rising is almost every country. Farming is feeding more people. Consumerism is raising many people out of poverty.
So they think that the same thing will happen with CO2. They think we’ll invent magic machines that won’t emit CO2 and will be reliable and prolific and cheap and non polluting and safe. They have no concept of this not happening.
The effects of covid-19 might be interesting. The West is pretty cross with China. I hope that they will have had enough of China claiming dispensations because it is still developing. It was only Communism that held it back and that certainly wasn’t our fault. People and governments will have had a taste of a very low CO2 lifestyle and hopefully see how ineffective it was in cutting CO2. There is no lower CO2 travel than just a 1hr walk a day and very limited shopping trips for essentials.
I’ll add that the white, western public is getting very annoyed at the ‘every bad thing is all your fault’ concept. It was part of what caused Brexit. We are fed up with boozed up officials signing our country away in foreign conferences to make them feel good about themselves. We are increasingly angry at famous, wealthy, jet setting lefties sneering at us for doing a fraction of the bad stuff they do.
They may be angry but they’re not doing anything about it. And, in the meantime, the elite (also white and Western) are talking of ‘treasonous betrayal‘ and sending threatening (‘respond by Friday 17 July‘ or else) letters like this to our semi-woke so-called leaders: https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/New-Deal-for-Polluters-FINAL-AS-SENT.pdf. Even if the IPCC’s warning about ‘the dire consequences for humanity of failing to limit warming to 1.5 ̊C – for our health, for our economy and for our lives‘ is accurate, there’s nothing we can do about it: most of the world (the source of 75% of emissions) isn’t concerned or has other priorities. For the UK (the source of less than 1%) to pointlessly wreck its economy in pursuit of ‘net zero carbon’ is absurd.
Incidentally Article 2(1)(a) of the Paris Agreement does not commit the UK (or any country) ‘to limit global warming to 1.5 ̊C and well below 2 ̊C‘.
The majority don’t know what to do. The majority are only vaguely aware of the issues. The bulk of MPs are in much the same boat and hand their decision making powers to the ‘experts’. Brexit was a start because until we properly leave, we’re tied to the EU’s virtue signalling as well as our own. A shake up of the Civil Service is important. They’re wedded to wasting money. The removal of the BBC would help. They’re the vitue signallers in chief. Education needs to be taken out of the hands of teachers. Something that lockdown might spur. Most teaching modules should be cbt based and not left to some twit who got such low A levels that only teaching could give the a good salary.
My biggest concern is the young. They’re woke, cancel culture idiots. They neither know, nor care where their pampered lives come from. When they fall short in what they think they’re entitled they don’t blame other countries’ competing, they blame Baby Boomers. Without a concerted effort to educate them, the situation won’t improve.
I’m sure your concerns are valid. But have you got any ideas about how they might be remedied?
I’ll start a new comment to reply.
The climate problem is mixed up with woke leftism but it has two fundamental problems of its own.
1) It is still warming? How much, is it dangerous, what’s causing it etc are hard to answer but most people are cerebrally nervous of it but practically (as in what they do) indifferent. The climate needs to give another strong signal before scepticm will spread. Cooling would be good but another long pause would help. But those take time.
2) What do we do about CO2? This has more scope for sceptics to influence. Even some environmentalists are coming round to nuclear. Renewables are a white elephant but when did a government never spend money on rubbish because it was a fad?
Brexit and covid-19 should concentate minds but sometimes I despair that we’ll ever learn the lesson that we can’t afford white man’s guilt. I suspect that this will hit the millennials very hard. Their media studies degrees and work shy nature will see the kinds of middle management jobs they expected dry up. Companies may be pandering to woke issues now but will quietly drop it as a sales feature. We will be too strapped for cash to obsess about minor worries. Maybe.
Unfortunately discussing ‘the science’ is beside the point in the political arena…
Exploiting Calamities And Climate To Push Socialism
07/09/2020
It was a very transparent plan: convince the public that life—giving carbon dioxide is a danger to humanity and that, were the Earth to be a few degrees warmer, disaster would necessarily follow.
In my town we have been the recipients of the attempts to conflate Covid -19 and climate change I have recently been notified by a neighbour of proposed dramatic changes to the town centre `ostensibly in response to Covid-19. They have not been put out for full public consultation and consist of immediate pedestrianisation, or one-way pavements, encouragements to cycle in town, street closures extra traffic wardens ( as a friend suggest – probably with whips) to and some parking removal There are no sensible proposals for any alternative parking. The movement is being fostered by the money on offer to the local council from the single-issue unelected pressure group SUSTRANs who declare themselves as follows:
“SUSTRANS Scotland successfully influences policy development to ensure that more people have the choice to walk, cycle or take public transport for more of their everyday journeys. We work closely with the Scottish Government, Local Authorities, government agencies and politicians in order to achieve this aim …………….In order to respond fully to the climate crisis, we need to reduce our dependency on cars altogether”.
It is evident that these proposals have very little to with Covid 19 but are the result of the SUSTRANS group’s climate change and “sustainability” concerns. During the epidemic travel by car has obviously been a much safer way of getting between two points. The recorded cases are now in decline here and in many other places. The whole local populace have not been asked for their opinion, why should we accept these decisions being imposed on us?