My series on the topic of climate alarmism now has a third chapter, again published by Reaction, this time taking aim at the sacraments at the heart of the climate alarmists’ religion:
It is an article of faith for the IPCC that reducing CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions can somehow effect a reversal of recent climate changes. This is a sacrament upon which rests the whole Net Zero edifice. Sub-sacraments are threefold. Firstly, CO2 emissions have gone up materially over the last few hundred years. Secondly, this is primarily due to human activity since the industrial revolution. Thirdly, there is a direct causal link that these emissions have created most – if not all – global warming/boiling/climate change. These all have to be true to justify the breakneck pace of decarbonisation efforts.
The last line had an addendum that didn’t survive Reaction’s sub-editorial review process. Here is the original:
The above sub-sacraments all have to be true to justify the breakneck pace of decarbonisation efforts, otherwise Net Zero policies – as per the current trajectory – represent extreme Lysenkoism such that the Four Pests campaign of the Great Leap Forward might be considered a mere bureaucratic whoopsie (albeit one that contributed to the deadliest famine ever and is considered one of the greatest man-made disasters in human history).
And this is why tackling the Net Zero house of cards is of such importance. We are currently careering headlong into an unscientific & totally irrational Greater Leap Forward, that of Decarbonisation & Net Zero.
This Greater Leap Forward is based on fervant religious belief. I’m not the first to characterise the climate catastrophists this way - Brendan O’Neill brutally skewers the cultists in his recent book, pointing out that religious witch hunts against those causing climate change are nothing new:
In 1590, in Scotland, an elderly woman named Agnes Sampson was arrested. She was from East Lothian. Earlier in her life she had been a midwife and a healer, but lately she had been living in poverty. She was tried, found guilty and taken to Edinburgh Castle where, on 28 January 1591, she was strangled to death by rope and then burnt at the stake. Her offence? Climate change.
Sampson was charged with stirring up ‘contrary winds’, among other things. Her persecution stemmed from the troubles of King James VI whose attempts to bring his new wife, Anne of Denmark, to Scotland were continually thwarted by hellish weather. ‘Unusual’ winds capsized ships of the royal fleets. Twice did Anne’s ship have to dock in Norway due to the ‘fierce storms’. James, inspired by reports from Denmark of witches being burnt for their supposed part in the frustration of Anne’s journey, became convinced of a witches’ plot in Scotland, too. He pushed the idea of ‘weather magic’, where witches use their demonic power to cause ‘unusual’ storms, hails and fogs to descend on Earth.
It is said that it takes a leap of faith to believe. What is said less often - but is inferred by that statement - is that believers are often less than open to inconvenient facts and observations that undermine their faith.
And scientific observations are not playing the Net Zero ball. So heretics need to be silenced such that this 21st Century Greater Leap Forward can proceed. Decarbonisation is a sacrament for these people. This is a double-edged sword, however: without it, the whole Net Zero house of cards falls apart, and is therefore an Achilles Heel for the Climate Catastrophists.
Belief in this Carbon (and CO2) Demonisation Religion is strong, but this is because the masses have been exposed to nauseating propaganda, coerced and nudged into taking this leap of (greater) faith, not because there is clear-cut evidence that supports it. (Incidentally, people have abdicated their responsibility to think for themselves - those that claim the “authorities must know what they are doing” need to study their history, and even in the absence of corruption and cronyism, collective delusion can last for decades).
The rest of my article goes into more detail, highlighting the delusionary collective pickle that the Climate Catastrophists have contorted themselves into (for example, killing whales is good because they emit CO2… eco loons promoting whaling was not something I expected to see on my clown world bingo card - after all, the natural progression of this warped logic is pretty sinister).
Why do they do this? Their worldview is completely at odds with rational thought, resulting in such odd behaviours. It is therefore not that surprising that they triage their cognitive dissonance by attempting to rewrite history, e.g. banishing the Medieval Warm Period and the Climatic Optimum - and downplaying the Little Ice Age - to create a flat springboard from which to craft a hockeystick temperature uptick that they can squarely blame on humans. Then of course we get to the numerous data adjustments as outlined in my article. But there are many, many more weird and whacky stories to unpack, e.g. this recent ‘not statistically significant’ (ho ho) adjustment to historic monthly temperatures:
(see also further discussion on this matter).
I hope my latest article is a useful tool for those that wish to reason with friends and family who might have already completed a Greater Leap Forward across the chasm of rationality to a (flawed) position of faith, without perhaps having fully considered the implications.
Our current de facto accelerated Net Zero trajectory is going to be a bumpy ride. More worryingly, it seems that its proponents do not really want to discuss whether the sacrifice is worth it. Can we discuss whether it is just an almighty boondoggle? It may be worse. It could be a set of policies that will destroy society as we know it, and make our children’s futures incalculably worse.
We owe it to future generations to pause the current madcap pace of change and engage in an adult conversation to win over the rank and file. There are very, very good reasons to invest in sustainable and non-polluting clean energy, but as pointed out by sensible centrist commentators, there is no need for coercion.
Let’s remember, CO2, the IPCC’s sworn enemy, is a life-giving substance that is present in trace quantities in the atmosphere and is contributing to the greening of our planet. It would be an unmitigated disaster if we back the wrong horse(s) by rushing to enforce a flawed doctrine derived from a mistaken demonisation of carbon dioxide.
PS. The Reaction article has been picked up by various commentators, e.g. Net Zero Watch and Robin Monotti.
PPS. Another casualty of the Reaction sub-editorial review process was a link to the longer term indicators that CO2 is a lagging indicator of global temperatures. The linked article is by Chris Morrison who is doing excellent work for the Daily Sceptic as their recently appointed Environment Editor.