After Switzerland dropped its negotiations with the EU, the country has now rejected a climate-protection law in a referendum. Concretely, they rejected all three parts of the law in separate votes: on CO2, on pesticides, and on drinking water.
We agree with the Swiss journalist Mathieu von Rohr that this failure is not merely important in its own right, but symptomatic for the difficulties facing Green politics in general. It is one thing for people to pretend they support the Green party, especially when it is cool to do so. It is quite another to make actual sacrifices as the Swiss were asked to do. But what is particularly interesting about this referendum is that the strongest opposition came from young people. 60-70% of the 18-34 year old voted No in the three categories.
Each country is different, but the big yet unanswered question is whether people elsewhere would agree to make personal sacrifices for the greater good. The Swiss referendum tells us we should not take this for granted. The German elections will be the next big test.
A referendum saw voters narrowly reject the government's plans for a car fuel levy and a tax on air tickets.
The measures were designed to help Switzerland meet targets under the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Opponents also pointed out that Switzerland is responsible for only 0.1% of global emissions, and expressed doubts that such policies would help the environment.
The vote, under Switzerland's system of direct democracy, went 51% against, 49% in favour.
The no-vote to limiting emissions is a huge shock. The Swiss government drafted this law carefully. The plan: to cut greenhouse gases to half their 1990 levels by 2030, using a combination of more renewables and taxes on fossil fuels.
A proposal to outlaw artificial pesticides, and another to improve drinking water by giving subsidies only to farmers who eschew chemicals were both voted down by 61%
Switzerland's system of direct democracy means all major decisions in the Alpine nation are taken at the ballot box.
Campaigners simply have to gather 100,000 signatures to ensure a nationwide vote.
There will be no progress on CO2 emissions until China is on board.
If the US cut its emissions to zero (assuming everything else stayed the same) it would not make much of a dent.
Of course, everything else would not stay the same. If the US cut emissions to zero, the world economy would crash along with food production with obvious ramifications.
Heat Wave
Meanwhile there is a heat wave in the US, accompanied with notable howls as if the US could have done something 10 or even 20 years ago.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas said in a statement Monday that a significant number of unexpected power plant outages, combined with expected record use of electricity due to hot weather, has resulted in tight grid conditions. Approximately 12,000 megawatts of generation were offline Monday, or enough to power 2.4 million homes on a hot summer day.
Because Big Wind and Big Solar Got $22 Billion in Subsidies
For every dollar spent by the wind and solar sectors in Texas, they got roughly 33 cents from taxpayers. By any measure, this is an outrageous level of subsidization. And Texans are learning that the tens of billions of dollars spent on wind and solar are not translating into reliable electricity.
On the graphic below, which I retrieved from ERCOT’s website on Wednesday, the black line shows electricity demand. The green line is wind output. On Monday, when demand was hitting 70,000 megawatts, wind output dropped to about 3,000 megawatts. On Tuesday, as power demand was again approaching 70,000 me
That's true, but the length of time which separates the periods where there was ice at the poles from the periods where there wasn't is typically on the order of tens of millions of years:
It's worth keeping in mind with graphs like that is that the recent history is very precise and granular, whereas the past is somewhat imprecise and broad strokes.
If there were big fluctuations we wouldn't know because we weren't there to measure the temperature every day in numerous locations.
--
I generally understand the world through seeing what lies there are. What is being censored? What is being covered up?
In the Netherlands we changed some of the locations where we measure the temperature. And because the readings there are different, they readjusted the readings from 50 years of history based on the difference between these locations of 1 year. So no most of the historic readings are modified by an almost arbitrary constonant.
As a result we've gone from historically having 6 to 43 heatwaves. Suddenly it looks like the earth is warming alarmingly. And the researcher who tried pointing the error of this... need I even say what happened?
I’m going to agree with @Fanatical Pragmatist that there are lots of other environmental issues in the world that are being sidelined or outright memory-holed because of the climate change grift. Freeman Dyson, a very successful scientist (also inventor of the Dyson Sphere in science fiction) who I had the pleasure of meeting, infamously said this exact thing back in the early 2000s. Nature can adapt and adjust to changing atmospheric carbon better than most other pollutants (heavy metals and mining runoff come to mind for me).
Also going to second @Rusty Crab about trusting science but not scientists. Being educated and employed in that field showed that everyone involved is just as human and prone to manipulation and agenda-pushing as any other field (although STEM folk seem to have bigger egos, probably from decade+ worship by normies/IFLS crowd — not as bad as politicians, but there is a lot of overlap now). The above location changes where temperature is measured mentioned by @Lemmingwise is all too common in scientific research these days.
I'm just going to drop a recommendation for the Suspicious0bservers youtube channel as I always do in these threads and leave it there. Why waste time on an autistic internet argument when other people have already made the same point but way better than I can?
Eh, it was "A New Ice Age" when I was a teenager. Then it was "Well, nuclear winter gonna kill us all." the first turned out to be false. The second turned out to be a lie. Sagan and his peers deliberately manipulated data to make a worst-case scenario pitch about nuclear winter. I don't want to say "A nuclear war would have been wonderful," obviously it would have been unimaginably awful but Sagan did it to push a unilateral disarmament agenda that would've left the west defenseless. MAD only works when the "M" part is in place. I mean, did the people who made that up think that if everyone in the west had thrown all their nukes into the sea that the Soviets would have, too?
Anyway, moving right along...then there's Global Warming. That's what it was in the 90s. Global Warming! I remember sitting on the freeway, listening to either Hannity or Limbaugh play a recording from some guy who'd said in like...1995? or so that by 2000 there'd be no glaciers on Everest. Well...there they still are. So they switched from "Global Warming" to "climate change". Yeah the fucking climate changes, it's called "weather". Did you notice how fast the leaked "climategate" emails got buried? Until the people responsible for telling lies, lies that were exposed in those emails, can explain why they lied, what they stood to gain from lying and fearmongering, I flat out refuse to change one iota of what I do or how I do it. They fucking lied in those emails and said "Boy howdy if it ever gets out that we're manipulating data, people are gonna want to lynch us!" I guess they didn't count on such a compliant media. The whole thing is about control, anyway. Live in your pod, eat the bugs, own nothing, do as we say, it's to save the Earth, you dummy! That's been their marching tune all along. It's just about control.
The planet will live on without us no matter what we do, but that doesn't mean we will. Lot of problems come from global rises in temperature. It effects migration patterns for animals, causes extreme weather conditions, causes shifts in local biomes and damages undersea life especially. Coral bleaching is an extremely, alarmingly common problem now, that and micro plastics in the oceans.
Climate change is a major problem and is very dangerous. The idiots have made a lot of people believe it isn't through their retarded behavior.
That was one of the things that I liked from that book I mentinoed earlier this thread "State of Fear". People love to say shit like "we're destroying the planet" when that couldn't be further from the truth. With all our destructive capabilites we coudn't even destroy the planet if we wanted to.
We're just making it more inhospitable to ourslves. I know that can seem like a petty difference, but it really speaks to how full of ourselves we are.
I'm of the opinion that we're headed towards a Great Mortality event of the same caliber as the Black Death. I don't see humanity going extinct. We're the greatest, sturdiest, most adaptable plague this planet has ever bred. The planet will be fine in the grand scheme of things. Mass extinctions have happened before and they'll happen again. But mass mortality, resource scarcity and general societal unrest are on the horizon without a doubt.
Let's combine the wedge issues all into one so we can just skip to identifying your team already and then disregard. Climate Change + abortion + troonery + marxism! If you're in for one you're in for all, might as well cut to the chase.
Team globalist or team racist, choose wisely. The winners will likely slaughter all of the other team before turning on their own.
I think it was Marcel Crok, I'll see if I can confirm it and am not mixing up people.
Edit: yep it's marcel crok. Looks like I what I was saying is a little out of date (2 years). It was accurate, but since there have been further scandals vindicating him.
The actual worst effects predicted by the alarmists are nothing. Far from the worst climactic shifts in the history of the planet, far from the worst climactic shift protohumans and prehistoric peoples endured. There are cave paintings in the middle of the Sahara depicting it as a lush paradise with lots of plants and animals, there are human settlements now 50m under the sea.
There was actually a theory called the Sahara Pump Theory that this was caused by 26,000 Year Precession Cycle where Earth's Axis goes in the opposite direction thus Summer months would be Winter months at the other end of the precession cycle which could explain why the Sahara Desert was a lush paradise some 10,000 years ago but that seems to coincide with the end of the Ice Age around the same time.
Climate change is real. The climate is changing around the globe due to human-made carbon emissions. I'll give them that.
However, much of the climate change hysteria is allowed to exist because the green takeover of technology will make many people billionaires, and turn some billionaires into trillionaires. That's why they push it; that's why American media points to wild fires in the west and says, "this is because of climate change, forest management couldn't have ever mitigated this," even though the data shows otherwise.
There are some people in America who were so into the environmentalist cause that they dedicate their whole life to it. That's how all or nothing and unwavering they are to the climate change cause.
The thing is, they're all hypocrites. Almost all environmentalists (or people who care about climate change at all) demonize trucks, diesel vehicles and SUVs. Meanwhile, most of them conveniently ignore the environmental impact of having a dog. The carbon emissions of a dog for half a year exceeds the carbon emissions of an SUV for the entire lifetime of the vehicle. Some environmentalist hikers will have four large dogs with them on the trails. Six months of that lifestyle is like driving an SUV every day for 80 years.
These people with dogs who you see on hikes, they likely want you to make major sacrifices for climate change. They think you should ride your bike to work, never fly on a plane, take cold showers for 45 seconds a day, and so on. But they'll never make major sacrifices themselves (like getting rid of their dogs, or raising awareness about their impact). Instead, they completely contradict themselves.
Meanwhile, many people who are financially comfortable will invest in green technologies, and rely on governments like the EU to pass laws to force companies to go green (all electric vehicles manufactured after a certain year, for example). It's the only reason people are pushing it, because they know they can get rich.
Tin foil hat for moment: I see the rise of climate change concern coinciding with the rise of atheism as being the norm or orthodoxy in America and Europe. Many religions have ideas in them that resources available to you should be used. Maybe it's just a total coincidence, but I've found that most all climate change spergs are also unflinching atheists who will tell people how wrong they are to believe in anything.
I also feel like climate change concern is our child-like way of thinking coming through. When I was a kid, I would ask my parents where the garbage would go, and they would explain it would go somewhere else, with more garbage. As a kid, this scared me a lot because I thought the garbage place would overtake the whole world, we would be trapped in our houses because there would be so much garbage blocking every step. Like a world where every square foot is covered in trash; that's what I imagined. But that's not realistic.
But when you're an autistic child like Greta, you can stick with that way of thinking. You can think that American SUVs are robbing you of your childhood. Adults will even go along with it.
I hate how their rhetoric is, "we're destroying the planet!" No, we're just making it more inhospitable for our own species, which is different. It's like how a state will pass laws against trans athletes competing against girls and people who oppose it will say, "this takes away their right to exist!" Something tells me they'll still have a right to exist. It's so dramatic and emotionally manipulative.
My general opinion on this is that at this point, it's basically impossible to form a well-reasoned opinion, because what might be incompetence to some, is seen as malicious to others. I remember in my childhood the primary worry was that we were going to run out of fossil fuels, and that's why we had to preserve them, since then it's become Climate Change.
Generally, I feel that most of the measures taken to address climate change are worth taking anyway, at that level I see no reason to oppose most of them, but in addition, some of the ideas are patently retarded. While I feel that burning petrochemicals is dumb, given how absolutely vital they are to so many other processes, trying to force everyone into electric vehicles is poorly thought out, and seems like it'll come with it's own set of issues. I feel governments would be better off investing in solid public transport, reducing car traffic in cities, moving truck carried freight to trains where practicable, as well as investing into manufacturing methods where waste products from one factory are used for processes in another.
Regardless, the approach to this seems stupid. Rather than demonising those who are skeptical of climate change (not entirely unreasonable given the amount of weird fuckery that goes on, and it's use politically to shove policy through), you'd think governments would try to appeal to just generally making the world less shit.
I am of the opinion when push comes to shove where the push is an actual threat to the survival of the human species, human ingenuity will take over and either triumph or fail miserably.
