Inciting the madness of crowds with apocalyptic alarmism.
The anti-fossil fuel crusade as a crowd madness episode.
The core climate issue: The physics of CO2 (the CO2 warming influence declines logarithmically with increasing atmospheric levels. A doubling of CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm may contribute another degree or two C to further warming which would be net beneficial. May? Yes, because other natural factors consistently overwhelm the “bit player” role of CO2 in climate change, making most of the climate change that we are observing “natural variation”.
Absurdity (i.e. decarbonization) as government policy.
The true state of the world.
Russian financing of anti-fossil fuel activist groups.
Glen Greenwald on the “Neoliberal war on dissent”.
The death of dreams and a mother’s unsung heroism. And more…
Feeding hope with “true state of life” facts
Hope can be devastated by immediate events in life. Add here the fallacy of “Presentism”- i.e. the feeling that immediate events/situations appear to be the worst ever because we experience them firsthand and conclude that they express the overall truth of life.
Hope needs to be nourished with the facts of the big background picture and long-term trends that present the true overall trajectory of life, the true state of life. Today’s dominant ideology of Declinism (i.e. the belief that life and the world are getting worse), along with the pathology of apocalyptic now expressed in climate alarmism, are fallacies that distort entirely the true trajectory and the true state of life over the long term.
Marian Tupy of Humanprogress.org has reposted comments from his 2013/10/30 Reason article “Progress: Not inevitable, uneven, but indisputable”. Good points.
Human Progress: Not Inevitable, (but) Uneven, and Indisputable
Quotes by Tupy from Humanprogress.org…
“The “line” of progress is jagged, not smooth. Western Europe, for example, experienced tremendous economic, political, technological, scientific, and medical advances during the century that separated the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) and 1914, only to descend into the barbarism of World War I and World War II. Yet Europe rebounded, just as it did after the fall of Rome and the subsequent Dark Ages. There are, in other words, rational grounds for cautious optimism. But optimism should not be confused with inevitability. We could yet destroy our civilization through human action, such as nuclear war, or watch helplessly as an asteroid hurls through the sky and wipes out most of the life on Earth.
“When we wrote those words, we could not have imagined that Europe, the continent of my birth, would yet again be mired in a bloody war. The long-term decline in all types of violence – including homicide, genocide, and international conflict – is very real and has been part and parcel of moral progress. The savage invasion of Ukraine by the Russian military does not negate that long-term trend, but it is a reminder of the fragility of human accomplishment. With every fiber of my body, I still believe that the future of humanity will be ever better. But, as we also noted in Superabundance, it will never be perfect.
“Progress does not mean that we will ever reach a paradisiacal end state where everything will be optimal for everyone everywhere. New problems will arise, and they will have to be solved, however imperfectly, by future generations. As such, the world will never be a perfect place. After all, the beings who inhabit it are themselves imperfect. As the German philosopher and advocate of gradual human progress Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) observed in 1784, “From such crooked timber as humankind is made of nothing entirely straight can be made.”
“The Russian onslaught on a peaceful people confirms the crookedness of human nature, but our flaws do not negate our ability to create beauty, prosperity, and peace. As we watch the conflict in Ukraine unfold and spare a thought for all the other conflicts in the world today, let us remember the causes of progress – including reason, science, freedom, and humanism. Let us be grateful for what we have and recommit ourselves to the defense of the values and institutions that have made liberal societies the best places on Earth.”
Inciting the madness of crowds with apocalyptic alarmism, Wendell Krossa
Apocalyptic-scale alarmism has repeatedly incited madness in crowds, leading people to abandon the concerns of normal daily life. We shake our heads in cringing embarrassment at people, incited by apocalyptic alarm, who then irrationally abandon their livelihood, the fundamental elements of their prosperity- whether abandoning crops, or slaughtering their cattle, abandoning normal life to sit and wait for the end of the world (Richard Landes in his book on apocalyptic millennialism- Heaven On Earth- notes the example of the Xhosa cattle killing of 1856-7 in South Africa, and subsequent disastrous outcomes).
Repeatedly over past history, people have been alarmed by apocalyptic prophets that the day of judgment would soon arrive so what is the point of continuing with the concerns of normal daily life. We should prepare immediately for the imminent end by abandoning normal daily life.
I have observed this same abandonment of basic livelihood concerns to wait for the end to come in mountainous Philippine villages on Mindanao. Entire villages, panicked by someone’s prophesy of the looming end of the world (“pagagano” in local Manobo dialects), would leave crops unattended to rot in fields. The basic items of local wealth were also consumed as pigs and chickens were slaughtered. Eventually, as with all apocalyptic madness, there was the eventual disappointment and return to life, but with items of local prosperity now wiped out after the madness had subsided.
Today we are watching another apocalyptic madness movement in the worldwide decarbonization crusade that is rejecting the basis of modern prosperity and freedom- fossil fuels. Once again, people have been alarmed by the claim of apocalyptic prophets that the end of the world is nigh (“existential crisis… looming catastrophe… final tipping point… last chance… etc.”). The prophets claim that salvation is to be found in alternative energy sources that, to date, do not work to sustain economies and fuel human prosperity.
And we have the clear warning of the disastrous outcomes of abandoning fossil fuels in Europe and Britain- i.e. the ruinous rise in energy costs, fuel poverty among the most vulnerable (with rising death rates from cold), and dangerous dependency on totalitarian regimes for basic energy supplies. See Global Warming Policy Forum reports (i.e. Net Zero Watch).
The apocalyptic madness of today is sustained by endless exaggerated claims that normal extreme weather events (i.e. hot spells, floods, droughts) are all ill omens of impending catastrophe and the end of the world.
Now back to my previous comment on this madness issue… How are we any different today from those past episodes of apocalyptic crowd madness? Is “madness” too harsh a term to describe what is happening?
The anti-fossil fuel crusade as a crowd madness episode
It can only rationally be called mass insanity (i.e. “madness of crowds”). Contemporary climate apocalyptic is sustained by a narrative that is more based on mythological themes than on science and it has possessed the minds of many across the world. Note that climate apocalyptics endlessly prophesy the end of the world, usually setting dates a decade or so out in the future (2030ish has been set as the latest date for “the end of the world”).
The apocalyptic “abandonment of livelihood” factor? The “madness of crowds” element?
Many today, panicked by irrationally exaggerated climate apocalypse scenarios, have been rendered willing to precipitously jettison the fossil fuels that have enabled the amazing improvements to the human condition over the past two centuries and to embrace alternatives (i.e. solar/wind renewables) that are unreliable, expensive, and environmentally damaging. Add that the decarbonization crusade in the West has made us all vulnerable to totalitarian aggression as now distressingly evident in the Russian war on Ukraine.
This site repeatedly argues, based on the best climate physics available, that there is no sound reason to tax or abandon fossil fuels (see climate physicists below on the CO2 warming influence). Decarbonization is another eruption of crowd madness. Because there is no “climate crisis”. We have had only a mild 1 degree C of warming over the past century in an abnormally cold world where 10 times more people die from cold every year than die from warmth. All life would benefit from several more degrees of warming and from more atmospheric CO2- the basic food of all life that with rising levels has produced a massive greening of our planet (a 14% increase in green vegetation across Earth over just the past 40 years).
Note: (Following up on note below- turns out the polar super-warming report was another alarmist fraud: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/25/msm-scares-themselves-confuse-unprecedented-weather-model-temperature-spikes-with-actual-temperatures/)
Careful, careful. Watch media obsession with framing every weather anomaly as evidence to affirm the climate apocalypse narrative. Will this panic-mongering continue with the unexpected March 2022 warming in Antarctica? Place such weather anomalies in their full context. Our current warm period is still the coolest of our entire Holocene interglacial. We are on the tail end of a 6000-year cooling trend since the end of the Holocene Optimum of 10,000-6,000 years ago. Today’s extreme weather events do not necessarily tell us anything about long-term climate trends.
Note on the core climate issue:
We continue to get endless affirmations from politicians on all sides that, while the shift to renewables is too rushed, still yes, we must make the transition to renewables in the future. Why? There is no sound scientific reason to make the transition, so enough already with the ‘virtue-signalling’ to climate alarmism. First, give us a sound scientific reason to abandon fossil fuels. And by that I mean engage the best climate physicists- Lindzen, Wijngaarden, Happer- on the warming effect of CO2.
The warming effect of CO2 is the very core of the climate debate. The apocalyptic exaggeration of the influence of CO2 has been the basis for the alarmist demonization of CO2- the food of all life that has been at historical lows. Now with a slight recovery of atmospheric CO2 to 400-plus ppm, life is once again flourishing with a 14% increase in green vegetation across the world over just the past 40 years. And the mild 1 degree C warming over the past century has resulted in fewer deaths from cold in a world where 10 times more people die from cold every year than die from warmth. Again, we could use still more degrees of climate warming and all life would benefit.
Point? Turn the climate alarmism narrative on its head. Instead of fearing rising CO2 and warming climate, we ought to celebrate the increase in the basic food of all life and more warming that will enable all life to flourish just as it did during the much warmer Holocene Optimum, where climate was 1-3 degrees C warmer than today. That warmer world enabled agriculture to emerge and spread and that enabled the great early civilizations to flourish and grow.
Again, as someone asked in regard to opposing the Woke Progressive extremism of today- “Where is courage?”
Good comment on climate…
This from March 21, 2022 issue of Whatsupwiththat.com “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup” (note highlighted points below)
“Scope: This “The Week That Was” (TWTW) will conclude its discussion of the video presentation by William van Wijngaarden explaining his work with William Happer to the Irish Climate Science Foundation on the global temperature impacts of increasing water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane in the atmosphere. This work uses the high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database (HITRAN), which is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters, specifications, used to simulate and predict the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. In the 1860s, John Tyndall correctly recognized that certain atmospheric gases keep the land masses of the earth from going into a deep freeze at night, naming them greenhouse gases. Yet, modern climate scientists largely ignore his work, which was not precise, and the work of modern scientists studying the atmosphere.
“As van Wijngaarden presents, an important characteristic of these gases is that they quickly become saturated, meaning their effectiveness in absorbing, and emitting photons, electromagnetic energy in the infrared frequencies, is quickly diminished as their concentration increases. In the current atmosphere, the effectiveness of adding a few molecules of water vapor or carbon dioxide is diminished by over 1000 compared to adding them to an atmosphere that has not greenhouse gases. As a result, the long-term projections / predictions of impacts from increasing greenhouse gases favored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its climate modelers are scientifically meaningless and completely mislead the public. These projections / predictions can be considered to be tools of propaganda.
“TWTW will continue presenting the essays of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physicist Howard Hayden. Hayden looks at the overall results of the work of van Wijngaarden and Happer and compiled a series of essays using basic physics, all-inclusive physics, explaining the importance of their work and the limitations it places on global climate modeling. In ignoring what is occurring in the earth’s atmosphere, the climate modelers are creating an artificial world far different than the physical one, that may be best suited for their political aims.
“Also, TWTW will discuss the continued foolishness of the Biden Administration in addressing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which gave up its immense nuclear weapons on assurances by Russia and the US that its sovereignty will be protected. The administration “protections” are weak, at best. The entire Biden administration appears ignorant of what is occurring and can occur in its own backyard, and the Biden administration is destroying American prosperity and its credibility…
“Van Wijngaarden then goes into another significant contribution in understanding the physics of greenhouse gases – how the power per molecule of each greenhouse gas is reduced with additional concentrations of that gas. In Physics terms, this is called saturation. Van Wijngaarden gives a laymen’s definition:
“One can tell the difference between the 1st & 2nd coat of red paint on an old barn but not between the 10th and 11th coat.”…
“Then, van Wijngaarden becomes a bit more technical introducing a slide titled “Power per Molecule equals Forcing divided by Column Density.” He points out that both water vapor and carbon dioxide are strongly saturated in today’s atmosphere. Now, it requires the addition of over a thousand molecules of water vapor into the atmosphere to have the same greenhouse effect that would have occurred by adding one molecule to a hypothetical atmosphere with no water vapor.”
Countering the dominant apocalyptic narrative with fact-based hope, based on the true state of life (or- Challenging the Great Hollywood Lie of Apocalyptic) Wendell Krossa
The Hollywood story-telling industry (literature, TV, and film) continues to irresponsibly batter the public consciousness with endless apocalyptic-oriented movies/shows. There appears to be a mindless refusal to question the primitive narrative of apocalyptic or to recognize and warn people of its horrific consequences in human consciousness and life.
(Note: Arthur Mendel in ‘Vision and Violence’ stated that apocalyptic was “The most destructive idea in history”. It is part of the “cruel God” theory of most religions- i.e. God destroying “sinful” humanity with world-ending violence. Apocalyptic has now found expression in contemporary dominant ideologies like Declinism, where it continues to incite personality-deforming fear, guilt/shame, depression, and violence.).
Movies/TV represent much of humanity’s public story-telling in the modern era. Movie industry stories reflect the core themes in the worldviews of most people, whether religious or non-religious. One of the singularly dominant themes in narratives across history and still today is that of a looming catastrophic ending to life and the world (i.e. an apocalypse). The theme of apocalyptic continues to affirm most people’s belief that the world is getting worse and heading for some catastrophic ending (see YouGuv survey in Ten Global Trends).
An apocalyptic ending to life has long been the default conclusion in the worldviews of most people.
Apocalyptic mythology destroys hope in young people, leaving many afraid to grow up in a world that they believe is becoming worse and may soon end (Julian Simon- environmental alarmism has convinced many young people view that the world is a more and more frightening milieu to grow up in). Apocalyptic engenders fear, fatalism/resignation, guilt/shame (apocalypse as punishment for human sin- for messing up paradise), despair, depression, nihilism, and violence.
Apocalyptic is endlessly affirmed with exaggerated scenarios of varied natural events. For example, in today’s apocalyptic movement, historically normal “extreme weather events” are obsessively advocated as “the worst on record” and used to affirm the narrative of looming climate apocalypse. Add here that apocalyptic prophets endlessly set specific dates for the end of the world (2030 as the most recent date for the end). Panic-obsessed media propagandize the public with this nonsense day after day.
This nihilist narrative of decline toward disastrous ending misrepresents entirely the actual improving long-term trend of life on earth. The true state of life on earth is a very different reality as amassed data shows overall long-term improvement on all the main indicators of life. This true narrative encourages hope that human effort to make life better does succeed in improving the world.
And “the true state of life” (specifically with regard to climate) shows that the mild 1 degree C warming over the past century has been significantly beneficial in our cold world where 10 times more people die from cold every year than die from warmth. Also, more atmospheric CO2 has produced a greener planet (a 14% increase in green vegetation since 1980 due to more plant food in the atmosphere).
Data sources on the true state of life on Earth:
Julian Simon (Ultimate Resource), Greg Easterbrook (A Moment on the Earth), Bjorn Lomborg (Skeptical Environmentalist), Matt Ridley (Rational Optimist), Desrochers and Szurmak (Population Bombed), Indur Goklany (The Improving State of the World), Ronald Bailey (The End of Doom), Marian Tupy and Ronald Bailey (Ten Global Trends), Hans Rosling (Factfulness), and Humanprogress.org. On the long-term improvement in humanity- James Payne (History of Force), and Stephen Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature), among other sources.
Sources for updates on the Ukraine crisis: “Understandingwar.org” and “Criticalthreats.org”
Absurdity is now government policy
Get these numbers and points clearly in your head as to the real cost of renewables and recognize the absurdity of trying to go green and abandon fossil fuels at the present time. From “More Confirmation Of The Infeasibility Of A Fully Wind/Solar Storage Electricity System”, Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, March 21, 2022
Quotes from the link:
“… a further demonstration of the complete infeasibility — indeed the complete absurdity — of attempting in the short term to replace all fossil fuel electricity generation in a modern economy with only wind, solar and storage…
“… any serious consideration of the intermittency of wind and solar inevitably leads to the conclusion that without dispatchable backup (fossil fuel or nuclear) they require vast amounts of energy storage to cover the periods of intermittency. Understanding the amount of storage required, its physical characteristics, and its cost, is completely essential to answering the question of whether a fully wind/solar/storage system is feasible…
“In this post from November 2018, I reviewed work by Andrews dealing with actual wind and solar generation data from the two cases of California and Germany. Andrews concluded that due to seasonal patterns of wind and solar generation, either California or Germany would require approximately 30 full days of energy storage to back up a fully wind/solar generation system. Based on current costs of lithium-ion batteries, Andrews calculated that building sufficient wind and solar generation plus sufficient batteries would lead to a multiplication of the cost of electricity by approximately a factor of between 14 and 22. In this post from January 2022, I reviewed work by Gregory dealing with actual wind/solar generation for the case of the entire United States. Gregory considered how much storage would suffice as the sole back up where the U.S. had fully electrified all currently non-electrified sectors (e.g., transport, home heat, industry, agriculture), thus essentially tripling electricity demand from the current level. His conclusion was that the batteries alone would cost about $400 trillion — about 20 times the full GDP of the United States...
“The simple answer to all of this is that we must demand from our politicians a demonstration of feasibility of any replacement energy system before we embark on these multi-trillion fantasy building projects. Show us a fully wind/solar/battery or wind/solar/hydrogen system that works at reasonable cost for 5000 or 10,000 people over the course of a few years, before requiring entire countries of tens or hundreds of millions of people to be the guinea pigs.”
The best thing Schwarzenegger has ever done...
Maintaining our humanity in the midst of the worst of crises:
“When life produces what the intellect names evil, we may enter into righteous battle, contending from ‘loyalty of heart’: however, if the principle of love (Christ’s “love your enemies”) is lost, our humanity too will be lost. ‘Man’, in the words of the American novelist Hawthorne, ‘must not disclaim his brotherhood even with the guiltiest’”, Joseph Campbell, Myths to Live By (p.168).
The love that Campbell referred to- love of enemies- is not about feeling warm or fuzzy toward people committing atrocities against innocent populations. Outrage is the only humane response to such horrors. But despite the intensity of natural feelings, as Tolstoy argues below, we must maintain our own humanity in the worst situations that life throws at us by holding firmly to the intention to treat even our enemies humanely.
Leo Tolstoy, “The whole trouble lies in that people think there are conditions excluding the necessity of love in their intercourse with man, but such conditions do not exist. Things may be treated without love; one may chop wood, make bricks, forge iron without love but one can no more deal with people without love than one can handle bees without care… (and)… You can love a person dear to you with a human love, but an enemy can only be loved with divine love”.
Glen Greenwald adds to this point, noting below that in times when emotions are incited with anger, outrage, and intense tribal feelings, it is especially critical at such times for us to maintain our humanity by protecting the common freedoms and rights of all, notably to protect the freedom of speech by permitting contrary voices to speak and challenge the dominant narratives on critical issues of the day.
See Glen Greenwald’s “The Neoliberal War on Dissent in the West: Those who most flamboyantly proclaim that they are fighting fascists continue to embrace and wield the defining weapons of despotism”.
Others remind us that we maintain humanity by recognizing the difference between populations and their corrupt leaders- such as the thuggish governments that currently dominate Russia and China. Remember also that people will support such monsters because they have been lied to by those leaders- i.e. presented with false narratives that claim the leaders are acting in a righteous battle against evil to protect the citizens of the country, just as Putin is currently trying to frame his latest aggression in terms of this lie.
More on real monsters, real enemies, and real battles
We all face some monster in life that we are obligated to conquer (or succumb to as slaves), some righteous battle to fight. I affirm with Solzhenitsyn that the greatest monster and battle takes place inside each of us (“the battle line between good and evil runs down the center of every human heart”).
When life presents us with a righteous battle, and emotions become intensely and rightly outraged over the inhumanity of others, then it is most critical to maintain our humanity by remembering that even our enemy is still family and must be treated humanely (i.e. conquer the inner impulses to punitive retaliation, tribal exclusion, and destruction of the “enemy” other).
There is no situation (Tolstoy) where we should abandon our obligation to “love our enemies”.
Its no contradiction- we are responsible to stand courageously against evil, against bullies, to hold offenders responsible. But as the Chinese sage Laotzi cautioned- after conquering an enemy we must remember to then treat them humanely, just as the Allies did with Germany and Japan after WW2. We should not gloat triumphantly over the defeat of our enemies, but recognizing the “insanity of war”, then recommit ourselves once more to “never again”.
Go directly to the core issue in climate science- the role of CO2 in warming
Climate physicists Wijngaarden and Happer explain why more CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause a “climate crisis”.
“Van Wijngaarden and Happer are highly regarded experts in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physics which includes the study of how certain molecules absorb and emit electromagnetic radiation. Greenhouse gases transmit visible sunlight but absorb various infrared colors. Their work calculates transmission of infrared radiation through the atmosphere to outer space…
“Van Wijngaarden discusses his work with William Happer, explaining in a different way why there is no climate crisis and that adding CO2 and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere will not cause one…
“Forty-two years of comprehensive atmospheric temperature observations by satellites show that the atmosphere is warming slowly, not significantly, contradicting claims of alarming global warming by climate modelers.”
Conclusion from above evidence? There is no “climate crisis”. The addition of more CO2 to the atmosphere has been hugely beneficial to all life with a 14% increase in green vegetation across the world over the past 40 years. More CO2 will continue to benefit life. And the mild warming over the past century (1 degree C) has also been hugely beneficial to all life in a cold world where 10 times more people die from cold every year than die from warmth. More warming will continue to be beneficial to all life.
There is no sound scientific reason to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies.
In other research climate physicists Lindzen, Happer, and Wijngaarden have noted that the warming influence of CO2 declines logarithmically with increasing levels. This means, for example, that a doubling of CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm may contribute another degree or two C of further warming. But even that additional warming is doubtful because varied natural factors consistently overwhelm the CO2 warming effect, meaning it is uncertain whether any warming will continue or if we will experience global cooling in the future. And besides, several more degrees of warming would be net beneficial to all life in our abnormally cold world where, once again (hear me once, hear me twice) 10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warmth.
The true state of the world
Julian Simon believed the narrative of environmental alarmism (“doomsterism” in his words) and, consequently, states in his autobiography that he was a clinically depressed man. He then decided to check for himself the evidence on all the main indicators of life on Earth (i.e. notably soils, forests, land species, ocean fisheries, and more). He wanted to know the “true state of the world”. He surprised himself, discovering that while there were still problems everywhere, humanity was doing well in solving problems and the long-term trends on all the main indicators showed ongoing improvement toward a better future.
Simon concluded that we (i.e. humanity) were more creators than destroyers and we should hold a party to outdo all parties to celebrate how well we were doing in caring for Earth and its resources. The true state of the world was good and getting better. His “Ultimate Resource” is still one of the single best books you will ever read. It will transform your worldview to an evidence-based optimism about life on Earth.
Simon set forth the pattern of human response to apparent resource scarcities. A growing lack of availability of a given resource would lead to increased prices of that resource. That price increase set in motion further exploration for more reserves of that resource (helped by technological breakthroughs), or a shift to alternative resources. The end result was a return to lower prices of the resource and all benefitted. Note, for example, the increase in oil prices over a decade ago, the technological breakthrough with fracking, the consequent access to massive new fossil fuel resources, and following price reductions. Unfortunately, state interference to block fossil fuel development has now led to less access to fossil fuel resources in Western nations and resulting artificially-induced price increases. As Bill Clinton would say, “It’s the energy policy, stupid”.
The evidence that Simon marshalled from the best data sources available contradicted entirely the currently dominant ideology of Declinism that states “the world is becoming worse” (YouGov survey in “Ten Global Trends”, and Arthur Herman’s- “The Idea of Decline in Western History”). Declinism incites the survival fear in populations. It promotes desperation, fatalism, despair, and incites a retreat to tribal stinginess among people. It is an entirely false view of the actual state of the world, yet it still dominates public narratives today. Declinist believers endlessly promote the insanity of environmental apocalyptic scenarios that traumatize people with fear, and result in conflict among people over falsely-imagined “scarce” resources.
Simon’s evidence-based narrative affirms hope, and encourages a spirit of generosity, love, and cooperative sharing among people. There is superabundance in our world- more than enough for all to enjoy a good life. And it is the creative human mind- the Ultimate Resource- that unlocks the natural generosity of our world. A good update of Simon is Desrocher and Szurmak’s “Population Bombed”, among many other similar studies. See also Humanprogress.org for regular updates on Simon’s points.
Though Simon published his Ultimate Resource decades ago, and much of the data he used needs updating, his basic arguments are still highly valid today. Ultimate Resource is a life-changing book.
And this from Paul Driessen on the real Russian collusion…
“… ongoing propaganda efforts by Russian media groups to undermine American drilling, fracking, pipeline and agricultural programs…
“The Science Committee Report explains how the Russian government funnel money through surrogates to US environmentalist organizations to fund attacks on the fossil fuels industry. It also reveals how Russian operatives create and spread propaganda on US social media platforms, to manipulate American opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change…
“Before and after the 2016 elections, Russian agents also promoted protests to block pipeline construction and prevent oil and gas production projects, using Twitter and Facebook accounts created by the Russian government-linked Internet Research Agency, Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) noted.
“Russian operatives use similar tactics to undermine hydraulic fracturing and pipelines in Europe, which depends on Russia for a third of its natural gas. In fact, several countries get 100% of their gas from Putin-controlled companies, creating serious risks of high prices, transmission interruptions and blackmail…
“On the agriculture front, the Iowa State study found that Russian agents have orchestrated campaigns to disparage genetically engineered (GE) crops that American farmers utilize to produce more food, from less land, using less water and fewer pesticides, and with greater resistance to droughts, floods, insects and climate shifts, than is possible with conventional or organic farming. Precise modern GE technologies also created Golden Rice, which prevents malnutrition, blindness and death in Third World children…
“However, radical groups like Greenpeace are determined to eliminate every form of agricultural biotechnology. They are just as virulently opposed to pesticides and herbicides.
“Financed by organic and natural food companies – and by the Russia-Sea Change Laundromat – they are adept at devising and conducting their own anti-GE/GMO, anti-glyphosate, anti-pesticide and other campaigns. All are eagerly and uncritically covered by print, electronic and social media. But US activist groups and news outlets also parrot or expand on Russia’s RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik propaganda stories that likewise falsely portray these technologies as risky for people and planet…
“Why do they do all this? US fracking operations, oil and gas exports, miraculous agricultural output, and corn, wheat and other crop exports have hurt Russia’s income, economy, ruble and military. By supporting radical green groups, Russian agents impair US energy and agricultural exports, increase export opportunities for Russian companies, advance their nation’s economic and geopolitical ambitions, especially regarding Europe – and (they hope) make Russia stronger by making America weaker…
“All of this is illuminating and disturbing, but hardly surprising. It’s yet another example of greens and other leftists demanding ethics, responsibility, transparency and accountability – except for themselves.
“So if Mr. Mueller and Judge Ellis ultimately decide there actually are no limits to the scope of these “Russian collusion” investigations and interrogations, perhaps they can focus some of Mueller’s staff and seemingly bottomless budget on the HRC activities noted above; the suspicious funding and spending practices of the Clinton Foundation; and the ongoing transfer of countless millions of dollars from Russia through secretive laundering outfits to radical environmentalist groups that are deeply involved in US policy-making, pressure campaigns, shareholder actions, and political elections of every description.
“That investigation into Russian collusion would be an eye-opening service to America and the world.”
More on Russian financing of Western anti-fossil fuel groups
Challenging Putin’s claim that NATO was the reason for the invasion
Western timidity in the face of threat
Gingrich on Biden’s timid response to Russia
A good summary of the history of Ukraine in relation to Russia, and Putin’s reasons for invading…
My point on decarbonization is not just that its too rushed, and renewables are unreliable but, more fundamentally, I am arguing that decarbonization is based on ideologically distorted and hence false science regarding CO2 and its influence on climate.
I also reject the persistent exaggeration that climate change is becoming ever more dangerous and is to be feared as a looming apocalypse (i.e. the regular setting of end-of-days dates, with hysterical claims of “final tipping point… point of no return… end of the world… last chance… existential crisis…”, etc.).
Fundamental climate science evidence, showing a very different state of climate, has not been aired widely for the public to consider as media have consistently ignored, censored, and buried evidence contrary to their alarmist apocalyptic narrative.
An ongoing project: Expose the alarmist exaggeration of the CO2 influence on climate- then the entire alarmist narrative collapses. Wendell Krossa
The core issue in climate science is the science of CO2 and its warming effect. Most of the rest is just distracting noise.
Climate physicists state that the CO2 influence on climate is “miniscule” (see sources below) and even that small influence is overwhelmed by varied natural factors that have a much greater influence on climate, making the climate change that we have been observing over recent decades a “natural” thing (“natural variation”). The rational response, then, is to adapt to natural climate change because we cannot control climate by turning a fictitious CO2 knob (i.e. the irrational claim that by reducing human emissions we can “limit climate change to 1-2 degrees”).
Add that there is no evidence of looming “climate catastrophe”. Instead, rising CO2 in the atmosphere has been feeding plant life across the planet, resulting in a massive increase in green vegetation- a 14% worldwide increase over past 40 years. A very good thing. And the slight warming over the past century (1 degree C) is saving many human lives from the far greater threat of cold (10 times more people die every year from cold than die from warmth).
Further on the science of CO2 and the wider climate debate-
My point in this material is to challenge remaining public hesitancy to freely and fully embrace fossil fuels, a hesitancy that is largely due to the unproven, unscientific assumptions of alarmist narratives that have wrongly demonized CO2 and fossil fuels.
Climate alarmists have exaggerated the role of CO2 in climate warming and have grossly exaggerated the threat of more warming (i.e. falsely claiming there is a “climate crisis… catastrophe”). The exaggeration of warming threat is re-enforced by ridiculous claims that every summer heat wave is “the worst on record” when the record clearly shows the 1930s experienced the worst heat waves of the past century and a half (a time when human emissions could not be blamed).
The alarmist narrative on climate, and consequent decarbonization crusade, has been widely embraced by the political classes on both sides, by celebrity elites, by mainstream media, and social media companies. Consequent decarbonization and the growing dependency on unreliable renewables has weakened Western societies in the face of renewed totalitarian threat.
See the evidence below from climate physicists on the “miniscule” role that CO2 plays in climate change (Kenneth Richard’s “Nearly 140 scientific papers detail the miniscule effect CO2 has on Earth’s temperature”, and David Coe’s “Climate Change: an emergency, or not?”).
This evidence overturns the core claims of the climate alarmism crusade, showing, to the contrary, that fossil fuels are not mainly responsible for climate change and that climate change has not and is not becoming catastrophic in any manner (i.e. there is no “climate crisis”). This evidence nullifies the climate alarm narrative.
And to the contrary, more CO2 has resulted in a massive greening of the Earth- a 14% worldwide increase in green vegetation just over the period 1980-2020. That has meant more food for animals and increased crop production for humanity. Nonetheless, we are still far below the optimal levels of CO2 that were in the multiple-thousands of ppm for most of the past 500 million years. All life flourished during such times when basic plant food was at more optimal levels.
Further, the slight warming over the past century has resulted in a return to the more optimal warmth of the earlier part of our Holocene interglacial that enabled the emergence of agriculture and the great civilizations of that era, all flourished with temperatures 1-3 degrees C warmer than today (i.e. during the Holocene Optimum of 10-6,000 years ago). We need still further warming in our current cold era where 10 times more people still die from cold every year than die from warmth (see Lancet study below).
Why do politicians and media refuse to present all this contrary evidence that overturns the alarmist narrative?
Conclusion: There is no “settled scientific” reason to tax carbon or decarbonize our societies, as it has now become disastrously obvious that decarbonization has strengthened totalitarian regimes like Russia and weakened foreign energy-dependent Western nations.
It is time for waffling politicians to make this evidence public and to oppose unscientific, irrational, and harmful decarbonization policies of climate alarmism that are based on distortions and exaggerations of the role of CO2 in climate change.
Crowd madness all over again, and again…
Irrational climate apocalypse nonsense (yes, its more mythology/religion and not science), consequent Western energy policy (i.e. decarbonization), and opportunistic military aggression by totalitarians, are all tightly related features of recent history. The “madness of crowds” has not been once-and-for-all-time relegated to the “never again” bin of history.
The current world situation has worsened with Western growing energy-dependence due to intentional obstruction of fossil fuel production, consequent rising inflation harming the poorest people the most (and needlessly burdening most others), along with related Western weakness in the face of totalitarian aggression. In response, climate alarmists are stubbornly doubling down with the narrative that their apocalyptic vision of “climate crisis” still holds true against all mounting evidence to the contrary. They irrationally persist with the nonsense that unreliable renewables will be the salvation of the West.
What will it take to break the fever of crowd madness still possessing so many that have been alarmed by one of history’s craziest apocalyptic visions, and related decarbonization crusade?
Many are wondering when the politicians on both sides will stop kowtowing to the climate alarmism narrative with- “Yes, there is a climate crisis and yes we must do something”, meaning stop human emissions. Based on what science? Discuss publicly please, including all the evidence. The public deserve to know the full science of climate/CO2.
Qualifier or caveat for climate physicists
I appreciate very much the work of climate physicists- i.e. Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and others- trying to quantify the CO2 contribution to climate change/warming. Lindzen estimates CO2 may contribute another 1-2 degrees C more warming. The physicists summarized in “Nearly 140 Scientific Papers Detail The Miniscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature” estimate maybe 0.5-1.0 degrees C more warming. David Coe estimates CO2 may contribute 0.45 degree C more to further warming (“Climate Change, an emergency or not?”).
But even that estimated further contribution to warming must be qualified by the fact that other natural factors have been shown to repeatedly overwhelm even the “miniscule, bit player” contribution of CO2, meaning that what we have seen with climate change is mostly due to “natural variation”.
Add also the disconnect with CO2 levels over paleo-climate history and the lag factor, where CO2 rises after a warming trend has begun (as in Vostok ice core research where climate warmed first, then oceans warmed and outgassed CO2, which then resulted in CO2 rising in the atmosphere).
These are the stronger correlations of natural factors with climate change that overturn the climate alarm narrative that CO2 is “mainly responsible for climate change” and that climate change is becoming “catastrophic”.
These estimations above by climate physicists contradict the exaggerations of the discredited climate models that predicted 3-6 degrees C more warming over the decades that we are living through. Though I would argue that such warming would be net beneficial to all life and more in tune with the climate levels of most of past paleo-climate history when life thrived with far warmer temperatures and much higher levels of CO2 (multiple-thousands of ppm).
For one, more warmth does not necessarily mean that warm areas become hotter. More warmth is distributed by atmosphere and ocean convection currents to the colder regions of Earth (polar regions), to colder seasons (winter), and colder times of day (i.e. night time). So rather than Earth becoming overall hotter, it will become less cold in the currently cold areas and less cold in currently colder times of year.
This means extended habitats for plant and animal life and extended crop seasons for humanity. All net beneficial. Currently, the warmest areas of the world have the largest biological diversity, both of plant and animal/fish life. This biological diversity will expand in a warming world just as paleo-climate history shows tropical life forms existed in both polar regions in the much warmer past.
All to say- don’t fear climate change or global warming. As for those endless summer “hottest on record” claims re hot weather events- no. The hottest weather events in North America were during the 1930s, notably 1935.
This from Newsweek on a video of the Russian bombing of a maternity hospital. Zelensky, along with others, repeats calls for the West to stop backing down in the face of Russian threat and aggression…
“The video was posted to Twitter on Wednesday morning by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who called the bombing an “atrocity.” So far, it has amassed nearly 2 million views and over 80,000 likes.
“Direct strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital. People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity!” tweeted Zelensky. “How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror? Close the sky right now! Stop the killings! You have power but you seem to be losing humanity.”
“Ten minutes ago, Russian invaders launched an airstrike on a maternity hospital in Mariupol,” he tweeted. “Russians are bombing hospitals, houses, churches. Just send us jets to stop this madness! Give us AA weapons!”
“Dan Peleschuk, an editor for the Atlantic Council, tweeted: “We’ve known for years that Putin is a monster. But whoever pushed the button has a mother—maybe even a sister, or a wife and children. That’s its own kind of evil.”
“Journalist and TV personality Piers Morgan added: “This is so fucking disgusting. Putin’s a genocidal monster deliberately slaughtering women and babies. At what point do we stop watching him commit these sickening war crimes and do something to stop him? Our cowardly inaction is shameful & pathetic.”
From “Is there really a climate crisis?” by David Hammond, Ed. D
“The short answer to this question is no, since there is no official data that shows an increase in the frequency or intensity extreme weather events. Nor is there any empirical evidence to link CO2 emissions to increased temperatures, although CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and does cause a modest amount of warming in the atmosphere.”
See full report at…
Note: Thanks to Glen Greenwald for an excellent article (“The Neoliberal war on dissent”) cautioning us about the need to maintain freedom of speech in the midst of heated emotions during crisis times- i.e. when outrage against atrocity incites tribal impulses to censor any disagreement with dominant public narratives (i.e. the extremist stance of “You are either all for us or against us”). However, he then leaned into the “blame NATO expansion for scaring Putin” explanation for the Ukrainian war. No. There are larger issues of totalitarianism versus liberal democracy at play in all this. Sometimes struggles are just more right on one side, and more wrong on the other side.
Add to the Russian invasion the necessary caution to clearly distinguish between thug rulers and their misled populations, deceived by the pathological narratives of their authoritarian masters, narratives not subject to dissenting opinion due to state threat of punishment.
Related: There has been too much outrage against Russian sports figures, entertainers, and others for not coming out with more clear statements against Putin. These people, aside from being misled by lying rulers, may have family in Russia subject to threat, harassment, and worse, hence their caution about making strong public statements. Mercy, generosity of spirit and benefit of doubt, are critical to maintain at all times.
Standing back to consider the big picture, we remember that even our “enemies” are still our family, and deserve full restoration after these eruptions of madness end.
Ukrainian updates and comments: Wendell Krossa
One response to this Ukraine crisis blames the West for pushing Putin into a corner, for forcing him to make a defensive move by invading in order to maintain a buffer zone against Western “threat”. This “blame the West” view claims that the expansion of NATO eastward toward Russia rightly alarmed Putin, inciting him to make a defensive move.
This argument ignores the reality that autocracy has deep roots in Russian history. Tsar Nicholas crushed a fledgling democracy movement, and other Russian rulers have done the same subsequently (i.e. notably Lenin, Stalin, and others).
Remember that the Eastern European nations were divided up and given over to Russian domination after WW2 (Malta/Yalta conferences that gave Stalin “a Soviet sphere of influence”). It took decades before those populations were able to throw off the Russian totalitarian repression of the Cold War era. It was only natural and right that following their liberation those Eastern European nations should seek protection under NATO from any further Russian repression. The real threat was not from the West but from the East.
And note, for contrast, that NATO does not repress countries but encourages liberal democracy, sovereignty of independent nations, and self-determination. NATO troops do not repress the societies that they are defending in contrast to the Russian military repression of the publics under their “sphere of influence”. One indicator of repression- The endless attempts by people to escape those societies and the walls built around them to prevent escapes to freedom.
Putin, just like Russian rulers before him, now seeks to restore that totalitarian Russian repression (“Soviet sphere of influence”) over his neighbors. Along with Xi of China, Putin has expressed his vision of overturning the liberal democracy model of governance and reshaping the world with the repressive authoritarianism model of governance that currently dominates Russia and China.
So, an affirmation to Ukraine. Their struggle is a righteous fight for freedom, for self-determination, and yes, that is a threat to Putin who wants to once again exert Russian totalitarianism over neighboring states, something many Russian citizens themselves are fighting against and suffering punishment/imprisonment for having protested such repression.
Are we learning anything in all this?
While we all want caution, given the nuclear threat in the mix, and will offer possible off-ramps of compromise similar to the US pullback of missiles in Europe as part of the off-ramp for Khrushchev in Cuba in 1962 (a kind of “blink” on both sides?), there must also be public clarity that aggression against independent neighbors shall not stand in today’s world.
Frederick Kagan says that the initial mistake was to tell Putin that he could invade and we would not resist him with counter-force. That error has been repeated again and again by Biden, by Trudeau, and others. Telling the aggressor- “We will not engage Russian troops on the ground”.
Putin’s calculus, says Kagan, only considers and fears force and the promise not to use force then greenlights his aggression even more. Others add that once aggressors have tasted victory and find no counterforce, they will push for more and more.
Putin’s overall vision fails (no “moral equivalence”) in that it is not a “righteous” quest for liberal democracy but has been clearly and cruelly authoritarian with repression of free speech, imprisoning and killing opponents, lying to the Russian people to keep a grip on power, and more.
Hence, it is wrong to blame the West for what is happening in Ukraine, and we need to stop apologizing and appeasing thugs, backing off with repeated public promises not to confront with counter-force. That only affirms to Putin that he can aggress and get away with it. Bullies only respect counter force and will push forward when victims back down.
Where is the courage of a Zelensky in the West? Where is the courage of a Kennedy to stand, look the aggressor in the eye, and make him blink? Zelensky is right that they (Ukrainians) are fighting a battle for the freedom of all of us.
Consider then carefully, as Kagan and others have pointed out, that Putin has a larger vision than just Ukraine, even larger than re-establishing the old Soviet sphere of influence, and so also Xi of China has a larger vision than just Taiwan. This must be taken into account in our dealing with the current aggression from such countries.
No one denies the imperfect Western record of defending tyrants just because they were anti-Communist (e.g. Marcos in the Philippines, along with varied others) and foolishly invading countries because they were perceived threats (Hussein in Iraq). But other battles are more clearly right against wrong (i.e. “just war”) and demand courageous action to stop aggressors.
See the detailed explanation of Putin’s worldview and vision in the Jordan Peterson interview of Frederick Kagan at
From Michael Shellenberger- “Europe’s green energy policies strengthened Putin”
“Europe’s green energy policies empowered Russian President Vladimir Putin and stripped Western countries of their ability to sanction Moscow effectively, according to the best-selling author of “Apocalypse Never.”
“You’re not really an independent nation if you depend on foreign countries so heavily for your energy supplies,” Michael Shellenberger told Fox News. He said European nations have become increasingly dependent on Russia for energy in recent years as they have adopted green policy initiatives.
“The continent imports nearly 40% of its gas from Russia. It consumes nearly five times as much oil as it produces, and Russia produces nearly four times as much oil as it consumes, according to British Petroleum.
“Europe’s dependency on Russian energy limits its ability to take actions such as imposing economic sanctions against Russia in response to the conflict in Ukraine, according to Shellenberger.
“Fifteen years ago, Europe produced more natural gas than Russia,” Shellenberger said. “Today, Russia exports three times more natural gas to Europe than Europe produces.”
“That’s due both to the fact that Russia increased its natural gas production and Europe reduced it,” he added.
“Europe decided not to frack in large part in response to climate activists,” Shellenberger told Fox News. “We now think there is strong evidence suggesting [the climate activists] were supported directly through financing from Russia.”
“Moscow intelligence agencies, for example, secretly supported European environmental groups in campaigns against fracking in order to keep the European Union dependent on Russian exports, according to a 2018 congressional report.
“European reliance on Russian energy leaves Western countries with little leverage against Putin in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, according to Shellenberger.
“It was always predictable,” Shellenberger said of the energy crisis and European dependence on Russian energy. “This was all very apparent to people that were rational thinkers on energy.”
“A former Russian foreign minister insisted that Vladmir Putin would not use nuclear weapons and the West should not limit its actions or support for Ukraine over fear he would do so.
“The Kremlin knows it can try to extract concessions, whether from Ukraine or the West, by saber-rattling its last remaining card in the deck: nuclear weapons,” Andrei Kozyrev wrote. “The ultimate conclusion here is that the West should not agree to any unilateral concessions or limit its support of Ukraine too much for fear of nuclear war.”
“Kozyrev, who served as Russia’s foreign minister between 1991 and 1996, claimed that Putin was still a “rational actor” in a series of thoughts posted on Twitter Sunday.
“Putin, he argued, instead has possibly “started to believe his own propagandists,” such as a “Nazi-Bandera junta” running the country.
“Kozyrev laid out three points as to why Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was “rational,” but also “wrong and immoral”: He genuinely believed that Ukraine was a satellite nation and not an independent nation; the Russian military has suffered rampant corruption; and Putin, along with the Russian elite, believed that President Biden was “mentally inept” and the EU was “toothless.”
“If you believe all three of the above to be true and your goal is to restore the glory of the Russian Empire (whatever that means), then it is perfectly rational to invade Ukraine,” Kozyrev tweeted.
“And if Putin is acting “rationally,” the West should not fear he will engage in nuclear war, Kozyrev added.
“He also argued that the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan “solidified” the narrative of weakness in the West.”
This from Steve Hilton deserves another posting as it illustrates the Russian financing of the Western anti-fossil fuel campaign, all part of the longer-term Russian disinformation project to weaken the West and advance Russian long-term strategic goals:
Steve Hilton: How orgy of green virtue-signalling lined Putin’s pocket, Daily Mail, 7 March 2022
By Steve Hilton, Former Director of Strategy for David Cameron
“Politicians from all parties have indulged in an orgy of green virtue-signalling, implementing self-harming, counter-productive policies such as Boris Johnson’s ban on fracking for shale gas, with no serious thought given to the long-term consequences.
“Europe’s dependence on Russia for around 40 per cent of the continent’s gas supplies isn’t some kind of natural phenomenon; it’s a conscious political choice.
“As recently as 2010, EU countries actually produced more gas than Russia exported.
“But, by 2020, the positions had completely reversed, with Russia exporting nearly three times more gas than Europe produced. Why? Because, being in thrall to the green dogma that has captured the Establishment the world over, European countries cut back on fossil-fuel production.
“Energy security was sacrificed on the altar of ‘decarbonisation’ – even if that meant reducing production and the storage of reliable lower-carbon energy sources such as natural gas, or most preposterously, a policy towards zero-carbon nuclear power, which meant it was completely shut down in Germany and left to atrophy in the UK.
“Of course none of this is to argue against the environmental cause: After all, I was the author of David Cameron’s ‘Vote Blue Go Green’ message.
“A sensible environmentalism, with a focus on conservation and a responsibly managed transition to cleaner energy – in particular one that protects consumers from soaring bills – is something most people would support. However, that’s far from what we’ve seen.
“Instead, politicians from all parties have indulged in an orgy of green virtue-signalling, implementing self-harming, counter-productive policies such as Boris Johnson’s ban on fracking for shale gas, with no serious thought given to the long-term consequences.
“In truth, it’s even more cynical than that. Desperate to win the plaudits of green activists, these politicians recklessly cut back on their own countries’ energy production and filled the gap not with the much-vaunted ‘wind ‘n solar’ (both are too unreliable), but by importing dirtier fuels from other countries (such as Russia) that are unencumbered by the ‘climate’ zealotry relentlessly pushed by pressure groups and some in the media in the West.
“Even more embarrassingly for our idiotic establishment, it turns out that those activists and their media campaigns have been funded by – wait for it – Putin!
“That’s not some wild conspiracy theory: It’s Nato’s view.
“Former Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in 2014: ‘Russia, as part of its sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas.’
“And, in the same year, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about ‘phony environment groups funded by Russians to stand against’ energy initiatives such as fracking. In sum, Western leaders handed Putin massive geo-political leverage by making their people dependent on his gas – and were responding to activist campaigns that he had partly funded. How utterly perverse!
“And look where that leaves us today. Even as Putin unleashes hell on innocent Ukrainians; as we witness scenes of inhumanity of a nature and on a scale not seen in Europe since the Second World War…
“Putin’s oil and gas now flows uninterrupted to Europe, while £500million flows uninterrupted every day from Europe to Russia to pay for it. After the invasion, the amount of Russian gas exported to Europe through Ukraine actually went up – by 38 per cent. The price has since risen further, adding to the money ending up in Kremlin coffers.
“So, when our leaders say ‘we’re doing everything we can to help Ukraine’, that’s a lie.
“Rather than weaning ourselves off Russia’s oil and gas, we are funding Putin’s war machine. And we’re doing so because a bunch of pompous politicians, puffed up with pretensions of saving the planet, wanted pats on the back from extremist ‘climate’ zealots.
“Ever since taking over the White House, President Joe Biden has fought a non-stop war on American energy production.
“Under his predecessor President Donald Trump’s strong support for domestic natural gas production, the US achieved an enviable double whammy. It became self-sufficient (and, indeed, a net exporter for the first time in more than 70 years), as well as reducing carbon emissions.
“By contrast, Biden has shut pipelines, withdrawn exploration licences, and most shockingly, at the exact moment he and his officials were talking up ‘massive sanctions’ against Putin if he went ahead with the invasion that they said was certain to happen, another part of Biden’s administration announced new regulations that would give Putin even more leverage over global energy supplies.
“In the name of fighting climate change, Biden refuses to increase US production, which might give supplies to Europe to help it escape Putin’s energy stranglehold (as well as lowering prices for consumers in America).
“Biden’s administration, instead, is begging Saudi Arabia and other members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to produce more oil and are even finalising a revived Iran nuclear deal that will put Iranian oil into the world market.
“The US President’s new ‘climate’ policy seems to be: Oil is good, unless it’s American. In normal circumstances this could be dismissed as mere political hypocrisy and double-speak.
“But we’re not in normal circumstances. We’re in the middle of the most threatening conflict in Europe since 1945 and could be on the brink of nuclear confrontation.
“It is therefore unconscionable that Western politicians are not doing everything in their power to stop Putin. Of course there is no guarantee that a total boycott of Russian energy would change this evil tyrant’s calculations. But it is truly revolting that our leaders are not even trying.
“For all their noble words about standing up for Ukraine, their obsession with net zero and continuing willingness to pay Moscow £500million a day makes them Putin’s stooges and enablers of the horror unfolding before our eyes.”
Another on keeping hope alive…
Remember, eruptions of madness produce widespread revulsion in most people (on all sides) who retain common sense and who then reject the “madness of crowds” and again affirm and embrace a more sane stance in life.
This from the “Net Zero Watch” newsletter of the Global Warming Policy Forum (11/2/2022):
“Editor’s Note: Attentive observers are beginning to acknowledge what readers of this newsletter have known for some time: the green bubble has burst and the green policy rollback has begun.
“Of course, it’s not all over yet for the eco-socialist Net Zero agenda, but the economic, political and energy security pressure and the global demand for energy that is both affordable and reliable will eventually overwhelm climate fanatics and green activists, leading to a gradual sobering up and a slow return to more realistic climate and energy policy approaches.
“Sadly, sobering up after a period of collective hysteria is a rather slow process as Charles MacKay (1814-1889) noted almost two centuries ago: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
— Benny Peiser
The death of dreams, the heroism of enduring the suffering of life… Wendell Krossa
We go out into life with dreams as all young life should. But then horrific things happen, whether personally or in the wider public realm, and the dreams of our younger lives often die. Here are some comments from the movie “Jane Got A Gun”…
The two lead characters- Dan Frost and Jane Hammond- reminisce about the time when as a young couple they took a ride in a hot air balloon and the view was spectacular. They then discussed their shared dream of going to California to see the beauty of the Pacific Ocean and live happily in that paradise. But, as story unfolds, they are cruelly separated and lose contact for years. Dan is captured and imprisoned for most of the Civil War and Jane is sold into sexual slavery. Circumstances then bring them back together later in life…
“Dan Frost: Well, this is not how I pictured life turning out, Jane. How did you see it?
“Jane Hammond: Mostly from up high. I’d imagine… we just never came down that day. Just chose to live in the sky. It’s hard to remember though… how things seemed when you know… how they actually turned out.
“Jane Hammond: That girl you rode so far to see… I ain’t her anymore. Life stopped being something that you live after that day. Just something you endure.”
The nature of a mother’s heroism (What is heroism?), Wendell Krossa
We are most often made aware of heroism in terms of special people doing special, unique things, extraordinary things that most of us will never have the opportunity to encounter and experience (i.e. some brave stranger risking life to rescue another in life-threatening danger). But there is another side to human heroism… something common and ordinary.
I know a woman who was in a small-town hospital giving birth to her second child when gut-punched with severe emotional trauma. While there birthing, her cousin had moved into her home to temporarily care for her first-born child, only a year old.
The birthing woman’s husband then cheated with the cousin, who out of guilt told the woman’s father who then in turn told the birthing mother.
She was devastated by her husband’s cheating and did not know what to do. So she buried the anguish of that betrayal. And she stayed with her cheating husband and had two more children with him.
If she had left him in 1950 she could not have held a job with two young children and the only alternative would have been to go on welfare, itself a degrading stigma.
She told no one about that betrayal and carried that pain across her life, staying married to that man for over 60 years. He may have cheated again with others over the years. Still, she said nothing to anyone.
A decade ago, while her husband was dying in a hospice, she felt a desperate impulse to ask him over the final days of his life why he had cheated and caused her so much pain. But, out of common human decency, she suppressed that urge to know why, born of a life-time of hurt.
After he died, she then told her children of her life-time of suffering from the betrayal of her husband. The children had grown up believing that they had enjoyed an acceptably normal family life over the previous decades.
The children then realized that their lives could have taken an entirely different trajectory given the all-too-common problem of step-parents abusing non-biological children. A spouse of one of the woman’s children had shared with them the horrific sexual and physical abuse that he had suffered at the hand of a step-father, scarring him for life. Further, psychologist Martin Seligman has detailed the damaging consequences of divorce on children (“Learned Optimism”, “The Optimistic Child”).
That mother never believed that she had done anything heroic in suffering in silence across many decades, keeping her family together with a cheating husband. She never felt heroic. She simply did not know what else to do. But her embrace of intensely personal and private suffering spared her children a possible lifetime of suffering, similar to the abuse suffered by the spouse of one of the children.
My point? To celebrate the unsung ordinariness of an unknown mother’s heroism in enduring life after the death of her dreams.
More on common expressions of mundane heroism….
Warren Buffet recently said to young people- “Job seekers should seek employment in the field ‘they would select if they had no need for money’. That means pursuing a job you actually enjoy, in a workplace with talented people you actively admire”.
Easy for a secure billionaire to recommend but how practical is that really when most people simply need income to stay alive and the choices are limited as to what’s available. Hence, many young people take fast food and other service industry minimum wage jobs. Bills have to be paid.
Add here the unsung heroism of parents around the world enduring shitty jobs they don’t like (not feeling heroic) but jobs that are engaged as necessary to provide for their children. Hence, my conclusion that some of the world’s greatest acts of heroism, though widespread throughout most people’s daily lives, are unrecognized because of their mundane nature.