Here’s Clarkson, bringing cold logic to environmentalist slogans. It’s just over fifteen minutes of your time, and worth every second.
It may well turn out that the best day for the future of British agriculture was the day when Jeremy Clarkson decided to buy and run a farm.
Back in April last year, I noted that Lee Zeldin was taking aim at this piece of Obama-grade bullshit:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the agency will review the agency’s endangerment finding — the “holy grail of the climate change religion” that has created over a trillion dollars in regulatory impact. The finding stated that greenhouse gas emissions are an alleged threat to public health and welfare.
“Review”, was it? Well now, lookee here:
President Trump is set to repeal an Obama-era climate finding that was the basis for federal greenhouse-gas regulation, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Repealing the finding, which was a scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, would remove the legal basis for greenhouse gas regulation, Reuters reported.
The repeal is expected to be published later this week, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the repeal would be “the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States.”
With the repeal, regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal GHG emission standards for cars would be removed, administration officials told the Journal. However, the repeal would not apply to stationary sources such as power plants.
Time to get one of these precious things, methinks.
Here’s one we all knew about — and by “we”, I mean anyone with the faintest degree of rational thought — and therefore it should come as no surprise to us:
Skepticism about climate change has resurfaced, as some experts claim the exact causes of global warming remain unclear and that the policies addressing it are motivated more by money than by science.
And in other breaking news, we can report that Gen. George Custer is experiencing some difficulty with various Indian tribes in Wyoming.
But to return to our main story:
Lindzen explained the basic math behind what he called ‘climate alarm.’ He said the emphasis on lowering specific emissions like carbon dioxide (CO₂) simply doesn’t produce the worldwide temperature changes advocates say it will.
The scientist noted that the planet’s temperature has fluctuated significantly throughout recorded history and science still can’t definitively prove what the exact cause of both extreme warming and cooling events has been.
‘We don’t understand the glaciation that occurred in the 15th century. You know, so what was going on then? Inadequate CO₂?’ Lindzen said of the event in the Northern Hemisphere known as the Little Ice Age.
It was caused by all those 15th-century SUVs and trucks, you idiot. And of course they had SUVs and trucks back then, but they were called “carts” and were powered by horses (and oxen) — a major source of methane pollution, as we all know.
And:
Lindzen said the financial implications of controlling the multi-trillion-dollar energy industry have been the true motivation for politicians to support flawed research that argues small temperature increases will lead to immediate disasters.
‘The fact that you have a multi-trillion dollar industry and you have an opportunity to completely overturn it had a great appeal to a lot of politicians,’ he explained. ‘They go wild on it. Another half degree and we’re doomed, and so on. The public knows this is nonsense.’
I leave it for you to decide which political parties have supported the eco-panic most rabidly, and why.
I find it interesting that this article comes to us courtesy of the dreadful muckraking rag Daily Mail, a newspaper which has provided us with panic-stricken apocalyptic warnings of ecological doom for well over twenty years. (Because “scare” headlines sell newspapers, also duh.)
And the only reason that they’ve decided to publish this little article is that people no longer believe the climate alarmists, and are starting to rebel against all those idiotic and destructive “NetZero by 2030” political goals.
I guess we can all sleep easier in our beds now:
Billionaire Bill Gates has dramatically changed his position on climate change, acknowledging for this first time there is no “doomsday” risk from global warming.
In a memo published by Gates Notes Monday night, the Microsoft co-founder, who has poured billions into combating global warming, urged a move away from what he called a “doomsday outlook” and toward improving living conditions in developing nations.
“Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” Gates wrote. “People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”
Hey Bill: as long as you use your money and not taxpayer money to improve living conditions in developing nations (what we call “shitholes”), knock yourself out.
I wonder what made him change his mind about the looming catastrophe that is Global Warming Climate Cooling Change©?
Whatever it was, it has to do with money. Count on it.
…and I only used that title because my original thought (“Just. Fuck. Off.”) may have been judged as a little intemperate.
Once more unto the hysterical breach, my friends:
The planet is grappling with a “new reality” as it reaches the first in a series of catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate tipping points: the widespread death of coral reefs, according to a landmark report produced by 160 scientists across the world.
As humans burn fossil fuels and ratchet up temperatures, it’s already driving more severe heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires. But there are even bigger impacts on the horizon. Climate change may also be pushing Earth’s crucial systems — from the Amazon rainforest to polar ice sheets — so far out of balance they collapse, sending catastrophic ripples across the planet.
“We are rapidly approaching multiple Earth system tipping points that could transform our world, with devastating consequences for people and nature,” said Tim Lenton, a professor at the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter and an author of the report published Sunday.
In other words:
Sorry, but nobody with any form of humanoid brain should give any credence to these hysterical “Do this NOW or we’re all gonna dieeeeeee!” doomsayings anymore.
In the first place, “climate change” is not the major consequence of human activity. Considering that almost every “landmark study” — from Mann’s infamous (and debunked) “hockey stick” graph onwards — has been based on flawed, incorrect or fraudulent data manipulation, not least in predictive climate models, there is no reason to suggest that there is anything we as humans can do to somehow affect any form of climate change, let alone reverse it. (Even assuming that mankind — and I’m looking at you, China and the other Third World nations — can actually act in concert, the entire activity could be reversed simply by the Sun doing one thing instead of another.)
In other words, there are greater forces in play here, and it doesn’t appear that people can do anything to affect them, even if they wanted to — and that’s a big if. Try telling the people who own these seafront properties in Hawaii, for example, to abandon them because the properties’ existence may be harming the offshore reefs:
They’ll tell you to fuck right off, and I can’t say I blame them.
Now tell China and India to stop the pollutant-heavy flow of the Yangtze and Ganges rivers (to name but two) into the ocean, and the response will be “fuck right off, squared“.
As for the statement: “…multiple Earth system tipping points that could transform our world, with devastating consequences for people and nature”, what’s happening here is the old extension of Murphy’s Law (If something can go wrong, it will) which states: “If a number of things can go wrong, they will either go wrong simultaneously or else in the order best designed to create the maximum damage.”
It’s a humorous take on failure, but like “strange women lying in ponds distributing swords” is not a good basis for government, basing ecological policy on Murphy’s Extended Law is just as foolish.
Of course, the greater the preponderance of factors pointing to massive failure, the greater the need for panic and precipitous action to prevent it. Hence the grouping of ocean current weakening, coral reef disintegration and cataclysmic weather events into one Great Big Disaster. (They left Donald Trump out of the list of calamities, but that’s probably just an oversight.)
Sorry, but we’ve seen, and recently, the dolorous consequences of precipitous, fear-driven action as a response to perceived calamity (#Covid). The same attitude (“we won’t be fooled again”) should apply equally to these climate loons’ dire predictions.
By the way: if you really want to worry about something occurring in nature, try this one. And there’s not a single thing we can do about it. Not even selling our evil SUVs or eliminating plastics.
This one had me giggling like a little girl:
Bentley has decided to delay its electric vehicle plans.
The historic carmaker that’s headquartered in Crewe, Cheshire, has opted for a shift in strategy as they now plan to renew three models with petrol engines, instead of electric. The company originally planned to transition to a fully electric lineup by 2030 – under its Beyond100 strategy. These previous plans included offering only plug-in hybrids and EVs by 2026, then eventually phasing out hybrids for a zero-emission lineup.
But why, oh why are they seemingly defying the EU/BritGov’s NetZero diktat ?
Bentley CEO, Frank-Steffen Walliser, said: “There is a dip in demand for luxury electric vehicles, and customer demand is not yet strong enough to support an all-electric strategy.
“The luxury market is a lot different today than when we announced Beyond100.
“Electrification is still our goal, but we need to take our customers with us.”
That last sentence is just to appease the Greens.
Frankly — given that Bentleys have stood for “luxury + power” ever since they won several Brooklands and Le Mans races in the 1930s — there’s little reason to think that a typical Bentley customer should be any different in, say, 2030 (or ever) than they’ve been since those halcyon days in the 1930s.
Massive engines — gasoline/petrol-powered — with ripsnorting power and “sufficient” speed are a Bentley trademark. Hell, many Bentley customers — current and potential — are still seething about the company’s decision to dump the W12 in favor of a turbo V8.
And just as a reminder: Bentley is owned by Volkswagen (the W12 is actually a VW design from the Phaeton). VW is also the owners of other brands… and what are they doing?
Porsche, another brand that is owned by the VW Group alongside Bentley, recently announced plans to delay the launch of its latest EV due to low demand. Instead, the iconic German sports car marque plans to focus on internal combustion engines and innovative technologies such as wireless charging — recently demonstrated with the upcoming Cayenne EV.
Similarly, Audi, yet another VW brand, has abandoned its goal of becoming an all-electric brand by 2033, instead opting for flexibility based on market conditions.
Oh.
Yeah, and those “market conditions” are being signaled by their respective customer bases with a common voice: “Screw those stupid Duracell motors: we want real engines in our performance cars.”
I could have told them this would happen, and in fact I did on these very pages.
And hey, I don’t own stock in VW — but if I did, I would have dumped it the very second they announced their stupid all-electric / electric-only initiative.