How is politics not a religion? People who believe there is an existential climate crisis due to human being’s use of carbon based fuels are looking crazier and crazier every day, why isn’t anyone talking about the insanity? They have reached cult status worshiping yet another god for which there is no verifiable proof of its existence. Like every religion, an extraordinary belief without even ordinary evidence.
Sure there are ‘climate scientists’ and ‘atmospheric scientists’ who have done ‘academic research’ and claim there is statistical significance to the claim but those ‘scientists’ are funded by the UN and other governmental institutions to produce the results they’re being paid to produce. But there are also scientists who criticize those results but nobody wants to talk about them, they are ignored and ostracized to the point of irrelevancy. They are labeled heretics for their blasphemy and like the middle-ages they must be denounced by the church. But why would published, tenured, respected scientists speak out against the prevailing political winds if they didn’t believe it was true? There are no benefits for them other than knowing they didn’t compromise their professional integrity and their principles for money and political prestige. It’s like when I’m looking for a good hotel, I only read the negative reviews because hotels don’t pay people to write negative ones.
The belief is that CO2 emissions from carbon based fuels are creating a ‘greenhouse effect’ causing global temperatures to rise, which will lead to crop devastation and the polar ice caps melting and the seas rising by 20′ and a whole bunch of other doomsday predictions – none of which have ever come true by the way. There are hundreds of websites, Wikipedia entries, international accords, political policies, ‘Eco’ settings on devices, Bio food, bars and restaurants issuing paper straws, wind farms, solar panel farms, electric cars etc. meant to ‘combat’ this threat.
And yet, there is no reason to believe a crisis even exists, not one. Of course human beings affect the environment just like all life forms do but there is no evidence that our impact is any more or less, any ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than any other. The reality gap between the crisis alarmists and what we have observed on a daily basis since it began almost 70 years ago is so large there’s ZERO probability it can be true.
But damned with reality, full steam ahead with the UN’s insane ‘Net Zero’ policy of removing CO2 produced by humans as it’s produced so there is a net zero existence of CO2 from carbon based fuels. That means people will be forced by government policy, regulations and laws to cut their CO2 ‘footprint’ as it’s called. Automobile manufacturers will be forced to produce more and smaller electric cars eventually making internal combustion engine vehicles illegal to produce and drive. What does that really imply for humanity? The problems with EVs compared to ICEs are well documented and the problem is physics. The energy density, cost, weight, and size of onboard energy storage can’t even come close to matching that of ICE vehicles and never will, it’s a physical impossibility. EV batteries also drain faster in cold weather and even faster if the heating unit is used to stay warm. If the batteries are damaged and need to be replaced, it costs as much as the car to replace them. The weight of the batteries is offset by using lightweight composite materials for roofs and bumpers which are attached only with glue. Instances of roofs and bumpers falling off are also well documented.
How would EVs affect daily human life considering the everyday transportation essentials people rely on to survive? Delivering crops and food to market, delivering medicines to pharmacies and hospitals, transporting medical patients and medical resources. There are any number of solutions to keep an ICE vehicle running if it’s in the cold or running low on gas but there are zero solutions for a dead battery pack in an EV.
But while the president is forcing others to drive supped up golf carts, he’ll keep his gas guzzling buses and motorcades.
‘Net Zero’ will also mean people will be forced to live in smaller dwellings with smaller ‘carbon footprints’ like trailers, refurbished shipping containers, small cottages in the woods or a nice renovated two rock, one pee-hole cave might do while the president lives in a mansion paid for by the people living in shipping containers.
Air travel will have to be curtailed, quotas will be put on how much you can fly and how far while the president will fly anywhere he wants in a Jumbo 747 and private helicopter.
That’s Net Zero but it gets far more sinister. There are others who believe that net zero political policy isn’t insane enough. They want real, absolute ZERO CO2 emissions from carbon based fuels used by humans.
From Wikipedia:
“In his 2021 report, Dangerous Distractions, economist Marc Lee said that net zero had the potential to be a dangerous distraction that reduced political pressure to reduce emissions. “A net zero target means less incentive to get to ‘real zero’ emissions from fossil fuels, an escape hatch that perpetuates business as usual and delays more meaningful climate action,” he said. “Rather than gambling on carbon removal technologies of the future, Canada should plan for a managed wind down of fossil fuel production and invest public resources in bona fide solutions like renewables and a just transition from fossil fuels,” he said.”
In other words, no more carbon based fuels at all, zero, everything should be wind or solar or hydro or electrical. But that’s impossible since batteries for electrical devices have to be charged with electricity, how will electricity be produced without carbon based fuels? It’s a physical impossibility for wind, solar and hydro to produce enough electricity to charge all the batteries the world would need. And those ‘alternative’ forms of energy are highly unreliable as principle energy sources. The only viable alternative is nuclear which is great, a single pellet of enriched Uranium produces as much energy as two tons of coal, it’s a great alternative but for some odd reason, the powers that be wont even add nuclear to the discussion. Almost as if it doesn’t exist.
Bottom line is if politics forces humanity to live without carbon based fuels, it will be a real existential crisis. It will thrust mankind back into the dark ages, disease will run ramped, life expectancy will fall, famine and poverty will ensue. But those responsible for the policy will still be living like royalty consuming the abundance of carbon based fuels available now that everyone else isn’t using them. Blaming the dark ages on ‘free markets’ or ‘capitalism’ or some invisible virus, AI or aliens and claiming that those who created the problem are the only ones who can fix it so we have to give them more money and more power.
Why isn’t anyone talking about the insanity?