By Duncan Whitmore
The pervasive issue of human-induced climate change has been hotting up again lately. The recent birth of “Extinction Rebellion”, which pursues the strategy of civil disobedience and economic disruption in order to force governments to “act” on climate change, as well as the creation of a mascot in the form of teenage activist Greta Thunberg, has helped to drive the once fledgling issue back to the forefront of political attention. A “Global Climate Strike” held on September 20th saw children – many of whom have been terrified into the belief that their world is about incinerate – allowed to take the day off from school in order to participate (an unlikely occurrence had they wished to protest against, say, mass immigration). Although Britain has emerged from what has actually been a fairly standard summer in terms of temperature, a handful of record breaking days helped to push climate fear to a high of 85% of the UK population, according to a recent poll.
Fortunately, the latest antics of “Extinction Rebellion” – which have included targeting ordinary East London commuters on their way to work – betray one of the reasons why Murray Rothbard split from his alliance with the left in the early 1970s: that you don’t win any support by attacking, with violent disruption, the very people whose hearts and minds you are trying to convert.1 The fact that these incidents targeted the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway only added to their irredeemable stupidity given that most people accept electrified public transport as a sufficiently green alternative to cars. Nevertheless, the issue itself is a lingering one and government policies committed to tackling climate change remain prominent. Read more
Shock-Horror! Gosh! (Sounds a lot, doesn’t it.)***
But it’s 0.65% of the Earth’s atmospheric CO2…..ZERO POINT SIX-FIVE PERCENT. (I worked it out just now.)
How is this going to help? Can anyone tell me that the Earth’s climate teeters on either the brink of disaster or relaxes into neo-pastoral ideality, with a movement of +/- 0.65% in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
***Ten billion tonnes of CO2 gas at STP would occupy 5 x 10^+12 cubic metres, which is a cube 10.6 miles along one edge. (So what are they beefing about?) The earth’s atmospheric CO2 (at the same standardised conditions) now occupies a cuboid of the same height (10.6 miles) and an area of 101 by 159 miles…150 times as much…
***If it was Dry Ice, it would be, roughly, about 1/1000-th of this volume, which is a cube about 1,700 metres along an edge. (You’d be hard put to see it from space.)
(H/t Samizdata for Guardian link)
…because we will not now get the truth in time.
The global-climate-change-Gramsco-MarxiaNazi-buggers, and their _very_ close friends who are the starvation-driving-mass-people-slaughterers, will not now be faced with the evidence – which is that Man is _not_ causing “global warming”. Thye have cleverly scuppered the satellite – and can simultaneously discredit what ordinary people call “rocket-science”….so that it’s for them a “one-stone-solution to a two-bird problem”.
As regards rocket-science, they will be able to sya how inept we all are, and should stay here and subsistence-farm with chicken manure and stuff.
As regards “global warming”, they will be able to say that “the Science” is “still settled”, for there is still “no” evidence for their hypothesis being proved not to be true.
You just do the insurance-equivalent of setting your car on fire, to claim the dosh and pretend it was all right anyway.