Scientists have to be stopped before they kill us all trying to “save the planet.”
The planet does not need saving. It is in no danger. We are in danger. Not from “climate change”. From over-certain, over-confident, hubris-filled Experts.
Our latest demonstration is the peer-reviewed paper “Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation” by Nathan Wood, Rob Lawlor, and Josie Freear and others in Ethics, Policy & Environment.
The nervous wrecks of authors “argue that rationing has been neglected as a policy option for mitigating climate change.”
And, yes, nervous wrecks. They must be nervous wrecks if they think the climate is so bad rationing is needed. Do they never look out their own windows? Never mind.
Before we get to it, let’s remind ourselves how Big Science like this works. Experts, like academic ethicists, look to the work of other Experts, perhaps sustainability Experts, who in turn look to others, Expert calling to Expert, here bottoming out on Experts in climatology.
Every step in the chain is seen as certain by those higher up. That is, academic ethicists will take for granted what was told them by academic sustainabilityists, and they in turn will take for granted what is told to them by climatologists or whomever.
The whole chain, two steps or twenty, is meant to be taken as certain by you, the paper reader. We are at the Multiplication of Uncertainties, which never happens. I mean, what should happen is that you, the reader, must grasp that each step in the chain has uncertainties, and that each uncertainty must be “multiplied” together, so that the chain as a whole is highly unlikely.
This, of course, rarely happens. Especially in the minds of grasping politicians seeking a “solution” they can promote.
Anyway, these guys, Wood and others, want to take your food so that they feel less stress about the “climate.”
The begin their argument badly: with bad writing (emphasis theirs):
As noted in the abstract, although this paper is primarily based on philosophical and ethical argument and policy analysis, particularly highlighting the normative assumptions behind policy choices, there is also an empirical element, drawing on historical research.
Nearly every academic writes that way, so don’t judge them harshly here. They could have just started with “We think we’re going to die from climate change. We need mandatory fasting now and forever overseen by us. Amen.”
To prove they accept without question what the Experts earlier in the chain said:
The IPCC (Citation2018) report concluded that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree target (IPCC, Citation2018). Meeting this target by 2030 could mean the reduction of sea level rise, fewer severe weather events, reduced species loss, lower impacts on terrestrial freshwater and coastal ecosystems and the benefits they provide to humanity, reduced climate related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply and human security (IPCC, Citation2018).
Then: “Rationing is often seen as unattractive, and therefore not a viable option for policy makers”. Yet, say our authors, where there was wartime scarcity, “rationing was accepted, even welcomed, or demanded.” Not by everybody, boys.
Here is my favorite “discovery”:
Furthermore, the evidence clearly indicates that rationing was successful: despite the reduced quantity of food over all, during the period of rationing in the Second World War, cases of malnutrition went down, rather than up (Cox, Citation2013, pp. 34–35).
Brilliant. There must be a wee p in there.
What about people hating rationing when food scarcity is not the reason? Well, those fools forget the scarcity of “carbon sinks.” So there. And what about the children!? Yes: they go there.
And hey, what about what Daniel Aldana Cohen says? “As Daniel Aldana Cohen emphasizes, ‘We’re only doomed if we change nothing’.” So there’s that.
Daniel Aldana Cohen? No idea. You tell me.
Have we mentioned “distributive justice” yet? No? They do, but let’s not. Maybe we’ll just mention they plan to award the slaves who toil in the mines an extra daily carrot because of the “principle of equality: that of supplying equal calories for equal needs”.
In the end, they argue for “rejection of markets”, but curiously say these “may seem alien and radical.” Radical they are, but alien they are not. Community of property managed by Expert rulers, a.k.a. communism, a grand Twentieth Century scheme, failed.
These authors long to be the ones deciding how much bread to dole out. They are dangerous maniacs ignorant of not only what they speak, but the scientific arguments upon which they rely.
They ought to be removed and put in place they could do no harm to anyone.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: email@example.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Daniel Aldana Cohen? He’s from Berkeley
Director of the Socio-Spatial Climate Collaborative
He is also Founding Co-Director of the Climate and Community Project, a progressive climate policy think tank – Imagine our surprise
“They ought to be removed and put in place they could do no harm to anyone.”
just another Jewish revolutionary from central casting. Those clowns would be funnier if they weren’t so destructive.
We need a new Gilbert and Sullivan to do opera buffa justice to this modern age and it’s crazy cast of upside-down clowns.
No one will complain until they come after the toilet paper. Klaus Schwab’s
book The Great Reset came out in June 2020 connecting climate and covid
measures especially the lockdowns. What a coincidence! And less than
six months into his Event 201 pandemic! Things seem to work out if you do
things right under people’s noses.
Some good news at last!
Go and DO LIKEWISE | Steve Deace Show
John B() tells us that Daniel Aldana Cohen (yet another Dame with Three Names) is “Director of the Socio-Spatial Climate Collaborative”. Now THAT sounds like a position destined for the next round of lay-offs….that is, after he’s served his purpose, and the mopping-up action begins, and the survivors are learning Mandarin.
Socio-Pathic, is more accurate.
We know something about sociopaths, as they make up much of gov’t and academia. But what the heck is “socio-spatial”? I inserted the term into DuckDuckGo and got a surprising number of entries. There was:
Spatial stratification and socio-spatial inequalities: the case of Seoul and Busan in South Korea
Or how about:
Smart sustainable cities for all: A socio-spatial approach
To summarize: “Socio-spatial” studies are designed to support changing zoning laws to destroy (what’s left of) middle class neighborhoods; they are also designed to more quickly bring about the Utopia we’ve all been promised, by consolidating gov’t control by way of “rationing” and “lockdowns”, made easier by destroying our fossil fuel industry, re-purposing our farmland, and putting us on a “digital currency” system.
In other words, he’s a (possibly unwitting) CCP collaborator. As are most in academia; as Mike Pompeo is reporting, the Communist Chinese have totally infiltrated our universities and research institutions.
Remember that the Penn-Biden Center, where some of Biden’s classified documents were found, is largely a collaboration with Communist China, and the CCP has donated over $40 million to this university department alone.
Can Briggs readers think of anything, since Biden took office, including our involvement in the Ukraine war, that hasn’t ultimately harmed the U.S. and benefitted China?
Reading that made me hungry. I’m gonna have a double cheeseburger for lunch, with a large order of fries.
Not trusting “experts” is not dependent upon being an expert one’s self. We don’t all need to be experts. All we need is acute bullshit radar and the will to use it to recognize the quacks and the BS they’re trying to sell us.
Hagfish: I’d buy a front-row ticket to see that!
So why do all the IPCC “scientists” agree that Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming is such a danger? Because the summary conclusion is written first and THEN the “science” is written to match. Literally. They say so. The studies are not science; they are marketing pamphlets, hack-written by advertising agency men in white coats.
All this “we have to do this because THE SCIENCE ™!” is fake and gay.
Like DIE+ all this is a stealth old fashioned power grab for nothing other than COMPLETE & TOTAL CONTROL!
Do what they say, or else NO FOOD AND SERVICES for you! Stay in your domicile! Do NOT pass GO! Do NOT collect 200 CBDCs!
How much has been spent on the global effort to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, measured in US dollars? Ten trillion? Twenty trillion? More? While pondering that, gander at this graph, while keeping in mind Einstein’s definition of insanity:
Yep, plenty of cause for optimism there – just a few trillion more and we got this, Greta!
I for one applaud their rationing efforts; it’s infinitely preferable to their usual boil-the-frog methods. Spend a few minutes in any place where young people hang out these days and ask yourself – does that look a crowd that is going to willingly do with a smidgen less, even to “save the planet”?
The uncertainty in the foundation of their stack reasoning leading to the rationing is itself enough to invalidate the whole foundation and all that sits on it. See the work by Dr. Pat Frank on error propagation in climate models who concludes:
What do these models then tell us–NOTHING
US teachers peddling same ‘woke ideologies’ taught in North Korea, defector says:
“When I started university at Columbia University, I couldn’t believe it because they were saying the same things that my North Korean teachers told me in the North Korean classroom,” Yeonmi Park said.
“Tyranny, Slavery, and Columbia U”
Jordan Peterson interviewed Yeonmi Park in 2021.
Here’s the interview:
She begins by telling us, “North Korea is run by a central government, so they decide how much rice you can eat each day…”
It would seem that the Chinese-controlled North Korean government shares the same “normative assumptions behind policy choices” as do the U.S. authors of “Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation”….what a coincidence.
When people say ‘nazi’ about Biden and Co, they forget the quote in Ideas Have Consequences, by Richard Weaver. At the head of one of the last chapters is the famous quote by Trotsky: “Where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation”. Nazi? It was all the implementation of the Culture of Death, which attracts the vicious characters. There are only two ways, choose the path of Life. Apparently even those of the tribes, who still refuse the Saviour, have forgotten what their supposed fathers wrote so long ago in the Torah. They have chosen (some, I admit, not all, since they themselves are very fragmented) the way of Death. The implementation of Nazism cannot really fathomed from the measures during wartime, but from before the war, 1933-38. What was that that von Galen was denouncing? The present day culture. And for those that keep forgetting, some of these ideas were being broadcast from the UK and the USA. In WWII there were no good guys at the top. Today even less so. Don’t call it nazism or communism, call devilry. Nazis were murderers, but they ruled 1933-45. The bolsheviks ruled 1918-1991, with much more death and destruction. Hitler was a monster? I can grant that, I am not the judge of that. But the deeds at the helm of Germany, specially the annexations were mirrored by the USSR in the same years. What did the West do? Hmm….
When are the last times that these clowns got out of their Academia Offices and looked at the real world? The Naivete and sheer lack of knowledge about how the world works being displayed by the Authors of this paper is astounding! Who is gong to force the entire world to get onboard with this Global Rationing? Isn’t monitoring and policing carbon emissions is what the Environmental Protection Agency is for? Seriously? What a load of Communist bullsh”t! How about we stop deforestation in the Rain forests? These are our “Carbon Sinks” and stop polluting the Ocean? Why don’t we do this instead of this ludicrous notion that somehow the entire world is going to be forced to act responsibly and play nice? That is just not going to happen. Seriously…those “Authors” need to get their butts out of their Academia Offices and go see what the real world is like…
How much do assistant professors at UCB get paid?