I have to say I shook my head at the absurdity that came from Climate alarmist and University of Arizona evolutionary biologist John Wiens. It absolutely sums up so many of their faith. They need to reach for extremist points of view which only ends up undermining their own credibility. Instead of having a common sensical debate over whatever his research has discovered Wiens said if he met Trump he’d recommend to “kill yourself immediately.”
Wiens even suggested the U.K. should invade America , or the U.S. should swap Trump for Justin Trudeau to take residence in the White House. Hmmmm. Those views seem balanced and realistic.
Can climate alarmists honestly think people should entrust them with millions in research grants when they issue such ridiculous comments? To turn the argument on its head, if the quality of their political solutions reflects the quality of their scientific research I’d grant them nothing.
Wiens also said that the Trump’s appointment of climate change skeptic Scott Pruitt To run the EPA and his determination to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Accord (COP21) were big risks. I’ve argued before that a skeptic makes sense in a role like this to counter the group think rife in the climate alarmist playbook. They need to present fact, not propaganda.
Ah yes, but the consensus of leading scientists tells us the science is settled. The consensus of world leaders and expert economists also told us the world was totally economically sound in 2007 before it fell off a cliff in 2008. Experts can get it wrong but if lucrative financial compensation follows sticking to group think then of course the volume will be turned up.
Think of the 50,000 climate pilgrims who every year belch millions of tons of their most feared CO2 to kneel at the altar of the UNIPCC and pray to these pagan gods. Speaking of religion, I note Pope Francis wishes to indoctrinate new priests with the warming faith in their academies. The UNIPCC embodies some of the poorest ethics, the leanest applications of governance and the finest purveyor of fraudulent research studies I can think of. Yet we’re supposed to put our faith and more importantly tax dollars into pet projects that legitimizes their cause which seems much more about global regulation than saving us from global warming.
I did find it ironic that they lowered the 2 degree target to 1.5. Of course it wasnt based on any evidence. Halting the rise to 1.5 degrees sounds more alarmist. Give it 5 more years and it will be 1 degree Celsius. Donna Laframboise’s expose of the UNIPCC in her book ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ mapped out what a sham the body is. She wrote that politicians wrote the summaries of these documents often overlooking any scientific fact, that lead authors of subject areas often lacked requisite qualifications (the chap that lead authored on impacts to financial markets had served 6mths as an intern at Munich Re) and given “diversity reigns at the IPCC”, gender and ethnicity were placed ahead of qualification with one gentleman from a Pacific island nation admitting he “was totally out of his depth.”
Ultimately though we should pay attention to the consumption patterns of the public. We have two alarmist state governments (SA & Victoria) in Australia who are jacking up electricity prices through renewable energy mistakes (sorry, sources) which are proving highly unstable. Yet the feedback from one of Australia’s largest car dealerships was “the big shift in the market, where sports-utility vehicles and four-wheel drives now represented about half of total new vehicle sales, would keep accelerating.” Hardly the actions of people petrified of climate change or could it be they’re preparing to climb mountains to escape rising sea levels. You be the judge or then again you could take Mr Weins’ advice and kill yourself immediately.