We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – weaponising Net Zero against the West edition “Net zero has turned into a Chinese weapon aimed right at the heart of Western competitiveness. If we don’t wake up and recognise soon that we have to figure out a better way of combating climate change our industries are about to get wiped out.”
– Matthew Lynn, Daily Telegraph (£).
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Yesterday we had the unedifying spectacle of MPs in Parliament almost in fisticuffs fighting to be seen to vote the right way in fear of their lives, simultaneously outraged that they suffer the consequences of their actions over the last decades. When you deliberately import millions of genocidal murderers, what results do you expect?
China must be in insensible with laughter.
His presumption is still that “We have to figure out a (better) way of combating climate change”.
I don’t get it. The overwhelming likelihood is that Net Zero policies will destroy industry so why blame the Chinese for our own voluntary, enthusiastic even, lemming behaviour.
Every Chinese EV is a Trojan Horse – discuss.
“so why blame the Chinese for our own voluntary, enthusiastic even, lemming behaviour”…
And fortunately (maybe…?), China is being hoist by its own petard, in a quadruple stranglehold of its own making:
1) Insane, out-of-control debt; and their usual way of combatting this, “devalue the yuan some more”, has driven their elites into frantic capital flight for decades
2) The “one-child policy”; toxic to girl babies in their “we only want sons” culture, causing demographic collapse and rapid aging, and the intense shock-load on the few young people they produce triggering mass outbreaks of “lying flat”
3) Xi’s increasing China-centric jingoism, that’s driving foreign investors out of the country, causing consumers to put “made in China” items back on store shelves, and causing China’s neighbours to look to their defence industries and ramp-up their military budgets, and
4) China is still in the grip of pretty severe every-man-for-himself corruption, that calls into question everything Xi tells us – and everything Xi’s toadies tell him. They conduct frequent anti-corruption crackdowns, in which all arrestees are, conveniently, Xi’s potential opponents – strange, that…
And I say “(maybe…?)” above out of fear that China may pull an Argentina. ‘Taking back the Falklands’ was the only popular thing the junta ever did; and as China’s troubles intensify, Xi may decide to “jacta those alea’s” himself, for the same reason – taking his people’s minds off their problems at home.
The Chinese are taking advantage -at least for now. That’s the argument of the article.
However, given the likely tardy way the U.K. will install electric charging points, and the serious drawbacks of EVs and their general unpopularity, Beijing May find it has made millions of EVs that no-one wants to buy.
Given the kind of twerps likely to enter power in the U.K. in this country by next year, there’s going to be a shortage of popcorn 🍿 as we watch this whole farce burn to the ground.
The main climate change we have been enjoying for around 150 years or so is a gentle warming trend overall,and this has been very beneficial and only weakly correlated with our estimated CO2 emissions. The rising levels of ambient CO2 are timely and also beneficial since they were very much on the low side for plant life.
So, ignoring the delusion of grandeur in the claim, why on earth would we want to combat either of these?
A better way of “combatting climate change” is to see if it happens. If it does, we may find it beneficial. If not, we will find ways to adapt. Either way will be better than destroying industry and our way of life. Has there ever been a more dilettante political class than this?
“The main climate change we have been enjoying for around 150 years or so is a gentle warming trend overall,and this has been very beneficial and only weakly correlated with our estimated CO2 emissions.”
Also not at all correlated with projections based on the premise that CO2 causes warming. The projected warming and the resulting ice melts, rising sea levels and farmland turning into deserts didn’t happen so the original reason for the demonisation of CO2 was proven to be false. What to do? So now we have runaway increases in weather disasters of all kinds as the reason du jour for reducing emissions. CO2 can now be seen to be causing both draughts and floods, both heatwaves and blizzards, there is simply nothing that it can’t do if we don’t impoverish ourselves to stop it.
“Also not at all correlated with projections based on the premise that CO2 causes warming.”
A telling meme is, “Once you notice that Earth Day falls on Lenin’s birthday, a lot becomes clear”. A basic CO2 fact is that CO2 increase does not cause global warming, it FOLLOWS global warming – by some 800 years – which negates CAGW theory at a stroke. And, for all the hysterical greeeen weeeenies calling CO2 ‘killusol’, humans emit only 4% of atmospheric CO2; an item that the U.N. IPCC expressly does not mention, as they’re mandated to focus their gaze (and fury) solely on human-emitted CO2 as the cause of CAGW.
So why all the fuss about CO2? Another telling meme says “Capitalists get money and then they grab power; communists get power and then they grab money.” And following the money, in global warming theory as in so many other things, usually explains it all.
@Y Knott
I suspect they have tofu dreg military as well
Check out laowhy 86 on youtube (if you haven’t already)
Wonder if the three stooges dam really is the shining wonder they tell us it is.
Even if CO2 causes global warming (my suspicion is that it contributes a small amount to an effect that is itself much smaller than claimed), reducing this country’s already relatively tiny emissions would not help significantly. That is especially true if all we do is outsource manufacturing and energy generation to other countries.
The temperature varies daily…..
Obviously it’s a result of “global warming” just ask any one of
the religious fanatics
If I am depressed because you are doing better than I am and I shoot myself, your weapon didn’t kill me. Mine did.
This was said, by Donald John Trump, many years ago – at the time people laughed at him, but now it is clear he was correct.
As far back as 1992, the Rio Conference, the agenda was not really about reducing WORLD C02 emissions (and thankfully so – as higher C02 emissions have helped produce higher crop yields, without them the world would have suffered mass starvation), the agenda was about undermining Western industry – about “rebalancing the world” so that the West was weaker and other places, such as the People’s Republic of China (which could produce any amount of C02) was stronger.
Some people understood this from the start – other people (such as me) have taken a lot longer to work things out.
The questioning should be whether net zero, or any initiative that addresses CO2 emissions, is actually going to affect climate in the way they expect?
The problem is that it’s considered a given, but it’s not that much of a scientific solid fact, and the only reason it’s not being questioned is because of peer pressure and academic bullying.
Net zero is an economic argument, and as with all economics there are no benefits, only trade offs, so the people advising us shouldn’t be the ones who get the better part of the trade off and lumping the rest of us with the detrimental part.
Something I’ve realised about global warming (or cooling) is that different people may react differently based on their latitude.
For us at the equator, cooling is good. But not so good for those freezing in Canada or Siberia.
Vice versa for warming.
One way to look at the whole thing is to calculate both the available arable land for cooling and warming scenarios. It just happens that the northern hemisphere has a lot of real estate that could be very productive if the Earth warms.
Related to this is the idea of ‘land’ itself as property, and national sovereignty. If the climate changes such that the poles disappear and massive tracts of land in Russia and Canada become available, while the equator boils and islands do disappear, those of us on the losing end may find it difficult to adapt.
Example: Singapore cannot just purchase a chunk of land from Canada and shift our population wholesale there – which nation would ever countenance this?
We might need a whole new paradigm to deal with the situation.