My attraction to the left’s obsession with “climate chaos” is derived from two fundamental truths. First, it is based on ridiculously unscientific “science.” Low-hanging fruit, if you prefer.
For example, the notion of consensus is opposed to what science is—the endless testing and evaluation of conventions in pursuit of truth. The moment a majority of “someones” agrees with a theory, testing it becomes not just an obligation but a moral scientific imperative. Does it survive when tested? Are we seeing its prophecy in real terms?
Second, anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is bullied, intimidated, isolated, and excommunicated. The Climate Change cult exposes itself as not science but a mythology. You are a disbeliever, a denier, and an outcast.
We could add a third and a fourth. Nothing their revealed ‘texts,’ or their Pharisees predict, comes to pass, and when the models fail, they move the goalposts.
Headline: “Climate scientists claim Gulf Stream could be near collapse — predicting a new ice age.”
Pro-Tip. The more hyperbolic the claim, the greater the likelihood of a need to give the government more control over your lives and your incomes. The Climate game is, after all, an economic program—political science, not actual science. Whatever the catastrophe, the cure, the remediation, looks a lot like Marxism.
And never forget. Whatever IT is, your emissions are responsible.
A key Atlantic current could be pushed to the brink of collapse within decades, supposedly ushering in a new ice age and dramatically raising sea levels, climate scientists have claimed in a controversial new study published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment.
The apocalyptic predictions came as a result of a collaboration between researchers at the Institute of Oceanology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of California, San Diego — weeks after one-time climate alarmist Bill Gates publicly downplayed the impact of temperature fluctuations on the planet.
My first question would be, given that China is the world’s largest emitter of the “gases” attributed to climate catastrophes, why hasn’t being the world’s number one “emitter” of communism mitigated the threat?
Answer: Not enough communism, which, using China as the example, would result in more of what we are told causes what we used to call global warming.
Proof this is a political science experiment, not a climate experiment.
Per the new findings, the at-risk current in question is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, a “conveyor belt of the ocean” that funnels warm water toward the ocean surface from the tropics to the Northern Hemisphere.
This current, which includes the Gulf Stream that runs from the Gulf of Mexico to the US East Coast and across the Atlantic to Europe, helps maintain the mild climate of Europe, the UK and the US East Coast.
The study stated that the source of this marine temperature regulator, the Greenland Ice sheet, is being thawed amid warming temperatures, causing meltwater runoff to leach into the North Atlantic — leading to stagnation.
COP 30, by the way, was an unmitigated disaster, and I don’t just mean all the rainforest they chopped down to build a road so globe-trotting private jet setters could attend. The world is discovering that the cost is prohibitive and the results are nonsense. They were arguing over the definition of gender, which is just another example of the crazy we’re dealing with.
In this frame, very little that passes for climate science from the Warmists can be taken seriously. They are all politically captured by the priorities of the funders of their research. In the case of the Collapsing AOMC, which could lead to a new ice age, the study appears worthy, even reasonable, until you get to this.
“…the opposing effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols largely offset in climate models until the greenhouse forcing grew dominant after the 1990s…”
To be clear, changes in the Atlantic have been due, leading to perfectly normal global changes that would lower global temperatures. Ice Age? Maybe? If true, the response ought to be laser-focused on cheap, efficient energy to heat the world. And, if emissions warm the planet, we’ll need more of that than ever, right?
Most of the climatists are pushing for the opposite.
