Elite opinion is so off the planet that the evidence that high IQs are a form of stupidity is becoming more evident with each passing day. The latest evidence, this from Donna Laframboise:
The closer one examines the recent climate conference co-sponsored by the UK Supreme Court, the worse it looks. I’ve previously discussed the 45-minute keynote address given by Philippe Sands, in which that law professor urged international courts to “play a role here in finally scotching” non-mainstream climate perspectives.
But the video recording of that speech includes the remarks of three other individuals. Strung together, this is among the most terrifying 90 minutes I’ve ever witnessed. The event at which Sands’ speech was delivered was chaired by sitting UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Robert Carnwath. His opening remarks demonstrate that activist scientists have been joined by activist judges.
It isn’t possible to listen to Lord Carnwath’s remarks and conclude that, where the climate debate is concerned, he’s keeping an open mind. At the 5-minute, 12-second mark on the video he says the climate law conference was his idea.
You can watch the video at the link if you can bear it. Meanwhile, also from the UK, but this time with the focus on the Governor of the Bank of England:
Mark Carney’s warning that investors face “potentially huge” losses from their “stranded” coal, oil and gas assets has riled many in the investment community who believe the Bank of England governor has spoken out of turn. The chief investment officer of a large UK pension fund, who requested anonymity, agreed: “Mr Carney should stick to his mandate. Carbon policy is a matter for politics and government legislation, not the Bank of England.” Other investors also expressed scepticism about the stranded-assets theory, as well as the extent and the immediacy of the risks underlined by Mr Carney. –Madison Marriage and Richard Stovin-Bradford, Financial Times, 5 October 2015
Mark Carney believes that fossil fuels will soon become stranded assets, as the world will fall for the global warming scam and stop using them. Apparently, nobody told the Chinese! According to the IEA, they have been busy buying up all the global oil and gas assets they can get their hands on, and, as of last November, control 7% of worldwide crude oil output. –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 4 October 2015
Mark Carney, with wind turbine nailed to his forehead, has decided he doesn’t like hydrocarbons. Coal, gas and oil. He thinks we should probably leave one third of the world’s reserves of hydrocarbons right there where they are, in the ground. Leave it where it is and invest in what are euphemistically called renewables, which contribute 1% of the world’s energy needs. Right-ho, Mark — that’s the entire basis of the western economic system well and truly buggered, then. Hell, who’d have thought it: a banker doing his best to wreck the economy as a consequence of a latterly acquired arrogance. Nah. That’s never happened before, has it. –Rod Liddle, The Sunday Times, 4 October 2015
Geologically, the United States does not stand out in terms of shale resources. A very incomplete global mapping suggests a US shale oil share of no more than 17% of a huge geological wealth, widely geographically spread. Given the mainly non-proprietary shale technology and the many advantages accruing to the producing nations, it is inevitable that the revolution will spread beyond the United States. The global spread of these revolutions and the ensuing price weakness that we envisage for the coming two decades will, on balance, provide a great advantage both to the oil industry and to the world economy at large. The efforts to develop renewables for the purpose of climate stabilisation will become more costly, requiring greater subsidies, in consequence of lower oil prices. –Roberto F. Aguilera and Marian Radetzki, The Conversation, 5 October 2015
The 20 climate scientists and academics who sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to prosecute global warming skeptics may be in big trouble. A congressional committee is now looking into the government-backed nonprofit that circulated the letter, demanding they turn over “all e-mail, electronic documents, and data created since January 1, 2009.” The group has one week to respond in writing to the committee’s request. It seems like IGES’s effort to get Obama to prosecute global warming skeptics has completely backfired in the two weeks since their letter to the administration was published online. IGES has since taken down the letter and put up a message claiming the letter was “inadvertently posted” online. –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller News Foundation, 2 October 2015
We know there is more carbon in the atmosphere, and we know there is a theory that says more carbon in the atmosphere leads to a rise in temperature. The only problem so far is that temperatures are not rising. Obviously a mere detail to people whose lives would never be disrupted by massive increases in the cost of energy, in the same way their lives will never be disturbed by a million refugees across Europe. So when I think of this:
I think that’s all very well, but for someone who has spoken to his fair share of Members of Parliament, my version would be:
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with an elected politician.
Ah yes, the worst system except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. But it is the same kind of elite opinion that today worries about climate change that once upon a time had Neville Chamberlain congratulating himself for achieving Peace in Our Time in 1938. Democracy at least has the benefit of making the majority complicit in their own downfall. Not much of a compensation, but it is something.