David Bidstrup: If one problem is too hard to solve try another one

Back in the 1970’s the big climate scare was the “impending ice age”. Temperatures had fallen since the 1930’s and Arctic sea ice was in abundance. All the “scientists” and the “scientific bodies” agreed that we would freeze. There was “concensus”.

The main problem with global cooling was it could not be attributed to anything “anthropogenic”. Carbon dioxide was supposed to heat us up and the Milankovitch cycles and sunspot activity were outside mans “control”. There was nothing we could do except to prepare to become extinct as agriculture failed and mass starvation culled us from the earth.

Fortunately temperatures began to rise and by 1988 the climate problem became how to stop us all from frying. This was a better problem because the fanciful notion that carbon dioxide, with its magical property of “trapping heat” and “radiating it back towards us”. The magical “greenhouse effect”,( that is nothing like a real greenhouse), became the culprit and that gave them a means of “control”. They could “stop climate change” if only we gave up having cheap reliable electricity and glass in the windows. I wonder when they will work out how to control volcano’s – that’s a hard one so they will probably let it go through to the keeper.

There was also a moral dimension to the story. All of the “advanced counties” who had benefited from the dreaded CO2 and advanced their standard of living had done so by “causing climate change” that would affect outer bong-bong land. We were guilty of eco-terrorism and had to atone.

For some reason that is beyond rationality, the task of co-ordinating the “science” and sorting out the method to make reparations for our sins was given to the United Nations, one of the most ineffectual organisations in the world. In the best bureaucratic tradition the IPCC became the 300 kg Gorilla that sat wherever it wanted to. Meetings were held in exotic places and attended by thousands of “dignitaries”, “scientists” and hangers on. Our recently departed Premier attended one of them with a film crew in tow so that his virtue was captured for posterity. While all this happened the state electricity supply was trashed and the state debt increased.

In the late 1990’s the temperatures plateaued and have stayed about the same for the time since then. This violated the CO2 theory so mad animal panic attempts were made to “find the missing heat”. Was it “in the oceans” or in the cupboard under the stairs? This is when “global warming” became “climate change”. It did not matter then if temperatures did not increase; there were plenty of things that could be blamed on CO2 given the right propaganda – “extreme weather”, sea level rise, coral reefs dying, Arctic/Antarctic ice melting, glaciers melting. Imagination was the only limiting factor.

When it became obvious that practice was widely divergent from the theory other scientists who were not so gullible began to voice contrary views that were backed up by research. This heretical behaviour could not be tolerated so a concerted campaign started to vilify these people and call them offensive names. This continues today. Some really rabid green types want to throw them in jail.

“Climate change” is manna from heaven for politicians who compete in the stupidity stakes to show which side is more capable of “saving us”. No plan is too outlandish or expensive as long as it will “save the planet” and guarantee a bright future for the grandkids. People whose main skill is to kiss arses without cringing and who possess pathological egos become instant experts aided by economic modelling and urged on by special interest groups. Anyone who challenges the status quo, particularly if they indulge in engineering solutions, become “coal lovers” and therefore highly suspect. The fact that they have years of experience and know what to do has no value.

It is also the best thing for the purveyors of “renewable energy”. With the assistance of policy that gives them first call to supply electricity, (if they can), and a guaranteed subsidy for every megawatt hour delivered, (paid for by consumers), these useless projects have proliferated, blighting the landscape, killing birds and causing health problems for near residents while traditional generators using coal have been sent to the wall. Here in good old SA we even blow power stations up and send the scrap to China. That’s OK because “carbon is bad” even though we are a carbon based species and carbon dioxide is necessary for all living things.

What used to be simple and cheap is now complex and unreliable. New bureaucracies have popped up to “run” the system and administer the biggest joke of a “market” imaginable.

Consumers are screwed at every opportunity. Some may remember my post titled “the summer rip-off” documenting eye watering costs in January 2018 when the system was on the edge of failure. This will happen again this summer.

Funnily enough, global cooling is again on the agenda backed up by some science on solar cycles and past climate events like the “little ice age”. The Arctic ice refuses to die even though the climate change boosters have been giving it another year to disappear every year for the last 15 years. Greenland is amassing ice, glaciers are growing and Europe and the USA are enduring horrifically cold winters with “record” snow. This is apparently caused by carbon dioxide. The Great Barrier Reef is ok and Australian summer temperatures are normal despite all the “scientists” telling us they are not.

The media are in climate frenzy with dire stories every day about “heat waves”, “extreme temperatures” and other twaddle which can be challenged by looking at past records. Even an old bloke like me can spot it. The first rule of holes says that when you find yourself in one you stop digging.

At this time it seems that there is no end to this insanity. Perhaps we need to really fail badly before people start chasing these charlatans down the streets brandishing pitchforks. In less enlightened times the mob would string them up on the nearest lamppost or tree.

(Footnote: If anyone has not heard of Tony Heller I recommend that you acquaint yourselves with him and look at some of his video presentations. His website is realclimatescience.com.)

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to David Bidstrup: If one problem is too hard to solve try another one

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    The problem that was too hard to solve was this: “how do we get the population to embrace socialism?”
    The first attempt, courtesy of Lenin and his cronies, failed.
    The second attempt through the welfare state is failing – see Sweden, France etc.
    The green religion is the third attempt: it too seems to be failing as the population wises up.
    I wonder what they will try next?

  2. RCon

    Yeah, I’m all for this line of reasoning, but you’re going to need some sources here. Unless this is purely opinion?

  3. Herodotus

    Unless this is purely opinion?
    Unlike the “Summary for Policy Makers” part of the IPCC’s scam sheet.

  4. Roger

    There was “concensus”.

    No, there was consensus.

    😉

  5. Chris

    Ian Plimer’s new book “Climate change delusion and the great electricity rip-off” should be essential reading for anybody wanting to debate the issue. He highlights the fraud underpinning the ‘science’ of human caused climate change.

  6. Colonel Crispin Berka, King's Fusiliers Corps.

    Bidstrup says:

    the fanciful notion that carbon dioxide, with its magical property of “trapping heat” and “radiating it back towards us”.

    Given the enormous amounts of observational evidence of the infra-red greenhouse effect, the only way any one could not believe in it today is if they have put in absolutely zero effort and carefully avoided studying the prior work. The term “science denial” seems appropriate for people like David Bidstrup.

    Start with some observed facts. https://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/03/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-%e2%80%9cgreenhouse%e2%80%9d-effect-%e2%80%93-part-ten/
    Simply no point in going any further with forming an interpretative opinion until you know what instruments have actually measured about the atmosphere.

  7. Ellen of Tasmania

    The problem that was too hard to solve was this: “how do we get the population to embrace socialism?”

    Do you really think it has failed, BoN?

    Half the western world’s populations embrace socialism, and many ‘conservatives’ think that socialised medicine, education and welfare are acceptable. People are always asking, “What is the government going to do about it?” That looks pretty successful to me, in terms of ‘getting the population to embrace socialism’.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean you can get reality to embrace socialism. It still won’t work, but the people generally believe it will in some shape or form.

  8. egg_

    The green religion is the third attempt

    Kinda Totalitarian dynamiting decommissioned coal fired power stations, says it all.

  9. Dr Fred Lenin

    Egg ,rebuild it three times bigger and name it after weatherill ,rub their noses in it ,works with puppies and kittens ,surely they are that smart ? Or are they?

  10. Alan

    RCon asks a reasonable question. See The 1970’s Global Cooling Compilation.
    Very Good question, Bruce. I have stumbled across some interesting stuff.
    We seem to have discovered the UNFCCC working with the World Bank to enforce economic slavery? This link opens to an interesting pdf document illustrating projected global financial flows.
    [see *Complete Report* – Fig.16 @ p.72]
    It seems Australia will be dragged back to the dark ages.
    Too easy when one can turn off the money tap at the individual level?

  11. Tekweni

    Back in the 70’s global cooling was all the rage at universities in departments offering climatology as a subject. A little ice age was approaching and data was generated to prove it. And if anyone has ever worked in this area then you will know the volume of data that is generated and has to be analysed. It’s extremely boring and I can see why it so easy to manipulate. Three years of climate science was enough to cure me of any ambition to make a career in the field. What it did do is give me a highly cynical view of climate scientists and data manipulation.
    Fortunately in the 70’s at the university I attended the academic staff were fanatical in ensuring that their graduates understood how climate data taken from the same point can vary as it is influenced by the change in the physical area around it. Dragging Stevenson screens from supermarket car parks to nearby parks to show heat island effects was the first lesson in that. It went a lot wider than that and Jennifer Marohasy and Joe Nova certainly nailed that with the BOM data that was “homogenised”.

  12. Neville

    Dr Fred, that’s hilarious! I nearly fell off the chair laughing! Love it! “.. rebuild it three times bigger and name it after Weatherill ,rub their noses in it ..”
    Oh how I wish I could see that! “The Weatherill (coal-fired, HELE) Power Station” … and look! it manages to supply about 100% of SA’s electricity needs, as well as backing up the Unreliable Sources!!

  13. Iampeter

    There was also a moral dimension to the story. All of the “advanced counties” who had benefited from the dreaded CO2 and advanced their standard of living had done so by “causing climate change” that would affect outer bong-bong land. We were guilty of eco-terrorism and had to atone.

    Yea it’s called altruism, which is the dominated morality in our culture. It’s been this way since Christ on the cross became the symbol of the good. Basically life and prosperity on earth is a sin, suffering and death are virtues.
    Environmentalism, like it’s predecessors of communism and fascism, are the logical conclusions of this kind of morality.

    At this time it seems that there is no end to this insanity. Perhaps we need to really fail badly before people start chasing these charlatans down the streets brandishing pitchforks.

    Or perhaps we need to challenge the moral premise of these people?
    Until we reject Christian altruism and embrace rational self interest instead, we will never be rid of movements like environmentalism.

  14. egg_

    Oh how I wish I could see that! “The Weatherill (coal-fired, HELE) Power Station” … and look! it manages to supply about 100% of SA’s electricity needs, as well as backing up the Unreliable Sources!!

    Yup, The Weatherill Clean Coal 10 Gigawatt Station, supplying SA and Vic.

  15. egg_

    a concentrated form of the utter bullshit narrative

    The IPCC Reports?

  16. Mark M

    1972, Walter Cronkite warns of coming ice age

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4JX1S9YZBo

    1980: Walter Cronkite warns of 97% failed Doomsday Global Warming

  17. duncanm

    Until we reject Christian altruism and embrace rational self interest instead, we will never be rid of movements like environmentalism.

    what a load of pap. Christian does not equal Benedictine monk.

  18. duncanm

    how do we get the population to embrace socialism?

    sneak it under under the veil of ‘compassion’ and guilt, then force it on them, good and hard.

  19. will

    Ian Plimer’s new book “Climate change delusion and the great electricity rip-off” should be essential reading for anybody

    But it won’t be.

    Garth Partridge published his “Climate Scam” book in 2009 quoting his research which falsified the AGW hypothesis. As Einstein said, you just need one scientist to show me I am wrong, not 100.

    That should have been the finish of this fraud. Yet here we are with deranged loons like Harken Clown.

  20. iggie

    David,
    You forgot to mention ‘adjustments’.
    Darwin AP prior to the ‘plateau temp’ scare (via GISS NASA before 2010).
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200004&dt=1&ds=1
    After adjustments.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=501941200000&ds=5&dt=1

    Phew, that’s better.

  21. Mark M

    Harken Now
    #2909426, posted on January 17, 2019 at 12:41 am
    Hark! Wow, this post is a concentrated form of the utter bullshit narrative that modern conservatism has constructed for itself by telling tales to each other around the internet campfire …

    Heh. With the ‘progressive’ narrative option a failed UN-IPCC CO2 climate doomsday, shouldn’t Harken Now be “dedicating your time to constructing a survivalist fallout shelter in the bush”?

    It’s the worst apocalypse. Ever.

  22. Mark M

    * Readers might note my link is from Monash University, quoting “Two law experts, Dr Rowena Cantley-Smith and Dr Vanessa Johnston, were part of a 15-person delegation from Monash University that headed to Bonn to help determine the world’s next steps.”

    What load of unmitigated failed doomsday climate crap from Monash U.
    https://www.theguardian.com/monash-university-pursuit-of-knowledge/2017/dec/15/what-did-we-learn-from-the-un-climate-change-conference

  23. Alan

    RCon asks a reasonable question. See The 1970’s Global Cooling Compilation.

  24. Dr Fred Lenin

    If you cannot solve one problem ,create a new one to “solve “ .
    SOLVE? Get huge amounts of taxpayers money to pretend you are solving it.
    The answer to imported african crime for the elite is ,gated communities with armed guards .
    The answer to the power crisis we created is taking bribes from carpetbaggers to have a well paid pretend job when you retire drom politics to spend more time with your family.
    So there are two problems the left have solved.

  25. Mark M

    The Global Risks Report 2019 14th Edition

    World Economic Forum (WEF)

    “Of all risks, it is in relation to the environment that the world is most clearly sleepwalking into catastrophe.”
    Read our new Global Risks Report:

    “Environmental risks continue
 to dominate the results of our annual Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS).”

    http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2019.pdf

    Only windmills, sun collectors and a tax can save us, though no evidence of them preventing catastrophe exist.

  26. Andre Lewis

    Not only are the decades old closed laboratory experiments that purported to show CO2 is a greenhouse gas of no value in illustrating how the gas behaves in tiny concentrations in an open, chaotic system like the Earths atmosphere but no data has ever been produced to show it behaves as a warming agent for the climate in a measurable way.
    The atmosphere is not anything lie a greenhouse controlled environment, CO2 chemical affects are logarithmic and it decays over time in a predictable way. No correlation (backed by data that has not been massaged through computer models of dubious provenance) with global temperatures has been scientifically produced that can be replicated.
    Its a scam.

  27. Destroyer D69

    If the “concensus” of ticketholders present at a concert agree that the time for the end of the concert has not yet arrived, or that the commencement time/date occurs in 24 hours time will the event be restaged to agree with the “concensus” Remember ,”concensus” trumps truth.

  28. Tel

    This is very well explained, concise and systematically covers the logical fallacies, hidden agendas, and generally poor decision making typical of people like “Hark” in the energy debate.

    http://industrialprogress.com/power-hour-news-update-1-2018/

  29. gbees

    Colonel Crispin Berka, King’s Fusiliers Corps.
    #2909164, posted on January 16, 2019 at 7:28 pm

    the Col says:

    Given the enormous amounts of observational evidence of the infra-red greenhouse effect, the only way any one could not believe in it today is if they have put in absolutely zero effort and carefully avoided studying the prior work.

    That’s not the hypothesis being put. The greatest greenhouse gas is water vapour. The theory is that CO2 ‘amplifies’ the effect of water vapour trapping the heat. This feedback/amplification has not been proved. Further if human CO2 emissions, which are ~3% of all CO2 emissions (nature the rest), how is it that the human proportion of CO2 is the global warming culprit and nature’s proportion isn’t?

    https://www.technocracy.news/tim-ball-the-evidence-proves-that-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

    Additionally you used the word ‘believe’ in your rebuttal of Bidstrop. Science is not belief. Science is the testing of a hypothesis using observed/empirical data to falsify said hypothesis. The CO2 catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has not been proved.

Comments are closed.