Lead by Science [Part 2]: The Cult of Zero Carbon
“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.” [Karl Popper]
TED’s website suggests that the 2010 talk ‘Innovating to Zero’, by the sociopathic technologist Bill Gates, has been viewed more than 6.6 million times. Zero-carbon emissions are quite consistent with his advocacy of depopulation, ‘reproductive health services’, and ‘new vaccines’. After all, every breathing human just adds to the problem. Paradoxically, Bill attributes his passion for zero carbon emissions to a concern for the crops to feed the poorest 2 billion: “The climate getting worse means that many years, their crops won’t grow”. Even though this claim is unscientific and imprecise enough to be meaningless, the intended inference could not be clearer: reduce carbon to ensure food security for the poorest of the poor. Linking it to food security for the poorest of peoples is of course nothing more than a cynical ploy to ensure that anyone daring to question the narrative can immediately be dismissed from the highest of moral grounds on the bedrock of ‘science’. Impressive.
Given how the most vocal proponents of carbon restriction profess adherence to science, it’s curious that a 2015 interview on the ecological impacts of atmospheric carbon with Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, of one of the most pre-eminent scientific thinkers of modern times, attracts views of less than 6,000 according to YouTube. The interview is a must watch:
Speaking with the humor, humility and optimism of one who has spent a life in the pursuit of truth, the professor admits he does not understand the ‘religion of climate change’. Instead, it takes him less than 20 minutes, and zero PowerPoint slides, to deliver tremendously good news to anyone who has been mislead by the narratives of $CO_2$ driven warming masquerading as science. Highlights include the following observations.
Atmospheric carbon is a fertilizer, NOT a pollutant. Its first-order impact on life is a substantial and measurable increase in the greening of the earth. A 40% increase in atmospheric carbon concentration has yielded a 20% increase in vegetation.
Water vapor accounts for 90% of so-called greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide 3%. $CO_2$'s effects on climate are highly uncertain in comparison to (say) solar activity – to which is attributed the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.
Climate prediction is as much art as it is science. Computer simulations are NOT ‘science’. Actual scientists from, a breadth of relevant domains, were displaced by computer modelers decades ago in the realm of ‘climate science’.
In a 2019 interview (linked at the end), also languishing with 6,000 views, Freeman Dyson explains how increased atmospheric carbon substantially increases crop yields and the drought resistance of plants. He summarizes thus:
“But if you look at the non-climate effects of carbon dioxide, there is evidence they are very strong. They are easy to observe, easy to measure. They are overwhelmingly beneficial.
[Interviewer] Can you give me an example?
The carbon dioxide directly enables the growth of all kinds of plants. So more carbon dioxide means it is good for the wildlife, it’s good for the forests and it’s good for food, for the agriculture all over the world. It saves huge numbers of people from starving. The effects are out of all proportion more serious than the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. And that’s what's never being said in public.”
Why then are wealthy elites so fixated on reducing carbon emissions? Why is this position claimed to be scientific? Why is the narrative being framed in the interests of the poor, who are most directly and positively impacted by increased atmospheric carbon concentration?
Sadly, Freeman Dyson passed away earlier this year while as recently as two months ago, Bill Gates was pushing the same narrative he spruiked in his 2010 TED performance. In an August blog post he ponders the pressing question of how we move around in a zero-carbon world? It is hard to imagine that Bill is as naïve, simplistic and idiotic as the rhetoric he promotes. Indeed, his 2013 travels on the Lolita Express, with sex-trafficking pederast pal and ‘financial advisor’ Jeffrey Epstein suggest neither belief in the rhetoric nor anything short of contempt for the lives of vulnerable humans.
The October 2019 interview with Freeman Dyson:
#Carbon #Ecology #Science #Evidence #Narrative #Freeman #Dyson #Gates