Net-Zero Nonsense

The more one hears about "net-zero," the more absurd it becomes that anyone is falling for it. Are the elites running this grift going to stop flying their jets, disconnect their gas stoves, stop buying beachfront properties, or eat Cricket Crispies for breakfast? No. And why not? Easy: Because they don’t believe it themselves.

Here are a few examples of them discussing, in their own words, the real significance of their “climate change” strategy:

• Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015:

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore…. We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.

• Christina Figueres, formerly the executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

Think about the hubris: "we have given ourselves." A few unaccountable, un-elected, globalists have chosen – all by themselves – to terminate the economic model that is history’s primary driver of prosperity, and to charge us trillions of dollars to do so. The "climate change" cult has never been about honest discussion of the climate (doing so won't get them to their redistribution grift). The U.N.'s IPCC leadership has been announcing that fact since at least 2001:

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

This isn't how the scientific method works. They're proposing a hypothetical which they insist is unfalsifiable, and dismiss any volumes of data, scientific opinion, and hesitancy with current models that do not support their conclusion as "denialism." The purpose of a hypothetical is to test a theory. If they refuse to test their theory, why should anyone believe it? And yet, despite its aversion to reasoned discourse and analysis, Big Environmentalism seems to keep coming out on top. Why is this?

In large part it's because human beings make decisions based on emotion. The incessant cries of "we're all gonna die in 12 years!" or, "the earth has a temperature!" uttered by some ignorant celebrity have more emotional pull than arcane discussions of the impossibility of predicting the climate a century from now, or continuing reviews of the data and models that do not support the hoax.

The media, due to some unholy combination of ignorance, malice, and corruption, have amplified these cries and have generally put a lot of energy into propagandizing the public into accepting the official "science," a manufactured consensus that isn't even supported by their own data (check out the differences between the actual IPCC Reports and the IPCC Summaries for Policies Makers if you don't believe me). And they've succeeded in making lots of people -- young people in particular -- terrified of every change in the weather. Great job guys -- you've convinced young adults to be scared of rain. And to what end? Edenhofer again:

The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated..

You will own net-zero and be happy...