Friday, November 29, 2019

Climate emergency: EU is governed by trash

The European Parliament has declared the so-called "climate emergency". The vote was 429-225-19 (Yes-No-Abstain) while the Czech 21 MEPs voted in the opposite way, 6-12-3. I am the only person not participating in the EU politics who has found and who cared about the actual 2-page resolution:
Press release, adopted resolutions, adopted on Thursday, emergency 2-page PDF
Beneath the titles and numbers, it says "having regard to..." eleven times. It has regard to the UNFCCC, various conferences of fearmongers, various individual superstitions and suicidal plans, and so on. This "having regard to..." format says nothing legally and is basically equivalent to a prayer, a very lame one. We pray for God and Saints and our relatives and so forth – instead of "we pray", they say "having regard to", but the content is the same.

After this prayer, it says that the warming must be urgently kept below 1.5 °C – an ill-defined and absolutely indefensible goal – and all people and occupation must be harassed by this hysteria because only the crippling of the whole continent is "socially balanced". All EU apparatchiks are called to be hysterical, indefinitely talk gibberish about the climate hysteria, and buy electric cars everywhere etc.

The degree of stupidity and bad taste that one needs to vote "Yes" and to support such a resolution is absolutely flabbergasting. The resolution is standing on some of the most pathetic pseudoscientific superstitions of the recent centuries, has regard to some of the most dishonest, lying, and parasitic jerks that have entered the public space in the recent centuries, and – by its resembling a vague prayer rather than a sequence of well-defined rules and plans – it violates all criteria of efficiency of a law.

However, that didn't prevent almost 2/3 of the MEPs from voting "Yes". These people have been appointed to their chairs by a process that is pretty much corrupt but they still approximately reflect the profound degree of intellectual deterioration that the European population – and especially the people who live in the geographically Western Europe – is undergoing these days.

I think it's helpful to compare this climate emergency justified by a totally non-existent problem to a declaration in which an urgent threat actually existed. What about the U.S. and the Second World War? On December 8th, 1941, one day after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress approved and Roosevelt signed their declaration of war on Japan:
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
The brief, urgent character of the declarations makes them analogous. What are the differences? Well, the declaration of war on Japan was still more concise. The war was declared for reasons that were real, unlike the climate threats, and that's also why the justification was reduced to a few words about "Japan's unprovoked acts of war". The U.S. lawmakers and their constituencies became sufficiently certain that there was an attack in Pearl Harbor, it became a thing, and that's why the existence of that thing could have simply been stated.

On the other hand, as every scientifically literate kid knows, there is no reason whatsoever to be afraid of anything related to the global climate change. There is no climatic Pearl Harbor, there is no fact justifying the worries about the "global climate change". How do the authors of the climate emergency declaration deal with this small problem? Well, they replace the "thing", the well-known attack on Pearl Harbor that doesn't exist in this case, by 11 "smaller or partial things". They don't have any Pearl Harbor but they are "having regard to" eleven small things such as institutions promoting the climate panic, a bunch of eleven conferences and morons and liars and brainwashed people who have said random insane things. And a list that is long enough must be capable of substituting the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Sorry but it doesn't work like that. You may have 25 COP climate alarmist conferences, 12 new ways of taxing, 11 light bulbs banning, 10 droughts a happening, 9 hurricanes blowing... a fearmongering documentary, and 422 idiots who are ready to vote "Yes" to approve such a shameful resolution. But these pieces of assorted šit are still not enough to substitute one real Pearl Harbor. Again, 422 Gr@tins and 1917 lies aren't enough to replace the truth. 2,500 IPCC members saying the lies aren't enough to replace one Richard Lindzen who says the truth etc.

In 1941, they had an actual reason to declare the war which is why it could be formulated clearly and concisely. In 2019, there exists nothing analogous which is why the people fill more than one page with the "replacements" that are supposed to play the same role as the attack on Pearl Harbor but they don't. Another way to describe the difference was that in 1941, the declaration could have assumed that almost all the readers "knew what problem they were talking about" and they just wanted to see "what the leading U.S. politicians will do". Now, in 2019, the writers know very well that it's not the case because a huge portion of the people still realizes that there is no "climate problem". So a huge fraction of the climate declaration is made out of propaganda, efforts to brainwash, persuade, confuse the reader – this part was completely absent in 1941.

In 1941, people still had their separate roles. Some Japanese warriors attacked Pearl Harbor, some American soldiers tried to defend the place on the spot, the U.S. lawmakers had to change the legal system a little bit, and Roosevelt had to act as the commander-in-chief. This separation of roles is non-existent in 2019. Everyone in the EU is doing the same thing, namely talking incoherent gibberish about his or her climate hysteria – and supporting any pro-hysterical recommendation by anyone else. The whole political system is obsessed with one bunch of brainwashed people's brainwashing of another bunch of people who still need to be brainwashed more than they have been so far. That's not how it worked in 1941. No one was interested what politician XY wanted others to believe. People assumed the same objective acts and they just wanted to know what the Congress or Roosevelt do.

A similar difference exists between the plans to deal with the real or alleged problem and recommended by the two resolutions. In 1941, they simply stated that the U.S. military and navy were ordered to deal with the Japanese problem. Navies and armies actually work to defeat other navies and armies – it had been tested and indeed, the U.S. defeated Japan in 1945 although an army of leading physicists may have been more important than the old-fashioned navy and military.

On the other hand, in 2019, the readers of that 2-page-long document (which is fortunately just me and you) are told about that "serious" problem (which is said to be lethal for the planet if and when a vaguely specified temperature difference surpasses the totally arbitrary and unimpressive constant of 1.5 °C) and the solution is... to replace the EU politicians' vehicles with zero-emissions vehicles, aside from roughly 5 similar plans. It's so funny. Such a change modifies the temperature at most by microkelvins. There is exactly one "slightly meaningful" – but still vastly "smaller than global" – proposal in the climate emergency declaration. It was introduced mostly by the Czech ODS MEPs (the party I voted in 1992-2018) and it's the proposal to reduce the "number of seats of the European Parliament from two to one".

All the lawmakers are moving between Strasbourg and Brussels 12 times a year. Such a frequent migration of a whole sub-town devours lots of resources – and, last but also least, has a carbon footprint – which should be saved. While the impact of that transfer of the 720 MEPs and their machineries is somewhat substantial, the temperature impact is still way below a millikelvin. But changes like that are what rational MEPs look at – and I am happy yet unsurprised to see that it's the Czech MEPs who were approaching this farce at least somewhat rationally.

No comments:

Post a Comment