The Cat Has Caught Up With What I Was Saying About Covid & Climate In 2020
Not wishing to blow my own trumpet, I shall content myself with strumming gently and forlornly upon my own little violin. I was saying nearly two years ago (actually it was two years ago) that Covid and Climate Change were basically two sides of the same coin and both thus essentially socio-political agendas hijacking 'science' in order to inject their false prospectus deep into our lives (and even, as it turned out, our actual bodies). Very few listened to me and quite a few criticised me, often in less than polite terms.
In April 2020 I wrote this article:
They got it wrong the second time because they relied upon an epidemiological model (adapted from an old ‘flu model) which predicted 510,000 deaths from a virus which we knew virtually nothing about. Professor Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, London said ‘DO SOMETHING OR PEOPLE WILL DIE!’ So the government did something and people still died, not in their hundreds of thousands, but, it would seem, in numbers probably irrespective of a lockdown which was initiated too late in the day and was nowhere near strict enough to have a measurable effect on what is probably an exceptionally contagious virus. American IMHE modellers got it wrong a third time, predicting loads more deaths in the UK and the US, even in lockdown, than actually occurred.
People are still scared by Covid-19; they’re scared of dying, naturally, not in many years’ time because of bad weather, but next week, due to some horrible illness which probably escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. The government and the Medicine Men currently in control of control of government decision-making, use that fear to control us and to convince us of the legitimacy of their policy.
Climate change modellers never get it wrong, simply because even when their models don’t agree with reality, this is either because the observations are wrong, or because they still ‘do a reasonable job’ of modelling past and present climate change (especially when inconvenient ‘blips’ are ironed out by retrospective adjustments to the data), but principally because the subject of their claimed modelling expertise lies many years off in the future – climate change to be expected in 2050 or 2100, when the real impacts will begin to be felt. Imperial’s and IMHE’s worst case scenarios look way off, just weeks after they were proposed and after governments acted on the modeller’s advice. Their assumptions are being rapidly challenged by new data and research. Nothing similar happens in climate change land. Their worst case scenario (RCP8.5), though comprehensively debunked, still lives on and is still being defended by Met Office scientists on the basis that ‘carbon feedbacks (however unlikely) cannot be ruled out’.
Then in July 2020 I followed up with this:
It is an article of faith: climate change is dangerous. Dare to criticise that view and, as a non scientist, you will be labelled a ‘climate denier’ and a crank. As a scientist, you will also be called a denier and a crank, as well as being ex-communicated, ostracised, hounded, disciplined, humiliated, vilified, cancelled, forced out of your job even. Dare to question the validity of epidemiological models which portray Covid-19 as a killer pandemic which, without lockdown, will cut through the populace like a knife, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and overwhelming health services and you are similarly frowned upon by the prevailing epidemiological oligarchy.
As you can see from the comments, it didn't go down too well because by then we were deep into mass formation psychosis territory.
But fast forward to 2022: the catastrophe of governments' insane reliance upon Russian oil and gas and the fallout from the batshit crazy decisions by European governments to abandon nuclear generation and domestic fossil fuel extraction in order to virtue-signal a 'just' transition to 'clean green energy' in order to 'save the planet' have become all too obvious. Business, industries and domestic energy consumers are hurting badly, especially after governments already nuked their economies with idiot, absurd, equally catastrophic Covid 'mitigation' measures.
zero carbon and zero covid are the same grift
the covid grift and the climate grift have an astonishing amount in common. it’s why it’s so easy to pivot from one to the other.
they both use hallucinatory models of imminent catastrophe that fail to conform to reality to generate scare stories and emergencies as a pretext for collectivist and globalist action and mandate.
they both make outlandish demands to change lives and lifestyles but only in VERY specific ways.
they focus entirely on that which necessitates control and submission and exclude with utter vehemence anything that actually works.
they are not about solving problems and never were.
they were everywhere and always about just one thing:
“accumulating power in the form of unaccountable socio/political authority and rent seeking wealth for the cronies that backstop it.”
and it’s the exact same playbook. hell, half the plays the covidians ran were drawn up by the climate crowd 20 years ago. it was a full blown carbon copy. (sorry)
So, it's welcome aboard to the El Gato Malo feline, but the German Shepherd got there first by quite a wide margin (actually, that should be Alsatian because we're using politically correct wartime terminology now).