So, what happened in the French legislative elections yesterday? How did Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, the big winner in the first round, having obtained nearly one-third of the votes cast, end up limping over the finish line in third place behind the Left/far-Left New Popular Front alliance of Jean-Luc Mélenchon?
The solution to this riddle is to be found in the tacit electoral pact between Mélenchon’s alliance and French President Emmanuel Macron’s ostensibly ‘centrist’ alliance, which I discussed in my last article here, and the peculiarities of France’s electoral system.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Now I understand the current war the current Dutch government is waging on farmers, a war which unfortunately seems to be gaining allies across the world.
Our mega-clever leaders wish to prepare us for the dire prospect of losing a great deal of global food production due to climate change by 2100, by eliminating as much of global food production as they can by 2030… A most cunning plan. Cull hundreds of millions to save – well, if the corona response is anything to go by, to save no one.
Some people might say the better plan would be to make plans for areas that are predicted to be subject to extreme weather to better help them deal with droughts, heat, cold, floods, whatever. Sort of like we should have simply treated sick people suffering from a virus-indiced illness rather than trying to prevent it altogether.
Yes, preparing for any changes to climate that might occur would be 100 times cheaper than NET ZERO and removing fossil fuels. But I think we have to remember that “Climate Change” isn’t really about the climate. Climate Change is simply the excuse for the Eco Socialism. It is the excuse for “Sustainable Development” (A world run by technocrats, controlling the worlds wealth and resources and the global economy). PS There are not really any “predictions” about future climate. There are “projections” from climate models full of assumptions and speculations that don’t even include many of the climate parameters, because they are either poorly understood or not known at all.
Every scientist who remains silent in the face of these ludicrous, laughable, nonsense predictions of doom and gloom is complicit in causing poverty, immiseration and mental distress. There is no excuse that bears any scrutiny. They are self-serving cowards, more concerned with their own precious careers than their responsibility to be decent, honest human beings.
I expect deceit and lies from politicians and journalists, for the truth is not in them, but those that claim to be scientists who still go along with this fantastical, groundless soothsaying deserve a special place in hell.
But there has always been this symbiotic relationship between government and scientists. Today more than ever before though science has been corrupted for political purposes. Scientists are like any other group of people with families to feed and mortgages to pay. If government want to pay them good money to look for purple horses then it is very hard for them to quickly report back that there are NONE . ———They might decide to hedge their integrity with phrases like “The likelyhood of there being purple horses is not inconsistent with our studies”. That way the government get to say they are following the science and the scientists get to say they haven’t told porkies.
“pay them good money” is more accurately described as “waste hard earned taxpayers money”
Yes “hard earned taxpayers money”. But it was good money till the government decided to splash it about like confetti in support of anything remotely they think will help them pretend to save the planet.
If you want the names of the guilty, look no further than the celebrity scientists on TV.
If there was a climate emergency, don’t you think that all these ULEZ, CAZ and LEZs would not be based on paying a fee but on stopping all vehicles that do not meet emissions levels from entering? I, in my trusty old 16 years old diesel can drive happily into any urban centre, spouting my noxious fumes, IF I pay a fee. Likewise, don’t you think that housing estate developers would be forced to include solar panels, wind turbines, triple glazing, EV charging units etc on all their new builds? They aren’t. With rising sea levels predicted, wouldn’t people like Obama, Gore, Gates et al not be buying sea front homes? They are. Also, with air traffic one of the big emitters, wouldn’t all the same lot be leading by example and doing their G7 meetings via zoom? They aren’t. And these are just a few of the examples of the utter hypocrisy that lies at the heart of this fake emergency. Let’s look at what the emergency entails:
No more gas boilers
Less meat
Less farms
More EVs (with their dirty lithium batteries prone to catching fire)
More restrictions in driving
Phasing out of petrol and diesel cars
Phasing out or ban on woodburners
etc etc
And for Absolute Zero (which sounds like a vodka and maybe you need a stiff one to read the following):
No more flying
No more ships
No meat
No gas/fuel
No driving
etc etc
All this for what? Emissions of a gas that is at 400 parts per million, a gas that is plant food. This is not only a massive hoax, it is criminal. The mobsters who pass themselves off as bankers, politicians, judiciary, media…all of them fan the flames of this criminality. Most people would call you and me conspiracy theorists or some label or other. It’s just their way of shutting down debate because they know that in a debate they would lose. If ever the snoozing masses wake up to this and realise they’re prisoners on day release and not free and about to be locked up in zones while the globalists slowly kill us off, this would end.
Agreed – but it’s fewer farms not less.
I know, Epi, I wrote it in haste though.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986
Frim 29th Jan 2020
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers.
Proponents of climate change and climate policies in government, media and the useful idiot class that glue themselves to things think that climate change is a purely black and white issue. They think it is an issue where you either agree it is happening or you don’t agree (in other words you are a climate denier). To these people there is no in-between the black and white. So when a person asks any kind of question or points out any kind of discrepancy or inaccuracy in some claim about the climate then that must mean they are a “denier”. ———– But isn’t the issue of climate change not supposed to be about science? ——-In science isn’t it the case that scepticism is the highest calling and blind faith the one unpardonable sin? ——–YES. —— So, when science cannot be challenged, because it has simply been declared as ultimate truth and when that science cannot be falsified and there is no way to disprove those scientific claims, then actually we are not really dealing in science anymore. We are dealing in Politics and dogma. We are dealing in “Official Science” that exists for one reason only. ——-To provide the excuse for public policy.——- This “Official Science” that cannot be challenged and which cannot be falsified is the science that supports the Politics of “Sustainable Development”. Without that science, the whole Sustainable Development agenda collapses. So, this is why there can be no discussion, no questions, no expressions of doubt, no indication that maybe there are uncertainties that could use further investigation. But we do not live in a scientific dictatorship. Truth cannot simply be declared by government funded data adjusters, where if they torture the data for long enough it will confess to anything. If they do try to torture data for political purposes then along should come all the Investigative Journalists to expose their shenanigans, but the horror is confounded when we discover that vast swathes of the media supposed to be doing the investigating have simply morphed into climate activists (BBC, SKY NEWS, CNN, Independent, Guardian, New York Times etc etc.. ———We are reminded on TV News nearly every day of the “Climate Emergency”. But where is this emergency? Are storms floods and droughts getting more intense and more frequent? ———Eh NO. They aren’t ——-If someone asks me if there are such things as pillar boxes I can say yes there are, because I have seen them. I have posted letters in them so I know they exist. I have NOT seen a “Climate Emergency” despite the fact that I am continually reminded there is one. It turns out that the emergency exists in only one place —Climate Models. How have we got to a place where 40% of young people don’t want to have children because they fear for the future of the planet? The answer is that propaganda is a very powerful tool which is why governments love using it. They know it works.
Governments are shameless we know. But taking on Goebbels views on the ‘Big Lie’ is the worst of all their crimes.
Please watch Geoengineeringwatch.com. Those chem trails we see EVERY SINGLE day in the UK and around the world, but choose to ignore, are manipulating the weather. And not in a good way.
If you read it, the Washington Post article seems to be more of a discussion of climate change and turbulence than some kind of alarm.
For example, having explained why rising temperatures can increase turbulence, it writes:
But that doesn’t necessarily mean flight turbulence is becoming more common …. Airlines have taken measures to minimize or avoid bumpy air, including through improved forecasting of atmospheric turbulence.
In fact the article makes no predictions at all, much less doom-laden predictions. Yes it refers to Paul Williams but not to the paper that Chris links to. Chris links to a paper first published in 2017 about modelling turbulence. However, the WP article only refers to a 2019 paper providing data on what has been happening on the North Atlantic route (presumably this is the paper it is referring to).
Also amused to see this from Chris:
Apart from small upticks in warmth due to powerful and natural El Nino events, the recent warming is barely measurable within any reasonable margin of error.
Whenever Chris talks about the pause I assume he is referring to Spencer and Christie’s UAH record. There are of course many other global temperature records but even the UAH record looks very much like a rise (and Spencer and Christie don’t deny it). However, allowing for El Nino years is, I think, new. Can we equally allow for the La Nina which has suppressed global temperatures for the last three years?
Yes, but just because something warms does not mean humans warmed it.— Over the last hundred or so years official temperature records seem to indicate warming and cooling periods. There was cooling from 1940-76, slight warming from 76-98 and statistically not much since then despite more CO2 going into the atmosphere. Even the IPCC admit they cannot tell the difference between natural variability of the climate and changes allegedly caused by humans. They also recently admitted that their worst case scenarios are very unlikely to occur, which kind of eliminates the need for “climate crisis” kind of talk. ————— The temperature record of earth though has been fiddled about with more than a hookers knickers. So as Judith Curry has said “Sure, all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in earth’s climate are not equal”. ——-A little bit of warming is not a “crisis”
Climate change crisis is the biggest Cash Cow in the history of the world. Tens of thousands of scientists and academics rely on this for funding. There is 1 thing driving and maintaining this and it is western governments cash! Until that stops this will continue.
Is public trust in science really being undermined? If so, this article may explain why, but does not show that it is so. Its headline is misleading.
I *suspect* that the current state of science is such that no-one really knows how the climate might change, or what factors might change it. But that is just me, not the public.
Science is not about consensus or trust. What we are witnessing is an utter failure of the education system to prepare people to live in a technically advanced society. I suspect this is deliberate. An educated population ask too many questions.
The humanity-caused climate change industry is very lucrative for some.
They will try their best to keep the money flowing to them.