The Truth About Climate Change Is Not On The Cover Of The Rolling Stone

A headline that caught my eye on Medium today read “The Truth About These Climate Change Numbers,” unfortunately the article was an import from Rolling Stone and was behind the Medium membership wall. Not being the kind of skinflint who would sidestep Medium’s membership wall for the sake of saving $5 a month, I toddled off to Rolling Stone and read the article for free there. Medium readers, members or not, can read my reaction below:

Rolling Stone was once a decent music magazine, in fact my title references a Dr. Hook song lyric which made the claim that you have ‘arrived’ when you get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Alas, like so much connected with music, entertainment and Hollywood, The Rolling Stone has disappeared up its own arse.

Now, instead of sticking with what it is good at, Rolling Stone fancies itself as a left wing opinion maker. And so it has joined the likes of George Cloony, Gwyneth Paltow. Miley Cyrus, Leonardo di Caprio, Taylor Swift and Beyoncé in lecturing us on how we should look after the planet (apparently flying around in a private jet is less harmful than driving a mid rage car.) Trouble is RS spouts all the same propaganda as all other left wing rags. Take a recent article on climate change for example:

The Truth About These Climate Change Numbers — Rolling Stone

Excerpt:

Image source: Rolling stone, Stefan Zeise

It’s often argued that climate change is not a technological or engineering problem, it is a political problem. And it’s true. We have all the technology we need to power the world with renewables and stave off the worst of climate chaos. What we lack is the political will to take the kind of moonshot-scale action necessary to accomplish it.

But climate change is also a numbers problem. Every ton of carbon that we dump into the atmosphere stays there for hundreds of years, warming the atmosphere and reshaping the future climate. As the recent IPCC report pointed out, to avoid the worst of climate chaos, the world needs to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050. Accomplishing that would require not just a remaking of our energy system, but profound changes in agriculture, the design of cities and transportation systems. It is possible to imagine how a revolution like this might happen, but it’s even easier to imagine how it would not.

A new report issued this week by the Global Carbon Project shows that, far from making progress, we’re going in exactly the opposite direction. After several years when global carbon emissions flatlined, giving hope to some that the turning point had come, the new report shows that carbon emissions are projected to increase by 2.7 percent in 2018. That may not sound like a lot, but given what’s at stake with our rapidly changing climate, it’s the equivalent of an alcoholic who had sworn to go cold turkey taking a couple of shots of Jack Daniels at lunch.

[ … ]

“We are in trouble. We are in deep trouble with climate change,” United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said this week at the opening of the 24th annual U.N. climate conference in Poland, where attendees will once again wrestle with how to convince world leaders to implement policies that will sharply reduce carbon emissions in the coming years.

READ ALL >>>

There is a lot wrong with the article. Let’s start at the highlighted section, “We have all the technology we need to power the world with renewables and stave off the worst of climate chaos.” Actually we don’t. Wind and solar have both proved expensive and grossly inefficient and will continue to be so until science finds ways to make the wind blow consistently at between 20 and 40 mph and the sun shine from an elevation of between 60º and 120º to horizontal in a cloudless sky for twenty four hours a day. Even then both only move pollution away from the point of generation to the place of manufacture (which is why China dominates the market in wind turbines and solar panels, they don’t give a flying one about pollution.) Hydro has its own environmental problems and nuclear (not clean but no CO2, the non — pollutant plant food that politicians and weirdie beardies obsess over,) sends left wing activists into paroxysms of horror.

Until wind and sun can be relied on to produce energy 24 hours a day to feed the base load modern society puts on the grid, then we are stuck with keeping coal, gas and other fossil fuel generators running even if they are not feeding energy into the grid. So while weirdie beardies and the raffia mafia are squeaking that ‘green energy sources’ powered the entire nation for half a day last summer, it’s wrong. They’re not lying, just naive, while in low demand conditions the amount of energy generated by sustainable sources equalled or exceeded the amount being sucked out of the grid for industrial, commercial domestic and social use, an equivalent amount was being generated by fossil fuels and simply going down to earth. And that is not ‘science,’ it’s insanity.

Rolling Stone and its contributors go on to tell us that “Every ton of carbon that we dump into the atmosphere stays there for hundreds of years,” which again is wrong.
 Every ton of Carbon Dioxide WE dump into the atmosphere, along with the far greater tonnage dumped during the hours of darkness by vegetation — that’s the stuff vegans eat, — is cancelled out during the day as the plant life separates CO2 into O2 — the life giving gas oxygen that we breathe, and C, carbon which is quite important to all carbon based life forms; i.e. every living thing on the planet.) Thus CO2 is quickly reabsorbed to fuel that separation process (photosynthesis) and our contribution helps plants make more plants. Over hundreds of years a carbon ( C ) atom and an oxygen molecule(O2 — oxygen atoms panic if they are alone,) can be recycled by nature thousands of times. They don’t mate for life, they’re promiscuous, as they can land up in many other sorts of molecule as well. One would think the people at Rolling Stone, with its history as a rock music mag. would be quite relaxed about promiscuity, even in these puritanical times, rather than trying to pretend marriages between C and O2 last for hundreds of years. Carbon hangs around of course, for millons of years as coal or oil, for thousands of years in sub soil, hundreds of years in the wood of a tree, a few months in a leaf, a few days as a butterfly or a few decades as one of us, yes we are carbon based life forms too.

We are in deep trouble with climate change,” United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said this week at the opening of the 24th annual U.N. climate conference in Poland, where attendees will once again wrestle with how to convince world leaders to implement policies that will sharply reduce carbon emissions in the coming years.

We certainly are in trouble as long as the power addicted psychopaths who run the world are prepared to believe the scaremongering of the mathematical modellers and their adjusted data instead of looking at how stuff happens in the real world. The power elites are not interested in the environment of course, that’s why they are happy to export all the high polluting heavy industries to China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Nigeria and other countries that were given a free pass to pollute in the Paris accord. What they want is power, an unassailable grip on the hearts and minds of the educated, questioning, ungovernable working and middle classes of the developed world. They want to scare us into submission to their global government agenda. Time we started rebelling. They need our conspicuous consumption as much as they need the far east’s cheap labour, Russia’s cheap oil and Poland’s cheap coal.

RELATED POSTS:
 
Climate Alarmism and the Muzzling of Independent Science
 The One ‘Climate Change’ Question That Really Matters But Is Never Asked?
 The ‘Colossal Unmentionable’ of the Climate Fraud