Welcome to a new geologic era – the Idiocene

idioceneA new era, the Idiocene, is a time when common sense exited the planet. It is characterized by a fear of global warming. Individuals, organizations, and governments are under the thrall of this bogeyman.

President Obama has declared that global warming is much more dangerous than radical Islamic terrorism. States and countries are eschewing inexpensive, abundant energy sources in favor of unreliable, expensive, allegedly “green” energy sources. It is a time of silliness and hypocrisy – with many unintended consequences.

On December 5, 2015, at the Paris Climate Charade, about 178 countries signed an agreement to cut CO2 emissions with the goal of keeping future global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

This U.N. deal is based on voluntary participation and is virtually unenforceable. It features voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the U.N. managed slush Fund to mitigate climate change.

Secretary of State John Kerry has stated:

The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, car pooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world. (see video)

I wonder that if a cut of 35% in emissions will have no beneficial effects, what makes you think additional cuts will?

Some examples of the circus:

Britain cuts renewable energy subsidies. (Daily Mail)

India plans to double coal output by 2020 and rely on the resource for decades afterwards. (The Guardian)

Japan and South Korea have committed to cutting CO2 emissions, yet both are pressing ahead with plans to open scores of new coal-fired power plants. (Japan Times)

China has permitted building 155 new coal plants. (Daily Caller)

Very green California government intensifies its attack on renewable energy. (source)

Belgian professor calls the Paris agreement a “grand illusion”, a “resounding failure” and one of “wishful thinking” on the part of the rich countries. He calls the 2.0°C warming target “unrealistic” – never mind the 1.5°C warming target, which in the interview he called “laughable”. (NoTricksZone blog)

Dr. Craig Idso writes in the Washington Examiner:

One of the most bizarre claims to come out of the conference is the assertion that global temperatures must be kept from rising a mere seventy five-hundredths of a degree Celsius (0.75°C) above present day values (they are to be kept within a total increase of 1.5°C since pre-industrial times) or climate Armageddon will result. This narrative includes melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, inundated coastlines, more frequent and severe hurricanes, droughts, floods and other types of extreme weather events, crop failures, plant and animal extinctions, and widespread human suffering, diseases and death.

Such a claim is preposterous. It exists only in the deranged output of computer model projections that are derived from the most extreme and frenzied future scenarios. Data and observations provide no hint whatsoever that such a catastrophe would occur if the world warmed another 0.75°C or more. Temperatures were likely at least that warm, if not warmer, a thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, and another thousand years before that during the Roman Warm Period. Additionally, global temperatures were approximately 2°C warmer than present some 5,000 years ago during the peak warmth of the current interglacial period. Yet in none of these time periods did climate Armageddon occur.

Global warming godfather James Hansen has even called the conference and its result a fraud. Economic expert Prof. Bjorn Lomborg wrote at Twitter that the agreement will be “extraordinarily costly”, and that it “will do little – if anything to rein in global warming.” (NoTricksZone blog)

Obama touts the agreement as “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”

Physicists Lubos Motl writes “Stunning scientific illiteracy behind the Paris 2 °C target.”

The “final” COP21 Paris agreement has 31 pages and this delusional text will go down in history as a certificate of madness and hysteria.

Fourteen months ago, Victor and Kennel published an article in Nature explaining some of the reasons why the “temperature targets” such as the 2 °C target should be ditched because this kind of targeting is ill-defined, meaningless, inconsequential, unreachable, … and just plain idiotic. Victor’s and Kennel’s main complaint was that the global mean temperature wasn’t in any useful sense correlated with the health of our planet.

But the climate hysteria has lost all contacts with science. The hundreds of stupid mammals from all corners of the world who gathered in Paris don’t read Nature. It’s much worse than that, of course. They don’t talk to anyone who has a clue about science, either. They’ve brainwashed themselves into believing that the global warming temperature must be a high-precision, well-defined number and, which is even worse, they may push it in any direction they want by meeting their fellow mammals and signing meaningless arrogant declarations.

Needless to say, sub-degree accurate comparative temperature targets can’t be used as the basis of any human or corporate or national behavior or planning. This form of planning is nonsensical for at least 5 totally fundamental reasons. Read more

See also: Global Average Temperature: Meaningless & Misleading

Such is the new Idiocene.

The term “Idiocene” was coined by the Carbon Sense Coalition, see their graphic here.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (14)

  • Avatar

    Greg Taylor

    |

    Even if “global warming” were real, the only thing that would have any significant impact would be to reduce the population, perhaps by as much as half or more. Of course, no one wants to talk about that.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Transport by Zeppelin

    |

    “Fourteen months ago, Victor and Kennel published an article in Nature explaining some of the reasons why the “temperature targets” such as the 2 °C target should be ditched because this kind of targeting is ill-defined, meaningless, inconsequential, unreachable, … and just plain idiotic.”

    I would add – how can they possibly come up with an exact figure like 2C when the IPCCs model projection for a 2 x CO2 scenario is anywhere from 1.5C to 4.5C

    ?????????

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    People who claim human’s are going to control the earth’s temperature are lying conmen . We can’t even accurately measure the earth’s temperature within 2 degrees .

    Maybe NOAA can mannually readjust the numbers to suit the Agenda 21 Clique and the
    Democrats scary global warming agenda .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Allen Eltor

    |

    The earth is a sphere rotating in vacuum illuminated by a light. Without an atmosphere light to it is 100% available at the distance it is from the sun at a given moment.

    The suspension of a reflective insulating gas bath around the globe instantly creates diffraction cooling mode energy loss to the earth of 20% and efffectively ALL that COOLING is created by the

    Green House Gases.

    When added to the atmosphere so 1% energy is lost diffraction cooling is 1%

    When added to the atmosphere so 10% energy is lost diffraction cooling is 10%

    When added to the atmosphere so 20% energy is lost diffraction cooling is 20%.

    20% is what we are at now.

    When added to the atmosphere so 21% energy is lost diffraction COOLING = 21%.

    There is no such thing as green house gas warming.
    Green House Gases are COOLANTS.

    Green House Gas species water is ALONE responsible for phase change evaporative refrigeration COOLING to this planet.

    The atmosphere is not and can not function in ANY MODALITY WHATEVER as HEATER or WARMING BLANKET.

    The atmosphere is much COLDER than the surface. The atmosphere is nearly SOLELY HEATED BY earth SURFACE.

    It is basic thermodynamics I threw up some blog posts at a place called : Thermodynamics Anonymous at blogspot.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    dorian

    |

    Note: The following commentary is from another blog. However, after the first few paragraphs it blends in with the theme of the above article.

    It makes you really wonder. What’s the point of having a historical record of anything, when twisted and hypocritical politicians and scientists ignore the facts of history and create, god-like, the alternate self serving realities that the main-street-media trumpet today.

    This is why history repeats itself, because corrupt scientists and politicians do not learn anything from the past, especially things that don’t agree with their agenda, thus eventually resulting in social and economic collapse, but not until these thieving criminals have made hay.

    Isn’t it ironic, that today, with the incredible advances in information storage and dissemination, that we find ourselves in an environment where there is more lying, misinformation, ignorance and down right corruption of the truth than ever before! You would think with the advent of computers and thus the internet that people would be more knowledgeable. But no, people today are more prone to ignorance through information and scientific corruption.

    So I have to ask. If it were not for the computer revolution, would things like the AGW fantasy have raised even a footnote in the MSM or schools? I am starting to think that the computer revolution has brought with it a whole new kind of criminal mind, where intellectuals can defraud the public. Ladies and gentlemen, the intellectuals have now been given tools, to commit concept crimes, I give you … Intellectual Concept Crime, all thanks to the computer revolution.

    And its only going to get worse. Can you imagine in 100 years where this will all end? Schools teaching nothing other than dogmatic theories like AGW, learning to live with minimal energy, I can even imagine that some day some enterprising nitwit will come up with the idea that we should be teaching children in the schools that the only way we should be going to the Moon is with nothing other than a bicycle!

    We once had a Dark Ages, which was really a socio-economic Dark Ages. But today, we are entering a new Dark Ages, better referenced as the Dark Information Age. And there you have it, Intellectual Concept Crime be-getting the Dark Information Age. Soon the alchemists will be making a come back, then witchery will be taught in schools, and of course, we will have witchery being given the same exposure as science. After all, we can’t have discrimination against witchery you know, its illegal!

    Next COP22, you will be seeing all the witches arriving on their broom-sticks. Witches will be welcomed back into the community for they at least do everything with minimal carbon foot prints. You can’t fly more responsibly than how a witch does on a broom-stick! Pity, though, about all those toads and frogs that may go missing, the Greenies may have an issue about that.

    Intellectual Concept Crimes, Dark Information Age, the return of Witchery and God help us what else! We do live in terrible times, and they are going to get a lot more terrible.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Climate Change Chronicle

    |

    Indeed this is the “Idiocene”, and I am reminded of the oft quoted “shaggy dog” story related by, as I remember, Professor Ian Plimer, who when asked about the official scientific name for Humans, came out with this explanation. ……

    At first they called us, [b]Homo Erectus[/b], but then found that other primates could also walk erect… [insert own anecdotes here] … Then they called us, [b]Homo Sapiens[/b] – the wise ape because we could think ahead into the future and communicate plans, but then found that other animals could do the same. Then they called us [b]Homo Sapiens Sapiens[/b] – because only Humans can do the double-think of the double-cross deception, and plan the consequences.

    Then Prof. Plimer advanced this, and I think far more appropriate name (in light of what we now know) …. [b]Homo Humerous Rumourous[/b] – Because we take great delight in spreading exciting stories of dubious provenance.

    I would like to add a Third suggestion perhaps … [b]Homo Jekyllous Hydeous[/b] – because Humans first act like the Homo H. R. and then switch suddenly to being like Homo S. S., ready for the double-cross as the follow on part to gain some advantage from the false rumours they had spread.

    Of course this doesn’t apply to us, because dear readers, we are specially immune by virtue of us having at least a modicum of rational thought, and capable of valid logical discourse. We are perhaps, [b]Homo Nocan Beconningus [/b]

    😀

    ….. reblogged as headline on CCC Paper
    https://paper.li/e-1432814330?edition_id=a6308090-af27-11e5-a58f-0cc47a0d15fd

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Dorian. Look up Hegelian Philosophy
    I lifted this from here.
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/is-bernie-sanders-suffering-from-dementia/#comment-562568

    In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite. Thus, the idea of light could not exist unless there were an idea of darkness, nor truth without falsity, nor high without low. If an idea were labeled a thesis, its opposite would be its antithesis. Consequently, in this realm of the mind within which the universe had its only real existence, innumerable theses and antitheses existed. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created. All action or change occurring in the universe was, under the Hegelian philosophy, the product of thesis, antithesis, and resulting synthesis—all in the realm of ideas, since objective reality could exist only in that sphere. Since this process was universal and never ending, it offered a complete explanation of the causal processes creating all phenomena within the universe.

    What we ‘Deniers’ are doing is denying the synthesis. We are trying to go BACKWARD while the Progressives are trying to Progress forward.

    Thesis (natural) + Antithesis (man caused) ===> resulting Synthesis (Man causes climate change)
    That synthesis becomes the new thesis and we get a new thesis vs antithesis (Various methods for mitigation and adaption) resulting in a new synthesis, the agreement on the correct mitigation/ adaption (Climate Tax, Carbon Exchange and Climate Fund)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Transport by Zeplin.

    [quote]I would add – how can they possibly come up with an exact figure like 2C when the IPCCs model projection for a 2 x CO2 scenario is anywhere from 1.5C to 4.5C[/quote]

    It’s even worse than that TbZ!

    Not one of the IPCC’s models has any predictive skill. So they are basing this 2degree target on something that has failed testing by the Scientific Method.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amirlach

    Karl Marx admitted that his philosophical thought was based the work of Engels and the Hegelian dialectic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Nebulous and ever-changing doomsday hypothesis – supported by other people’s taxes – are the perfect cause of inept and incompetent government bureaucrats and politicians. AGW for these people is the gift that keeps on giving.

    This gives them cover for every screw-up and excuses for every failure. Verifiable results are never required by the eco-left. The only things necessary are the [i]self-stated[/i] good intentions for their own actions.

    Good gigs if you can get them…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Fred Colbourne

    |

    Idiocene! Great, why didn’t I think of that!

    I was reading today the revisions in the scientific report of the IPCC (36th SESSION OF THE IPCC Stockholm, 26 September 2013).

    Replace “0.89°C (0.69°C–1.08°C) over the period 1901- 2012” with “0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C over 1880–2012”

    Ref: SPM Ch.2, p.2,line 21

    To me it seems farcical for a scientist to believe that the warming from 0.65 degrees C to 1.06 degrees C over a period of 132 years is a departure from the expected range of climate variation.

    This to me reveeals that the whole IPCC enterprise is a waste of time and money.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Burton Floyd

    |

    Alas! The world is an insane asylum and the inmates are in charge!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Streetcred

    |

    [quote name=”Transport by Zeppelin”]I would add – how can they possibly come up with an exact figure like 2C when the IPCCs model projection for a 2 x CO2 scenario is anywhere from 1.5C to 4.5C[/quote]

    If my memory serves me correctly, the 2C was a construct of the imagination of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Pottsdam Institute in Germany … there is no science to support it.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.