Warmists Should Totally Watch Out For The New Deniers

Now that the Cult of Climastrology has their super awesome, totally historic Paris agreement, you know, the one that is non-binding, voluntary, and has no force of law, they want you to watch out for the New Deniers, as written by hyper-Warmist Naomi Oreskes

There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet

After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.

Hmm, seems like the Cult is pushing back against other Warmists who propose increasing the use of nuclear power. Remember when Warmists were saying “everything but fossil fuels?” Now they want to shoot down nuclear. Here’s the part, beyond the in-fighting of the CoC, that caught my attention

That would have troubling consequences for climate change if it were true, but it is not. Numerous high quality studies, including one recently published by Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, show that this isn’t so. We can transition to a decarbonized economy without expanded nuclear power, by focusing on wind, water and solar, coupled with grid integration, energy efficiency and demand management. In fact, our best studies show that we can do it faster, and more cheaply.

There are many definitions of demand management, depending on the economic sector. Since there are so many, let’s use a simple one from Wikipedia

Demand Management is a planning methodology used to forecast [predict], plan for and manage the demand for products and services. This can be at macro levels as in economics and at micro levels in public service organizations both governmental and NGO, industries including energy.

When an iPhone is released, they are certainly using this method to account for what they think the demand will be, as well as use methods to push the demand up. Consider the upcoming release of the new Star Wars movie? All those product tie ins? Think they aren’t part of bumping up the demand to see the movie? They all have further forecast and plan for having enough theaters and showings to keep up with the demand. Now, consider this in terms of environmentalism

In natural resources management and environmental policy more generally, demand management refers to policies to control consumer demand for environmentally sensitive or harmful goods such as water and energy. Within manufacturing firms the term is used to describe the activities of demand forecasting, planning, and order fulfillment. In the environmental context demand management is increasingly taken seriously to reduce the economy’s throughput of scarce resources for which market pricing does not reflect true costs. Examples include metering of municipal water, and carbon taxes on gasoline.

What the CoC means by demand management is limiting the availability of energy and other products to limit the carbon footprint of everything throughout the economy. The most simple form of this is by artificially increasing the cost of energy, particularly fossil fuels, through various methods. Another form will be smart meters, in which the energy companies, backed by Government, can limit the energy used by each consumer. They would have access to shut of energy at private residences. At it’s peak, this would mean being told when we could take showers, how long, when we can run dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers. Policies that would force citizens to reduce their energy use to comply with “carbon neutral” mandates. We see this playing out in Europe, where prices have skyrocketed, and energy companies only have so much energy they are allowed to produce, leaving people, especially the elderly and poor, in the dark, while so many others need to turn to things like burning wood (especially wood pellets) to heat their homes during the wintertime. Hence, governments are now going after the types of wood burning heaters used.

Cultists use the innocuous term “demand management” to hide their true Big Government, fascistic intentions. Interestingly, they never seem to realize that this will negatively affect their own lives.

BTW, they should throw me some cash, because I coined the phrase “New Climate Deniers” years ago, as part of the categories under Global Warming.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  • From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal. (December 20, 2015)
    […] which demonstrate the real theory underlying the climate change agenda: totalitarian control! In Warmists Should Totally Watch Out For The New Deniers, Mr Teach caught this one […]

5 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2015-12-17 10:42:11

There will be starts and stops on the way to our fossil fuel free future. Nuclear power is but one option.

Limiting nuclear power (for example in Iran) is just another way for the weapons grabbers to exert control. Rather than defeat the Muslim terrorists the weapons grabbers want to limit their access to fissile material – essentially a ban – that keeps fissile material out of the terrorists hands, but at the same time punishing honest patriots who just want reliable energy.

It’s just like the gun grabbers wanting to pry “assualt” rifles out of the cold dead fingers of patriots instead of exporting all Muslims out of the west back to where they belong.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Atomic+Explosion&view=detailv2&&id=6FD305140204A9D936FDD8DE1620554290A97D3E&selectedIndex=1&ccid=fbOW2GOa&simid=608001687281535199&thid=OIP.M7db396d8639a4f3a24f30b753c3a15f6H0

Dangerous nuclear power

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=fukushima+plant&view=detailv2&&id=3CFE68D351AEEF739EE99842FDAA3616721AED9C&selectedIndex=1&ccid=qnn9RP%2bK&simid=608021792027641896&thid=OIP.Maa79fd44ff8a64a3df38f82c756e9e28H0

Safe nuclear power

If Obama would get off his lazy Muslim ass and exterminate all the Muslim terrorists we’d be able to put nuclear power plants all over the Earth without worrying about terrorists stealing materiel for a bomb.

Why China and India decided to go all fossil-fuel instead of all nuclear is beyond me. Maybe the anti-nuke hippies in the US got to them, too. The nice thing about nuclear energy for totalitarians is that it adds another layer of control – nuclear energy production cost billions in infrastructure and requires government oversight. The state will have complete control.

 
Comment by Dana
2015-12-17 10:52:55

“Demand management” is simply the modern name for what the USSR called the “Five Year Plan.”

 
Comment by Dana
2015-12-17 10:54:47

Question: is it “demand management” which is the reason I cannot buy an anti-matter powered warp driven starship, or is it a supply problem?

 
Comment by Dana
2015-12-17 10:58:29

We’re trying to figure out whether we want:

1 – A warp-driven Federation runabout, as shown on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,;
B – A medium-sized starship, like the USS Voyager, as shown on Star Trek: Voyager,; or
3 – A small-sized battle cruiser, like the USS Defiant, as shown on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,.

Darn that demand management which won’t let us get one!

 
Comment by Phil Taylor
2015-12-17 11:49:23

Youtube is filled with videos promoting Thorium nuclear. I am interested as to why this option has not been an option in the U.S. or Canada.
Apparently according to them, India is building two plants. Now Thorium is most plentiful in the world in India, but the U.S/Canada has more than enough for years to come.

It is much more safer than urainium. Current nuclear plants can be converted to Thorium.
If anyone knows why this appears not to be a viable option I would be interested to know.
There is a group out of Chicago that is trying to make this a reality. They claim that the oil industry is trying to prevent this.
Also, warmers will not like this because it does not involve wealth redistribution.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6185 access attempts in the last 7 days.