The inconvenient truths behind the hysteria over climate change

Green ideology represents humanity as the enemy of sustainable life—so much so that some people are choosing not to have children in order to “help the planet.” Such priority afforded to the inanimate and animal world is deeply pagan. Op-ed.

By Melanie Phillips,  Nov 05 , 2021 <
>
climate change

(JNS) The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, got himself into an unfortunate mess during this week’s COP26 conference on climate change held in Glasgow, Scotland.<
>
After he claimed that politicians who failed to take the necessary action to halt climate change would be viewed in an even worse light than those who had ignored the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, he was asked whether that meant failure to act on climate change would be worse than allowing genocide to happen.

He replied: “It will allow a genocide on an infinitely greater scale. I’m not sure there’s grades of genocide, but there’s width of genocide, and this will be genocide indirectly, by negligence, recklessness, that will in the end come back to us or to our children and grandchildren.”

Hit by an outcry that his comparison was outrageous and diminished the genocide of the Jews, the archbishop hastily retracted and made a fulsome apology.

His grossly inappropriate comparison illustrated the way in which the climate issue has unbalanced people so that they lose all sense of proportion. This is because a global hysteria has developed over a seemingly unbroken public narrative, which holds that the world is heading for apocalyptic destruction through man-made global warming caused by an increase in CO2 emissions.

In Israel, 20 rabbis signed a letter to Prime Minister Naftali Bennett voicing their concern that climate change was among the most critical issues facing humanity. One of them, Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, wrote: “A warming globe is becoming more dangerous almost by the day … this is entirely an issue of pikuach nefesh: literally a matter of life and death.”

Many Jews were accordingly pleased that Bennett supported the COP26 goals and committed Israel to bring down carbon emissions. Cynics might say he used COP26 to posture as a world statesman, but there is no reason to assume that he doesn’t also believe in the cause.

Such unanimity among the world’s movers and shakers has led many to assume that no voices are raised against this dire prognosis because there is no argument to be had. The science, we have been told, is settled. Some 97 percent of the world’s scientists reportedly agree with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

However, this isn’t true. Science is never settled about anything, and the “97 percent of all scientists” claim is based on a wild misinterpretation of the evidence.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of scientists—among them some of the most eminent in their fields—who have said that this alarmism is unjustified, and that there is no reputable evidence to support it.

All of this will shock many people for whom climate change is the most important challenge of our times. For the vast majority of such folk, wanting to fight climate change is testimony to their innate decency and sense of social responsibility. After all, isn’t it a duty to look after our environment and the natural world?

Indeed, it is. Judaism holds very strongly that humanity should steward the earth and protect its resources. Pollution is something we should all fight against, along with deforestation and reductions in biodiversity, while promoting clean air and clean water.

But when it comes to catastrophic man-made global warming theory, the evidence just isn’t there to support it. Current global temperature fluctuations are within normal historic climate patterns. As for predicting future climate behavior, this is a fool’s errand.

The bloodcurdling predictions of apocalyptic global warming are mostly derived from computer modeling. But climate is a vastly complex, chaotic, non-linear system that cannot be predicted.

The global temperature measurements brought to support the modeling predictions are wildly inaccurate and contradictory. And some scientists—acting more like ideological zealots—have manipulated the available data to suppress evidence that contradicts the theory.

Contrary to current claims, extreme weather events aren’t occurring more frequently. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and at most coastal locations this is primarily due to changes in land level associated with tectonics and land use.

The Antarctic interior recorded its coldest April-to-September this year since records began in 1957. It was also the station’s second coldest winter (June, July and August) on record, with an average seasonal temperature 3.4 degrees C below the average for winter recorded from 1881-2010.

Climate change dogma holds that rising CO2 levels inescapably push up global temperatures. But these temperatures have actually been flat-lining for the past seven years. Globally, it’s actually cooler now than it was in 2015. This undermines the entire theory.

One of the world’s most distinguished meteorologists, professor Richard Lindzen, has said that not only does the data show no trend towards extreme temperatures, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees there is no evident trend. In a lecture in 2018, Lindzen said: “Some of the claims, such as those relating to weather extremes, contradict what both physical theory and empirical data show. … An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.”

So what lies behind it?

Partly, it’s an attempt to destroy the primacy of the West by rolling back capitalism. At a deeper level, it’s the result of a loss of confidence in humanity resulting from the West’s progressive junking of biblical religion.

For although many Jews support the green movement, it actually repudiates Judaism by explicitly aiming to dethrone humankind from the pedestal upon which it is placed in the book of Genesis.

Instead, green ideology represents humanity as the enemy of sustainable life—so much so that some people are choosing not to have children in order to “help the planet.” Such priority afforded to the inanimate and animal world is deeply pagan.

Far from having roots in enlightened thinking, it has a very dark history. The desire to call a halt to dehumanizing modernity and return instead to an organic harmony with the natural world was a creed adopted by the Nazis, who accordingly fixated on organic food, personal health and animal welfare.

The modern environmental movement sprang in turn from the dread of overpopulation that had led to eugenics. After being discredited through its role in Nazism, this went underground—and emerged in the 1970s repackaged as ecology.

From the 1970s onwards, neo-fascist extremists began to repackage the old ideology of “Aryan” racism and power in new cultic guises involving esotericism and eastern religions. This created an extraordinary alliance between neo-Nazi doctrines and radical left-wing, anti-capitalist and New Age ideas.

Paganism, of course, is fundamentally anti-Judaism and anti-Jew. Despite being supported by many believing Jews and Christians, climate-change dogma embodies a Western world that has repudiated the Hebrew Bible for paganism—a post-Christian world that’s also in the grip of epidemic Jew-hatred. Go figure.

But the public never hears any of this. Speaking in such terms is career suicide for university scientists. As Lindzen has observed, scientists working in climate-related fields simply don’t get grant funding unless their research bolsters the theory.

And some years ago, the BBC ordained that climate dissenters wouldn’t get any air time, a decision which flew in the face of both journalism and science.

Instead, climate zealots call dissenters “deniers,” seeking to smear them through this echo of “Holocaust denial” as some kind of neo-Nazis. Now that really is obscenely appropriating the Holocaust.

Those Jews and Christians who have signed up to the dogma of catastrophic climate change, along with other anti-Western ideologies, need to wake up fast from their neo-pagan trance.

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for “The Times of London,” her personal and political memoir, “Guardian Angel,” has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, “The Legacy.” Go to melaniephillips.substack.com to access her work.

November 5, 2021 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. Furs had nothing to do with it (funny about the raccoons infesting Germany).

    The Germans wore SUMMER uniforms and were covered with lice from head to toe – their military failed to dress them properly and failed to maintain proper hygiene for them.

    The winters themselves weren’t that bad if one bothered to dress properly for the weather (see below).

    Why do you always seem to be hurting for the poor Germans and Poles who each committed the greatest crimes of the 20th (at least) century – and not only against the Jews?

    https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17941

    “Post by derGespenst » Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:37 pm
    Getting back to the original question [whether the winters of 1941-45 were colder than that of 1812 – Reader], I am currently reading Rolf Hinze’s “19. Infanterie- und Panzer-Division: Divisionsgeschichte aus der Sicht eines Artilleristen” and have just gotten through the period of the “Hube Pocket.” From my reading thus far, it seems the winter of ’41-’42 was the harshest the Germans had seen (summer clothes didn’t help), the winter of ’42-’43 was bad, but bearable, and the winter of ’43-’44 rather mild overall, with some rough patches, of course.”

    So much for “General Winter”.

  2. @Reader. I am not trying to deny that the Germans bungled their campaign against the Soviets. I am certainly not denying the they murdered millions of Jews and then reused their clothing and other valuable property. both for their soldiers and civilians. However, their lack of preparedness for the extremely cold winter was also a factor. Soviet authors praised “General Winter” for fighting alongside them. They ridiculed the Germans for being unable to cope with it, and praised their own soldiers for coping with it, and their government and civilian population for seeing to it that they were properly clad.

    Remember that the Russians had ready access to furs and the Germans didn’t. Goering tried to “solve” their fur shortage by importing raccoons. This didn’t work, however. The raccoons escaped and have been a pest in Germany ever since.

    The Russian have always tended to see the winter as more friend than foe. They love and have always loved winter sports.
    While they gave most of the credit for their victory to the heroism of their soldiers, which was true, they have never been ashamed to say that their winters are a good friend and loyal ally.

  3. @adamdalgliesh

    “The exceptionaly cold Russian winters, colder than average”

    The German propaganda excused Germany’s failure to conquer the Soviet Union by claiming that “General Winter” fought on the side of the Soviets.

    In the meanwhile, Germany failed to supply its army with warm clothes, and they had to use scarves, etc. taken from the dead Jews recently shot by the special units, however, there have been no complaints about “the stab in the back of the German army in WWII”, maybe because there were no Jews in Germany at the time.

    As far as the British abandoning Palestine, I always naively thought that it was the Irgun, and other Jewish “terrorists” which forced their departure.

    It was the American government which forced the departure of the British from their colonies (except Palestine) because the American politicians insisted throughout the war on the British opening their markets to them post-war, and the British depended on the US for the Lend-Lease supplies.

    About climate change read Not by Fire But By Ice by Robert W. Felix

  4. The evidence to support contradicting so-called climate change is in every physics book on the shelves, unless these have been “cancelled”.

    The most powerful “greenhouse gas” is not carbon dioxide, which happens to be the mainstay of life on this planet, not a pollutant, but WATER VAPOUR, which is many times more powerful in this respect than carbon dioxide.

    The problem with water vapour is that it is ubiquitous; it can in no way be controlled, and varies in accortance with the natural solar cycle which is approximately 10 years in length.

    “Follow the science!!!!” they bellow. Well this scientific fact is available for all thinking beings to see.

  5. The” cold spell” that lasted through the 1940s had major impacts on history, including World War II. The exceptionaly cold Russian winters, colder than average even by Russian standards, were a major factor in the defeat of the Germans on eastern front, and hence their loss of the war. The German soldiers were completely unprepared for it, both in terms of clothing and psychologically.

    After the war, incredible cold continued in England for at least five years, which were major factors in the British decision to abandon both India and Palestine. Because the cold was so severe, Britain quickly ran out of coal, the Brits main heating fuel, making the cold even worse. According to some estimates, more Brits died of pneumonia and influenza during those years than were killed during the war. There was even a wood shortage. In the winter of 1947, the British cabinet met by candlelight, huddled around a dying fire in the fireplace at 10 Downing street, and decided that the sad state of the British economy resulting from the extreme cold as well as the war, made it impossible for Britain to maintain its colonial empire. (they met in the cold and darkness because the Atlee government, unlike the American and British politicians of today, had a moral obligation to suffer along with the people who elected them). If it were not for the extreme cold exacerbating all of England’s problems, the government might have had time to work out a peaceful transition to Indian independence, and have avoided the first India-Palistan war that killed over 1 million people and left over 40 million homeless. The exceptional cold even hit the northern parts of Pakistan and India, such as Kashmir, where it caused heavy snowfall and increased the death toll among the refugees.

    Without the extreme cold back in England, which influenced the British government’s decision to withdraw its soldiers from “Palestine” in 1948 as soon as possible, Israel might not have won its independence. Instead, the antisemitic Atlee-Bevin administration might have handed the country over to the Arabs.