Hi folks - JP has a go at the latest Deloitte’s report on AGW impact and moves onto the rest of the peddlars. Introduced by TCW here:
JP’s attack is in Comments in the Telecrap:
cheers
1 Like
I’ll bet he’s getting some flak for this, but his basic point about chucking cash at believers while scorning non-believers is unassailable. Facts are more or less besides the point. That word ‘groupthink’ is one powerful trigger…
1 Like
The Torygraph won’t let me read the JP piece without signing up to some ‘trail period’ bs, which I’m not going to do.
But TCW quotes him saying one thing that’s clearly true:
“We remain unconvinced of your frightened and self-congratulatory moralising and intellectual pretension, ignorance of the limits of statistics, and misuse of arithmetic.” [RhG’s added emphasis]
Exactly! The two things you can be sure about with the climate it is that it will change - cyclically - as it always has; and that it’s completely beyond our competence, and indeed beyond physical possibility, to predict its behaviour in any degree of detail, much less control it in any significant way.
TCW’s account of the Peterson piece suggests a fairly vague and wandering idea of what’s behind the scamdemic con and - probably, it’s starting to seem - behind the climate emergency con too; as if JP doesn’t really get it.
I prefer Denis Rancourt’s hypothesis: that the stream of attempted fear-driven stampedes getting pushed on us about ‘health’ and climate are simply cons; and there’s a unifying reason behind them.
As Denis puts it (my paraphrase): the powers that shouldn’t be, who are running the Anglozionist empire, and using it to attempt a grab of whole-planet globalised power, have realised that their power-base - the empire - is on the slide, whilst Russia and China are on the rise; and they’ve calculated that they have about ten years left to try to turn the situation round, and continue their drive toward total global hegemony.
To this end, as Denis puts it, they - basically the neocon crazies in Washington and their obedient-comprador underlings usurping power over the states of Europe - are trying to get at least that part of the world which they still more or less control onto a war footing.
The point of this it to clamp draconian powers onto we common citizens of the West: house arrest, censorship, easy gestapo arrest without due process, concentration camps, absurd obedience and submission rituals such as the useless-but-dangerous masks and antisocial distancing, banning of generic and time-proven drugs which were quickly found to treat the flill effectively when given swiftly on diagnosis, plus the criminal, ineffectual and deadly injections and other mandatory medical assaults; all these measures being arbitrarily imposed on and off, as and when the gics saw fit - as a way of getting us under fascistic control, the better to prosecute their - already under way - war against Russia, but particularly against China.
Their chances of pulling that off seem to me near to absolute zero. But, crazy and delusional as they are, they’re still trying.
It’s already clear to me, and I suspect to an increasing number of disabused Westerners, that the covid thing was a gross criminal scam, which only yielded limited, patchy outbreaks of excess, all-cause deaths as a direct result of the responses to the alleged pandemic, not from the slightly nastier than average flill (flu-like illness) on which it was propagandised up.
Other than those wilful murders, there seem to have been no excess all-cause deaths throughout the alleged ‘pandemic’; which therefore was no pandemic, since that word mandates sudden large increases in deaths by contagious disease, way beyond normal levels.
As Denis also points out, the avoidable deaths caused by the ‘pandemic’ responses fell particularly heavily on the poorer citizens, whose situation made them already more immuno-compromised than average; detailed analysis of the all-cause deaths statistics makes this clear. And it also makes clear how all-cause excess mortality stops and starts abruptly at state boundaries, depending on what responses the different states were enforcing; something which contagious diseases, being no respecters of artificial human boundaries, will never do.
Also, it begins to feel to me that something I’ve accepted as an article of faith for years (without ever pursuing the factual evidence right down to the root), that climate shift is an imminent and man-made emergency, may be mistaken too! The more I listen to the dissidents - some of them scientists in appropriate disciplines whose credentials are as good as they get - the more I doubt that this old article of faith is, in fact, true.
That could well be seen as an instance of the way this huge criminal scam that’s been tried on us for the past nearly three years has loosened, for so many of us, trust in a whole range of ‘sacred ideas’ which we’ve all accepted unquestioningly for many years: “If they can lie like this about the scamdemic, what else is actually lies masquerading as ‘settled’ truth? What else did I swallow years ago, without realising that I was being scammed?”
Note that all of the above is, to me, still speculative - somewhat. I claim no bigoted religious ‘certainty’ for any of it. But this is how it’s starting to seem to me.
PS: I still find JP more heavily self-assured than genuinely impressive.
Hi @RhisiartGwilym , I’m not sure about JP I haven’t really looked into his views but the TCW point is true - amazing that the Telegrap is publishing his anti AGW views:
full text from
which I quickly grabbed:
( If you prefer his videoed words rather than the text - i.e. the Shakespearian experience 
go to the bottom of this post! )
"Comment
Peddlers of environmental doom have shown their true totalitarian colours
Corporations and utopians are offering authoritarian solutions to crises only democracy and free markets can solve
Jordan Peterson 15 August 2022 • 7:00am
Deloitte is the largest “professional services network” in the world. Headquartered in London, it is also one of the big four global accounting companies, offering audit, consulting, risk advisory, tax and legal services to corporate clients.
With a third of a million professionals operating on those fronts worldwide, and as the third-largest privately owned company in the US, Deloitte is a behemoth with numerous and far-reaching tentacles.
In short: it is an entity we should all know about, not least because such enterprises no longer limit themselves to their proper bailiwick (profit-centred business strategising, say), but – consciously or not – have assumed the role as councillors to believers in unchecked globalisation whose policies have sparked considerable unrest around the world.
If you’re seeking the cause of the Dutch agriculture and fisheries protests, the Canadian trucker convoy, the yellow-jackets in France, the farmer rebellion in India a few years ago, the recent catastrophic collapse of Sri Lanka, or the energy crisis in Europe and Australia, you can instruct yourself by the recent pronouncements from Deloitte.
Whilst not directly responsible, they offer an insight into the elite groupthink that has triggered these events; into the cabal of utopians operating in the media, corporate and government fronts, wielding a nightmarish vision of environmental apocalypse.
Outlandish claims
In May this year, Deloitte released a clarion call to precipitous action trumpeting the climate emergency confronting us. Called ‘The Turning Point: A Global Summary’, it is a stellar example of a mentality more common among officials in the EU: one of fundamental bureaucratic overreach (and one which generated Brexit – a very good decision on the part of the Brits, in my view) that threatens the very survival of that selfsame EU.
The report opens with two claims: first, that the storms, wildfires, droughts, downpours, and floods around the globe in the last 18 months are unique and unprecedented – a dubious claim – and implicitly that the “science” is now at a point where we can say without doubt that experts can and must model the entire ecology and economy of the planet (!) and that we must modify everyone’s behaviour, by hook or by crook, to avoid what would otherwise be the most expensive environmental and social catastrophe in history.
The Deloitte “models” posit that “climate impacts” could affect global economic output, and say that unchecked climate change will cost us $178 trillion over the next 50 years – that’s $25,000 per person, to put it in human terms.
Who dares deny such facts, stated so mathematically? So precisely? So scientifically?
Let’s update Mark Twain’s famous dictum: there are lies, damned lies, statistics – and computer models.
“Computer model” does not mean “data” (and even “data” does not mean “fact”). “Computer model” means, at best, “hypothesis” posing as mathematical fact.
No real scientist says “follow the science.” Yet this is exactly what bodies such as the EU consistently pronounce, pushing for collectivist solutions that do more harm than good.
Solutions in sovereignty
What might we rely on, instead, to guide us forward, in these times of accelerating trouble and possibility?
Valid authority rests in the people. Truly valid structures of authority are local, not centralised for reasons of efficiency and “emergency”. This must not become the generation of yet another top-down Tower of Babel. That will not solve our problems, just as similar attempts have failed to solve our problems in the past.
Ask yourself: are these Deloitte models – which are supposed to guide all the important decisions we make about the economic security and opportunity of families and the structures of our civil societies – accurate enough even to give those who employ them any edge whatsoever, say, in predicting the performance of a stock portfolio (one based on green energy, for example) over the upcoming years?
The answer is no. How do we know? Because if such accurate models existed and were implemented by a company with Deloitte’s resources and reach, Deloitte would soon have all the money.
That is never going to happen. The global economy, let alone the environment, is simply too complex to model. It is for this reason, fundamentally, that we have and require a free-market system: the free market is the best model of the environment we can generate.
Let me repeat that, with a codicil: not only is the free market the best model of the environment we can generate, it is and will remain the best model that can, in principle, ever be generated (with its widely distributed computations, constituting the totality of the choices of 7 billion people). It simply cannot be improved upon – certainly not by presumptuous power-mad utopians, who think that hiring someone mysteriously manipulating a few carefully chosen numbers and then reading the summarised output means genuine contact with the reality of the future and the generation of knowledge unassailable on both the ethical and the practical front.
The impact of delusional thinking
Why is this a problem? Why should you care? Well, the saviours at Deloitte admit that there will be a short-term cost to implementing their cure (net-zero emissions by 2050, an utterly preposterous and inexcusable goal, both practically and conceptually). This, by the way, is a goal identical to that adopted last week by the delusional leaders of Australia, which additionally committed that resource-dependent-and-productive country to an over 40 per cent decrease by 2005 standards in “greenhouse gas emission” within the impossible timeframe of eight years. This will devastate Australia.
Here is the confession, couched in bureaucratic double-speak, from the Deloitte consultants: “During the initial stages the combined cost of the upfront investments in decarbonization, coupled with the already locked-in damages of climate change would temporarily lower economic activity, compared to the current emissions-intensive path.”
The omniscient planners then attempt to justify this, with the standard empty threats and promises (the suffering is certain, the benefits ethereal): “those most exposed to the economic damages of unchecked climate change would also have the most to gain from embracing a low-emissions future.” Really? Tell that to the African and Indian populations in the developing world lifted from poverty by coal and natural gas.
And think – really think – about this statement: “Existing industries would be reconstituted as a series of complex, interconnected, emissions-free energy systems: energy, mobility, industry, manufacturing, food and land use, and negative emissions.”
That sounds difficult, don’t you think? To rebuild everything at once and better? Without breaking everything? Fixing everything in a few decades in a panicked rush while demonising anyone who dares object?
And what will it take to do so? Here’s the most alarming part: nothing more than “a coordinated transition” that “will require governments, along with the financial services and technology sectors to catalyze, facilitate and accelerate progress; foster information flows across systems; and align individual incentives with collective goals.”
A clearer statement of totalitarian inclination could hardly be penned.
Certain outcomes versus predicted outcomes
The one thing the Deloitte models guarantee is that if we do what they recommend we will definitely be poorer than we would have been otherwise for an indefinite but hypothetically transitory period.
Yet any reduction in economic output (however “temporary” and “necessary”) will be purchased at the cost of the lives of those who are barely making it now. Period.
Have you noticed that food has become more expensive? That housing has become more expensive? That energy is more expensive? That many consumer goods are simply unavailable? Can you not see that this is going to get worse, if the Deloitte-style moralists have their way? How much “short-term pain” are you going to be required to sustain? Decades worth? All your life, and the life of your children?
It’s very likely. For your own benefit. Remember that.
All this painful privation is not only not going to save the planet, it’s going to make it far worse.
I worked for a UN subcommittee that helped prepare the 2012 report to the Secretary-General on sustainable development. Whether or not it was a good idea to contribute to such a thing is a separate issue: I do believe at least that the report would have been much more harmful than it was without the input of the Canadian contingent. We scrubbed away several layers of utopianism and Cold-War era conceptualisation and cynicism. That was something.
I garnered a key and crucial insight from the several years’ work devoted to my contribution: I learned that the fastest and most certain pathway forward to the future we all want and need (peaceful, prosperous, beautiful) is through the economic elevation of the absolutely poor. Richer people care about “the environment” – which is, after all,outside the primary and fundamental concern of those desperate for their next meal.
Make the poor rich, and the planet will improve. Or at least get out of their way while they try to make themselves rich. Make the poor poorer – and this is the concrete plan, remember – and things will get worse, perhaps worse beyond imagining. Observe the chaos in Sri Lanka, if you need proof.
There are clearly more important priorities than costly and ineffective emergency climate change reductions. Bjorn Lomborg’s work (among others such as Marian Tupy and Matt Ridley) has demonstrated that other pressing problems could and should take political and economic priority, from the perspective of good done per dollar spent.
Money could and should be spent, for example, to ensure the current health and therefore future productivity (and environmental stewardship) of currently poor children in developing countries. How about remedying the actual world of pain and deprivation of such children rather than saving the hypothetical world, and the hypothetical world of future children, in abstraction?
Stirrings of revolt
Citizens are waking up to this. Dutch farmers and fishermen are rising up, Canadian truckers are pushing back. Such protests are spreading, and increasing in intensity. As they should.
Why? Because, Deloitte consultants, and like-minded centralists are pushing things too far. It will not produce the results they are hypothetically intending. This agenda, justified by emergency, will instead make everyone poorer, particularly those who are already poor. This use of emergency force will, instead, make the lives of the working men upon whom we all depend for our daily bread and shelter more difficult and less rewarding.
Finally, this use of emergency force will also make the “environment” worse, not better. Why? If you wreck your temporary economic havoc, to (eventually) remediate the world, those whom you sacrifice so casually in the attempt will descend into chaos. In that chaos, they will then, by necessity, turn their attention to matters of immediate survival – and in a manner that will stress and harm the complex ecosystems and economies that can only be maintained with the long-term view that prosperity and nothing else makes possible.
Critics of my view will say “we have to accept limits to growth.” Fine. Accept them. Personally. Abandon your position of planet-devouring wealthy privilege. Join an ascetic order. Graze with the cattle. Or, if that’s too much (and it probably is) then purchase an electric car, if you want one (but no diesel-powered emergency backup vehicle or electric power generator for you). Buy some stock in Tesla. That’s probably the best bet (but you don’t approve of Elon Musk, do you?). Stop flying. Stop driving, for that matter. Get on your bike, instead. In your three-piece business suit. In the winter, if you dare. I’ll splash you with icy and salty slush as I drive by, in my evil but warm Ford Bronco SUV, and help you derive the consequent delicate pleasure of your own narcissistic martyrdom.
Save the planet with your own choices. But quit demanding that the rest of us blindly follow your diktats. Quit demonising and castigating us, merely because we don’t just happily cede to you all the extant power. We’re not evil just because we don’t believe that you are omniscient. We’re not evil just because we don’t want you to assume omnipotence and omnipresence too.
There is simply no pathway forward to the green and equitable utopia that necessitates the further impoverishment of the already poor, the compulsion of the working class, or the sacrifice of economic security and opportunity on the food, energy and housing front. There is simply no pathway forward to the global utopia you hypothetically value that is dependent on force. And even if there was, what gives you the right to enforce your demands? On other sovereign citizens, equal in value to you?
An alternative solution
A better way forward would be to prioritise the problems that beset all of us on this still-green, functional and increasingly abundant planet with the requisite focus and attention demanded of a true political class, elected by the people, capable of and willing to look at everything, trying to fix where necessary, trying to maintain as much freedom and autonomy as possible, and stop simply capitalising narcissistically on the mere appearance of action, knowledge and virtue.
We should obtain true, cooperative consent from those affected – farmers, truckers, working-class people who have turned in irritated desperation to figures such as Donald Trump – and work with them, rather than forbidding them with your power or improving them so they will be finally worthy of your time and attention. Help replace dirty energy with clean, if you must, but do it on your own dime, and make sure that the results are cheap and plentiful, if you want to help the poor, and the planet.
The warning bells are ringing. Listen to them, before they turn into sirens.
We will not advance without resistance through the straits of your enforced privation. We will not allow you to steal and destroy the energy that makes our lives bearable (and that produces our food and shelter and housing and the sporadic delights of modern life) just to address your existential terror (particularly when it will fail to do so in any case). We will not allow our children to be criticised first for having the temerity to merely exist and then be deprived of the prosperous and opportunity-rich future we strived so hard to prepare for them. We remain unconvinced of your frightened and self-congratulatory moralising and intellectual pretension, ignorance of the limits of statistics, and misuse of arithmetic.
We do not believe, finally and most absolutely, that your declared emergency and the panic you sow because of it means that you should now be ceded all necessary authority.
So leave us alone, you centralisers; you worshippers of Gaia; you sacrificers of the wealth and property of others; you would-be planetary saviours; you Machievellian pretenders and virtue-signallers, objecting to power, all the while you gather it around you madly.
Leave us alone, to prosper or not, as a result of our own choices; as a result of our own actions; in the exercise of our own requisite and irreducible responsibility.
Leave us alone. Or reap the whirlwind. And watch the terrible destruction of what you purport to save, in consequence.”
also here’s a youtube video of JP on this very article:
- quite a dramatic performance with which I mostly agree.
cheers
2 Likes
Thanks C. The full article doesn’t do anything to change my current estimate of Jordan; reinforces it, rather. He seems to have no concept at all about The Limits. If he even knows the idea of the Long Descent, he doesn’t seem to give it any credence. He speaks of “an increasingly abundant planet”. Really? How so, Jordy?
I suspect that, as the Sino-Rus duopoly pull themselves into a position of dominance, there will be another huge global splurge of commodities, many of which Russia already controls, which will greatly increase prosperity - for a while - for the poor and oppressed of the current world order (to the detriment of the Western gangsters and the peoples they rule, natch).
But basic arithmetic will not be gainsaid: with populations still well above long-term carrying capacity - though falling by then - and no huge new easy-get, low energy- and capital-costing supplies of vital non-renewable commodities forthcoming, some sort of descent from present human numbers and current human economic excess is simply unavoidable. WIGIG: when it’s gone, it’s gone.
No amount of democratic freedom (if we can ever get the real thing) of ‘free’ (ditto) market-magic is going to shift that immovable object. Unless you believe the ever-less convincing narrative of ‘upward and outward forever into the universe’; which I don’t.
I guess that Jordy, being a humanities man, hasn’t had his face pushed forcefully into emeritus professor Albert Bartlett’s famous dictum: “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” 
Hi @RhisiartGwilym , I’ve no feel for the Long game but I do have a strong intuitive feel for the short game, and I think this is the target JP has in sight. Whatever the long game produces - and we can’t really know with any certainty - we do know that the doom peddlars are going to make the poor pay with their lives in the immediate short term just by pursuing their “green” power play through zero carbon ( which Zharkova, Rancourt and Harde all agree will not really improve our climate by any measurable amount ) and Russian sanctions. So just on the short term forseeable landscape I think JP is supporting the science of Z, R and H - and the fact that he’s in the MSM makes his comments far more visible and persuasive, imo.
One thing which may already have changed the Long game - I have a terrible feeling that the jab has already set in place horrific changes to birth and fertility rates world-wide which fits one of the doom peddlars’ main themes - eugenics.
cheers
1 Like
Yes, we’re still waiting to see what the long-term effects of the stabs will be. There seems to be so much unexplained weird junk in them that you could hang all sort of hypotheses on what they’re really meant to do, over time. Fertility destruction could well be one of the purposes, and one of the eventually-observed and confirmed outcomes. I can’t guess. But I don’t think anything can be ruled out altogether. The people who floated this scam must be pretty bad bastards. What are they not capable of?
1 Like
The Expose has quite a few horror stories but this one seems to fit our discussion:
Cheers
1 Like