Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Pandemic Response Will Be Used As Model for “Climate Crisis” Response

Pandemic Response Will Be Used As Model for “Climate Crisis” Response

It’s not appropriate. However, unless there is serious push-back, it may be the very model used.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, experts have assured worried populations that their policies would contain the virus, prevent infections, and save lives. After two weeks of shutting down the country and sealing ourselves off, we would “flatten the curve” and then proceed with our lives as normal.

As we round out the second year of the “two weeks,” I also recall that Biden’s COVID advisor Dr. Anthony Facui assured us that once we hit 70% vaccination rates, we would no longer see surges in coronavirus cases.

NIAID director Anthony Fauci told the Washington Post leadership summit Thursday that if 70% of Americans get at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine by July 4, the U.S. could avoid a case surge later in the year. Fauci called the COVID-19 vaccine a “positive wild card” that wasn’t present in the previous case upticks, but urged the U.S. to continue aggressively vaccinating its population.

Yet here we are with Omicron surges and chatter about amending the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might consider redefining what it means to be “fully vaccinated” against Covid-19 to include a third dose of vaccine — but the question is when the definition could change.

Such a change is “on the table and open for discussion,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Friday.

“That’s certainly on the table. Right now, it is a bit of semantics,” Fauci told CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin on “Squawk Box.” Fauci was referring to the definition of “fully vaccinated” for the purpose of regulations or businesses that may require vaccination.

“But there’s no doubt that optimum vaccination is with a booster,” he added.

One of the advantages about living through this pandemic is that we have the ability to see scientific “experts” fail in their projections in real time. We have also observed politically connected bureaucrats stifle robust and essential scientific debate, as they colluded with the media to silence well qualified opposition to the latest pet theories and policies.

For example, Dr. Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, sent an email to Facui concerned about the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement developed by Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya against blanket pandemic lockdowns.

The two organized a media smear campaign to paint these scientists as “fringe”.

Dr. Fauci replied to Dr. Collins that the takedown was underway. An article in Wired, a tech-news site, denied there was any scientific divide and argued lockdowns were a straw man—they weren’t coming back. If only it were true. The next month cases rose and restrictions returned.

Dr. Fauci also emailed an article from the Nation, a left-wing magazine, and his staff sent him several more. The emails suggest a feedback loop: The media cited Dr. Fauci as an unquestionable authority, and Dr. Fauci got his talking points from the media. Facebook censored mentions of the Great Barrington Declaration. This is how groupthink works.

On CBS last month, Dr. Fauci said Republicans who criticize him are “really criticizing science, because I represent science. That’s dangerous.”

So if these manipulations are being done to biological science, it would be reasonable to assume they are also occurring with climate science. The challenge is that we can see the infectious disease “experts” fail in the course of a few months, versus the decades it takes for poor climate change predictions to unfold.

We can see media hustlers ginning up climate fear in real time. Instead of allowing the investigation into whether downed power lines combined with poor urban planning resulted in Colorado’s winter wildfires to be completed, many in the press immediately interject “climate crisis” into reports.

Laughing off the delusions of climate activists can no longer be the only course of action. Cambridge University Press has just published a paper that argues “authoritarian environmentalism” in the mode of the pandemic is appropriate to address the alleged climate “emergency”.

Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature—which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights—would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise.

A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.

I would argue the opposite: The lockdowns were never appropriate. The failures of the pandemic response model should make us seriously question all our climate models and the projections being made from them.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’m more optimistic about this than you are.
The question you need to ask yourself is: is America stupid enough to pull Grandpa’s finger a second time?
Some of it is, undoubtedly… but I think most of it is not.
Some tricks work only once.

    I would be more optimistic if the dangers of laying out collective Goals–like Climate Change, Systemic Racism, or Zero Covid–were recognized for the cybernetic models they actually are. Governments at any level declaring a Goal that must be met turns people into instruments to be directed around that newly proclaimed Purpose.

    Making Subjective Well-Being the new goal of Government in the 21st Century has the same effect. We are no longer able to come up with our own Purpose in life. That’s inherently authoritarian. When the goal becomes getting at the personal worldview of each Citizen so they believe that the Governmental Goals are theirs as well, it becomes totalitarian.

    The phrase ‘legitimate techniques of government’ should frighten all of us. If the cybernetic label seems misplaced, check out political scientist Karl Deutsch’s classic book Levers of Government.

    CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | January 2, 2022 at 1:59 pm

    At the National level I agree, the State level is where the real dangers are. NY legislature set a target of 70% electricity from renewable sources in 2030 and 100% zero emissions electricity in 2040. The technology to deliver this utopia doesn’t exist and isn’t going to exist by those dates. The EU which is at the leading edge of climate change quackery seems to have figured out that their ideological plans did not and would not deliver. They just decided that both Nuclear power and Natural Gas are now to be classified as Green energy sources.

    Will some State go full whacky and create artificial scarcity of electricity and fuel for its citizens? Maybe but that isn’t likely to well received by the average Jane and Joe taxpayer much less by the dependency class. When All Sharpton and Crump show up decrying policies that turn off low cost electricity to the dependency class in pursuit of feel good climate goals proposed and supported by upper class climate Karen its going to be interesting.

      henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | January 2, 2022 at 2:30 pm

      “Will some State go full whacky and create artificial scarcity of electricity and fuel for its citizens?”
      You mean, like cancelling a pipeline, mandating rolling blackouts, crazy stuff like that?
      So far, Biden, Whitmer, and Newsom have already stepped up to the plate.
      Some time in the past week, I came across an article about some European minister or other being quoted saying that if government would just ration food or create a food shortage (maybe it was just meat), people would appreciate it more. I tried finding it again, but haven’t had any luck.

        CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | January 2, 2022 at 4:15 pm

        No those actions in CA are not what I mean. What I am referring to is when the day comes for x of power to be provided via solar and wind by the utopian decree of the climate warriors will they change the rules like the EU or forge ahead and actually shut down coal, natural gas and nuclear plants. My prediction is as we get closer to the date for green power delivery either the date will be postponed or NG and nuke will be reclassified as green. I doubt the appetite exists, even in CA, for the pain that reliance on solar/wind/hydro will bring. A rolling brown out would be a blessing compared to what adhering to their utopian fantasy would bring.

      randian in reply to CommoChief. | January 3, 2022 at 6:33 am

      The EU just decided to call nuclear power green only after numerous nuclear plants were irrevocably decommissioned. That is hardly an improvement.

        CommoChief in reply to randian. | January 3, 2022 at 11:06 am

        The plants are in individual Nations. Germany is shutting down 3 of them but is France? No. The bigger picture is that:
        1. the climate warriors can’t deliver current electricity with solar, wind and hydro.
        2. Europe, which is further down the path has begun to realize this fact and adjust course

        Perhaps some people in CA and NY will learn from Europe before they move too far down the path.

    Americans voted majority for Biden, New York State and California voters voted overwhelmingly to stick to lockdown type measures…..

    It isn’t about intelligence if you are persuaded you are persuaded. America is different from other countries, Americans are no different from anyone else.

      MattMusson in reply to Danny. | January 2, 2022 at 7:36 pm

      Found out last week that those huge turbine blades have an inner scaffolding of Balsa wood clear-cut from the Amazon Rainforest.

      You can’t make this stuff up.

2smartforlibs | January 2, 2022 at 12:43 pm

It never ceases to amaze me how Kool-Aid drinkers never question the water. They are exactly as Yuri Bezmenov predicted.

The model comes from Marcuse. Repressive tolerance.

Hopefully, there will be sunlight after November 2022.

One must expect that the MSM will go all-in on the “climate emergency” — their audiences are falling, they are increasingly mocked and ignored, and even the Democratic faithful are starting to realize that the MSM can’t deliver. So expect CNN, MSNBC, the networks, NYT, WaPo, etc., to push hard.

Also, one must expect that all this will be coordinated by the latest version of “Journolist”. The people moving this forward, well-concealed in the shadows, are very practiced. You’ll see this with the coordinated headlines, tweets, and quotes.

To reduce the country’s carbon footprint the government could mandate people hold their breath until they turn blue…

What we’ve seen these last two years is (1) statutes granting “emergency” powers to governors, mayors, and public health bureaucrats are overly broad and too open ended, and (2), the courts and legislative bodies are largely unwilling to reign them in. As the Covid nonsense fades these laws need to be changed to impose strict limits on the granted powers and duration, with anything further only via legislative approval. But I suspect not even Republican politicians want to act to curtail their own powers. How do we start a thoughtful conversation to reflect on the past two years and the abuses inflicted? Can we focus on one state, maybe FL or SD, to get something going that can be used as a model for other red states to follow. Blue states are mostly a lost cause, as is the federal government, at least for now. This needs to happen before they start invoking emergency powers in the name of climate change.

Until and unless the government enacts a serious Gen IV nuclear power development plan with a proper time line and budget, all of the climate change hysteria is just that and should be ignored.

If our guns are taken they wouldn’t have to resort to a failing climate. It would heal itself. Their thaumalogical power would be celebrated by all.

The left has already let the cat out of the bag. Remember Taxachusetts’ climate czar?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/climate-official-regular-people-break-will

“A Massachusetts climate official said people who heat their homes and fuel their cars will need to have their “will” broken in order to combat emissions and climate change.

“I know one thing that we found in our analysis is that 60% of our emissions come from … residential heating and passenger vehicles,” said David Ismay, Massachusetts, undersecretary for climate change, during a virtual meeting with the Vermont Climate Council. “Let me say that again: 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now, there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and now break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will…”

A lot of doctors and researchers with expertise in public health pointed out early (not just the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration) that locking down the entire population would do more harm than good. Not only did their objections fall on deaf ears, they were smeared by government apparatchiki like Fascist Fauci worldwide.

Poor dears. Like so much of the worldwide population they actually thought the government apparatchiki actually had public health in mind as a goal.

The UK, and some states like Kali, are working to end private vehicle ownership. They’ll tell you it’s to “Save The Planet! You do want to save the planet, don’t you?

Actually it’s for the same reason only top party officials in North Korea are allowed government-issued Benzes. Everybody else is required to take public transportation and can only do so with written permission (You do have your vaccine passport, comrade?). Private vehicles give you independence. Requiring you to take public transportation makes you a dependent serf.

Just like having money in the bank gives you independence. Is it any wonder that Joe Biden’s first nominee for comptroller of the currency, committed communist Saule Omarova, proposed ending private banking and your savings would have to be held by the fed?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/11/12/bidens-communist-treasury-nominee-wants-all-bank-accounts-to-be-controlled-by-the-fed-n2599031

“‘Imagine what it would be like instead of just a public option for deposit banking, this would be actually the full transition. In other words, there would be no more private bank deposit accounts and all of the deposit accounts will be held directly at the fed,’ Omarova said during recent remarks.”

I don’t need to imagine it. I know exactly what it would be like.

“How is it politically feasible for the central bank to take money away from people’s accounts?”

Notice how disingenuous that question is. It’s supposed to be reassuring, and maybe on the surface it might seem to be. But what it actually means just as soon as it’s politically feasible, that’s exactly what the Bolsheviks will do.

Do you imagine I”m overreaching? That this is just right-wingnut crazy talk?

That’s what the leftists said about Scalia’s dissent from the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

“…One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal).

At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

Do not believe it.

More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

He was dismissed as a right wing loon and excoriated for his for his “panicked” prediction of where the law was headed. Yet where are we? Regardless of how you think/feel about SSM* he was exactly right.

Whenever the feds have to reassure you that they’d never, ever go where you can rationally predict they would go haven given themselves the power to go there, you know that’s exactly where they will go as soon as they get the chance.

*In case anyone is interested, I still think SSM is a ridiculous idea. I’m fine with decriminalizing homosexuality, and providing legal recognition to their relationships. But it’s not marriage because when procreation is no longer central to marriage then you are, as people are saying now regarding a related category of idiocy, “erasing” children. And biology. Seriously, do I really have to pretend that Pete Buttigieg and his “husband” procreated on their own with no third party involvement? Well, there was. And why did Buttigieg and his “husband” need two months of maternity/paternity leave? Their role in creating this child was over when they both masturbated into a petri dish. They already had nine months to recover from that effort while the surrogate mother did all the work.

But I’m the hateful homophobe. But note, we didn’t just “erase” children from the definition of marriage, we “erase” the woman in this arrangement. We all have to pretend homosexuals can breed on pain of being called homophobes, so the surrogate mom has to be “erased.” Now we have to pretend a transgender man can be a woman and for instance compete in women’s sports. And now some women are complaining about being “erased.” Sorry ladies, you’re years late to the game. But now at least I can add “transphobe” to my list of honors, and I have more company.

I can’t say I predicted all of this. But when you open up Pandora’s box, you never know all the possible outcomes. I just knew only a society wishing to commit suicide would open it up in the first place.

    henrybowman in reply to Arminius. | January 3, 2022 at 3:38 am

    “people who heat their homes and fuel their cars will need to have their “will” broken in order to combat emissions and climate change.”

    Well, after all, a Triumph of The Will is the very best kind of triumph.

NM has had a mask mandate for 20 months. We’re seeing numbers higher than ever before. Gee, I guess those masks are working, right?

I fully expect to see our governor pivot and declare firearms a public health emergency and try to use her new found powers to attack gun owners next.

This was in the works from the beginning.

https://archive.is/aGGem

“Don’t take this the wrong way but if you were a young, hardline environmentalist looking for the ultimate weapon against climate change, you could hardly design anything better than coronavirus.
Unlike most other such diseases, it kills mostly the old who, let’s face it, are more likely to be climate sceptics. It spares the young. Most of all, it stymies the forces that have been generating greenhouse gases for decades. Deadly enough to terrify; containable enough that aggressive quarantine measures can prevent it from spreading. “

Go to the Hill.com or democratic underground, you’ll see the real losers who are still allowed to vote even though the cumulative IQ of both sites is still below double digits.

Nearly all tyrants start with the simple lie: “This is an emergency, and I can fix it if you just give me power for a little while…”

I knew this right after the lockdowns started. Everything is now a “Public Health Emergency” including racism and climate change and the left will throw in everything they can.

Accessibility by WAH
Send this to a friend