These days, I quite often find myself thinking that some people have gone barking mad.
FABIUS: Because this question of – I don’t speak about climate change. I speak about climate disruption because it’s complete disruption. And, and every single country –
ROSE: Change is too soft a word.
“Climate disruption“? And in every single country?
That would include England, where I live. And I haven’t seen any “climate disruption.” I can’t say that I’ve seen any “climate change” over the past 50 years either. If there had been any, we English would be talking about it all the time, because the weather is a regular topic of conversation in England.
Just today I came across an acquaintance in a pub garden, who asked how things were.
“Could be a bit sunnier,” I remarked, looking up at the overcast sky.
“That’s what we were just saying,” my acquaintance replied, nodding in the direction of his companion. “When you get home, put in a word about it.”
“I most certainly will,” I replied.
Nothing about “climate change” or “climate disruption”, you’ll note. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone ever say anything about either in my entire life. Not in an English pub garden anyway.
ROSE: Take the decision to?
FABIUS: Well, to, to halt, to stop this completely –
ROSE: Carbon in the air.
FABIUS: This situation where our world, it will be impossible to live in.
What do you mean, “carbon in the air”? Particles of soot? Or carbon dioxide? Or both?
FABIUS: Last time I was in Beijing the same day in Paris we decided to have alternate traffic because the pollution was ten percent more than the average. But the same day in Beijing it was not 10 percent more. It was 18 times the norm. And, and people couldn’t breathe in the street. And, and children couldn’t go to school…
Erm, local air pollution isn’t “climate change”. It isn’t even “climate disruption” either. It’s something we had in England 200 years ago, and as recently as 50 years ago. We called it “smog”. It’s what you get when thousands of factory smokestacks and household chimneys and engines are discharging smoke into near-motionless atmospheric air, so that instead of getting blown away, it just gets thicker and thicker. It was largely fixed by the 1950s Clean Air Acts. Maybe newly-industrialised China hasn’t got round to passing any clean air acts yet.
…Therefore it’s an absolute necessity. It’s very difficult for Chinese because it’s a complete shift in their economy and they need growth. But the new element you are asking is that now people understand that it’s not only constraint, it can be an opportunity which is offered. Green growth, creation of jobs. It’s a new big thing. And particularly for, for the big business.
ROSE: Where is the resistance?! What stands in the way of something that clearly threatens the planet?
What do you mean “clearly” threatens the planet? If there’s one thing that’s certain about “climate change” and “global warming”, it is that it is not “clear” at all that either of them are happening. What planet are these guys living on?
Because that’s all I could think had happened, after reading the transcript, and watching the relevant Charlie Rose Show. They’d both gone barking mad.
I can see pretty well, and I trust my own eyes. And as soon as I see any “climate change” or “climate disruption”, I’ll let you know.
I don’t think Charlie Rose or Laurent Fabius have seen any climate change either. But I don’t think they trust their own eyes. I think they trust “experts”. And, if someone ever tells them anything surprising or unusual, the first thing they’ll do is find some “expert” to either confirm or deny it. And they’ll entirely base their own opinion on that of the “experts”. So if “experts” tell them there’s “climate disruption” happening, they’ll believe it.
The same thing has been happening with smoking (and drinking, and eating, and any number of other things). People have been eating and drinking and smoking for centuries, and then along come a bunch of Public Health “experts” who say that this stuff is killing us. And more or less everybody believes them!
Is there anything an “expert” ever told them that they wouldn’t believe? Doesn’t seem like there is.
Anyway, I’d never heard of Charlie Rose before, but my opinion of him immediately crashed and burned, with no survivors. Same with Laurent Fabius. I wouldn’t trust either of them to run a bath, never mind run a country.
And what applies to Charlie Rose and Laurent Fabius really applies to the entire political class, and to the entire mainstream media. Because David Cameron and Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband and the BBC and all the rest of them have also collectively lost their marbles, and started believing things that they never used to believe (and which people like me still don’t believe).
And it’s why political parties like UKIP are on the rise. Because UKIP and Nigel Farage still believe what most people believe, while Labour and LibDems and Conservatives have started believing in the dangers of secondhand smoke and global warming and any number of other mad things.
The real attraction of someone like Nigel Farage is that most of what he says is plain Common Sense. He believes what most ordinary people have believed all their lives, and which they have carried on believing despite every attempt to ‘re-educate’ them. And that’s why more and more of them are voting for him and people like him. And why they’re more and more turning their backs on a political class that no longer speaks for them.