Mad Macron

Insider:

French President Emmanuel Macron is doubling down on his climate agenda.

He told the UN General Assembly Tuesday that he’ll no longer make trade deals with countries that aren’t in the Paris Agreement. (The only country that hasn’t gotten on board is the US.)

Then on Wednesday, Macron said one third of the global finance community needs to shift focus “from the day to day business, to the climate business.”

“It’s good for the planet, but it’s good for you as well,” Macron said.

NEW YORK — French President Emmanuel Macron says when it comes to dealing with our warming Earth, “we are late,” and that it’s time for the world’s wealthiest financiers to keep the global temperature in check.

I wonder how Macron imagines that the world’s financiers can keep the global temperature in check? Does he think that they are omnipotent, and there’s no problem that can’t be solved with a large injection of cash?

I also wonder why Macron believes that the Earth is warmimg. In recent months, I’ve swung over to the view that it’s more likely to be cooling. But that’s because since January I’ve been slowly constructing my very own climate simulation model. I’ve been thinking for myself. Is that what Macron’s been doing?

I bet it isn’t. I bet Emmanuel Macron wouldn’t have a clue how to build a climate simulation model. He relies on experts. He believes the experts in the field of climate science. He believes James Hansen and Michael Mann and the IPCC and the University of East Anglia.

How do you determine who the experts are? Are there any “experts” in the field of climate science? Are there any “experts” in any field of science? It’s not that long ago that the climate scientists were saying the opposite of what they’re now saying. For example, in 1973:

The suspicion that winters are getting colder is no longer merely a suspi­cion among climatologists. Over the last 30 years permanent snow on Baffin Island in Canada has expanded. Pack ice around Iceland in the winter is increasing and becoming a serious hazard to navigation. Warmth-loving armadillos that mi­grated northward in the first half of this century are now retreating southward toward Texas and Oklahoma.

If all indications are correct, worse is yet to come. Judging by what has happened in the past, it may very well get cold enough to allow great glaciers thousands of feet thick to cover North America as far south as Long Island, burying the highest peaks of the White Mountains and Adirondacks.

So 40 years ago, that’s they were thinking that world was cooling. And then 20 or 30 years ago they started to think it was warming. And it’s essentially in the nature of a toss-up whether the world is warming or cooling. You can toss a coin: heads it’s warming, tails it’s cooling. Or, to put it a slightly different way, it’s a toss-up what these climate scientists will believe next.

In such a circumstance, how can anyone be certain of anything? Even though I’ve built my own climate model, I’m very far from certain that it’s telling the truth. And if I’m not certain about my own model, why should I be certain about anyone else’s model? It’s precisely because I’ve been building my own simulation model that I’ve come to realise how many assumptions go into it, assumptions that may be wrong. Shouldn’t we all be saying something like: “We don’t really know what’s going on. Climate is very complex. There are some indications that it’s warming (the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is real), and there are some indications that it’s cooling (the Earth has been cooling for thousands of millions of years, and has recently been in the grip of an ice age).”

So why is Emmanuel Macron so utterly convinced that the Earth is warming? So utterly convinced that he won’t even make trade deals with countries which haven’t signed up to his doctrine? He’s not a climate scientist. He’s not any sort of scientist. He’s a pianist, and a philosophy student.

[he] received his diploma for his piano studies at Amiens Conservatory… He studied Philosophy at the University of Paris-Ouest Nanterre La Défense, obtaining a DEA degree (a master level degree, with a thesis on Machiavelli and Hegel).

No science whatsoever there. And perhaps most tellingly:

Raised in a non-religious family, he was baptized a Roman Catholic at his own request at age 12.

What sort of child becomes a Roman Catholic at the age of 12? Some sort of religious zealot, I can only suppose.

And perhaps that explains it. Macron is a religious zealot. He’s a passionate believer. He believes most intensely. And his belief in global warming is not different from his belief in Roman Catholicism. He will believe the Pope, and he will believe the climate scientists – for both are experts in their respective fields.

Is it surprising if he regards himself as being almost a divinity?

In an interview in October 2016, when he was a candidate, he compared himself to Jupiter, the king of Roman gods, declaring that “France needs a ‘Jupiterian’ head of state.”

But if Macron is a religious zealot, aren’t there such religious zealots everywhere these days? They are to be found in climate science, and they are to be found in Tobacco Control as well. For the belief that Smoking Causes Lung Cancer is yet another religious belief, and the zealots in Tobacco Control are true believers just like Macron (who I am convinced must also be a virulent antismoker).

Can Macron get France to finally quit #smoking ?

Keeping to a campaign pledge Macron’s ministers have held to, France upped the price of a pack of cigarettes one euro to €8 on 1 March.

It all fits together. In a time when there are people who want to use the 25th amendment to relieve Trump of his presidency, on the grounds of insanity, I would guess that some people in France may be entertaining similar ideas about Emmanuel Macron.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Mad Macron

  1. Rose says:

    To rule it seems you need a religion, mostly to keep everyone in line, what better religion than Climate Change? But to keep people in line you have to have signs and portents on which Tobacco Control is remarkably thin, so you have to make your own by making people stand outside to show how dangerous they are, which isn’t very convincing.
    Climate change can be so much more spectacular if you point at the right bit with sufficient gravity.
    These days “Global Warming” is just a pleasantry you exchange with your neighbour when the weather is exceptionally cold.

  2. Tom Rogers says:

    He’s not mad. It’s telling that he addresses the financial community. What I’m asking myself is whether the anthropomorphic global warming movement is intended to arrest industrial development in the global North or South, or both? And does this arise from some sinister motive (for e.g. to destroy European heritage countries racially and culturally) or is it the result of functional economic incentives?

    • Frank Davis says:

      whether the anthropomorphic global warming movement is intended to arrest industrial development in the global North or South, or both?

      Either way, isn’t it rather mad? In fact, isn’t it completely batshit crazy?

    • RdM says:

      I suspect both, and for the second fear the former.
      The latter could be in play, even intertwined, too.
      Perhaps. {smile}

    • narbanor says:

      The anti-smoking narrative ranks among the most outrageous lies that spectacular domination has been feeling emboldened to peddle far and wide in the past century (to say nothing of AGW, other candidates might include the “Holocaust”; the “acid rains” that were all over the MSM thirty odd years ago before strangely disappearing from view; and the ‘hole in the ozone layer’ that’s supposedly been repleted thanks to a 1980s Dupont-de-Nemours patent!). Now it should be up to the ‘little people’ to stop the madness from getting worse. Unfortunately, after 4-5 decades of successful brainwashing, most sheeple still seem to be able to listen to all that pseudo-scientific, or pseudo-historic, crap with a straight face.

      It should have been clear to the community long ago that the anti-smoker joke was, and still is, based on a lie (the Original Lie, aka, the spurious cigarette-to-LC link), and that, unfortunately there are criminal implications attendant to the propagation of such a lie: such as evictions from social housing (for the ‘crime’ of smoking), unfair discrimination regarding employment and health care (for the ‘crime’ of smoking’), to say nothing of smoking bans indoors and out, that are highly prejudicial to social interaction, or of various ‘hate crimes’ predicated on anti-smoker prejudice (See Frank Davis’ Smokers’ Graveyard for evidence). In view of the fact that tobacco smoking has nothing to do with any respiratory disease or condition whatsoever, that it is not detrimental to human health as a whole, and that it may even prevent one out of two cases of ‘cognitive decline’ (notably AD and Parkinson’s), TobCon’s recommendations, interventions and diktats, have not proven to be beneficial, au contraire, and so their ‘joke’ turns out to be a deadly weapon, that even brings to mind Monty Python’s “killer joke” sketch, which at least allowed you to laugh for a few seconds before dying! Unfortunately, the ‘joke’ has been embraced by succeeding generations of submissive university students (the more supposedly “brilliant” millennial snowflakes will be ruling our lives before we can say Jack Robinson, in fact it’s already happened, see Macron in France!). It appears to be the case that the hypothesis of early cognitive decline on a massive scale cannot be ruled out.

      • waltc says:

        Unfortunately, you lost me at the point where you said –in scare quotes, yet–that the “Holocaust” is a lie. You have 20 minutes to correct that idea or elaborate on it.

        • Frank Davis says:

          There are various different flavours of “holocaust” around these days, and the one being referred to may well be the “nuclear holocaust” that was hanging over our heads until the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago. And I suspect this is the one meant because they were indeed were “all over the MSM thirty odd years ago.” I grew up with the literature of that holocaust ( On The Beach, Alas Babylon, Tomorrow Sometimes Comes, are a few that spring to mind). And it’s become topical again now that we seem to have started a new Cold War, this time with hypersonic missiles that move at speeds of 1 mile/second. It’s like old times.

          “Acid rain” was indeed another environmental scare story some 30 years ago, before unaccountably vanishing. So were the famous “ozone holes”.

          But even if the Holocaust being referred to is the one with Auschwitz and Treblinka and Belzec and Sobibor (I have a substantial literature of that one too), I don’t see that it’s one that can’t be questioned. Personally I think it’s something that indeed happened. But I don’t think “holocaust denial” should be a crime. I wish such holocaust deniers were right, but I don’t think they are. If nothing else because both WW1 and WW2 were themselves huge and terrible holocausts in which millions upon millions of people were butchered, just not in gas chambers, but instead in trenches and cities – and we don’t seem to have any WW1 deniers saying that it never happened (yet).

          The point I think that Narbanor is making is that we are constantly being scared or filled with despair and gloom about one thing or other, and the spectres that are being wheeled out change from decade to decade, and the whole process is indeed a form of madness

        • narbanor says:

          Sorry to have caused your dismay, Walt, and possibly other visitors. I guess learning so much about the mendacity of the ‘smoking kills’ discourse has led me to shift to the “outer fringe” on other subjects as well. IOW, where you still see Deviance, I now see Legitimate Controversy (cf. Hallin’s spheres). It would be foolish to try and elaborate on such a subject on a sunny sunday, so I’ll take the lazy way out and direct you to I Don’t Believe in the Holocaust Either, but I’m. Too Spineless to Admit It, (Dr. Roger Eatwell of Bath University).

          Alexander Baron: “This is fairly self-explanatory – when it comes to the Holy Cause, many academics say one thing in public while believing or even saying something entirely different in private.”

          https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/eatwell-doesnt-believe.html

          You’ll also find a link at the bottom of that page to the (Alexander) Baron Pamphlets Index that contains fascinating stuff, including The Doll’s House and Smoking… and Something Else, always worthy of mention on a ‘smoking harm denialists’ blog. Indeed, it was from the Site Index page on which these two essays are referenced that I found my way to Eatwell’s “every bit as controversial” (according to A. Baron) or even more (according to you, Walt), pamphlet.

          As Frank says, I wish such holocaust deniers were right, but his attitude is quite uncommon, usually, the slightest hint at the paucity of hard evidence to establish the historicity of the Holocaust narrative results in the accusation of being some Nazi sympathizer dreaming about the next Holocaust! If nothing else, the knee-jerk recourse to such straw man tactics is an indication of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that is also routinely displayed by Anti-smoking thought controllers.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I took a glance at the Eatwell link. It seemed very flippant.

        • Eatwell’s “every bit as controversial” (according to A. Baron) or even more (according to you, Walt), pamphlet.

          Bit of a misattribution here: the “Eatwell doesn’t believe…” essay is also by Alexander Baron, not Dr. Eatwell, and the I’m Too Spineless to Admit It quote is A. Baron putting words in his mouth, because Eatwell is a fence-sitter, or better, a closet revisionist, due to his academic ties, while Baron is a real independent, a free thinker after my own heart.

      • RdM says:

        I read through the first (main) two Alexander Baron pdfs this afternoon.
        Perhaps indeed there were exaggerations on both sides.

        I’m not sure how to describe his writing style, I wouldn’t say ‘flippant’, there’s a sort of self-conscious making notes to the reader thing, is there a word for that, like an actor breaking the third wall, talking to the audience?

        Or is that even right?

        Anyway, he’s recounting thoughts and correspondences.
        In a very typical certain sort of British manner?

        Hmm. I stand aside, for the moment!

        • RdM says:

          I also looked at the site index, may have gotten distracted, but it’s in my history to return to. (I set my browsers to keep as long as possible, if possible!)
          I didn’t notice at that time The Doll’s House and Smoking… and Something Else though, so I’ll be returning to check that out.

        • like an actor breaking the third wall, talking to the audience?

          Or is that even right?

          Could turn out to be, if you amend it to ‘the fourth wall’. :)

        • RdM says:

          Aha! ~ merci beaucoup! Fourth wall, of course.

          My “3rd wall” idea from too many years of watching 2D flat screens, on reflection…
          It’s been years, decades even, since I attended real, live, “3D” theatre!
          And it was emotionally powerfully affecting, as I recall… real actors in real life.

          I must do so again!

  3. garyk30 says:

    Does he think that they are omnipotent, and there’s no problem that can’t be solved with a large injection of cash?

    He is a Socialist and they believe money will solve all problems, other people’s money that is.

  4. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Macron is a weird little slug even by French standards. Such a defender of the corrupt EU too.
    Good job we are leaving the EU. Also very anti tobacco and a strong supporter of plain packaging too. Also in a very strange marriage with his former teacher.

  5. Philip Neal says:

    How is Macron going to negotiate trade deals with anyone? Does he not know that the EU member states have handed over exclusive competence in the matter to the European Commission? One thing is certain, he is a man of boundless self-belief and self-importance.

  6. Lepercolonist says:

    No trade deals with the U.S. ? Oh, that will help the French economy. Idiot.

  7. Timbotoo says:

    A pianist? A twelve inch pianist?

  8. Pingback: Gilets Jaunes Insoumis | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.