More on Global Warming (and R.W.W.)

I've noticed, reading referer logs, that some counterinformation blogs are using things I wrote to say (attributing them to me) things I didn't say. Since I choose the important words with some care, I'm going to explain better what I meant when I said that on Global Warming scientists **are allowed to raise the alarm, but not to decide the agenda for interventions** .

I gave the example, in the last post, of cement. It is the third source of CO2 emissions, but it is not even discussed. But this example ultimately doesn't show that scientists are left out of the agenda. After all, they said “cut CO2 sources and use renewable energy”.

Which, if we remain generic, ie "how we will spend money", or "how we will invest", seems harmless, but it is not. Let's take an example of an alarm taken seriously: Florence and the arrival of the first bubonic plague in Italy.

When the Florentines noticed that an epidemic was coming from the South, and the first cases occurred, the city of Florence created, as a stable institution, the first office of public health, designed to mitigate the effects of the plague or curb its spread. .

This office prohibited slaughter (with spilling of blood on the street) by butchers. If already this measure, in a city dominated by corporations, had "lobbies" against it, as we would say today, the following advice was even more devastating: whoever can, leave the city and go to the countryside.

It was an explosion of newly built villages, and of a tradition of country villas that we can still see today. If we compare it with today's situation, we note for example that if during covid those who lived in high-density cities had been allowed to go and live in low-density places, globally we would have obtained benefits. Of course, some sick people would have brought the virus to low-density places, but the virus would also have spread to high-density places (in Milan they easily took the metro to go to work).

Globally, in a time of epidemic, moving people from places of high population density to places of lower density always makes sense. But already modern real estate feared a collapse in the value of houses, if you then add that the owners would have (as they did) complained of a drop in takings, you will have a clear picture.

If we look at what happened with the covid, however, the choice was to keep people where they worked, and even remote work was hindered (even to this day) in every way. The economic argument prevailed, contrary to what happened in Florence. Yet the Florentine corporations were very powerful, literally governing the city.

---

Now that I have given a clearer example, let's move on to the issue of global warming.

Scientists are telling us that with global warming we will have more and more extreme events. Extreme events essentially involve two things:

• Extreme hailstorms, which devastate the solar panels on the roofs.
• Extreme floods, devastating solar farms.
• Extreme winds, which destroy wind turbines, or send them "in protection", so 'that they do not produce energy.

You immediately understand my objection: KNOWING – because scientists say so – that these extreme events will grow in number and intensity , what is the point of investing in wind and solar energy, rather than in geothermal energy?

The answers are varied: hardly the same scientists who predict the increase in heavy hailstorms and storms will advise you to choose panels and turbines. Instead, there are two thriving industrial sectors that deal with it.

But even in the scientific world there are lobbies. If you observe the scientific world and look for where the major investments in research go, you discover that the luckiest are the nuclear physicists, who manage giant projects such as CERN, ITER, and others.

So, even if you ask "the scientists" to choose, within them you will catch a nice lobby of nuclear physicists who will want all the money for themselves, and the debate will move entirely (or almost) to nuclear power.

In Italy, then, you have another little problem. There is a rumor that nuclear reactors for naval use are being developed (and the referendum would not ban it) for the Italian Navy:

These are obviously just rumours, taken from a sentence said by an Italian general, but if they were true it would be another reason why we talk about nuclear energy, but not about geothermal energy.

---

But if physics also has its problems, and therefore there are lobbies among scientists as well, who is driving everything? Who took the reins of this phenomenon?

Before introducing the movement that I call RWW, let's simply observe that if it were the politicians, we would have right-wing and left-wing proposals on the table. But it's not happening: the right claims that the phenomenon does not exist. It has no offers. If it were a matter of lobbies, both left and right would have proposals from their respective lobbies.

By discarding lobbies and parties, who is left? That is the question. WHO is handling the problem? Which group of people is holding the wheel? Which lobby? Which social class?

---

We introduce the name of the group: RWW , which stands for “Rich White Women”. I know, I'm on a minefield. So I better define the group:

• It is a subset of the Anglo-Saxon world, which unfortunately today has a dominant position in the world of culture, mass media and therefore politics. It comes from the aristocratic and bourgeois culture of the United Kingdom: the King makes decisions, the Queen gives charity, inaugurates hospitals and caresses smiling children. By extension, this mentality passed on to the Anglo-Saxon upper classes.
• These are women who come from wealthy families in the Anglo-Saxon world. They are (almost) never rich because they work and are successful. They are rich because they are two of the three things, between "daughters of", "wives of", "ex wives of". They owe their wealth exclusively (or almost) to the family.
• They are white. If it weren't so, I would have spoken only and exclusively of "radical/chic women". But there are, in the Anglo-Saxon world, women of relative wealth even outside the world of white women, in the UK and in the USA. But for some reason, women of other colors are hardly part of the problem. RWW MUST be white, i.e. ultimately a daughter of the WASP culture.
• They are women. If you look at the justice movements (social, ecological, economic, racial, etc) you find that nowadays the leader has to be a woman, or the movement will be branded as violent, para-fascist or corrupt. Automatically.

There are two types of movements that are about social, racial, climate, or economic justice. Those led by the RWW, and those branded as extremist, violent, corrupt or ignored as exotic.

The reason is that the Anglo-Saxon mass media follow a selective algorithm particularly favorable to the RWW when it comes to managing the presence of these groups.

1. Whether the leadership is men or non-women, the accusation of violence, violent language, fascism or corruption is simple. A simple irregularity in a budget, however minor, is enough and our movement disappears. For some strange reason, women's unexplained spending, even when on the budget, is never really taken seriously.
2. If it's made by women, but not white , the accusation of extremism comes first.
3. If not even the accusation of extremism is enough, then exoticism arrives: Greta Thunberg has renounced her privilege (school), while Malala has literally been shot in the face because she wanted to study. Malala is relegated to the corner of exotic heroines, the Mulan of human rights, the Pocahontas of education.
4. If this hasn't pissed off yet, the accusation of working for the evil stranger arrives on time. Accusation based on skin color, birthplace, or whatever.
5. If she's white but not rich, the accusation of inconsistency arrives on time. Sometimes he'll wear better shoes than usual. A decent purse maybe to go to a presidential dinner. No. Only a RWW can present itself at the UN out of a boutique.
6. If it is managed by a RWW then the movement is a serious matter, to be listened to, to be financed. The RWW is immaculate, or victim of slander. Its sins are negligible, it is always coherent, never violent, not foreign, not privileged indeed discriminated against because it is a woman, and blablabla.

In other words, no one has yet pointed out to Greta that if she founded the first ecological movement led by a thirteen-year-old girl, it is only because, in the world, her peers had to go to work.

Combined with evolutionary advantage, a RWW movement has a whole host of other advantages.

1. The weather. They have plenty of time to devote to noble causes. The money takes home the family, normally a man who works 24/7 until burnout, which they will complain about being discriminated against.
2. Money. They already have the funding, at least in part. Normally for these women they don't have problems of economic planning, they don't have to think about the future (the (ex?) family takes care of it), and they can even finance their own movement with their own money. If they need money, they take it out of their Manolo budget.
3. The connections. They know the ones that matter. They come from prestigious universities where they've met some guys, they've known rich and important people since their six-year-old birthday party, and therefore have a much higher fundraising capacity.
4. It's a hobby. They essentially don't give a shit. They say they are very dangerous for the system but they have no escort, they say they are carrying on a very important battle but in the final analysis, they don't care about making a fool of themselves. Bad things, a pair of Manolos less. If Lena Dunham says she'd like to have an abortion, nothing happens. Tomorrow he'll be showing for some stylist adding body positivity to everything.
5. It's a hobby. They don't necessarily have to understand anything. Their (in)competence is never a problem because nothing happens anyway. If one BLM leader gets it wrong, twenty more Negroes die tomorrow. If Rowling says bullshit, it doesn't change shit. Rowling can make up that a person who transitioned into the hormone equivalent of 6 chemical castrations goes into the toilet to rape, and if anyone mentions it, they'll shoot even bigger shit. It's the Harry Potter chick, remember? Fantastic beasts and where to find them.
6. They are visible. In addition to the political visibility they have due to the connections among journalists, the fashion magazines are competing for them. So they have a guaranteed share of exposure.

The overall result is that today, the entire field of greening (as well as the rest of the social/climate/economic/racial justice movements) are led by RWW

And since they don't give a shit, but solar panels are a beautiful thing to inaugurate, and are (in the Anglo-Saxon world) a status symbol on the house, they are perfect. Until a hailstorm devastates them.

The main reason why we are flying through butterflies is that the reaction to the global warming problem is not decided by lobbies, scientists or even political parties. It is decided by the most stupid and incompetent social class in history, the Rich White Women of the Anglo-Saxon world.

You are about to have to swap cars for still experimental electric cars, for the simple reason that these insipid morons find it difficult to handle the fuel pump, and they have never really learned to use the gears.

And if you're going to have self-driving cars, it's only because RWW wants to cross their legs in cars even when they're self-driving.

That electric cars move the problem, but don't solve it, is not a problem. At RWW, the topic of his “commitment” doesn't give a shit.

She's only busy because commitment is what RWW does to keep from getting bored.

Everything else you need to know about RWW can be found on youporn.