KEMAL DERVIS

3 September 2021 0 By Bambam
Kemal Dervis: Can Multilateral Cooperation Coexist with Great-Power  Rivalry? – World Policy Conference
PROFESSOF DERVIS

CRITICAL REVIEW OF “GREEN TRANSITION IS GROWTH OPPORTUNITY NOT ECONOMIC BURDEN”, BY KEMAL DERVIS

green-transition-is-growth-opportunity-not-economic-burden-by-kemal-dervis-2021

PROFESSOR KEMAL DERVIS is a climate change activist. His article reveals inner weaknesses in that enterprise.

Commentary by Attorney James Rickards

First things first. Climate change is real, but it happens over hundreds, sometimes thousands of years for reasons that science does not completely understand. I lived for 10 years on Long Island Sound, a beautiful body of water where locals enjoy fishing, sailing, swimming, and other water sports. It has a rocky coast because 10,000 years ago it was a glacier. (A glacier pushes rocks out of its way, and they accumulate along the edges in a formation called a moraine.) Going from a glacier to a waterway is the result of real climate change, but the process took 10 millennia, not 10 years.

The idea that cities will be inundated by rising oceans in 10 years, a stock claim of climate alarmists, is nonsense. (By the way, the alarmists made the same claim 20 years ago, 15 years ago, and 10 years ago, and they’ve been dead wrong every time; they’re still wrong.) Climate changes are natural and they occur over millennial time scales.

A GLOBALIST AGENDA:

Still, the climate change fear narrative persists because it provides political cover for global government, global taxation, open borders, and other facets of the globalist agenda. You can’t impose global solutions unless you concoct a global ‘problem’ and climate change as the alarmists define it fills the bill.

THE HIDDEN AGENDA

This hidden agenda is revealed by author Kemal Dervis in this article. He writes about ‘FRAMING climate change mitigation, but why do you need to ‘frame’ something that you know to be the truth? Framing is a form of propaganda, a tool of alarmism and activism.

Dervis goes on to write that, ‘When the climate policy debate began, the prevailing narrative was that economic growth faced new constraints.’ But why do we need a ‘NARRATIVE’ for truths established by unbiased and objective scientific inquiry? If the science is on your side, the facts will speak for themselves.

Davis says that the growth constraint narrative was not proving popular. So, he calls for ‘new framing’ based on supposed economic growth that can lead to a ‘new, more positive climate narrative’. Whenever you see words like ‘framing’ and ‘narrative’, you can be sure you’re being fed propaganda. This is what the Dervis article presents and this is how the Dervis article reveals the climate movement as propagnda. The rational advice should be to ignore propaganda and stick to science if indeed there is science there.

JAMES RICKARDS

The Dervis article is published Project Syndicate