Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“The fact that there is an attempt by some people to bulldoze others into ‘believing’ their views itself confirms that this is not a science”

Climate “science”…ain’t.

There are two key pillars of science. First, it doesn’t matter how many “scientists” believe something. All of them could be proven wrong by a single new scientific theory or experiment. Science is always tentatively proven, and it is incumbent on everyone who calls himself a scientist to ask questions even about things that are “settled”. The great physicist Richard Feynman rightly said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. Scientists must continually question everything and everybody.

Second, science must necessarily make accurate predictions. The global positioning system (GPS) in our mobile phones works only because Einstein’s theories of relativity are accurate to the last possible decimal. Science must not just predict the future: it must predict backwards. Our scientific understanding of cosmic microwave background radiation allows us to literally see the universe as it existed a few thousand years after the Big Bang.

If you want to find more information about climate changes or need help in writing an essay on this topic you can check out uk writing to get useful tips and achieve better results!

With climate change, things are dramatically unclear and unsettled. Even converting the basic logic of the greenhouse effect into actual estimates for planet Earth is not settled. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report notes that “If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously … the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2 degrees, in the absence of other changes”. However, some scientists calculate that its impact would be much lower.

Even if we accept this figure of 1.2 degrees, the key question is about these “other changes”, or the feedbacks. IPCCs tells us that positive feedback loops (e.g. from water vapour) from doubling of CO2 will overwhelm negative feedback loops (e.g. from clouds) to lead to a much higher overall temperature in a hundred years. But the IPCC’s approved models have too much variance and the actual, measured temperatures over the past forty years have been much lower than the predicted average of the IPCC-approved climate models. In fact, the list of failed predictions by climate “scientists” over the past 100 years could form a large book in itself.

Climate science is more like “diet science”, in which every second doctor has his own ideas about a good diet. It is a very immature science at best, and most of its current conclusions will be totally rejected with time.

What is global temperature anyway? How is it measured? Why are we looking at the last fifty years and not the last fifty million years? Even simple things like the measurements of temperature are subject to huge disagreements because of complexities like the urban heat island effect. And the fact is that the world has seen much higher levels of CO2 in the past even during ice ages. Until climate science can make accurate predictions of past ice ages and temperatures, will not be ready to be called a science.

And until the “scientists” pimping for it repent of their penchant for Leftist agenda-pushing and grubbing for grant money, it never will be.

Share

“No viable business model can be developed from this”

Just another epic Fail.

Over the last decade, journalists have held up Germany’s renewables energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world.

With Germany as inspiration, the United Nations and World Bank poured billions into renewables like wind, solar, and hydro in developing nations like Kenya.

But then, last year, Germany was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase-out of coal, and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments. It announced plans to bulldoze an ancient church and forest in order to get at the coal underneath it.

“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” write Der Spiegel’s Frank Dohmen, Alexander Jung, Stefan Schultz, Gerald Traufetter in their 5,700-word investigative story.

Over the past five years alone, the Energiewende has cost Germany €32 billion ($36 billion) annually, and opposition to renewables is growing in the German countryside.

“The politicians fear citizen resistance” Der Spiegel reports. “There is hardly a wind energy project that is not fought.”

Meanwhile, the 20-year subsidies granted to wind, solar, and biogas since 2000 will start coming to an end next year. “The wind power boom is over,” Der Spiegel concludes.

All of which raises a question: if renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?

Many Germans will, like Der Spiegel, claim the renewables transition was merely “botched,” but it wasn’t. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.

The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.  

Oh, I doubt very much that anyone ever thought they could, least of all the most fervent among the “renewables” advocates. We need to look at the equation the other way ’round: they don’t want to power modern civilization. They want to end it—to turn back the clock to a mythical golden age, before industrialization and modernity, when we all lived in total harmony with nature. Y’know, like the Native Americans did. Like so much of what liberals think they know, this, too, just isn’t so.

Contrary to the hype, solar panels and windmills are old technologies—centuries old, in fact. They were abandoned for a reason; quite a few reasons, actually, foremost among ’em that those old technologies don’t work nearly as well as the more evolved and efficient tech that replaced ’em.

Not that any of it matters a whit to the Luddite Left, natch. They view humans not as a natural part of the biosphere but as a blight upon it—and, if they can’t excise us like the deadly alien cancer we supposedly are, will at least do everything they can to return humanity to a state of helpless primitivism: at the paltry mercy of Ma Nature, rather than coping quite nicely with her implacable ruthlessness.

Good on the German peasantry for resisting. “The politicians” damned well OUGHT to “fear citizen resistance” as far as I’m concerned, and on a whole lot more issues than just this one. For a closer, I just gotta rerun this brilliant George Carlin diatribe one mo’ time ag’in.


If you think that last link just above is something of a non-sequitur, you should review the performance it came from and think again. Ahem. Also: Heh.

Share

THE END IS NIGH!

Only three days left? Well, damn. And I was thinking about doing some laundry next weekend.

Climate change is in the news again. Earlier this year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) warned us that we have only 12 years to address the harm that human beings are doing to the planet. Last week, Beto O’Rourke amended that, suggesting we have only 10 years. Now, I don’t want to scare anyone, but according to my calculations that I arrived at by reading science, both Beto and Ocasio-Cortez are looking at this problem through rose-colored glasses. In fact, the world has precisely three and a half days to change its ways or it will basically be destroyed.

As I write this, it is 1:45 pm on Friday May 3rd. By sometime in the midmorning on Tuesday, if we don’t take action, Miami will be underwater, Toledo will be on fire, a swarm of locusts will descend upon Houston, and Brooklyn … well, actually Brooklyn will be fine, but that’s not the point. The point is that we have just over 72 hours to change everything we do and hand the entire economy over to the state or else we will witness an apocalypse that will make Revelations look like Sesame Street.

I know what you’re saying, you’re saying, “Dave, how can we possibly reverse the damage done by the entire two centuries of the industrial revolution by Tuesday? It’s impossible!” But when Hannibal’s elephants looked at the Alps, did they tell Hannibal they couldn’t get across them? No. When Rocky Balboa was forced to train in a drafty Russian barn and outrun KGB agents in the snow, did he say, “This is too hard?” No.

The time to act is now. In fact, more accurately the time not to act is now. So what can you not do? First of all, do not become pregnant and deliver a child in the next three and a half days. That is literally the worst thing you can do for climate change. I know babies are cute and all, and pretty small, but believe me, those suckers pump out greenhouse gasses like 19th century dark satanic mills. And you can try to tell them to stop, but they don’t understand words, so …

Another thing you should not do is fly, or drive, or really go anywhere at all. What’s that? You have a doctor’s appointment? Something about a weird growth on your leg? Well, let me ask you bluntly, what is that growth on your leg going to matter when Denver is under 24 feet of burning snow?

Now I know all you folks are the right kind of people, and I’m going to be perfectly frank; individual inaction is not enough. What we need more than anything else is a global governing body that can enforce inaction.

Actually, I might be in favor of that, as long as the governing body itself was included in any and all inaction mandates.

If we don’t take our heads out of the sand in the next several minutes, there will be nothing but sand left on the planet.

Wait, there’s actually still going to be a planet? I had just assumed old Terra was going to fly apart or be blown to bits or something. Or maybe spontaneously ignite because of a 1.4 degree rise in yearly mean temperature over three hundred years and burn itself to cinders, which will be scattered across the galaxy by the solar wind.

So: what, then? Will there still be a planet after all, just no more climate? Or will there be a climate too, but one that kills off all us humans for unforgivable sins like the internal combustion engine and air conditioning and delicious, juicy cheeseburgers? Will there still be animals? How about stinkbugs? Tall buildings? Shrubbery?

Man, all this science is making my head hurt. Seriously, though, if Albert “Arnold The Pig” AlGore had been right in that famous movie of his, An Inconvenient Prediction, the world would have ended long before now. And he ain’t the only half-bright Chicken Little who got it completely wrong, either.

Share

A minor slip

Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) hoaxers shoot selves in foot, fail to notice.

The far-left ThinkProgress reports that scientists have finally proven that the theory of man-made Global Warming is a total hoax.

Of course, no one will admit it, but that is exactly what has happened.

A new scientific study shows has revealed the following:

Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…

Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.

In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…

CO2 levels were the same then as they are now…

Hmmm…?

Ummmm…uhhhhh…hey, Denier, look! SQUIRREL!!!

Just a gigolo update! Another John Heinz-Kerry self-beclowning.

“How do you get a bachelor of arts in a science?” asked Rep. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky’s northern 4th District, during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on Tuesday.

“Well, it’s [a] liberal arts education and degree — it’s a bachelor,” Kerry said.

“OK, so it’s not really science,” replied Massie. “So, I think it’s somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today.”

Kerry fired back, “Are you serious? I mean, this is really… happening here?”

To which Massie said: “You know what? It is serious. You’re calling the president’s cabinet a kangaroo court, is that serious?”

“I’m not calling his cabinet a kangaroo court,” Kerry said. “I’m calling this committee he’s putting together a kangaroo committee.”

Massie asked, “Are you saying he doesn’t have educated adults there now?”

“I don’t know who it has yet,” Kerry said, “because it’s secret.” [snip]

“Are you aware that since mammals have walked the planet, the average [atmospheric carbon dioxide] has been over 1,000 parts per million?” Massie asked.

“Yeah, but we weren’t walking the planet,” Kerry said. “We now know that definitively, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years, has atmospheric CO2 been as high as it is today.”

Massie shot back, “The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200 million years before that, it was greater than it is today.”

“Yeah, but there weren’t human beings,” replied Kerry. “It was a different world, folks. We didn’t have 7 billion people living here.”

Massie continued, “So — how’d it get to 2,000 parts per million if we humans weren’t here? …Did geology stop when we got on the planet?”

No, but it’s readily apparent that the Democrat-Socialists’ declared reverence for SCIENCE! is strictly conditional: it starts and stops according to whether it’s politically useful to them or not at the time.

Share

HUMANITY EXTINCT! PLANET DESTROYED!! FILM AT ELEVEN!!!

Green? No deal.

Senate Votes Down Green New Deal Resolution 0-57

Wait—what? WHAT?!? Not one Democrat-Socialist voted an unequivocal “YEA” on SAVING THE FUCKING PLANET FROM IMMINENT—YES, GODDAMMIT, IMMINENT—DESTRUCTION? NOT ONE??!!??

Why, it’s almost as if these lying frauds don’t even themselves believe in their own self-manufactured, hysterically-hyped scam or something. But no, that can’t possibly be right. Can it?

The Senate voted down on Tuesday S.J. Res. 8, the Green New Deal Resolution, 0-57, with all Republicans, three Democrats, and one Independent voting against it.

Forty-three Democrats voted “present” and three Democrats — Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and Doug Jones (D-AL) — voted against the resolution. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) also voted with Republicans against the measure.

“Present,” is it? Pretty weak tea there, shitlibs, considering it’s the end of all life on Earth we’re talking about here. Fer cripes’ sake, let’s just listen to one of your own High Church holy rollers lay out some grade-A, gold-plated “truth” for us:

Many Democrats — including Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), who sponsored the resolution in the Senate — called the vote a “sham” because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called for it without scheduling any hearings.

“[Climate change] is the national security, economic, health care and moral issue of our time,” Markey said at a press conference at the Capitol ahead of the vote. “We must act now.”

Uh huh. Sure, asshole. By voting “present.” Gotta admire the douchebag in a way, though. He keeps right on scammin’ and slammin’ to the very bitter end; even after he knows damned well the flock ain’t listening to the sermon and he’s only making a fool of himself, he keeps flailing away. That’s real dedication, folks. If they had cards for chutzpah like they do baseball, Markey’s would be the Babe Ruth of ’em. It’s as exemplary a demonstration of the thing as anybody’s ever gonna see, a real honest-to-Gaia archetype.

“Republicans and President Trump may choose to be in denial about the consequences of climate change,” Markey said. “But to ordinary people, climate change is not politics. It is life and death.”

Au contraire, bub. To ordinary people—sane ones, intelligent and well-informed ones anyway—it is ALL about politics. Life and death gots nothing to do with it. Your “present” vote on “life or death,” Ed, just cleared the whole thing RIGHT up, thanks.

“It is not a resolution,” Markey said. “It is a revolution.”

Well, that’s pretty much on the beam, at least, if purely unintentionally and not in the way he means it. Meanwhile, Mike Lee addresses this seriously serious issue with all the gravitas it merits:


Those images of a tauntaun-riding Luke Skywalker and Aquaman straddling a seahorse are Lee’s hilarious proposed alternative means for reaching the states of Alaska and Hawaii after they’re cut off by the end of air and ship travel as mandated by the New Green Deal…Or Whatever™. And why the hell not? Makes as much sense as the Green No Deal itself ever did. Edifying as those images are, though, it’s gotta be this one that most deeply touches the heart with that warm, fuzzy glow:


AOCInTears.jpg


Just beautiful, ain’t it? May we see many more like it—we need all we can get of ’em, now more than ever.

Update! I have to append a sincere hats-off to Cocaine Mitch for following through with this. Plenty of us were in doubt as to whether he would, and with reason. But just once in a while even ol’ Yertle comes through, and he sure did here.

Share

Not fragile

No, I don’t mean the BTO song.

Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as “The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile.” “The 3rd rock from the sun is a fragile oasis.” “Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.” These and many other statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmentalists. Worse yet, this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation’s youth from kindergarten through college. That’s why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

Let’s examine just a few cataclysmic events that exceed any destructive power of mankind and then ask how our purportedly fragile planet could survive. The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, in present-day Indonesia, had the force of 200 megatons of TNT. That’s the equivalent of 13,300 15-kiloton atomic bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II. Before that was the 1815 Tambora eruption, the largest known volcanic eruption. It spewed so much debris into the atmosphere that 1816 became known as the “Year Without a Summer.” It led to crop failures and livestock death in the Northern Hemisphere, producing the worst famine of the 19th century. The A.D. 535 Krakatoa eruption had such force that it blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and is said to have led to the Dark Ages. Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions — Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) — spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind’s activities during our entire history.

Our so-called fragile earth survived other catastrophic events, such as the floods in China in 1887, which took an estimated 1 million to 2 million lives, followed by floods there in 1931, which took an estimated 1 million to 4 million lives. What about the impact of earthquakes on our fragile earth? Chile’s 1960 Valdivia earthquake was 9.5 on the Richter scale. It created a force equivalent to 1,000 atomic bombs going off at the same time. The deadly 1556 earthquake in China’s Shaanxi province devastated an area of 520 miles.

My question is: Which of these powers of nature could be duplicated by mankind? For example, could mankind even come close to duplicating the polluting effects of the 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption? It is the height of arrogance to think that mankind can make significant parametric changes in the earth or can match nature’s destructive forces. Our planet is not fragile.

Occasionally, environmentalists spill the beans and reveal their true agenda. Barry Commoner said, “Capitalism is the earth’s number one enemy.” Amherst College professor Leo Marx said, “On ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”

Excepting a handful of misguided ninnies, the whole thing is nothing but a scam—a pig in a poke, a false-flag op—and it was never anything but. As Williams notes at the end, it’s a subterfuge intended to cloak the promotion of communism, the redistribution of American wealth, and world government. The climate changes, ever since the Earth first got itself one, and is going to go right on doing so with or without any nudging of any kind from puny humanity. Full stop, end of story.

Share

Global not-warmening

A California faceplant.

California is the land of endless summer. The Beach Boys are catching a wave in front of bikini-clad girls with bushy, bushy blonde hairdos under the warm California sun. The Beach Boys were writing music long before global warming became a thing. In those days, Oscar winners were thanking all the little people for helping them win an award, not preaching to those same little people about climate change and our Cro-Magnon president.

The times have changed. The Beach Boys have been replaced by Katy Perry and Lady Gaga.

LIKE HELL. Not at my house, buddy. No way.




Yeah, the song is an ode to a damned old Chevy hunk of junk, but I still love it. Anyways.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported how cold February was, not reaching 70 degrees even once during the entire month. They bemoaned the poor coastal restaurants that needed portable heaters to warm waiters and diners eating outdoors, a staple of Southern California dining.

They didn’t mention how the heaters were powered.

Given the preponderance of enviro-Luddite loons in California, the really important question is probably how much longer they’re gonna be able to power ’em. Or maybe why such evil technological Gaia-busting devices haven’t been banned, confiscated, and destroyed yet in the first place.

The LA Times notes the month of below 70 degree temperatures is a record dating back 132 years, “since forecasters began recording data.” These myopic journalists don’t realize that LA has been around for more than 132 years. I suspect if one were to look back hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, there would be months far cooler than this past February, and far warmer than anything recorded in the past 132 years.

Given that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it’s the ultimate in hubris to believe that the time we happen to inhabit the Earth represents “normal.” Modern journalism and hubris are synonymous. If you don’t believe me, just read CNN’s Jim Acosta’s Twitter feed.

Los Angeles even had a bit of snow. This causes a National Weather Service meteorologist to remark, “We’ve had cold mornings and freeze conditions, but I don’t remember seeing anything quite this cold.” I don’t recall any Beach Boys songs about Southern California snow.

Okay, so by now you’re probably getting the idea that this here is one snarky, sarcastic bitchslap of an article. It is, and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

Share

Hea culpa

Lefty fantasist nitwit gets himself a real-world schoolin’…and not only learns something, but admits his error.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, and are opposed by local communities and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Other problems didn’t seem like such a big deal, on closer examination. For example, after I learned that house cats kill billions of birds every year it put into perspective the nearly one million birds killed by wind turbines.

It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.

But, as the years went by, the problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables but we haven’t converted our dams into batteries, partly for geographic reasons. You need the right kind of dam and reservoirs, and even then it’s an expensive retrofit.

Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.

Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.

As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.

In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.

Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.

In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.

As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.

Quillette has this one labeled a “must read” on their front page, and it damned sure is that. Read every word of it; Shellenberger really gets down into the nuts and bolts of the thing—and, most remarkable of all, packs a great deal of two qualities heretofore unknown among Progtard envirotwerps into this article: humility, and honesty. Hats off to him for it. The quote of the week, about those desert tortoises:

Another scientist who worked to build that gigantic solar farm in the California desert told High Country News, “Everybody knows that translocation of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals, and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”

And when you’re spending untold billions on Fantasyland projects deploying old, tired technologies left behind a century (or several) ago as more efficient ways of producing energy came along—and the only discernible impact, if any, on Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) is to worsen things slightly, it’s even harder to think that the whole thing is anything more than a hoax and a scam.

Update! A little history, and…SCIENCE!!!

“Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”

This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”

Chicken Littles gotta Chicken Little, globalists gotta globalist, Tranzis gotta Tranzi, and government-teat sucklers gotta suckle.

Share

Flirting with disaster

The New Green Deal…Or Whatever is no laughing matter.

But we don’t need to wait for a foreign adversary or domestic terrorist organization to cripple our energy infrastructure. We can quite effectively do it to ourselves.

In late January, it was very cold in Minnesota. And there wasn’t a lot of wind. Natural gas, also, was in short supply, as a result of pipeline capacity constraints. Xcel Energy urged its gas customers to turn down thermostats and water heaters, and to use electric heaters as necessary. The electricity was coming from primarily coal plants (40 GW) and natural gas plants (about 23 GW)–the gas plants, of course, are also dependent on pipeline capacity.

Also in Minnesota, here’s a large solar farm covered with snow. Wonder if it’s melted or been swept off yet? And here’s a cautionary story from Germany, where long, still, and dim winters do not mix well with wind and solar power generation.

Solar and wind in most parts of the US are now small enough in proportion to overall grid capacity that shortfalls can be made up by the other sources. What happens if they come to represent the majority of the grid’s power capacity–not to mention the exclusive source of capacity, as demanded by some?

It may be feasible to store a few hours of electricity without driving costs out of sight…but what about the situation in which wind and solar are underperforming for several days in a row? Interconnection of sources and demands over a wide area (geographical diversity) can help, but is by no means a comprehensive solution. So far, the gas, coal, and hydro plants have been there to kick in where necessary.

Almost every day, there are assertions that new solar is cheaper than its fossil-fuel equivalents. This may be true in some areas if you ignore the need to match supply and demand on an instantaneous basis. But if the fossil-fuel plants are there to handle only those periods when wind, solar, and limited battery storage aren’t sufficient to meet demand, then the total energy production against which their capital cost is charged will be much lower, and hence, the cost per unit will go up. In some states with net metering, a home or business owner can sell excess power to the grid when loads are low and buy it back at the same unit price when loads are at their maximum. This becomes especially problematic when “renewables” become a major part of the mix. Unless incentives are intelligently crafted–unlikely, given politics–“renewable” sources will effectively be subsidized by conventional sources and potentially make the construction and maintenance of those conventional sources impossible.

Any successful attempt to politically and rapidly drive wind/solar to 50% or more of the total mix…let alone to even higher numbers…is likely to result in vastly increased energy costs which will make American businesses less globally competitive…in addition to the direct imact on homeowners…and will quite likely also result in reduced reliability. But look what is going on in Los Angeles, where Mayor Eric Garcetti wants to shut down 3 natural-gas-fired peaker plants…which produce 2-7 percent of the city’s electricity and are most critical during the hottest days of the year, when demand for air conditioning spikes and power supplies are stretched to the limit…and forbid their replacement by other nat-gas peakers. The plans for replacing this capacity seem rather vague.

The quality of political discussion of energy-related issues is so low as to be abysmal. The interchange between Diane Feinstein was devoid of any discussion of evidence or lack of same related to fossil-fuel-drive climate change, or technological and logistical changes involved in swapping out America’s entire energy infrastructure. It was basically a Children’s Crusade, with the children spurred on by their priests to attack the heathen, and with Feinstein as an arrogant aristocrat, with no arguments other than “I’m the authority and I know best.”

Hey, that argument has always worked for ’em before. In fact, it ain’t merely an “argument”; it’s their governing philosophy entire. Foster goes on to draw the entirely apt analogy with “certain other top-down national efforts” in certain other socialist shitrapies, winding up thusly:

The threat of attacks on energy infrastructure by hostile states and/or by terrorists is indeed a serious one, but so is the danger of energy chaos created by arrogant and clueless politicians, journalists, and ‘celebrities’ of various kinds.

Yep. They’re playing with matches, and we’re all gonna end up getting burned.

Via WRSA, accompanied by a scarifying precursor from Bill Beck.

Share

Everything old is new again

Does the New Green Dream Or Whatever sound kinda familiar at all? Because it should.

The “Green New Deal” is a fascist utopian plan written by environmentalist lawyers that is purportedly designed to tackle the global warming apocalypse which capitalism, particularly of the American kind drunk on fossil fuels, has precipitated through economic recklessness and colonial racism. CO2, a trace gas measured in parts per million, is the primary culprit of a semi-apocalyptic global warming crisis that can only be averted through an all-wise cadre of Democratic green lawyers. That such utopianism, political legalism, and apocalypticism is presented as hard science demonstrates the general madness of the present time that is largely rooted in the Social Darwinian scientism of the 1800s, wherein German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was peddling a racist political biology together with strong ecological values that he characterized as Monism — which speaks of a monistic oneness or holism with nature along totalitarian lines that modern science was supposedly offering the constituents of the Second Reich. While Haeckel coined the term “ecology” in 1866, he mixed racial eugenics with his environmentalism. Today, environmentalism proffers anti-humanism, population control, ecological totalitarianism, and indigenous multicultural tribal racism that “The New Green Deal” is chock full of.

Austrian Nazi forester Guenther Schwab (1904-2006) was one of the most successful original popularizers of apocalyptic environmentalism in the 1950s and 60s, which included the CO2 global warming scare. Thanks to the great success of Schwab’s writings, real green Nazis like Werner Haverbeck, August Haussleiter, and Werner Vogel, among others, helped him lay the foundations for the German Green Party in the late 1970s. Yet, it was German researcherHermann Flohn (1912-97) who took the global warming theory that had been bandied around by earlier European researchers and gave it teeth to increasingly bite its way into the main storyline of the West as the 20th century drew to a close. Flohn is considered to be one of the most critically important climate scientists of the 20th century, whose research merited a number of prestigious awards.

Flohn’s very German odyssey actually began in 1941, when he published an article on global warming titled, “The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor” during the dizzying heights of Nazi rule. The Dust Bowl years of the 1930s on the American plains was an exceptionally warm period that prompted environmental discussion among many Nazis at the time, who deemed such an ecological disaster as a symptom of diseased industrial capitalism which had ruined the soil. While Flohn was not a Nazi Party member, he received his doctorate in 1934 and began work for the German Meteorological Service at a time when National Socialism was attempting to bring into line German universities within its ideological purview. Later, Flohn became the Luftwaffe’s chief meteorologist under green Nazi Hermann Goering’s watch. The great irony is that the global warming of the 1930s came to an abrupt halt (which lasted until 1975) just in time for the 1941 invasion of Russia when the Wehrmacht essentially froze to death just outside the gates of Moscow.

Read the whole thing—and marvel at the astounding prescience and profundity of the old adage declaring that the more things change, the more they stay the same. One more snippet I just can’t leave out:

Even as early as 1935, Nazi Germany was the greenest regime on the planet. Their ecological projects worked hand in hand with their wild Social Darwinian biological programs connected to eugenics and scientific racial hygiene. Cleaning up the blood also included cleaning up the environment. Indeed, Nazi biologist Ernst Lehman defined fascism accordingly, “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole…This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”

Enviro-whackadoodlism, veganism, (((((((Joo!)))))))-hate, eugenics, the perfectibility of Man, a fondness for Marxism—is there ANY present-day Progressivist base the Nazis didn’t touch on their jog around the ideological diamond? The close kinship between Hitler’s own Party and our own misnomered “liberals” can rightly be thought of as another example of the essential wisdom of that hoary old adage I just mentioned above, I guess.

Share

The “Green New Dream (or whatever)”: bats in the belfry

One of the big problems with AOC’s Folly I haven’t seen much mention of so far is that it is by no means all about Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”). It’s actually a naked, headlong dive into straight-up communism. David Mastio provides a list of 55 promises tucked away in the Red Trojan Horse that have nothing to do with its purported rationale, winding up thusly:

Of course, we all want public transit to be clean and folks to have access to healthy, affordable food, but you can’t wave a magic wand to make it happen with a congressional resolution.

Claiming to solve one giant mess of a global problem like climate change with a revolutionary plan for change that doesn’t take into account basic economics, civil rights and democracy is dishonest.

Claiming to be able to solve that problem and every other problem you can think of at the same time is certifiable. 

Well, I mean, yeah. So how is this latest foray into La-La Land distinguishable from any other crackpot “solution” they’ve ever come up with? This ain’t just obstinate stupidity we’re dealing with here, it’s bug-fuck-nuttery. The real head-scratcher isn’t why insane people propose to do insane things. It’s why so many saner sorts don’t seem able to recognize cray-cray when they see it.

(Via Insty)

Update! Bluff, called?

So, given that legislation is not just supposed to be a campaign stunt but an actual practical code you intend to make into actual law, Mitch McConnell has announced he will schedule a vote on the “Green New Dream (or whatever)” bill and give Democrats the chance to express their support as actual legislators rather than as mere MSNBC/CNN bloviators.

I mean, yes, it’s a nonbinding resolution, but do they want this resolution resolved, or not?

Meanwhile, Congressman Ed Markey, the same Democrat who co-sponsored and jointly announced the “New Green Dream (or whatever)” with Alexandria Donkey-Chompers, now claims that scheduling a vote on it is a “Republican trick” which will “sabotage” the effort to have a “national conversation.”

Um: You know what’s usually a great time for a national conversation, Dummy? When Congress is preparing to vote on a piece of transformative socialist legislation.

Or did you not actually want that at all?

Y’know, I’m beginning to seriously wonder about that myself. What DID they hope to accomplish with this preposterous goatfuck, anyway? They can’t be deluded enough to really think any part of it is remotely achievable, right? Seriously y’all, they CAN’T. And even if any of these absurdities WERE workable, they would undo or damage one hell of a lot of established liberal pet projects and cherished schemes:

Unlike the Green New Deal, however, the mobilization required by the (WW2, which the GND is being likened to in both moral and practical terms) did not require rebuilding our entire energy infrastructure, retrofitting every existing building for energy efficiency, or trading our existing vehicle fleet for electric cars, more mass transit, and high-speed trains.

Achieving the Green New Deal’s objectives in ten years—or in 20 or 40—is clearly impossible. Even if hundreds of thousands of windmills, tens of millions of solar panels, and hundreds of millions of car batteries could be fabricated, the grid cannot operate on 100% intermittent and variable power—or even 50%.

One aspect of covering the landscape with hundreds of thousands of square miles of windmills and solar panels is that to do so would require suspending federal, state, and local environmental statutes, permitting procedures, and land use plans. Forget about the Endangered Species Act’s habitat protections and prohibitions on killing endangered birds and bats. The Clean Water Act’s wetlands protections will have to be overlooked. Environmental impact statements that now take years to prepare, years to move through the permitting process, and more years to litigate, are out the window. Wind and solar projects will have to be permitted in days.

One reporter at the press conference asked how the Green New Deal was going to turn out more successfully than the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, which narrowly passed the House in 2009 but then died in the Senate after widespread public opposition became apparent. Sen. Markey replied (at about 21:45 of the press conference video) that, “The difference between 2009 and 10 and today is the movement that has now been built, OK? We did not have that movement in 2009 and 10. This is now a voting issue across the country. The green generation has risen up….We now have the troops, we now have the money, we’re ready to fight.”   

You might have the troops—maybe. You do NOT have the money—there ain’t enough money in the entire damned world—and your biggest problem might turn out to be who you’re really fighting, and why. Because it all too obviously ain’t climate change; it’s US—the American people. And despite all your progress over many decades in subjugating and enslaving us, I don’t think there are as many of us so cowed and docile yet that we’re willing to just meekly roll over and let you take away our personal transportation, our jobs, our economic prospects, the electricity required to keep our homes comfortable and our refrigerators running, and our right to decide for ourselves what we’re going to have for dinner.

Share

Caught in a lie

So naturally, they do what they always do: double down.

“I really don’t like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of let’s hop a train to California, of you’re not allowed to own cows anymore,” Trump said in the El Paso speech. White House Bureau Chief at The Washington Post Philip Rucker let his 340,000 followers on Twitter know that this was “false” and that “no one” had proposed any such thing. David Weigel, another well-read political reporter at The Post, who had earlier co-bylined a piece with the misleading headline “Ocasio-Cortez retracts erroneous information about Green New Deal,” retweeted Rucker’s falsehood to his 450,000 followers.

First of all, even if Ocasio-Cortez did walk back her pitch, it was proposed. This might be inconvenient, but it’s also indisputable. Simply because a politician pulls a proposal that’s been dragged across the entire internet and beaten senseless does not mean its existence has been expunged from the record.

The authors of the Green New Deal were very clear that their plan was a “massive transformation of our society” with “clear goals and a timeline.” Those goals included eliminating “combustion engines” and air travel and beef. It was the bill’s authors who wrote about “economic security” for those who are “unwilling to work.” They simply hadn’t come up with all the nuts and bolts yet. And, yes, a bunch of presidential candidates endorsed these ideas, while the FAQ was up.

First, Ocasio-Cortez’s people lied and claimed the plan had been doctored. Then they claimed the Green New Deal FAQ was “an early draft” inadvertently posted. Supposedly, her chief of staff accidentally create a PDF of a draft and then accidentally posted it and then accidentally left it up for hours and hours while critics were dissecting it and forgot to mention it was only a draft. Why someone would want to eliminate cars, planes, and beef in any draft of a policy proposal is still a mystery. In any event, Ocasio-Cortez also accidentally sent the very same FAQ to NPR, and then accidentally her staff interviewed for a piece that was built around the accidentally posted FAQ.

No adult, much less a skeptical journalist, would believe such a ridiculous story. And yet!

The New York Times headline explaining the fiasco claims “Ocasio-Cortez Team Flubs a Green New Deal Summary, and Republicans Pounce.” You would think this headline is merely a troll job. I’m not so sure. Just read the preposterous conclusion of this Washington Post Fact Checker piece, which claims that since “Ocasio-Cortez has now disowned the FAQs and the statements that went beyond the resolution” and the “line about providing for people ‘unwilling to work’ has been walked back completely” they “won’t be awarding any Pinocchios in this kerfuffle.”

Well, of course not. How would THAT help The Narrative? Surprisingly enough though, Yertle McTurtle comes up with a smooth move that takes the amusement wide and deep, from merely mild to gut-busting:

Mitch McConnell is going to force the Senate to vote on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the Senate would vote on the Green New Deal introduced last week by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

“I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate to give everybody an opportunity to go on record,” McConnell told reporters.

The bill, which is not expected to pass the Republican-dominated upper chamber, could force some Democrats to make a politically awkward calculation.

Gee, ya think? Lessee, either vote “No” on a bill you already publicly declared your support for, addressing an issue you’ve incessantly claimed is earth-shatteringly existential and a matter of life and death—actually, extinction—or vote “Yes” on sending America back to the Dark Ages: without heat, air conditioning, electricity, cars, planes, or meat; requiring unaffordable refits of EVERY FUCKING BUILDING IN AMERICA, to include their homes; expanding federal control over, quite literally, everything.

Naturally, shitlibs are squealing like piggies caught with their nose in the trough at such an outrageously outrageous outrage:



Umm, yeah, “silence your voice” by…giving Americans a voice via the legislative process. Ah well, one thing you can count on: Bitch Markey really, really means it when he says this unprecedented Commie power grab is “just the beginning.” No doubt whatever about that.

Yeah, vote on the thing, fuckers. Let Markey and his merry band of marauding morons stand up tall and proud for their beliefs; let every last one of us get a good, clear look at who they really are, what they’re really all about, so that it can no longer be denied or obscured. And after that, if Americans are still stupid enough to elect these batshit dimestore despots to national office, then they deserve everything they’re gonna get, just as hard and deep as the Left can give it to ’em.

Share

Mad math

Running just a few of the numbers on the Green Dream.

There are about 327 million people in the U.S. At roughly four people per household, that means that there are about 82 million households. Yes, many are in apartments, but this is irrelevant to our analysis. Please note that we’re using only arithmetic that any seventh-grader is supposed to be able to do. And we’re ignoring every non-residential building in the country. All those businesses, police stations, and hospitals will just have to wait.

Next, we find that there are 10.7 million construction workers and 8.4 million production workers in the housing industry in the U.S. These workers contribute to about 1.25 million housing starts per year. To replace the 82 million homes in ten years, we’d have to tear down and rebuild 8.2 million homes a year. That’s 6.56 times as many as we build now.  And that means that instead of 19.1 million workers, we’d need 125.3 million. That doesn’t include the people needed to tear down all those homes. Or the people to work in the hotels that would house the people who are waiting to have their homes rebuilt. Or…

Where are we supposed to find all those people? We can’t print people like money! The total U.S. labor force is about 161 million, with 154 million actually working. (This assumes that the 2.8 million federal employees actually work.) If we devote 125 million workers to construction, that leaves about 26 million people in the private labor force to run our power grid (I forgot! There won’t be one.), fly our airliners (Oops, those will be eliminated.), do the work involved in universal single-payer health care, grow our food, run our grocery stores, and so on.

Booker and his airhead friends haven’t bothered to look at even this simple exercise in arithmetic. They’ve been happy to let the conversation revolve around exotic discussions of cost analysis. Perhaps we should change our conversation from numbers of dollars to the number of workers needed for the Green New Deal.

To get all these people, we’d have to stop aborting 1.3 million babies a year.

Just another from their boundless store of self-contradictions, that, so they’ll be neither bothered nor dissuaded by it. Be assured they’ll find a workaround, which will as always involve one hell of a lot of lying and misdirection to put across. Meanwhile, Schlichter offers a counter-proposal:

I know many Americans are chomping at the bit to turn our entire economy over to a bunch of coastal blue city hipsters and college professors, along with all our money and our personal freedom, because of a dubious moral panic over future weather, but I’d like to suggest a better idea. I call it the Red, White and Blue New Deal, and it’s a little different than the proposed Green New Deal that seems to benefit only virtue signaling limo libs, crony capitalists, and aspiring commissars. The Red, White and Blue New Deal would, instead, be directed at benefiting Normal Americans – you know, those people who built our country, feed it, fuel it and defend it. People like you and me. So, here it is. All of it:

Support your own damn self and leave me the hell alone.

That’s it. That’s my Red, White and Blue New Deal.

What do you think?

I like it. I like it a lot. Unfortunately, it’s a non-starter for a very good—actually, make that very bad—reason, as Kurt well knows:

Now, the left is going to find this comprehensive scheme problematic for many reasons, primarily among them because it does not take the fruits of our labor and our freedom and hand them over to those very same leftists. As you look at the Green New Deal, you may wonder, “How does this plan make me freer or more prosperous?” But, of course, it does neither. Neither your freedom nor your prosperity is the purpose of the Green New Deal, nor the purpose of any of the other countless moral equivalents of war they are always proposing. Climate change is just the latest excuse for their pinko power grab. If it wasn’t the fake weather religion, it would be some other imminent danger of certain doom that required you to give up your money and freedom RIGHT NOW NO TIME TO THINK THE CHILDREN THE CHILDREN THE CHILDREN!

It’s funny how the solution to every problem the left obsesses over is having leftists take away your money and your freedom.

Ain’t it just. But not in a hah-hah kind of way.

Share

Green No Deal

The Democrat-Socialist end-game.

It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal costs are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing but trifling projects compared to a plan that overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure us that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

  • Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.
  • Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy generation so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.
  • Eliminate 99 percent of cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going (to) invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains that run on fossil fuels will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

And that’s just for openers. The trainwreck of lunacy only picks up steam from there: free houses, free food, guaranteed income for anyone “unable OR UNWILLING to work,” and the elimination of…no, really, folks…cows. Any ONE of these proposals ought to be enough to forever sink any political party putting such utter codswallop forth for serious consideration. But all of this—along with post-birth abortion, unrestricted illegal immigration, persecution of Christians and embrace of Muslim terrorist, promotion of gender dysphoria and mutiliation for children, among much else—are now cornerstones of the Democrat-Socialist agenda.

It’s nothing short of astounding, is what it is.

Update! Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

The “Green New Deal” is not green at all. If anything it’s a raw, red deal. It calls for a government takeover of our wage, and of our energy, housing, health care and transportation sectors. It has more in common with Mao’s Cultural Revolution than it does FDR’s New Deal, which lifted millions out of the Great Depression.

Uhh, well, actually, NO. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
 
After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
 
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
 
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
 
“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Policies which the Democrat-Socialists still cling to and revere, and will re-implement in a hot minute whenever they’re given the power to do so, without a moment’s regard for the damage done and the misery inflicted. My slight digression aside:

The demand for justice on the basis of climate change is upside down. The energy revolution did not cause the oppression of the frontline and vulnerable communities. Quite the opposite, it was at the core of the democratization of technology as Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb was not limited to the few but became universal to every household.

The moderately priced car created by Henry Ford helped create the middle class and later provided the near-universal mobility that enabled people to live in the suburbs and commute to work. While the oil industry was broken up to create greater competition, these energy driven inventions were at the center of transforming American life for everyone.

The very premise that America is the carbon fiend that needs to mobilize to this degree on its own is faulty as well. Carbon emissions from America have been declining, down 2.7 percent in 2016. Since 2011, carbon emissions from large power plants in the U.S. have declined by nearly 20 percent.

This plan is really a nifty piece of marketing to use the environment as a Trojan horse to justify socialism in America. 

Well, y’know, DUH. The chilling fact remains: this is who the Democrat-Socialists are. This kind of thinly-veiled power grab is what they do. Always, and forever. Full stop, end of story.

Share

The Day After Tomorrow

Steyn reviews an unintentional comedy.

What could be (more) warming on this frosty weekend than the hilarious 2004 laugh-riot climate comedy. The Day After Tomorrow came out the day before yesterday, and opened to boffo box-office and predictions by Al Gore that it could change the result of the 2004 election. I’d like to think it did. Still, whatever your ideological inclinations, this picture’s a hoot. Lousy science, lousy politics, lousy characters, lousy dialogue, lousy plot. Yet they all add up to one helluva climate-change side-splitter.

It’s a tribute to the indomitable spirit of America: Huge twisters shred downtown Los Angeles, a giant tidal wave engulfs Manhattan, two dozen northern states are flash-frozen under a slab of ice a gazillion degrees below zero. But, like cockroaches after nuclear Armageddon, scurrying up from under the rubble come all the indestructible cardboard characters of the Hollywood disaster epic, as if they’d been perfectly preserved in ice ever since EarthquakeThe Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure, just waiting to be defrosted when Roland Emmerich needed them again.

If you’re wondering about the science, global warming now manifests itself as both global warming and global cooling, in the same way that low self-esteem manifests itself not just in low self-esteem but also in abnormally high self-esteem. What it boils down to for the man on the street, or rather for the guy roaring past in the six-miles-per-gallon SUV splashing snow slush over the man in the street, is that whether it’s hot or cold it’s all your fault. Also, if it’s fifty-four and partially cloudy, that’s a sign that global warming-cooling is accelerating out of control into extreme moderation and you should just head for the hills.

As much as Emmerich’s anti-global warming, he’s far more anti-America. So, although it’s nominally the entire northern hemisphere that gets frosted over, there are no scenes of Kyoto-ratifying environmentally-responsible taxed-up-the-wazoo Scandinavians being swept to their doom. Instead, he shows Americans fleeing south and then, when the Mexicans close the border, swimming across the Rio Grande. If only that were frozen too, the Yanks could just skate across. But those environmentally responsible Latins pump enough pollutants into the river to keep it frothing and bubbling. If he were making it now, he could show a sudden wave from the Rio Grande flash-freezing into an instant insurmountable border wall preventing desperate Americans reached the promised land of Mexico.

As to whether this does anything to promote concern over climate change, I doubt it. We’d all be into it if the climate was going to change in 20 minutes. It’s kinda harder to follow over the course of half a millennium.

And even harder to care about, especially when you realize that the climate has always been changing, it always will be changing, and—planetary terraforming, Dyson Spheres, and the like remaining well beyond humanity’s technological reach at the moment—there ain’t one hell of a lot anybody can do about it.

Share

Mother Nature’s plan

Forecast: bleak. And cold.

There were four ice ages during the Pleistocene Epoch, the last 1.7 million years. The most recent glacial period began melting 20,000 years ago, not withdrawing from the Great Lakes region until 10,000 years ago. I wonder how cold the future Chicago was back in those days when covered with a mile-thick layer of ice?

What caused the ice ages and the subsequent warming that ended each ice age? Humans were scarce and those that were around were not driving SUVs or exhibiting toxic masculinity by grilling burgers in their back yards. Who’s to say the planet is not now slowly cooling, heading toward another minor or major ice age? Some scientists are predicting just that, a mini ice age in the next 30 years, based on the sun’s natural cycles.

Newsweek predicted a new ice age back in 1975 in an article called “The Cooling World.” What if they were right in principle, but off in timing?

Climate scientist S. Fred Singer made the case for an upcoming ice age last year in American Thinker, noting that we are currently nearing the end of a cyclical 10,000 year inter-glacial warming period which would be followed by a 100,000 year glaciation. Is the shifting polar vortex an early sign of global cooling?

Perhaps the climate warriors are correct, but not in the way they intend.

Indeed, the climate may be changing, but cooling rather than warming. If so, this would be a legitimate cause for alarm. Cooler temperatures mean a shorter growing season, with less food to support a much larger world population than existed during the last ice age. Those concerned about an overpopulated planet may discover that Mother Nature has a plan for culling the population.

If anything, whatever man-made global warming actually exists may serve to delay the next cooling period or ice age for a decade or a century. But planetary cycles will continue, regardless of the rantings of Al Gore or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

We all may well end up wishing that CO2 was actually a significant factor in Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) so we could avoid a near-extinction level event for humanity by pumping as much of it as we could into the atmosphere. But that is unlikely in the extreme to save us. Our relationship to the planet is more along the lines of fleas on an elephant’s back than it is some almighty colossus astride a helpless world entirely at our mercy. We’re fleas on an elephant’s back. George Carlin knew it years ago:




Watch all of it. Ol’ George wasn’t right every single time, Lord knows. But when he was, he really, really was.

Common sense update! Climate, like true science, is subject to change.

The fact is, our climate changes all the time. As a highly complex system, climate is inherently unstable. Saying “climate change” is merely stating an obvious fact: it’s never not changing. And claiming it’s all due to human-made CO2 runs into a central issue: All of the statistical models assume that increases in CO2 will lead inevitably to higher temperatures. It’s science, the activists say.

Unfortunately, for 20 years now, average temperatures have shown little if any change at all, even though CO2 concentrations have gone up. This is contradiction can’t be argued away.

This goes to the very heart of what science is, and isn’t. It violates a primary tenet of experimental science put forth by the late Karl Popper, considered by many the greatest philosopher of science in the 20th century. In layman’s language, Popper said that to prove something in science, you must first be able to test it for being false. Otherwise, what you have isn’t science, it’s religion, or faith. It’s a “nonfalsifiable hypothesis.” It can neither be proven nor disproven.

That’s exactly where we are today. Climate extremists, activists and the media repeatedly claim that any and all phenomena are due to climate change or global warming. No debate possible. They reject any possible other explanation. Anyone who expresses skepticism, is immediately labeled a “denier,” a cheap slur linking those who disagree with Holocaust denial.

When you say anything and everything is a cause of global warming, and no amount of evidence can possibly disprove that hypothesis — indeed, you call those who doubt your beliefs “deniers” — it’s no longer science. It’s faith.

Yes, we call ourselves skeptics. The climate change science isn’t proven, despite media claims to the contrary. Spending trillions of dollars to lower CO2 output won’t end our cold winters. But it will end our prosperity.

That’s the whole idea—which, in turn, will bring us more completely into government’s tyrannous clutches, perhaps even lead to the establishment of a global government like they’ve always dreamed of.

Share

This global warmening sure is COLD

Have these Watermelon loons EVER had a single hysterical shriek of a prediction prove out?

Data, not feelings:  A United Nations panel reported in October that we have around 12 years to act if we want to keep the Quite Horrible from becoming Truly Terrible.  A report this month says that Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than we thought. Last week, environmental dangers occupied the top three spots on a survey of the biggest global risks, as compiled by the World Economic Forum.

They told us so. Are telling us so.

But here’s where you stop reading, because you have a mortgage payment to scrape together. You have a kid to pick up from school. You have a migraine. The U.S. government is in shambles. You’re sitting at your desk, or on the subway, and deep in the southern Indian Ocean, blue whales are calling to each other at higher pitches, to be heard over the crack and whoosh of melting polar ice. What do you even do with that?

“I don’t believe it,” President Trump said of his own administration’s November report, which stated that “climate change is transforming where and how we live.”

And so there is no crisis, just an accumulation of curiosities and irritants. Your basement now floods every year instead of every five or 10 years. Your asthma has gotten worse. You grew up wearing a winter jacket under your Halloween costume in Buffalo, and now your kids don’t have to. The southern pine beetle that made its home in South America 400 years ago is now boring through trees on Long Island.

If you have an infant daughter, she is expected to live 81.1 years, and so she will be here for 2100, a year that is no longer mythical. She may see the world’s largest naval base, in Norfolk, swamped by rising seas. If she lives in Phoenix, she may feel nearly double the amount of 100-degree days. During her lifetime, the oceans will acidify at a rate not seen in 66 million years. One research team suggests that by her 29th birthday, there will be no more saltwater fish.

And no more snow either, right, AlGore? Why, Global Warmening is raising temps so much in overheated Minnesota that people are walking around in shorts and flipflops…in January!!! Right? RIGHT??

Um. Yeah, about all that.

U scientists: Minnesota is one of the nation’s fastest-warming states
Cities are warming faster than the rest of the landscape, they tell a panel of legislators. 

Climate change means the state will be buffeted by more supercharged weather — heat waves, droughts, deluges, wind storms, flooding and even wildfires. But for Minnesota, it’s primarily a winter phenomenon. The state’s famous winters are warming 13 times faster than its summers, said Tracy Twine, an associate professor in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Soil, Water and Climate.

“We just don’t expect temperatures to be below 10 degrees Fahrenheit in Duluth anymore,” Twine said.

Note ye well: that forecast was made in an article published on January 16th—quite recently, in other words. Recently enough, in fact, that one might reasonably expect a trained fucking weather forecast professional to be able to see trouble coming, and that right soon. Bill finds the one tiny little flaw the “experts” seem to have missed:

Duluth hit thirty below zero this morning – air temp, not wind chill.

Oops. Better luck next time, gang. The thing that puzzles me is how the folks in both the above-linked self-beclownings seem to be clinging to “global warming” still, which I find odd. It was my understanding that a near-unanimous scientific consensus had been reached to abandon that term for the ass-covering Big Tent of “climate change,” way more useful for stampeding the sheep and glomming the big-money grants no matter which way the thermometer might point. Guess somebody didn’t get the memo.

The way these stubborn doofi keep trotting out the Lefty alarmism only to have their predictions shot down by the actual, y’know, weather within mere days or weeks, over and over and over again, it’s hard not to think that somewhere, God is having himself a good laugh at their expense. Not to worry, though, they’re going to get real busy real quick now about how the absence of warming proves nothing whatever about Global Warming. No really, you guys.

Predictable as the sunrise update! Man, can I call ’em or what?

Extreme cold gripping Midwest does not debunk global warming, experts say
The massive cold weather front that has descended over the Midwest this week has commentators straining for analogies (“deep freeze,” “arctic outbreak” and “ice age”), and at least some people wondering what has become of global warming.

President Donald Trump and radio provocateur Rush Limbaugh seemed bemused by the notion that the climate is warming at a time when most of America is hunkering down against subfreezing temperatures.

But climate experts, including those inside Trump’s government, said the record-setting cold does nothing to contradict the consensus on climate change. According to a tweet Tuesday morning from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: “Winter storms don’t prove that global warming isn’t happening.”

No, of course not. Record-breaking low temperatures and storms do.

Headlines around the world are reporting exceptionally frigid conditions and unusually high levels of snowfall in recent weeks. They tout these events as records, but few people understand how short the record actually is — usually less than 50 years, a mere instant in Earth’s 4.6-billion year history. The reality is that, when viewed in a wider context, there is nothing unusual about current weather patterns.

Despite this fact, the media — directly, indirectly, or by inference — often attribute the current weather to global warming. Yes, they now call it climate change. But that is because activists realized, around 2004, that the warming predicted by the computer models on which the scare is based was not actually happening. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continued to increase, but the temperature stopped increasing. So, the evidence no longer fit the theory. English biologist Thomas Huxley commented on this dilemma over a century ago:

“The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

Yet, the recent weather is a stark reminder that a colder world is a much greater threat than a warmer one. While governments plan for warming, all the indications are that the world is cooling. And, contrary to the proclamations of climate activists, every single year more people die from the cold than from the heat.

I dunno, with my proven record of absolute accuracy when it comes to predicting the repetitive folly of Lefty Chicken Littles, maybe it’s time I consider giving this weather-forecasting thing a whirl myself. There’s more money in it, that’s for sure.

Share

If the science is “settled…”

Then it ain’t science.

Incidentally – of course no science is ever settled, nor would we want it to be. Suppose computer science had been “settled” back in 1946, when the IBM 603 was developed. Can you imagine cramming all those big, bulky vacuum tubes and relays into a smartphone?

Fortunately, just as are the sciences of semiconductors, sensors, mobile processors, and image capture tools (to name just a few), climate science is in a constant state of flux, as is the climate itself, and neither will likely ever be “settled.”

Not two weeks after NBC’s fiasco, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal hosted a discussion on the “The Green New Deal & the 116th Congress.” League of Conservation Voters senior V.P. Tiernan Sittenfeld faced off against Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor. Once again, the conservative offered facts, while the liberal offered invective.

Throughout the segment, Sittenfeld spewed bumper-sticker declarations of a “climate crisis” and “record hurricanes,” at one point misquoting the IPCC with a ridiculously hysterical warning that “we have 12 years to stave off another catastrophe.”

Taylor countered that “global warming doom and gloom” isn’t backed by science, that 2017 ended the longest period in history without a major hurricane strike in the United States and set a record for the smallest percentage of the U.S. not covered by drought. Additionally, the last two years set a record low for the number of tornadoes in this country, while at the same time, we’ve had record increases in global crop production.

Rather than dispute any of Taylor’s facts, Sittenfeld would fly into dismissive tirades, crying, “This is embarrassing” and “horrifying,” calling his views “dangerous and flat-out wrong” and contrary to scientific consensus. At one point, Sittenfeld actually accused the Heartland Institute of “spewing misinformation.”

Taylor challenged her to stop the personal attacks and lecturing and to instead show him why he’s wrong. He calmly challenged her “consensus” fiction with the Global Warming Petition Project (aka the Oregon Petition), signed by 31,487 American scientists (9,029 with Ph.D.s), which states:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Taylor also mentioned that over the course of humankind (not just the past 100 years), temperatures have in fact seen periods of warmth greater than today.

Sittenfeld’s response to the truth was a wide-eyed look of disbelief and the admonishment that the “notion of denying climate change is so fringe and so marginalized” as to be “beyond the pale.” 

Which is the too-familiar reaction to any honestly-expressed, fact-buttressed dissent from shitlib dogma: shut up, they explained, expressed with as much eye-rolling, spluttering OUTRAGE!™ as they can muster. As per usual, the Left isn’t looking to debate, they’re looking to stifle, to suppress. Why any serious person would waste a moment trying to engage them fairly and reasonably anymore, on any topic, is a mystery to me. In the end, the phonus-balonus “climate-change” shitfling comes down to this:

Conflation of climate change and AGW is the media’s biggest mistake. And its greatest weapon.

Well said. This is another excellent, thorough piece, with plenty of detail and solid fact included. Which guarantees there won’t be a single “the sky is falling!” shitlib Chicken Little to be found anywhere who’ll be the least bit interested in it.

Share

A REALLY inconvenient truth

Hoft nicely takes down noted huckster, liar, and con artist Albert “Chicken (not so) Little” AlGore.

TEN YEARS AGO TODAY.

On December 13, 2008, junk scientist Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.

Gore made the prediction to a German audience on December 13, 2008. Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

This wasn’t the only time Al Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore had been predicting dire scenario since 2007. That means that the North Pole should have melted completely five years ago today.

He’s a one-trick pony who’s never once been right about anything—at all, ever. More from the Blaze on this fat fraud’s inept ongoing swindle:

1. Sea Levels Are Rising At An Alarming Rate
In his movie Gore predicted that sea levels could rise six meters (20 feet) with the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

Now, we know that the South Pole is gaining more ice than it’s losing. Also a great amount of the losing is due to underground heat. As for Greenland, its melting cycle doesn’t seem to have changed much. In fact, it seems to be quite regular. And sea level has been increasing… at a steady level since we started recording them.

But if the rising sea level is so catastrophic, why has Gore bought a beachfront mansion?

2. CO2 Is The Control Knob For Temperature
Like most climate cultists, Al Gore firmly believes that carbon dioxide – what you are exhaling – is what controls temperature. And climate models have constantly reflected that reality.

Unfortunately, “it’s the sun, stupid” to paraphrase Bill Clinton. Indeed satellite data show no increase in temperature for nearly 19 years despite a constant increase in CO2. The Sun, on the other hand, might have a much larger role in the Earth’s climate. So much that some scientists are talking about a significant cooling because the Sun is “quieter.”

That’s two of only eight, a small sampling of a much larger aggregation of error, but t’will suffice to take the air out of this gasbag. Time and past time for the propagandizing putz to dry up and blow away, or at least go and find useful work after a professional-politician lifetime of enriching himself on the taxpayer teat.

Share

Ne plus ultra of hypocrisy

Even though I should know better—DO know better—by now, sometimes they can still amaze me.

Bernie Sanders’s Campaign Spent $300k on Private Plane Travel in October
Sanders says ‘climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet’

Of COURSE he does.

The re-election campaign for Vermont senator Bernie Sanders spent nearly $300,000 to travel on a private jet in the final stretch of the midterm election, filings with the Federal Election Commission show.

The spending on private travel was for a campaign trip Sanders did to boost far-left candidates in nine different states, his campaign spokesman said.

“This expense was for transportation for the senator’s nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot ahead of Election Day,” campaign spokesman Arianna Jones told VTDigger.org, which was first to identify the spending. “This cost covered the entirety of the tour from Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, California, and back to Vermont.”

Air travel is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, with some estimations saying that the aviation industry accounts for about 11 percent of transportation-related emissions in the country. The environmental impact is greatly magnified in cases of private flights, which carry far fewer people per trip than commercial jets.

Sanders claims on his website that “climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet” and puts the blame chiefly on the growing rate of emissions being produced by the transportation sector.

“Global climate change is real, it is caused mainly by emissions released from burning fossil fuels and it poses a catastrophic threat to the long-term longevity of our planet,” he writes. “The transportation sector accounts for about 26 percent of carbon pollution emissions.”

Der Kommissar’s media flack goes on to explain that he bought himself special dispensation from the High Church of Climate Change to cancel out his sins, which were ruled by Pope Pious XIV (formerly known as Albert “Arnold The Pig” AlGore) to be venal and not mortal ones. To paraphrase Gomer Pyle: “You see folks, they’s two sets of laws: one for them and one for the ordinary citizen.” But then—seeing as how our rulers have long exempted themselves from the multitude of laws they inflict on the rest of us—we already knew that anyway, now didn’t we?

It gets me to thinking about all the various comforting lies we tell ourselves about just what this country is and is not, which is a topic that’s gonna have to wait for a longer post—a MUCH longer post, in fact.

Share

Forecast: bleak

This ain’t good.

Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up.

Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years.

The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.

This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

Scary stuff indeed. A rise in average temps of half a degree over centuries—the most frightening prediction alarmist AGW Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) have been able to manufacture—is something humanity can quite easily survive. A solid sheet of glacial ice creeping down into the southern areas of US northern-tier states, the Farm Belt converted to tundra…umm, not so much.

As Glenn always says, Fallen Angels looks more and more like prophecy by the day.

Share

Are you hearing your words?

Irony so incandescent it actually hurts to look directly at it.

I listened to a remarkable bit of self-parody on National Public Radio on Tuesday: a moderator, a pair of experts, and some very earnest listeners trying to figure out how to most politely tell climate change skeptics they are dangerous idiots.

Yes, on NPR’s “1A,” finding a way to convert those neanderthals, or at least move the “conversation” in the right direction, was the topic of nearly 40 minutes of chatter that was at times quite unintentionally funny.

To be clear, this program was not about debating the existence of climate change. That was already settled for everyone whose head isn’t stuck in a microwave. This was about talking to pea-brains who do not fully believe drastic policy changes are required to combat climate change, and—this is important—having these “conversations” in a way that would not frighten or anger these stunted children.

That the entire segment presupposed that the panelists are so much smarter, wiser, more virtuous than skeptics—or “deniers,” to borrow that creepy nomenclature—and thus, extremely condescending, seemed to escape everyone involved. Let’s dig in.

Said moderator Joshua Johnson at the outset:

Clearly climate change is tough to discuss, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its existence. Or maybe because of that evidence. I mean, think about it. If someone tried to hit you over the head with a bunch of facts and figures, supremely confident that they are right and you are wrong, how would you feel? Or, if someone flat out refused to hear you out, despite the facts being really clear, and just dug in their heels to avoid feeling like they lost an argument, what would that be like? We want to elevate this debate, to change the way we talk about climate change.

Bold mine, of course, because…wow. These people would seem to possess not even trace amounts of self-awareness.

Bledsoe took a question from a caller who wondered why President Trump and other skeptics are so “adamantly ignorant” on the issue, and he warned of not talking about it in terms that are too science-y.

“We who talk about climate change have to talk about it differently. We can’t make it a technocratic or scientific issue,” Bledsoe said.

No, you really can’t. But not for the reason you think.

Myhre was more scathing and then neatly shifted into how gender dynamics fits into all this, showcasing what I’m assuming she learned in Intersectionalism 301 at UC-Davis.

“My view is that we need to indict public leaders who are trafficking in science denial as a form of misconduct and a form of putting the American public into danger,” she said. “However, I do think that we as scientists have engaged nonstop in trying to confront denialism and often that engagement is a very—it’s coded male power brokering that is very problematic in the culture because it pits people against each other instead of focusing on shared values.”

Bold mine, again, because, again…wow. She’s really hitting all the libtard buttons she can reach, ain’t she? C’mon, honey, work some transgenderIslamophobicNaziracistcapitalistgreedbigotedsexism into the mix, whydon’tcha? I got faith in you; I know you can do it. In fact, I suspect you couldn’t stop it if you tried.

Bledsoe interrupted to say the U.S. problem with climate change was unique in its political and cultural aspects, but Myhre responded:

I would agree with that, but I just want to reflect back again that the entire world, by and large, and the world’s global resources are run by men, and those decisions are made by men, and so one of the fundamental aspects of solutions for climate change has to do with anti-racism and anti-misogyny, and that is at a global level. The closer we get to an equitable and safe society for everyone, specifically for the rights of girls and women, then that’s a component of the pathway for us to get to climate solutions.

Ahhh, there it is. Earlier, though, she accidentally let a little raw truth slip out:

I mean, you can talk about the science until you’re blue in the face right? But then when we are actually trying to sit in relationship with people, that’s a two-way street. That is an experience where you have to listen in order to engender trust and relationship, and part of the piece around this is that realizing as scientists, we’re trying to broker power and authority in the public. We’re trying to gain agency and authority, in order for the science that we are stewarding to be integrated into public decision-making. But that piece around brokering for power, man, you gotta get curious about that, right? Because there’s all sorts of lines that divide our culture around, who is trusted? Who gets buy-in? Who has authority?

And that’s what it’s REALLY all about; for the Left, it always is. They can’t ever keep the mailed fist hidden in the velvet glove for very long. I got lots more to say about that, but I’m going to hold onto it for another post.

The crazy bint then went on to have a total moonbat-meltdown on Twitter over having been “disrespected” and “patronized” by the men in the discussion, which I find quite a bit less than surprising (before tootling off to a “sexual harrassment” meeting, naturally). Yeah, I can totally see this seized-up nutbar engaging in a calm, rational, trust-and-relationship engendering chat with a truly well-informed skeptic expecting to bring him or her around to Her Truth on the climate-change scam. I’d give her about a sentence and a half of being able to maintain her obviously precarious sang-froid before going bughouse and getting violent, no more.

A lot of religious discussions seem to end that way, you know.

(Via MisHum)

Share

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on

Isn’t it just AWFUL how Trump keeps harping on and on about “fake news”? Why, the man isn’t merely a jerk; he’s a menace. Here all these dedicated journalists work hard to present facts in an unbiased way, and then Trump endangers these dedicated professionals by creating this climate of hatred for no good…that is, with absolutely no basis in…ummm…uhhhh….

Dang.

One year later, National Geographic has finally admitted to facilitating “fake news” regarding climate change. The magazine’s most viral video ever, which featured heart-wrenching images of a starving polar bear, perpetuated the narrative that the animal’s imminent death was caused by climate change. However, the climate change aspect of the story is void of any real evidence.

“We had lost control of the narrative,” admitted Cristina Mittermeier, the photographer of the polar bear. Mittermeier explained the climate change deception in a piece titled “Starving-Polar-Bear Photographer Recalls What Went Wrong” for the magazine’s August issue.

Mittermeier conceded that the images of the bony, emaciated polar bear were meant to sound an alarm about climate change, though she complains that people took the image “literally.”

“Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy,” she wrote. “With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally.”

Perhaps people took the gloom-and-doom climate change narrative “literally” because Nat Geo’s first line of the video was, “This is what climate change looks like.” To boot, the words “climate change” were even emphasized, highlighted in the magazine’s signature yellow.

The “fake news” narrative was viewed by over 2.5 billion sets of eyes, becoming the magazine’s most viral video in their history.

“Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story — that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear,” she wrote.

“Mistake” my hairy ass. You did precisely what you intended to do, what shitlib propagandists like you always do: lied to advance the Leftist agenda. As Prestigiacomo concludes: “It’s simply befuddling why there’s such a lack of trust in media.” Ain’t it, though. Ain’t it just.

Share

On the climate

An excellent precis.

Trying to calculate something called “global average temperature” from this massive variety of ever changing data covering diverse locations, elevations, times, and weather is an exercise in statistical sophistry – either meaningless or misleading.

“Climate” is just the notional 30-year average of weather, so climate is controlled by the same big three factors that drive weather.

Notice one thing about the three big drivers of weather: not one is measurably affected by the trace amount of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.  Never does a daily weather forecast mention CO2, and never do weather-watching farmers or sailors note daily measurements of CO2.  However, there are over one hundred massive computerized climate-forecasting models run by bureaucracies that use CO2 as a key driver, with variable inputs and rules and differing results.  No one knows which model may have stumbled onto an accurate climate forecast.

CO2 is a rare (0.04%) colorless natural atmospheric gas.  It does not generate any heat – it just moves heat around.  In the atmosphere, it may slightly reduce the solar radiation that reaches the surface, thus producing cooler days, and it may slightly reduce nighttime radiative cooling, thus producing warmer nights.  The net effect is probably a tiny net warming at night, in winter, and in polar regions – all of which are probably welcomed by most people.  Even this tiny effect shrinks rapidly as CO2 levels rise.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the key nutrient of our carbon-based life on Earth.  It has always been there, usually much more of it than now.  It is nothing to be scared about.  If it increases, the net effects will be highly beneficial for all life on Earth.  It is time to stop the carbon dioxide scare stories.

Change is the natural order of things on Earth, and all records are destined to be equaled or broken.  From the first ray of morning sunshine to the frosts at midnight, temperature is always changing – every minute, every day, and every year, at every place on Earth.  The Earth keeps turning, the planets interact, asteroids come and go, and that big glowing pulsing nuclear reactor in the sky keeps moving toward the next phase of its turbulent and finite life.

No level of carbon taxes or emission targets will stop Earth’s climate from changing.  Nature rules, not politicians.  We must aim for resilience and be prepared to adapt.

There’s so much good, science-backed common sense here it was hard to decide when to stop excerpting. You’ll definitely want to read it all…and maybe even bookmark it for future reference, too.

The Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) scam was never really about Saving Gaia!!!™ from human depredation. In fact, it was never even about the climate, really. It was about the same old things that underlie every Leftist plaint: power, control, and expanding government’s reach. No more, no less.

Share

Wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever

Funny how no matter what the climate may be doing at any given time, the same old Doomsday clowns keep making the same old predictions and offering the same old solutions.

In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.

Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

Follows, a list of 13 of the most amusing shrieking freakouts, my favorite of which are these two anguished cris de coeur from eternal buffoon Paul Ehrlich:

  • “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  • “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

Ehrlich is not only a loser and an idiot, of course. He’s also a complete asshole, too. Bottom line:

Paul Ehrlich’s entire career stands as a monument to the ideological imperatives of the world’s elites and the extent to which they exist not just independent from, but in actual opposition to, both science, evidence, reason, and good faith.

The very fact of Paul Ehrlich is an indictment of the bien pensant progressive order. 

He’s the pluperfect example of the pluperfect liberal: doubling down on stupid each and every chance they get…always with other peoples’ money, natch.

(Via Ed)

Update! Via WRSA, Watts Up has these plus a few more, all for your Earth Day enjoyment.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix