An Academic’s Proposal For Ending Climate Change: Human Extinction

Human extinction? Okay, see what she says when she’s told she goes first.

I came across this on Twitter today and at first suspected it was satire but so far as I can tell it’s not. An Australian academic named Patricia MacCormack
has  a new book out titled, “The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the End of the Anthropocene.” The idea is that the earth would be better off without us and, therefore, it’s time to start an activism whose goal is our own extinction.

“The basic premise of the book is that we’re in the age of the Anthropocene, humanity has caused mass problems and one of them is creating this hierarchal world where white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied people are succeeding, and people of different races, genders, sexualities and those with disabilities are struggling to get that.”

“This is where the idea of dismantling identity politics comes in – they deserve rights not because of what they are, but because they are.

“The book also argues that we need to dismantle religion, and other overriding powers like the church of capitalism or the cult of self, as it makes people act upon enforced rules rather than respond thoughtfully to the situations in front of them.”

The central argument in The Ahuman Manifesto can be boiled down to this: mankind is already enslaved to the point of “zombiedom” by capitalism, and because of the damage this has caused, phasing out reproduction is the only way to repair the damage done to the world.

Here’s a further description of the book:

We are in the midst of a growing ecological crisis. Developing technologies and cultural interventions are throwing the status of “human” into question.

It is against this context that Patricia McCormack delivers her expert justification for the “ahuman”. An alternative to “posthuman” thought, the term paves the way for thinking that doesn’t dissolve into nihilism and despair, but actively embraces issues like human extinction, vegan abolition, atheist occultism, death studies, a refusal of identity politics, deep ecology, and the apocalypse as an optimistic beginning.

Some of this seems familiar. AOC has discussed whether it’s best that people stop having children in light of climate change and her view of capitalism probably isn’t all that different from MacCormack’s. But I do find it interesting that MacCormack seems interested in doing away with identity politics. From what I can tell, she sees this kind of hierarchy as inherently destructive because hierarchies of humans also extend to other living things. Her goal seems to be to flatten those hierarchies among humans and then between humans and animals.

That’s pretty extreme, obviously, but extreme is interesting in small doses. I do wonder what kind of mischief adherents to this new view of humanity might get up to at some point. The combination of human extinction as an end goal and a push toward real-world activism seems like a potentially combustible mix when it trickles down from academia to the streets.

We saw some pretty extreme behavior (blocking traffic and climbing on top of commuter trains) from the “Extinction Rebellion” crowd last fall. But MacCormack apparently sees the group as too tame because their activism is basically focused on saving the plant for people while she wants to save the planet from people. MacCormack told Cambridge News, “Everyone’s okay with the ideas in the book until they’re told they’d have to act on it. There is a lot of agreement that these changes might work for the world, but when it imposes on people, it becomes proactive.” I’d call that a hint, but what do I know.

MacCormack seems like a bit of a character. Her previous work has to do with sex, cinema, and occultism and she dresses like someone who’d fit in at a Cure concert more than an academic. To each his own. As I said, I find it interesting in small doses, but fringe academic ideas have a long history of spreading and having an impact on culture at large. Part of me does worry about what becomes of ideas like this if they start to catch on.

Climate Hypocrite: Bernie Leads 2020 Field in Private Jet Spending

The Bernie Sanders campaign spent just under $1.2 million on private jet travel last quarter, outpacing the entire 2020 Democratic presidential primary field.

The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service.”

The campaign spent an additional $23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team.

The candidate who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice president Joe Biden, whose campaign spent $1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter.

Baltimore County hasn’t recycled glass in 7 years. But officials say residents still shouldn’t throw it out.

When ritual becomes more important than what you started out to accomplish, you’ve become religious which is man’s attempt at doing something on his own to tie himself back to God.

Baltimore County officials revealed this week that the county has not recycled glass materials for about seven years, though they are strongly urging residents to continue placing the items in their recycling bins.

The revelation was first circulated Friday on the Facebook page The Towson Flyer, shocking some residents who demanded answers about why the county has continued to collect glass for recycling. Glass bottles and jars of all colors were listed as acceptable materials on the county website’s recycling collection page Saturday morning.

Steve Lafferty, county sustainability officer, said it’s true the county has not recycled the material since 2013, the year it also opened a $23 million single-stream recycling facility in Cockeysville. Lafferty was hired to the newly created sustainability position in September 2019.

This problem of recyclable glass being thrown out was “inherited” from a previous administration, according to Sean Naron, spokesman for County Executive Johnny Olszewski.

Over the years, the county’s Department of Public Works encountered technical and financial limitations that meant it could no longer recycle glass at county municipal facilities.

The economics of recycling are changing, meaning there are fewer private waste management companies in the marketplace willing to take glass.

“It has become harder and harder to find a market” for glass recycling, Lafferty said.

The county is in preliminary discussions with an independent vendor about recycling glass materials, Naron said.

In the meantime, county officials have been reluctant to tell residents not to recycle their glass for fear of derailing a good habit.

“It’s unfortunate that we can’t tell people we have a better solution right now,” Lafferty said. “We know it’s an important issue.”

Students demanded divestment from fossil fuels, a professor offered to turn off the gas heating.

When consequences become personal, clotheads usually start backing up.
This is a primary principle of asymmetrical, 4th generation warfare.
A word to the wise should be sufficient for political and other purposes.

Professor Andrew Parker of St John’s College at Oxford University is my new favorite person. The Times of London reports that a group of students wrote to Professor Parker to discuss demands being made by student protesters about fossil fuel divestment. His response wasn’t what they were expecting:

Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

One of the students wrote back and said he would present the proposal but he didn’t think Parker was being appropriately serious. Professor Parker responded to that note saying, “You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement (which I support as a goal).” The best part of the story is the response from the organizer of the protest:

Fergus Green, the organiser of the wider protest, who is studying for a master’s degree in physics and philosophy at Balliol College, said: “This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It’s January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating.”

Yes, it would be rash and “borderline dangerous” to do something like that.

Now step back and take notice how closely this small debate at one college is a microcosm of the larger debate taking place around the globe. The teenage face of the anti-fossil fuel movement, Greta Thunberg, recently demanded “real zero” emissions starting right now. Following her advice would be the equivalent of cutting off the gas that heats the campus in the middle of winter. It wouldn’t just be “borderline dangerous” it would almost certainly be catastrophic for millions of people. Despite this, I bet protest organizer Fergus Green thinks she’s part of a “mature discussion.” In any case, a lot of people like him seem to think so.

Professor Parker’s response focuses the mind on the fact that this isn’t a game. There are significant costs to real people associated with eliminating fossil fuels. Natural gas, for instance, isn’t something we can simply cease using overnight or even in ten years. If we’re not careful about how we proceed, a lot of people could get hurt. So a fair response to people demanding an end to the use of fossil fuels is the one the professor put to these protesters: You first.

Democrats Demand YouTube Censor “Climate Misinformation” Videos

Tyrants gotta tyrant, you know

A Democrat Congressional committee is demanding YouTube censor videos that contain “climate misinformation” as part of a new purge that would basically eliminate skepticism about man-made global warming from the platform.

In a letter sent to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis claims that YouTube has “been driving millions of viewers to climate misinformation videos every single day.”


Elizabeth Warren Suggests Making it a Crime to Spread ‘Disinformation’ Online

From Lieawatha herownslef. BTW, this is the definition of ‘irony’.

Presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has declared her intentions to see the spread of ‘disinformation’ online become a crime if she is elected president, CNBC reports.

In a campaign statement, Warren said that she will “push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information,” which she claims “undermines the basic right to vote.”

Her statement is largely directed at the Big Tech companies themselves, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google, but she did not differentiate between punishing the companies and punishing individual users as well. She also gave no specifics about what exactly would account for “disinformation” in her definition.

Greta Thunberg: ‘Immediately Halt All Investments In Fossil Fuel Exploration And Extraction’

What’s she gonna do next? This Little Miss Stampy Foot routine is wearing thin.

Yesterday, Karen wrote about the contrast between the statements made by President Trump and Greta Thunberg at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The NY Times has published Thunberg’s full remarks at the forum and they are pretty striking. In addition to her usual tone of condescension toward world leaders, Thunberg explained that the only solution was to completely abandon fossil fuels immediately. She doesn’t want to talk about “net zero” emissions she wants to see “real zero” right now.

One year ago I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire. I said I wanted you to panic. I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do. But don’t worry. It’s fine. Trust me, I’ve done this before and I can assure you it doesn’t lead to anything…

We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching “net zero emissions” or “carbon neutrality” by cheating and fiddling around with numbers. We are not telling you to “offset your emissions” by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate…

Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And, until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.

A bit later she spells it out:

We demand at this year’s World Economic Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments:

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.

And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.

Swedish Child-Priestess Greta Thunberg Goes to Davos and Scolds Us All Some More.

It’s a new decade, so it’s time for a new round of panic about the weather killing us all. Swedish child-priestess and chronic truant Greta Thunberg is at the 2020 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week, because that’s where the spotlight is. And she’s scolding all the grown-ups for not doing what she wants when she wants it, because Veruca Salt wasn’t fictional.

I was scared of the Boogeyman when I was little too. I just didn’t have crowds of adults applauding my cries of fear……

This kid is in for a shock when she grows up. Because she’s going to grow up. The adults who stole her childhood will have died off, but the planet will still be here. How will she reconcile the resulting cognitive dissonance? Will she acknowledge the truth, or will she find more excuses to believe the lie? That’ll be up to her, once she’s no longer being exploited for political purposes.

Appeals Court Throws Out Climate Change Lawsuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did no favors for the climate alarmism movement this afternoon, after the panel of judges in San Francisco threw out a lawsuit against the government based on climate change.

The suit was filed in 2015 by a group of young climate alarmists, insisting that the government is solely responsible for creating climate change via cooperating with the fossil fuel industry. The suit claims that the government turned a blind eye to the potential for damage via carbon emissions. Lawyers serving both Presidents Obama and Trump asserted that the government is not at fault because a livable climate is not guaranteed in the Constitution.

Circuit court judges Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz and District Judge Josephine L. Staton heard the case. In a rare moment of constitutional textualism by the Ninth Circuit, the trio of Obama nominees affirmed in a 2-1 vote that it was not the duty of the court to craft climate change policy, or to tell the legislative branch how to go about making laws.

“The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a ‘climate system capable of sustaining human life.’ The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to ‘phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.’ Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government,” Judge Hurwitz wrote in the majority opinion.

Dissenting in the decision is District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who claims that this case could be in the scope of the judiciary:

“My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary. Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress. Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province,” Staton wrote.

Now there’s a perfect example of a crap-for-brains ‘activist judge’ for ya, if there ever was one.

The Ninth Circuit correctly decided this case; indeed, it is not the role of the judiciary to legislate or to instruct the legislative branch how to do so. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this case would have set a dangerous precedent, and today is a good day for the adherence to one of our most fundamental principles: separation of powers.

PRESS RELEASE: HEARTLAND INSTITUTE REACTS TO NOAA’S CLAIM 2019 ‘SECOND-WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD’

Agency’s own data actually shows 2019 was cooler than 2005 in the United States; global temp claims riddled with problems

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (January 15, 2020) – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) today

released a new report claiming 2019 was “the second warmest [year] since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. NOAA says this past year was 0.98 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, making the 2010s “clearly the warmest decade on record.”

Climate experts at The Heartland Institute dispute this claim, pointing to a cherry-picked period for the “mean” comparison and data that has been consistently adjusted to artificially make recent years appear significantly warmer than in decades past. In fact, NOAA’s state-of-the-art land-based temperature stations in the United States, placed by design to minimize the urban heat-island effect and other factors that corrupt the data, show that the U.S. was cooler in 2019 than in 2005. See the chart below from the U.S. Climate Reference Network via the NOAA website.

Trulli
 The following statements from climate and environment experts at The Heartland Institute—a free-market think tank—may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at media@heartland.org.“The NOAA/NASA press release is inconsistently presented. For example, they can’t even agree on a common base period for comparisons. Some graphs use 1951-1980 while others compare to 1981-2010 averages to create anomaly plots. NOAA and NASA owe it to the public to present climate data with a consistent climate period for comparison, otherwise it’s just sloppy science.

“NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) has the best quality climate data on the planet, yet it never gets mentioned in their press releases. While the U.S. isn’t the world, the lack of a warming signal in the contiguous United States since 2005 suggests that the data NOAA and NASA use from the antiquated Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) reflects warmer biases due to urbanization and adjustments to the data. The USCRN has no biases, and no need for adjustments, and in my opinion represents a ground truth for climate change.”

Anthony Watts
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
awatts@heartland.org

“Modest warming has, thankfully, been occurring since we slipped out of the Little Ice Age a little more than a century ago. That was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years and brought horrible human misery. The modest warming that is lately occurring should naturally lead to subsequent years being a little warmer than previous years, which is the case. This is a good thing and just brought tremendous human health and welfare benefits, along with substantial environmental benefits.”

James Taylor
Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
jtaylor@heartland.org

“Once again, NASA and NOAA are throwing gasoline on a fire they largely created by ignoring the best data on temperature, and instead using compromised or adjusted temperature readings to reinforce their claim humans are causing a climate crisis. The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), the gold standard of surface temperature data, plus data from global satellites and weather balloons, all record minimal or almost no warming over the past 40 years, yet NASA and NOAA ignore these sources of unbiased data, because it undermines their dogmatic belief in human caused climate catastrophe.”

“NASA and NOAA are like toddlers trying to fit round toys into square holes, and just as likely as toddlers to throw fits when their efforts are stymied by reality.”

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Environment & Energy Policy
The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor, Environment & Climate News
hburnett@heartland.org

Fight fire with fire: controlled burning could have protected Australia
A kind of ecological fundamentalism has taken the place of common sense

It could also protect California, which has so many wildfires each year. And the same crap-for-brain econuts are the reason is the cause for both.

By modern standards, my grandfather would probably be considered an environmental criminal. To clear land for his farmhouse in north-eastern Victoria — and for his milking sheds, pig pens, chicken sheds, blacksmith shop and other outbuildings — he cleared hundreds of trees. And he cleared thousands more for his wheat fields, cattle paddocks and shearing sheds……….

This was once standard practice throughout rural Australia, where the pre-settlement indigenous population had long conducted controlled burns of overgrown flora — known as ‘fuel’ in current fire-management talk. They knew an absence of controlled burns would invite uncontrolled burns — such as the gigantic wildfires that have ravaged much of this drought-hit nation since September…..

[but today.ed.]Even minor attempts to reduce that fuel load are punished. Let’s suppose, for example, you have a wood fireplace at your rural house. Doing the right thing by the law and the environment, you do not cut down any trees to use as firewood. Instead, you simply collect dead branches and fallen trees lying around in the bushland dirt. This also reduces the amount of fuel available for potential bushfires, so you’re on the side of the angels……..

….Heed the warning from NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Central West area manager Fiona Buchanan, in April last year: ‘We are getting the message out there that removing firewood, including deadwood and fallen trees, is not permitted in national parks. We want people to know the rules around firewood collection…it’s important people are aware that on-the-spot fines apply but also very large fines can be handed out by the courts.’

She wasn’t bluffing. A man had earlier been fined $30,000 ($20,000 US) for illegally collecting firewood in the Murrumbidgee Valley National Park. Why? Because, as Buchanan explained: ‘Many ground-dwelling animals and threatened species use tree hollows for nesting, so when fallen trees and deadwood is taken illegally, it destroys their habitat. This fallen timber is part of these animals’ natural ecosystem.’

Those natural ecosystems are now, across thousands of hectares of national parks in New South Wales, nothing but cinders and ash. Enjoy your protected habitat, little ground-dwellers.

Dr. John Robson looks back on the 10th anniversary of the exposure of the scandalous “Climategate” decision to delete awkward data that contradicted the idea that settled science said we face a man-made global warming crisis.

Greta Snaps Over Demands: ‘We Want This Done Now – As In Right Now.’

Far-left climate extremist Greta Thunberg demanded in a new op-ed that world leaders cave to her anti-capitalist agenda “right now” as they prepare to meet in Davos for the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum.

“We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels,” Thunberg wrote in an op-ed in The Guardian. “We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now.”

The Martyrdom of Saint Greta of Sweden

So Meat Loaf caused a little kerfuffle this weekend by saying he thought Greta Thunberg had been “brainwashed.”

I don’t know that should be a surprise, but it got me thinking about her again. I have a lot of sympathy for the kid.

For me, it started with seeing her picture. She’s small, slight, even scrawny; her head looks out of proportion to her body. She’s now 17 (as of 3 January) but she still looks childlike, prepubertal, younger than her 14-year-old sister. Frankly, she looks like she’s been in a concentration camp: malnourished over the long term

Sure enough, reading a little about her, we find that she’s an Asperger’s child (I guess this month that’s now called “high-functioning autism”), she has obsessive-compulsive disorder, she stopped eating for months and still refuses to eat anything but certain specific things, in particular, a dish of pancakes filled with rice — but her OCD keeps her from eating if there’s a sticker or label on the package. She suffers from “selective mutism”, which means basically that there are situations in which she’s unable to speak……..

Her public career started when she took Fridays off from school to hold up a sign outside the Swedish Parliament; this grew into a movement that spread throughout Europe.

Through it all, things keep striking me as odd. I don’t know what it’s like in Sweden, but cutting classes one day a week isn’t normally feted as heroic in the US. And she hasn’t been attending school for months as she traveled. In the US, that’s called “dropping out”.

So, this is what we’re being asked to believe: that an autistic kid with OCD who often can’t speak on her own has

  • organized a worldwide movement
  • given TED talks, spoken to the UN General Assembly, and been named Person of the Year by Time Magazine
  • managed to get a ride on a multimillion-dollar racing yacht so she wouldn’t have to fly (and bragged on how she wasn’t releasing CO2 on the trip, although it required seven plane tickets for the crew for the boat).

There’s a bucolic barnyard term for that — actually, several, depending on your choice of equine, bovine, or galline.

This isn’t a neurologically atypical high school kid arranging this: there are adults, and probably a lot of adults, using her as a front.

Climate Alarmists Want Eco-Reparations To Fund Green New Deal

The leftists participating in the weekly Fire Drill Fridays want to eliminate the fossil fuel industry and take all the money from the energy industry companies.

They tout wealth redistribution from fossil fuel companies as the piggy bank to fund the Green New Deal.

In other words, take the profits of capitalism and give the money to a socialist takeover of the energy sector. Sound good?

A woman named Tamara To’L, described as an Environmental Strategist delivered an aggressive message to the crowd. She conflated climate change and racism as she tried to get the crowd fired up.

“Shout out if you want to destroy fossil fuel capitalists.” That sounds almost like inciting violence, doesn’t it? “Let me hear your vigor for ending racism while you do it.” “We need to make them pay today.”

https://twitter.com/FireDrillFriday/status/1213157015628976129

No More Private Homes… To Save the Planet

Funny how the environmental objectives of the “Save the Planet from the Flying Global Warming Monster” squad and that of Marxism line up so neatly.

Of course you shouldn’t have personal autonomy or private property. It’s bad for the ‘planet’. And by the planet, we mean the red planet.

So it’s no surprise that The Nation, where the synergy of the red and the green meet, should roll out a story like this, “If we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership.”

Yes, climate change intensifies the fires—but the ways in which we plan and develop our cities makes them even more destructive. The growth of urban regions in the second half of the 20th century has been dominated by economic development, aspirations of home ownership, and belief in the importance of private property.

To engage with these challenges, we need to do more than upgrade the powerlines or stage a public takeover of the utility companies. We need to rethink the ideologies that govern how we plan and build our homes.

And embrace a discredited 19th century ideology instead. And give up on dreams of independence and private property. Instead we can all live in barracks or gulags.

Won’t that be fun.

Expansionist, individualist, and exclusionary patterns of housing became synonymous with freedom and self-sufficiency.

Not became. Are.

Private property as freedom and self-sufficiency isn’t New Deal brainwashing, as The Nation insists, it’s human nature.

 Cheap energy is untenable in the face of climate emergency. And individual homeownership should be seriously questioned.

To the gulags, go!

That’s the meaning of every single sentence in every single leftist global warming policy proposal. Sometimes you don’t even need to read between the lines.

But don’t worry. When the revolution comes, the Nation nomenklatura will have mansions. Until they’re purged.

There are other options, in theory: Rental housing serves many cities around the world well

Yes. Not having a home you can actually all your own is great.

There is also the potential for new or reconstituted forms of cooperative housing. In New York City, cooperative apartment buildings have long been a norm.

If you don’t want a backyard or personal space. If you want to hear every argument upstairs.

If we can reframe debates about the future of cities beyond rote acceptance of property ownership

And rote acceptance of individual freedoms that will have to be set aside for the duration of the emergency.

We need another kind of escape route—away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities.

Go to the collective farms, the gulags, and to slavery. For the planet.

Exposing How The Hoax Of Climate Change Drives Delirious Political Policies

Once again, it’s Throwback Tuesday and time to wrap up the series on the hoax of man-made climate change by covering how undermining legitimate science affected government policies based upon fraudulent science.  Despite the scandal of Climategate in 2009 and Climategate 2.0 in 2011, the UN IPCC and associated scientists, whose wealth redistribution scheme was based upon the hoax of climate change, work doubly hard to discredit legitimate scientists, as we have found, through unsavory tactics and issue increasingly worsening fraudulent reports based on a political agenda instead of actual scientific data.  Through this measure, it uses fearmongering tactics to brainwash the people and those in government into buying the snake oil that stifling wealthy nations’ economies to give third world nations other people’s money will end/disrupt/quell/limit/slow climate change through decreasing the non-greenhouse gas of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

Numerous former UN IPCC scientists with impressive credentials and legitimate work, who became disillusioned with the panel and its politically manufactured “scientific” conclusions, are willing to testify to the dishonesty of the process.  But, the UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, in conjunction with Al Gore, calls “climate change” his religion.  Pachauri is no longer with the UN IPCC because of a sexual harassment scandal.  Pachauri’s resignation letter read, “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma”.

Donna Laframboise, a journalist who has written numerous books critical of the UN IPCC, indicates the IPCC reports lack scientific integrity and individuals relying on those reports are basing decisions on information lacking scientific integrity.  According to Laframboise, “the IPCC goes back, after the fact, and changes the original scientific report so that it aligns with the politically negotiated summary”.

She also noted, “After the summaries are haggled over, the IPCC alters what the scientists wrote. That’s the reason the IPCC routinely releases its summaries before it releases the underlying scientific report. In this 2007 news clipping, the IPCC chairman explains: “we have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.”

Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic Dr. Patrick Moore commented on Laframboise’s report, noting this is the “perfect reason for the US to abandon the UN Paris climate ‘agreement.’”

Climate Zealots, Firing Squads, And A Load Of Manure

The United Nations’ 25th Conference Of The Parties climate summit ended Sunday with participants unable to agree on what are the media are calling “key” emissions targets. Some participants are blaming America’s absence for the failure. The more sober-minded, though, are grateful President Donald Trump has no time for the global warming nonsense.

Even with the canonized Greta Thunberg threatening to put the world’s national leaders “against the wall” if they don’t “do their job and to protect our futures,” the principals could work out nothing more than, according to the all-in-on-the-global-warming-hysterics Guardian, “a partial agreement to ask countries to come up with more ambitious targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the terms of the 2015 Paris accord.”

(For the record, the Swedish teen scold apologized for her comment. Maybe someone told her that her rant sounded as if she wanted to round up those who have failed her, and line them up for a firing squad, revealing a little too much of the fantasies many of the hate-filled alarmists play out in their heads.)

The response from activists was predictable. They made a “really futile and stupid gesture” by dumping horse manure outside the meeting and staging a mock hanging in which one of the “condemned” held a baby while she had a rope around her neck. Reuters said these woke folk were “frustrated” by the talks. Frustrated, we’d say, in the same way a child becomes upset and throws a tantrum because he couldn’t get his way.

The U.S. had no official representatives at the summit, though a delegation of congressional Democrats did travel to Madrid, where Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi assured the delegates, feckless poseurs whose greatest achievement has been to convince the world that they’re important people doing important work, that “we are still in.”

“Our delegation is here to send a message that Congress’ commitment to take action on the climate crisis is iron clad,” she said.

As a member of the legislative branch, she has no authority to conduct foreign affairs, a duty left exclusively to the executive branch. So like the rest of summit, the Democrats’ appearance was all for show.

Outside the madness demonstrated by a few true believers, efforts to “fight global warming,” particularly at official levels, are a cover for other objectives. The climate alarmists hope to:

  • Show their moral superiority by claiming to be on the right side of the argument (which is why empty-headed celebrities are always so eager to demonstrate their support for the climate crusade).
  • Punish success, whether it’s national (produced by free-market economic systems), corporate (produced by hard work and savvy business decisions), or individual (produced by perseverance and character), and vilify and manage Western consumption habits.
  • Save the reputations of researchers who have staked their academic lives on the man-made global warming narrative.
  • Control the behavior of others.
  • Feed their oversized egos by making sure they’re seen associating with the “right” people.

Trump has promised to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, which has attracted the wrath of the domestic and international left, but is a sensible policy decision. No nation should handicap its economy and burden its citizens based on the sketchy conjecture that man is overheating his planet. Americans should be thankful they have a president who isn’t concerned about his reputation among elitists who haven’t changed their behavior since high school, yet are running, and ruining, our halls of government, foundational institutions, and once-respected academies.

United Nations climate talks collapse after Trump shuns Paris pact

MADRID — U.N. climate negotiations ended in disarray on Sunday, amid worries that President Donald Trump will win reelection next year and follow through on his promises to withdraw the U.S. from the international effort to head off catastrophic changes across the planet.

The talks exposed deep rifts among industrialized nations, fast-growing economies like China and India and the poorest countries – divides that the U.S. had helped bridge under former President Barack Obama in the run-up to the 2015 Paris climate accord. With Trump moving to pull out of the pact, delegates from many countries retreated behind their long-held grievances over how to bear the burdens of reducing greenhouse gases and preparing for the worsening effects of a changing climate.

Greta Thunberg tells cheering crowd ‘we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall’ if they do not tackle global warming as she attends climate protest in Turin.

#1 – Who is “We?”
#2 –

Greta Thunberg told cheering protesters today ‘we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall’ if they fail to take urgent action on climate change.

The Swedish teen activist was addressing the crowd at a Fridays for Future protest in Turin, Italy.

She arrived there from Madrid where she had been attending the UN climate summit but said she feared the event would not lead to change.