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.’”
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:
- Replace free-market capitalism with a socialist or collectivist economic model that they control.
- 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.
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.
#1 – Who is “We?”
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.
The headline of this AFP “news” story certainly shows no bias at all, nosiree, but you can file it under “Feel Good Story of the Day” anyway:
Madrid (AFP) – A UN climate summit in Madrid risked collapsing Saturday after marathon negotiations between countries left them more divided than ever over on how to fight global warming and pay for its ravages.
Diplomats from rich nations, emerging giants and the world’s poorest countries — each for their own reasons — found fault in a draft agreement put forward by host Chile in a botched attempt to strike common ground.
Faced with five-alarm warnings from science, deadly extreme weather made worse by climate change, and weekly strikes by millions of young people, negotiations in Madrid were under pressure to send a clear signal that governments were willing to double down in tackling the crisis.
But the 12-day talks, now deep into overtime, had retreated even further from this goal on Saturday. “It appears that we are going backwards on the issue of ambition when we should be calling for a quantum leap in the other direction,” Marshall Islands climate envoy Tina Stege said. . .
Veteran observers of UN climate talks were stunned by the state of play nearly 24 hours after the negotiations had been set to close.
“I have never seen such a disconnect between what the science requires and the people of the world demand, versus what the climate negotiations are delivering,” Alden Meyer, strategy and policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told AFP. Alexandria Villasenor, a 14-year-old climate activist, said she had been “disappointed” in the lack of action at COP 25.
How is this failure possible? St. Greta of Thunberg—Time‘s Person of the Year!— was there, telling the adults in the room to get busy. Why don’t they listen to her!? Why? Why?
On December 13 & 14, 2009, professor, prophet, and soothsayer Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years.
Gore made his prediction at COP15 Copenhagen which ran from Dec 7 – Dec 18, 2009, where he repeatedly referenced “state-of-the-art” computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose all of its ice by 2014.
“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed.
“Join me in asking president Obama and the US Senate to set a deadline of 22 April for final action in the US Senate,” he said. “I do not believe we can wait till next November or December.”
The Guardian wrote on Dec 16, 2009 in an article entitled “Al Gore rallies the troops in Copenhagen“:
[Gore] kept up the pace by calling for the international community to sign up to a fully fledged climate change treaty by July 2010 – and then announcing that Mexico was prepared to host a deal-making summit.
He scolded rich countries for demanding the developing world offer evidence of emissions cuts while at the same time trying to inflate the funds they were prepared to offer poor countries to deal with climate change. And he was just as tough on activists who have embraced him as a hero, demanding they set aside their pride and their principles and embrace a deal – no matter how imperfect. He said he recognized their frustration with the glacial pace of negotiations. He agreed that cap-and-trade schemes to cut carbon emissions were an imperfect solution – Gore confessed to favoring a carbon tax – but the current efforts for a deal were the best prospect of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
And there was no trace of sympathy for opponents of action on climate change. Gore began with a brief run-through of the latest science on melting of the Arctic ice cap, evidence he said “only reckless fools would ignore.”
Well who’s the fool now:
When all these econuts act like their prophesies of climate doom are real and actually begin behaving like there is a crisis, I might begin to believe them.
The anti-meat messaging at the U.N. Climate Change Conference apparently hasn’t deterred attendees from grabbing a bite at one of the world’s most popular burger joints.
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano caught on video long lines at the Madrid climate confab onsite Burger King, even though the outlet wasn’t serving the Impossible Burger, the chain’s recently unveiled vegan offering.
“Burger King only offered real cow meat at the summit location,” Mr. Morano said in his Thursday report. “No fake meat burger available is even more ironic, given that the U.N. just gave its ‘Planetary Health’ award to the company responsible for Burger King’s fake meat ‘Impossible Meat’ burgers on December 10.”
ExxonMobil won a first-of-its-kind climate change fraud trial on Tuesday as a judge rejected the state of New York’s claim that the oil and gas giant misled investors in accounting for the financial risks of global warming.
New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager said the state failed to prove that Exxon violated the Martin Act, a broad state law that does not require proof of intent of shareholder fraud.
“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling, deciding the case without a jury.
As she has by most sane people
— melba (@anjemsafool) December 7, 2019
Has there ever been a bigger assembly of scolds and nattering nabobs of nonsense than those gathered at the United Nations Conference Of The Parties 25 this week in Madrid? Spare us another of these hootenannies of insufferable elitism.
Before the party even started, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres showed up in Spain to tell us “the point of no return is no longer over the horizon,” and “is in sight and hurtling toward us.”
How long have we been hearing this? Prince Charles has been predicting imminent doomsday for more than a decade, as has Al Gore. Before the conference began, Vice was trying to convince the world that “The Collapse of Civilization May Have Already Begun,” while Extinction Rebellion has been barking madly that “billions will die” and “life on Earth is dying” because of man’s use of fossil fuels.
Despite decades of warnings that the end “is in sight,” as the Competitive Enterprise Institute recently assured us, “none of the apocalyptic predictions” of environmental disaster “with due dates as of today have come true.”
As the conference’s nominal host, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez took up the cudgel because there can be no meeting of the climate clan without an othering of the “deniers.” “Luckily,” said Sánchez, “only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence.” What evidence would that be, Sr. Prime Minister?
Of course he can’t point to any evidence, because there is none.
A warming planet? Nothing in the record before 1979, when satellites began measuring thermal emissions in the atmosphere, is reliable. The satellite data show some warming, but nothing outside natural variations.
Receding glaciers and melting ice? “Polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago,” says James Taylor, who has written extensively about climate over the years. Meanwhile, “the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the Antarctic ice sheet in 1979.” So about those glaciers? The global retreat that the alarmists can’t stop talking about is not new. It began before the Civil War was fought, “at the end of the Little Ice Age.”
Increasing sea level? The oceans have been rising for 10,000 years. NASA says the rate of increase has been about 3.3 millimeters a year, not quite 0.13 of inch, for decades. Hardly cause for alarm.
More hurricanes? We repeat ourselves: “Global major hurricane frequency has been trending downward since 1980, while cyclone energy is roughly the same as it was in 1972.”
Growing wildfires? The media have been fixated on California’s fires, so let’s look there. And what do we find? Cal Fire, a government agency, has compiled data which show a steep drop-off in acres burned since 2008. The claim goes up in smoke.
It’s obvious the alarmists will say anything to further their agenda. Their evidence is nothing more than fevered imaginations and a perverted hope for catastrophe. But it must be evidence because they say it is.
Despite their assurances of having gained a superior knowledge, the alarmists cannot draw a straight line from the emissions of carbon dioxide from combusted fossil fuels to whatever it is they’re saying this week is a consequence of man-made global warming. If they could, they would have already done so. Instead, they rely on assumptions, a correlation of unreliable data, and incessant screeching.
By the way, did we mention that Sanchez is an open socialist? He’s member of the Spanish Workers’ Socialist Party, a fact that brings us around to the real agenda behind the global warming alarmists shock campaign: stepping on capitalism and seizing the world economy.
We’ve listed examples of the climate alarmists acknowledging their hidden agenda before, but just recently, we realized we missed one. More than 20 years ago, when global warming hysterics were beginning to rage, then Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told the Calgary Herald that “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
The COP25 attendees, smug, insulting, and spectacularly dishonest, are not meeting to save us from ourselves. They’ll be there through Dec. 13 preening, posing, and hectoring, and scheming a path to political domination. Anyone who doubts they’re coming after the free economies of the West needs to ask themselves one question: Why are the proposed climate solutions exactly the same policies the political left would enact even without carbon dioxide playing the role of villain?
It’s not a coincidence. It’s a plan.
— Written by J. Frank Bullitt
Former Vice President Al Gore is back in the spotlight (sort of) and looking to capitalize on the sudden hotness of climate change with a 24-hour telethon broadcasting from Vanderbilt University called “24 Hours of Reality,” and a series of appearances on late-night television.
The original climate change activist Gore has, lately, been overshadowed by more extreme environmentalists, including adolescent “climate strike” founder Greta Thunberg and “Green New Deal” author Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who, unlike Gore, are more interested in encouraging socialism (and, subsequently, crushing industrialization and technological advancement) as a vehicle for curbing carbon emissions.
He’s also run afoul of Thunberg and her followers — at least implicitly — for encouraging a system of climate indulgences, called “climate credits,” to offset egregious consumption rather than cutting that consumption entirely.
Gore’s landmark speech, kicking off 24 hours of activism “across the globe” had a “massive” audience of about a thousand people, according to local news in Nashville.
Global Warming’s Apocalyptic Path
It comes in waves, and it’s impossible to predict what will happen after the current wave of increasingly unhinged climate change activism breaks.
Unfortunately, like most apocalyptic cults, when prophecy fails, it’s not that the prophet was wrong, it’s the ‘numbers’ were added up incorrectly.
Global warming has been characterized by its critics (and occasionally by followers like Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono) as a religious movement. While this is correct, it is a religious movement of a special kind, that is, an apocalyptic movement. And although it is widely known that apocalyptic movements foretell an end of days, demand huge sacrifices by followers, and demonize dissent, what is less known is that these movements follow predictable patterns. The general “laws” that an apocalyptic movement follows over time explain both its short-term strength and, fortunately, its longer-term vulnerability.
In Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience (2011), Richard Landes chronicles recurring apocalyptic eruptions over the last 3,000 years. Typically there is belief in an imminent cataclysmic destruction that can only be averted by a total transformation of society. Precisely because the stakes are so high, a successful apocalyptic movement has extraordinary initial power. Believers are committed, zealous, and passionate, the urgent need for prompt action putting them at a high pitch of emotional intensity.
Landes describes the four-part life cycle of such movements. First comes the waxing wave, as those whom Landes calls the “roosters” (they crow the exciting new message) gain adherents and spread their stirring news. Second is the breaking wave, when the message reaches its peak of power, provokes the greatest turmoil, and roosters briefly dominate public life. Third is the churning wave, when roosters have lost a major element of their credibility, must confront the failure of their expectations, and mutate to survive. Last is the receding wave, as the “owls” — those who have all along warned against the roosters’ prophecies — regain ascendancy.
While Landes does not apply his apocalyptic model to global warming, the fit is obvious. In the 1980s and ’90s, a series of UN conferences on climate launched the waxing wave. This was followed at the beginning of this century by the breaking wave. In 2006, Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth (which later became a classroom staple) persuaded a broad public that man-made global warming threatened doomsday. That same year Sir Nicholas Stern, appointed by Prime Minister Tony Blair to lead a team of economists to study climate change, prophesied it would bring “extended world war” and the need to move “hundreds of millions, probably billions of people.” In 2009, then–UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon told the Global Economic Forum, “We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.”
Remarkably, in November of that same year, 2009, at the height of its urgency, the global warming apocalypse suddenly fell into the churning wave phase. Someone hacked into the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded emails exchanged among the top scientific climate roosters. The messages bemoan recalcitrant data that fail to support the claim of “unprecedented warming,” describe the tricks (their term) used to coax the data to buttress the theory, report efforts to keep the views of scientific dissenters out of reputable journals and UN reports, and boast of deletion of data to make it unavailable to other researchers. Given that public belief in the global warming apocalypse depended upon its supposed rock-solid scientific foundation, the scandal, dubbed “Climategate,” was devastating. Beleaguered owls, especially at the Heartland Institute, ground zero of what the mainstream media dismissed as “science deniers,” had high expectations that the credibility of the apocalypse had suffered a fatal blow.
It didn’t. One can only speculate as to the reasons. One major factor may be that political elites had become too committed to go back. Landes writes that elites are typically a hard sell, especially in the case of prophecies demanding a society self-mutilate. In this case they were won over with astonishing ease. Only a month after Climategate, in December 2009, England passed the Climate Change Act, in the works for several years, that mandated an 80-percent cut in six greenhouse gases by 2050 (relative to 1990 emissions). Journalist James Delingpole, a long-time owl, has called it “the most stupid, pointless and wasteful piece of legislation ever passed in British parliamentary history,” with the costs likely to exceed a trillion pounds. It is a mark of the inroads the apocalypse had made in the political class that there were only five dissenting votes out of the nearly 650 cast. Not to be outdone, Germany’s politicians in 2010 passed the Energiewende, a program that looked forward to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 percent by 2050.
Whatever the reasons, the churning wave turned out to be a mini-wave. For a few years polls showed greater public skepticism, with the issue ranking low compared to others. But this July, a BBC program called ‘Climategate’: 10 years on, what’s changed? found Climategate (the charges of scientific misbehavior come off in the program as “a smear”) might as well not have happened. Since then, the BBC reports, the public has reengaged, former skeptics have changed their minds, politicians are increasingly concerned, and children are speaking out “authentically.”
Rather than completing the normal cycle by going into a receding wave, the climate apocalypse has come roaring back as a breaking wave, this time with children in the forefront. (The classroom indoctrination of the previous decade paid off.) Led by a 15-year-old (now 16) in pigtails, Greta Thunberg, beginning in March millions of children in over 120 countries skipped school to embark on a series of “climate strikes.” At the March UN climate summit, Thunberg announced, “We are at the beginning of a mass extinction.” Berating the respectful audience of world leaders for having “stolen my dreams and my childhood,” she produced her electrifying (to her followers), “How dare you?”
“Time has almost entirely run out,” say the activists of Extinction Rebellion, a civil disobedience movement launched in England in October 2018 (it expanded to the U.S. this January). Its red-robed adherents have shut down traffic from London to Australia to Washington, D.C. ER, as it is called, demands that governments declare “a disaster and ecological emergency” and reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025. As a think tank sympathetic to the group has pointed out, this requires an end to air travel and taking 38 million cars off the road.
Nonetheless, this second breaking wave is also doomed to give way to churning and eventually receding waves. What eventually dooms apocalyptic prophecies is their failure to materialize. In the case of global warming, true believers are in a bind. The public is likely to accept a major reduction in its standard of living only if it believes “mass extinction” is the alternative. Yet the closer and more threatening the scenarios, the more they are subject to disproof. Believers may postpone the apocalyptic date, but eventually cognitive dissonance becomes too great.
The Supreme Court on Friday will consider whether to take up a prominent climatologist’s defamation suit against a venerated conservative magazine, in a case that pits climate scientists against the free speech rights of global warming skeptics.
The dispute between scientist Michael Mann and the National Review has drawn attention from lawmakers, interest groups, academics, and media, as the court weighs adding a potentially blockbuster First Amendment showdown to an already politically charged docket.
Scientists hail Mann’s lawsuit as a necessary defense against efforts to erode public confidence in the scientific consensus that climate change is an urgent threat, while free speech advocates have rallied around the iconic conservative publication.
The case has made for strange bedfellows, with the National Review receiving backing from the Center for Investigative Reporting, which has produced award-winning coverage of climate change; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); The Washington Post; and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The author uses the word irony, which is correct, but neglects to also use the word hypocrite. Miss Thunberg may be somewhere on the autism spectrum, but she is not so mentally unaware that her continued hypocrisy can be excused by that.
Climate activist Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old phenom from Sweden, has left the United States en route to Spain for a climate summit. But she doesn’t fly — too much pollution from burning a petroleum product.
So instead she’s on a boat, made of … petroleum products.
“So happy to say I’ll hopefully make it to COP25 in Madrid,” Greta wrote on Twitter. “I’ve been offered a ride from Virginia on the 48ft catamaran La Vagabonde. Australians @Sailing_LaVaga ,Elayna Carausu & @_NikkiHenderson from England will take me across the Atlantic. We sail for Europe tomorrow morning!” she wrote Tuesday.
“Twelve weeks after sailing into New York City, Greta hitched a ride back to Europe Wednesday with celebrity sailors Elayna Carausu and Riley Whitelum on La Vagabonde, a luxury catamaran made of petroleum products like fiberglass,” The Washington Times reported.
Greta’s father Svante Thunberg and British yachtswoman Nikki Henderson joined the La Vagabonde crew, raising questions about whether they flew across the pond only to sail back.
In addition to solar and hydro power, the craft is equipped with two diesel 30hp engines, according to Multihull Central, a boat-reviewing site, as noted by climate skeptic Tom Nelson.
That last detail brought some criticism on social media sites.
“Uh oh: Greta’s planet-destroying luxury yacht has two diesel engines with 672L diesel fuel tank,” wrote on person on Twitter.
“Greta’s return boat, an Outremer 45, weighs 17,400 pounds and is made of fiberglass, or fiber-reinforced plastic. The yacht was pumped out of the ground by oil companies. It draws auxiliary power from twin Volvo Diesel engines,” wrote another.
“The irony of protesting capitalism and oil on board a carbon-fiber (petrochemical) yacht owned by European royals who made billions operating Monaco as a tax haven was rich,” CFACT President Craig Rucker said, The Times reported.
Her level of intelligence never has impressed me
Even as she acknowledged its not a religion, Sen. Mazi Hirono (D-Hawaii.) encouraged Americans Tuesday to embrace climate change “as though it’s religion.”
Hirono was speaking to a group of DACA activists at a Center for American Progress organized prayer breakfast. The gathering preceded the group marching to the Supreme Court, where the high court is hearing arguments on President Trump’s effort to end Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (or, DACA).
Listing action items for the gathered immigration activists, Sen. Hirono included climate change
Sen. Hirono said: “And the third [thing to do] is, leaving our comfort zone. And for a lot of us, protesting, marching, that’s not something that we normally do, but, you know what? These are times that call for us to do those things that we believe in and to march.”
“And not just to march,” she continued, “because that’s important to show solidarity, but then to do those things, such as voter registration, get people to — out to vote so that we can have people here who truly are committed to human rights and environmental rights, climate change, believe in climate change as though it’s a religion (it’s not it’s a science), and all the things that remains to be done and there’s a lot.”
“This is a very divided country,” she said, “these are not normal times.”
This is the third year in a row that freeze-up of Western Hudson Bay (WH) ice has come earlier than the average of November 16 as documented in the 1980s.
Reports by folks on the ground near Churchill confirm polar bears are starting to move onto the sea ice that’s developing along the shore after almost five months on land.
After five good sea ice seasons in a row for WH polar bears, this repeat of an early freeze-up means a sixth good ice season is now possible for 2019-2020.
Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change. In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.” This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel. Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for Earth’s population to “be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity.”
With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country,” who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.
This raises the question: “Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?” Perhaps they know that this is faux science?
William Happer failed at the chance of his lifetime.
A notorious climate change science skeptic, Happer, 80, recently left the Trump administration after the White House killed his plan to create a panel to challenge government assessments of global warming.
But Happer remains undeterred, confident that President Trump, the most vocal climate change skeptic to occupy the White House, is naturally inclined to come around to the idea……………
Happer drew outrage in 2014 for declaring in an interview that “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”
Happer said the statement “was not meant to be in any way anti-Semitic” but that he was sorry he said it.
Nevertheless, he stood by the comparison, invoking his father’s service in the Scottish military in World War II to say that he feels strongly about opposing “fanaticism.”
In keeping up the fight against the mainstream of climate science, Happer faces opposition among an increasing number of Republicans who fear that the party will not be viable if it does not change to appeal to climate-conscious voters, especially young people.
He said he’s held his views on climate change since the early 1990s when he served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science in the George H.W. Bush administration.
“I feel bad about the younger generation,” said Happer, who has six grandchildren ranging from middle school- to college-age. “They have been brainwashed. The people who think this is a winning election issue are wrong.”
After leaving his post as a National Security Council senior director, Happer has returned to Princeton, where he is an emeritus physics professor.
He’s also rejoined the CO2 Coalition, an advocacy group he founded that claims rising levels of carbon will benefit the world.