AOC’s Chief of Change
Saikat Chakrabarti isn’t just running her office. He’s guiding a movement.
It’s a socialist one, that needs to be flushed just like any other movement from leftist wanna-be tyrants.
On a Wednesday morning in late May, emissaries of two of the strongest political voices on climate change convened at a coffee shop a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.
Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), was there to meet Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who is running for president almost exclusively on a platform of combating global warming. A newly released plank of Inslee’s climate change agenda had caught the attention of Chakrabarti and his boss, who had tweeted
.@JayInslee’s climate plan is the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis in the 2020 field.
It meets key marks:
✅ Big enough
✅ Fast enough
✅ Economically stimulating for working people
✅ Acknowledges injustice + w/ an eye to make communities whole https://t.co/C7nyEsdUxk
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 18, 2019
that Inslee’s “climate plan is the most serious + comprehensive one to address our crisis in the 2020 field.”
Pleased by the positive reception from the demanding Green New Deal wing of the climate struggle, Ricketts had set up this meeting with Chakrabarti to establish a personal connection and share approaches to climate advocacy.
“Congrats on the rollout,” Chakrabarti told him as they sat down. “That was pretty great.”
“Thank you again for the kudos you guys offered,” said Ricketts. “We wanted to be pace-setting for the field, and I think we’re there now. … I want to ask you for input … in addition to hearing what you guys are working on.”
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”
Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face.
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
One of the central tenets of Climate Change skepticism is that the threat is exaggerated to achieve political ends that are divorced from environmental health.
Here’s an outward admission that the issue is used as a stalking horse for ambitious economic restructuring. https://t.co/tKknlPKkOA
— John Noonan (@noonanjo) July 11, 2019
Billionaire Democrat donor Tom Steyer entered the 2020 presidential race on Tuesday.
Steyer, 62, is one of the most visible and deep-pocketed liberals advocating for President Donald Trump’s impeachment. He surprised many Democrats in January when he traveled to Iowa, home to the nation’s first presidential caucus, to declare that he would focus entirely on the impeachment effort instead of seeking the White House.
Despite becoming a national voice on the impeachment issue, Steyer made no mention of it in his campaign announcement. Instead, he said his campaign will focus on reducing the influence of corporations in politics. He also plans to target climate change, which is the focus of the Steyer-backed advocacy group NextGen America.
The scandal that I call “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time” is the alteration of official world temperature data by a small number of government employees in the US and the UK. Uniformly, the alterations have the effect of lowering temperatures early in the record, and raising recent temperatures, in order to create and enhance a warming trend that does not exist in the data as originally reported. The purpose of the fraudulent data alteration is to support the continuation of the “global warming” climate scare. To read the prior 22 posts in this series, go to this link.
Despite what you might think from reading the mainstream press, the past few years in world temperatures have not been particularly good for the continuation of climate alarm. No matter how you measure them (the main methods being ground thermometers, weather balloons, and satellites), world atmospheric temperatures have gone down for more than three years since a peak reached in early 2016. The data set that I consider to be the most reliable — the satellite-based measurements from the University of Alabama at Huntsville — gives the global temperature “anomaly” for the most recent month (June 2019) as +0.47 deg C. That is well down from the peak of +0.88 deg C in early 2016, and represents a decrease of about a third of what had been the entire increase since the satellite record began in 1979. Here is the most recent UAH global lower atmosphere temperature graph:
The failure of temperatures to continue to rise in accordance with alarmist model predictions has left the alarm-promoting guys at NASA and NOAA without fodder for their former annual “hottest year ever!!!” press releases. From the NASA end-of-year-2018 release:
2018 Was the Fourth Warmest Year, Continuing Long Warming Trend. . . . The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015.
I leave it for you to figure out how a year that was down from 2017, which in turn was down from 2016, somehow “continues[es] [a] long warming trend.” In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?
I have written many times about what I consider the worst scandal in the history of science: efforts by the curators of global temperature records to rewrite the past so as to produce an illusion of warming that is not reflected in the temperatures that have actually been recorded.
No Tricks Zone picks up the theme in a post titled “Adjusted ‘Unadjusted Data: NASA Uses The ‘Magic Wand Of Fudging’, Produces Warming Where There Never Was.”
It’s been long known that NASA GISS has been going through its historical temperature data archives and erasing old temperature measurements and replacing them with new, made up figures without any real legitimate reason.
This practice has led to the formation of new datasets called “adjusted” data, with the old datasets being called “V3 unadjusted”. The problem for global warming activists, however, was that when anyone looks at the old “V3 unadjusted” – i.e. untampered data – they often found a downward linear temperature trend. Such negative trends of course are an embarrassment for global warming alarmists, who have been claiming the planet is warming up rapidly.
So what to do? Well, it seems that NASA has decided to adjust its “V3 unadjusted datasets” and rename them as “V4 unadjusted”. That’s right, the adjusted data has become the new V4 “unadjusted” data.
You can’t make this stuff up.
You guessed it. The new V4 unadjusted data are now yielding warmed up trends, even at places where a cooling trend once existed.
This is how NASA uses its magic wand of fudging to turn past cooling into (fake) warming.
The post includes a number of examples, animated GIFs that show how the temperatures originally recorded in a given locale have been changed by NASA to create an alleged warming trend. Here is just one, Marquette, Michigan, from 1880 to 2018, where NASA has “turned a slightly cooling trend into a robust warming trend.”
Much more at the link. The bottom line is that surface temperature data have been hopelessly corrupted by partisans, and can’t be trusted to show temperature trends. The only data that are publicly available, transparent and reliable are the satellite readings that go back, as I recall, to 1979.
A 2018 study by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food looked not just at plastic waste, but also at climate-change damage, ozone depletion, human toxicity and other indicators. It found you must reuse an organic cotton shopping bag 20,000 times before it will have less climate damage than a plastic bag.
If we use the same shopping bag every single time we go to the store, twice every week, it will still take 191 years before the overall environmental effect of using the cotton bag is less than if we had just used plastic.
Even a simple paper bag requires 43 reuses to be better for the environment – far beyond the point at which the bag will be fit for the purpose.
The study clearly shows that a simple plastic bag, reused as a trash bag, has the smallest environmental impact of any of the choices.
Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.
This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.
The actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.
That is, until the NOAA’s statisticians “adjust” the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That’s clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.
That’s not what NOAA does.
According to the NOAA, the errors aren’t random. They’re systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they’re very fuzzy about why this should be.
Far from legitimately “adjusting” anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government’s underlying policies for the better part of two decades.
What NOAA does aren’t niggling little changes, either.
US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as ‘molecules of freedom’
Press release from department said increasing export capacity is ‘critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world’
This has to be the Secretary of Energy -Rick Perry- trolling the proggies simply to see if they’ll open their yaps and make further fools of themselves. (waiting on AOC)
America is the land of freedom, as any politician will be happy to tell you. What you don’t hear quite so often is that the stuff under the land is also apparently made of freedom as well. That is, at least according to a news release this week from the Department of Energy (DoE).
Mark W Menezes, the US undersecretary of energy, bestowed a peculiar honorific on our continent’s natural resources, dubbing it “freedom gas” in a release touting the DoE’s approval of increased exports of natural gas produced by a Freeport LNG terminal off the coast of Texas.
“Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy,” he said.
It’s unclear if members of the Trump administration attempting to assign patriotic intentions to natural gas are aware of the silliness of the concept, but Rick Perry seems to believe in it.
“Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi Germany occupation, the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” the energy secretary said earlier this month, according to EURACTV.
“And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquefied natural gas.”
For most of her short time in public life, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has insisted that the world only has 12 years left to solve the problem of globalwarmingclimatechange before the damage is irreversible. And the damage is, well, whatever she says it is. If we don’t do what AOC says before 2031, the weather is going to kill us all. That’s what she said, over and over, for months and months.
Then, two weeks ago, she said this:
This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.
Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows. https://t.co/pmkwrdeAnq
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 12, 2019
See, all that stuff about “12 years” was just a sarcastic, dryly humorous joke. If you thought she was serious, you have the social intelligence of a sea sponge. And that’s not much, if you’ve ever seen a sea sponge in action. Also, you’re like Dwight from The Office, which is bad because he’s a jerk. LOL, etc.
And now, to prove how much smarter she is than her critics, AOC just delivered another stunning twist. When she said she was just kidding… she was just kidding!
This guy reminds me of every climate scientist warning people we have 12 years left to cut emissions in half before our future is irreversibly damaged & all the GOP wants to do is yell about communist cow farts
“No! We’re not going back to the show!” https://t.co/CKpLKS9BuE
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 29, 2019
See, that exasperated weatherman is just like AOC, warning all us ignorant peasants about imminent danger from the skies. Which she’s just kidding about, and you shouldn’t take her seriously, but also it’s serious.
It’s both things. It’s serious and it’s a joke. She’s got the clown nose off and on. That way, she’s never wrong. And if that annoys you, it’s only because you’re not a genius like AOC.
She’s the girl who cried wolf. Except she means it.
But she does.
I’m so old, I can remember when global warming caused droughts. Or, put another way, climate change was making the Earth–in particular, the Great Lakes–drier. Thus, as I noted here:
National Geographic: “Climate Change and Variability Drive Low Water Levels on the Great Lakes.”
The National Resources Defense Council: “Climate change is lowering Great Lakes water levels.”
It’s no secret that, partially due to climate change, the water levels in the Great Lakes are getting very low.
The U.N’s IPCC: “[T]he following lake level declines could occur: Lake Superior -0.2 to -0.5 m.”
Dick Durbin: “What we are seeing in global warming is the evaporation of our Great Lakes.”
Minnesota Public Radio:
Scientists at the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [are] studying the interplay between low water levels, shrinking ice cover and warm water temperatures, Gronewold said. They have already concluded that climate change is playing a role in determining Great Lakes water levels.
Those quotes date from 2013, while my post was in 2017, when news reports indicated that Lake Superior was nearing a record high water level. Steve had already pointed out in 2014 that, in “a development that has startled scientists”–notwithstanding, apparently, the claim that the science is settled–Great Lakes water levels were rising rapidly.
What reminds me of this is today’s article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, “High Water Levels on Great Lakes Flood Towns, Shrink Beaches.”
Lakes Erie and Superior are among the Great Lakes expected to reach all-time highs this summer, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And the levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron and Ontario are well above seasonal averages.
High water levels across the Great Lakes are being driven primarily by persistently wet conditions for the past five to six years, including heavy rains and a large snowpack…
…said Keith Kompoltowicz, chief of watershed hydrology for the Army Corps in Detroit.
Anyone who knows anything about nature knows that it is cyclical. The Journal story includes graphics, including this one showing water levels in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron:
It got wetter in the 1990s: climate change! Then it got drier roughly from 2000 to 2013: more climate change! Then it got wetter again starting in 2014, and it continues to be wet: still more climate change! The case for climate change is irresistible, but we always knew that. The Earth’s climate has been changing for millions of years, and it will continue changing until the Earth or its atmosphere disappears.
Meanwhile, a theory that is consistent with everything, and therefore purportedly explains everything, in reality explains nothing.
Many Democrats and die hard climate change fanatics would have man-made global warming deniers locked up. And if they cannot do that then at least we should have a revolution. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders rallied support for the Green New Deal, with the New York congresswoman saying there should be “no middle ground” when it comes to climate change and the Vermont senator calling for a political revolution. And yes, Cortez is still saying that the world is going to end in 12 years if we do not address climate change (man-made global warming.) The BBC loves Cortez’s ideas and publishes titles like ‘Final call to save the world from ‘climate catastrophe.’
She (AOC) will lead the Democratic party down a hole because she really does not know what she is talking about. She is not grounded in reality. However the media loves her. But we do have many serious problems that our globe cannot cope with any longer. Just too much plastic, heavy metals, chemicals and radiation poisoning our beautiful world. With 5G we will get it over and done with more quickly. With our current politicians, even quicker! Instead of reducing CO2 it would be better if we reduce the number of politicians in the world for they are more corrupt than we would ever believe.
It is the middle of May and things are looking more like winter than spring. Winter apparently is not finished with parts of the Northeast, nor the West or Europe. In many places around the northern hemisphere its the latest start of spring on record. Cold air coming in from Canada is likely to cause a mix of snow and rain in higher elevations of New Hampshire, Vermont and much of northern Maine by the 14th of May, CNN meteorologist Gene Norman said. That means we will have have had 9 months of winter weather in some parts of the United States as well as in Europe and Russia. (See below.)
On the 15th of May we read a potent, winter-like storm is poised to slam into the western USA, bringing several feet of snow to the Sierra and soaking rain to coastal and valley areas. A dangerous stretch of severe weather is forecast to wallop 18 states in the central USA over the next several days and into next week. In the Sierra, “total snow accumulations of 12 to 18 inches, with localized amounts up to 35 inches, are expected,” the National Weather Service in Sacramento said. Also on the 15th a foot of snow for New Hampshire and heavy snowfall and cold in Corsica, Bosnia and Croatia. Portions of Washington and Oregon saw the latest spring start on record, while parts of Kansas and Oklahoma saw the latest arrival of spring in 38 years, says weather.com.
A Cold Wet Reality
The problem is its not getting warmer—its getting colder and that is already affecting the agricultural sector. It is not just cooling temperatures, we also have record breaking precipitation that is flooding huge areas of the United States farm belt. Its the cold and wet weather combined that is threatening us, not in some far off future but this year. Bad weather in the American breadbasket portend rising food prices and less food to export to the hungry corners of the world.
The headline reads: ‘Farmageddon Looms: Only 30% Of US Corn Fields Have Been Planted, 5 Year Average Is 66%.’ Michael Snyder writes, “2019 is turning out to be a nightmare that never ends for the agriculture industry. Thanks to endless rain and unprecedented flooding, fields all over the middle part of the country are absolutely soaked right now, and this has prevented many farmers from getting their crops in the ground. In addition, for every day after May 15th that corn is not in the ground, farmers lose approximately 2 percent of their yield. Unfortunately, more rain is on the way, and it looks like thousands of corn farmers will not be able to plant corn at all this year. It is no exaggeration to say that what we are facing is a true national catastrophe.”
The excessive rains in many parts of the US this week come just as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released data showing the last 12 months have been the wettest in recorded history for the Lower 48 states.” We do have intense climate change with the gathering Grand Solar Minimum working to increase cosmic ray penetration of our atmosphere, which seeds clouds and increases precipitation………….
None of this information will make a difference to the Democratic party and to anyone else blinded by the global warming propaganda machine. However, there is no doubt that violent climate change is already upon us. There is no fixing the situation, no power on earth can change what is happening on the sun. It is an absolute disaster what the fabric of lies is doing to everything from politics to farming to human consciousness itself. Instead of doing something that is within our control, like stopping the massive poisoning of our planet the powers that be would have us all focus on the fantasy of man-made global warming and CO2 as the ultimate evil gas.
Australia’s conservative government won a surprise victory in national elections over opponents who campaigned on climate change https://t.co/yn2GnJcRtO
— WSJ Europe (@WSJeurope) May 18, 2019
Anyone want to bet on whether or not any of the demoncraps running for president will note what just happened in Australia’s election?
Maybe normal people in real life — as opposed to activists on social media — don’t want to return to the pre-industrial age or to see their wealth seized by force and redistributed to people who didn’t earn it. Maybe.
— Ken Gardner (@KenGardner11) May 18, 2019
[mentally defective puppet] who [believes the lie that she] leads a global climate movement, asked in a recent tweet, “Can we all now please stop saying ‘climate change’ and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”, a 16-year-old
[No dear idjit child, the intellgent ones here aren’t going to be driven by emotion, but rather by logic, facts and real science, not your handler’s hyperbolic horse$#!+]
She’s not alone in her sentiment. Many of those engaged in environmental advocacy feel the term “climate change” fails to convey the specificity or urgency needed to address the gravity of the climate challenge.
A new recent study shows they may be right.
New York City-based SPARK Neuro, a neuroanalytics company that measures emotion and attention, studied how participants responded to six terms — “climate crisis,” “environmental destruction,” “environmental collapse,” “weather destabilization,” “global warming” and “climate change.”
A total of 120 people — 40 Republicans, 40 Democrats and 40 independents — participated in the study, which measured the “emotional intensity” of responses to audio recordings of various controversial phrases, with each term inserted, like this example below:
“Sea levels will rise dramatically, to the point that many coastal cities will be submerged, as a result of [INSERT TERM].”
The electrical activity of the participants’ brains and skin was rated on a scale of zero to five — five being the strongest. Those results were then compared to a traditional survey for reference.
Two terms stood out from the pack: climate crisis and environmental destruction.
Among Democrats, the study found a 60% greater emotional response to the term “climate crisis” than to “climate change,” and a tripling in emotional response among Republicans.
Spencer Gerrol, CEO of SPARK Neuro, said evoking emotion is vital to getting people to act. Because terms like climate change and global warming do not imply good or bad, they don’t spark passion, he said.
“12 years left, 12 years left, 12 years left… psyche!”
I call this technique Clown Nose Off, Clown Nose On. I first noticed it with Jon Stewart 15 years ago, when he went on CNN’s Crossfire and supposedly owned Tucker Carlson by being a passive-aggressive jerk. First, Stewart would present an argument and insist on being taken seriously. Then, when he was challenged on it, he’d backpedal: “Hey, what’s the big deal? I’m just a comedian!” Once I noticed Stewart doing that with Carlson, I realized that he did it all the time. It was cheap, it was dishonest, and it made Jon Stewart rich and famous.
At least he had the excuse of being a comedian. AOC is an elected official, and she only makes people laugh unintentionally.
Yahoo’s upset. The demoncraps are too. What’s not to like?
WASHINGTON — A lone Republican witness hijacked a congressional hearing Tuesday about the public health effects of global warming, cutting off serious debate by drawing attention to his own controversial, disputed views……..
At Tuesday’s hearing, Caleb Rossiter of the CO2 Coalition, an organization whose mission is to highlight the “important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy,” played the role of spoiler. The group was co-founded by William Happer, a physicist who is now leading the Presidential Committee on Climate Security, a newly formed panel that many believe will be used to undermine established science on global warming. The CO2 Coalition is largely funded by conservative foundations, including those of the billionaire Koch and Mercer families.
Rossiter was the last of the afternoon’s witnesses, and followed public health experts and medical doctors who described how global warming was not just an ecological disaster but approached epidemic levels in its human costs. Speaking in urgent, distressed tones, they described elevated levels of asthma and obesity, respiratory disease and food poisoning.
One of the witnesses, Aaron Bernstein of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University, described holding infants whose brains had been damaged by the Zika virus, an epidemic made worse by climate change. He spoke of encountering children who “no longer had a will to live” after losing their homes to flooding, which has also become more catastrophic as the planet warms. Bernstein deemed fossil fuels “debilitating” and called for Congress to reject the inordinate influence the oil and gas lobbies have traditionally wielded over legislation.
Rossiter, adorned in a bow tie, had an altogether different message. Calling himself a “climate statistician,” he depicted his group as a lone truth-teller in a field otherwise besotted with alarmist predictions. “We save the people of the planet from people who think they are saving the planet,” Rossiter said in his opening statement. He then proceeded to tout the benefits of carbon dioxide, which is emitted when carbon is burned and traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
“So far, CO2 emissions have had a positive and modest impact on Americans’ health,” Rossiter said. He said “weather mortality” has fallen because most weather-related deaths come during cold spells, which presumably become more rare as the planet warms.
Rossiter proceeded to show a slide of what he said was “a typical rural African dwelling.” The following slide showed a woman in traditional garb (Rossiter did not say which African country the images came from) cooking a meal over an open fire. He argued that fossil fuel-generated electricity was modernizing Africa and leading to better health outcomes.
“Being wealthy saves lives,” he said. He did not say why similar outcomes could not be achieved with solar energy, which has become increasingly popular on the continent.
- Dr Chi claims that aliens share our biosphere and are acting to overcome the effects of climate change.
- Dr Chi outlined his views in a 2012 lecture and has since written a book.
- In April 2018, Dr Chi approached The Oxford Union to propose a debate on the subject. The proposal was not accepted.
“The Oxford Union Society commonly referred to simply as the Oxford Union, is a debating society in the city of Oxford, England, whose membership is drawn primarily from the University of Oxford. Founded in 1823, it is one of Britain’s oldest University Unions. The Oxford Union exists independently from the University and is separate from the Oxford University Student Union.
The Oxford Union has a tradition of hosting some of the world’s most prominent individuals across politics, academia and popular culture.”
They also seem to have their brains working a little more than the university ‘institute’ management that hired this idjit. You might think that Dr. Chi’s ideas are preposterous, but evidence free assertions are not unusual in the climate science community.
Some climate scientists demand we accept their projections without getting hung up on scientific falsifiability . They claim their climate expertise is all the evidence we need to accept their predictions.
The Oxford Student has learnt that Dr Young-hae Chi, Professor at Oxford’s Oriental Institute, believes in a strong correlation between climate change and alien abductions.
In 2012, Dr Chi gave a lecture at the the Ammach Conference, titled ‘Alien Abduction and the Environmental Crisis’ in which he outlined his theory concerning the presence of aliens on earth.
Dr Chi began his lecture with the statement that “perhaps human civilisation is coming to an end”.
In his fifty-five minute presentation he cited Dr David Jacobs, an ‘abduction researcher’ in the US, who argued that aliens’ primary purpose is to colonise the earth, by interbreeding with humans to produce a new hybrid species. Second generation ‘hybrids’ are, according to Jacobs, walking unobserved among us.
Dr Chi argued that “it is not only scientists and theologians, but also non-human species who appear to be greatly concerned about the survivability of the human species”.
He pointed out that the timing of aliens’ appearance coincides with the earth facing major problems, climate change and nuclear weapons in particular.
He concludes that “it may be more or less assumed that the hybrid project is a response to this impending demise of human civilisation”.
He went on to argue that if we act now on climate change, “not only can we save ourselves, but also prove aliens wrong in their judgement of our moral capacity”.
In April 2018, Dr Chi approached The Oxford Union to propose a debate on the subject. The proposed motion was: ‘Aliens exist on earth, Yes or no?’. However, this proposal was not accepted by the then president-elect.
Winter storm watches and warnings have been posted by the National Weather Service for parts of southeastern Minnesota, northern Iowa, southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois. A band of heavy snow will likely lead to difficult travel conditions, especially in the winter storm warning area.
The cult of Greta Thunberg
This young woman sounds increasingly like a millenarian weirdo.
Anyone who doubts that the green movement is morphing into a millenarian cult should take a close look at Greta Thunberg. This poor young woman increasingly looks and sounds like a cult member. The monotone voice. The look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes. The explicit talk of the coming great ‘fire’ that will punish us for our eco-sins. There is something chilling and positively pre-modern about Ms Thunberg. One can imagine her in a sparse wooden church in the Plymouth Colony in the 1600s warning parishioners of the hellfire that will rain upon them if they fail to give up their witches.
It actually makes sense that Ms Thunberg – a wildly celebrated 16-year-old Swede who founded the climate-strike movement for schoolkids – should sound cultish. Because climate-change alarmism is becoming ever stranger, borderline religious, obsessed with doomsday prophecies. Consider Extinction Rebellion, the latest manifestation of the upper-middle classes’ contempt for industrialisation and progress. It is at times indistinguishable from old fundamentalist movements that warned mankind of the coming End of Days. I followed Extinction Rebellion from Parliament Square to Marble Arch yesterday and what I witnessed was a public display of millenarian fear and bourgeois depression. People did dances of death and waved placards warning of the heat-death of the planet. It felt deeply unnerving.
It struck me that this was a march against people. Most radical protest and direct action is aimed at officialdom or government or people with power. This macabre schlep through London was aimed squarely at ordinary people. Banners and placards made no disguise of the marchers’ contempt for how the masses live. We were told that ‘Meat = heat’ (that is, if you carry on eating meat, you fat bastards, the planet will get even hotter) and that driving and flying are destroying Mother Earth. Of course, it’s okay for them to fly – Emma Thompson jetted first-class from LA to London to lecture us plebs about all our eco-destructive holidaymaking. It’s only a problem when we do it; it’s only bad when we take advantage of the miracle of mass food production and the expansion of flight to make our lives fuller and more pleasurable. They detest that. They detest mass society and its inhabitants: the masses.
Today is ‘Earth Day’ the day where crap-for-brains chicken little snowflake econutz have waxed feverishly – for the past 49 YEARS – about how the world will end in the neext few days/weeks/months/years/heat death of the universe.
In celebration get out the charcoal grill and cook some steaks/ hamburgers/hotdogs whathaveyou in carbon based and basted glory.
What I see is nothing more than unmitigated narcisssitic elitism. What an ego this ignorant moron has. Even Obammy just wanted to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet
While Ocasio-Cortez trumpets how in 2019 she entered the most “diverse” Congress in history, every representative “depicted in the video is female. The ‘children’ from her district are all female. All the fat-cat oil and banking and political figures she demonizes are white men,” American Thinker also reports.
The site continues, “Writing for the Jacobin magazine in February 2019, the film’s writer, Kate Aronoff, called America’s energy CEOs ‘mass murderers.’ The artist incorporates this sentiment and the message ‘white men are the bad guys’ in the film’s drawings. The anti-capitalist, anti-corporation theme runs through the video from start to finish.”
Just as how “diversity” here, Newspeak-style, excludes certain groups, this is a complete inversion of reality. It’s not just that Ocasio-Cortez’ Green Leap Forward would have an estimated price tag of $93 trillion, four times our national debt. It’s that the “whole climate crisis is not only Fake News; it’s Fake Science,” as former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore put it; moreover, pursuing Ocasio-Cortez’ prescriptions globally could “result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth,” as he also warned.
Unfortunately, while it’s easy to poke fun at the congresswoman (and sometimes justifiable), demagoguery that could kill millions is no laughing matter.
A lot of corruption hinges on the amount of money that can be acquired for government grants for ‘research’ that is anything but. Being able to get paycheck, and an expense account, without really having to work for it has always been highly attractive.
Most of the world still believes that humans are causing climate change. The belief persists, despite the evidence of deliberately corrupted science exposed in leaked emails, and consistently failed forecasts.
It persists without any empirical evidence. Unnecessary policies and massively expensive policies evolved from the deception of certainty.
Carbon taxes and alternative energies that are unable to replace fossil fuels without some massive breakthrough in energy storage capacity continue to drain budgets and divert from solving real problems.
The momentum behind this deception is amazing and at present unstoppable. It is driven by a certainty that is supported by concocted evidence from the pre-programmed, pre-determined outcome, computer models.
There is no empirical evidence, so how and why does the belief continue? How did the idea gain and maintain this force? I believe, there is one person to blame because he set the tone and created the mantra that facts don’t matter; he made it necessary to maintain the illusion of AGW at all cost. It was so effective that even to ask questions is to put you in a category of societal repulsion. You become one of those “deniers.”
I was very annoyed when I saw the eulogy to Stephen Schneider in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It reads in part;
The Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider, one of the foremost climate scientists of our time.
Steve Schneider, born in New York, trained as a plasma physicist, embraced scholarship in the field of climate science almost 40 years ago and continued his relentless efforts creating new knowledge in the field and informing policymakers and the public at large on the growing problem of climate change and solutions for dealing with it. At all times Steve Schneider remained intrepid and forthright in expressing his views. His convictions were driven by the strength of his outstanding scientific expertise… His association with the IPCC began with the First Assessment Report which was published in 1990, and which played a major role in the scientific foundation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. His life and accomplishments have inspired and motivated members of the Core Writing Team of this Report.
The last sentence tells the story but only if you know the complete involvement of Schneider in the greatest deception in history.
The dilemma for all these early advocates of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was that if they knew climatology, they knew that the work of the IPCC was corrupted science.
If they didn’t speak out, they were complicit in the deception.
If they didn’t know, and a remarkable number didn’t, then they are incompetent.
Often, some only became aware of the deceptive science because of an untoward circumstance, such as associating with a known skeptic.
Schneider knew because he published a book about global cooling in 1976 titled, “The Genesis Strategy” when cooling was the consensus. He wrote,
“There is little food stored to cushion the shock of the kinds of weather problems that so suddenly and unexpectedly damaged crops in 1972, 1974 and 1975, and there is growing evidence that such damaging weather may occur more frequently in the next decade than in the last one.
The most imminent and far reaching [danger] is the possibility of a food‐climate crisis that would burden the well to do countries with unprecedented hikes in food prices, but could mean famine and political instability for many parts of the nonindustrialized (sic) world.”
The author of the NYT article summarizes that Schneider was
“…reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book, “The Genesis Strategy.”
I was part of the climate community at the time but knew from the historical records and understanding of underlying mechanisms that this was just another climate cycle.
Too many people exploited the pattern of the moment driven by funding, career enhancement or political persuasion. None of them looked at the science or worse and they only picked the science that appeared to confirm their situation.
They jumped on what I call the trend wagon and argued it would continue forever. It was wrong, cynical, exploitive and had nothing to do with the amoral and apolitical positions and work that are essential to science.
Stephen Schneider set the tone for what followed. His mendacious, manipulative philosophy entered the public arena with his 1989 interview in Discover magazine, part of which said,
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.
That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
I hope that means being both.
Sorry Stephen there is no decision between effectiveness and honesty. The fact he could even suggest that there was underscores and exposes the corrupt thinking that created and drove the massive deception. The problem is that people like Schneider are evil geniuses. It one thing to have such ideas, it is another to implement them. It parallels Maurice Strong’s implementation of the idea of “getting rid of the industrialized nations.”
In 1996 Schneider co-chaired a conference that put his idea of being effective without being honest into operation. It was a non-IPCC conference but included all the key players involved in the IPCC corruption ,and the CRU leaked emails. In fact, the conference titled was a manifesto on how to proceed, how to end-run science and the truth in every way. The conference titled “Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty.” I urge you to read and weep but learn what Schneider did. Here is the opening paragraph.
Uncertainty, or more generally, debate about the level of certainty required to reach a “firm” conclusion, is a perennial issue in science.
The difficulties of explaining uncertainty become increasingly salient as society seeks policy prescriptions to deal with global environmental change.
How can science be most useful to society when evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, the subjective judgments of experts about the likelihood of outcomes vary, and policymakers seek guidance and justification for courses of action that could cause significant societal changes?
How can scientists improve their characterization of uncertainties so that areas of slight disagreement do not become equated with purely speculative concerns, and how can individual subjective judgments be aggregated into group positions?
And then, how can policymakers and the public come to understand this input and apply it in deciding upon appropriate actions?
In short, how can the scientific content of public policy debates be fairly and openly assessed?
All the names are here, Santer, Schlesinger, Tol, Karl, MacCracken, and Trenberth with his first probability table (Figure1). It is an attempt to confuse by pretending to clarify.
The inclusion of Schneider’s eulogy and the sentiment it expresses about his influence on them and the entire IPCC process is absolute proof of my thesis.
He more than any other person created and drove the biggest deception in history;
intellectualized most perversely the concept of uncertainty into certainty and provided the method for converting inadequate and incorrect evidence into a form powerful enough to be the basis of world-changing philosophy and policy.