The Heartland Institute held its 14th Annual International Conference on Climate Change this past weekend down in Colorado Springs. I wish I had been paying attention, as I would have attended. Videos of all the talks are available here. For me it is brain candy. Heartland is a good outfit, and the speakers they line up for these events are highly knowledgeable in the field of Climate and other specialties. Climate Alarmists are in a privileged position allowing them to merely make up their unchallenged facts. Only people like those at Heartland dare speak up. (Reporters were sent to the 14th ICCC, but only to do hit pieces.)
I am quoting as best I am able from this video from the link above. I think the speaker is H. Sterling Burnett, a Senior Fellow with Heartland. The quoted words below happen at around five or six minutes. (There is a long stretch of music leading into the video.)
“I have been on stage with seven or eight different climate scientists over way too many years of doing this. And I always asked them what would it take for you to disbelieve the theory of catastrophic climate change caused by human CO2 emissions. What would disconfirm the theory for you? Six of these scientists had no response. They couldn’t think of anything evidently by their lack of response that would disconfirm the theory. One scientist – I won’t mention him by name because he’s known for suing people and I don’t want to be the target of a lawsuit – he gave me an answer:… “All of physics would have to be overturned.” I said “really the law of conservation of energy, e=mc2 all of that has to go for you to be wrong about climate change?” He said ‘yes.’
I appreciate that he had an answer. He provided an answer. I thought it showed some extreme hubris on his part, but that is what it would take for him to be wrong about climate change.”
He is talking, of course, about Michael Mann, inventor of the fake hockey stick and a man known to slap lawsuits on anyone critical of him. The lawsuits are not done for any real cause, but it does tie people up in court, often for years. One suit against Professor Tim Ball was settled by the Canadian highest court in Ball’s favor. He was just tying up Mr. Ball’s hands, his seeming intent. Mann was ordered to pay all court costs – after all, he was doing nothing to advance the case. Has he paid those costs? I have heard he has not, though it would seem that Canada’s highest court has reach enough for force him to do so. But certainly Mann is not out-of-pocket, as he is just a tool backed by powerful and wealthy sponsors (whom he referred to in the Climategate emails as “our closeted friends”).
When I read the above words, as relayed to us by Burnett, I thought “Got him!” Mann is exaggerating beyond reason, and that can only be due to his lack of evidence to support his case. It means that he is not only wrong in all his assertions, but that he knows he is wrong.
This link is to a 26-minute video of a debate between a moronic journalist (I repeat myself again) and Marc Morano. You won’t regret loss of time for watching it. It held me the entire time. Marano slowly gets fed up with her, as she is so clueless and repeatedly makes assertions without evidence. This is so common in that profession. I wonder some times if there are any good journalists out there – all that I have known are lightweights, short of factual data, having done little or no thinking or research. I suspect that this is due to editors, who do not reward that kind of work. There is a culling process at work where only the stupid survive.
12 thoughts on “Climate notes, 14th ICCC”
26 minutes well spent. It reminded me of Jordan Peterson’s dialogues with Cathy Newman [Channel 4 again] or Helen Lewis. Perhaps Merano was a bit too emotional instead of letting Siobhan Kennedy dig her own pit of brainwashed ignorance in which to fall. What is it with these combative “journalists” with their own [or slavishly pushing others’] personal agendas?
They claim to be professionally “objective,” meaning never take a side, but they obviously take sides in Covid and Climate. They are not professionals. They are hacks. “All” is such and encompassing term taking me back to syllogisms in college, but honestly, in journalism, I have yet to meet the exception.
What a delight! Peterson is undeniably reasonable.
“There is a culling process at work where only the stupid survive.”
Yep, in the supremely stupid world where we live now, that’s survival of the fittest.
What must it be like to live daily telling lies all day? I think that their consciousness is submerged, that they are perpetually challenged to keep the lie alive, and so they avoid people who can spot them as liars, hang out with known associates, and reinforce one another even as deep down they know they are lying. That is all I can make of it. They are professional cowards. To live is to lie.
I’m not sure lying scientists are aware of their lying. If they are possessed or hypnotized self-awareness would be next to impossible without a conscious effort to impartially self-observe their routine/habits. I think they avoid being challenged because they live in a brain-fog and cannot see. Fear is temporarily quelled by herd conformity which makes them feel “safe” and “certain,” but only for a short time.
But the herd has many voices creating lots of noise to drown out the outsiders, which they actually describe as “outliers.” It’s a closed system, an echo chamber of sorts. It’s not just global warming nuts either. I deal with “fire experts” who want to log, thin and burn forests to “prevent wildfire.” One leading poser is Mark Finney, who is an agency hack, who’s “research” is rarely peer-reviewed or published in science journals. “We have to burn it to save it.”
That may work for a year or two, and then it grows back stronger than before. Great scam for perpetual funding from congress that will do nothing on the ground in the long run. Nature is the only alternative, and that’s never going to pay all those salaries for computer jocks and fake research scientists.
Michael Mann and Marc Morano are no Miles Mathis.
From the Wikipedia Kary Mullis page, surely a suspect source, and if Harry’s Pretzel Mug is right, a suspect man too, but anyway:
Then there is Vannevar Bush and the government takeover of science in the postwar era, something that Eisenhower warned about in his famous military industrial complex speech, a lesser well-known warning.
Wow, that Siobhan Kennedy interview with Moran was a slog; had to do it in three parts, but it was satisfying. Her attitude reminds me so much of the “but polio!” libs that mostly surround me. He mostly toes the Rona line, and let’s her off easy on that point. Perhaps this is to avoid sullying his message, which is about the insane ideas behind the green agenda.
Some funny quotes: “I identify as a scientist, shouldn’t that count?” and “It’s medieval witchcraft.”
She is deeply indoctrinated, but again, look at her position. If she were moral and logical, she would not be doing what she does. This was funny, when she hurled this as an accusation, “Other than saying the UN is a political organization.” What would she say it is? A global group to increase warm fuzziness with zero possibility of malign interests? “But it was founded to stop war” or somesuch? Abject failure on that part. Incredible naivete, or as MT puts it, simply lying.
The 30 min Jordan Peterson interview was a delight; the short version cuts too much out. Both versions are on the Watt’s Up comments about the Moran interview. The YT comments are pretty funny too. 5:10-5:20 or so made me laugh when she left out minorities, and then he smilingly added it. Comedy gold. He accurately points out how biological interests and dispositions affect outcomes, but Ms. Newman cannot wrap her golden-ramen-tresses around these realities. (As a male pig, I found her strangely attractive; maybe the accent?)
Highlight re: his alleged transphobia: “What I said at the beginning, I was not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists, regardless of whether or not it was put into law.”
I’ll leave you to your own devices rather that link, but I found Jordan Peterson to be a very intelligent man, and searched him out on YouTube. Right now I am working through a two hour interview with JP and Michael Shellenberger, who wrote the book Apocalypse Never. Peterson connects rabid environmentalism with depression, people thinking “I’m bad people are bad there’s no future for us! That is fascinating! Shellenberger is quite blunt on things like Extinction Rebellion, saying it is just not happening, they’ve got it completely wrong. He also says he learned the hard way that factory jobs are a better deal than subsistence farming.
Cheap energy is the way to solve most problems, and the Climate Apocalypse people, at least the people behind them, must know this, which is why they are attacking oil, coal and natural gas and nuclear as well. They do not want problems solved, they do not want a wealthy population, and are hiding behind the CO2 molecule to keep their agenda appearing green.
JP was smart and charming, very careful with his words.
Oh certainly the X-(not) Rebellion promotes depression. Many in the young generation are ashamed to be alive. They would help the world by dying, or at minimum, not reproducing. It is part of the insane Rona cult, yet at odds with it: I should die to help the world/I should mask and jab to save the world. Cognitive dissonance much? The masters making the slaves believe it’s their own fault might seem difficult, but here we are.
looking forward to reading more wisdom from you