A while back I offered up what I called “One Last Climate Post“, and indeed I stand by that. My reasoning was that the debate that I was reviewing was very old and that all the players were well known. The “science” was new to me, and I was treading in deep water, not knowing enough about it to be writing about it.
Since that time I have been immersed in the science, and now feel much more comfortable with it. It is accessible to all of us, and not hard to comprehend. All we need do is look around us. For every scary claim by climate scaremongers and doomsayers, there is ample evidence that the planet is doing well. Polar bears are many and healthy, storms, fires, droughts are lessening in number and intensity. Carbon is increasing in the atmosphere, and the positive effects are now coming to fruition with a greener planet. Gradual warming, as has been going on for 400 years now, is a positive thing. Where the Roman Warm Period gave rise to an empire and an explosion in technology, the Little Ice Age brought with it the Dark Ages and Black Death. Our current warm period is yielding more food, more and healthier people and amazing technology.
“There are not enough morally brave men in stock. We are out of moral-courage material.” (Mark Twain, United States of Lyncherdom)
I just got done listening to Mark Steyn speaking before the Heartland Institute. He’s a smart, charming and entertaining speaker. Also, he is a courageous man. Michael Mann has sued him for saying that the Hockey Stick is science fraud. It is a SLAP suit more than real, trying to get Steyn to stfu, but Mann has grabbed a wolf by the ears. This is a free speech case, and not about science. Typical of the climate hoax crowd, Mann wants to be immune from criticism. Steyn has counter-sued using anti-SLAP laws.
Commercialization of earth’s lifeforms is expanding into new territory. Emotion, not facts or evidence, is the primary organizing tool of the corporate controllers behind the scenes. Children will “lead.” Unsuspecting newcomers to the “movement” are the targets/marks. Profit is the goal. Meet the “Extinction Movement” before it is too big to recognize for what it is.
Extinction Rebellion Training, or How to Control Radical Resistance from the ‘Obstructive Left,” May 6, 2019, by Cory Morningstar is recommended reading for anyone trying to make sense of the MSM “extinction” hype flooding the airwaves and social media. Like all high-profile campaigns, most of us are only (spoon fed) observing the “tip of the iceberg.”
“The significant point in this cost-benefit business is that there is virtually no certainty about any of the numbers that are used to calculate either the likely change of climate or the impact of that change on future populations. In essence it is simply assumed that all climate change is bad—that the current climate is the best of all possible climates. Furthermore, there is little or no recognition in most of the scenarios that mankind is very good at adapting to new circumstances. It is more than likely that, if indeed climate change is noticeably “bad”, the future population will adjust to the changed circumstances. If the change is “good”, the population will again adapt and become richer as a consequence. If the change is a mixture of good and bad, the chances are that the adaptive processes will ensure a net improvement in wealth. This for a population which, if history is any guide, and for reasons entirely independent of climate change, will probably be a lot wealthier than we are.”
The above graph is Michael Mann’s infamous 1998 “Hockey Stick,” long discredited. Nonetheless, I just listened to a Mann presentation from mid-2018, and he once again whipped that baby out, asserted that it is an accurate depiction of reality, and then went into his usual spiel about the need to convert to overpriced, subsidized and inefficient solar and wind energy. More about that later.
What follows is going to be old news for many readers, so bear with me. The issue of climate change is something that takes time to sink in for me, and I am a late arrival, so please, if you are up to speed already, humor me.
I finally took time these past few days to read some of the so-called Climategate emails, wherein over a thousand internal messages from The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich England were made public. I thought it was going to be a tortuous task for a non-scientist, but it is not. The emails that I read at this site are not loaded with jargon and math. They concern themselves with politics, playing defense against pain-in-the-ass skeptics, and making sure that the public only sees an alarmist point of view about climate change on news and television. In the emails scientists who are skeptical on this subject are ridiculed, stonewalled and suppressed.
It is interesting how various people are treated in public discourse. Certain propaganda techniques are used to either advance careers or destroy people and minimize their exposure. Since most science is funded by the National Science Foundation, that is where the agenda is set. If a scientist wants to be funded, that scientist had better conform to the current paradigm.
In other words, science in general is corrupt. But readers here already knew this. I have come across two terms that grate like fingernails on a blackboard: “debunk” and “deny.” Both are used as a wave-of-dismissal technique for anyone outside the NSA-funded paradigm, better defined as a “groupthink mindset,” or GTMS (they love their acronyms!). To assert that the current GTMS on climate change is overstated, especially with use of observational evidence, is not science. It is denial! Using the Google to locate anyone skeptical about GTMS usually results a cascade of links on how that person has been debunked.