The above video is an interview of Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto, by Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and pundit. I don’t expect that the reader take time from other pursuits to watch it, but if you do, it is informative. Peterson talks about how far afield the gender identity movement has gone.
Over the past months I have become familiar with Steyn, and enjoy his writing and speaking style. He is a climate change skeptic, and at one time called Michael Mann’s hockey stick “fraudulent.” In response Mann sued Steyn.
My recent foray into the matter of climate change had many surprising features, one of which was how easy it was to grasp the underlying science behind the matter. Climate study is, for the most part, mere collection of data in search of trends. Below the fold, for example, is a graph showing precipitation trends in California over the last 100 years.
“Inside every adult lurks a graduation speaker dying to get out, some world-weary pundit eager to pontificate on life to young people who’d rather be Rollerblading. Most of us, alas, will never be invited to sow our words of wisdom among an audience of caps and gowns, but there’s no reason we can’t entertain ourselves by composing a Guide to Life for Graduates.” …
These are the opening lines of a newspaper column from the Chicago Tribune. It is very short, but I cannot reprint it in total due to copyright, only a snippet as fair use. Read the whole thing here.
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.”