Posted: April 7, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmism uncovered, Alarmist media, Arctic, Climate Change, Climatism, Dud predictions, Failed Climate Models, groupthink, Ideology, Polar Bears, Politics, Propaganda | Tags: Alarmism, Alarmism Exposed, Climate Change, Climate Change Alarmism, Climate science, Climate Strike, Climatism, Coca Cola, Fake News, Global Warming, Global Warming Alarmism, Greta Thunberg, groupthink, ideology, nature, Polar Bears, Politics, science, Susan Crockford, Tucker Carlson |
POLAR BEARS – Death Of A Climate Icon | Climatism
“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire
“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
– Albert Einstein
***
THE polar bear as an icon for Global Warming Climate Change is dead, because the distorted predictions made by Polar Bear ‘specialists’ were wrong.
THIS is a lesson for researchers in other areas who have failed to stop the invasion of politics into their science.
*
TUCKER CARLSON interviews Zoologist and Polar Bear specialist Dr. Susan Crockford on the prime time ratings-killer show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in a must watch segment that demonstrates how “overpopulation”, not extinction, is now the problem :
*
THE Global Warming Policy Foundation has since released an excellent short video showing why the polar bear no longer serves as the icon of the climate change movement :
*
H/t Green Jihad
•••
POLAR BEAR related :
SEE also :
Read the rest of this entry »
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: February 26, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Climate science, Climatism, Environmentalism, groupthink, Pseudo-Science, Religion, Uncategorized | Tags: Alinsky, Climate Change, Climate history, Climate science, Climatism, Environmental Scares, Global Warming, groupthink, President Eisenhower, Presidential Committee on Climate Security, pseudoscience, Religion, William Happer |
Global Warming Groupthink ‘Siyanz’ | CLIMATISM
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.
“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
•••
FASCINATING article by author Norman Rogers on how the siyanz science of global warming climate change has been fatally corrupted by a culture of groupthink and doomsday hysteria that has snowballed into a viciously protected $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) global Climate Crisis Industry.
*
Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion
From American Thinker
By Norman Rogers
William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States. He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government. His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive. Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.
The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer. That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change. The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.
Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization. In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure. A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.” We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.
What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare. If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse. Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field. The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world. They won’t give up the glory without a fight.
Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth. But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry. As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.
Climate science has gone off the rails. President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address. He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money. Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster. If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.
Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype. There was global cooling that preceded global warming. There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others. It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions. Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested. The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.
Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests. Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests. Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences. We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code. Scientists are not different. They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work. They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing. But these things happen.
Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype. Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink. Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science. Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion. They are in no position to contradict groupthink. They have families to feed. The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money. To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.
The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure. There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype. When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious. The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics. When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.
Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science. But scientists are humans, not gods. They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play. We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another. The fake predictions are never completely fake. There is usually some real science buried in all the hype. For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet. The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water. Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses. CO2 is greening deserts. How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?
DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer. But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria. The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa. DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.
Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science. For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review. Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality. The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.
Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes. The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money. That should be an ethical violation. Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.
There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories. It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem. Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.
Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.
H/t WattsUpWithThat
•••
SEE also :
Read the rest of this entry »
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: August 9, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism uncovered, Alarmist media, Carbon Dioxide, Climate Alarmism, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Government Grants/Funding, Green Agenda, groupthink, Ideology, Pseudo-Science, Religion | Tags: Alarmism, carbon dioxide emissions, Climate alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Change Hoax, Climate Change Scam, Climatism, Cult, Global Warming, Global Warming Hoax, Global Warming Scam, groupthink, ideology, Mainstream media, Religion, Richard Lindzen, Science and Environment |
MARK Twain explains why it’s so difficult to end the man-made climate change scam
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…” – Richard S. Lindzen
*
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen
•••
H/t Gail in Aus
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, in a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.
Forward Prager Uni:
Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
WATCH!
•••
SEE also :
ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :
CLIMATISM Hot Links :
TEMPERATURE Related :
•••
PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To HELP Keep The Good Fight Alive!
(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.
Thanks to all those who have donated and continue on a monthly cycle! Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!
Citizen journalists don’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations. Please give generously!
Click link for more info…TQ! Jamie.
•••
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: July 24, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism, Alarmism uncovered, Alarmist media, Alarmist Predictions, Climatism, Cult Science, Dud predictions, Eco-Activists, Failed Climate Models, Green Agenda, groupthink, Pal-Review, Propaganda, Pseudo-Science | Tags: Alarmism Exposed, Beyond Blue, climate, Climate Change, Climate Change Alarmsim, CMIP5, CNN, Echo Chamber, Extreme weather, failed climate models, Failed CMIP5 Models, Fake News, Global Temperature, Global Warming, Global Warming Alarmism, groupthink, Heatwave, Mainstream media, Mental Health, Mexico, nature journal, Pal-Review, propaganda, pseudoscience, RCP8.5, Social media, Suicide, UN, UN IPCC, United States |
SINCE Climatism reported on the lazy and disrespectful link between suicide and climate change two days ago, a study has now surfaced out of the warmist, Nature Climate Change…
Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico | Nature Climate Change.
*
NOT surprisingly, the mainstream media has jumped all over this single study like a pack of hungry wolves, in a blatant attempt to link their emotionally-charged climate change cause with the genuinely emotional and tragic issue of suicide.
“The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, concluded that projected temperature increases over the next few decades could lead to an additional 21,000 suicides in the United States and Mexico by 2050.”
Warming climate will likely boost suicide rates worldwide | Berkeley News
*
YET another study using the widely criticised UN IPCC CMIP5 climate models that do not accord with the stubborn observed reality of the current and inconvenient ~20 year global warming “pause”…
CURRENT UN CMIP5 CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS Vs TEMPS
See : 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
*
THE STUDY
PUBLISHED yesterday in the warmist journal, Nature climate change…
Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico | Nature Climate Change
*
THE studies “could, maybe, might” findings are based on the highest emissions scenario, RCP8.5, pushed out to the arbitrary, unaccountable and ‘sciencey’ date of 2050…
“We project that unmitigated climate change (RCP8.5) could result in a combined 9–40 thousand additional suicides (95% confidence interval) across the United States and Mexico by 2050, representing a change in suicide rates comparable to the estimated impact of economic recessions, suicide prevention programmes or gun restriction laws.”
THE study also took into account seasonal variation, levels of poverty, the news of celebrity suicides and even depressive social media commentary that can lead to more death…
“Analysis of depressive language in >600 million social media updates further suggests that mental well-being deteriorates during warmer periods.”
Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico | Nature Climate Change
*
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ECHO CHAMBER…
WHAT level of responsibility is the mainstream media itself willing to accept for stoking “global warming” fears – flogging every heatwave or extreme weather event leading to the collective mass hysteria played out on social media?
Climate change tied to increased suicide risk in new study – CNN
Warming climate will likely boost suicide rates worldwide | Berkeley News
Study: Climate Change Could Cause 26,000 More US Suicides By 2050 « CBS Philly
Read the rest of this entry »
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: July 10, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Arctic, Climate science, Climatism, Denier, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Global Warming Zealots, Greenland, groupthink | Tags: Climate Change, Climate science, Climatism, Cognitive Dissonance, Data Denial, empirical data, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Global Warming, Government Data, groupthink, Mob mentality, propaganda, RetroBacklash, science, Twitter |
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
•
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
•
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
– THE late, great Michael Crichton
***
ONE of the biggest problems with the “climate change” debate today is that so many have been irresponsibly and irreparably brainwashed by political memes; “the science is settled” and that there is a “consensus of scientists” who know with “97%” certainty that humans are destroying the planet thanks to their excessive lifestyles and ‘frivolous’ use of cheap, reliable energy – fossil fuels.
THIS mantra has become so widespread and ‘believed’ that it has unfortunately robbed many of individual sense and reason and the ability, desire or need to investigate objectively information pertaining to the issue.
THEY are then no better than a cheerleading member of a herd protected by the belief system of the mob. A position demanded by the authority where enquiry is discouraged, thus discovery and advancement in knowledge and in ‘science’ is quashed!
*
A CLASSIC CASE IN POINT (repeated over and over and over again, everyday on social media):
MEET, anonymous “RetroBacklash“, Read the rest of this entry »
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: March 13, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Booker, Climate Change, groupthink |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
It is worth returning to that letter in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, criticising Booker’s global warming groupthink article:
SIR – I agree with Christopher Booker that people tend to adopt the views of their “group” without checking facts or using critical thinking.
Nevertheless, his article contains inaccuracies. A big one: that climate change theory was immediately hailed as a scientific consensus. In fact, it has been challenged, disagreed with, tested, refined, disagreed with some more and, after two decades, a sort of scientific consensus has emerged. However, Mr Booker uses the scientific uncertainty, and the one case of deliberate misuse of data, to try to argue against the facts.
Mr Booker seems to be saying that a small group of scientists have pulled off a hoax of massive proportions that flies in the face of the “real” data, which he doesn’t present. He says that the Intergovernmental…
View original post 722 more words
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: February 27, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Climatism, Consensus, Sceptics, Settled Science | Tags: climate, Climate Change, Climate science, Consensus, Cullen, Global Warming, groupthink, john cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Peer review study, Scam, Science and Environment, Scientific consensus, Settled Science |
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
.
IN order to avoid important free and open debate, on a system so chaotic as our climate, CAGW alarmists instinctively claim that the “science is settled” based on a purported “97% consensus” of all scientists.
.
ANY person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a climate ‘denier’ – likened to those who claim the holocaust never occurred. A classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who refuse to comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.
.
BOGUS 97% surveys have been concocted over the years claiming a scientific ‘consensus’ exists. However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do.
.
THE late Michael Crichton on the folly of a so-called ‘consensus’ in science…
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
•
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
•
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Pierre L. Gosselin’s masterful resource NoTricksZone has unearthed 97 new papers in 2018 alone that further discredit the bogus “97% consensus” meme…
A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
By Kenneth Richard on 26. February 2018
The Science Unsettles
Image Source: Robertson and Chilingar, 2017
In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.
Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)
(Parts 2 and 3 are on the same page).
Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (17)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (9)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (3)
Sea Levels 1-3 Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (4)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (7)
Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
Solar Influence On Climate (21)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (11)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (3)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (2)
Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (6)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (2)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (2)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (2)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (1)
Miscellaneous (5)
Read full report here…
A Teetering Consensus: 97 New Papers Amassed In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | NoTricksZone
•••
PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!
(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Click this link for brief info…TQ
•••
Climatism hot links :
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
- THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty | Climatism
Climate Science related :
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist Agenda | Climatism
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: February 25, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Climatism, Communism, Dud predictions, Energy Poverty, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming Zealots, Green Agenda, Sceptics, Socialism, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC, Wealth Redistribution | Tags: Activist Media, Bret Stephens, Capitalism, Christiana Figueres, Climate alarmism, Climate Change, Climatism, Dud Predictions, Energy Poverty, Environmentalism, Global Warming, groupthink, Lukewarmer, nature, New York Times, science, Socialism, Tipping Points, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC |
Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)
WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!
A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…
Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens
By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59
A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.
The NYT has hired former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens as a writer and deputy editorial page editor.
Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.
The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.
But the NYT defence has angered scientists.
Climate Scientists Canceling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens | DeSmogBlog
*
Huffington Post also joined the fun…
13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column
The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.
29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST
Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost
The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”
But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”
Even the Times’ own reporters publicly questioned the hire.
13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column |HuffPo
(via WUWT)
*
STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!
IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.
“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”
A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015
FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that “Communism is the best model to fight global warming.“
IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.
GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.
IN 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…
Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova
In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”
Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”
I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.
Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.
—–
“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”
In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.
—–
The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.
I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.
—–
Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.
—–
If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.
(Climatism bolds)
Read Stephens’ excellent piece in full here…
•••
PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!
(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Click this link for brief info…TQ
•••
Related :
- Sleepwalking to extinction, or maybe communism? | Climatism
- DRACONIAN Climate Change Policies Making World Hunger Worse | Climatism
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
- LIFE In A Fossil-Fuel-Free Utopia | Climatism (P.Driessen MUST READ)
Climate Science related :
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist Agenda | Climatism
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: July 7, 2017 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Environmentalism, Fact Check, Ideology, IPCC | Tags: Al Gore, Climate Change, Environmentalism, Global Warming Scare, groupthink, ideology, Milo, Milo Yiannopoulos, The Left |
Excellent, excellent, excellent!
Milo yur a genius!
Bookmark this one…
Green Jihad
Media personality Milo Yiannopolous took a question from an audience member during a visit to the University of New Mexico that took place late January of this year. This is the same event when some Muslim women in the audience yelled at Milo and then left the room when he made remarks about Islam.
In this sequence, Milo gives his views on climate change while sharing his experience working at a non-profit GMO involved in climate change research. He ties it all in to the overall issue raised by the audience member.
View original post
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: June 8, 2016 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Climate science, groupthink, Propaganda, Pseudo-Science, Religion, Socialism | Tags: Climate Change, Global Warming, groupthink, science |
REMARKABLE essay. Nails the foundation stone that drives the global pandemic of ‘climate change’ hysteria. And it’s name is “groupthink”
Excerpts…
“Alarmist climate science is a textbook example of groupthink in action…
Ideological reinforcement where they end up endorsing positions far more extreme than the ones they started with…Safety in numbers.”
Watts Up With That?
In groupthink, organizations value consensus more than free thought. The emphasis on consensus leads to group polarization, in which a group’s positions become more extreme than any individual would come up with. Alarmist climate science is a textbook example of groupthink in action.
Guest post by Paul MacRae
A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:
How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. … Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?
The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard…
View original post 2,459 more words
Like this:
Like Loading...
![UN Says The US Is The Most Successful Major Country in Carbon [Dioxide] Emissions Reduction](https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/greenhousegasemissionunreportdec2020-1.jpg?resize=40%2C40){kind=small}
Recent Comments