SCIENTIFIC Marxism. The totalitarians at JCU destroying the meaning, value and relevance of ‘science’ in the name of global warming groupthink and government grants.
By Paul Homewood
Andrew Bolt has an excellent piece on the Peter Ridd sacking, well worth a watch.
As well as the specific issue here, he highlights that this is part of a much wider trend in Australian universities, recalling the sacking of Bob Carter for daring to question global warming dogma.
He could also have mentioned Murry Salby.
“EARTH DAY” 22nd of April. Also the Birthday of Russian communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin. Obviously rather fitting with the motives and parallels between the “climate change” ideology and the totalitarian intent of dictator Lenin, far too intertwined to be a coincidence!
Tomorrow, Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day 2018
In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 48th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 18 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey.
Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around…
View original post 874 more words
“THE belief that Global Warming is an existential threat, requiring urgent action is the product of a dumbed-down education system. THE belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent and spoiled society.” – @JWSpry
VIV Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, with the grim reality of what life looks like under the totalitarian rule of the feel-good ‘Greens’. The “zero-emissions” zealots who want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power…
GREENS hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN.
No longer is real pollution of our environment the main Green concern. The key slogan of the Green religion is “sustainable development”, with them defining what is sustainable.
MASSIVE response from defenders of free speech already through the ‘Gofundme’ page.
PLEASE try to donate even as little as $5 (a takeaway coffee).
FUNDING Professor Peter Ridd’s legal fund helps protect freedom of speech and sends a very important message to supposedly “free-thinking” institutions that suppression of thought, ideas and opinion MUST NOT and cannot be stifled because these ideas disagree with the preferred wisdom of the day or a chosen ideology. This is totalitarianism that directly undermines freedom and democracy.
DONATE today to help Prof Ridd fight @JCU and stick it to the tyrannical climate industrial complex.
UPDATE: I made this a “top post” that will remain at the top of WUWT until we reach the goal. New content will appear below.
Last week we covered this ugly saga of how a colleague of the late Dr. Bob Carter has been singled out for criticism and ruin by his university: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/29/the-power-of-grant-money-on-display-at-james-cook-university/
Now we have this announcement from Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, reposted below.
I ask three things of our readers.
- Retweet and repost this story wherever you can, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc.
- To show support, buy a copy of the book in which he says the Great Barrier Reef alarmism is just that.
- If possible, donate to his campaign to fight back against the university- link below.
Peter Ridd Asks for your Help – Now
Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy speaking about the need for quality assurance in science last November in Sydney.
PROFESSOR Peter Ridd is a…
View original post 799 more words
GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.
FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”
The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong
It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.
Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?
Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.
Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.
In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.
Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”
On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.
Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.
Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’
Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”
Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”
Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.
“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”
But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”
But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.
Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.
Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.
But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.
If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.
To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.
It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.
(Climatism bolds and pic link added)
- Maurice Newman : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism
- Great Barrier Reef Expert : Don’t Trust Climate Alarmists | Climatism
- CLIMATE Skeptics Have Valid Reasons To Question Manmade Global Warming | Climatism
- GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive | Climatism
- WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled | Climatism
“Global warming, it becomes clear, is primarily a left-wing political issue, not a scientific one. Green is the new red.”
CLIMATE alarmists don’t care about the environment or “the science” behind climate, at all. What drives the modern ‘environmentalist’ is power, virtue-signalling, self-loathing, anti-capitalism, Malthusianism, anarchy, control and obscene amounts of public money for those with skin in the game.
ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population, IMO.
A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.
In order to drain the swamp, President Trump must first destroy the global warming Green Blob, says James Delingpole at Breitbart News.
This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from a series of data leaks and Freedom of Information (FOI) revelations exposing the relationship between left wing campaigners and the great climate change scam.
Global warming, it becomes clear, is primarily a left-wing political issue, not a scientific one. Green is the new red.
These leaks show how rich liberal backers—left-wing institutions like the Rockefeller Foundation, eco hedge-fund billionaires like Tom Steyer, and the various socialistic Geek Emperors of Silicon Valley—are funneling millions of dollars into sock-puppet environmental organizations both to undermine Trump’s economic agenda and to finance his…
View original post 170 more words
Ahhh, the virtue-signalling champagne socialists. Can’t help themselves, especially when it comes to “Saving The Planet”!
Looks like the NZ people had it too good under conservatism.
Strange how people become tired of boring – growth, freedom and prosperity delivered to their front doors by conservative governments.
Is the new Leftist NZ PM so isolated as not to read of the disastrous consequences of going down the unreliable-energy, wind/solar path. Energiewende has destroyed Germany’s industrial heartland and is near implosion. And South Australia – blackout capital of the world with officially THE highest power prices in the world thanks to their mad obsession with renewables.
Early this month, New Zealand’s Labour Party took power thanks to a power-sharing agreement Labour and Green parties with the nationalist, populist New Zealand First party. Aside from being the country’s youngest Prime Minister in almost 200 years, Jacinda Arden is already outlining plans to commit civilizational suicide by joining with countries such as France, Great Britain, Germany and India in their quest to end use fossil fuels.
Newshub reports that Jacinda Arden has announced that this year might be the last that block offers will be made for petroleum exploration. A block offer is a permit issued annually by New Zealand’s government that allows petroleum companies to explore for and extract petroleum and natural gas in certain onshore and offshore areas around the island. Arden is quoted as saying:
It is a process for New Zealand to acknowledge that our future is not in fossil fuels – but we…
View original post 131 more words