WHEN you are a man-made global warming alarmist prosecuting your case as “unprecedented”, you need to make sure that no recent climate era was as warm or warmer than the present, even if that means having to rewrite the past to fit your theory.
THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (for obvious reasons) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side for modern “global warming” catastrophists…
FROM Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky: “Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion.” (Quote also attributed to Karl Marx and Goebbels.)
HILLARY Clinton and Barack Obama both seriously engaged with Alinsky’s ideas — Clinton knowing him personally. Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky.
What did Alinsky actually believe?
Rules for Radicals was Alinsky’s last book, completed the year before his death, and it laid out his organizing philosophy in detail. Its centerpiece is a list of rules of “power tactics,” meant as basic guidelines for community organizers (Obama) and community activists (Clinton):
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
MOST of these are elaborated upon in more detail in the book. For example, on #5, Alinsky notes, “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react (Trump tweets!) to your advantage.”
IT’S not hard to see the link between the modern Left’s tactics of identity politics; PC, division, smear and slime and Alinsky’s rules for radicals.
LOCK ‘EM ALL UP!
MORE info on links between Clinton/Obama and Alinsky:
Monitoring Twitter, a number of people are reporting some download sites aren’t working. So, since WUWT has been setup to handle such things (Climategate for example) here is the memo in full. Some might say “Why is WUWT getting into the polictical mess that has nothing to do with climate?”.
Well, if you monitor Twitter like I do, you’ll see that many of the major players in climate alarmism are Tweeting about it. I figure if Michael Mann can rail about it…
…the least I can do is provide a link for the document.
(updated to include Mann’s Tweet)
“The pity is that Alarmist media cannot seem to educate the public, and doesn’t do a little reading-up on the subject, but rather seems determined to horrify. Horror is not helpful, unless your intent is to herd people with a sort of bullying. To paraphrase FDR, in truth we have nothing to be horrified about but horror itself.”
A truly glorious read on the wonders of the Arctic wilderness and its wildlife, to the not so wondrous world of the politicisation of climate ‘science’…
One thing that has fascinated me, in my study of sea-ice, is how swiftly vast areas can freeze over. This is apparent from many sources.
The captains of whaling ships, tempted north by whale’s habit of hunting in the rich ecosystem that exists at the very edge of the ice, sometimes appear like cowards for turning tail and fleeing the refreeze far before the whales chose to depart. (You might think whales would know best when to depart, for they suffocate when trapped under ice). However this choice does not seem so foolish once you understand larger whales could break up through a foot of ice, (with smaller beluga whales following and using the air-holes big whales created), while, without a strong following wind, a sailing craft could be bogged down and halted by a skim of ice only an inch thick. And despite all precautions, the ice formed so…
View original post 1,799 more words
“Blasphemy is what an old dogma screams at a new truth.” — Robert G. Ingersoll
Characterizing a professional, respected scientist as an unqualified vengeful opinion writer is the same kind of power attack as rape. It’s meant to humiliate and intimidate.
I said this as part of a response to a comment at WUWT late yesterday (copied in full below). The picture above shows Steven Amstrup holding polar bear cubs against their will — not for any scientific purpose, just for a photo that shows he can.
Also yesterday, Tom Fuller at ClimateScepticism wrote a hard-hitting critique of the Bioscience article that similarly noted the sexist nature of this harassment and the fact that this is the way Michael Mann and his colleagues behave toward female scientists who cross them or their supporters. He concludes:
“The purpose of these papers is not to communicate.
It is to excommunicate.”
As I said when this paper first came out, this response is all about my reasoned and…
View original post 697 more words
Belief and “Denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.
The fact that you have taken on the climate establishment and criticized their failed doomsday theories, with regards to their favourite catastrophe mascot – the cuddly polar bear – “with supporting evidence is precisely why these “leading researchers” feel so threatened and why the paper had to be written.”
It is not surprising that you are being targeted by serial smear merchants like Michael E Mann et al. How dare anyone question their religion and threaten its veracity with solid data and evidence?!
You’ve hurt them and their melting credibility even more with your excellent, objective, data-driven science. Well done Susan!
The truth really does hurt.
The polar bear experts who predicted tens of thousands of polar bearswould be dead by now (given the ice conditions since 2007) have found my well-documented criticisms of their failed prophesies have caused them to loose face and credibility with the public.
Predicted sea ice changes (based on 2004 data) at 2020, 2050, and 2080 that were used in 2007 to predict a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers vs. an example of the sea ice extent reality experienced since 2007 (shown is 2012). See Crockford 2017 for details.
Although the gullible mediastill pretends to believe the doomsday stories offered by these researchers, the polar bear has fallen as a useful icon for those trying to sell a looming global warming catastrophe to the public.
Here’s what happened: I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online…
View original post 439 more words
Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate DataPosted: July 7, 2017
THE emperor really has no clothes!
Earlier this week we learned Michael Mann and his fraudulent Hockey Stick have been slapped down in a Canadian court. Mann was ordered to produce the data on which his fake claim was based (as good science demands). He refused the request and Contempt of Court charges will follow!
Add EPA Pruitt’s “red team” to the mix and the house of climate cards is looking like a dangerous place to reside!
Don’t expect the Goebbels Media to utter a peep about any of this.
Cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com
Guest essay by Michael Bastasch
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming…
View original post 719 more words
“I always thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony. I guess not. Mann got caught out in several blatant lies during the Hearing.”
Nuff said. Other than well done JC for your bravery in the face of smear and slander by peers when your only crime was sticking up for and valuing the “scientific method”. Which simply involves questioning and challenging the preferred wisdom of the day (i.e. “Manufactured consensus”) via data and observation.
But sadly, within the established field of climate ‘science’, questioning the preferred wisdom is taboo and heresy.
This is politics, not science.