“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
– Albert Einstein
WHEN CO₂ was at ‘safe levels’, Adelaide’s temperature climbed above 100°F, six days in a row.
ADELAIDE – March, 1940 :
- Friday – 24°C (74.4F)
- Saturday – 24°C (75.7F)
- Sunday – 28°C (81.7F)
- Monday – 34°C (93.5F)
- Tuesday – 31°C (88.4F)
- Wednesday – 35°C (94.9F)
- Thursday – 40°C (103.9F)
- Friday – 42°C (107.7F)
- Saturday – 43°C (110.1F)
- Sunday – 42°C (108.3F)
- Monday – 42°C (107.9F)
- Tuesday – 40°C (103.6F)
IF this happened today, the usual
global warming climate change hysterics would be demanding that “the children” skip school and march in the streets.
Oh, wait … what?
- January 1908 : Adelaide’s Temperature Rose Above 38°C Fourteen Times | Climatism
- BLACK THURSDAY 168 Years Ago : Bushfires Burn 5 Million Hectares or A Quarter Of Victoria | Climatism
- GLOBAL Temps Continue Plunge Despite “Global Heatwave” Howls From Media Hysterics | Climatism
- Shock news : Australia has always had heatwaves | Climatism
“Articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony..”
― Chris Kenny
FIRSTLY, apologies for the use of “suicide” in the heading to all those who have been directly or indirectly affected by such a horrible and tragic event. I can personally sympathise.
THAT said, the use of the threat of “suicide” by those pushing the
global warming climate change agenda is indicative of the desperate, dishonest and disrespectful lengths that climate activists will go to in order to drive their latest fashionable eco-scare.
AUSTRALIAN columnist Chris Kenny with some much needed perspective, clarity and reason to parlay the constant rhetoric of climate change doom and gloom that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on in an attempt to remain relevant…
(Links, Graphs and Bolds added by Climatism)
WHEN people go public with private tears I am immediately suspicious. Not that I am against tears; as a physical reaction to emotion they are a fact of life best controlled in some circumstances but uncontrollable in others.
But articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony. Telling the world about your saltwater reaction to this or that is perhaps the epitome of virtue-signalling.
“I cried two times when my daughter was born,” was the opening line in a New York Times piece this week. Those sanctimony warning bells rang loud. It was by Iraq veteran, English professor and climate alarmist Roy Scranton, promoting a new book of essays on war and climate change titled We’re Doomed. Now What? And yes, he claims to have shed tears for the planet.
“First for joy, when after 27 hours of labour the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.”
Where to start with such inanity? Perhaps with the good news. Max Roser’s work for Oxford University’s Our World in Data project shows that two centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.
THE real story on the current health of the Great Barrier Reef from dive-boat operators and divers who work up and down the reef everyday…
“THE journalists come up and they’re not interested in what the truth is. They’re only interested in finding out where the ‘dead’ reef is. And when people who work right up and down the reef can’t actually take them to a single place that is going to suit their dooms-day story, then we sort of need a bit of balance…”
During the middle of March, USA Today reported that a study published in the peer review journal Nature that coral reef growth stood to be severely harmed due to ocean acidification resulting from human-induced climate change. Researchers pointed to The Great Barrier Reef in Australia in their examination.
However, Paul Talbott at Majestic Aquariums in Australia explains why it’s important not to believe the hype.
HOW radical environmentalism self-perpetuates, causing actual harm to people’s livelihoods, their economies and indeed the ‘environment’…
SPOTLIGHT: Late last year, the European Union voted down a ban on glyphosate – a safe, effective weed killer used by farmers around the world. Afterward, Mark Lynas, an environmental journalist, denounced the activists who’d pushed hard for that ban.
BIG PICTURE: We think of environmentalists as selfless, virtuous, avenging angels. But green groups have morphed into multinationalcorporations with enormous budgets. Paying the salaries of all those lawyers and lobbyists requires an ongoing tsunami of financial donations.
Many green groups have morphed into perpetual outrage machines whose campaigns now have little connection to what’s reasonable or sensible. As Lynas declares in his article, “Europe Still Burns Witches,” the activists “were clearly not interested in whether glyphosate was actually harming anyone in the real world.”
Despite “the obvious perversion of both science and natural justice,” he says, they “very nearly got away with it.” In a few years…
View original post 148 more words
“Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results….”
Astonishing irony in that comment, knowing that NASA GISS temp is the most highly adjusted (tampered) dataset of all the products, by a mile!
And what is Schmidt so afraid of if there was an audit of NASA climate practices to check the veracity of their GISS data set through:
– The highly questionable and radical temperature homogenisation techniques of ‘cooling the past and warming the present’.
– Spurious temperature in-filling.
– UHI-effected, poorly sited temp stations?
Furthermore, the people, the tax payer own NASA, its data and pay Schmidt’s wage.
It is not climate activist-in-chief Gavin Schmidt’s private playground to tamper data to fit the “global warming” narrative, and use the (once) respected name of “NASA” as a platform to spread blatant climate change activist propaganda with genuine religious zeal, dismissing all remnants of scientific rigour and open enquiry, in favour of, IMHO, open scientific fraud.
Time to “drain the (climate change) swamp”!
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has “warned” President-elect Donald Trump not to interfere with their climate activities. Schmidt maintains the GISS global temperature series, arguably the most adjusted of all the global temperature products.
‘Global warming doesn’t care about the election’: Nasa scientist warns Donald Trump over interference
Senior Nasa scientist suggests he could resign if Donald Trump tries to skew climate change research results.
A senior Nasa scientist has told Donald Trump he is wrong if he thinks climate change is not happening and warned the President-elect that government scientists are “not going to stand” for any interference with their work.
Mr Trump has described global warming as a “hoax” perpetrated by China, vowed to unratify the landmark Paris Agreement and appointed a renowned climate-change denier to a senior environmental position in his transition team.
View original post 312 more words