“For Dr Tedros, and Bill Gates, Pandemic and climate change share a very different connection. Both are useful pretexts for mass social control. Both are essentially, unsolvable crisis’ they can harness to bypass Democracy and force powerless populations to obey their commands.” – Tucker Carlson
***
IF you watch anything today, watch this.
Tucker Carlson, ties in the obvious. COVID-19 is nothing more than another excuse to control you and your family. A condensed version of the Climate Change scam, that apparently failed to control you destroy your life, fast enough.
“The more afraid you are, the more you will accept.”
World news – Aggressive spiders flourish in hurricanes scientists | 9News
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire
***
ANOTHER great example of how climate ‘scientists’, supported by the compliant mainstream media, use scary things to frighten you into submission and belief that the world is in peril, care or ‘evil’ mankind and his/her ‘evil’ trace gasses.
BUT, have you ever noticed how global warming climate change threatens imminent decline in cute, cuddly animals like Polar Bears? Yet, on the other hand, climate change threatens an *increase* in our most feared critters, like “aggressive” spiders?
NINE News Australia reports:
How global warming could make spiders more aggressive
By Richard Wood
1:04pm Aug 20, 2019
Global warming may result in more aggressive spiders around the world, a new study suggests.
Researchers at McMaster University in Canada found that aggressive spiders have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing following hurricanes than more docile breeds.
The study suggests the evolutionary impact of spider populations will be affected by extreme weather events, which scientists predict will increase because of rising sea levels caused by global warming.
Extreme weather events such as hurricanes may cause aggressive spiders to flourish, scientists have found.. (AAP)
Experts studied the communal spider or tangle web spider which lives in North and South America, reports the Independent.
They found aggressive colonies had a higher rate of reproduction after a tropical storm, while in storm-free regions more docile spiders thrived.
Researchers studied 240 colonies throughout North and South America and compared them with control sites.
Features of aggressive behaviour included the speed and number of attackers that respond to prey, the tendency to eat other spiders and how easily foreign spiders get into a nest.
Experts studied the communal spider or tangle web spider which lives in North and South America, to determine how they behaved after hurricanes impacted their environments. (Supplied)
RELATED ARTICLES
Five new species of spider found in Australia
Possum-eating spider photo goes viral
Funnel web spider venom could end malaria
Results suggest aggressive spiders are better at gaining resources but are more prone to infighting if they are short of food or the colony gets too hot.
The study – published in Nature, Ecology and Evolution – found that after hurricanes, more aggressive colonies produced more eggs and had more spiderlings survive into early winters.
Lead author Jonathan Pruitt said more extreme weather will impact wildlife development.
“As sea levels rise, the incidence of tropical storms will only increase. Now more than ever we need to contend with what the ecological and evolutionary impacts of these storms will be for non-human animals,” he said.
IN order to validate the ‘science’ that spiders ‘could’ become more aggressive due to global warming, we should check the data.
ACCORDING to the latest government data and the last two U.N. IPCC reports on “Extreme Weather”, there has been “NO” increase in extreme weather events, even as CO2 has risen to 400PPM – a rise of one CO2 molecule in every 10,000 parts of atmosphere since 1950.
“Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy”– UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
“There is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.” – UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue
*
AUSTRALIAN TROPICAL CYCLONES
AUSTRALIAN tropical cyclones are declining in both intensity and frequency as CO₂ rises:
Florida Major Hurricane Strikes: Still No Trend « Roy Spencer, PhD
***
IS NATURAL SEA-LEVEL RISE ‘ACCELERATING’?
WHAT is pertinent to the sea-level rise debate is whether SLR is accelerating due to human CO2 emissions.
Dr Judith Curry …
“Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. …. There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017
“Observed sea level rise over the last century has averaged about 8 inches, although local values may be substantially more or less based on local vertical land motion, land use, regional ocean circulations and tidal variations.“
(Climatism bolds)
Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Projections for the 21st century | Climate Etc.
*
ACCORDING to “the science” there has been no stat-sig or relevant acceleration of sea-level rise since industrialisation:
Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration | SpringerLink
*
SOMETHING other than carbon dioxide caused seas to rise, at the current steady rate, around 1790:
(NB// 85% of man-made CO2 was emitted after 1945.)
It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800 « JoNova
*
NO ‘acceleration’ in sea-level rise exists in any NOAA or PSMSL tidal gauge records:
Relative Sea Level Trend
680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia
Relative Sea Level Trend 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia – NOAA Tides & Currents
*
ONE third of all human (CO2) influence has occurred over the past 20-30 years which has not caused acceleration of sea-levels, a jot :
Relative Sea Level Trend 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia – NOAA Tides & Currents
***
CONCLUSION
UNTIL the official ‘scientific’ data suggests that extreme weather events, like hurricanes and tropical cyclones are, in fact, increasing in frequency and intensity and not the other way around, as is occurring now, we should take such scary ‘spider’ studies with a pinch of salt and a whole lot of suspicion as to the real motives of the global warming climate change, misanthropic movement.
SENSE and reason prevailing, once again, after a decade of Obama-climate, threat-propaganda, marxist madness!
WINNING!
Watts Up With That?
The Pentagon released a National Defense Strategy that for the first time in more than a decade does not mention manmade global warming as a security threat.
An 11-page summary of the new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea levels” or even “temperature.” All 22 uses of the word “environment” refer to the strategic or security landscape.
The document is here: https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
The National Defense Strategy, signed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, doesn’t have much to say about energy issues, except that the U.S. would “foster a stable and secure Middle East” and “contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes.”
The Pentagon released the strategy document Friday, and officials were clear that it would make no mention of global warming. The Bush administration added global warming to the defense strategy in…
When all else fails, like empirical (scientific) evidence, not supporting your hypothesis/theory of man-made “global warming”, “climate change”, “global cooling”, or “global whatever it may be”, target human emotions. In this instance – World Heritage sites.
More classic UNEP agitprop to attempt to scare, deceive and convert you.
Remember all these fears and scares are based on failed (overheated) UN/IPCC CMIP5 RCP8.5 climate *models*.
Predictive (UN IPCC) models are not science and do not observe reality. They are predictions based on perceived inputs in and desired results out. Then the CAGW complicit MSM media simply runs with the output because those same modelled outputs suit their agenda nicely too, objectivity denied absolute.
The Union of Socialist Concerned Scientists have teamed up with the UN for their latest scare story, how thousands of world heritage sites are at risk from climate change.
Their British offerings include the remarkable neolithic site of Skara Brae in the Orkneys.
“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.”
― Michael Crichton
“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.”
― Michael Crichton
“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.”
― Michael Crichton
Regarding the foolishness of simple thinking, especially from our governments around such a complex and unpredictable system as our climate, there is no better read than this talk by the late Michael Crichton, titled Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century (November 6, 2005)
Crichton details the enormous fear created by people with misinformed agendas and the disastrous consequences of using “linear thinking” to solve complex problems.
In a system as chaotic, complex and intricate as our Climate, we cannot reduce complex problems down to simple solutions. Sadly, this is not very apparent to our Government masters, especially those in the West who like to solve complex problems with simple policy solutions, such that they are readily accepted by us.
“We need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear.”
Crichton’s brilliant talk is summed up through a quote from Mark Twain
But beyond any given crisis, I want to emphasize the pattern: new fears rise and fall, to be replaced by others that rise and fall. As Mark Twain said, “I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass.”
Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century
Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy
Washington DC
November 6, 2005
By
Michael Crichton
I am going to challenge you today to revise your thinking, and to reconsider some fundamental assumptions. Assumptions so deeply embedded in our consciousness that we don’t even realize they are there. Here is a map by the artist Tom Friedman, that challenges certain assumptions.
Seen close up.
But the assumptions I am talking about today represent another kind of map—a map that tells us the way the world works. Since this is a lecture on complexity, you will not be surprised to hear that one important assumption most people make is the assumption of linearity, in a world that is largely non-linear. I hope by the end of this lecture that the meaning of that statement will be clear. But we won’t be getting there in a linear fashion.
Some of you know I have written a book that many people find controversial. It is called State of Fear, and I want to tell you how I came to write it. Because up until five years ago, I had very conventional ideas about the environment and the success of the environmental movement.
The book really began in 1998, when I set out to write a novel about a global disaster. In the course of my preparation, I rather casually reviewed what had happened in Chernobyl, since that was the worst manmade disaster in recent times that I knew about.
What I discovered stunned me. Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.
Undaunted, I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements. That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example. In the end, I set the book aside, and wrote Prey instead.
But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while. Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong—it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.
The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on…
Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big. Suppose we line up all the victims in a row. If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium. Fifteen thousand people is three miles away. It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.
But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate. Keep Reading »
Recent Comments